Bernie didn't "have" a head start. Liz Warren didn't want to run against Hillary. Bernie asked Liz to run. Progressive groups asked Liz to run. Liz said no and Bernie created a movement without her help.no, bernie had a head start in having most of the progressive base, she was never going to break his hold, and biden shot up with a consolidate moderate vote + "momentum". and MA isn't at the end of the contest, knowing that someone won't be the nominee in a field of 3+ is different that knowing who will be the nominee when it's down to the final (legitimate) two. CA being in June means it's usually clear who the nominee is going to be, and it makes voting less pressing since you're unlikely to play any role in shifting the landscape
Warren supporters are majority ex-Hillary and ex-Bernie supporters. I've dropped the voter % after each race. You're a person who sat out 2016 because you weren't excited about Hillary or Bernie, in a coalition of people who were excited about Hillary or Bernie. You don't see that the very foundation of the Warren 2020 experiment is a contradiction capped by it's own identity:
- You need to bring in new blood to grow the campaign, but those of you who sat out 2016 and the Hillary voters turn your nose up to movement politics. So every time Warren gets fiery she loses voters to moderates, and every time Warren mellows out she loses voters to Sanders.
- You need to bring in Hillary supporters but they prefer Biden as a person, but you can't attack them as sexist because you're playing the "unity candidate" role
- You need to bring in Sanders supporters but your campaign will never support universal policies since Warren is a capitalist and "unity candidate"
You never noticed that these 3 voter segments are fundamentally opposed to each other?