Up until a week ago, she was polling in the single digits in New Hampshire. She received nearly 20 percent of the vote. Maybe it’s an outlier, but she’s going to be getting more positive media attention over the next few days than most of the sum total of also-ran coverage over the last six months. As the votes start…

(Also, it is kind of difficult to imagine a scenario where Warren is not viable after Super Tuesday but Klobuchar somehow is?)

The best explanation for Warren is a combination of misogynistic double standard, and the fact that she had a much tougher road to hoe, because the set of voters she was courting is a much more difficult-to-please set than Bernie’s crowd is.

Obviously, it won’t be a major surprise if she were to endorse Sanders. I just suspect that she won’t. In the end, Warren has spent the last several weeks trying to paint herself as the “unity” candidate.

That wasn’t a criticism of Buttigieg. It was a criticism of everybody else. He’s quite plainly a very skilled politician. He’s super polished and (short of useful, practical experience) he’s got basically everything the establishment Democrat wants in a candidate. He’s really bright. He’s ambitious. He’s multilingual.…

The “centrist” candidates are now talking about healthcare reform, climate change, college tuition reform, immigration reform, and paid family medical leave.

The easiest answer to that question is that she laid low. I was very vocal about my thoughts that Harris was in the best position to be the nominee, but what she learned and what Warren has learned is that a woman’s margin for error in this race is next to nonexistent. Harris tried to take down Biden in June. By…

Warren is very popular among white, college-educated progressive voters over 30 and under 50. I think what we/they are learning right now is that when you’re a white, college-educated progressive voter between 30 and 50, you likely have a non-representative perspective on the Democratic electorate.

I think the reality is that Clinton actually wasn’t terrible as a candidate. I think Clinton was frustratingly hesitant and cagey and defiant in the face of criticism, but I think all of that added up to her actually being really good at this.

The last poll from Nevada was a month ago. Warren was a fairly distant third, and Steyer was coming on strong. That was before, obviously, a disappointing finish in Iowa and a, frankly, catastrophically bad showing in New Hampshire. It also doesn’t take into account the negative news story from last week about her…

But that’s the point. Too much of Sanders’s support last time around was the anti-Clinton vote. This time around, he’s a less attractive option. The guy beat Hillary Clinton by 22 points in New Hampshire four years ago. This time around 3/4 of the New Hampshire electorate rejected his candidacy.

This is not a rational take. Obama did not run as a populist. He used some of the language of populism, but he didn’t run a campaign based on weaponizing the populous’s frustrations.

I don’t feel like that’s a very strong argument. Warren has absolutely been harmed by a misogynist double standard, but she’s also not a very skilled campaigner or politician. Clinton never got nearly as much credit for her skills as a politician as she deserved, but Clinton was way better at this than Warren.

There haven’t been two elections. There’s been one election and one caucus. A caucus is an undemocratic contest that makes participation prohibitively difficult. If Sanders supporters, who were big fans of the caucus system four years ago want to abandon that concept altogether, I welcome you to the party.

Something that hadn’t occurred to me until yesterday for some reason is that both Vermont and Massachusetts have Republican governors who would be in the position to fill either a Sanders or Warren vacancy with a Republican placeholder, so if either of them win the nomination and the presidency, even if Democrats won…

That’s just not a credible claim. Elizabeth Warren basically created a cabinet department. Name just one Bernie Sanders accomplishment that is even nearly as significant as that. 

That might end up being true in terms of raw numbers, but the population has increased by probably close to 5% since 2008. If you want to match the turnout of 2008, let alone surpass it, the primary count will need to be greater than 300,000, and with 97 percent of precincts reporting, CNN has 282,138. Much better…

On a side note, Lucy McBath (my House representative) just endorsed Bloomberg. 

I’m torn on this one. On the one hand, the only way Sanders has any chance of winning is with a crowded field. On the other hand, he beat Hillary Clinton by 22 points in New Hampshire last time around. He beat Pete Buttigieg by just over one point—which means that they tied the delegate split.

He also lost that primary.