>>
>>But a part of me thinks that some Dems aren't afraid Bernie
>or
>>Warren would lose to Trump. I think they are afraid one of
>>them would win.
>>
>
>Exactly. It's easy to forget sometimes there's more than one
>Dem nomination process happening too.

Good point. Hell, I don't even get how it works to be honest.

>
>I mean Bloomberg, Patrick.. and whoever else might jump in
>from the shadows?? No way these guys are throwing their name
>in this late to actually build coalitions, sweep states, etc
>lol. Though it might help their cause. I think the filings
>might just be a formality at this point bc what they're really
>competing for is the delegate game behind-the-scenes.

Again, I'm not sure how the delegate game works.

I did read that Clinton (Bill) jumped in in October of 91. So, in the ere of social media, etc...I think it is theoretically possible for a candidate to get in now and make some noise. I mean, hell, Donald Trump is president. Anything is possible.

It would have to be the right candidate though. I honestly spaced the Patrick Bain connection.

>
>Like, most regular folks probably still think their support
>could help determine the nominee. Their focus is on hoping
>their fave will win the state caucuses/primaries,
>purity-testing their fave's opponents' policies and donors,
>etc. The cute stuff. Meanwhile, the actual donor class/Dem
>establishment already anticipated a brokered convention a long
>time ago and has probably been putting plans in play for that
>all along.
>
>I'm still game-theorizing (lol), but so far I think party
>insiders had a "(Instead Of) Bernie Plan" and a "(Just In Case
>We Can't Rely On) Biden Plan". I think both plans (initially)
>favored Warren, and that they completely underestimated
>Buttigieg's ability to appeal to both moderates and
>progressives (he's pulling secondary supporters from all
>over.. Biden, Warren, Harris, Klobuchar, etc).

I could definitely see this.
>
>But they seem to be scrambling now, because they didn't
>anticipate Warren doubling-down as strongly as she has to her
>progressive leanings/inner tax maniac (eg. with her M4A plan)

Yep. I think this will be looked back on as a huge misstep, unfortunately. I think she was all set to be the 'more favorable' option to Bernie. Then she tripled down.


>and there appears to be some latent ageism and homophobia when
>it comes to Buttigieg (who else could some
>obviously-not-progressive donor types be talking about when
>they say they're not confident about the field?? He's the only
>other high-polling moderate) despite his emergence as a
>'unifying' candidate (at least in ideological coalition).

I could see that, but I think there is also a fear of his inability to connect with black voters.



>
>Basically: Warren was probably the "insider approved"
>emergency backup for both Sanders and Biden but she stopped
>moving as expected and they realized they have no
>backup-plan-for-the-backup-plan. And their weird electability
>calculus won't let them give Buttigieg a chance. So now it
>appears their plan is to pump more moderates in the field that
>insiders and all their Never45 friends can "get behind", who
>can replace Warren as the emergency backup nominee and peel
>away Buttigieg delegates if he keeps outperforming Biden.

Right. It just seems like for it to work, others would have to drop out.


>
>Only wealthy insiders could even MEET the criteria TO BE such
>late candidates, because who else would have the resources and
>connections to stand-up even a pretend campaign a few months
>before votes start being cast? lol. I really don't thin these
>late entries have anything to do with the people/electorate.
>They're gonna pick who it'll be at the convention and move
>on.
>

I mean maybe. Which would add fuel to the fire of the Dem party would rather lose with Biden or Patrick than win with Warren or Bernie. Unreal.