A hush fell over the audience as the lights dimmed and darkness rushed in. The tension bristled the necks of the American people, as their collective breath bated with fervent anticipation. Lester Holt’s voice washed over the sound waves. The game had begun.

The first 2016 presidential debate culminated with a crescendo of press and attention; its viewership was estimated to rival the Super Bowl with an estimate of as many as 100 million people tuning in across the nation. With a celebrity figure and the first major-party female nominee as candidates, this was a debate for the books. For many of us Gen Zers, this was the first presidential debate we will remember truly being engaged in, and it will perhaps even be the first election we will cast a vote for in November.

Within the first twenty minutes, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton carried themselves with collected reservation, executing calculated answers with rehearsed ease on what moderator Lester Holt deemed “achieving prosperity” in terms of jobs.

This composed manner promptly unraveled.

Interruptions, insults, sound bites, and mud slinging quickly ensued, perpetuating the tone which has been carried through most of the campaign. However, this behavior was not in equilibrium between the two candidates as Trump unwound in Clinton’s hands.

Her debate preparation, which Trump criticized during and before the debate by blaming Clinton for “[deciding] to stay home” while he has “been all over the place” campaigning, evidently equipped her with a superior arsenal over her Republican rival. She steadily provoked him with what bothers him most: throwing his words back at him and disregarding his business tactics. And he played along each time, falling into her snare.

While Clinton’s Washington-manufactured answers and aura of arrogance might have continued to irk some Americans as both qualities have throughout the campaign, her game plan was far more effective than Trump as her answers- not so surprisingly- proved to be legitimate facts against Trump’s fumbling figures.

Trump, to his credit, attempted to circle the debate back into his playing field with attacking Clinton’s emails and claiming he did in fact have the temperament to be president while Clinton did not. However, his characteristic digressions about tax audits and 400-pound hackers and private conversations with Sean Hannity proved detrimental to what might have been a chance for him to lure over undecided voters.

He effectively lost this debate for the GOP: one he could have won, as this was not Clinton’s best debate performance. She didn’t necessarily drop the ball, but she also did not accomplish or even attempt to win over the voters. As a woman, it is difficult to execute the charisma of Bill or Ronald, but her likability of character (or lack of) was not bolstered by her smug smirk and cavalier laugh. If the Republicans had another nominee, a better nominee, I’m not so sure the Democrats would be complacent with self-assurance. They simply support a candidate with less baggage.

Overall, she outplayed him in answers, in poise, in voice, in appearance. She was presidential. He was not. In the arena where politics turn into spectator sport, the stamina of the woman in red proved resoundingly dominant.