At this point, if you are a Democrat, a fan of HRC, and a resident in a state that has yet to vote, at what point does the following thought begin to factor into your decision-making process:

Obama has a pretty significant lead in pledged delegates, and a pretty solid lead in overall delegates. If Hillary picks up some delegates in my state, she might close the gap, but she's unlikely to catch up, especially in pledged delegates. If she closes the gap, there's the very real possibility that the convention could be ugly; Clinton could overturn the pledged delegate count with superdelegates, or there could be a Florida-Michigan debacle, or a vote-counting mess, or some combination of all of the above. It could cast serious aspersions on how democratic the Democratic party is, and hurt either candidate's chances of winning in November.

If Obama wins my state, the party is more likely to have a clear and convincing victor against whom McCain would have to run. If Obama leads by significant margins, there will be no convention debacle. Therefore, to increase the chances of putting a Democrat in the White House, I will vote Obama.

I'm an Obama supporter, so perhaps this train of thought sounds a little sweeter to my ears than to yours, but it certainly seems logical: a vote for Clinton is, at this point, essentially a vote for Clinton and a brokered convention. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama and a clear winner.

Thoughts?

So bentontheworld, let me get this straight. Don't vote your conscience. Just go with the who you think may have the most momentum at this point? I get it. Thanks it seems so logical. NOT!

Without intending this as a dig in any way, One notices that the majority of Obama supporters are confrontation averse to a dramatic degree whereas the majority of Hillary voters tend to hold to the perspective "Bring it on!"

So it rather depends on one's core sensibilities as regards the desirability of confrontational politics.

I am a Hillary supporter and so I tend to want to let everything hand out and be judged; the good and the bad and the ugly.

As far as the Democratic Party itself goes these differing perspectives also apply. The non-confrontation group wants to present a united front to the world; i.e., the GOP while the confrontation orientated group figures it will be good for the Democratic Party in the long run if we FINALLY sort out this super delegate issue once and for all in a winner take all, knock-down-drag-out on national television, and who in the hell CARES what the scum-sucking GOP thinks about us anyway?

So there you have it. I prefer confrontation, but this does not make me correct. I suspect that unless Obama TAKES Texas and the other major states that are currently projected to be going for Hillary then there will be a very ugly convention process indeed, and as to that I say Viva the democratic process, warts and all!

It seems to me that Clinton supporters are like 'the party be damned, we'll go down and take the party with us!'

for some of them/us; but just like all Obama supporters ARE NOT confrontation adverse, not all Hillary Supporters are spoiling for a dramatic fight.

Personally I think that the health of the nation is more important than the current health of the Demrocratic Party, in that we need the best possible democratic candidate to enter the Oval Office, and since I sincerely believe that Hillary is by far the better candidate and potential president, I am quite willing to see the Democratic Party brought to its knees if that will ensure that the best democratic president possible enters the Oval Office.

I figure that if there is a nationally televised knock-down drag-out fight of a selection process at the convention that this will be healthier for the Democratic Party in the long run than to simply settle on Obama because we are horrified at the notion of ruffling one another's feathers.

So what is more important, the Party or the Nation?

Your closing question is only relevant if one agrees with you that Hillary will be the better (more successful) president. Some of us don't agree with you. I, for one, am concerned with what I think is the liklihood that a Hillary candidacy will invigorate the Republicans and result in the same or a worse senate even if she wins the presidency.

dangerous shoals. We find out who was the better captain of the ship when we see who pulls into port with the valuable cargo and ship in one piece.

That is, I'M not going to vote for Obama simply because I am afraid of what the republicans will do if I vote for Hillary. This is because I am pretty sure that Hillary IS tough enough and experienced enough to beat the republicans anyway BY taking her case to the people . . . Just like Reagan did and Just like G.W. Bush did during his early years. There's more than way to handle the republicans, but I rather doubt that Obama understands this fact.

At least you're honest enough to acknowledge it's a bet either way. My bet differs from yours.

enjoyed debating with you.

Another good debate; I think we need to go beyond just assessing levels of confrontation-engagement to look at our perspectives on a "brokered convention". I agree that a vigorous campaign is a of benefit to the party, especially in the long term. However, I disagree that a brokered convention would be a healthy part of a vigorous campaign.

When Demcon says, "Viva the democratic process, warts and all!" I agree, but I hope we can agree that there's something unseemly and fundamentally undemocratic about letting superdelegates votes count for a million times as much as an ordinairy citizen. It smacks of elitism and aristocracy. Frankly, if Clinton wins the pledged delegate count (still a possibility, although unlikely, by my math), I would be disgusted if the public's verdict was overturned and he was given the nomination by a handful of "party leaders". I believe that would be perfectly legal--after all, a party has the right to decide how to select its nominee--and absolutely shameful. I hope most Clinton supporters agree.

If the election is very close, there is the possibility of the public's will being contradicted.

Now I'm not saying that the point is here. Clinton is still very much alive and kicking--as the ludicrous photo of her with the boxing gloves proves. However, I think the point arrives at some point. Say you're in Montana. Obama leads by 100 pledged delegates and 20 delegates overall. She's mathematically eliminated from taking the pledged delegate lead, but could still easily take the nomination if she's able to win a strong majority of superdelegates who are still "up for grabs". Even if you love to watch a good rough-and-tumble, if you really believe that this country needs a Democratic president, and/or if you believe a brokered convention is wrong, doesn't it make it awfully hard to cast a vote for Clinton?

StopTheMadness, I'm not saying that somebody should not vote their conscience. I'm saying that your conscience should take into consideration the morality of attaining the nomination by using supedelegates to contradict the will of the people, and that you should take into consideration the importance of the strength of your party and the likelihood of seeing your party's platform enacted after the next election.

You might come to a different conclusion about where those factors lead you--that's fine. I just think the conscience should be a little broader than the candidate.

Good post, demcon. You've hit upon a key behavior that seems to be shared among so many BO supporters -- fear of confrontration, fear of an "ugly" convention, possibly fear of taking on John McCain with anything less than 100% support from ALL Dem-registered voters. If it's not happy, idealistic, youth-centered, cheery-chipper and happenin' in a BIG COLLEGE arena (**) to the sound of whatever pop music is currently hip and if it's not dreamy, happy talk, then the BO supporters want no part of the process. Just not realistic. I have to wonder how many other BO supporters are similarly, passive 'roll-over' supporters or as they say in the used car sales business, "lay-downs." So many of them are new to the process, to be fair -- but don't they read? Don't they know that brokered conventions HAVE occurred before, often do get nasty and somehow, we always end with a candidate and a good ticket ??

(**) One of the 'pundits' on public TV last night pointed out that Obama's "rallies" are rarely held anywhere else except on college campuses & that he studiously avoids meeting or addressing working-class crowds in possibly 'rougher" venues. I don't know if that's true or not, but it certainly was accurate regarding his (primary-week ONLY) visit to my home state. I think it was David Brooks on Newshour with Jim Lehrer. Lehrer, btw, consistently mispronounced 'pundits' as 'pundints.' We were laughing so hard!

how sad. You-all who espouse this rationale for supporting him, seem to have no idea how savagely the Repubs. will go after him. The background research and holes in his record are being investigated & tracked now, you can count on it. They will NOT hold back, good Jack. You'll see and by then, it might be too late. While he may trumped daily, "OUR time has come," it's actually not his time -- that is, or should be, four to eight years down the road. "L".

convention would get very ugly and temporarily would hurt the Democratic Party. Certainly if Hillary gets the nomination via a bunch of fat cat 'White Men' [this is what Rush Limbaugh is already harping on, by the way] it would raise the same question of legitimacy as was raised for the first term of the G.W. Bush presidency.

Now, IF the Democratic Party adamantly does not want this to happen then NOW is the time to act on this and change the rules. YES, even if it meant that the nomination process came to a total halt at this point, the super delegate issue should be faced and handled NOW.

IF, however, the party leadership is unwilling to do that then either this means that they are quite content with this process or they are cowards.

I could go on and on with this. If you want me to say that Hillary should simply bow out of the race if it comes down to a brokered convention then I am unwilling to concede. Was Al Gore wrong to fight to the finish against G.W. Bush once the Florida voting came under contention?

Perhaps the best thing for this nation and for the Party would be for Hillary to fight to the bitter end WITHING the system of rules that the Democratic Party leadership has seen fit to maintain even during this politically and socially enlightened era. I don't know.

riddled with good and bad campaigning habits, but then they ARE politicians and not saints. Despite the readiness of many Obama supporters I am not ready to concede the man the sainthood designation. I really don't see another Jimmy Carter here so far as sincere intentions are concerned.

I certainly don't consider Hillary a saint! but then I don't want a saint for president. I want an experienced, capable, and canny fighter. There you have it. I want a battler, someone famous for fighting for what it right. To me, that's Hillary.