Mapping the Dem Primary Electorate

[Heebie Jeebie]

The Democratic Party can more or less be divided into three distinct wings: the Progressives, the Moderates, and the Pluralists.  There's room in the presidential nominating process for maybe six genuinely viable candidates, each with varying levels of support at the outset. My sense of the competition is that, as we approach Iowa, the openings in the electorate are basically going to look like this:



This gives us a sense of who is going to be directly competing with whom in the early stages.  For instance, for Warren to win, she'll have to expand her base of support at the expense of Gillibrand and/or Harris.  For Castro to have a shot, he's going to have to muscle out Booker and/or McAuliffe.  And so on.

Do you think this is a reasonable way to think about the competition?  Have I totally missed the mark?

[Politician]

>No Biden or Sanders

[Heebie Jeebie]

>No Biden or Sanders

Neither will run. And if they do, they'll flame out well before Iowa.

[scutosaurus]

Where do you think Neil Abercrombie and Michael Bennet would belong on the chart?

[Jags]

>No Biden or Sanders

Neither will run. And if they do, they'll flame out well before Iowa.

Neither would flame out

[RaphaelDLG]

It's reductive and makes assumptions about the behavior of Dem primary voters that aren't always correct, but it's less dumb than, say, Chris Cilizza or Harry Enten

[Heebie Jeebie]

>No Biden or Sanders

Neither will run. And if they do, they'll flame out well before Iowa.

Neither would flame out

I disagree for a number of reasons, but if you think otherwise you can plug Biden in for McAuliffe and Sanders in for Warren.

[Arturo Belano]

Uh, what do you mean by pluralist?

[Heebie Jeebie]

Uh, what do you mean by pluralist?

Those who embrace diversity and prioritize cultural and ethnic inclusion.  Kind of the "identity politics" wing of the party.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

This looks...remarkably accurate.