I have seen polls that suggest that some not-insignificant number of Clinton supporters -- at this time -- plan to either vote for McCain or not vote for President at all. But I suspect that number is very "soft".

I think it's worse than "soft", perhaps more like "fantasy". I don't think those posters are representative of the real world.

If the real world was like these forums, I'd expect to see campaign signs plastered on every available surface and people having loud arguments and fistfights in the streets. What I really see is that the "House for Sale" signs in my neighborhood greatly outnumber the campaign signs that appear on the lawns of only a few houses.

AFAICT, the vast majority of Americans don't get anywhere near as excited about primaries as the typical participants in the forums. Most of my neighbors couldn't name even half of the original Democratic primary ticket, much less make meaningful statements about policies and qualifications. I have yet to meet a single real person who supported a particular primary candidate strongly enough to say they would vote for the other party if their candidate didn't get the nomination.

I don't think any useful conclusions can be reached by extrapolating from the opinions posted here.

My apologies. You wrote "polls" and my brain read "posts".

I can't explain the polls, but I would not be surprised if some people were giving responses like that in the belief that it would help their preferred candidate.

I'm sorry but that's ridiculous. You have no way of reasonably backing up that speculation.

The suggestion that Obama removed his name from the ballot in a clever ploy to win more delegates is equally silly.

Anyway, the issue is that the RCP decided to give Obama an amount of delegates above and beyond any reasonable estimate of his voting support at the time.

Not quite.

The rules committee wasn't allowed to contrive their own solution. All they could do was select one of the suggestions submitted by representatives of the injured party, which was the Michigan Democratic party who had lost their delegate seating.

One suggestion was submitted by Hillary's supporters: Give Hillary all of "her" delegates and give nothing to Obama.

Another was submitted by Obama's supporters: Give half to Hillary and half to Obama.

Another was submitted the Michigan Democratic party after negotiations with both Hillary's and Obama's supporters: 69/59

The above were all the rules committee had to chose from, other than sticking with the original decision to seat no MI delegates. They chose the 69/59 option, which had already been signed off on by the Michigan Democratic Party.

Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.

Sun-tzu, Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC)

What do you folks think?

IMO, that depends a lot on what happens in the next few weeks.

The contentious primary season has bred a lot of ill will between the Hillary and Obama camps, and it's going to be difficult to put that aside. Continuation of hostilities will make your dream impossible, if it isn't already too late to make amends.

Who makes the first move?

That sounds fair and reasonable to you?

Talking points don't have to be reasonable. They are intended to be repeated over and over and over again until some people are fooled into thinking they are true.

Really. Perhaps you could point me to the Roolz which states that the RBC could only pick from the three options you mentioned (HC, Obama MI)? I think you're forgetting about the DNC lawyers memo.

I stand corrected. I thought I saw that while watching the coverage of the meeting, but I cannot find such a restriction called our in the actual rules. I probably misheard a statement that the committee preferred to use one of the suggestions that had been submitted, which is what they eventually did.

Ah, the "we're all gonna get nuked if you don't do things my way" card.... truly the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Last refuge? Bush has been playing that card repeatedly most of the time he's been in office. Sometimes I think it's the only card he has.

... more often than most people change the channel on their TV sets. I'm amazed that anyone believes anything he says. Obama could build a complete campaign using nothing but McCain's inconsistencies.

The Hummer isn't going away because it's the primary light duty vehicle for the the whole department of defense.

The Hummers that are sold for civilian street use are very different from the real Hummers used by the military.

Neither candidate can get enough ordinary pledged delegates to reach the magic number 2,118. The superdelegates will have to be included in the selection of the nominee, and superdelegates can change their minds right up until they cast their votes.

Hillary knows this, so she knows that there's always a chance that she could persuade enough superdelegates to make her the nominee. However, I wonder if she realizes that playing this game right up until the convention could result in a nominee who does not become president, even if it's Hillary?

Would Hillary do anything to become the nominee, even if it means she couldn't be president?

How does a contested convention decrease the liklihood of a Democratic win?

It doesn't have to, but it might. It all depends on how the candidates spend their time between now and the convention. IMO, a continuation of the public fight for the nomination would draw effort away from defeating the common enemy McCain, and that could hurt the party's chances in the general election.

FWIW, my question wasn't intended to imply an answer. I just wanted to simulate discussion.

... female pundits are more likely than male pundits to chose a subject that involves males watching bikini-clad women.