In my opinion, last night's debate was good for the Democratic Party.

[kentuck]

I do not agree with those that say it was a "disaster" and that it helped Donald Trump.

I think it drew a clear line between billionaires, NDA's, tax returns, and the Democratic Party.

It drew a clear distinction between the Republicans and the Democrats.

There was nothing for Donald Trump to celebrate. If anything, it showed how close Trump and Bloomberg are in the way they handle their financial affairs and how they bury potential lawsuits.

Just because it was rowdy and confrontational should not be interpreted as bad for the Party, in my opinion.

I do not believe there were viewers that changed their support to Donald Trump because of last night's debate.

[we can do it]

1. I agree. A debate is not a tea party.

[nobuddy]

2. In this day and age

last night went viral. More people will watch clips and talk about our candidates (whether good or bad). When they're not talking about you, you lose.

I'm interested to see who moves where in the polls after last night.

[KPN]

8. Great point. I agree. It will serve to keep Dem candidates in the limelight. "Any air time is

good air time".

[shotten99]

3. Likewise.

What happened last night is mild in comparison to what is waiting for the nominee in the fall.

[eissa]

4. I so tire of the hand-wringing

"Oh, why are they being such meanies to each other?!"

Have these people never experienced a primary cycle? This is literally what primaries are about -- an all out battle where you tear your competitors apart and whomever emerges wins the right to enter the final war.

Have people forgotten the 2016 GOP primaries? The 2008 and 1992 Dem primaries? In all of those cases, the candidate who was torched the worst won the nomination and the presidency.

If a candidate can't withstand the exposure and attacks now, they'll be eaten alive during the actual presidential campaign.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Agree! It identifies a clear line between the other candidates.

Doing it now is more beneficial and allows other candidates to be considered more closely.

[stopbush]

6. Disagree. It was a food fight. The winners were candidates like Biden

who didn’t get down in the food flinging and spoke only when needed.

The sniping reminded me of high school.

We’re lucky so few voters watch these debates.

[KPN]

7. I agree. If I may use what might be a somewhat graphically disturbing analogy fore some,

it was like putting a hot compress on a boil or cyst to bring it to head and remove or drain it. In the end, it will make us better.

[PatSeg]

10. Okay, that is actually an excellent

analogy. I think it will make us better. It was one of the best debates I've seen and I felt like we got to see a more realistic version of some of the candidates. It was the first time in awhile that Warren got to really be heard and she was excellent. Also, I felt it was Biden's best performance so far.

Bloomberg showed that he has more money than political talent. Bernie was pretty much the same, maybe a little more angry. I was disappointed in Buttigieg's attacks on Klobuchar, who did well, but did not stand out as much because Warren was so outstanding.

[KPN]

11. Your assessment is spot on. I was thrilled with Warren's showing.

Buttigieg looked like an attack dog in sheep’s clothing last night. He overdid the attacks for sure.

[PatSeg]

13. It was very unbecoming

and it felt too personal.

I thought Warren was treated poorly in the previous two debates, as if she was invisible. Clearly she has a lot to say if the moderators let her.

[relayerbob]

9. While I generally do't like these types of things, I agree

It showed that their main Democrats are not *that* different from one another in terms of policies, but gave us a chance to see how they might do in a debate with Trump, while also showing them under stress and under fire. They all performed well, and I'm proud of our choices!

[Mersky]

12. I agree completely

There’s no way, no how that I can find last night being a disaster for the Democratic Party.

I saw Bloomberg as a stand-in for tRump. He did a good thing last night by taking it and remaining standing/unshaken. The tension between the anger of the have nots and the has a lots was embodied on that stage.

I’d like to think the varying campaigns will stop with the negative attacks with gotcha tactics of low fiber. I don’t want to see another doctored, out of context clip lobbed at a fellow Democratic candidate on twitter. Is time wasting junk that sours my views of the breathless promoters.

Turn that angst towards tRump. Have a more nuanced carrot and stick conversation on where the good billionaires and millionaires fit in a wider society that wants to do more than live in some arcane, dog eat dog existence. It’s 2020, y’all, and modernity is rapidly unfolding with ever more answers to big problems.

[Lucid Dreamer]

14. I disagree. My fears are being realized.

4 months after I posted my concerns [Oct 15 2019] about the candidates carving each other up
the Feb 19 2020 debate confirmed them.

Multiple hatchet jobs. These candidates are fools sacrificing the long term target of gaining the WH for a barrage of anti-Dem zingers that will make the next day's headlines.

Somebody in the party has got to guide this ship in the right direction... FAST!

I'm surprised that not more people are worried about this. Hope I'm wrong.

[andym]

15. Real passion especially from Warren, Biden and Sanders last night

that's what's needed to win--candidates need to show they care in an expressive way.

BTW, the reason Sanders does so well is that he is so passionate about what he believes, and it was great to see that from the others.