I found the debate to lack substance.

[Firestorm49]

In my opinion, there were a few questions that resonated with voters, but not enough to address the serious issues that are so crucial at this point in America. There was plenty of bluster for position, but not nearly enough issue oriented debate. The questions from the moderators lacked substance, almost like they were afraid to bring up the corruption of what’s his name in the Oval Office, how to deal with the aftermath of coverups, foreign intervention, vote rigging, the dismantling of the Justice Department, the emoluments clause, issues involving gun deaths in the country, the threat of white supremacy, the narrowing of wealth (mildly addressed), securing the basic tenets of the constitution, ......

All in all, this was more of a personality event than a substantive debate. No one candidate came out a winner.

[blue neen]

1. I'm with you.

They need to be attacking Trump and not each other.

[Firestorm49]

5. AMEN !

[LakeArenal]

2. Debates are not for political wonks.

All tv is designed for a sixth grade education. Lazy uninformed voters decide by sound bites and media hype.

I do disagree about substance.

My number one issue is getting rid of trump.

[ibegurpard]

3. And do you think that the substance

That Hillary Clinton brought to the campaign was enough to defeat a reality show host? Should it be based on substance? Of course it should. Is it? No it's not. We deal with the hand we are dealt. We don't need to lie and be substance-free but we are going to have to embrace getting ourselves somewhat dirty.

[Firestorm49]

4. I agree with you.

It’s just that in my opinion, this is the election of our lifetime. There’s no time to quibble about someone’s confidentiality agreements, or listen to how they can raise their voice as to show a command position.

We need to defeat the guy in DC, and each and every time that we can point out his faults, blunders, and lies to the American public the more informed the voters will be. There’s no time for name calling anymore, it’s time to present exactly why we deserve the presidency.

[ibegurpard]

6. yes it is the election of our time

And you aren't going to win it by presenting the average American a list of policy papers.

[Firestorm49]

8. I think they need to be reminded daily

And what better format than a national debate.

[Firestorm49]

9. You know that the Republican party

is going to lie, cheat, rig and con the public any way that they can. Their practices have been on full display. Nows not the time to play nice. It’s showtime and nows the time to keep this scam of an administration exposed.

[murielm99]

7. I thought it was a brawl,

not a debate. We don't need that.

[thesquanderer]

10. re: "this was more of a personality event than a substantive debate"

to some extent yes, but also elections often turn at least as much on personality as on substance. Remember "who you'd rather get a beer with"?

[Steelrolled]

11. The debates are going the way of cable news, just people shouting at each other.

Is it any surprise? I guess this is what the "informed" people want.

[k2qb3]

12. Seems a lot of folks don't like debates where their candidate fails.

This is the point in every primary season where things turn nasty and we find out who can fight without dishonoring themself and who's too weak to stand.

For a whole host of reasons it's better if we coalesce around a candidate early and it's time to narrow the field.

I say that even knowing a crowded field is good for my choice.