Americans have accepted the reality that they live in an endless presidential election cycle. The 2016 campaign season began the day after the 2012 election, and has been at the boiling point for many months already.

But in some ways, the contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump truly began in earnest with Monday’s debate, which attracted a stunningly large and attentive 84 million viewers, a record. It offered a worthwhile glimpse into the candidates’ powers of persuasion, a skill any aspiring American president will need in abundance.

As much as the election has commandeered public attention for what seems an eternity, for many voters this was the first opportunity to take a close look at the candidates in real time, with little or no interference from ad writers or pundits. It was illuminating about the strengths and weaknesses of both.

After 90 minutes of noisy verbal punches and counterpunches, the former secretary of state went the distance in better shape than her rival, based on the usual judging criteria. She was plainly better prepared for the questions, gave more articulate and clearly researched answers.

Armed with his own skills before cameras and live audiences, the billionaire real-estate developer started off with spirited attacks on issues of job creation and trade.

After the first half-hour, though, Trump seemed to lose focus and took Clinton’s bait on several fronts. He gave a shallow defense of his longtime assault on President Barack Obama’s legitimacy as a natural born citizen of the U.S.

He couldn’t resist needlessly lashing out to justify remarks made about women. He gave an unsatisfying explanation for his refusal so far to release copies of his tax returns.

However, for his supporters and perhaps many who only now are paying attention, Trump did make a connection with those who find appeal in his defiant message.

“Typical politician!” he said mockingly of Clinton, in one of his better sound bites. “All talk. No action. Sounds good. Doesn’t work. Never gonna happen.”

That kind of complaint resonates with many in the frustrated working class who have seen most of the spoils of economic recovery accrue to the wealthy.

Beyond the superficial sheen of his stump speech, though, Trump has not offered a credible explanation of how his economic jumpstart plan would work, nor has he settled on a foreign policy that is at all pragmatic.

Clinton, by comparison, has a practiced hand with policy, and was ready with the opposition research to throw her opponent off his game. Her demeanor was unflappable, and the contrast was stark, especially viewed side by side with Trump, who frequently appeared angry and rude.

People like plainspokenness — to a point. It’s disconcerting to see it on full display in someone who aspires to a job maintaining relations with other leaders, at home and abroad, a job demanding a steady approach.

Still, what Clinton lacked on Monday was a direct appeal to the voters, a vision for an American future that’s inspiring. Leadership requires that as well.

She also can expect to get more pointed questioning in future debates on her penchant for secrecy, evidenced in the email scandal. Also missing in this round were queries into how the State Department interacted with the family charitable institution, the Clinton Foundation.

Voters need to see a willingness to draw a bright line separating those activities with official government relationships. They are weary of the pay-to-play world of the political establishment. That is why this is poised to be a “change” election, and why the supporters of Trump are making this such a close race.

The voters have some responsibility themselves to do their due diligence. They should read about the candidates’ positions and their personal and professional histories, and dig deeper for the details. Anyone can pop off with a pledge to solve the nation’s many problems, but for those aspiring to the president’s office, a real plan is required.

Both candidates will have two more opportunities to bridge the gap between themselves and the voters they hope to win over.

Certainly it will be worth tuning in to the next two debates, Oct. 9 and 19, to find out more about their choice for the White House. For all the limitations of debates, they can be informative and valuable events, guideposts for one of the more consequential decision points of the decade.