Although I agree with a number of your assessments, I don't know, I think it's too early to be so dispirited while there are too many people on stage.
I have this thing against early pronouncements based on very early debates. One of Obama's earliest debate performances had people pronouncing him basically out of the race and none of the major network debate moderators took Trump seriously as a candidate and therefore, very few asked him any seriously probing questions.
Elizabeth Warren has given the most consistently strongest debate performances overall so far, but again, while there are a dozens of other candidates, many candidates are not even being asked probing questions about their background and history. Although I suspect no one really takes Williamson seriously (at least, I hope not since her ideas on vaccinations and HIV are downright dangerous), Gabbard has the potential to be another Jill Stein, and her second debate on the stage, they keep asking her the same questions, no different from her first time on the debate stage. While Gabbard is up there, why not ask her some serious questions about her record, her known associations and statements that she has made.
Until the herd is thinned, I can't truly gain much insight from these debates, other than that Warren has a "plan for that".