I think you're not understanding HP's point, either that or you're being deliberately obtuse.

HP is not engaging in an emotional argument. He's explaining how the world works, and in so doing is describing the emotional reaction of other people. He is saying that, if the SDs flip the results of the primary and give the nomination to Hillary, that this will create the perception that the Dems are out of touch with the desires of the electorate. And that this in turn will drive down voter turnout and result in McCain winning.

Now, you can agree or disagree with that prediction. But if you disagree, perhaps you could explain why.

Instead, you make statements that are not founded in facts, like this one:

Now, it will be tough for [OBAMA] to prevail in this general election if he is the nominee, even as you have so celebrated at an earlier date.

Why will it be tough? He's neck and neck with McCain before he's even started making the point that most of the electorate doesn't know, that McCain will be Bush's 3rd term. This is an easy point to make, it will resonate strongly with the electorate, and it hasn't been made yet. That's to say nothing of the Kennedy-vs-Nixon reaction that the US public will have during the McCain Obama debates, when they see a decrepit old man getting his facts wrong, versus a smart, passionate younger person who isn't so debilitated. Don't you think this will affect the polls a bit? Why or why not?

riconap103, what I see in your argument is a deep reluctance to embrace things that are objectively true. Basically, your view that Obama will lose and Hillary will win flies in the face of reality. For example:

If Hillary gets the popular vote and the pledged delegate count is close and Obama does not win any large or "swing states" then Hillary should garner the support of the SD's

This is true in the same way that if my fish learns to ride a bicycle, then I need to take his training wheels off and get him a bike helmet.

Fact is, Obama is winning by large margins in both the popular vote and pledged delegate count. Before moving on to the next paragraph, I want you to read that again: Obama is winning by large margins in both the popular vote and pledged delegate count.

Here is that fact written by someone else. Let it sink in:

The Web site Real Clear Politics charts the popular vote in multiple ways: total votes; total votes with estimates from some caucus states that do not actually report the popular vote; total votes with Florida's unsanctioned primary results; total votes with both Florida's and Michigan's primaries.

Obama leads in every one of them at this point, but depending on the calculation, his margin is as high as 827,000 (without Florida and Michigan but with a number of the caucus states) and as low as 94,000 (with Florida and Michigan but without those caucus states).

Clinton's win in Michigan is irrelevant: she was the only dem on the ballot. Her win in Florida is nearly irrelevant: her operatives campaigned there and had the name recognition, whereas Obama's did not.

So, what you're saying is that although more Dems want Obama to be their nominee, you'd be happy if the SDs went against their will because you've got a funny feeling that Obama will lose, based on your inability to accept objective facts. While that rationale might sound fine to you, try and understand that it's not going to fly with most thinking people. Your cavalier attitude about disenfranchising "ardent Obama supporters" ignores one other key fact: Obama supporters are not the new Bush supporters, simply the enemy to be overcome; they are the people you need to help elect a democrat as president in the fall. Disenfranchising a majority of them now would be a disastrous idea.

...and he's against Obama because Obama is black. Wes called it the "Buckwheat Campaign." So, to be clear, Wes is the perfect example of this phenomenon.

Now, show of hands, who here thinks Wes will vote for any democrat? Me neither. In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence to show that a lot of Hillary's support in the primaries comes from Republicans who would rather McCain run against Hillary than Obama. (They read the polls.)

So, while I do find this research concerning, it doesn't change my support for Obama because:

• I believe most of that 15% are voting for McCain anyhow, so this doesn't affect Obama's results in the general
• Obama is registering voters right and left, which I expect will vastly increase the legendarily low voter turnout. What happens if instead of 45% of people voting, we get 50%? That's a lot of people, and there's no way they registered to vote so they could support Bush's 3rd term
• Say this is correct, and Obama will lose because there are too many racists like Wes in this country. I'm sorry, but I'm not willing to keep the country mired in the muck of politics as usual which come with either a Clinton or McCain Administration. Just like when my 2-year-old does something silly and falls over and cries, I believe that people need to experience the consequences of their own actions, as that's the only way they learn. After 8 years of a president who we want to drink beer with, I'm betting that Americans have learned a lesson and are ready to go with the more qualified candidate.

Grandpa Simpson with Mr. Burns' checkbook

This is both accurate and funny, and will resonate with most Americans.

The fact that he's a republican shows that he's unable to abandon an idea even after that idea has been shown in gory detail to be absolutely bankrupt on every level. That -- not fiscal responsibility, not smaller government -- is the chief characteristic of the GOP.

Their new slogan should be: "Vote Republican. Because reality is overrated."