Bernie Supporters: what result by 3/1 would convince you it is over?

Inspired by some discussion in this thread.

Let us assume a solid drubbing in SC going into it. No shock there and that is pretty much baked into all of our perceptions. And that he crushes Hillary in his home state.

Will you be caring more about the delegate count after 3/1 or “solid” wins in at least a few states? (IOW, if you could choose, would you prefer a narrowed loss in delegate rich Texas with a narrow loss in one of the states that he has a chance in - much better for delegate count numbers - or more solid wins in his potentially winnable states with a bigger loss in Texas even if the net racks up more delegates for Team Hillary?

The pundit buzz is that Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado, and Oklahoma are all relatively friendly demographic turf for him. And according to the NYT he is spending tons in those states hoping to pull out solid wins and thereby resuscitate his narrative.

What combination of delegate count deficit and/or states lost or margins of victory not achieved would be enough to convince you it is over?

Would fairly narrow victories in Massachusetts and either Minnesota or Colorado (but not both) with narrow losses in the other and in Oklahoma, and solid to dramatic losses elsewhere be enough for you to hang on, given how much better that was than how he had been polling five or six months ago?

I would say if he wins four or LESS states on super Tuesday, then it is pretty much over. But I think he can win in many states coming up on March 8 and 15. As for Super Tuesday, Hillary Clinton won’t win all of them. It’s going to be a long process and will drag on for a few months, though , maybe not to the convention I hope.

But to answer your question in regards to March 1, it will look grim if Sanders fails to win at least four or five states.

Doesn’t really matter to me at all. If he’s on the Wisconsin primary ballot I’ll vote for him. And in November I’ll vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever.

If I was Team Sanders I’d be doing two things now:

Prespinning the expectations game, sell it as: “The four states up in the air are MA, MN, CO, and OK and winning at least half of them will show I am competitive moving forward.” No, I do not buy it, but then any more than that is potentially “exceeding expectations” and may keep some desperately needed fundraising and buzz alive. In point of fact my belief is that the game is now delegate math and wins in those states do not change how those numbers start to add up. But keeping the campaign alive needs a narrative for the believers.

Meanwhile make a few visits to Austin in particular. Delegate math means keeping the loss in Texas down some. If she indeed takes Texas by the 26 points that the RCP rolling average (2/12 to 2/24) currently has her at then that’s an 80ish delegate hit right there, and that is a pretty fatal blow even performing far better than expected in all of those potentially winnable states.
Boyo, you are answering a question not asked. So, that’s nice.

Okay, but, like him, I’m wondering why the question you did ask matters.

As far as I’m concerned it’s not over while he’s on a ballot to vote for, so I’ll stick with my answer.

It’s not clear to me that Sanders has hit any kind of a ceiling; his national poll numbers continue to improve. I see all of these delegate math games that assume 50/50 national split, but that’s still an arbitrary place to draw a line.

eta: I’m also more than a little worried about a Clinton indictment. A late-summer progression of the current FBI investigation would leave the Democrats in a very bad place indeed. I’d prefer a 3rd option, but given the situation, I want Sanders to stay in as long as possible.

NM, see below

Bernie will step aside and be the greatest supporter of Hillary Clinton you’ve seen so far once she has enough delegates to win the nomination. Until then Bernie will stay in the race because he’ll stick by the principle that elections should reflect the will of the people. I don’t understand why Hillary supporters don’t want her to win the contest fairly, or do they think she can’t?

Clinton supporters want her to be able to save her money and energy for the general election, but that’s an argument that could be made in every primary election ever, and I don’t see any reason to give it special consideration here.

He just posted in the wrong thread I think. There’s one specifically asking for whether Sanders supporters would switch to Clinton if he loses.

The question matters in that it determines when the party starts to coalesce around one candidate.

I don’t think so. That’s pretty close to what my first reply answered and the OP came back and said it wasn’t the question that was asked.

Clinton supporters should want a vigorous opponent to sharpen campaign skills and focus her platform. If Bernie drops out early, she would cruise to the nomination without having her political muscle exercised.

To me the question of when there is no realistic chance of a win inherently matters. I admire those who stay in their seats until the final buzzer goes off, rather than get a head start in the parking lot, but I still wonder at what point they accept that the game is really already over, and how long they stay in denial.

Or to make a different, less flattering, sort of analogy, sure some in chess will insist on playing out all the moves when it is clearly checkmate in 5, but answering that I will move my pieces on my turn until my King is actually captured is not an answer to the question of whether or not it is agreed that the circumstance is indeed unavoidably checkmate in 5.

To me Sanders chances became, after the Nevada loss, much much poorer, but not yet checkmate in 5. IF he somehow managed to keep the Texas loss narrow (say under 10 points) and did win the lot of those winnable states, at least one by a significant margin (call it 5 or more) then he can possibly recapture some buzz and keep the delegate deficit low enough that it might possibly be surmountable. I don’t see that outcome as too likely but I do not yet argue that there’s nothing left to see here, just that it is very much a very longshot. I suspect that Sanders supporters will take more to believe it is really over (even though they will play out the game) than I do. I am curious how much more.

You don’t want to answer, fine, don’t. If your answer is that you at no point will care whether or not he actually can win, also fine. It just answering a question that I am not curious about. So, yeah, that’s nice.

The question is also not about when he should drop out. If he has the funds* and will to stay and fight until the final whistle blows, also fine. I am on board with those who feel that him lasting longer as a viable contender is better for the party in the general, even as I believe that he has no realistic chance of being its nominee.

*Unfortunately I do not think he has enough left to do that too much longer. He knew that his best shot was to rack up some early wins that would create buzz and generate more fundraising and accordingly invested heavily in advertising in these first states, far outspending Hillary with relatively little in his war chest. And the decision was not a bad one even if it did not pay off. But it didn’t pay off. And if continuing to burn through resources in those four potentially winnable states also fails to bring a winning path narrative up, then it seems improbable that he will raise enough to even keep meaningfully fighting the fight.

The question in the OP was what results will make you think Sanders’ campaign is kaput and you told us how you plan to vote.

She’s had a decade to do that.

Furthermore, sharpening her skills against a leftist like Bernie wouldn’t be all the useful in a general election, and might even pigeonhole her into some liberal positions that wouldn’t play well to centrists.

I don’t understand the question. It’s over now, because the money and power has been backing Clinton from the beginning. He is unlikely to win barring a tragedy taking her out of the race, and nobody wants that. (Well, I hope nobody wants that.)

Supporting Sanders is just to make it clear to the Powers That Be that the Democrats are supposed to stay left of the center line, more or less, and to amplify his voice. Which is working great.

I support Hillary but I wouldn’t quit on Bernie if I supported him until he dropped out of the race and I wouldn’t drop out of the race until the convention if I was him. If Hillary gets indicted the day before the convention, they will have to throw the nomination to Bernie. Sure he isn’t as electable as Hillary but lets see who the republicans throw up.

Some of it is because he could win and it’s not over yet.

Isn’t this all sour grapes because Bernie got in the way of Hillary’s coronation plan? This is a close race, it’s barely begun, and as soon as Bernie shows that he’s competitive the Hillary camp wants him to drop out. Sounds like fear to me.