The first CNN town hall in Nevada provided good news for Democratic voters hoping for strong, competent candidates who can take on Donald Trump: This field has a lot of them.

On Tuesday, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar fielded questions from Nevada voters and CNN anchors, and each took the opportunity to showcase their strengths. Sanders was as determined and single-minded as ever, a fiery voice for unwavering progressive views. Buttigieg led with optimism and unity (if not much in the way of specifics). Klobuchar did her hokey midwestern thing that probably read as more relatable outside the borders of Brooklyn -- and she powerfully illustrated her points with memorable anecdotes, emphasizing that her campaign is about people as much as it is issues.

It was a good showing all around, though no candidate had a perfect performance. And it provided a reminder to Democrats that, while there may be no singular savior at hand to rid the nation of Donald Trump, there are some fine people vying for the opportunity.

All three candidates were united in their disgust at former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's use of his vast wealth to support his campaign, each of them suggesting the billionaire is trying to buy the presidency.

And that's exactly what he's doing: He hasn't done the legwork of building support by door-knocking and stump-speeching, of spending month after grueling month on the trail. He's thrown a tiny fraction of his massive personal wealth at ad buys and rapid staff-ups. Good for the rest of the Democrats for drawing a hard line and saying that our democracy is too precious to be bought.

Though each candidate had their high points in the town hall, each also struggled at times on stage. Sanders, notably -- and troublingly -- reversed his earlier promise to release additional medical records, saying the letters he had already released from doctors would suffice. After his heart attack last year, that may give voters pause (and maybe, frankly, it should, especially after his press secretary went on CNN and bizarrely compared the push for medical transparency to questioning a candidate's viability to run for President based on their family lineage). He also wouldn't say whether he would accept financial support from Bloomberg or not -- a strangely noncommittal response from a typically bombastic candidate. And he again refused to be adequately accountable and actually do something about the bad behavior of his legions of fans, including recent attacks on members of the Nevada Culinary Union.

While Sanders said that he condemns any attacks, whether they come from his campaign or others, he didn't go far enough. He instead turned the attention to the attacks that his own campaign and wife have faced and asserted that 99.9% of his supporters are people who would not engage in such nastiness. This undoubtedly makes the sentiment of his condemnation feel disingenuous to anyone who has been on the receiving end of the Sanders mob. The Town Hall could have been an opportunity for Sanders to recognize there is a real problem and draw a firm line.

But at least Sanders came with his usual passion and sense of emergency -- because we are indeed in a state of emergency.

Buttigieg, though typically engaging, seems to think things are mostly fine, and so there's no need to push too hard or too fast. As usual, he spoke primarily in platitudes, not policy specifics -- a style that wasn't helped by questions that were more atmospheric than specific.

Klobuchar, like Buttigieg, doesn't come in hard with the specifics; her message, instead, is that she is a flyover state woman who knows what Real Americans need and that she feels your pain. To her credit, she executes it well. What she doesn't do, though, is paint any particular vision for how she would move the nation forward, beyond beating Donald Trump. Perhaps she's banking that for most Democratic voters, that's enough.

None of the candidates on stage Tuesday night were flawless, and Democrats, unfortunately, tend to look for once-in-a-generation political talents -- Bill Clinton, Barack Obama -- to win presidential races. That's just not on offer this time around. But what is on offer might be more interesting: A set of solid candidates who each bring notably different plans and ideas about what Americans want, what Americans need, and what they would do in office. The distinctions are more than stylistic; they should force every voter to ask which policies they think are the best ones. They should force every voter to assess what matters to them in a candidate.

Is it important to elect someone who will uphold norms of democracy and transparency, even when inconvenient, or is it OK to vote for someone who will break long-held norms if it suits politically progressive aims? Is it more important to have progressive policy goals, or to have a plan to implement them? Is it better to move a little slower and moderate your ambitions to make sure that the plans work and you don't alienate more middle-of-the-road voters? Or is our country so profoundly unequal, polarized and broken that only significant, systemic change will make a difference?

These are not always the questions up for debate in a presidential primary. Voters have a remarkable opportunity this time around to weigh them carefully -- and nominate a candidate accordingly.