In fact, at least one losing candidate stayed in the race in all open contests (defined as no incumbent) since 1984 until the contests wer done. In 2008, HRC was in until the end in the closest contest. In 2016, Bernie stayed in until a week or two after the contests, In 2004, Kuchinich with extremely low support stayed in until the convention, Jerry Brown stayed in until June in 1992 ( Gore was in at this point as well), in 1984, Gary Hart was in to the end and winning states, in 1988, Jesse Jackson was in until the end. In fact, in that entire period, only Al Gore had no significant opponent at this point in the race.

The virus has made this year extremely weird. Before it brought the process to a standstill, it was likely that Biden would mathematically get 50% (plus 1) of the delegates by the end of April. Now, it will likely be June before all these delayed primaries are run. It is still mathematically possible for Bernie to win - though very unlikely as things stand right now. However 2 months is an eternity in politics. I see Bernie as LESS popular now than 3 weeks ago, but he might not see that.

NONE of the people who dropped out in earlier years did so when they still saw a chance of winning. 538 gives him little chance, but it is an estimate of what would happen if nothing changes before people vote. The norm is that many drop out long after they have a realistic chance of winning.

To take a year where I remember the numbers, it was completely unlikely that anyone else but Kerry would win after the first multi-state day where he won 5 out of 7 states - described by Dean after his loss in NH as not good for New Englanders when he explained why he would concentrate on contests a week or so later. Yet, Dean and Edwards stayed in for several more weeks - during which time Kerry won every state. Edwards only dropped out after the biggest superTuesday when Kerry had almost the number of delegates needed even if no superdelegates voted for him. In fact, both were FAR more behind when they dropped out - and Kerry had a more solid win than Biden's at this point - and Biden is VERY solid.

Can you give an example where someone doing as well as Bernie dropped out at a point similar to this point (ignoring how atypical this year is)?

I think it would be good to STOP the Bernie drop out posts that only anger his supporters. Think of any time you were supporting the trailing candidate. How much harder would it be for you to support the nominee if you feel that your candidate was pushed out before he/she had reached the point where he/she realized his/her dream was over? WE NEED those voters.

Against Sanders, the facts of his open support for Communists in the Caribbean and Central America into the Reagan era, as well as his apparent support for the Iranian Revolution, would be dinned in to the public. Sanders is often praised by his followers for 'consistency' throughout his political career, and this is where he was at its beginning. These are not smears, these are positions of a party he stood as elector for in a Presidential election. It is hard to claim a man does not support positions of a candidate he is an elector for. It can be attempted, but not with much hope of success. 'Crazy Bernie the Commie' is simply too fat a target to be passed up, and it would not be.

The 'Crazy Bernie the Commie' line will bite home. There is just enough fact, and fact not too widely known, to give it real bite. Especially among older voters, who were of age during the Cold War. And the line would be helped along by Sanders inability not to say that one extra sentence to try and justify his youthful foolishness. Of course he wasn't really youthful, he was nearing forty years of age. No one really cares if 'Red China' reduced poverty, no one really thinks that quite excuses the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution or Tiananmen Square. Just as no one, particular people of Cuban heritage in Florida, gives the north end of a southbound rat whether Castro got more people able to read.

There does not seem to me any obvious way Sanders defends himself against this line of attack, pressed home in news coverage of rallies (video or otherwise) and the steady bombardment of attack ads on the airwaves, and of crafted personal communications on social media. This line of attack is something no Democrat wants to press against Sanders, out of concern for the sensibilities and loyalties of his supporters and followers. Our open enemies would have no such compunction.





"From Bernie’s perspective, dropping out of a race once you have no chance of winning is peculiar behavior that can only be explained by the work of a hidden hand. For most politicians, though, it is actually standard operating procedure. Only Sanders seems to think the normal thing to do once voters have made clear they don’t want to nominate you is to continue campaigning anyway."





"When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does not make sense, what is planned cannot succeed. When plans do not succeed, people become uneasy. When people are uneasy, punishments do not fit crimes. When punishments do not fit crimes, people cannot know where to put hand or foot."

. . . then why make a point of canceling a previously scheduled event? Senators make these kinds of decisions all the time. Singling Bernie out for it is rather dishonest. Bernie has been a reliable vote for the Democratic caucus over the years, and whenever he has known that his vote might actually be needed, he has shown up. That's more than a lot of Senators with a "D" after their name can say.

...The "previously scheduled event" was set up the day before the vote, knowing there would be a vote on Sunday.

Also, it was an online event in which everyone participating were doing so remotely. No one traveled to Burlington to participate in the event. It could have been rescheduled with practically no inconvenience to those participating.

Finally, at the time of the vote there were five Senators who were self-quarantined, NINETY FIVE were physically able to vote - only one had other priorities, ninety four voted, INCLUDING all of every one of those "with a "D" after their name".

And that stuff about him being a reliable vote for the Democratic caucus simply isn't true. From June 28 through January 9 (that's more than half a year) he missed 237 CONSECUTIVE votes, and he's missed more votes than any of the 100 Senators in the 2019/2020 session, more than 61%. He's the most delinquent person in the Senate.

If Hillary had made the same decision in her 2008 or 2016 campaigns, you wouldn't have uttered a word about it!

And as for those votes Sanders missed, if you can show me even ONE instance where his presence would have changed the outcome, then I'll concede your point.

....which votes are important and which are not. Clearly there are no other Senators who were more cavalier with his/her vote than him at 61% absentee rate.

Hillary Clinton has nothing to do with this, and wasn't a Senator in 2016 anyway.

Bernie is not particularly consistent in his logic, is he?

...contrary to the Democratic position because it would have passed anyway, or he voted against something contrary to the Democratic position because it would have failed anyway.

He's a legislative Nostradamus.

but I just had to say it.

What day was it voted on?