The much-awaited first presidential debate is history. Yet its true impact is unknown.
Keep that fact front of mind.
All the instant analysis, including this perspective, comes well before the voters (or potential voters) have weighed in on this clash between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump.
Theirs are the views that matter.
Granted, the 90-minute prime time debate was every bit as historic as expected. With the first female nominee of a major political party on that stage, it would have been historic even if her opponent weren't the P.T. Barnum of American politics.
But he is and this presidential election is consequently an unpredictable contest between reason and rant, both of which were on display in the debate.
Clinton's resume includes being first lady of Arkansas and of the nation, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state. Trump is a billionaire New York businessman and reality TV star.
They could not be more different. Nor could their debate performances.
Hers reinforced Clinton's unparalleled qualification for the presidency. His showed Trump unprepared for the debate, much less the office.
The conclusion is shared by many who have commented on the debate in the short window since it happened.
There is a mix of opinion, of course, but many commentators scored it not only as a win for a confident, relaxed Clinton but as a significant failure for an uncharacteristically uncomfortable Trump.
Understand that those offering comment have generally been watching this campaign from long before either Clinton or Trump secured their nominations.
The political press has tracked the candidates' campaigns, know their foibles and their strengths, memorized their speeches and heard their continuing criticism of the other side.
The debate offered little new information, so the evaluations have been less about content than the strikingly different demeanor of the candidates.
That's not necessarily how many, if not most, in the anticipated 100 million-plus audience viewed the debate.
That huge swath of the electorate heard at least some of the candidates' words for the first time. Or they might have really listened to them for the first time.
Again, it is their collective read on the debate that matters.
Yes, many are locked in for Clinton or for Trump and probably can't be swayed to vote otherwise.
Pre-debate expectations suggested only a small percentage of potential voters are really on the fence. Some are aligned temporarily, if not permanently, with a third-party candidate. They might switch.
But there is still at least a small percentage of undecided voters. And they could sway how this closely divided nation goes in November.
Clearly, some tuned in to this first debate looking for affirmation of pre-conceived ideas about the competitors. Others just watched for the spectacle. What of the rest?
Shortly, pollsters will try to determine what all these different groups of people learned and how it might affect their votes -- and even if they'll vote at all.
The candidates, or their organizations, are doing the same thing, hoping to know better what worked and what didn't in their respective appeals to voters.
Expect the findings to shape follow-up debates and, ultimately, to influence the election of a president.
For those who missed this debate, the replay is available online at multiple sites. So is a full print transcript of the debate. Search for 2016 presidential debate replay or transcript.
Commentary on 09/28/2016