Yes, Sanders lost in 2016 because he was obliterated in every Southern state.
This was in part because of the Clintons' mysterious esteem and seemingly unwarranted support from older African-African American voters, and in part because the Sanders campaign in no way expected to do so well, and was assembled more or less on the fly, especially in the South.
I think he will perform a bit better there this time, because his team is now far more professional and prepared, and has years of grassroots organisation to draw upon.
And, Sanders really does appeal to younger African-American and Hispanic voters, in a way that the media is reluctant to acknowledge - though as always, mobilising turnout will be critical.
I expect the Southern vote to split three ways this time, between Sanders, Biden, and Harris.
The interesting question will be whether this becomes a two-way race or a three-way race - in other words, to what extent Biden's support holds.
Biden is gaffe prone, a weak debater, and utterly empty on policy; in general, the more people know about him the less they like him.
Meanwhile, Sanders' initial position is strong enough that he can mostly set Biden aside, focusing on Trump and running an otherwise positive campaign.
Conversely, the more uncommitted voters know about him - which is to say, the more encounter him directly, rather than via hostile media curation - the more they like him.
The others, on the other hand, will need to go after Biden with all guns blazing if they are to make any sort of mark.
They clearly all think Biden is there for the taking though, or there would not be so many of them.
I still think that if Harris can win enough African-American voters, this combined with her visual and narrative appeal to self-righteous well-educated posh 'wokeness obligé' white liberals makes her a strong potential candidate to emerge between Sanders and Biden.
On the other hand, if Biden's support among uninformed and/or demented boomers holds, the question then becomes: which way do the others go?
The Party hierarchy will attempt to put the Fear of God into anyone tempted to back Sanders (just like they did by immediately blacklisting anyone attempting to foster the next AOC).
But even then, I suspect it will be clear to the candidates if not the DCCC brass that in the long run, Biden is not a smart bet.
Sanders voters' time may not arrive quite yet, but the writing is the wall; it is difficult to see how the vaguely progressive image that milquetoast corporate mascots like O'Rourke, Buttigieg, Harris or Gillibrand aspire for could survive association with a handsy warmongering racist corporate errand-boy like Biden. Stacy Abrams, for instance, wasted little time nipping the prospect of having her photo taken next to him in the bud.
I think you're right about the importance of beating Trump, but only to an extent.
This matters far more to older voters than it does to their children - much of the evil-orange-man-did-another-stupid #resistance is fuelled by comfortable suburban boomers with medicare, pensions, and paid-off mortgages, and lacking a built-up tolerance to social media hysteria (akin to how alcohol proved especially devastating when introduced to previously unexposed Native American communities hundreds of years ago).
But for younger people and anyone outside posh suburbs or the coasts, underemployment, mountains of debt, and bleak prospects all make winding the clock back to 3 November 2016 and pretending like nothing ever happened a distinctly unappealing option.
For these voters, Beat Trump is necessary, but not sufficient.
Beat Trump also begs the question: how best to do it? Was America Already Great, or are transformative changes required?
I know what my answer is, but I am not so sure the Democratic Party does... ; )
