Although I am from the UK, I happen to be in Florida on business at the moment. That meant it was the first time I was able to watch the Presidential debate live and in its entirety; you would have to be very dedicated to do that in the UK, so we only really see the edited highlights as a rule. So I thought some people might be interested in how it struck me.

For quite a while, I was impressed with Trump's responses. From the edited highlights in the UK, we are shown a guy who is out of control and says the first thing that came into his head whether it bears any relationship to anything he has previously on not. And that was not the Trump on display. While I didn't agree with a lot he was saying, I could see it as a valid alternative viewpoint. So for example on the question of whether the constitution is a living document or one that needs to be constantly reinterpreted with the times, I can see why people could take each stance.

But then he started to slip; his self control was initially effective but seemed to be too much to maintain. People can pick on lots of different points but one that struck me was how several times when the moderator was attempting to ask the question that they were supposed to be debating Trump interrupted him and would not receive the question. There was a lot of evasion of questions on both sides, but the one which struck me from Trump was the one about putting us troops into Syria if Isis is driven out. Hillary gave a clear No, Trump basically said "we shouldn't start from here". The post debate spinners said he was just continuing the "don't advertise your plans in advance" but he wasn't. That would have been perfectly reasonable answer to the question but he chose not to use it, preferring a long rambling avoiding of the question.

As I say, Hillary avoided a fair share of points as well, one of which Trump drew everyone's attention to by saying something like "great dodge" (I forget the exact words, but it was two words with that sentiment.). He could have built on her avoiding the answer very effectively, but having highlighted it then dropped the ball and pretty much let her get away with it.

And as time wore on, there were all the things we in the UK get presented with: momentarily talking over an answer just saying "wrong", then long sections of half a minute or more just talking over Clinton's answers, dismissing all his accusers of being liars who were attention seekers or paid stooges, asserting things Hillary claimed he had said were made up when there are news recordings shown just afterwards of him saying it and so on.

And then the question of whether he would accept the result if it went against him. There were valiant attempt by republican commentators afterwards to cast this as being about individual contested results, or replays of the great hanging chad investigation, but that doesn't wash. Trump questioning of the result includes individual results, but puts as much emphasis on things like "media bias" so it would be quite consistent (if things fell out that way) if results showed Hillary had a big numerical lead for him still to insist the result should be contested because it was rigged by a biased media.

And overall? If Trump had maintained the self control I think - as a debate - they were roughly tied. Depending on whether you agreed with their stance or not already changes that of course, but each had valid criticisms of the other that could individually be chalked up as a 'won point'. But Trump lost that self control, and that cost him the debate, I suspect.