State of the Dem Race Today

As of this moment, if I had to place a wager I believe Bernie Sanders is going to be the Democratic nominee. But I wouldn’t necessarily bet much—the race is just too volatile.

There are a batch of polls out showing the Three Bs—Bernie, Biden, and Buttigieg—virtually tied in Iowa and New Hampshire. Keep in mind two implications of this: first, a large portion of the Democratic primary electorate—maybe half or more—is undecided, and second, between undecided Democrats and the share of votes going to the rest of the field, Biden is an extremely weak front-runner. A few more senior moments in his campaign and the race might cascade rapidly to Bernie, who has the most money to go the distance, or Buttigieg, who has the kind of fresh face Democrats often fall for—maybe too fresh a face:

Meanwhile, leave it to the Babylon Bee—America’s newspaper of record—to get to the effectual truth of things:

Then there’s this wild card:

This kind of spending from billionaire vanity candidates is sure to go down just dandy with a party base for whom billionaire-hating is a core principle at the moment. On the other hand, if the Democratic field is in disarray by Super Tuesday, Bloomberg in particular might turn in a good showing, scrambling things further. You can just imagine what Bernie will say.

The Democratic Party establishment is starting to freak about Berniemania. AP reports today:

Increasingly alarmed that Bernie Sanders could become their party’s presidential nominee, establishment-minded Democrats are warning primary voters that the self-described democratic socialist would struggle to defeat President Donald Trump and hurt the party’s chances in premier House, Senate and governors’ races. . .

The ranks of the concerned include many Democrats tasked with preserving the party’s majority in the House and expanding its minority in the Senate and governors’ mansions across the country. . .

Marshall Matz, who was a policy adviser for Sen. George McGovern’s failed 1972 bid for president, was more direct in his warning for Democrats. If they nominate Sanders, he said, the party should expect the same landslide loss that McGovern suffered decades ago to President Richard Nixon.

“I think he would not just lose but would lose badly — and I don’t think the country can afford that,” Matz said, noting that McGovern generated large crowds and enthusiasm just as Sanders has. Indeed, on the ground in Iowa, there are signs that Sanders is in a strong position as caucus day approaches.

Finally, the increasingly interesting Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone has one of those old-fashioned long-form campaign chronicles up right now that has some delicious detail in it, such as:

Just a few weeks out of votes in Iowa (February 3^rd) and New Hampshire (February 11^th), the Democratic Party seems to be in chaos. A year-long process traditionally used to hone consensus among donors and media has achieved the opposite. . . Democrats have test-driven an incredible 29 candidates in a calendar year to get to a place where neither voters nor party officials seem close to agreeing on who might be the best choice to take on Donald Trump.

This has led to a spate of news stories about “anxiety” from donors, pundits, and strategists, who complain the bitter primary fight is “wasting valuable time” the party could be using to make a case against Trump. Whispers about a brokered conventionhave become more common in campaign analyses. . .

Anyone who can thread the needle between business-friendly Neera Tanden Democrats and Bernie’s “Let’s chainsaw the arms off billionaires today” platform probably deserves to be president. For much of last year, Warren looked poised to pull it off. However, her campaign began stumbling in November. . .

It’s hard to know if the media turnabout on Warren reflects real concerns below the surface from party sources and donors about her general election prospects, or whether it’s something even dumber, like reporters just being froggy because she won’t keep the click-producing food fight alive with Buttigieg. . .

Any veteran campaign reporter watching Buttigieg live for the first time will feel like an NBA scout seeing a 13 year-old in AAU ball draining 35-footers. Either this politician spent his childhood practicing president-speak in front of a mirror, or he was born with the same mutant gene for projecting warmth and ideological vagueness carried by other iconic Democrats. . .

Excuse me while I nip off to the store to stock up on more popcorn.