I think after Super Tuesday March 3, we will have only 3 viable candidates remaining:
Bernie, Biden and either Warren or Harris.

What's your logic there?

It’s just that March 3 is going to cost so much money.
I think only one of them will have enuf money and momentum to continue.

Let alone Super Tuesday.

I won't include the Republicans because I'm not as well versed on their primaries but for Democrats...

In 2008, Iowa established Obama, Hillary and Edwards as the top-three candidates. Bill Richardson placed fourth and was nearly 20 points behind Edwards. There was no fourth viable candidate after Iowa and once Edwards bowed out after losing the South Carolina primary, it was a two-man(woman) race between Obama & Hillary.

In 2004, Iowa again played a role in weeding out the less viable candidates. Coming out of Iowa, Kerry and Edwards were seen as the front-runner, while Dean was on the fringe of viable. Gephardt was all but done after losing Iowa, as he had staked his whole campaign on the caucus. Dean would never recover. Joe Lieberman was pretty much done in for after coming in a distant fifth. While a few campaigns continued on through Super Tuesday, the bulk of the wins continued to go to either Kerry or Edwards.

So, I would say the logic is that we haven't had four viable candidates after the voting begins.

Even going back to 1992, you see that there isn't really four viable candidates after the voting begins.

Before the voting began, Bob Kerrey, Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown were seen as the most viable candidates. That's four. But once the votes counted, Bob Kerrey quickly faded - only managing to win South Dakota before breaking 10% again in any primary/caucus once. It became a three-man race between Clinton, Brown and Tsongas. Tsongas would abandon his campaign on March 30th.

Unless Biden/Bernie have a major slip up and fall pretty spectacularly, there's only going to be room for one more candidate at best. It's either a woman or not. But there won't be four viable candidates a year from now.

it sort of feels to me that there are only a few viable candidates running now. The rest are selling books/raising money they can use in their next election.

I think this race has more potentially viable candidates than past races but it won't change the actual dynamics of history. Iowa is going to establish the contenders from the pretenders.

Right now, I'd say the viable candidates are:

1. Biden
2. Bernie
3. Pete
4. Warren
5. Harris

After that? I don't really see any other viable candidates. That's not to say someone like Veto can't rise up there but it will probably be at the expense of another candidate.

Iowa, and then New Hampshire, are going to cut this list dramatically.

Trump is obviously scared of Biden, and could never outdo him in the debates. He didn't outdo Hillary, really, but I'm wondering if he'd dare walking over to loom behind Joe while he was speaking.

A man would have responded in some assertive way that's okay for men to do, but a woman would be criticized for. Trump understood that.

In retrospect, she probably figured out several ways to have dealt with it--even though she never would have had to deal with it if she were male.

I would have liked for her to turn to look at him, and say, "Is there some problem - may I help you?" with a smile but a very less than sweet tone?

If that's off the top of your head, that's really impressive. I can't even remember who won the World Series from year to year I appreciate your taking the time.

... she was (mis)treated by the Repukes and by much of the media shamelessly. Even a few Democrats said bad/rude things behind her back. I don't ever want to see another woman candidate treated like that again. Yes I'd love to see a woman President in my lifetime, but not at the cost of her dignity and the respect of this country. Hillary Clinton would have been an awesome President, of that we can be sure.