Since the candidates for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination last assembled on a debate stage a month ago, Elizabeth Warren has steadily risen in the polls, and in the sights of her rival candidates. On Tuesday night, she faced more attacks, from more candidates—there was a full dozen on stage this time—than she had seen in any previous debate this year. In a race that has been dominated by the Democratic Party’s progressive wing, the centrists decided to strike back.

Politico Magazine asked 20 experts, insiders, activists and political professionals to watch the debate and tell us who won, who lost, and how the debate changed the campaign—if it did. Our watchers couldn’t agree on whether Warren won or lost: Did she keep her cool under the barrage, at least some of which was perceived as “egregiously sexist”? Or was she too evasive in her answers about how she would pay for her “Medicare for All” plan? The consensus, however, was that Joe Biden was a little too invisible, and that Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar stood out for the first time.

Sort of like Bing, Microsoft’s underloved search engine, which Andrew Yang brought up during the debate, in what must have been a political first.

Read on for our experts’ insights.

***

‘The centrist, Midwestern candidates went after Warren with a vengeance’
Sophia A. Nelson is an American author, political strategist, opinion writer and former House Republican Committee counsel.

It was a big night for Klobuchar: She finally found her voice!

The winners were Klobuchar and Buttigieg. The centrist, Midwestern candidates went after Warren with a vengeance all night. Warren maintained her status quo. Harris was largely invisible except for when she twice raised reproductive rights. Sanders was back, considering he just suffered a heart attack a couple of weeks ago.

Biden caught hell right out of the gates on the Ukraine issue and the appropriateness of the actions of his son Hunter. He still seems to be not entirely present though. Going from Hunter to George Washington in one of his early answers was a really bad moment for him tonight.

O’Rourke, Castro, Yang, Steyer, Gabbard and Booker were all a distraction. They need to be off the stage.

Nothing will change tonight. The field still has to get cut by 50 percent. None of us wants to endure these three-hour debates into next year. Democrats need to pivot away from a focus on impeachment or Trump's attacks on the Bidens. They need to offer America a stark contrast to Trump’s daily rages and tweets, his lies, his undermining of our institutions, and his abandoning of our friends and allies in NATO and beyond. That is where the Democrats can beat Trump and win back the presidency.

***

Biden disappeared.
Patti Solis Doyle is a Democratic political strategist, communications consultant and former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton.

Buttigieg won the debate tonight, and Klobuchar came in a close second. Mayor Pete did not shy away from mixing it up with his opponents. He was ready to go after Warren’s health care plan and O’Rourke’s gun plan. As a veteran, he showed not only expertise but also strength in his Syria answer. Buttigieg spent the first months of the presidential primary campaign showing us how smart and steeped in policy he is, and tonight he showed us that he is also a fighter.

Klobuchar saw an opening in the moderate lane and went for it. Invoking her Midwest upbringing, the dignity of work and a moderate approach to health care, she sounded more like Biden than Biden did. She forcefully contrasted herself from Warren

Biden lost the debate tonight simply because he disappeared. He was outdone on the issues where he should have led: foreign policy and health care.

We will see whether the debate changes the race, but certainly voters will take a hard look at Buttigieg and Klobuchar.

***

‘Warren still doesn’t get it: Just answer the question’
Michael Steele is a political commentator, host of The Michael Steele Podcast and a former Republican National Committee chairman.

Mayor Pete made it clear: He came to change the game, and he did. He landed clean, nonpersonal jabs on Warren and pushed back on O’Rourke. Tonight was his night. He won. Perhaps now his poll numbers will begin to match his fundraising numbers.

Runner up, a tie: Yang and Klobuchar. Yang appears to have figured out the “Math” and had a night where everyone was talking about his issue—automation! And Klobuchar took advantage of her opportunity to own the stage (and Warren) and did so effectively.

Warren still doesn’t get it: Just answer the question (hint: we already know the answer, we just need to hear you say it). And that is the problem. When it comes to her Medicare for All plan, she doesn’t have a plan to tell us exactly what it will do and how much she will need to raise middle class taxes to pay for it. Then there was the clear targeting of her by virtually every other candidate, which she handled well enough, but the visual after a while takes its toll. Oh, and it didn’t help that she said she wants to eliminate a U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Yeah, that’ll stick. Hard to win on a night when stuff like this happens.

***

Right or wrong, the field thinks Warren is in the lead.
Larry J. Sabato is the founder and director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and is a contributing editor at Politico Magazine.

Who lost? The awful format and the rules that produced a record 12 candidates on stage. I don’t know whether Biden lost, because for long stretches I wasn’t sure if he was still there. Warren was the focal point of much of the debate because she’s at least the co-front-runner. Her answers weren’t always convincing, but the fact that she was challenged so much—while Biden was ignored—reveals the other candidates think she, not Biden, is now the one to beat. (Maybe that’s so, maybe it isn’t.)

I thought every candidate had a good moment or two, though my memory is blurred by the unrelenting pace produced by too many topics and the tug-of-war for control of the conversation. Klobuchar had some smart answers. I’m starting not to care that she is brutal to her staff. (Why do we care so much about that? 99.9 percent of us will never work for her.) Beto, Booker, Buttigieg and candidates with names not starting with B asserted themselves usefully at times. But their dilemma underlines my first point about this kind of debate: How do you really stand out and make progress in a mob of ambitious pols who all have working microphones and snappy, memorized soundbites?

Lastly, Bernie added a genuine note of humanity in thanking everyone for the love they sent after his heart attack. I thought he looked hale and hearty. May he live to 100, or as Trump’s doctor might say, 200.

***

The Democrats showed they’ve very capable of blowing it in 2020.
Michael Starr Hopkins is a Democratic strategist who has served on the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Delaney.

Warren got the front-runner treatment. The field aggressively went after her, making clear that there is a fear she could run away with this race. Warren didn’t do anything to hurt her candidacy, but she didn’t exactly run away with the night either. Biden’s tone-deaf answer on the Hunter Biden scandal only further reminded Americans of 2016 and the obvious vulnerabilities of a Biden candidacy.

Mayor Pete may have raised a ton of money, but he hasn’t been able to raise his poll numbers. Buttigieg attempted to separate himself from the rest of the field by pivoting into the “eat your vegetables” lane, but it’s not apparent that there’s a hunger for that message. Buttigieg had a strong response on questions of foreign policy and our military, possibly securing his spot on a short list of defense secretaries in the next Democratic administration.

On the policy front, issues like Medicare for All will be a nightmare for Democrats if they continue to talk about getting rid of private insurance. The moderates not on the stage understand that most Americans want the option of keeping their private insurance.

Democrats have the wind at their back and are clearly in a position to defeat President Donald Trump. Yet the 12 candidates on the stage should leave many Democrats concerned about how the party will fare in a general election. Tonight’s debate didn’t make me confident that Democrats will be able to make a layup.

***

In a debate this big, Biden and Warren can’t lose.
Jennifer Lawless is a professor of politics at the University of Virginia whose research focuses on political ambition, campaigns and elections, and media and politics.

The latest presidential debate provided voters with information about the candidates’ positions on impeachment, the opioid crisis, Syria, tech company monopolies, health care and reproductive rights. It offered viewers an opportunity to assess the candidates’ age, health, demeanor and strategies for defeating Donald Trump. And it allowed the candidates the time—albeit in 30-second increments—to lay out their visions for the future. Given the wide-ranging substantive and stylistic ground the candidates covered, we might be tempted to look for ways that the debate moved the needle. But that’s a fool’s errand. With 12 people on the stage and the two front-runners avoiding major pitfalls, it’s almost impossible—mathematically—for anyone else to gain momentum.

That’s excellent news for Biden and Warren. Each started the evening as front-runners with difficult terrain to navigate. Biden would have to weather questions about Ukraine and his son’s foreign business dealings. Warren would have to contend with her newfound status as the candidate to beat. Both did just fine. Biden held his own, reminding voters of his qualifications, legislative record, standing on the international stage and passion. And Warren demonstrated that she’s able to take the heat. The lower-tier candidates lobbed attacks at her all night and she never lost her cool or ceded any ground.

It’s terrible news for everyone else. Sanders, Buttigieg and Klobuchar all delivered solid performances. But not at the expense of Biden or Warren. Harris and Booker differentiated themselves from many of the other lower-tier candidates in the pack by advocating for women and people of color. Perhaps effective messaging, but also not to the detriment of Biden or Warren. O’Rourke, Castro, Gabbard, Steyer and Yang turned in lackluster performances, all of which helped Biden and Warren. After all, every minute allocated to the lower-tier candidates was a minute Biden and Warren could sit back, regroup and bask in the status quo.

Until the field winnows substantially, there’s little the debates can do to shift the primary race dynamics in any meaningful way. The candidates will continue to walk off the stage in pretty much the same shape they walked onto it. Barring a faux pas of epic proportions, Biden and Warren will remain on top, at least until the first votes are cast.

***

‘It’s still a three-way race’
Sean McElwee is a writer, data analyst and co-founder of the progressive think tank Data for Progress.

Warren and Sanders had each other’s backs against centrists, reminding progressives that the chance of a Biden presidency is very real. There are policy differences between Sanders and Warren, no doubt, but on the issue of Medicare for All, they stand alone against the center. The debate showed how powerful progressives can be when we are unified behind our agenda.

For the first time, the debates touched on court reform, and the answers were disappointing. Democrats have yet to articulate what they are going to do when John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh strike down their agenda.

It’s still a three-way race and always has been. Nothing that happened tonight will change that.

***

The losers? Voters who want to hear specifics on policy.
L. Joy Williams is a political strategist and consultant, the creator and host of the podcast Sunday Civics, and the chair of Higher Heights for America PAC.

None of what was said from the stage last night will move the needle for any of these candidates. They will all be in our inbox spinning it their way for more donations, but I’m not sure it’s won them more individual primary voters.

Overall the questions seemed to be more for a lifestyle magazine profile than for Democratic primary voters waiting to hear specifics on policy. For instance, health care has been a major focus in each of the debates, and it’s an important issue for voters, but most Americans want to hear how the candidates’ plans differ and how the proposals would immediately affect their premiums and drug costs.

Not having a clear winner is perfectly fine for where we are. The goal for anyone on the stage is to perform well enough to continue fundraising so they have the money to put in the field.

***

Warren’s one misstep was on foreign policy.
Jennifer Victor is a professor of political science at George Mason University, a co-editor of the Oxford Handbook of Political Networks and a member of the board of directors of the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.

There was no standout winner, but it was clear that the field of candidates has shifted to seeing Warren as the front-runner instead of Biden. They all addressed her more, attacked her more and, in doing so, gave her more opportunities to speak than any other candidate. She had a strong debate performance overall and did not get rattled by any of the soft barbs, but she did have one misstep when talking about foreign policy: She seemed to say the U.S. should have no troops in the Middle East. I expect she’ll want to clarify that.

Others who had a good night include Sanders, Buttigieg, Klobuchar and Booker. Biden didn’t perform badly, and he and Sanders shared one of the most endearing moments of the debate when Biden randomly gesticulated toward Sanders while he was talking about Putin, and Sanders jokingly asked if Biden thought he was Putin. Biden said no, and they shared a chuckle and a hug.

This debate doesn’t change much about the primary or the candidates. There were no bombs dropped, and with the exception of Gabbard the field was pretty united in support of impeaching the president. The show of unity at the outset set a decent tone for the whole event, which was largely civil and constructive.

The most surprising aspect of this debate was that not a single question was asked about climate change, and it was hardly raised in discussion at all. The debate was almost as long as the playoff baseball game happening at the same time, but still not long enough to include climate change.

***

‘A good night for the old codgers on stage’
Jacob Heilbrunn is the editor of the National Interest.

It was a good night for the old codgers on stage. They showed the young ’uns that, like the Washington Nationals who advanced to the World Series just as the debate concluded, they can hurl a fastball with the best of them. Warren was extremely poised and fluent, hewing to her populist message that America needs a political revolution even as the other candidates pounded her about prospective tax hikes on the middle class to pay for her grandiose Medicare for All plan. Sanders, fresh from surgery, was as prickly as ever, responding with an emphatic “Damn right we will” when queried about creating millions of new jobs. But for my money, it was Biden who was, to use his language, “expedentially” improved from his previous appearances.

Biden correctly warned that if Trump is reelected, “There will be no NATO.” And he was surely the most nimble at the close, adroitly seizing on a question about unexpected friendships to advance his theme that he, and he alone, can not only drum Trump out of the Oval Office but also persuade Republicans to work with him as president. It was the kind of sentimental guff that could allow Biden to hit it out of the park in the general election.

***

‘Wit and a dollop of charisma would be helpful’
Michael Kazin is a professor of history at Georgetown University and co-editor of Dissent. He is writing a history of the Democratic Party.

What was remarkable about Tuesday night’s debate was how unremarkable it was. No candidate said anything likely to shift a lot of undecided Democrats her or his way. Warren, Biden and Sanders essentially delivered capsule versions of their stump speeches; Buttigieg and Klobuchar warned again about turning off swing voters in the Midwest; Harris left me wondering, yet again, why she is running, other than to make her mother proud; and neither Booker nor Castro made much of an impression at all. Other than apologizing for the Syrian dictator who has slaughtered a massive number of his own citizens, no one will remember anything else Gabbard said—nor should they. Oh, and everybody wants to bring the country together and still loves John McCain.

No Democrat who wants to be president has yet demonstrated the talent for thrilling people who expect little from politics that Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Barack Obama possessed. Of course, that quality does not ensure that one will be an effective president. But when running against an incumbent who is a great performer—as well as a profoundly corrupt, ignorant, inept narcissist and racist—clever wit and a dollop of charisma would be helpful.

As a historian, I was also deeply disappointed that no one asked the candidates whether it had been a good idea to repeal the 18th Amendment, which was ratified exactly a century ago. The debate, after all, was held in the very town that was the longtime national headquarters of the Anti-Saloon League, which with prohibition led, perhaps, the most successful single-issue campaign in American history.

***

Black women, and victims of police brutality, were ignored again.
Michelle Bernard is a political analyst, lawyer, author and president and CEO of the Bernard Center for Women, Politics & Public Policy.

Rather than who lost Tuesday night’s Democratic debate, one couldn’t help but think about who and what was lost. Black women and any substantive discussion of the hundreds of black women nationwide who have been, and continue to be, victims of police brutality were painfully absent from any substantive discussion.

Black women like 28-year-old Atatiana Jefferson of Fort Worth, Texas, who, while babysitting her nephew, was shot to death in her own home on Saturday by a white police officer. Black women like Korryn Gaines, 23, who in 2016 was shot to death in her home near Baltimore after Facebook and Instagram deactivated her accounts at the request of the police department whose officers she was filming trying to serve her with a warrant related to a traffic violation. And black women like Sandra Bland, 28, who in 2015 was found hanged in a jail cell in Waller, Texas, three days after being arrested during a dispute over a minor traffic violation.

Castro raised the shooting death of Jefferson in the context of gun reform, and Harris touched on the numbers of black men who have died as a result of gun violence. However, coming on the heels of the shooting death of Jefferson just four days ago, the issue of police violence against black women and girls should have been a major issue in Tuesday’s debate, not just as a brief mention in a larger discussion about gun violence.

In an era when black women are arguably the most important voting bloc in the nation, it seems foolhardy that the candidates didn’t find an opportunity to discuss the issue in depth. If the Democrats are to win this election, it will not be by flipping Trump voters; it will be because they gave their own side reasons to leave home or work, go to the polls, possibly fight off attempts to suppress their votes, stand in long lines and vote in droves. And in the 2020 primaries in the South, a Democratic victory cannot be had without the votes of black women.

***

As a debater, Warren ‘still has a lot of work to do.’
Alan Schroeder is a professor in the school of journalism at Northeastern University in Boston. Schroeder is the author of several books, including Presidential Debates: Risky Business on the Campaign Trail.

The headline from this overstuffed extravaganza: Warren, the debater, still has a lot of work to do. Although she is adept at maintaining her composure when confronted, she has not quite figured out how to push her arguments over the finish line. In several exchanges, Warren failed to land her point, failed to shut down her critics. How to pay for Medicare for All was a question that would obviously crop up, so why didn’t she have a better answer?

With the focus on Warren, Biden vanished for stretches of this debate, yet when he did surface he tended not to offer crisp responses. His best answer came on Russia, but even that involved more bluster than cogency. By constantly citing his extensive professional credentials, Biden runs the risk of positioning himself as a relic of the past.

Sanders, by contrast, gave a spirited, in-the-moment performance that will help dispel concerns over his health. He dodged the moderator’s question about his recent heart attack, but in a way that charmed everyone in the audience and on the stage.

Two other debaters stood out: Finally hitting her stride, Klobuchar turned in her strongest performance yet. She has the gift of seeming fully human during debates, which is no mean feat. Buttigieg used the debate to add emotional depth to his chilly persona, specifically in discussing the Middle East. Buttigieg also showed himself willing to play rough with his opponents, which is a quality Democratic voters will prize as they seek the proper opponent for Trump.

As a TV show, this was at least an hour too long, with too many fringe participants taking up space. Next month’s debate, with stricter criteria for inclusion, promises to feature a smaller field—for which viewers should be grateful.

***

Buttigieg stood out, and Warren’s weaknesses were exposed.
Liz Mair is a Republican campaign communications consultant.

Buttigieg stood out tonight in terms of his ability not only to land punches on other candidates, but also to sell himself in a way that I think will appeal to what I’m guessing will, by Iowa caucus night, be an increased group of disenchanted independents and Republicans who will look to participate in the Democratic primary process after reaching their boiling point with President Trump. Buttigieg also did a good job of positioning himself as safe running-mate material for whoever ultimately comes out on top (I don’t think it can be him).

The conventional wisdom is Warren is now the front-runner, but I think what’s actually happening is other candidates are starting to sense her weaknesses. Polls show she has a lot more voters in her camp who are receptive to other candidates than Biden has in his. I think what you saw tonight wasn’t an effort to take down a front-runner so much as it was to grab at those voters by exploiting her weaknesses. Candidly, I think a lot of these other candidates are getting sick of being treated like they’re dumber than Warren or less wonky when in fact there are some very smart people with perfectly progressive ideas in the field but Warren gets treated like the animal that’s more equal than the others. This is why you saw Buttigieg and Klobuchar especially going after her, and Gabbard and Biden getting in on the action at times, too. I suspect those attacks will hurt her because she looked like she couldn’t—and worse, wouldn’t—give a straight answer on Medicare for All, but also was reading from her notes on foreign policy. No one votes on that, but overall, she didn’t look nearly as strong as she should have—as a theoretical front-runner—and she looked like she wasn’t prepared for the attacks when she should have been (all of them were telegraphed well in advance).

Going forward, debate time should be cut in half, with the candidates winnowed to the top five. In all seriousness, it’s been fun, but no one is nominating Yang or O’Rourke or Booker, let alone Castro, Gabbard, Steyer or— sadly— Klobuchar. Cut the field and move on. Also: Moderators need to start insisting on answers to questions and enforcing time limits, for real. The filibustering is out of hand, and so is the dodging. If any of these people want to take on Trump successfully, they better figure out how to man (or woman) up, because debating him is going to be about 100 times as nerve-wracking as the worst moments in these intraparty debates. And they will need to land every single punch. They should all hire Castro as their debate coach right now and get ready to rumble—the guy is still the best debater of the lot, and they could learn from him.

***

Warren won by keeping her cool.
Atima Omara is a political strategist and former president of the Young Democrats of America.

As the debates get closer to the first primaries and caucuses, the need for candidates to distinguish themselves becomes more apparent. Warren, with Biden and Sanders, has led recent polls, but this was the first debate in which most of the other candidates not in the top three tried to highlight perceived weaknesses in Warren’s plans in order to elevate their candidacies as alternatives. Warren won by staying extraordinarily cool under pressure and hard questioning. Democratic voters will want to see that in their nominee going against Trump.

***

‘The questions continue to disappoint’
Amanda Litman is the co-founder and executive director of Run for Something.

Seems like all the candidates think Warren is the front-runner based on how they attacked her last night. Unsurprisingly, she held her own. Her self-control and poise in a moment with Biden surely resonated with any woman who has ever had to maintain their cool under egregiously sexist behavior—meaning, all women. Booker, Buttigieg, Sanders and Klobuchar also had solid moments in the spotlight. (Although it’s worth noting for nearly all 12 of these candidates: While storytelling and personality are always good, the corny, canned jokes need to go.)

More broadly, the questions continue to disappoint: A full round about friendship but not a word about climate change? Nothing about voter suppression? Not even a mention of China? Plus, per usual, not a single candidate has a solution for the Mitch McConnell problem.

But let's be honest: We've learned from the past few debates that these things don't really matter beyond a quick bump in fundraising and maybe a few weeks of polling. On the upside: The debate ended just in time to watch the Nationals clinch the pennant. #StayInTheFight!!!

***

Why are Biden and Buttigieg running?
Matt Bruenig is the founder and president of the People's Policy Project, a progressive think tank.

Biden put forth another performance guaranteed to raise the question: Why is Biden running? When his answers weren’t confusing, they were confused; he was especially ill-poised to explain why his presidency is needed in this particular moment, as opposed to the two other times he’s run for president, in 1988 and 2008. Buttigieg, on the other hand, seemed perfectly aware of why he’s running: Apparently, it’s to push the likely nominees to the right, seeing as he spent most of his time making spurious attacks on Medicare for All. Unfortunately for Mayor Pete, there are already plenty of anti-Medicare for All centrists running, like Klobuchar and Steyer, and Buttigieg did himself no favors by expending so much effort to do whatever the opposite of distinguishing himself is.

Before the next debate, Warren and Sanders would be wise to take the matter of paying for universal health care head-on, possibly by pointing out that Americans are already paying dearly for an inefficient, wasteful system, and that Medicare for All would lighten the overall fiscal burden of health care while cutting poverty by roughly 20 percent. No more precious debate minutes need be squandered on the easily answered question of whether we can afford Medicare for All. The answer is yes; next question please.

***

Warren looked elusive, while Biden ‘emerged largely unscathed.’
Beth Hansen is a Republican political strategist and the former campaign manager for John Kasich.

Congratulations to CNN and The New York Times for their final question about unexpected friendships, which brought some life to a debate that seemed largely to be retreading familiar policy ground. It elicited important, thoughtful responses from many of the candidates.

Who won? Given the recent controversies, Biden emerged largely unscathed and will continue to be a front-runner. Congratulations also to Sanders for a hearty defense of liberalism.

All of the candidates are becoming more polished in the debate setting, and there were no real losers. But Harris, Castro, Gabbard and Steyer needed to move the needle and did not do so.

What changed? A far more edgy Buttigieg, which his supporters may not like but which will have appeal to independents; Warren, under more focused questioning, particularly in the first hour, came across as elusive; and more candidates defended policy moderation including Klobuchar, Buttigieg and even Yang.

It’s our loss if 180 minutes (less question and commercial breaks) split by 12 candidates does anything at all to seriously affect the course of the nomination. Let the debates be an introduction for interested voters to learn more about those candidates that interest them, then cast their votes accordingly.

***

‘We had another debate that short shrifted black voters’
Charles Ellison is a political strategist and talk-radio host.

That sound is the loud yawn you heard after, maybe, getting halfway through the Democratic debate and then making up your mind to, instead, watch the Nats make it to the World Series for the first time.

But seriously: It’s speaking volumes that, yet again, Democrats held another main stage debate and did not include the presence of a black newspaper or black-owned media outlet on the moderator panel. And, yet again, we had another debate that short shrifted black voters (over a quarter of the primary electorate with a massive role in the early states). Even more telling is that these debates have evolved into nothing more than lazy extensions of cable news outlet headlines. We’re not getting any questions on people’s quality of life, and we don’t get any fleshed-out conversation on the climate crisis or voting rights and the future danger that is a federal judiciary filled with conservatives unless the candidates barge in or talk over one another.

In other news, Booker for DNC Chair—seriously.

Lower-tier candidates went after Warren out of desperation and had some moments to the point where she showed holes. Biden may have looked stronger, but Sanders—eager to move past a heart attack—offered an even better performance. Many moments were missed. Harris’ “dude gotta go” line gotta go; Gabbard went overboard with “regime change”; still few can pronounce Mayor Pete’s last name, while Klobuchar showed a little fire, and Steyer was that bobble head you don’t want in your front car window. These debates are becoming tired exercises in cable outlet vanity.

***

‘The Democratic Party is overflowing with talent and deep thoughts’
Dan Lavoie is a progressive communications strategist.

The winner of the debate Tuesday night was Earth-2, where a handful of thoughtful Americans vying for the world’s most powerful job engaged in spirited, respectful debate about the biggest issues of the day.

In a sane world, the nuanced takes in the Democratic debate would provide meaningful counterpoints to the sitting president’s similarly nuanced policy ideas. Instead, we had a dozen people on stage speaking in a deep, insightful way that the real sitting president is simply incapable of replicating. On policy, it’s a rout. And, frankly, that’s bad for America.

Will the debate make a difference in the polls? Eh, probably not. Maybe Mayor Pete eats into Biden’s slowly deflating balloon. Maybe Warren further solidifies her rising base. Maybe Sanders reassures some voters who were uneasy about his recent health scare.

But the critical question is not, “What will the polls say?” but rather, “What will historians say?” That answer is more obvious: The Republican Party of 2019 is dominated by an ignorant racist incapable of forming cogent policy ideas to address the real challenges facing real Americans, while the Democratic Party is overflowing with talent and deep thoughts, earnestly engaging with the complexities of our nation’s biggest problems. Too bad that will matter very little by the time November 2020 rolls around and partisan nonsense takes over. But it was nice to be on Earth-2, at least for a night.