If Bernie doesn't win a single state on April 26th, does he withdraw?

[Ronnie]

Curious to see what people think.  I'm inclined to believe he won't, but I'm not completely sure.

[Lyin' Steve]

He won't, but the media will quickly start treating him like they treated Ben Carson after Iowa.

[Attorney General, Senator-Elect, & Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If he came within a few points somewhere, no. If nothing is close, yes.

[andrew_c]

No, but his campaign won't be taken seriously anymore.

[Holmes]

He's already touting the Carrier endorsement and running ads in Indiana, so he'll probably stay until the end of that primary.

[Xing]

No, unless he loses all of them by double digits, I think he's in until CA.

[Vosem]

Highly doubt it -- the five Democratic primaries in May are Guam, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, and West Virginia, and it seems like Bernie is favored in all of them with the possible exception of Guam.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Unless Hillary managed to clinch the nomination by April 26, no.

Remember, in 2008 Hillary herself did not quit until Obama got the magic number.

[IceSpear]

Highly doubt it -- the five Democratic primaries in May are Guam, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, and West Virginia, and it seems like Bernie is favored in all of them with the possible exception of Guam.

Why do you think he's favored in Indiana?

[HAnnA MArin County]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

Bring it on.

[HAnnA MArin County]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

Bring it on.

Oh, it's already been broughten.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

Bring it on.

Oh, it's already been broughten.

No, more. We need to see more of your side's true colors. It's been rather enlightening.

[IceSpear]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

I disagree with that since it would be counterproductive, but you bring up an interesting point.

The media's bias is obvious. They were screaming at the top of their lungs during 2008 that Hillary's campaign was pointless and Obama was inevitable (oh, the irony!) But now, even when they begrudgingly admit Bernie has no path to the nomination, I hear very few calls for him to drop out. This despite the fact that Hillary was far closer in both delegates and popular vote (and arguably won the latter.)

But the establishment is interesting. They were supposedly in the tank for her in 07-08, but knowing what we know now they clearly favored Obama all along, and jumped ship en masse (either publicly or privately) once he was seen as viable. For most of 08, Obama was the establishment candidate, not her. Much of the establishment treated her with disdain and joined the media in bashing her for not dropping out, or being a racist, or encouraging Obama's assassination, or whatever other faux scandal of the day there was. This time they're definitely on her side, no question about that, but they've for the most part walked on eggshells to avoid offending Bernie and his supporters and have been quite milquetoast in their defense of her. Maybe they're scared if they did he'd run as an independent whereas they knew Hillary wouldn't, so they were free to kick her around as much as they wanted. Or maybe they just can't find enough motivation to vigorously defend someone who can't compare to their darling Obama. Or is it just good old fashioned sexism? The world may never know.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

I disagree with that since it would be counterproductive, but you bring up an interesting point.

The media's bias is obvious. They were screaming at the top of their lungs during 2008 that Hillary's campaign was pointless and Obama was inevitable (oh, the irony!) But now, even when they begrudgingly admit Bernie has no path to the nomination, I hear very few calls for him to drop out. This despite the fact that Hillary was far closer in both delegates and popular vote (and arguably won the latter.)

But the establishment is interesting. They were supposedly in the tank for her in 07-08, but knowing what we know now they clearly favored Obama all along, and jumped ship en masse (either publicly or privately) once he was seen as viable. For most of 08, Obama was the establishment candidate, not her. Much of the establishment treated her with disdain and joined the media in bashing her for not dropping out, or being a racist, or encouraging Obama's assassination, or whatever other faux scandal of the day there was. This time they're definitely on her side, no question about that, but they've for the most part walked on eggshells to avoid offending Bernie and his supporters and have been quite milquetoast in their defense of her. Maybe they're scared if they did he'd run as an independent whereas they knew Hillary wouldn't, so they were free to kick her around as much as they wanted. Or maybe they just can't find enough motivation to vigorously defend someone who can't compare to their darling Obama. Or is it just good old fashioned sexism? The world may never know.

Gosh, you have the whole primary rigged for your candidate, and she's still the victim? Ridiculous.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Gosh, you have the whole primary rigged for your candidate, and she's still the victim? Ridiculous.

Do you have any other ability besides reciting ridiculous talking points of losing campaigns?

[Lurker]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

I disagree with that since it would be counterproductive, but you bring up an interesting point.

The media's bias is obvious. They were screaming at the top of their lungs during 2008 that Hillary's campaign was pointless and Obama was inevitable (oh, the irony!) But now, even when they begrudgingly admit Bernie has no path to the nomination, I hear very few calls for him to drop out. This despite the fact that Hillary was far closer in both delegates and popular vote (and arguably won the latter.)

But the establishment is interesting. They were supposedly in the tank for her in 07-08, but knowing what we know now they clearly favored Obama all along, and jumped ship en masse (either publicly or privately) once he was seen as viable. For most of 08, Obama was the establishment candidate, not her. Much of the establishment treated her with disdain and joined the media in bashing her for not dropping out, or being a racist, or encouraging Obama's assassination, or whatever other faux scandal of the day there was. This time they're definitely on her side, no question about that, but they've for the most part walked on eggshells to avoid offending Bernie and his supporters and have been quite milquetoast in their defense of her. Maybe they're scared if they did he'd run as an independent whereas they knew Hillary wouldn't, so they were free to kick her around as much as they wanted. Or maybe they just can't find enough motivation to vigorously defend someone who can't compare to their darling Obama. Or is it just good old fashioned sexism? The world may never know.

Gosh, you have the whole primary rigged for your candidate, and she's still the victim? Ridiculous.

How exactly is it "rigged"? Even if you disregarded the superdelegates, Clinton would still have a clear majority and Sanders would still stand no chance of winning the nomination.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

I disagree with that since it would be counterproductive, but you bring up an interesting point.

The media's bias is obvious. They were screaming at the top of their lungs during 2008 that Hillary's campaign was pointless and Obama was inevitable (oh, the irony!) But now, even when they begrudgingly admit Bernie has no path to the nomination, I hear very few calls for him to drop out. This despite the fact that Hillary was far closer in both delegates and popular vote (and arguably won the latter.)

But the establishment is interesting. They were supposedly in the tank for her in 07-08, but knowing what we know now they clearly favored Obama all along, and jumped ship en masse (either publicly or privately) once he was seen as viable. For most of 08, Obama was the establishment candidate, not her. Much of the establishment treated her with disdain and joined the media in bashing her for not dropping out, or being a racist, or encouraging Obama's assassination, or whatever other faux scandal of the day there was. This time they're definitely on her side, no question about that, but they've for the most part walked on eggshells to avoid offending Bernie and his supporters and have been quite milquetoast in their defense of her. Maybe they're scared if they did he'd run as an independent whereas they knew Hillary wouldn't, so they were free to kick her around as much as they wanted. Or maybe they just can't find enough motivation to vigorously defend someone who can't compare to their darling Obama. Or is it just good old fashioned sexism? The world may never know.

Gosh, you have the whole primary rigged for your candidate, and she's still the victim? Ridiculous.

How exactly is it "rigged"? Even if you disregarded the superdelegates, Clinton would still have a clear majority and Sanders would still stand no chance of winning the nomination.

There were far fewer debates, and none for the first 6 months. The first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY.

All the attacks from endless numbers of prominent Hillary surrogates. That whole stupid datagate scandal.

And most significantly that the DNC is now helping the Hillary Victory Fund launder money during a primary to circumvent the $2700 maximum. I'm done with the party because of that.

[IceSpear]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.   

I disagree with that since it would be counterproductive, but you bring up an interesting point.

The media's bias is obvious. They were screaming at the top of their lungs during 2008 that Hillary's campaign was pointless and Obama was inevitable (oh, the irony!) But now, even when they begrudgingly admit Bernie has no path to the nomination, I hear very few calls for him to drop out. This despite the fact that Hillary was far closer in both delegates and popular vote (and arguably won the latter.)

But the establishment is interesting. They were supposedly in the tank for her in 07-08, but knowing what we know now they clearly favored Obama all along, and jumped ship en masse (either publicly or privately) once he was seen as viable. For most of 08, Obama was the establishment candidate, not her. Much of the establishment treated her with disdain and joined the media in bashing her for not dropping out, or being a racist, or encouraging Obama's assassination, or whatever other faux scandal of the day there was. This time they're definitely on her side, no question about that, but they've for the most part walked on eggshells to avoid offending Bernie and his supporters and have been quite milquetoast in their defense of her. Maybe they're scared if they did he'd run as an independent whereas they knew Hillary wouldn't, so they were free to kick her around as much as they wanted. Or maybe they just can't find enough motivation to vigorously defend someone who can't compare to their darling Obama. Or is it just good old fashioned sexism? The world may never know.

Gosh, you have the whole primary rigged for your candidate, and she's still the victim? Ridiculous.

Just pointing out a double standard. In an ideal world, the media and Democratic establishment would've given as much respect and courtesy to Hillary Clinton and her supporters in 2008 that they're now giving to Bernie Sanders and his supporters in 2016.

[BlueSwan]

Yup. As far as I remember Clinton never trailed Obama by more than about 100 delegates or so (and was ahead in the popular vote), yet there were calls for her to drop out from everywhere. The double standards at work here are ridiculous, just like how the Sandernistas used to decry the superdelegates, but now think it is all fine to try to sway them even if they're massively behind in both elected delegates and the popular vote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No, he's going to be stubborn and stay in until the convention and is then going to try to steal the superdelegates while simultaneously inflicting more bruises upon the de facto nominee. Had she done this to Obama in 2008, there would have been calls for her head. I just love the double standard that she's treated with; meanwhile, the so-called "party establishment" (which she allegedly has in her corner) allows this to go on because they don't want to "alienate" the bedwetting Sandernistas. It's beyond time for the gloves to come off, and they need to treat them the same way they treated the PUMAs in 2008: they called the PUMAs racists since every opposition to Barack Obama's presidency was "obviously racially motivated," so call the Bernie bros/Bernie or Bust loons/Sandernistas sexists, since no male candidates have ever been treated as badly as she's been.  

I disagree with that since it would be counterproductive, but you bring up an interesting point.

The media's bias is obvious. They were screaming at the top of their lungs during 2008 that Hillary's campaign was pointless and Obama was inevitable (oh, the irony!) But now, even when they begrudgingly admit Bernie has no path to the nomination, I hear very few calls for him to drop out. This despite the fact that Hillary was far closer in both delegates and popular vote (and arguably won the latter.)

But the establishment is interesting. They were supposedly in the tank for her in 07-08, but knowing what we know now they clearly favored Obama all along, and jumped ship en masse (either publicly or privately) once he was seen as viable. For most of 08, Obama was the establishment candidate, not her. Much of the establishment treated her with disdain and joined the media in bashing her for not dropping out, or being a racist, or encouraging Obama's assassination, or whatever other faux scandal of the day there was. This time they're definitely on her side, no question about that, but they've for the most part walked on eggshells to avoid offending Bernie and his supporters and have been quite milquetoast in their defense of her. Maybe they're scared if they did he'd run as an independent whereas they knew Hillary wouldn't, so they were free to kick her around as much as they wanted. Or maybe they just can't find enough motivation to vigorously defend someone who can't compare to their darling Obama. Or is it just good old fashioned sexism? The world may never know.

Gosh, you have the whole primary rigged for your candidate, and she's still the victim? Ridiculous.

Just pointing out a double standard. In an ideal world, the media and Democratic establishment would've given as much respect and courtesy to Hillary Clinton and her supporters in 2008 that they're now giving to Bernie Sanders and his supporters in 2016.

Bernie had nothing to do with 2008, but since you want to talk 2008.

"McCain brings a lifetime of experience to the campaign. I bring a lifetime of experience. And Sen. Obama brings a speech he gave in 2002." - Hillary in 2008

[Panda Express]

Bernie can stay in. Hillary stayed in until the bitter end despite being mathematically finished long before that. So it's only fair he stays in.

But he needs to tone it down and reign his supporters in. She is going to be the nominee and he needs to try and get his people to accept that.

[Landslide Lyndon]

All the attacks from endless numbers of prominent Hillary surrogates. That whole stupid datagate scandal.

Politics is a blood sport buddy. If ol' Bernie can't stand the heat he should have stayed out of the kitchen.
If he wilts when he is attacked by David Brock then I can't imagine what will happen to him when he goes face to face with Rove, the Koch machine and Fox News in the general.

P.S. Not that I take seriously jfern's delusion of Sanders being "viciously attacked" by big, bad Hillary and her surrogates but let's indulge him for a moment to show just how ridiculous his line of reasoning is.

[Vosem]

Highly doubt it -- the five Democratic primaries in May are Guam, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, and West Virginia, and it seems like Bernie is favored in all of them with the possible exception of Guam.

Why do you think he's favored in Indiana?

He lost very narrowly in Illinois and Missouri, and Indiana is whiter than both and his national numbers have improved. Bernie's numbers were artificially suppressed in Ohio by Kasich actually being a serious option there (causing many independents for whom stopping _trump is more important than electing Bernie/stopping Hillary, but who are unwilling to vote for Ted Cruz, to vote in the Republican primary). A narrow win for Bernie in Indiana therefore seems logical to me.