Fascinating piece outlining Bloomberg's strategy for winning which is based ultimately on one key assumption.

The problem? That assumption is already out-of-date and as a result, the entire Team Bloomberg strategy may be predicated on a fatal flaw:

1/ https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/27/michael-bloomberg-2020-election-theories-074094

First, the piece barely mentions his challenges w/black & women voters, only to say that they believe those voters will "come around" because he'll be best positioned to beat Trump.

What evidence will they show? Polling showing Warren losing swing states & election to Trump 2/

Disclaimer: I believe those polls & share concern about Warren's viability in the general.

One of key reasons Team Bloomberg cites for her poor performance in the general election? Her strategic decision to embrace single payer M4A, which "could be her undoing in a general" 3/

But there's another part of that passage: "The plan is losing popularity among Democrats." Here's where we see the beginning of Team Bloomberg's miscalculation.

They see M4A as being a killer in the general. What they miss is that it may end up being a killer in the primary. 4/

Indeed, the entire Bloomberg strategy is predicated on the notion that Warren is on a path to the nomination and therefore they'll be able to make the argument to Super Tuesday states that they have to stop her to beat Trump.

They believe she's the likely nominee under the 5/

"current trajectory" of the race. But is that current NOW or when they decided to enter the race? In the 4 early state poll averages, Warren currently doesn't lead in any of them. In fact she's not in 2nd in any of them. A month ago, this was different. 6/ https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1199678015879311361

Before the October debate she WAS indeed on a trajectory to win early and - as someone who thinks she would be a poor nominee - I was getting very concerned.

But that October debate proved to be a key turning point. Suddenly her rise stopped and it soon started to backslide. 7/

What was the subject of the debate attacks on Warren and the follow-ups in the month after? M4A.

The spotlight on this issue means that Warren has taken a pretty big hit and step backwards, and perhaps has peaked early.

Now, there is plenty of time for a rebound. And I do 8/

not dismiss her: she's a very compelling campaigner and has a very devoted following of supporters around country. She has a floor of support that I suspect is quite firm.

In order to turn it around she'll have to show a nimble ability to pivot outside of her comfort zone 9/

and broaden her appeal. I personally haven't that ability yet, but it's possible.

However, it is likely too late for her to drop single payer M4A now (she tried to have it both ways by saying she'd roll it out in 3rd year but that's a little too subtle for most voters).

10/

So it's POSSIBLE she could bounce back, but the current trajectory of the race does not suggest she will be the nominee. A month ago? Yes. Now? No.

So let's re-cap: Team Bloomberg's strategy is based on the notion that Warren is unelectable in the general election, in no...11/

small part due to her embrace of single payer M4A, and therefore once she rises through early state victories, everyone else will be looking for an alternative to stop her so we can beat Trump.

What did they miss in this analysis? Single payer M4A is doing damage not only 12/

to Warren's general election prospects but to her prospects to BE the Democratic nominee. In other words, it's hurting her not months from now, but NOW. And it's hurting a lot.

It takes time to prep & launch a presidential campaign. And given the timing of Bloomberg's launch 13/

it's highly possible that the decisions were made when Warren WAS on a trajectory to win the nomination. Only problem was that they didn't look at historic precedents, and leaders in Sep/Oct rarely end up the nominee.

The assumption that Warren is on a path to win nomination 14/

feels out-of-date already, and yet that assumption is the core upon which Bloomberg's entire strategy is based. I'm not making this up, that's what THEY told Politico in a piece released TODAY. This is their theory of race in their words.

It's just not backed up by fact.

/end