You know, it almost seems as though - logically - if a candidate drops out, at least some of the other ones would get a bump, as voters shift their preference.
Does that actually happen?
Something else I've been noticing - actually, most of my life - and that is that voters want to vote for someone who has a chance at winning. They like to vote their conscience, but they also want to vote for someone who actually has a chance of winning, and when a long shot candidate starts putting up numbers - the support rolls in. For a while at least. Invariably the press finds a way to shoot them full of holes until the wave of support fails, and they become a passing fad.
Some candidates pull it off - Perot, Sanders etc. They tap into something, and voters like them, and stick with them. Sanders seems to be the beneficiary of opposing someone that even her own supporters don't really like. Hillary is disliked even by Democrats, even by the President, and as far as political astuteness - she's terrible. She is completely lacking in any charisma, she almost categorically gives awful responses to simple questions - unlike her husband - she inspires no one. People are aching for an alternative, but until Sanders got a little traction, no one was jumping ship. Why?
Because of the perception that - "he can't win". People want a winner.
PART of it is simple pragmatism. People don't want to "waste" their vote. You can vote for Kiki Stinkertoes to make a statement, but if you want to make a DIFFERENCE, you vote for an alternative THAT CAN WIN. Bernie has people convinced. I'm guessing that in the next few months, we're going to see more wins - and more at large candidates backing Hillary ANYWAY.
I'm sort of fearing that what will happen with the Republicans is that after the also-rans fall away, people will want to "bet" on a winner. And the party will coalesce around a favorite. Right now it's Rubio. I'm still thinking they want Jeb.
