How could a Bloomberg nomination possibly happen, given that he has not appeared in the debates and isn’t competing in the early states? The recent rise of Sanders in the polls points to the most likely scenario.

Bloomberg’s best hope is for one of the strong progressives — Sanders or Warren — to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Even better for Bloomberg would be if Sanders and Warren finish one-two in both states. The relative moderates — Biden, Buttigieg and Klobuchar — would then be damaged. But there would still be many moderate Democratic voters anxious about beating Trump and looking for a candidate.

And Bloomberg has some advantages. He is one of the few candidates in the race to have held a major executive post in government. He also has shown arguably the strongest commitment to fighting climate change, as New York magazine’s Jonathan Chait — in a piece titled “Maybe Nominating Bloomberg for President Isn’t a Crazy Idea” — points out.

In The Washington Post this week, John Ellis, formerly of The Boston Globe and Fox News, predicted:

Democrats across the country will soon find themselves with a newfound appreciation for the virtues of one Mike Bloomberg. … Bloomberg is going to spend an astronomical amount of money on this race. Probably at least $1 billion. Maybe twice that. Possibly even more. Numbers like that upend every model of every presidential race in history. He can buy every news adjacency on cable and local television stations from now until November and not make a dent in his net worth. … If Democrats nominate anyone besides Bloomberg, they will be outspent in the general election by 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1. If they nominate Bloomberg, he will outspend Trump at least 5 to 1 and dramatically improve the party’s chances of winning seats at every level of governance.

I don’t think this scenario is as likely as Ellis does, and I’m troubled by the notion of a candidate spending so much of his own money to win the presidency — “buying the election,” as Warren has said. But in a race as uncertain as this one, I agree that Bloomberg has a shot.

For more …

Are Sanders and Warren really less electable than, say, Biden or Klobuchar? Yes, I think so; moderates historically do better than strong liberals or conservatives. But the gap is probably smaller than many people believe. Regardless of who the Democratic nominee is, most voters have already made up their mind, and those on both sides will be very motivated in 2020. I certainly can imagine a President Warren or President Sanders in January 2021.

Another plausible scenario is much simpler: Biden wins Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, and quickly takes command of the race. Cory Booker’s exit yesterday may have made this more likely. “At the time Biden entered the race, Harris and Booker seemed like the most obvious possibilities who could cut into Biden’s black support,” Kyle Kondik of the University of Virginia writes. “Now they’re both out.”

My colleague Michelle Goldberg makes a case for Warren: “I’m not going to argue that Warren has the best chance of winning in 2020; I have no idea who does. What I will argue is that she has the best chance of bringing the Democratic Party together. Warren’s increasingly explicit argument that she is the unity candidate is correct.”

Vox’s Matt Yglesias on Sanders: “He has a plausible electability case, he’s been a pragmatic and reasonably effective legislator, and his nomination is, by far, the best way to put toxic infighting to rest and bring the rising cohort of left-wing young people into the tent — for both the 2020 campaign and the long-term future.”

If you are not a subscriber to this newsletter, you can subscribe here. You can also join me on Twitter (@DLeonhardt) and Facebook.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.