no. the media narrative around sanders' "momentum", as usual, is disconnected from the facts, and what i care about is the facts, the truth. i'm not trying to mess with you, i just want an empirical breakdown...

he's running exactly where he was in july, before warren pissed on his parade. but, the damage is already done, now.

so, at best you could argue that he's regained the ground he lost over the fall. but, this is a swing that is barely discernible from a reasonable margin of error. his numbers are really not defined by waning interest and rising momentum but by a large amount of stability - biden is running pretty smoothly at 30-35, and sanders is running just as smoothly at 20-25.

warren is noticeably down. but, it's bloomberg that seems to be the beneficiary.

i'm somewhat surprised that buttigieg made exactly the same error as sanders, but i'm not surprised that it's had more or less exactly the same outcome. i was expecting him to come down a little. but, bloomberg is just as old as biden & sanders, and he does still remain the most likely beneficiary of a collapse in the gerontocracy, should he hold on for long enough. again: bloomberg seems to be hurting him a little.

what i will say is that if the party wants to run 37 centrists into may, that is going to certainly help sanders out quite a bit. the question is whether that's likely or not, and it isn't - as soon as some people start dropping, these numbers are going to coalesce in a way that kills his chances. 

so, there is no momentum. there is only stasis. it's all hype.