It's not the 2020 Democratic clown car!
I've been referring to the gaggle of 2020 Democratic hopefuls as "clown car" because Democrats used that term to refer to the gaggle of Republican hopefuls in 2012 and in 2016, when Democrats ran only their anointee du jour. IOW, I fell victim to classic Democratic PTB framing, namely, making the more democratic way seem oh! so laughable and oh! so "less than" the undemocratic way. (Needless to say, to Democrats, the 2008 Democratic field of Biden, Dodd, Hillary, et al. was "an embarrassment of riches," not a "clown car.")
Of course, the more democratic way is that anyone who wants to run for POTUS and qualifies constitutionally does run for POTUS--and without being made to seem like a traitor to the Party, maybe even to the nation.
Currently, America has only two political parties with any realistic hope of electing a U.S. President, now or in the foreseeable future. So, if each of those two parties were to have twenty to thirty candidates for POTUS--a total of sixty, at most--would that be too many from a population of over 327 million souls? I think not. Then, why refer to a starting field of about twenty Republican Presidential hopefuls as a "clown car?" Because the Democratic PTB's undemocratic anointing of Obama in 2008 and 2012 and Hillary in 2016 was better for Americans than a larger primary field? Again, I think not.
Moreover, upon reflection, "2020 Democratic clown car" was both a false equivalence and--for my purposes--a strategic error: By implying an equivalence between relatively large Republican Presidential fields 2012 and 2016, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the 2020 Democratic starting field of almost thirty, I was doing the Democratic PTB an unintended favor.
IMO, Republicans had large Presidential nomination fields in 2012 and 2016 simply because no Republican POTUS was running and the Republican PTB had not anointed anyone, not even JEB!. IOW, the Republican gaggles were formed by people who wanted the Republican Presidential nomination and believed it might be his or her time to win it. Moreover, the Republican PTB did not characterize--or expect establishment media to characterize--any of the hopefuls as an interloper with no chance of ever winning the Republican Presidential nomination, much less the general election.
As best as I can tell, no malevolent, undemocratic scheme, field enlarged the Republican Presidential field in 2012 0r 2016, nor did the Republican National Committee take sides. And, please remember that Democrats, not Republicans, invented super delegates. Although Republicans did eventually follow suit, Republicans gave their super delegates less power.
Contradistinctively, the 2020 gaggle of Democratic candidates seems to have been calculated to ensure that the primary vote is sufficiently split to prevent Bernie Sanders--or any populist candidate--from winning the nomination. Maybe even split enough that the nomination gets thrown to the convention.
In a convention battle, of course, super delegates would likely be the deciding factor. Of course, super delegates consist of big donors to Democrats and present and former Democratic officeholders--aka, the bribers of Demcocrats and their bribees. So equating the large Republican fields of 2012 and 2016 to the even larger Democratic field of 2016 flatters the Democratic Party by failing to differentiate the undemocratic machinations of the Democratic PTB. (Has ever a political party been so ironically named?)
The Democratic PTB has always chosen the Presidential nominee and will fight any attempt to yield that power to Democratic Presidential primary voters. The same is likely true of all national offices, maybe even all elected offices. It's good to be the kingmakers. Democratic plutocrats ain't giving that up: Democratic primary voters finally getting to choose a Democratic Presidential nominee? Heaven forfend! /s