How many Democrats does it take to change a lightbulb?

The answer, obviously, is just one but they must be certain they can change the lightbulb come 2020 and that’s why they need a year-long nomination process and 12 primary debates, moderated according to strict time controls, with candidates drawn from lots in a live CNN draw, and the whole thing aired on the same “partner” network, which starts coverage about 18 hours before the debate begins, with suitable countdown clocks, choirs, speeches, pre-debate rituals, introductions, handshakes, honour guards, presentation of colours, anthems and then, before anybody can actually speak, another quick message from our sponsors…

That’s right. The Democrats were back and, lord, how they were back! It was the second of their epic, numbing, over-engineered debates, again split over two nights because nothing says “democratic process” like a dozen or more people who think they have all the answers yet lack enough self-awareness to know they are most certainly not the answer.

This time, the chaotic atmosphere of the first debate was largely curtailed by new rules designed to stop candidates interrupting or, depending on your point of view, injecting a little energy into the whole shebang. Yet what it lacked in fizz it made up for in focus. The adjusted format made for more engagement, though, notably, the rules didn’t stop Elizabeth Warren from leaping into every exchange with more bubble than Boris ballyhooing a battleship. Perhaps her team has realised enthusiasm polls well. Certainly, it was less annoying than it sounds when written down. Warren was up for a fight and that’s no bad thing if you support her candidacy.

What did we learn? The first night of debate showed that Warren has a surprising amount of momentum and is emerging as a serious challenger to Biden. It speaks volumes about how a less forceful personality with a clever plan can outmanoeuvre more personable candidates who are badly managed. If the more progressive wing of the party is to really field the candidate, it looks more likely it will be her rather than Bernie Sanders whose schtick must surely be wearing thin. His shouting about revolution deservedly earned some mockery from John Hickenlooper, who at one point threw up his arms in crude imitation of the Senator from Vermont. Warren, meanwhile, was agile enough to turn the attacks of moderates back on them. “I don’t know why anyone goes through the trouble of running for president to tell us what we can’t do and what we shouldn’t fight for,” she said, rightly to applause. It was the kind of adroit response that Biden should fear.

It’s a sign of the first night’s irrelevance that the big winner was Oprah’s spiritual advisor and author of “A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles”. It proves again that, at this stage, we’re still looking at character and delivery, rather than firm policies. Marianne Williamson did her presidential run/book tour no harm by pushing at the envelope of what’s expected in these debates, stealing a trick from Trump by turning the whole event distinctly “meta”. She condemned the process and her fellow contenders who she accused of taking corporate money, making their words on political morality amount to “yada yada yada”. Dumb? Undoubtedly. Effective? In TV terms: yes.

The losers of the first night weren’t so much losers as candidates whose time is simply refusing to come. Again, Beto O’Rourke underlined why somebody close to him needs to convince him to help Democrats by running for the Senate. His strange stop-start speech patterns sound increasingly odd among better speakers. He’s young. He can learn. He should learn. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, meanwhile, doesn’t need to learn. He is already one of the better speakers but the fact that his candidacy still hasn’t taken off shows where the line needs to be drawn. He’s another who should seek higher office before running again for the presidency.

As for the rest: when it comes for the time for that line to be drawn, most will be well under it.

If the first night was a little lacklustre it was because the fireworks had been saved for the second night for Joe Biden’s appearance, though the line-up was also stronger across the board. Under challenges from his rivals, Biden certainly pushed back more than he did previously, better around healthcare than immigration but, in both cases, seeking a more conservative line: build on Obamacare and maintain distinctions between lawful and unlawful migration.

Much of the language was about combating what candidates saw as “Republican talking points” but few had real answers to the more difficult problems. “Open borders” might well be the way that Trump wants immigration framed but all candidates struggled to reconcile the message written at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty with legal arguments that define what having a border actually means.

In the second hour, the topic moved to criminal justice reform and, again, Biden was on the backfoot. Cory Booker looked prepared, as perhaps he should. Biden’s attack lines had been leaked well ahead of the debate. He accused Biden of “dipping into the Kool-Aid and not knowing the flavour” which was precisely the kind of soundbite that audiences enjoy but says very little about the underlying argument.

The subject then briefly turned back to the topic of bussing with Kamala Harris denying she agreed with Biden’s position. Honestly, it does still look like she holds exactly the same position – that the federal government shouldn’t impose it – but her denial was entirely about distraction, again (and unfairly) suggesting that Biden had sided with segregationists. Biden didn’t pick that up, instead choosing to hit back with a prepared attack on the Senator from California’s record as Attorney General. The scores were probably even on each side. What wasn’t even, however, was what followed. Tulsi Gabbard’s most impactful moment of the evening and campaign was an attack on Harris, who looked flustered at a sustained assault on her record. It was brutal and very impressive. Next year, don’t be surprised if you see Gabbard’s name floated as the second name on the Democratic ticket.

How do you score it? Biden was better but still struggles with fluency. He badly confused his phone line with his website at the end but, after three hours, who wouldn’t? Unlike the other candidates, he still can’t escape his record which challengers continue to scour for evidence. Harris had a very poor night given expectations going into the debate. Her plans for medical insurance didn’t bear scrutiny by other candidates and she looked genuinely pained about Gabbard’s attacks. Booker was articulate, affable, had a good night but probably not enough to see his numbers soar. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand had some of the better quips but struggles to generalise from her rather narrow focus on being the candidate working for women. Andrew Yang, meanwhile, increasingly feels more like a gimmick, especially his plan for universal basic income, giving every American $12,000 a year. De Blasio was largely anonymous, as were the rest, including, most surprisingly Julian Castro. He’d emerged as one of the winners from the first debates but, apart from one good hit on Biden about learning from past experience, largely played a supporting role.

We have one more two-nighter scheduled for 12-13 of September but that depends on enough candidates meeting the criteria (at the time of writing, only seven have done so). It would benefit Democrats if they can keep it down to one night. Even if the outcome is still unclear, we’ve seen enough of the candidates to know who the nominee certainly won’t be. Yada yada yada…