Noel Whelan, columnist
How did this debate compare to the last one?
This debate differed from the first because the context differed. This debate was shaped by the tape published on Friday featuring Donad Trump’s abusive comments about women. The debate was also framed, however, by the bizarre press conference that Trump held a hour before the debate itself with Bill Clinton’s accusers. Trump was dismissive of the impact of the former; Hillary was clearly spooked by the latter.
The opening atmosphere was tense and it quickly turned ugly and was uncomfortable to watch.
Which candidate adapted better to the town hall format?
Clinton was clearly more familiar with and more comfortable in the town hall format. Without the restraint of a podium Trump looked creepy. When he wasn’t pacing in the background he was leaning over Clinton as she spoke.
Did we learn anything worthwhile?
We learned from Trump himself that he paid no federal income tax for many years. We learned from Trump’s pre-debate actions and his debate performance that he lashes out when cornered.
Who won, and why?
Clinton won but less convincingly then she did in the first debate. Trump did enough deflection to sustain his own base and landed punches on Clinton about her emails. Clinton was again better prepared and more presidential. Trump's dismissal of his running mate's Mike Pence's views on Syria could prove the most consequential of his many mistakes.
Una Mullally, columnist
How did this debate compare to the last one?
The last debate was clearly a prequel. This debate was sensational, outrageous and in many ways unbelievable. I watched it with a group of cinema goers in a movie theatre in Austin, Texas, who grew increasingly animated, perplexed and astounded at the reality television realm this debate entered.
Which candidate adapted better to the town hall format?
Trump paced like a boxer and frequently stayed in frame while Clinton was speaking. He began in an incredibly downbeat manner, but then took the pin out of his own grenade. Trump’s tetchy interruptions – particularly when it came to the moderators – showed his aggression, petulance, narkiness and sarcasm. In many ways, it was incredibly hard for Clinton to debate such chaos. Clinton did actually answer questions, Trump was like an out-of-control garden hose. This was his last chance saloon, but he could end up drinking alone.
Did we learn anything worthwhile?
We certainly learned that Trump isn’t going anywhere unless something crazier than what has already occurred happens.
Who won, and why?
Clinton. Trump was extraordinarily disruptive and his methods threatened to derail it on various occasions. Clinton appeared by far more presidential, calmer, smarter and more personable.
Ruadhán Mac Cormaic, foreign affairs correspondent
How did this debate compare to the last one?
We saw another asymmetric contest in which the policy knowledge, debating skills, poise and experience were all stacked on one side of the floor. Just as in the first debate, Donald Trump was weakest when speaking about himself but found himself on surer ground when wrapping his pitch about jobs and trade in pithy one-liners. To that extent, the debate confirmed impressions gleaned from the first one. Yet this was unmistakably different in tone: it was uglier, tetchier, more solemn and sharp-edged.
Which candidate adapted better to the town hall format?
Hillary Clinton was more assured. She addressed the room directly, whereas Trump seemed to pay the audience little attention. Perhaps surprisingly, given his natural feel for television, Trump struggled with the multiple cameras and seemed unsure how to use the space. He fidgeted and seemed to wander around the stage, often looming awkwardly into shot behind Clinton as she spoke.
Did we learn anything worthwhile?
Of all political axioms, “If you’re explaining you’re losing” is perhaps the least true. But if you’re explaining your boast about sexually assaulting women, you’re definitely losing. The early segment on the tape revelations was easily Trump’s worst moment. His response was incoherent – contrite yet defiant. But over the 90 minutes he did a better job this time of pivoting the conversation away from himself and towards his strongest issues. He also got more mileage out of Benghazi, Clinton’s email server and Obamacare – issues that delight his core supporters.
Who won, and why?
That appeal to core supporters was also Trump’s biggest problem. Against a candidate who is seen negatively by large parts of the voting public, he made little discernible effort to speak to centrists and undecideds. Clinton did. She won.
Damian Cullen, assistant news editor
How did this debate compare to the last one?
There was even less actual policy discussed in the second debate, if that’s possible. The tone was set when the candidates didn’t even shake hands at the start of the debate and much of the night was spent attacking the other candidate’s comments rather than specific ideas. The moderators did their best, but at times were like grandparents despairing at the futility of keeping young children focused on a task.
Which candidate adapted better to the town hall format?
The town hall format has a history of catching out both seasoned and novice politicians. Neither looked particularly comfortable. Was there a single moment where either candidate appeared to connect with an audience member? They were too much focused on each other for that. The smallest things are magnified in this format – for example, Trump remaining standing and even walking around when Clinton was talking was ill-judged.
Did we learn anything worthwhile?
I think we’re well past that stage. Trump simply had nothing to lose in this debate, and he looked every bit like a stumbling boxer flailing about looking for an unlikely knockout blow in the 12th round – even saying he disagreed with his running mate’s comments on Syria. It was a strange moment and perhaps a significant one, coming after Mike Pence’s relative silence over the past few days of meltdown for Trump’s campaign. Pence even cancelled a campaign event where he was supposed to act as Trump’s surrogate. It will be interesting to see over the next few days if there really is a visible crack in the relationship between the Republican nominee and his running mate.
Who won, and why?
The stakes for Trump going into this debate were higher than for any Democratic or Republican presidential candidate in living memory. That is why he pressed the nuclear button immediately before the debate and held a press event with women who have accused Bill Clinton of unwanted sexual advances, and even rape. How that is judged could well overshadow anything that was said during the debate – which was, in truth, little enough. Neither candidate emerged victorious, which, considering the polls at the moment, means the Clinton camp will be happier. The moderators won.
Kathleen Harris, video journalist
How did this debate compare to the last one?
Donald Trump was more composed in this debate than in the first, but he appeared impatient and his tone became more strident as the debate got going. His pacing back and forth as Hillary Clinton responded to questions created an anxious, on-edge atmosphere on stage.
Which candidate adapted better to the town hall format?
Hillary Clinton. She addressed people in the crowd by name and spoke to them directly when answering their questions, making her appear engaged and interested. Trump did not have the same personal touch and appeared more aloof.
Did we learn anything worthwhile?
When Anderson Cooper, one of the debate moderators, asked Trump about the controversial 2005 tape published at the weekend, Trump had an opportunity to properly apologise for and condemn the lewd, abhorrent comments he made about women. Instead, he again said they amounted to nothing more than "locker room talk", and then pivoted to Islamic State: apparently grabbing a woman's genitals without her consent is insignificant in a world in which Islamic State, also known as Isis, and terrorism exist. So we learned that the potential president of the United States cannot identify sexual assault or doesn't think sexual assault is that serious, or both.
Who won, and why?
Hillary Clinton. She remained cool and calm throughout the debate, she was able to give specific examples and details in her answers, she engaged with the audience and she wasn’t riled by Trump’s jabs.Trump left too many questions unanswered.
David McKechnie, deputy foreign editor
How did this debate compare to the last one?
If the first debate was a fruity appetiser, this was nasty to watch and tough to swallow. Bad-tempered, humourless, laden with insults. You’d have to say that whereas the first debate showcased an experienced, polished politician versus a bragadaccious buffoon, at least the candidates here seemed to be playing vaguely the same sport. An ugly sport.
Which candidate adapted better to the town hall format?
I don’t think the format worked, and neither candidate did well with it. The audience interaction was too static and moderators were more involved than the public. Trump’s body language – sloping around like a bear, leaning on a chair – betrayed his restlessness and inattention. But it also emphasised his slugger’s approach to the night. Clinton was more skilled at engaging questioners, but she couldn’t get her engine firing and so her contributions were cold.
Did we learn anything worthwhile?
Little in terms of approach or anything that will likely shift the electorate. Judging from her body language, we learned that Clinton wishes this horror show was over. Can any of Trump's stranger moments – throwing Mike Pence under a bus on Syria; his "extreme vetting" policy on immigrants; or his claim that Muslim soldier Humayun Khan would be alive today if he had been president – really be considered surprising or educational? We are conditioned to the erratic. Maybe the joke has worn off.
Who won, and why?
Coming from where he did, Trump had the better night. Better prepped on some subjects, and fought his corner more robustly. This is all relative to debate one: he still had some awful moments (he was dreadful on his terrible comments about women) and rambling answers. But overall the grubby spectacle suited him better; he came wearing his overalls. Clinton performed poorly, and although her lead in the polls may not suffer, the worry is that she didn’t invigorate voters. If this debate was a turn-off, which it was, it probably helps Trump.
Chris Dooley, foreign editor
How did this debate compare to the last one?
There was a marked difference in tone; the previous debate was tense, but this one had a whiff of menace, underlined by Donald Trump’s almost comically brooding presence in shot behind Hillary Clinton as she spoke, evocative of a monster in a schlock horror movie (“he’s behind you!”). Also, Clinton was much less able to dictate proceedings this time against an opponent who was better prepared.
Which candidate adapted better to the town hall format?
Clinton. She walked over to all of the questioners and addressed them directly, and was much better at staying focused on the point at issue than Trump, who looked uncomfortable in the surroundings and gave characteristically scattergun responses.
Did we learn anything worthwhile?
Nothing of substance in terms of the election, though we did learn that Donald Trump may, contrary to all previous evidence, be capable of listening to advisers. He had obviously prepared for this debate and, while he continued to spout his simplistic I’ll-bash-the-hell-out-Isis rhetoric, he did display a better grasp than he had done previously about foreign policy challenges such as Syria. But neither candidate produced anything likely to convince a voter to change their mind.
Who won, and why?
Trump won, but not by enough to change the outcome of the election. In a debate which became strangely flat after an explosive start, he delivered all the memorable lines, including a threat to jail his opponent if elected – a first for a US presidential debate. On a night when she might have delivered a knockout blow, Clinton didn't really land any punches at all, and she was weak on the issues that are negatives for her – the private email server, the claims that she went on the attack against women who made accusations against her husband, her "deplorables" gaffe. Her strategy when such matters are raised appears to be to spend as little time as possible on them and to move on, which has the effect of leaving them open as live issues. Having said that, she made no major mistakes and remains in control of the race to the White House. But it is still a race.