Donald Trump constantly complains that CNN is “fake news.” Today, he must think they’re his best friends.
Debates always tend to turn into purity tests. This favors outsider candidates with skimpy records over establishment figures with much lengthier resumes. The CNN moderators made this worse by deliberately asking questions that were intended to maximize conflict. I suppose it made for more interesting TV, but I don’t think it really helped anyone identify the person who is best positioned to beat Trump and run the country, which is the ultimate point of the exercise from the Democrats’ point of view.
The format and the questioning also leave the casual viewer with the impression that the candidates disagree with each other to a greater extent than they actually do. Immigration is a perfect example. Whether illegal entry is a civil or a criminal offense is, as far as I can tell, a very minor matter in a much larger picture, but the fringe candidates and the moderators emphasized it because it gave them an opportunity to preen and feel important.
As to the performances, Booker probably won just by looking competent and taking the least amount of fire from the others. Harris is clearly more comfortable dealing with identity issues than policy specifics. Biden was better, but some of his attacks on Harris and Booker were pretty inept, and he still looked older and less forceful than some of the others. Tulsi Gabbard probably scored more points than anyone. The question is, in the long run (or even next week), who cares? You don’t govern with zingers.