PART 1: Let's carefully examine the rationales for continuing this primary fight, shall we?

I would like to ask those here who value critical thinking and reasoned argumentation to bear with me. Due to the incredibly volatile nature of the boards lately, its necessary for me to spell out the logic-chain in extreme detail.

Premise Number One: until we have a nominee and stop this cycle of infighting between democrats we can expect general election poll numbers against the already established republican nominee to only get worse for both Obama and Clinton.

Rationale:McCain right now is enjoying next to no media scrutiny, while the media is exhaustively covering every dirty, dark, nasty detail of this completely self-destructive and pointless (because Obama has already got the nomination locked up) "race" on the democratic side.

Every week it goes on, you're going to see negatives for both Clinton and Obama rise. Every week it goes on, you're going to see both Clinton and Obama drop against McCain. Sometimes one more. Sometimes the other one more. But both. Every week. Until this is over.

When this is over, the DNC and the nominee can begin to spend its money against McCain, pressure the media for attention to McCain, and start making the case effectively against McCain - and he has LOTS AND LOTS of material to draw from.

Which leads me to my next premise:

Premise Number Two: there is no rational scenario in which continuing the primary contest on the democratic side helps us put a democrat in the white house or helps the Democratic Party.

Rationale: Think with me carefully here. Set aside arguments about whether a candidate has the right to continue. Just focus on the simple fact that there's no way to spin what is happening right now as beneficial to the Democratic Party. None. At the very best, stretching rationality almost to the breaking point, you might be able barely try to defend a claim that it is simply neutral, and has no positive or negative effect. But polling would not seem to support that claim - for either candidate. One sided media attention on the negatives of a democratic house fight would seem not to support that claim.

If the democratic primary process continues on to Pennsylvania, still a month away, how does that help the Democratic Party or the eventual nominee? It doesn't. There's nothing about this process going on that is a benefit. Maybe its necessary, but that's a separate argument, so hold that thought. Just agree that even if it is necessary, its unfortunate, because there's nothing about it continuing on that is helping the Democratic Party, or either candidate, against the republican nominee who has already been chosen, is already raising general election money and organizing his general election team, already has the full support of the RNC, and is enjoying almost a complete Media pass because all media is fixated on the bare-knuckles Democratic chaos.

If it goes beyond that, it doesn't get better, it only gets worse. In fact every single day this goes on is a day of wasted time, wasted opportunity, lost resources, lost money, lost preparation, lost organizational time, lost message delivery, etc.

Try to think about this from the perspective of someone equally committed to either candidate (i.e. neutral) - this doesn't help the party. It only hurts it. I repeat, even if it is necessary, let's just all accept the fact that it doesn't help us. It isn't like anyone can say (with a straight face), "wow thank god we don't have this nomination locked up, because its really helping us in the general!"

Ok then, these premises lead me to my conclusion:

Conclusion based on the premises: one candidate needs to put the interests of the party first and drop out right now - today - and throw his or her support behind the nominee, allow that nominee to have the full resource of the DNC, begin work to heal the pains and bitterness that this record-long campaign process has caused among democrats, start organizing AS ONE PARTY against the republican nominee.

Take off your Obama hat. Put down your Clinton banner. Think as a DEMOCRAT. The best thing that could happen to the democratic party right now is for one candidate to see that this process does nothing to help Democrats and drop out right now. Forget about whether you think it should be Obama or Clinton for the moment. Just accept the fact that there is nothing positive for the Democratic PARTY about continuing this infighting, and the best thing for the PARTY would be for us to have an nominee TODAY.

Based on that conclusion, which candidate is the one who should most appropriately be expected to step aside for the good of the party?

Should it be the candidate who:
- has the most pledged delegates
- has the popular vote
- has the most states one
- has raised the most money

Or should it be the candidate who:
- has failed to win the most delegates
- has failed to win the popular vote
- has failed to win the most states
- has failed to raise the most money
- lost twelve contests in a row
- despite name recognition, "experience" and having one of the most popular presidents in modern history campaigning by her side has still failed in every one of these categories

As a democrat, who puts the best interests of the party ahead of personal ambition and individual ego, who should rightfully be pressured to / expected to step down today for the good of the party, so that we can stop erroding our changes of a general election victory and start focusing on the Republican nominee?

Who?

K & R

Thank you for all your effort in putting together your post. Well considered, well written.

K&R

:kick:

K&R

I'm a Democratic activist in a red state that is usually very late in a primary cycle. Let me tell you what this campaign did for us.

It brought people out of the woodwork to help.
It has forced us to have thousands of organizational meetings that we would have never had otherwise.
It has introduced hundreds of thousands of people to each other that otherwise would not have met.
In short, it has strengthened the local party incredibly. It has laid the groundwork for a grassroots campaign in the fall unlike any we have seen in this state in 30 years.

Four years ago when we organized as the grassroots for Dallas for Kerry, there were maybe 80 of us actually working this town. This year, as long as we can keep those activists engaged, there will be 800.

I am quite sure the same thing is going on in PA right now. And that's a good thing. A very VERY good thing.

I understand your concern that the nominee not be too "bloodied up," but I don't see that happening right now too excessively. Ultimately, this extended contest will be good for us in the fall.

Everything you say was true when the republican party did not have a nominee locked up. Now that they do, premise one is true.

The premises are that at this point in time the continuing democratic primary process does nothing to help Democrats, it only hurts. The argument wasn't that it was never good, or never a process that had benefits. And you've done nothing to address the points made about how this process is now currently hurting the democratic party, hurting the status of both candidates and hurting your chances in the general.

There is nothing going on on Pennsylvania that wouldn't being going on BETTER of we had a NOMINEE campaigning for the GENERAL ELECTION there.

and it reflects the need to really put the party's interests first. The first premise we need to accept is that both candidates are for all practical purposes, tied for delegates, funding and popular support.

That said, we need a Dem candidate who:

Has the most experience and connections to begin the job from day one, esp on crisis issues of foreign policy and the economy
Has the most detailed policy agenda
Has strong popular support that will translate into votes in the GE
Has been vetted in the public arena

Parsing the scores leading up to the convention is irrelevant. The convention is a deliberative process, thankfully, and we gain nothing by automatically defaulting to a candidate who has a marginally higher level of delegates who may not be able to win the GE.

Math... when Clinton's winning it's the people's voice

When Obama's winning it's just "math"

Define "for all practical purposes."

The candidates are not tie for delegates, not tied for funding (not even close) your candidate is broke, Obama is not according to FEC, and are not tied for popular vote.

Which candidate has has the most experience and connections to begin the job from day one, esp on crisis issues of foreign policy and the economy? Certainly Hillary Clinton's experience has been show to be nothing to write home about. Her foriegn policy experience? None.

Which candidate has the most detailed policy agenda? They both do. Obama may have chosen a rhetorical style on the stump that emphasizes vision more, but when you go to their campaigns to get "on the issues" information - they both have the same level of detailed policy, and in fact in many instances Obama has MORE detail than Clinton provides.

Has strong popular support? Both do, except that one has more of the popular VOTE, which matters.

Has been vetted in the public arena? Both have. Sorry, but you've lost the "has been vetted" argument after the Kitchen Sink the Clinton campaign has thrown at Obama without making anything stick.

This is the first time in modern election history that supporters of one candidate such as yourself try to make the ridiculous argument that delegates don't matter, popular vote doesn't matter - in fact nothing matters but what ever helps your candidate get elected. Sorry, but the process matters. And overturning the popular process and the popular VOTE because you don't like the results is the most anti-democratic Party think we could do. And that's why it won't happen.

For several reasons:

1. It doesn't help the party to disenfranchise democrats by making their primaries irrelevant. Some of us haven't voted yet.

2. The continued brawling makes it clear that neither of these candidates can unify the party in November, making it likely that, at this point, it doesn't matter who wins the nomination, the democratic nominee loses the GE.

3. Keeping it close all the way until the convention provides the best chance of a positive outcome. A brokered convention that nominates someone else who CAN unite Democrats behind him or her for the GE. Not to mention a nominee that might make a decent president.

Please. I'd like a chance to cast a vote that means something in my primary, still 2 months away. I'd also like a chance to see the convention make lemonade out of the lemons they are offered, by sending them back to the senate and nominating a good candidate.

I don't want either side to give up. Keep fighting until the convention.

:popcorn:

when your candidate is losing, they become the root of all evil.

Everyone knows that if your candidate was winning caucuses they would suddenly be the best things on earth.

Caucuses are public processes. In my state, seven times as many people participated in the caucus as ever before - in all past years when no one was crying about them being so terrible. Now in the year when record-breaking numbers of the public are participating in the process, suddenly its unfair.

give me a break.

Making the argument that in a year where more people have turned out to vote than any in modern history there is somehow not a popular vote is simply absurd to any reasonable neutral person.

We have got to start focusing on McCain.

The picture might be much different if they didn't already have their nominee. We are giving McCain way, way too much leeway.