I don’t see how spending the next nine months at campaign fund raisers make her stronger in the coming debate with the Republican nominee. She has been out of the political sphere for a long time as Secretary of State, that is hardly experience that sharpens the campaign skillset.
“Throw up” is right.
Yeah, if there are two or more candidates ahead of you, it makes sense to drop out at some point. If there’s only one, it ain’t over till it’s over, because anything could happen to that one opponent.
After first saying “It doesn’t matter to me,” and then later clarifying that “it’s not over as long as I can vote for him.”
I disagree. I think he had a long shot chance but a movement candidate needs early evidence that there really is a movement there. Without that the chances approach zero rapidly. New Hampshire alone was not enough. “Virtually tied” is also not enough. He needs something Super Tuesday that is enough to demonstrate that there really really is a movement behind him. Or is on the asymptote to zero at the best. Doing better than polling from 6 months ago would not be enough.
TP so your honest answer is that any result 3/1 still would be consistent with Sanders having a clear path the nomination?
Not a Sanders support but the reality is wins/losses don’t matter as much as delegates, so a lot of close losses is probably better than a couple wins and a lot of monstrous losses. The x factor is campaigns thrive on media attention, donations (large and small), voter interest etc, and it’s possible all of those will enter a downward spiral if he lost every state other than Vermont, even if he came close in all of them. But that will depend on how the narrative is spun.
So basically it depends on when the narrative becomes about delegate margins and not about wins and losses.
I would think it would happen Wednesday morning. His massive projected win in Vermont will not remotely offset his slightly less massive projected loss in Texas.
Yes, but I have to apologize, I thought you were asking if Bernie should drop out on March 1st. Bernie will drop out at the point that there’s no realistic mathematical chance for him to win, which is not now, not on March 1st, and not at any known point in time. So you are presenting a hypothetical that Hillary will at some point have 3 times as many delegates committed as Bernie and he would need a landslide of the remaining delegates going his way to win. If she can do that she’ll have Bernie’s support, but I don’t see a reason to make that assumption right now. I still don’t understand why you raise this question unless you think Bernie should drop out at some earlier point because you like Hillary better.
ETA: Or are you asking about March 1st, or something else? Ratios are usually expressed with a colon, dates with a slash.
I’m sure he meant the date. i.e. what results on March 1st will convince you it’s over. That’s when all the state primaries he lists happen.
- Locks eyes with Dr. Drake. Drains the Folgers from his paper cup in one slow, thoughtful draught. *
Flatly: “No, sir. Nobody’d want that. The untimely demise of a wife, mother, and esteemed person of state would indeed be a tragic thing. … I’ma go out for Starbucks. I should be back in a few days. You want I should bring you back a paper?”
I doubt most Sanders supporters would endorse this opinion. They take his candidacy seriously, think he can win and are counting on him to deliver what he’s promising.
Oh, I take his candidacy seriously. I’m just aware of how things actually work. I’m delighted with the success he’s had so far, and hope it continues.
[Edit: Sun Jester, please don’t do anything we’ll regret!]
“… who the republicans throw up.”
Is that a prediction?
You had to throw that word “realistic” in there didn’t you? Aye, there’s the rub. The space between mathematically possible and realistically so is exactly the question. Not his dropping out.
Is a say 100 delegate count deficit still realistically possible?
To clarify, you’d posit that losses in all but Vermont including dramatic ones inclusive in Texas would still leave him with a “realistic” chance of a win?
Staying in as another thing. There are other reasons to stay in other than to win. I think Huckabee stayed in a long time last time with no chance of winning.
Unless Hillary announces even more offensive plans for her presidency Bernie will not stay in for personal enrichment of any kind. He’ll look at trends and polling to see if he has a chance to win, when he doesn’t he’ll be out. Even Hillary did that 8 years ago, though with some reluctance. But Stupor Tuesday is going to be too soon to determine that. It will require another meaningful primary to determine if there is an actually trend to bank on. If he falls far enough behind next week and doesn’t show the ability to pick up big offsetting wins in the next few primaries I’m sure he’ll step aside.
-
Why on earth should Sanders drop out before it’s mathematically impossible for him to win? Realistically, that’s the point at which it stops being realistic.
-
I can’t help remembering that Hillary herself failed badly at the math last time she tried this.
Mathematically impossible would be the point where he couldn’t win even if he won every single one of the remaining delegates. It would be foolish for him to stay in that long if Hillary had a commanding lead at that point. He’ll make realistic predictions about how many delegates he can win and when those are insufficient he will drop out because he is a seasoned politician and an honorable man.
If Hillary had a commanding lead but it was still mathematically possible for someone else to win - then Hillary is not yet the winner.
And again, I can’t help remembering Hillary herself stayed in long past the point of mathematical impossibility in 2008. I don’t see how she’s entitled to have everyone take a dive for her.
For what it’s worth, here are the win probabilities for the the super Tuesday states based on the current prices at PredictIt as of approximately the time of this post. (FYI, they don’t have a market for American Samoa)
Clinton Sanders
Vermont 2.0% 98.0%
Colorado 30.8% 69.2%
Minnesota 43.8% 56.2%
Massachusetts 48.5% 51.5%
Oklahoma 76.5% 23.5%
Virginia 95.0% 5.0%
Texas 95.0% 5.0%
Alabama 96.0% 4.0%
Tennessee 96.0% 4.0%
Arkansas 97.0% 3.0%
Georgia 99.0% 1.0%
Safe Clinton - 6
Lean Clinton - 1
Toss-up - 2
Lean Sanders - 1
Safe Sanders - 1
I’m not a Sanders supporter, but I’d think he’d need 4 or 5 wins to stay viable, 3 is arguable, but 1 or 2 and his winning the nomination becomes pretty unrealistic.
Hillary wasn’t doing the right thing in 2008. For the good of the nation Obama offered her the SoS position to get her to drop out. This is just one of the many reasons no one should vote for her in the primaries, but apparently she does well with people with short memories.
Nobody ever drops out, they “suspend” their campaign. The indictment will never come. But if Hillary has the majority and dies or whatever, they could well nominate Biden and probably should.