• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The "When Will Bernie Drop Out" Poll

When Will They Turn Off the Perpetual Flame at The Bern's HQ?

  • Never! We're winning this thing. Feel the Bern!

    Votes: 17 34.7%

  • End March. The numbers will be too apparent to deny.

    Votes: 3 6.1%

  • End April or at the point in April where Hillary's delegate count puts her over the top.

    Votes: 5 10.2%

  • Early June, after the huge vote count in CA leaves very little left to count

    Votes: 5 10.2%

  • Convention time. He's in this to give his Bern Bro some camera time at the convention.

    Votes: 14 28.6%

  • On Planet X there is no election. Ron Paul is President for Life

    Votes: 5 10.2%
  • Total voters
    49
  • Poll closed .

Foolmewunz

Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Foolmewunz
Joined
Aug 11, 2006
Messages
41,468
Location
Pattaya, Thailand
I've included a choice for the delusional (first answer), so if you want to debate the premise, go to the Ain't Bernie Swell thread please.

After Michigan, Ohio, Florida, NC? That'd be the second choice... end March.

After the actual count gives Hillary the win by delegate count (not super delegate) alone? That'd be the third choice, mid to end of April.

He'll stick it out 'til CA (fourth choice). June. (There aren't a lot of votes on the table in May, so I'm arbitrarily ruling that out.)

He's in it 'til the end and won't formally announce his concession until he gets to the convention. (fifth choice)
 
He'll go all in until convention time unless something happens, eg lack of funds. He's got nothing to lose, and stays a popular viable alternative in case something happens to Hillary.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
He'll go all in until convention time unless something happens, eg lack of funds. He's got nothing to lose, and stays a popular viable alternative in case something happens to Hillary.
Click to expand...

Indeed. She once pointed out that the Robert Kennedy presidential bid went on until California.
 
Related to this would Hillary prefer Bernie drop out sooner rather than later?

Might there be value for her if she is seen as being nominated instead of corinated (that's not a real world though - and spell checker is not helping) as has been suggested early on in the primary process?

Does it help her more to have an opponent keeping her on her toes rather than having an opportunity to focus on the general election?
 
I've already de facto answered elsewhere. I don't think it makes any sense whatsoever to drop out prior to the convention unless the email thing is fully resolved -- at least from the law enforcement angle (don't give a crap about the Republican dialogue though -- I'm more concerned that it may hurt her chances of winning, and also would prefer that my own party doesn't sweep actual lawbreaking under the rug for political expedience). I'm also not willing to give up anyway -- so I hit response number one to indicate that I haven't given up hope that he might actually win.

That said, I'm not quite as impressed with his latest debate performance as I could be. That doesn't mean that I was more impressed by Clinton though, by any stretch. Both were better than their Republican rivals, but that's a pretty low bar.
 
Last edited:
The only thing Bernie will be dropping is the severed heads of his enemies! Go forth to victory, Lord Sanders, and all who oppose you shall bern in all-consuming flame!!!!!
 
16.5 said:
wow, we literally did this two weeks ago with a poll and everything.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=303889

can you merge poll threads?
Click to expand...

I assume that might be difficult when the responses are not the same. I'm not a mod though... they might do the work of figuring something out. Some people have voted in both though. I did, and gave different responses due to the lack of the best one here (for me) in the former poll.
 
Last edited:
Manopolus said:
I would agree with that assessment. The data might be useful, even if it doesn't change the result.
Click to expand...

Yes, it makes sense in terms of internal democracy. To a point it may well be argued that a nominee or elected official should have a mandate corresponding to the strength of their support. Obviously a Hillary with 95% of delegates would differ from one with 54%, in terms of what support would be attainable for various policies.
 
Manopolus said:
I would agree with that assessment. The data might be useful, even if it doesn't change the result.
Click to expand...

TubbaBlubba said:
Yes, it makes sense in terms of internal democracy. To a point it may well be argued that a nominee or elected official should have a mandate corresponding to the strength of their support. Obviously a Hillary with 95% of delegates would differ from one with 54%, in terms of what support would be attainable for various policies.
Click to expand...

Presumably you feel that Martin O'Malley, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, et al should have remained in the races, as well?
 
wareyin said:
Presumably you feel that Martin O'Malley, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, et al should have remained in the races, as well?
Click to expand...

There are limits. Also, in a many-candidate race, endorsements arguably transfer mandate. Less so in a two-candidate race of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom