When will Bernie give up his candidacy?

Sure, let's close the tangent.

Back to Bernie's candidacy. I think the general going opinion now among Democrats not necessarily following Bernie goes something like this: Bernie should continue fighting until the end, no matter what the pundits say, because it's good for the party and the jockeying will make the eventual Dem candidate that much stronger and sharper in the Fall.

I can see that line of thinking, and I think there's some solid reasoning there. But...
the argument can also be made that after this last Super Tuesday made the math look right next to insurmountable, it might be a good idea for Bernie to start tapering off; stop with the attacks on Hillary and maybe focus on how the Dems outshine the Republicans on the issues. I can also see the sense in that perspective. I think a lot of candidates would, in fact, at this point begin to send signals to their flock that just in case we lose the nomination they should be sure to support their side on election day. Bernie will never do this, for a couple of reasons, IMO.

One, Bernie isn't even a Democrat. He took on the Democratic mantle just so he could use their party to support his candidacy. So he doesn't have any particular allegiance or care about what happens to the party if he doesn't win the nomination. Further, I've begun to wonder if Bernie will give a full-throated endorsement to Hillary if he loses. I think Bernie may have bought into his own hype - he may really have taken it to heart that he is the last, only hope for the country.

I agree that Bernie should stay in the fight until the end. But I'm worried...
I hope to hell not, but Bernie could turn out to be among the number of people who fold up and withdraw if Hillary is the nominee.

Here's how rough the math is for Sanders going forward: To win a majority in pledged delegates, he needs to win 58 percent of those remaining.

That might not sound so bad. But because all the Democratic contests allot their delegates proportionally, it's actually punishingly difficult.

It means Sanders has to beat Clinton by around 58 percent to 42 percent pretty much constantly. And that's just incredibly implausible given what's happened so far, and especially given what's happened tonight.

Even unexpected wins for Sanders in big states like California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey — already unlikely — wouldn't be enough. Sanders has to win those states by enormous margins.

And there are still a great deal of delegates left in states and territories with large nonwhite populations — states with demographics similar to those that have favored Clinton so far. These include Maryland, Arizona, New Mexico, and even Puerto Rico (which Clinton won in a blowout in 2008).

Plus, any further Clinton victory just makes the targets Sanders has to hit even more absurd. At this point, the only thing Sanders can really hope for is that some scandal emerges that tanks Clinton's numbers everywhere.

http://www.vox.com/2016/3/15/11243398/bernie-sanders-election-results-2016-winning

That last sentence explains why there is this relentless banging of the same old 'Hillary bad candidate' drums is coming daily from the Bernie supporters. They know that they need something horrible to stick to Hillary in order for their guy to win.

It's sort of the same way (in my opinion) a horrible terrorist attack on Obama's watch might be the only way for Trump to beat the Democrat in the Fall.

Personally I think he started out thinking he knew better than anyone else, kind of the "blame candidate."

Yeah, he always has struck me as just a tad self-righteous. I had a lot of time to form my opinion of him listening to 2 hours of him answering phone calls every Friday for 3 years on the Thom Hartman radio show. He only stopped appearing on 'Fridays with Bernie' after he formally announced his candidacy.

He's being quoted regularly in the news now. He's gone from, "I'll win the most states", to "I'll win the most delegates", to "I should be the nominee because I have the best chance". I guess Bernie thinks he should just be selected on the strength of his polling, and leave all that nonsense about votes and delegates to the side. Him ambitious? Nah.

Because most people have made up their minds about the attacks. Either they believe them without evidence or they see them for attacks without evidence. No one is going to have their mind changed over some ads bringing up stuff from the last 2o years.

I hope you're right.

agree with snood

I'm hoping Trump self-immolates (er, figuratively, not literally) with a follow up roll of bon mots that more and more people are repulsed by.

A small molecule in my brain has considered that this was his ploy all along, but that is very farfetched and, besides, his racism et al are all too real.

Agree. I've been agreeing with both you and Olivier re your thoughts for the last bunch of posts while you guys are clarifying what you mean.
Keep on talking, eh?

Not surprising since the republicans have been trying to hang him from a cross ever since he won the presidency---- twice!

Do you think his screaming open mouthed rants will play out with intelligent voters during the election debates?

It's hard to say. There is certainly a large segment of the population that is fed up with current politicians. They may well be willing to vote for Trump out of spite or ignorance of the possible consequences. Do we want a President or a protest place holder in that office? That may be the ultimate question in the elections this year.

No ground gained last night for the Bern, division of delegates about the same for he and HRC.

If only there was some way to get a 50, 50, split in the house. But not possible for at least 10 years, if the dems make it a priority.

There has been some speculation that Trump may be so bad for the GOP that it might reduce turnout which could put the House in play this election.

When you have 2 republican voters to 1 dem. you dont need a big turnout in a district. An estimate.

But that's not the way gerrymandering works.

You create 3 districts with 60% GOP and 1 with 80% DEM in order to win more districts while having the same number of voters. That means if you can drive GOP votes down by 20% with a bad candidate those 60% GOP districts might be in play with a large Dem turnout.

Hope your right but the repubs seem to be better than the dems at getting out the vote. Used to be the other way around.