According to Nate Silver's 538 forecast, No one beats Bernie Sanders. Chances of winning...

[George II]

...on the first ballot:

No one has a 1 in 10 chance of winning on the first ballot
Sanders has only a 1 in 50 chance of winning on the first ballot.

[padah513]

1. Wow

That'll leave a mark

[MLAA]

2. Biden has a 7 in 8 chance!!!

[Mike Nelson]

3. Tulsi looks like...

... Hillary!

[PatSeg]

4. Ha, ha, ha!

It took me a second to get what you were saying, "no one" beats Bernie Sanders!

[Cha]

5. KR

[DonaldsRump]

6. Title in OP can be read two ways!

Reminds me of a favorite evaluation/reference to give a former employee seeking a new job who was terrible at the old job. HR folks recommend to say "No one would be better for this new job"!

[George II]

7. .

[MontanaMama]

8. You made me gasp George.

Don't DO that!

[NurseJackie]

9. OMG! You nut!

Made my heart speed up a little.

[Hav]

10. Looking at the images,

No one is obviously getting pushed by the DNC.
Also, Gabbard has really closed that gap to BS.

[Hortensis]

11. I believe Nate Silver is proven to pull for the RW.

That's based on a very long, consistent pattern of analyses both consistently negative toward Biden, often ridiculously so, and later proven to have been very wrong.

Most have advanced the claim for the the past year that Biden was actually losing while while all polls had him far ahead, all alone in a top tier of one and never less than double digits ahead of all others. But losing all the time, and isn't it clever of these experts to see it! Articles far more often than not have attacked the idea of electablity, and predictions made presumably influence voters at the time they read them but are typically found after to be predictably wrong.

Textual analysis is where, of necessity, their biggest spin is made. How about a "where's Waldo" example for a hit job that has to somehow not blatantly contradict the numbers even while being contradicted by them:

HEADLINE: What Biden’s Big South Carolina Win Might Mean For Sanders

FIRST SENTENCE: "Saturday was Joe Biden’s first-ever win in a presidential primary or caucus." A magnificent turnout in support of a candidate who was always far ahead here, and this is the intro?

FIRST EXPLANATION OFFERED (OF 5): "This was a “dead cat bounce” for Biden because voters were sympathetic to him in one of his best states. It may have been a one-off occurrence." Followed by paragraphs of negative support for that idea.

There's more, the more positive they have to admit for Biden, the lower. The fifth and last, ass-covering possibility, even though it's closest to what happened very predictably in both foresight and hindsight, is at the bottom for those who read that far.

This was preceded on Feb 28 by their forecast that Sanders would win Super Tuesday by very large numbers over Biden, explaining that Sanders, Biden and someone else split the black vote and predicting Sanders would do literally twice as well as Biden in California, who would though possibly clear 15%...! Can't blame them if the numbers said that, right? But their explanation is that polls weren't performed to provide the numbers. So apparently they just had to wing it, or "hunch" it as Trump put his analysis of coronavirus risks.

And typical,

Why Younger Democrats Are Overwhelmingly Rejecting Biden Turned out "overwhelmingly" overstated.

Politics Podcast: Biden Fights For A Win In The South Carolina Debate Rather negative report of what most others agreed was a powerful , and decisive, win?

I don't let Republican agents tell me what to think.

[TwilightZone]

12. I think you might be misreading Nate's intent.

The idea behind the five options is to show a wide range of possibilities, from the least likely to the most likely, and most optimistic for one candidate to the most optimistic for the other. The one option is intentionally pessimistic about Biden because that's the idea behind the five scenarios

He did the same thing with Super Tuesday. The choices basically range from Sanders overperforming to Biden overperforming, with the actual result about halfway between the good for Biden and great for Biden options (scenarios 1 & 2 below).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/five-scenarios-for-how-super-tuesday-could-go/

[Gothmog]

13. Sanders is now down to a 2% chance of winning

Link to tweet

[yardwork]

14. Your OP is unintentionally misleading!

Consider editing.