Best case scenario for the Democratic Party.

Enough super delegates declare for Obama that he gets put over the 2024 mark in an upcoming contest.

That way, he will win it in a state election, the Supers get some cover from the charge that they decided it, and we have a universally acknowledged presumptive nominee.

Probably the best scenario would be for Obama to first win a majority of the super delegates on May 20th, then lots of SDs move over to his camp and he wins it outright from the voters in SD and MT.

This may not seem fast enough for some people, but it's probably for the best for a whole lot of reasons.

Is it best because the candidate you like gets to lose in November rather than the candidate you don't like? Face it: Clinton and Obama have annihilated each other. They should both drop out.

I actually prefer that the Democratic nominee WIN in November. Neither of the two left standing at this point can or will win.

I guess you better start writing Dean.

Speak that truthiness to power.

If either of them could win in November, they wouldn't be neck and neck in the polls with some fossil that endorses the policies of a failed President with a sub-30% approval rating.

But unless your name is Marty McFly or Doc Brown, you are speculating.

And an educated guess is not enough to upend the whole process. Sorry.

The purpose of the process ultimately is to pick someone to represent the Party and that we have *reason* to believe can win. Not to pick someone we hope can win or to provide any of us vindication.

Anyone polling even with McCain falls outside of that parameter.

I will vote for Clinton without batting an eye.

The fact is that the process must be honored. Doing otherwise would hemorrage votes. All the new voters? Gone. The most loyal constituency to the Democratic Party, African-Americans? Gone. The die-hard fighters in the Clinton campaign? Gone.

Now look what you've done! You've turned me into a prognosticator too!

I don't totally disagree with you. It's just not feasible.

I think your prognostication is inaccurate. Is there some basis for it? I've discussed my reasoning. What is yours for assuming that AA's would be gone, or the Clinton supporters would be gone? Even with all the acrimony (much of which is very nasty and public), only around 1/4th of Dems backing one candidate say they won't back the other. Why would a compromise candidate, say a Bill Richardson, cause more divisiveness than the current level? I can't think of any valid reason for such a reaction at all.

It's the best case scenario because anyone who can count realizes Obama is already the presumptive nominee.

You aren't so naive as to believe the party is going to let this drag on to the convention are you?

Or are you just still complaining because your favorite either already dropped out or didn't run?

You'll play that wonderful scenario out again and again in your mind during McCain's Presidency.

Tell me, what's your magical plan for getting all those Clinton supporters to the polls in November? Are you going to say, "Gosh, sorry we called you Republicans (and far, far worse)...but that's in the past. Now, you have to vote for our guy?"

'Cause if that's the incantation you plan to recite, I think you're going to be extremely disappointed.

Both sides (and I'm on neither) have turned this into a friggin' train wreck.

Dream on, little dreamer, dream on....

Thanks.

farewell. Sorry your state's politicians made sure you have no delegates to seat. You can keep kissing their asses though, if you want to.

See, here in the US (and most places in the world for that matter) for an election to be considered legitimate, we require that candidates be able to campaign freely. I'm not sure what country you immigrated here from. but that's the way it works here. You will get the hang of it.

"This world ain't what you think it is, it's just what it is." - Greg Brown

I'm not buying your diversion. Here is what I said and asked:

"Tell me, what's your magical plan for getting all those Clinton supporters to the polls in November? Are you going to say, "Gosh, sorry we called you Republicans (and far, far worse)...but that's in the past. Now, you have to vote for our guy?"

'Cause if that's the incantation you plan to recite, I think you're going to be extremely disappointed.

Both sides (and I'm on neither) have turned this into a friggin' train wreck."

If you have any response to the subjects I brought up and the question I asked, out with it.

My sigline has been discussed in numerous threads on this board already. Your attempt to diver the discussion is both unnecessary and pathetic.

either Obama or Sen. Clinton. (you mention him up thread)

Most Sen. Clinton supporters I've seen post about Richardson call him a "Judas." Is he gonna just say, gosh, sorry you think I'm a traitor, now you have to vote for me?

You don't have any polling for any other (out of hundreds of possibilities) candidates that might emerge. So how could you conclude they would be more likely to win? They might be less likely to win.

And I believe all Democratic voters would be more than a little upset if there efforts, votes, and donations were just tossed out by 700 or so super delegates to nominate someone who didn't even run, or who did run and couldn't get enough support to stay in the race.

Also, I can't see how "both sides" have turned this into a train wreck. So far Obama hasn't endorsed McCain over his opponent.

I think most Democrats will end up voting for the Democrat. My friends here in MT who are Sen. Clinton supporters have told me that after the primary they want to work for Obama. Some of the hot heads will have a chance to cool off and decide if McCain is what they really want. Whether you do or not is up to you.

I doubt any polling has been done. What I do know is that few, if any, Dems are pissed off at him. That alone, works to his advantage.

But he was just a suggestion. I thought of him mainly because he was a good candidate who was largely ignored by the MSM. I'm not a fan of his really, but I'd damned sure vote for him in November.

Of course, the fact that a number of Sen. Clinton's supporters consider him a "Judas" for endorsing Obama may play a role as to whether Obama taps him to run.

That's a long shot, but it's a hell of a lot more likely than them both dropping out.

I think most are egoing to hold out until the last primary is over. A lot of them are also on the ballot in Nov. and I think they are waiting to see how their district votes in the primaries. Yes it would be nice if the final decision was made right now, but I can understand why the SD's want to wait too. I still think peace will be made in the Party by Nov. and a Dem will win the GE!

less than that, I believe.

Everyone else's district will have voted by then.

So why would they wait until someone else's district votes?

And why would they want to take credit for deciding it, after the fact? It makes far more political sense to have the pledged delegates put Obama over the top. He will get a majority of the pledged delegates on May 20th. At that point most of the holdouts from all states except MT and SD (and PR) could move to Obama and set it up to end in victory on June 3rd.

When that happens the rest of the SDs can add to his total. That will end it, and the reconciliation can begin.

That is what I was thinking, too.