Biden/Harris can win.

Putting aside the declaration of who would win, I think the OP article is correct in that the primary process is heavily front-loaded.

The media loves a one versus one final face off and will start declaring one very early.

Iowa and New Hampshire have outrageously disproportional influence on the outcome of the primaries for this reason. The media makes that happen.

and fundraising.

Media attention greatly impacts political races, it's why candidates fund raise to purchase media.

I happen to believe that the media pitches narratives that they think will draw the most viewers.

And the narrative that they think sells best is a horserace. Shortly after Iowa and New Hampshire the pundit media will start declaring which 2 candidates will be in that race.

Some of the assertions are seriously misguided. Lots of wishful thinking and projection, too.

and are seeking out alternative sources of information and candidates are using social media more to connect with voters.

And treat it like a horserace or roller derby:

Biden is in front now, BUT CAN HE KEEP THE LEAD???

Here comes Warren.... will she overtake Biden? SHE DID!!

But Warren better keep an eye on her rear-view mirror, BECAUSE Beto's on the stump with his FOOT ON THE GAS!

Oh no! Beto has crashed into Harris, giving BIDEN an opening. Here he comes, folks!!

Whose that in the bushes? Could it be? It is! SANDERS and his HYPE CREW are on the track! It looks like one of those mobile tourist bars where everyone pedals while they DRINK!

We've never had a primary like this on, Folks! I don't know if I can stand it!

Hold on... this just in... a glider has been spotted in the sky. IT'S INSLEE. He's sailing to the FRONT but, wait a moment,
has hit a POCKET OF GREENHOUSE GAS!

We're almost to Iowa. We still have our eye on Buttigieg and the other nominees... We'll interrupt your broadcast if anything...
HOLY JOE! BIDEN IS BACK!

Unless you have to time to gather and process every important fact about the candidates, we all depend on media reporting to condense, package, and deploy the news. If you do have that kind of free time, congrats! Your best life is clearly better than mine. But, propagating suspicions about the media is never a good look.

"undecided" voters. (Nobody take this personally.)

Recent polling suggests -- and should we putting much faith in polls after Nate Silver's 2016 debacle, anyway? -- a shitload of Democrats don't know who these candidates are, much less what they stand for.

Only 22% of Democrats registered to vote say they know a lot about the candidates’ positions, while 62% say they know a little. And only 35% say they’re paying close attention to the campaign, with almost two-thirds saying they’re paying some or no attention.

“It’s kind of a blur,” said Maggie Banks, 32, of suburban Denver, who has two young children and only has a chance to glean a few details about the race while listening to National Public Radio during her commute.

Banks said she has only a “vague” idea of who’s running and didn’t realize her state’s senior senator, Michael Bennet, or former governor, John Hickenlooper, were in the race.

Let's unpack this a bit more: we will get to late October, 2020, and the media will find a few 'muricans in a Walmart parking lot who scratch themselves and look confused and say, "I'm undecided" about whether to vote for Trump or whichever Democrat gets nominated, and the rest of us will scream, or roll our eyes, or grit our teeth, or react in some way that suggests our full disgust.

Ultra-low information voters might be the bane of democracy's existence.

Here in early primary season, the "changing room" part of the cycle, everyone should be at least open to trying on different candidates for a good fit.

-- Do policies matter or just "defeat Trump"?

-- Is so-and-so just too grouchy, or out of touch, or inexperienced, or old, or young, or too conservative or moderate or liberal or progressive for me? What's my "Goldilocks zone"?

Yes. the media talking heads inform but also distort with their own bias. That's why you might be better off with CSPAN whenever they are an option. Twitter is a cesspool, and also invaluable for the very latest and most insightful, as well as being wickedly sharp (brevity is the soul and all that).

CNN sucks, except when it doesn't. MSDNC is a bunch of cheerleaders except when they aren't. Fox is Fox unless you're watching Sheperd Smith.

Apply your personal, customized filters, know your own biases, and don't get stuck in your silos.