Well, that was an...interesting...debate. I was trying to figure out who that lady was that was debating Trump. No, not Clinton, I know who she is. The other lady that was there debating Trump. I think she forgot she was a moderator or something.
CNN's poll had a tiny sample of about 500 and claimed Clinton won while most other snap polls I've seen claim Trump won. Though I think this is probably due to a placebo-like effect where people were expecting him to do so poorly that doing decently translates into a win. Perception effects being what they are.
The moderators acting like they were part of the debate aside (though after Trump called them on their time issues a few times they finally got around to calling Clinton out on going over time, too), the debate had a lot of mud and gutter, but there were a few actual issues snuck in there...
...with entirely unsatisfying results. For example, on Syria we got how hard Trump was going to hit them and that Clinton would continue doing what Obama has done yet expecting different results. That was pretty true on most of the policy questions, for that matter. And these "undecided" candidates mostly seemed fairly decided already.
That said, I liked the last question. I liked seeing them tink of something the other person has going well for them. That was kind of nice.
Trump probably "won" this debate, in the sense of stopping his campaign hemorrhaging, and he came out surprisingly strong and...factual?...on some issues. But for the most part it was a wash. Trump deflated the "Trump locker room talk" tape issue well enough and Clinton again seemed statesman enough, though much more on defense (oddly, as the night, like the race, was really hers to lose).
Maybe she's holding back the big guns until the third debate?
.
And for the love of pickles, can we get Johnson in on the next debate? If we're going to have a circus, might as well go three ring on it.