I'm prepared to agree that Trump is not as talented a debater as Clinton. She should be better, as trained lawyer and as someone who has had to appear for so many hours before so many inquiries and hearings into her activities.
However, that analysis misses the point. The purpose of the debate is not a contest of debating talent, it's an outreach to voters. I don't believe that what either candidate did will shake the core support of the other camp. They probably both strengthened their core support. However, I tend to believe that undecided voters are not "low information" or "low engagement" voters, as the media suggest and/or appear to believe, but rather they are people who genuinely see the flaws of both candidates and are honestly trying to evaluate which is the better of two flawed choices. I believe that "debate talent" will rank very low on the criteria by which they will finally make up their minds. I think undecided voters are looking through the obfuscation to the meat of the issues.
Finally, as I've said a number of times now, this race is tight enough that turnout will matter, maybe more than any election I've seen in my lifetime. I think Clinton still has a bigger turnout challenge than Trump, based on the voting constituencies she is relying upon and based upon dissatisfaction among the Bernie crowd. This is still too tight too call, no matter how many times MSNBC or CNN want to trot out selective polling numbers to try to call this thing as over.
