As the Democratic Party's presidential wannabes pick up their chips and depart Sin City for hopefully greener pastures, their debate performance leaves behind a bad taste in the mouths of many Silver State voters.

Much has been written about the ersatz Nevada primary debate.  It has been described variously as a circular firing squad, a three-ring circus, and a vicious verbal food fight that, in the end, fed only the ambitions of the sitting president.  At the very least, the event proved to be a general embarrassment for everyone involved.

In its wake, speculation immediately began as to who won and who lost.  The mainstream media that thrive on conflict determined that the big "winner" overall was Elizabeth Warren, whose hard-hitting, unrelenting attacks on debate newcomer Michael Bloomberg sealed his fate as the biggest loser.  But Warren — perhaps trying to recover from her freefall in the latest polls — also managed to mean-spiritedly strike out at everyone else on the debate stage.  More than anyone, she set the stage for a wave of impolitic behavior, even from those candidates who in the past had at least seemed to come across as holier — rather than nastier — than thou.

But the vicious Vegas debate free-for-all was off and running, quickly morphing into yet another example of how Democrats hypocritically act out a form of behavior at harsh variance with their good-guy rhetoric.  God knows how often in the past we have had to endure their smug, virtue-signaling lectures on how important it is to uphold the democratic "process"; respect the rule of law; and conduct oneself in a tolerant, loving manner.  And how they have solemnly vowed to be the very opposite of their irreverent nemesis, Donald J. Trump.  Ironically, however, all six contentious contenders on the stage in Vegas came across as unlikely "leaders" to restore a sense of political harmony to our bitterly fractious country.

Much of the blame for the debate debacle must go to the feckless moderators from NBC/MSNBC, whose inability to set and enforce rules further enabled the general chaos.  I spent most of my life teaching public speaking and debate on the college level, where such disruptive behavior would never have been tolerated.  Yet after the debate was over, many self-styled critics congratulated the panel of moderators for essentially stepping back and letting the candidates have at it.  In point of fact, however, the evening's overall flop reflected badly on everyone concerned.

Among the distracting behaviors was the candidates' incessant hand-waving while their counterparts were answering questions.  The worst offender in that regard was Elizabeth Warren, who seems unable to function without engaging her restless arms in full play.  Whenever somebody else began to talk, her hand immediately shot up in protest and remained there intrusively until she was recognized.

Grade school teachers worth their salt would not permit such behavior to persist.  But given free rein to presume the spotlight, Warren quickly became an equal-opportunity destroyer.  Perhaps in a bid to improve her faltering poll numbers, Pocahontas decided to do a hatchet job on everyone else on the debate stage, letting the Vegas chips fall where they may — even if, down the campaign trail, her attacks destroy the party's chances for victory.

Surely the Massachusetts senator understood this possibility.  Yet Warren — who has a penchant for evasion and downright lying — gleefully trashed every one of her opponents to one extent or another.  To worsen matters, on the day after the debate, she had the righteous gall to insist that Democrats should — and would — come together to defeat Donald Trump.

With a debate stage set for retribution, the three presumed top contenders for the nomination went for one another's jugulars, though it wasn't clear from Bloomberg's performance that the outrageously wealthy former mayor of the Big Apple had any blood in him to spill.  And while an indignantly feisty Bernie foamed at the mouth in defending his three houses — one of them described as a "summer camp" — he could barely keep pace with the all-around, rapid-fire accusations from Warren, propitiously situated between Sanders and Bloomberg, her arms sawing the air with accusatory glee.

A few steps away, Joe Biden looked as if he had unwittingly inherited the "deer in the headlights" mantle from Foggy Bottom's erstwhile Susan Rice.  In the heightened hubbub of the Vegas debate, it became clearer than ever that Biden had reverted to his image prior to being tapped as Obama's running mate: Crazy (if Likeable!) Old Uncle Joe in the Attic, a tad pitiful in his attempt to presume relevancy by stammering often irrelevant observations into ongoing conversations.  Overall, one got the feeling that perhaps this unsteady holdover from the past is not quite fit to lead us into the future.

Once the bitter pills began bouncing on the debate floor, those down the line leapt into the abyss, and the much anticipated event disintegrated.  For the candidates — perhaps all except Warren — it couldn't end soon enough.

By now, the Democrat hopefuls have rounded up their gear and hangers-on and are heading elsewhere, hoping for better — and better financed — primaries ahead.  In the ensuing weeks, they may forget about their blunders in the unhappy Nevada debate.  But I wouldn't bet on it.

There is a lesson to be learned from the experience.  Contrary to the old saying that "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas," the embarrassed wannabes understand that they have already been exposed.  They should also now realize that if their performance level does not rise, the same absent and despised Orange Man who won the Las Vegas debate will once again win the White House.

Image: NBC News via YouTube.