I did not watch it, but found both the NYT and Washington post ambivalent on who might have won. The same for other things I read, except, where bias the normal bias spoke. Here is a typical article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...930a7b7_story.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_headlines
NYT endorsed Hillary, and Washington Post has been notoriously pro-Hillary from the start; these sources are pretty much the diametric opposite of neutrality. They probably wouldn't report a Sanders win even if Hillary herself came out and admitted it.
Risking Sanders would be a bad choice. Admittedly Clinton is not a very appetizing candidate, but at least she does not want to do things that would harm the vital functions of the country.
An opinion which is not borne out in the practice of other first world countries.
I watched enough of the debate to see the clear distinction between the two candidates. One comes across as calculating while the other sells passion. But, both twist the truth to suit their particular agenda...
It really comes down to what you like. Do you like a Wall Street basher who proposes fundamentally altering the way things are done in the USA, or a competent game-manager who will pretty much follow the Obama game plan?
I'm giving the nod to Hillary simply because she is the pragmatic, realist. Bernie is the populist selling unrealistic crap to a bunch of idealists.
Hillary is experienced (as his Bernie; actually look at his Senatorial record and legislation he's sponsored/cosponsored that passed all chambers),
not competent, suffers from chronic poor judgment (Libya, e-mail scandal, blanket surveillance voting, Iraq vote, taking dirty money, or money that has the appearance of corruption) and is fundamentally corrupt per her donors. Obama's 'game plan' hasn't been especially inspiring or effective either. You may disagree with Sanders' positions, but there is no disagreeing with the fact that Wall Street does in fact deserve severe criticisms outside of partisan disingenuity.
Further, for all the talk about Hillary being a realist, there are two things to keep in mind:
#1: No Dem president, Hillary or Bernie, will be able to pass any kind of substantive progressive legislation while the Republicans control the Senate and House, no matter how 'moderate' they may be; something Bernie has pointed out repeatedly. Obama has proven this, and as you've yourself admitted, she would largely represent a continuity of his primarily status quo policy.
#2: If the Dems do take the Senate and House as they'll need to in order to meaningfully advance their agenda, Bernie's legislation would get passed about as readily as Clinton's: if he were president, then used the bully pulpit and the momentum of his victory to award the Democratic Party ultimate power, there is no way it would conspire against him in the face of such a definitive mandate.
In this election you are going to have to read between the lines. With Americans so divided down the middle, whoever is president is going to have to work with the other party and make compromises. Yes, neither party gets everything they want, but both parties come out of negotiations with something..... Which is why Hillary would be a better choice than Bernie...... Which is also why Trump would be a better choice than Cruz. Bernie and Cruz are both playing to their parties' extremes. While I would not be crazy about a Clinton presidency, it really doesn't bother me as much as a Sanders presidency. This is also why, although I am well known on this board for bashing Trump, I would not be that upset by a Trump presidency either. Trump is a negotiator, and I am sure that, just like Reagan did, he would work with Democrats to unity the country, and get it moving. IMHO, it's all about pragmatism. Sure, you can have Cruz or Sanders as president, but what then? Nothing will get done, as both sides will dig in. That is not what is best for America. At this time in our history, both sides are going to have to make compromises in order to get anything done. My vote is still going to be for Gary Johnson, but Trump or Hillary I can live with, although I would really have to hold my nose. Damn, would I ever have to hold my nose. LOL.
As above I honestly don't believe there can be compromise with the Republicans. Why would Hillary be any more able to work with them than Obama who holds pretty much the same positions? Again, keep in mind that one of the primary pillars of Clinton's campaign is regime continuity.
In the end though, this thread is not about who you think would be the better president, but who won the debate, and that in my view, and in a view of seemingly general consensus, was Bernie.
