Should Bernie Sanders have dropped out earlier

[LAKISYLVANIA]

That's not why Hillary lost.

We're surprisingly in agreement on a Hillary-related issue, at least on this narrow scope

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The progressives around Sanders are trying to win control of the party, or at least drag it to the left. It's entirely legitimate for them to have kept contesting a state like California. And no, it doesn't make the top 20 reasons why Clinton lost.

[junior chįmp]

No....Hillary should of dropped out earlier

[Hammy]

If anything, more Dems should've challenged Hillary so we would've known before it was too late how weak of a candidate she was.

[AudmanOut]

That's not why Hillary lost.

[Tweedledum]

That's not why Hillary lost.

^

This.

Plus, Hillary herself stayed in for the entire primary race in 2008 even after it became clear that she is extremely unlikely to win. Thus, why shouldn't Bernie have the same luxury?

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Sure, and then ran as an independent.

[bagelman]

Yes to avoid false allegations of being spiteful by Clintonite liberal Republicans.

[Xing]

That's not why Hillary lost.

Jfern is actually right, in this case.

[Flyersfan232]

if i was him i would have drop out and and try for the green nomieeation as a screw you for screwing me in the primary.

[wildviper121]

so dems have candidate who would beat anybody (sanders) and they decided to nominate most unlikeble person in america, who lost to trump. and now clintonites asking questions like this...

Couldn’t beat Clinton in the primaries...
Seems like he can lose.

[brucejoel99]

That's not why Hillary lost.

This, but also yes to the question, in that he should've dropped out when she secured the nomination in early June rather than haphazardly waiting until mid-July. 

[Rookie Yinzer]

That's not why Hillary lost.

^

This.

Plus, Hillary herself stayed in for the entire primary race in 2008 even after it became clear that she is extremely unlikely to win. Thus, why shouldn't Bernie have the same luxury?

Hillary 2008 had an argument. Bernie 2016 was simply being delusional and petulant.

[Mr. Smith]

Objectively, yes. But mostly because of the poor effort he put into The South which pretty much sealed it for Hillary.

If the primaries had been a bit more like 2008 and Bernie had put in the effort like he did after Michigan went his way, the answer would be no.

Either way, Hillary wasn't going to get my vote in the primary.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

That's not why Hillary lost.

^

This.

Plus, Hillary herself stayed in for the entire primary race in 2008 even after it became clear that she is extremely unlikely to win. Thus, why shouldn't Bernie have the same luxury?

Hillary 2008 had an argument. Bernie 2016 was simply being delusional and petulant.

Speaking of your username, her argument was that RFK was assassinated in June. Great argument.

[Lincoln_Chaffee]

No

[Zaybay]

Not at all, and the idea that Sanders staying in ruined Hillary's chances is delusional. There is no reason Sanders should have stepped aside in the primary, none whatsoever.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Sanders's popularity was a symptom of Hillary's weakness as a candidate, not its cause.