Should candidates who haven't won any primaries by Feb. 4 drop out?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

Poll question: Should candidates who haven't won any primaries by Feb. 4 drop out?

[Renew Deal]

1. Yes, get 'em out

The race needs to be cleared up even more.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. We as a party need to stop rushing these things...again it's buying

into spin. Let's let them all play out as long as they can. I, for one, enjoy it. As is being evidenced tonight, this is still anyone's race and still will be (in my opinion) after Feb. 4th. Different parts of the country see things differently. Let's slow down, shall we?

[ShaneGR]

3. Yes, after 9 primaries or cauceses.. it's not happening if you haven't won

And those nine states represent a large cross-section of America.

[roguewolf5]

4. No...

Now after Super Tuesday, then it would be rational.

[spooky3]

5. depends

if someone else has won every single one of them, yes
if a candidate's showing has been very poor in most of them, yes

and so on.

[not systems]

6. The longer the primaries the better.

I think it keeps Bush from controlling the media cycle because
the media has to cover the campaigns.

[leyton]

7. But the media isn't covering them anyway.

Lieberman, Kucinich, and Sharpton get no coverage whatsoever. Clark, Kerry, Edwards, and Dean are getting all the stories. So how exactly will it help us keep the media coverage if these three stay in?

[HuckleB]

8. A candidate could be in the lead in terms of delegates without winning

any individual primary. Thus, such a question is meaningless.