Hi SalientMan,

Sounds like I didn't make myself clear enough when I said 0 electability. I meant that in the sense that both are lack any major positive factors that would help them get elected, but also lack major negatives. Someone with major negatives and insufficient major positives to offset them would have negative electability, which is where I peg McCain. The only divorced President we've had was Reagan, and he had to pander to the Moral Majority like crazy to make it happen. McCain has insulted some of the MM's heroes in a way that won't be forgiven. Yes, "unelectable" candidates have won and "electable" ones lost, but only because the pundits are incompetent at determining who is electable. They make assumptions that are not empirically founded, such as the one that being a war hero helps one become President, and then repeat the unfounded assumptions until everyone believes them.

The primary process does weed out some of the least electable (Kucinich), but above a certain threshold primary voters either don't care about electability or can't tell when they see it.

"I interpret this as a lack of improvisational skills, rather than a command of the issues."

Still not a great quality in a President, particularly one who claims to be working for change. A leader who can't think on his feet is likely to resort to the same old tactics that have already been tried when faced with a challenge.

"I still can't understand the logic behind why the 90-vote threshold matters to you, unless you think that McCain is more abhorrent than Obama and you are being practical with your vote, going for the least repellent choice."

Relevant information that I left out: I live in Massachusetts. My vote is only a symbol anyway. Obama would be a better President than McCain, so if I lived in a swing state I'd hold my nose and vote for him. But the advantage of having a vote that doesn't matter in terms of who becomes President is that I can use it for other purposes. If he's the nominee, my voting decision will be about control of the Democratic Party, which should belong to Democratic voters. If Democratic voters have chosen Obama, then I'll vote for him, regardless of my opinion of him. If they haven't, then I refuse to support the DNC's power grab. However, you're right that there are other alternatives than voting McCain, and I hadn't really thought about those in three days since it become clear that the nomination will be contested closely enough to make the disenfranchisement of MI and FL an issue with teeth. Maybe I'll write in Hillary Clinton instead.