He ceased the process after the first round of state vote tabulations if I recall. Its the same process Clinton used, minus him explicitly saying "by acclimation" after requesting the nomination of Clinton.
So why is it the right thing?
The point of a primary isn't to hold a pre-election before the real election. The point of a primary is for the Democratic Party to pick its nominee for President. That process doesn't call for it to representational to everyone who voted. Its explicitly supposed to pick the person that Dems believe is most likely to win.
If a candidate had a slightly plurality in votes during the process but did so by stacking up big numbers is a handful of large states while another candidate was more generally competitive across the nation an argument could easily be made that the later is more electable in the general for example, and as such the process is designed to choose them.
If the primary instead used an alternative format where any state lost or won by less than 3% (typical national polling average margin of error) received 50% more delegates that, unlike a similar slant in the general election, would be entirely sensible because the winner of those states would logically be the most likely to flip them in the general and therefore win the election.
The primary isn't supposed to be a fair democratic process. Its supposed to be a vetting of eligible candidates and a chance for the Democratic party at large to make their preferences known. The lack of ranked choice and similar features for a process that has the potential to field six candidates into Super Tuesday underscores that its not meant to be a truly democratic process. We're going to have 10's to 100's of thousands of people vote for candidates who won't make it to June still in the race, let alone to the convention.
So while the process of the primary is flawed and, given the increasing polarity in our political system, should probably be a more democratic system, that is not what it is designed as, what it is intended to be, or what anyone running signed up for when this whole thing started. Ergo the fair and right thing is to continue the process exactly as designed an intended. You don't change the rules of a game mid-stream just because there is a slightly plurality in the sport for one team to win.
The real problem here that is going to haunt the DNC up to the convention if they don't wake up soon is that this process, if ran to its intent, is likely going to pick Sanders. He's now the strongest candidate in head to head national polling against Trump. Prior to passing Biden in that metric he was a close second in the swing states, so is presumably now first by a most likely to win swing states map. He is the strongest fundraiser in the group without needing special interests or billionaires propping him up.
The answers given by the candidates are the answers they should be giving. One would assume that they all believe they're the most likely to beat Trump and the most likely to be a capable POTUS, if not why are they even in it? Its not for them to invalidate their candidacy before we even get to Super Tuesday.
It is the DNC's responsibility to manage their super delegates such that they pick the candidate most likely to win, should there not be a majority winner selected in the primary process.
He had a better performance than anyone except Warren and arguably Biden.
Warren stole the show in that she showed up ready to fight everyone, but especially Mike Bloomberg.
Biden looked far more engaged and cogent than he has in recent debates and had no major gaffes, so he looked far better than normal.
Sanders, in the first debate since becoming the clear front runner, took no major hits, had no real gaffes, and left the debate looking like one of only three candidates with national viability. The other two being Warren and Biden. Current polling has Bloomberg listed as being nationally viable, but his debate performance, late entry, and non-stop drip feed of past fuckery is going to catch up with him in the next round of polls I'd suspect.
Biden needs a surge as his state polling is sliding and his ground game has underproduced polls repeatedly.
Warren lives on the line of viability in most states. She needs this to be a bump and she needs her ground game to improve. Not Biden level, but she needs to actually meet or beat some state polls in actual results.
Sanders is the only candidate who wins by simply staying the course while the moderate wing continues to fight, so when the best the other candidates can throw at him as the new leader is what we saw last night that is an unmitigated win for him.
The fact of the matter is that Warren is the only truly good debater in the field. Biden used to be, but that guy hasn't been seen since 2012. Warren is the smartest, most fact engaged candidate. Bernie is probably #2. Thats an indictment of Klobuchar as a past prosecutor more than anyone else.
At this point the only person withg the chops to cut Sanders in a debate is Warren and it was pretty clear last night that she's willing to cut everyone but Sanders and Biden. That will probably hurt her ultimate chances, but she's clearly unwilling to get in the mud with the two most likely nominees.
