I thought that these days it was pretty accepted that they were already in serious decline (climate change?) and that the asteroid impact might just have hurried things along a little but no more than that.
I agree, it was probably a
very bad day* for a range of species that were probably struggling a bit anyway!
I think at the time of the asteroid extinction theory (the 1980s or thereabouts), there was no evidence of dinosaurs above the KT boundary. Since then I think a
few fossils and evidence has turned up, that
might show that the decline was pretty drawn out, with
some dinosaurs surviving. Well, not drawn out in geological times, but hundreds of thousands of years after the asteroid.
There has been a lot of work trying to tie other extinctions to other asteroid impacts, but actually it seems extinction events and asteroid impacts aren't particularly correlated. It is possibly because it really depends what the asteroid hits. The Chicxulub hit is likely to have generated a massive amount of carbon dioxide because of the rock it hit. Hence after the nuclear winter there would have been a massive greenhouse effect. Great for really sorting out the men from the boys, species-wise. However other much bigger asteroids have hit different rock types and doing...meh
-----------------------------------------------
* The 'fact' about the Chicxulub strike that I most remember, is that it probably generated a Tsunami 100 metres high...however that was because it fell in shallow seas...if the asteroid has hit deep water it would have easily generated a Tsunami
4.6 kilometres tall