I don’t know where your list is from, here’s from the linked article:
I see 8. Either way, I’m not the author of the article, so your beef is with them.
As for the caucus “boost”, that has been Elections 101 as long as I can remember, which is a long time. Sanders explicitly credited the 2016 Iowa caucus with his strong run last cycle. This cycle the only campaign which is explicitly trying to brush off the importance of Iowa is Bloomberg’s.
I get that people may not like Warren. But if she wasn’t prepared, they’d call it “pie in the sky” and “unworkable”. When she shows up with plans showing how it would work, it’s “too prepared”. This is the kind of misogynist shit women deal with all the fucking time. You still may not like her, and fine, but recognize the bias and bullshit you are being fed.
My money is on uncommitted!
1972 (January 24): “Uncommitted” (36%), Edmund Muskie (36%),
1976 (January 19): “Uncommitted” (37%), Jimmy Carter (28%)
1988 (February 8): Dick Gephardt(31%), Paul Simon (27%), Michael Dukakis (22%),
1992 (February 10): Tom Harkin(76%),
They had to find a way to rebrand “likable” after it got called out.
It’s a trap. She’s been criticized for 1. refusing to walk into the trap, 2. pointing out the trap, 3. setting off the trap without being injured (when she published her detailed M4A plan and pundits shouted, “Aha! There’s taxes!”)
I like that Bernie was able to say, “Yeah, I’m going to raise taxes for M4A. What are you gonna do about it?” That’s on-brand for him. But it’s also on-brand for Warren to be clever enough to avoid the trap.
And they think she’s the one who should be angry!
I’m thinking about starting a Kickstarter so that I can take a sabbatical from my job to follow Buttigieg around to ask him, “How are you going to pay for that?” for every single thing he proposes.
“lessen that impact” of those people’s votes 
like an electoral college inside the Democratic Party
Interestingly, the market cap of the top 10 oil& gas companies is just about exactly the same as the ENTIRE GDP of Mexico. The annual revenue of JUST Shell Oil exceeds the federal budget of the government of Mexico by $76B.
Or, Math > NYT
It gets worse. The NYT article ends with a correction that it removed an assertion that Sanders plans to nationalize the industry, but the assertion is still there in the article:
The good news is that it is buried down with the quotes from experts who are pro Sanders’ plan.
I don’t know what is going on with the author, Lisa Friedman, who is usually pretty down on power industry profits and positive towards aggressive environmental policy.
There’s some interesting observations about those two in that piece
