I’ve been following the Democratic selection process on the European news, and from my (therefore) somewhat shallow, uneducated, and patchy understanding of what’s going on, it’s been clear for at least a week that Dean wasn’t going to make it.
So why did Dean hang on so long? Surely, the moment a candidate realised they had no chance, it would be for the good of the party (if not the ego) to get behind Kerry and push against the Republicans, rather than continue to split the caucuses?
It was clear a week or two before Iowa that John Kerry had no chance. Lucky for him he didn’t buy your logic.
Just because it seems clear that there’s no chance doesn’t mean that there actually is no chance.
Giving up too soon is a very regrettable mistake that can’t be undone.
There’s plenty of time to campaign against the other party after the nomination is effected.
Ego probably was a big factor. Declaring an ambition to be President is a major investment or prestige and few people like to admit they’ve failed in such an endeavor.
But Dean did have some chance. One factor was something Dean himself experienced earlier; the perceived front-runner is the main target of opposition. Dean probably figured to wait a bit and see if Kerry’s campaign might collapse under the increased spotlight and allow Dean to make a comeback.
Another possibility that couldn’t be discounted early on was a delegate split. If some other candidate like Clark or Edwards had made a better showing, they might have collected enough delegates to prevent Kerry from having a clear majority. Say by the time of the convention, Kerry had 45%, Clark had 40%, and Dean was straggling along with the remaining 15%. If the Kerry and Clark supporters were strong enough in their opposition to the other faction’s candidate, one or both sides might have picked Dean as the lesser of two evils. An unlikely scenarion but it has happened in the past.
Not to mention the fact HE’d been the frontrunner… HE’d been THE guy. Gore had endorsed HIM.
That’s a lot to give up and I believe denial played a role for awhile.
Edwards probably isn’t going to get the nomination either, but is hanging in there for several reasons, which may include: (1) Kerry could stumble, leaving Edwards the best remaining option; (2) He wants to demonstrate his appeal in a wide range of states, in hopes of getting the vice-presidential nod (Of course, Edwards denies this, but then they all do.); (3) He’s raising his recognition level to voters in anticipation of another run in 2008, if Kerry doesn’t win the general election.
Dean committed to run in Wisconsin before some of these bad results and had raised about $800,000 in one day on the internet for that purpose. He still had supporters, just not as many.
If the interveneing results had been different. . .who knows until the votes are counted.
The rumored Kerry affair probably played a part, too. If anything had come of the rumors, Kerry’s campaign would have been seriously weakened and the other candidates would get a boost.
I think he gambled. Get out of the race before the effect of the rumors became clear and there was no chance Dean could win. Wait, and there was a chance that Kerry’s chances would be mortally wounded and Dean would be back in it.
Thanks for all your (slightly contradictory) answers! 
The Wisconsin thing I did not know about, and I also think it’s a fair point about the possible affair.
So then, I change my question: why’s Edwards still bothering his arse? Or does he have finance money he needs to use up?
Read my post (third one above yours).
Sharpton and Kucinic are still in the race, and its always been clear that they had no shot.
Dean might have had a few buck to spend. Why not spend it? By staying in, he also is able to keep the issues left of center. As soon as he is out, Kerry can move to the center. That’s good for the party in general but bad for idealogues like Dean.
Similar thing happened in 92 with the Republicans. Buchanan stayed in too long and kept Bush to the right, and that probably gave Clinton the election. Perot was a very successful third party candidate that year which hurt Bush as well, although clearly not all of Perots votes came at the expense of Bush.
Can’t much add to what Colibri posted. Just to emphasize that being in the race gives you a BUNCH of free publicity and name recognition which can be parlayed into other advantages for the runner other than being elected prez.
“Perhaps” some insight into Dean, the man, can be gleened from his exit speech: “I am no longer actively seeking the nomination…” Which translates to: “I ain’t spendin’ another dime, but please keep talking about me because I love to see my name in the news…”
I wish he had won. 
I don’t know that he did wait (or that Edwards is waiting) “so long.” Is there an ‘average’ of when a former front-runner turned non-favorite drops out? When a strong second-place but almost never first-place candidate drops? I know candidates don’t generally wait until the convention, or even (among front-runners with future aspirations) until they’re mathmatically eliminated, but my impression is that first-through-third candidates usually stick around longer than Dean did. Is that impression supported by former primaries?