If past debates are any indication, the upcoming Republican debate will witness neither the civility nor the discussion of issues evident in Thursday’s Democratic Debate. Let’s first look at areas of agreement, then who won on issues of clash and finally how effective the moderators were.

The candidates agreed on the role the federal government should play in the public health crisis in Flint, MI, against privatization of the Veteran’s Administration and addressing racial injustice. In fact, there were more areas of agreement than disagreement, with the primary points of contention focusing on how to accomplish their goals, rather than what the goals should be.

Who is a true progressive? The tussle over who owns naming rights to the “progressive” label got mired down in examples and counter examples. It did give Clinton the opportunity to attack Sanders on his gun control votes, and make her veiled attempts to label him an idealist, but she was susceptible to her position changes and Iraq War vote. It was one of the more uninteresting and unproductive periods in the debate. Sanders could have redefined Clinton’s “cherry picking” metaphor as a case of the “apple not falling far from the tree” (of the establishment). The verdict? A draw.

Wall Street Influence. The first contentious issue was the question of Wall Street influence on the elections and candidates. Sanders brought up the familiar charge of Wall Street donations to Clinton’s campaign. As in previous exchanges, Clinton turned the charge into an attack on President Obama, who has also accepted Wall Street donations. She tried to shut down the issue by challenging Sanders’ tactic as an “artful smear,” but her efforts drew numerous boos from the audience (the only instance in the debate) rather than applause. When asked by moderator Chuck Todd if she would make transcripts of her paid speeches available, she replied she would “look into it.” She also cited the enormous amount Wall Street is spending trying to defeat her. CNN reality check reports Clinton has received more donations from Wall Street than any other candidate of both parties and the claim that Wall Street is spending lots of money trying to defeat her is false. This issue was a clear win for Sanders.

Foreign Policy. Clearly, Clinton has the advantage in foreign policy. Her experience as Secretary of State and her familiarity with issues around the globe stood out. She strengthened her case by reminding voters they are choosing a commander-in-chief as well as a leader. She was both confident and comfortable with her command of policy nuances. She also successfully implies Sanders is naïve in his approach to foreign policy. It probably didn’t help her with the base to cite Henry Kissinger’s praise of her administrative ability. Sanders missed the opportunity to remind the audience that Clinton helped set the “reset button” on Russia. A resounding win for Clinton.

Electability. Clinton’s Achilles’ heal continues to be the character issues that have followed her throughout her political career. Whether it’s Benghazi, classified emails or her enabling of her husband’s behavior, there is always an aura of scandal and distrust that hovers around her. She cleverly turns this into a positive aspect, noting that through these ordeals, she has been thoroughly vetted, while Sanders has not. Notwithstanding polls showing Sanders as a stronger candidate against almost any Republican opponent, Clinton supporters like to circulate comparisons of Sanders to George McGovern, who while popular with activists, was crushed in the general election. The verdict? A draw. Each candidate makes a reasonable case why he or she would be a stronger candidate in the general election.

Agenda for the future. Toward the end of the debate Chuck Todd asks:

“Let me start with you, Secretary Clinton, on this question. Obviously, President Obama got a lot of ambitious stuff done in his first year and a half. You’re going to have to make choices. And there’s a lot of heavy lifts. And he made choices. He did healthcare and it came at the expense, arguably, of immigration reform. Had he put immigration reform first, perhaps that gets done and healthcare doesn’t. So there are three big lifts that you’ve talked about: immigration, gun reform, climate change. What do you do first? Because you know the first one is the one you have the best shot at getting done.” Transcript Link

Clinton doesn’t answer the question, instead pivoting to at least ten different programs she wants to work on:

Well, I—I don’t accept that premise, Chuck. I think that we’ve got so much business we have to do. We’ve talked a lot tonight about what we’re against—we’re against income inequality. We’re against the abuses of powerful interests. We’re against a lot of things.

I’m for a lot of things. I don’t want to just stop bad things from happening, I want to start good things from happening. And I believe, if I’m so fortunate to get the nomination, I will begin to work immediately on putting together an agenda, beginning to talk with members of Congress and others about how we can push forward.

I want to have half a billion more solar panels deployed, the first four years. [applause]

I want to have enough clean energy to power every home the next four years. I want us to keep working on the Affordable Care Act, to get not only to 100 percent coverage, but bring down the costs of prescription drugs and out-of-pocket costs.

I want to move forward on paid family leave, on early childhood education, I want us to do more for small businesses. [applause]

Small businesses have to create most of the jobs, and we’re not creating and growing small businesses. I think, if you have a smart agenda, you pick the committees that you know have to begin to work on these various pieces—because that’s the way Congress is set up. You go through different committees, and you really make a big push in the beginning.

Immigration reform, economic revitalization with manufacturing, with infrastructure—we put it out there, and we begin to work on an ambitious, big, bold agenda that will actually produce the results that I want to see for our country. Transcript Link

While Clinton presents a laundry list of programs, Sanders, given the same question, boils it down to the root issue of campaign finance reform. His argument is that the success of all these programs (most of which both candidates agree on) rests on the fundamental issue of systemic change. In other words, he distills his response down to “first principles.” Sanders comes out on top on this issue.

This was one of the best-moderated debates we’ve seen, primarily because the moderators were largely absent. They asked substantive questions, tried to keep candidates to their time limits and stayed out of the way, allowing the candidates to engage with each other.

Overall, support for each candidate was more likely reinforced than changed. The true test of Sanders’ support across the Democratic party will be the next round of primaries. Anything less than clear victories in these contests will place her quest for the nomination in serious jeopardy.