So what happened at La Guerre à Paris?

I wanted to share my thoughts on the debate from my moderator's vantage point, looking through two prisms:  Who did well, and what it means for the caucus.

It was quite something to be that close to the action, and the experience was so fulfilling. (Yes, I wish I had more time, but my expectations were low and they were met. I tried to make the best of my time and just be me.)

Having said that, I have never seen anyone behave as if it was an imposition on his time to be there as Michael Bloomberg did. It wasn’t just that he seemed as if he didn’t want to be on stage with THOSE PLEBES. He was dismissive and condescending, and especially on the NDA issue, he helped give it legs (with an assist from Elizabeth Warren).

One caveat on that and everything I will say about performance: I know from my experience on TV that things can seem different – either more OR less exaggerated – from the moderator’s chair than they do to the TV viewer. So I am not sure how anyone came across – this is what I saw – and I ALWAYS say that nobody knows nuthin’ yet about the electoral impact, if it changes voters’ minds or deepens attachments.

(Sidenote: I did enjoy how both Joe Biden and Warren (!) engaged with Bloomberg during the breaks. Both sets of chats looked remarkably friendly.)

I actually thought all of the non-Bloomberg candidates did well – if you are talking about debate performance. And whether or not you liked the subject matter, at least they were allowed to debate. But six candidates still make it difficult and having almost as many moderators as candidates was not conducive to a good flow, but letting the Democrats go without interruption at times made it, you know, an actual debate, albeit a nasty one and often quite personal rather than policy-focused.

I thought Warren had the best performance out of the quintet. She knows she needs to revive her flagging campaign, and she came loaded for bear, with sharp, surgical incisions on Bloomberg -- and others. I think she is generally a superb debate performer, but she was at another level last night. Her prosecution of the NDA assault on Bloomberg was masterful.

I also thought Bernie Sanders benefited from the attacks on Bloomberg, and he joined in the pile-on. One thing people don’t realize about Sanders – and you could see it up close in his faces such as his feigned horror at criticism of him – is how much he loves doing this. He is caricatured as a curmudgeon and constantly cranky, but he is a happy warrior who loves the hurly burly – and he is always, always Bernie, just at different volume levels. And he clearly is relishing being a frontrunner for the first time – he is confident, comfortable and energized. If he is hiding a health problem, seems to me it might be that he is over caffeinated!

Former Vice President Joe Biden, his usual tics and all, had one of his better sustained debate performances. He was turbocharged and focused, clearly aware that he needs to stop the bleeding here or he will bleed out soon. With Bloomberg and Bernie (to a lesser extent) trying to frame the race as between them going forward, Biden’s “Hey wait a minute, I ain’t dead yet” performance was impressive. He joined the Warren/Sanders pile-on with Bloomberg, even attacking Bernie in his closing statement on immigration, as if he had forgotten to do it earlier in the debate. You don’t see that too often.

The tension between Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar was palpable on stage, especially as he ratcheted up his attacks on her and she reciprocated. He clearly annoys the bejesus out of her. I think she is very skilled at leavening her attacks with humor while he is very cool (in delivering and absorbing attacks) for a hot medium. I thought they both did well.

So what does it all mean? I default to: I don’t know. For the caucus, I think Sanders did nothing to slow his momentum, and all of the others did nothing to step out of the second to sixth muddle. It seems to me that Warren, who has an organization here, may have reactivated her supporters while Klobuchar, whose organization was erected here almost overnight, may not have enough to do well. The real question outside of whether Sanders could actually lose here (doubtful) is if Biden can get second. If he doesn’t, and if he finishes fourth or fifth (maybe even third), I don’t see how he recovers. Don’t forget Buttigieg’s entire Nevada campaign has been built on the premise he does well in Iowa and New Hampshire and then can turn the key on a very, very impressive machine. I would not be surprised at all if he got second.

And then there is the numbers question: Of the robust turnout so far – 75,000, which is not far from 2016 Caucus Day turnout – what percentage will that be of the final turnout? People here like to vote early (two-thirds sometimes) in regular elections, but there are so many new voters in the early voting data, that may indicate a large turnout Saturday, which would show enthusiasm in the Democratic electorate and probably be good for Sanders.

I don’t think Bloomberg should be counted out because he had a poor debate performance. A billion dollars can fix a lot of problems, although he may have caused some new ones by finally having to talk without a TV ad doing it for him. The ex-mayor actually must be hoping Sanders picks up more momentum, so the choice becomes starker for Democrats who think they must choose a non-Bernie candidate, a former Republican with lots of baggage, because they are so desperate to beat Trump.

If Sanders wins big here, he will be difficult to stop. But the race’s trajectory could change if Biden is The Comeback Kid, if Warren is The Comeback Kid, if Klobuchar gets in the high teens or better and if Buttigieg gets another second place or even third.

One thing is clear and it always has been: We will matter.