i don't think politics is a fun sport or game, and that's why i don't think debates are a good way to assess candidates. we are going to call "the winner" the candidate who gets in the most meme-worthy zingers, and "the loser" the candidate who uses a poor choice of words, seems "flat," gets attacked and doesn't sufficiently retaliate, etc. there is simply too much at stake in 2020 for this kind of measurement. if you are truly curious about who a candidate is and what you think they'll do as president, look beyond the show: check their records. a few of the people on stage tonight have made careers out of eating oil money, locking up children, endorsing segregation, and generally playing the "game" that brought president trump to power. meanwhile, a few other people on stage have consistently taken positions that actually help normal americans and seriously threaten corporate/fascist domination.
yes, all the candidates are democrats, and yes, any of them would be an otherworldly improvement over our current situation (even "we can't get anything done, so why even why, fart" guys like hickenlooper haven't, you know, raped someone, at least as far as i know). but there are pretty substantial differences that need to be explored (some of "our people" actually seem to support endless war), and the meaningful dialogue about the direction of the party is not going to occur in the "you have 30 seconds, entertain me" format. it's going to happen when democratic voters are open, thoughtful, and considerate about what kind of future they envision, and what paths they think will best enable that future.
so if you'll permit me this final piece of open-ness (if maybe not thoughtfulness): i would rather have a ragged, mistake-prone, disagreeable, charmless president who can make change than a charming, smooth, witty, "presidential" president who. oh. doesn't support medicare for all