Relative to the rest of 2020, the final Presidential debate was normal.

Both candidates (generally) allowed the other to finish his thoughts. They both (pretty much) stuck to the rules laid down by the Presidential Debate Commission. They (sort of) abided by debate moderator Kristin Welker’s warnings that talking over each other would be a disservice to the voting public.

Nevertheless, according to Rutgers professor of History and Journalism and Media Studies David Greenberg, it was a wash for both candidates.

“It was somewhat strange to see President Trump earning, at least, decent marks for what was not a particularly good performance,” Greenberg told Capital Tonight. “There was a lot of relief that he didn’t behave as badly as he did in the first debate.”

But, Greenberg said, the president continued to embark on “self-indulgent jags” about issues that don’t really matter to the voting public, like his relationship with Kim Jong-un, and that the IRS is anti-Trump.

“It’s childish, self-indulgent behavior, I think, from him,” Greenberg said. “It just wasn’t quite as incessant as it was during the first debate.”

Greenberg’s assessment of Biden wasn’t much better.

“Biden is never a completely masterful debater. He always struggles a little bit to find the right word, or to be perfectly concise,” he said. “You compare him to Kamala Harris, or some people in the primary like Pete Buttigieg, it doesn’t flow off the tongue so naturally for him.”

That said, Greenberg said the former vice president was good last night at enumerating his policy points.

Could his comments about transitioning away from oil hurt him? Greenberg, who is contributing editor to Politico, says maybe.

“Look, in the last days of the campaign, people seize on all kinds of things, especially low-information voters," Greenberg said. "The people that you’re aiming for at this stage in the game can be very random and mercurial in what they seize on to make up their minds.”