Thread by @davekarpf

I’m seeing a bunch of “why didn’t Warren go after Bernie” takes.

I think those takes are based on a bad assumption about “lanes” in this race.

Bernie’s supporter base is solid, loyal, and maybe 30%.

The big question is who emerges as contenders for the other 70%
(1/x)

If the race stays fluid for the next month, Bernie will be the nominee.

But if Biden collapses and another candidate or two run out of money, where does that support go?

Not to Bloomberg, after tonight, but he also isn’t going away anytime soon.

(2/x)

Warren’s path to the nomination is basically as a “Goldilocks” candidate.

Progressive, but a capitalist.
Populist, but technocratic.

The path only works if others drop out soon and Bloomberg sticks around without becoming a juggernaut.

(3/x)

The strongest preference among most of the Dem base is “someone who can beat Trump.”

Warren makes her strongest case for that when attacking corruption and inequality. She make her weakest case when she’s attacking-Sanders-because-she-has-to.

(4/x)

(And, btw, it sure seems to me that the pundits saying “why didn’t Warren attack Bernie?” are the pundits who are praying for a miracle moderate and don’t support either of them.)

(5/x)

We won’t know for another month if the strategy works. Certainly Bernie is in better shape than anyone else.

But I do think it’s her best strategy.

Once the field clears, a majority of Ds may prefer to run a referendum on corruption than a choice election on socialism.
(End)