I didn't get to watch the Democratic debates last week, and I might not have done so even if I hadn't been working. I get too damn angry.

But I read tons about the coverage, and cheered retroactively when Joaquin Castro called out Beto O'Rourke for being an empty suit and when Kamala Harris went after Joe Biden for being a big fat phony. And I cheered louder when both the Republican-loving centrists responded by doubling down on their bullshit.

And yet, to me at least, the only important thing about the debates was: would they change people's minds?

Well, FiveThirtyEight did some polling on that very subject through Morning Consult, and I'm using their article as the foundation for this list: Three Winners, Three Losers, Three Meh.

So, beginning with the obvious:

WINNER #1: KAMALA HARRIS

Well, duh. Harris's campaign was suffering a pretty significant failure to launch. Harris has serious issues- her career as a prosecutor and attorney general protecting crooked cops and upholding wrongful convictions, attacking sex workers and transgender people, and being such a ruthless drug warrior that all her Republican opponents in California RAN TO HER LEFT. But the biggest issue is her comparative lack of traction with black voters, whose single biggest priority in choosing a candidate is that mythical creature, "electability". More on that point in a bit.

Harris went into the debate knowing she had to go big to break out of the second digits- and she did. She realized something few candidates understood, but which Reagan and Trump used to their advantage: breaking debate rules never hurts the person doing it. She went straight for Biden's jugular, putting him on the defensive for much of the night. When she wasn't on Biden, she was presenting her case, getting her full message out and daring the moderators to do anything about it.

As a result, according to Morning Consult, Harris's support DOUBLED after the debate, effectively tying her with Sanders for second place behind Biden. She's now firmly established as a top-tier candidate. She used the moment to make herself look more electable... and Biden much less electable.

WINNER #2: JOAQUIN CASTRO

Speaking of failure to launch... Joaquin Castro probably wishes he'd run for Senate in 2018. If he had, he'd probably be in the top tier right now himself. Instead, his staying on the sidelines and remaining virtually unknown outside Texas (and not especially loved even here in Texas) plus his comparatively late launch dropped him square in the 1% pack.

Until the first debate, where he provided the moment of the evening by tearing into Beto O'Rourke on immigration- the closest thing O'Rourke has to a signature issue. Castro utterly destroyed O'Rourke's credibility on the issue, and at the same time demonstrated that, unlike a certain three-term Congressman, he actually knew the laws. It wasn't enough to put him in the top tier, but his performance probably keeps him on the stage for the next debates.

WINNER #3: MICHAEL BENNETT

No, he wasn't in either debate last week.

Yes, he's still below 1% support in the polls. 

But he more than doubled his support according to Morning Consult, and much of his competition in the sub-1% candidates discredited themselves in the debates. The door has opened a crack, if he can lever it open wider to get his chance in the next round of debates. If he qualifies for the debates, he'll go in without the baggage of a poor performance in the first debate. By not getting bloodied, he counts as a winner here.

LOSER #1: ELIZABETH WARREN

Yeah, this is the real controversial one. Warren was the undisputed winner of the Wednesday night debate. She demonstrated her policy chops, her stump skills, and her (dare I say it?) presidential mien. According to Morning Consult, out of twenty debaters, she is the only one whose unfavorable rating went DOWN after her debate performance. And according to Huffington Post / YouGov, she had the highest overall gains in favorability and "electability" of any candidate in the debate. So why do I call her the loser?

Because her gains were almost totally wiped out by Harris's performance the following night, that's why.

The thing about "favorable" and "unfavorable" in polling is this: you can really, really like Candidate X and still vote for Candidate Y instead. 

Warren had the deep misfortune to be put on the first night, which turned out to be the undisputed "undercard" ticket. Her performance, solid as it was, was forgotten because a new circus came along the next day, with bigger names, and left something else as the last thought in potential voters' minds. As a result, despite what by all reports was an epic debate performance, Warren's actual support in the fundamental question- who would you pick for the Democratic nominee for President?- barely rose at all. In fact, Harris passed her by. 

The question for Warren is: can she find another opportunity to shine, one where she won't get overshadowed almost instantly? Stay tuned...

LOSER #2: JOE BIDEN

Obviously. 

When Harris went after Biden on his record on racial issues, not only did Biden not apologize or explain, he doubled down on his record. And that record doesn't really bear close examination. Older voters of color will tend to give him a pass, not so much because he was Obama's VP but rather because they're comparing Biden to the other options from forty years ago. Even if he didn't walk the walk, he talked the talk, and that was about all they could expect back then. 

But times have changed, and for the most part Biden hasn't. He's still at best a clueless bungler- as witness his response to one of Chuck Todd's idiotic group questions, when he said his first priority once he was in the White House would be "defeating Trump". (News flash: if Biden ever makes it into the Oval Office again, Trump will already have been defeated.) 

Again, I didn't watch the debate, but by all reports Biden's sole strategy was to hammer on "beat Trump, beat Trump", and avoid any substantative talk about what Biden would actually do. As a result, Joe came off as a befuddled old man without substance whose only rationale for the nomination boils down to, "Because it's my turn now."

The sad thing is, that often works in the Democratic Party... and every time Dems obey it, they lose. 

Biden's still the leader for the moment, but his support dropped by almost one-quarter after the debate... and right now he's still on the stump explaining why he was right and Harris is wrong. If we're lucky, the self-destruct machine that killed Biden's first two runs for president is full steam ahead.

LOSER #3: BETO O'ROURKE

He was white. He was male. Hispanics loved him. He almost unseated an ultra-conservative Republican in a red state. And he was the most successful fundraiser of 2018. So naturally he was expected to be a top Democratic contender in 2020.

Unfortunately for him, the Wednesday debate showed the world that his 2018 achievements weren't so much due to his own skills or positions as they were to hatred of Ted Cruz. Far from being a wunderkind, he turned out to be an empty suit with only two platform planks: "stop Donald Trump" and "make nice with the other Republicans". 

And Joe Biden's already sewn up that path, if it exists. 

After Castro destroyed him Wednesday night, O'Rourke's support crumbled. He's gone from second tier down into the 1% pack, and the odds are he won't climb back out again. In fact, if he abandons his presidential run and declares for US Senate against John Cornyn, he might not even win the nomination- a couple of strong Democrats are already in that race. 

It's a long time until Iowa votes, but the odds are, O'Rourke's shooting star has flamed out.

MEH #1: BERNIE SANDERS

By all reports, Sanders was just kind of there on the state Thursday night. He contributed a few sound bites, he declared his opposition to private health insurance (a position this writer shares, by the way), and... that's about it. He didn't do much attacking, and nobody much attacked him. Meanwhile, Warren and Harris were having their moments. 

As a result, Sanders is more or less where he was before the debates- in a close race for second behind Biden. He'll have to do a lot better if and when he and Warren are on the same stage... because 16% isn't going to win any nomination.

MEH #2: PETE BUTTIGIEG

Buttigieg turned in a reasonable performance in the debate... except that his big moment was admitting his complete and total failure in race relations as a small-city mayor. He was given all the attention any top-tier candidate could ask for, and he failed to convert it into gains- to the extent that, after Thursday night, his support was actually slightly lower than before Wednesday night. Polls show he's seen as a bit more likeable after the debates... but apparently not more electable. 

And meanwhile, the unrest in his city continues to build... and Pete continues to be without answers.

MEH #3: THE REST OF THE PACK

Joaquin Castro was the only 1%er to break out in any way. The rest of the also-rans stayed right where they were. Eric Swalwell got a moment to demand more attention to climate change. Andrew Yang got to complain the next day that his microphone didn't work. Marianne Williamson became Twitter's favorite punching bag for a day. Hickenlooper tried to persuade Democrats that they should become Republican-lite. And- to no great surprise- nobody much cared. 

Castro might make the case that the also-rans deserved time on the stage, but the others confirmed that they DON'T. Experience isn't enough. Ideas aren't enough. The simple fact is, if you're running for president, you have to bring a substantial pre-existing support base with you. 

"Electability" is a myth... but Democratic base voters sure as hell believe in it. You have to give them a damn good reason to think you can win in the general election before they'll even consider you. Most of the people on the debate stages failed to do that... and, as a result, their support remains at 1% or lower, where it will likely remain until they drop out.

SUPER BONUS LOSER: CHUCK TODD

Seriously. The man should never be allowed to moderate anything ever again. How he retains a job as the boss of NBC News's political coverage is an eternal mystery.

The Gander Serves His Own Sauce

Well, for once here's a senator who deserves to win this year's election.

Using a scheduled midmorning speech on the Senate floor, Bennet will propose a package of bills that would cut a broad swath across a set of practices and procedures that have become notorious symbols of a gridlocked Capitol.

He will propose eliminating anonymous holds, banning private-sector earmarks, freezing pay and budgets for members of Congress, and barring lawmakers from lobbying for life.

Michael Bennet was appointed to the Senate to fill a vacancy left as part of Obama's cabinet selections. He's facing a very tough race come November- in fact the smart money shows him losing, rather handily, to pretty much any Republican.

But Bennet deserves better- and he's working hard to solidify the Democratic base in a battleground state. He's the senator who drafted the letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid demanding that a government-run public insurance option be added to the health care reform bill through reconciliation- an effort which, as of today, picked up its 33rd supporter, not counting Harry Reid himself.

And now he's proposing changes to move the Senate away from its current state of dysfunction.

* Bennet proposes a time limit on filibusters, after which the threshhold for cutting off debate drops to 55 instead of 60.
* Bennet proposes eliminating the current practice of allowing a single Senator to anonymously place a hold on the confirmation of people nominated by the President for office.
* He'd also ban lawmakers of any sort from lobbying for life- and prohibit Congressional staffers from lobbying for at least six years.
* In addition to all that, he proposes curtailing earmarks for the private sector, freezing Congressional salaries and staff budgets, and imposing strict ethics regulations on the use of private charter jets for Congressional travel.

Every last one of these things is a good idea. Bennet doesn't get rid of the filibuster entirely- and considering the Democrats are currently on the frog-march for minorities in both houses, that might be a good thing- but he does pull its teeth quite a bit.

Unfortunately, it's highly unlikely that any of these reforms will actually pass. Senate rules require 67 votes, not 51 or 60, to be changed. The "nuclear option" threatened by Republicans in 2005 and murmured about now by Democrats would require a simple majority, but couldn't be used to reform filibusters- only to destroy the practice altogether. This is really a shame, because every one of Bennet's reforms needs doing- and badly- if we want a functional federal government.

I'm going to think long and hard about sending a check to Bennet for his election campaign. This is the sort of thing that needs to be encouraged- bucking against the system when it fails, rather than upholding the system over the people it was designed to serve. People who tilt at windmills deserve a reward.