In response to the actual poll, I have to say I'm a little confused on options one and two. Both are already functionally-equivalent languages that compile to the same MSIL and run on the same CLR, so unless they actually change the syntax, how do they get to be any closer? (Note: XML Literals are a compiler convenience, not a functional difference; the code compiles to using XElement and friends). Microsoft has repeatedly stated that they love them both equally, and IIRC they combined the VB and C# development teams under the same management to help make sure that features for each are kept equal. There are still some trivial differences as they get caught up and in-sync, but the stated goal is equality.
Microsoft will continue to support VB.NET because they don't have to maintain two separate languages, just the compiler and Intellisense services. The vast library of classes, the runtime, the development tools, etc., are nearly completely language-independent. Some code generation tools require knowledge of the language, but even that is eroding as they abstract language constructs, much as they've done with Entity Framework and the varied syntax of data stores. IronPython and IronRuby were proof of how (relatively) easy it is to add a new .NET language; they were spun off to community projects, but they had no established code base to support; they were proofs of concept trying to encourage other systems to extend their languages into using Visual Studio -- something that's possible even if they don't use the .NET Framework (a la VS.PHP). There's money to be made with relatively little cost; it's not going away.
To the willfully ignorant that choose to still argue against VB.NET using reasons that haven't applied since VB6, QuickBasic, GW-Basic and plain old BASIC, read a book and get over it. As mentioned above, the languages compile to the same MSIL running on the same CLR. Performance is identical. Features are identical. A good developer is good in any language, and a bad developer is bad in any language; see thedailywtf.com and ioccc.org for many examples. It comes down to a choice of syntax, and in many cases, the choice made by the enterprise before you were even hired. There's no measurable benefit to companies or to users to convert VB.NET to C#; you can't even claim cost savings on tools since only the Express editions separate the two They use the same class framework so any half-decent developer should be able to jump easily between the two. VB6 vs. C had some actual technical distinctions, but for VB.NET vs C# it's purely a matter of taste (or bias); nothing more.
