So, I think there are at least three ways to evaluate the debate, and I’m not really sure which one is right:
- Way No. 1: It wasn't a game-changer. The first 30-45 minutes covered topics voters aren’t likely to be highly concerned about. Everyone was reasonably sharp. Not a lot of conflict. The whole thing was a bit overshadowed by impeachment developments.
- Way No. 2: Warren won. She got to talk a lot about policy subjects that are strengths of hers; she probably got the better of Sanders on the exchange over “can a woman win?” — although it was a strange exchange — and she was pretty sharp on electability. And she didn’t really take a lot of incoming fire on some of her potential weaknesses, like Medicare for All. Plus, she has tended to come out as the winner of these debates in our previous polls with Ipsos, so Democrats generally like her style in these things.
- Way No. 3: Biden “won,” because he’s the front-runner, he never took on any water despite frankly seeming a bit tired/sleepy at times, and he had some moments where he was more relatable than usual when talking about his family and so forth.
But would I be shocked if our polling with Ipsos showed that Sanders or Buttigieg or even Klobuchar had the best night instead? No, not really. So these aren’t terribly strong priors. I’m sure you can find hotter takes elsewhere.