In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 Presidential debate, US media and analysts lambasted Republican nominee Donald Trump and favoured former secretary of state Hillary Clinton for her skilled handling of the issues at hand.

While her stilted delivery and reliance on stock phrases and policy quotes were criticised overall, the debate seemed to play to Hillary's strengths.

Here is a snapshot of how the US media viewed the showdown:

Pointless to select winner: New York Times

In their coverage of the "Ugly Campaign" NYT's editorial said there is no point in selecting the 'winner' in a debate where "one candidate is serious and the other is a vacuous bully".

However, the bulk of opinion pieces praise Clinton for her poise in the face of Trump's bluster and choose her as the clear winner.

"Trump’s weaknesses were compounded by confused syntax, irritating intrusiveness and disregard for the efforts of Lester Holt, the moderator, to move the debate along," said Op-Ed columnist Thomas B. Edsall.

"Clinton, in contrast, was coherent and fact-based, making her arguments in a fashion that the audience could easily understand," he added.

Clinton also avoided goading Trump into a "true meltdown", declared columnist Ross Douthat, playing it safe and letting Trump flounder. "She won the night, but he lived to fight another day."

The Guardian is not impressed

"Trump was rude; Clinton too pleased with herself," Jill Abramson, political columnist, wrote in her opinion piece.

There is a consensus that Clinton won the night, smartly attacking her adversary from a stronger, more stable position and racking up points for her calm performance.

But though Clinton proved herself to be the "smartest kid in the classroom" ─ she was well-versed on policy matters and challenged Trump with facts and strong rhetoric.

Christopher Barron, a conservative strategist and contributor to the Guardian, stated: "The problem is that the smartest kid in class doesn’t win many popularity contests."

Steven Thrasher, writer for Guardian US, also cautioned against naming Clinton the victor prematurely: "America, however, may want an angry white male angry bully more than it can stomach a confident woman."

The Chicago Tribune is not quick to judge

The Tribune Editorial board stated the debate as "a cliffhanger still awaiting its climax"

Tribune stated that the viewership of the debate mostly contained people who had already made up their minds about what they wanted to see and hear ─ so the night was not about policies but about "style".

And the editorial refuses to declare any clear winner of the category.

Tribune does say that to their credit "neither candidate was as off-putting as his or her detractors had hoped,"

"Clinton, determined not to take grief from her opponent, spent the night addressing him as "Donald," not Mr. Trump. He in turn tried to look decorous and respectful — not the crazy candidate you've heard about — by addressing her as "Secretary Clinton."

Forbes says Trump surpassed expectations

David Davenport, fellow at the Hoover Institution and Forbes contributor, provides a potential summary of how the average voter scored the debate:

"Who won the first presidential debate? Those who previously supported Hillary Clinton will say she won, those who favored Donald Trump will claim he was victorious."

He further goes on to state that while Clinton met expectations, Trump surpassed them during the 90-min long showdown by managing to be not 'outrageous'.

Forbes contributors, however, concede that Clinton won the debate on policy points. On the question of how the average voter perceived them, Forbes columnist John Zogby said, "I don't think either candidate came off as likable or authentic."