By Mark Kenny

A version of this article was originally published by The Canberra Times.

When Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton went into the second would-be PM's debate on Wednesday night, the former was the front-running incumbent and the latter, an untried and stumbling pretender.

When it was over, Dutton had drawn closer, even if most experts awarded it to the PM.

It behoves us to remember that on that question - which man prevailed - the granular deconstructions of commentators (including this one) count for little.

I viewed the first debate, the Sky News Peoples' Forum, as fractionally better for Dutton, yet the 100 undecideds in the room in Western Sydney gave it to the PM quite decisively.

What matters is what unengaged voters take from this head-to-head encounter. Or rather, "would have" taken from it had they watched. Frustratingly, this is the cohort least likely to have tuned in and even then, less inclined to have stayed the distance.

What they will not escape, however, is the blizzard of curated debate snippets churned out on social media by the respective campaigns and by disreputable third-party organisations.

As in that first outing it was Dutton who started more assured under the intimidating, forensic stewardship of David Speers.

Even with his superior experience, Albanese's early tightness was understandable. The reality for a sitting PM is that there is much more to lose. The competence bar for an incumbent is simply set higher.

As Wednesday night's debate proceeded, Albanese gained in cadence summoning - for the first time in this election cycle - the confidence to go deeper into policy specifics in areas like early childhood education, housing supply, and the high costs and perils of Dutton's proposed government-funded nuclear industry.

On some things, they agreed.

Neither leader was prepared to swear off further borrowing to finance vote-buying giveaways or to countenance new revenue streams (taxation) to make up the shortfall.

Neither would they touch Australia's sacred but shameful market distortions in property which have fuelled inequality and locked post-boomer generations out of secure affordable housing.

Albanese clearly bested Dutton over climate change, with the latter mystifyingly unprepared to concede its deleterious effects in Australia. That was bizarre.

Dutton also struggled on trade, admitting he did not personally know Donald Trump after months of insisting his like-mindedness with the American would have enabled him to get a better deal. This had the feel of a premeditated overstatement aimed belatedly at distancing himself from the president Australians detest - a sign this is showing up in Coalition polling.

Dutton's greatest personal vulnerability came when, for the second time in as many weeks, he had to apologise for rhetorical and policy overreaches. Not a good pattern.

But on the leading issues of energy prices, the cost of living, small business closures and national security (Chinese warships off the Australian coast) Dutton spoke clearly and landed piercing arguments.

Doubtless, he secured his base, but he might also have reached demoralised ex-Labor voters in the suburbs and regions pleased to have their grievances aired.

Mark Kenny is the Director of the ANU Australian Studies Institute and host of the Democracy Sausage podcast.