First, there is an important disclaimer for readers to consider. Yes, this is indeed an analysis of the political debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump from this past Monday. However, this is not a “winners and losers” article meant to sway potential voters toward believing one side won and the other suffered a setback.

While that may very well be true, the process of constantly assigning winners and losers is exhausting and often worthy of “clickbait.”

Instead, this analysis will avoid the futility of assigning a victor and will opt for a less simplistic version of political analysis.

First and foremost, it felt surreal that this debate actually happened. For so long, this particular pairing of these two very controversial candidates seemed implausible and for Clinton and Trump to actually share a stage is still difficult to comprehend.

I found myself thinking, “How did we get here?” That sentiment was quickly pushed to the side, as the candidates wasted no time trading barbs.

For Clinton, a considerable effort was made to increase middle class appeal. Clinton often referenced her father’s small business and her family’s place in the middle class, and also habitually attacked Trump’s attitudes and predisposition toward America’s elite. Perhaps Clinton’s strongest charge against Trump was his lack of empathy for the average American.

Trump responded to the claim that he rooted for the housing crisis by simply saying, “That’s called business.” The response played into Clinton’s portrayal of Trump as a candidate lacking interest in the wellbeing of the majority of Americans and might speak to Trump’s greatest obstacle going forward.

Trump has used his success as a businessman to sway voters, and he stuck to those principles on Monday. Trump frequently referenced NAFTA, Mexico and the threat of China to the U.S. economy. He had a fighting chance when the debate stayed fiscal, but once the discussion shifted to social and human questions, Trump struggled.

In Republican primaries, Trump could go as far right as he wanted – that won’t fly in the general election. This was evident in Trump’s denial of his past claims about China and the source of climate change, which Trump denied despite evidence on social media that showed he accused the Chinese of creating the idea of climate change as a hoax to damage U.S. manufacturing objectives.

Trump could afford to make these claims to appeal to conservatives, but those same statements that got him the nomination might be what turns moderate and undecided voters toward the Clinton camp.

The overall attitudes expressed by both candidates did not deviate from what voters already knew. Trump is often brash and uses external threats to American prosperity as his primary weapon. Protection for foreign threats serves Trump’s priority of immediacy, or his goal to provide solutions to satisfy conservative Americans as quickly as possible.

Alternatively, Hillary spoke often about investing in young people by providing more opportunities for future endeavors. She was optimistic and less antagonistic, though the phrase “Trump Dump” might need to be put away for the rest of the campaign.

The conflict between Trump’s plan for immediacy and Clinton’s proposals for an optimistic future were a debate standout. Trump struggled most in defending how his policies can amount to sustainable success. Alternatively, Clinton seemed more focused on improving the lives of Americans as the country moves forward.

She justified her claims for increasing taxes on the wealthy by her desires to make college education more affordable and train police officers to help bridge racial divides. Trump, meanwhile, offered an unconstitutional form of racial profiling known as “stop and frisk” and major tax cuts on the wealthy to satisfy immediate needs for security.

If Trump is going to appeal to more voters, he must be able to show how his policies can sustain success. Claiming, “It’s going to be beautiful,” is not enough evidence to prove to undecided Americans that his bid can lead to future success.

I have a couple notes and suggestions on debates in general. The first is simple: don’t overreact to one debate. Some may remember a strong showing by Mitt Romney in the first presidential debate of 2012, and we remember how that turned out.

The second piece of advice is that after the conclusion of a debate, viewers should turn off the TV. Or at least change the channel to something other than a major news network. Personally, I found Monday Night Football to be an adequate channel swap option after the debate to let my thoughts and theories digest.

The next debate is Oct. 9, which is a Sunday, meaning that football will once again be option (Giants vs. Packers, if you were wondering). If football isn’t your thing, feel free to watch something else or nothing at all. As long as you stay away from the news networks that tell you what to think and why you should think it.