Winners and losers of the eighth Democratic debate, according to Chris Cillizza

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
• Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)

Highlights of the New Hampshire Democratic Forum 3:53

(CNN) - The seven top Democratic presidential candidates met face-to-face on Friday night just days before the New Hampshire primary, a round-trip affair that talked about what's at stake in the nomination fight of 2020.

I watched the debate, took notes and tweeted. Next, my opinion about the best and the worst of what happened that night.

WINNERS

Pete Buttigieg: The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, entered the debate as the candidate with the greatest momentum in the race, and nothing that happened during the more than two hours at Saint Anselm College will change that dynamic. Buttigieg was in control most of the night, answering a question about whether he would have ordered an attack on Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani and, cleverly, leaning heavily on his own military service. Buttigieg also benefited from the fact that the other six people on stage seemed hardly interested in shooting him hard (and staying with them for more than a single line of applause). The toughest question of the night came from Linsey Davis of ABC, who pressured Buttigieg on the rise in arrests of black citizens during his time as mayor. But with a brief follow-up of Senator Elizabeth Warren, none of the other candidates pressed the case.

Amy Klobuchar: again and again, Klobuchar performs strong debate proceedings and ends with little to show in terms of votes and polls. Well, the Minnesota senator did it again Friday night. I think Klobuchar had the best moment of any candidate in the debate when he used a question about Michael Bloomberg's personal wealth to talk about his hard education. And his final statement (a compliment to the need for a return to empathy) was the best of its kind. Will it matter? He hasn't done it yet. But Klobuchar deserves credit for repeatedly trying his best.

Bernie Sanders: If Buttigieg had the most momentum in the debate, Sanders was right behind him. And by the same logic, there was very little in this debate that can take away support from the Vermont senator. While Sanders received some of the most moderate candidates in the field, he never faced any kind of contrast with Warren, who, in theory, is competing with him for the liberal wing. Again and again, from medical care to the environment and private prisons, Sanders embraced loudly and proudly his decidedly liberal views. And, judging by the results of Iowa and the New Hampshire polls, many Democratic voters like those opinions.

Michael Bloomberg: Sure, Warren and Klobuchar attacked the former mayor of New York City for their free spending on the race to date. But Bloomberg and his people were delighted that ABC moderators considered it appropriate to ask a question about their impact on the race in a debate where it was not even on stage. That Bloomberg was mentioned means that he is important, which is the first step (of many) towards a plausible path to nomination.

LOSERS

Joe Biden: Unlike Sanders and Buttigieg, the former vice president needed something in this debate to change his career. I'm not sure I got it. (Biden's best moment was his call to the audience to support fired Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman.) Biden received the message that he needed to be more forceful and more aggressive in the attack; he was both (although the attempts of forcefulness often seemed to me old cries). Biden began the debate (literally on the first question), recognizing that "I will probably get hit here" in reference to Tuesday's primary in New Hampshire. He repeatedly defended the "politics of the past" by insisting that he had done much good for the country in those years. Even if that is true, debates (and careers) are rarely won by focusing on the past.

Elizabeth Warren: Along with Buttigieg and Klobuchar, Warren is clearly one of the most skilled debaters in the field. And he was quite solid on Friday again, using a somewhat limited talk time (which was strange) to make his optimistic argument as to why his favorite liberal solutions are the right way to solve the country's problems. So why did it end up on the losing side? Because Warren finished a distant third behind Buttigieg and Sanders in Iowa, and most of the polls I've seen in New Hampshire have their third place again. Despite that position, she seemed completely reluctant to draw anything that was not the warmest contrast with the two favorites. Maybe Warren and his team know something I don't know about the New Hampshire electorate (it wouldn't be the first time that happens!), But it's hard for me to see her change her mind just by reiterating what her main points have been. throughout the campaign

Tom Steyer / Andrew Yang: They both seem very nice men. (I met Yang and I can attest to this). But none seemed to belong to that scenario. But none seemed to belong to that scenario. Steyer tried desperately to get into every debate the main candidates were having, but he found himself beaten repeatedly. Yang barely spoke. It was an unforgettable night for both.

Illumination: Was it only me who became obsessed with the fact that the faces of the candidates were well lit but their hands were basically in the dark? Just one strange thing, particularly for those candidates, (Bernie, I'm looking at you), who gestured with their hands (turned off).

Democratic Debate