It's always stunning to me how people can come away from a debate with such different impressions. Politico gamely tried to tease out some consensus from 27 expert opinions, but these folks weren't all watching the same debate. There was plenty of praise for Warren, Booker, and Castro, and yet Liz Mair called Warren "a total non-factor in the latter two-thirds of the debate...having looked shaky and uncomfortable at various points when she was on camera."

Other impressions are all over the map...

One expert: "Among those earning another look with confident and relatable performances: Julián Castro, Amy Klobuchar, Tim Ryan and Tulsi Gabbard."

Another: "This first encounter produced two likely goners: Gabbard (too strange for primetime) and Ryan (out of his element on the debate stage)."

One: "Several candidates—namely Castro, Inslee and, dare I say, de Blasio—showed they have a powerful, resonant vision that Democratic voters should take seriously."

Another: "Gov. Jay Inslee is making a mistake going all-in on climate change, Mayor Bill de Blasio came off as the “get off my lawn” guy"

One: "O’Rourke struck me as Obama-esque at certain points in the evening, and I suspect Democratic primary voters will bite on that if he maintains that approach."

Another: "The big loser: Beto O'Rourke. Voters don't like it when you talk over another candidate, and his answers often seemed tired and rehearsed."

Moral: Don't trust pundits--or yourself--to objectively analyze debate performance.

Shorter Moral: Have some damn humility