If we can do the same to the Rebulican Party, and then start all over with new parties that really represent the people, then I say "deal". Otherwise, no thanks. The last thing this country needs is a one party rule (Regardless of which party).

You already did....why do you think we have John McCain as our nominee?

I did what?

And what percentage of moderate voters that voted Republican in '00 and '04 would never vote for Hillary? And what percentage of Obama voters would never vote Hillary. And what percentage of voters would vote for Nader over Hillary or McCain.

Sorry, but "I win in Me vs. Obama in big states" is such a tiny portion of the overall picture that it's pretty irrelevant.

As I said before, whether she should or not is up to the party leadership. Dean was turning up the heat to clarify the picture leading up to PA. The coming week will show if he wants to really put the pressure on.

Well, not you personally since I doubt if you live in New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Florida but many Democrats in those states and others did exactly what some Republicans are doing now.....

Great minds thinking alike and what's good for the goose etc;)

Couldn't disagree more, and it has to be something the dem party leadership will consider.

I'm looking through the polls of the theoretical Obama vs. McCain and Clinton vs. McCain by state. Obama's got NY and MI. Clinton's got PA, OH, FL. McCain's got VA and TX, but Obama is significantly closer to him in both of those. Either Clinton or Obama takes NJ and CA with Clinton doing a little better in NJ and Obama a little better in CA.

Those stats come out pretty much a wash, and that's before taking into account the fact that the margins involved are almost universally tiny. Either less than, or barely over, the statistical margin of error for the polls. I just don't see the evidence of Cilnton's supposed big-state dominance in a general election. Wins over Obama just do not translate directly, as she'd like everyone to believe, to wins over McCain (or, rather, wins over McCain that Obama wouldn't get).

IMO, any theoretical polls (Clinton v McCain or Obama v McCain) are completely worthless at this point.

But then, I think most polls are irrelevant anyways.

I tend to agree, but the conversation was started with the "60% of catholics" presented as evidence, so staying within that realm, the polling seems to agree with my assessment. My main point is that there are way too many factors to say that just because Clinton is beating Obama in large states that she'll fare better in the same states in a general election. It's a claim she's been making for months, what exactly is that claim based on? All she might have to hang on would be polls, but those don't even agree.

Well, in spite of squabbling, this is the type of information that I KNOW concerns dem party leadership.

Either way, these are simply horrid numbers for the dems. Now, do I believe they will stand that way? Not in the least. There is plenty of time for the eventual nominee to reach out, mend fences, etc, etc, etc. But that's why I want this race to continue on as long as possible. And frankly, with momentum clearly on the side of Hillary, she shouldn't drop out.