I disagree on the whole thing.

I mean, who would you rather vote for? Somebody who got financed through small donors or somebody who's in the pockets of corporations and their lobbies and thus will do their bidding, good or bad?

Speaking as an Elizabeth Warren supporter here, were she to do as you suggest and start accepting corporate donations, she would instantly become a less appealing candidate to me. The thing for Warren and Sanders is that being the economic populist candidates is a defining part of their brand. If they start accepting donations from major business corporations, they'll tend to lose credibility with their existing supporters because they'll be viewed as compromised. And that wouldn'b be a delusion either: they would, in fact, become compromised. It's not a coincidence that all the candidates who DO attend high-dollar fundraisers and all that are also candidates who are both rhetorically and substantively softer on the rich and powerful in this country at the expense of poor and working people.

My point is that I don't foresee candidates like Warren or Sanders gaining any additional supporters by making the kind of "pragmatic" change you're proposing. I can see them only losing most of their existing supporters if they do.

Here's a more detailed prediction of how I think the primary season will go:

1) All but perhaps the top-polling seven or eight candidates drop out before the Iowa Caucus.

2) Biden and Sanders win the Iowa and New Hampshire contests.

3) Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg drop out, benefiting Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders respectively.

4) Biden wins in South Carolina.

5) Cory Booker drops out, benefiting Kamala Harris.

6) Biden wins in California and Texas.

7) Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke drop out, mostly benefiting Biden and ensuring his victory.

I am actually not so sure.

How many debates will be hold? Are there more after the third?

Anyways, I can see low-polling candidates keeping in the race if they have enough money and see a personal benefit (maybe suggesting themself for a position in cabinet). That means I think Delaney will probably stay very long in the race, although he most likely will miss the third debate.

Tulsi Gabbard probably stays long enough to ensure her agenda of ending endless wars gets enough presence. But I see her folding before Iowa to support either Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. Similar for Andrew Yang with the UBI. That is actually the point of so strongly one policy-focused campaigns, to establish this policy into the political consciousness of the nation. Therefore I think that they fold before Iowa, because they don't actually want to take away votes from candidates they deem fine (and we know Tulsi Gabbard already supported Bernie once, so he is definitely fine in her book). Inslee has also a one-policy focused campaign, but in his case I am unsure which candidate he would think holds up his ideas at least sufficiently, so I am not so sure how he will act.

I can see a world in which Elizabeth Warren is stronger as the progressive candidate than Bernie Sanders. Her campaign goes pretty well so far. And last debate made pretty clear that she and Bernie Sanders see themself as a team. I think it is possible that one folds before Iowa to support the other, probably the one polling lower at this point.

I also can see a world in which Joe Biden stumbles enough to fail. Basically if his aura of electability is cracked enough, a lot of older voters will probably stop supporting him. I am not sure another candidate can consolidate the conservative vote, but if then Kamala Harris or Pete Buttigieg look like the most likely candidates. That is possible. End of June, beginning of July 2007 Hillary Clinton polled around 40% and was the clear leader. Barack Obama emerged in polls as leader as late as February 2008. So Joe Biden has not won yet and he looks like a quite unstable candidate. Biden for instance has less endorsements from party officials and elected democrats than Hillary Clinton had 2008. This can change if other conservative candidates drop out and their endorsements switch to Biden - and it already happened: Ed Rendell switched his support from Amy Klobuchar to Joe Biden.

1) Quite possible. Maybe a bit more or less, but around 8 seems correct enough.

2) The way the polls look right now, a bit of anything can happen. Sanders, Biden or Warren can win either of these two.

3) No way Warren drops out unless she drops off substantially beforehand.  Buttigieg however is certainly a possibility by this point.

4) Both Carolinas seem promised to Biden by the polls right now, so very probable.

5) Cory Booker probably doesn't only benefit to Kamala, especially if he supporting another candidate

6) Both Bernie and Warren are trading blows with Harris and Biden in California. If Warren would be out like in your scenario, there's no way Biden would have won that state, as one part of her voters would go to Bernie and the other part to Harris, ensuring that Biden can't win California. Texas is also pretty open with Beto fiercely defending his turf there. And with Warren out in your Scenario, Bernie should be competitive there, too.

7) Many see Beto and Kamala more progressive as they truly are. I feel like Biden would get a lot less support from that than you are expecting. Especially since by that time, Biden will pretty much incorporate the establishment while whoever will still be running against him at that time will be seen as the more progressive candidate(s). The catch is that Sanders and Warren could be seen as too progressive and choose Biden because of this. But I don't see Harris and Beto voters flocking to Biden en masse.

Polling data actually shows, that the second choice is not as clear-cut, as one might think. To my surprise the most often picked second choice for Biden is Sanders and for Sanders is Biden. Similarly Harris and Warren share partly a voterbase.This can move still a lot though and I suspect a formal recommendation of the candidate dropping out might have a major influence on the voters of that candidate.

Here an article about the second choices: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/lanes-are-starting-to-emerge-in-the-2020-democratic-primary/

"According to figures his campaign provided to Rolling Stone, Yang raised nearly $1.1 million in the five days after debate, with an average donation of $27.63. What’s more striking, though, is how many of those donors were giving to Yang for the first time. Of the 38,376 unique donors who gave in that five-day window after the debate, 34,602 of them — nearly 87 percent — had not previously given to Yang’s campaign. Most of Yang’s post-debate haul — almost $930,000 of it — came from those new donors, whose average donation was just shy of $27."
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/andrew-yang-democratic-presidential-race-fundraising-yang-gang-868481/

I predict Biden will probably end up winning the primary but things could always change.
I think most will drop but I could see Biden, Sanders, Yang, and Harris in it for the majority/all of the primary.

I think Biden has an about 30% chance to win the primary. That leaves a 70% chance for the other candidates.

I am not even sure how that question is relevant. If you were to ask, would I vote for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, the answer is yes, and it wouldn't be relevant to me how they got their campaign finance dollars. The reason big donation campaign finance is broken is because it gives a lopsided advantage to the wealthy to donate to candidates to serve their interests; but there are a few who WILL donate against their interests because it is the right thing to do. To make a choice to not accept large campaign donations to appease people who are, frankly, uneducated in the political system, I am not in favour of; it puts the candidates I want to win at an even larger disadvantage in the broken system. I think this is probably the most foolish thing Warren and Sanders are doing; it means worker unions can't make big donation to them, but the big corporations can donate to their opponents; the only situation that would be a better case would be if Warren and Sanders decided not to accept ANY donations at all!

Anyway, I think you're conflating two different issues. Receiving a donation from someone doesn't mean you're "In the pockets of corporations and their lobbies and thus do their bidding." since that money doesn't belong to them, it belongs to their campaign. What I think you're mixing up is the revolving door political circuit whereby corporations literally give paycheques to politicians who do their bidding. And I would be highly in favour of any politician who swears an oath to NOT take any corporate job or paycheque after their term.