North Carolina, again, has to break fully for Clinton. Even if it does, the delegate count is essentially tied.

So assuming that she wins big in North Carolina, takes lots of delegates.

Then, No. Because the total still won't be enough.
But if she wins the contested state of Indiana,
then lets say she's got one more pledged delegate than Obama.

Too close to call. Both should stay in until all states counted.

Then at the end, excluding Florida and Michigan, because they are not fair contests -

Whomever has the most votes should get it.
There's no way Obama would drop out anyway.

You know that.

as a HRC supporter - while you are entitled to ask the question - NEITHER SHOULD DROP OUT - until they are ready.

Wow, OK, possible common ground.

Yes.  It hurts to say it, but yes.  North Carolina has had consistent Obama leads, some by double-digits.  If he somehow loses NC---instead of closing the gap like he did in PA---then, gulp, yes, he should move aside and let her be the nominee (Edwards could endorse her or something as well, since its NC his birth state).

It was made easier to say by your saying that if Hillary loses both NC and Indiana she should drop out.  Indeed.  

If Clinton wins North Carolina and Indiana, then it's a solid reason for her to stay in the race and make an argument to the supers that Obama has run out of gas.

That said, he needs about 43% of the delegates (and probably less, that's pre-PA math) from now until May 20 until he has the unassailable lead in pledged delegates, and I suspect that it will be decided around then.

He shouln't, and won't, drop out until Clinton gets 2025 delegates.  Just like she shouldn't, and probably won't (unless money dictates otherwise) while she's got a ghost of a chance.

As long as it's resolved before the convention, I'll be happy.

should drop out. If upsets turn the count against Obama he should drop out. If not, Clinton should drop out.

Of course he should not.

It's not likelly to happen, but that would be a significant blow.  If it was by a large margin, then I think that would mean he had been almost fatally hurt by some external event.  Under that scenerio, sure --  he should drop out.  I

If he somehow lost by a point in both NC and Indianna on the 6th, that wouldn't really change much.  Under that scenerio, where he was still assured of winning the pledged delegate race and still had at least a 50/50 chance of getting more total votes, he should stay in.  

But again, neither scenerio is likely.    

... I'd call for Obama to drop out.

If Clinton were to call him at any point between now and May 6th and offer him the VP slot in exchange for the nomination I think he should take the offer.

I know this will sound crazy to some of my fellow Obama supporters but it would make a lot of sense. It would allow us to put this messy process behind us, and it would allow him to spend the next 8 years (hopefully) making a case for himself as the next great Democratic President...and he would only be 54 years old.

That being said, he would need sincere assurances that he would have a substantial role in the administration and that Bill would not stand in the way of him getting stuff done.

But if all of that were to happen I would be happy to see that ticket.

However, unless he can elicit the promise of the VP candidacy AND a substantial role in the administration he should not drop out of the race regardless of what happens in North Carolina.

What is interesting about all of this is that if he is the nominee I do not think he should, under any circumstances, offer Hillary the VP slot. She would not perform well in that role and it would be the end of her political career anyway (sorry, but she would be too old in 8 years.)

The short answer is, "No."  The follow up would be, "not immediately."  Even if your hypothetical were to occur (grossly unlikely), it would still make no sense, nor would it be reasonable to suggest the leading candidate to withdraw; and Obama would continue to be the candidate with the most of everything.  I would allow as though his path to the nomination would be significantly weaker; but as long as he's in the lead, you can't jerk the rug out.  

If, as you are suggesting, it signals a definite shift in momentum that manifests in subsequent contests, I'd expect the SDs to consider that, and, should a slide continue, well, they'd do what they're there to do.

The key is to put a Democrat in the White House.  I'm in favor of anything toward that goal; and against anything counter to it.

I think that the Clintons should stay in to get some donor money to pay off their debts.  That and she has a lot of women who really support her.  I think that Obama should try to woo these women, and show them that he will care about their needs too.  It can only help and not hurt.

Hillary would have to win 3/4 of all remaining pledged delegates. If she does I'll vote for her in November in a bunny suit.

No he should not, but if Hillary was ahead of him with pleaged delegates at the end of the primary season I would expect him to drop out.  No superdelegate BS, no popular vote BS, no laughable electoral vote BS spin.  These are rules we are stuck with this election cycle.  I for one want the Democratic party to get rid of the super delegate system, its undemocratic and unDemocratic.

I'll play. If as a result of a Hillary win in North Carolina it turned that that for Obama to retain a lead in pledged delegates that he had to...
Win sizeable super majorities in all the remaining primaries

and

switch many delegates already pledged to Clinton,

then he should drop out for the good of the party.

That isn't mathematically in the cards right now. So we are going from a hypotheticals to make believe.

No, he shouldn't drop out.  Asking either candidate to fall on their sword at this point is ridiculous.  If Obama loses NC the supers will take his momentum (or lack thereof) into consideration and I'm sure their votes will reflect that.

Why should he drop out? He'd still most likely have the lead in delegates.

Depends.  How does he lose the state--by a razor thin margin or by a ladslide.  How does Hillary effectuate the win-- clean issues politics or dirty personal attacks and insinuations?  If the latter, how does Obama respond-- with more positive campaigning or gutter politics?  Where does Obama stand with respect to pledged deleagtes and popular vote after the contest (not including MI/FL)?  How does Obama do in IN?

I can see supporting an argument that if Hillary wins a clean fought landslide in both IN and NC and takes a lead in delegate count or popular vote (not including FL/MI and including numbers from the caucus states that have yet to report) and its clear that the extended primary is hurting Dem chances in Nov. Obama should take the VP slot this election.  On the other hand, if Obama remains in the lead and wins NC or IN and it becomes clear that Hillary cannot possibly win without overturning pledged delegates and popular vote with SD's and it becomes clear that this strategy or an extended campaign will hurt Dem chances in the Fall, she should accept the VP spot.  A Dem President is more important than any one person getting elected, especially when these candidates have essentially the same ideology.

I'll play and pose another question.

If Obama looses NC and IN yes he probably should consider dropping out or suspending his campaign.

Next a question.  If the roles were reversed and Clinton was leading with the exact same numbers, do you think Obama would have already dropped out by now? Putting party before personal ambition.

The key premise of your question is that if Hillary were to win NC, it would "prove that Obama's early momentum is gone and that Hillary really is the best candidate."

I don't see how that's surely the case.  If it were true (and unchangeable) that by winning NC, Hillary would indisputably be the "best candidate," well, sure, then Obama should get out of the way.

If on the other hand, Hillary were to win NC and it didn't reflect a change in the fundamentals of the race -- that is, Obama still a strong candidate by various measures, Hillary still a strong candidate by various measures -- it's hard to say that Obama should concede.

And certainly, even if Obama were to lose NC, he would still be leading in the elected delegates (and probably in the the overall delegate count), and almost certainly leading in the popular vote counting the states where he and everyone else campaigned.  To say that someone who's leading the race should drop out is extraordinary, and would require an extraordinary reason.  (In my book, "someone else just won a primary that Candidate X was 'supposed to win'" is not an extraordinary reason to drop out all by itself.  If it were, Hillary Clinton should've dropped out after Iowa, and after any number of states that somebody looking at this race in 2007 or at any other point said that she "should win.")

I know that Hillary supporters like to downplay the significance of the elected delegates in the race.  But it wasn't always that way.  On February 13, Mark Penn sent a memo to the world about Hillary's proposed "Path to the Nomination" in which he said, "As history shows, the Democratic nomination goes to the candidate who wins the most delegates."  http://thepage.time.com/penn-memo-the-pa th-to-the-nomination/

(Funny how times change, isn't it?  Obama supporters happen to believe the things that Mark Penn and Hillary's campaign said at the beginning of this race.  Like the fact that this is "a race about delegages."  And Hillary Clinton's own statement in November 2007 that Michigan "won't count for anything."  The key difference is that Obama supporters have believed and said those things all along, while the Hillary campaign used to say them but doesn't anymore -- for some reason!)

Another thing to keep in mind as you craft arguments about why Hillary is -- or somehow will be shown to be -- "clearly the best candidate" is that superdelegates have been flocking to Obama.  Just like us blogging nobodies, they (a) desperately want a Democrat to win the White House, and (b) desperately want a Democratic nominee who's good for the party and their own election prospects (for those who are or may be trying to become elected officials).  The only difference I can see between us and them is that they have a tremendously greater amount of information at their disposal than we do on who's a "better" candidate, and in many cases their personal position is at stake in this election (or a future one that will be affected by this race).  

If it really is true (or becomes true) that Hillary's "clearly better," they'll come out for her in droves, switch votes to her, etc.  Watch for that to happen -- or for it not to happen.  Every day that you don't see a superdelegate wave forming toward Hillary is a day that the supers are not convinced of the common MyDD wisdom that "Hillary's the best," "Obama's terrible," etc.  (And if your NC theory were true that a win for Hillary means she's clearly the best, the obvious result of such an NC win by Hillary would be a surge of supers to her.  If a surge to Hillary doesn't happen in response to a Hillary NC win, that's pretty conclusive evidence that the supers at least don't buy your key premise.)

To put all of this more simply:  If Obama is winning in elected delegates, winning in the overall delegates, leading in the popular vote (at least among states that everyone agreed would "count"), and has an argument that he's the stronger candidate against McCain, why in the world should HE concede?  Just stating the question makes it sound ridiculous.

As an ardent Obama supporter, I'll say this:

If HRC wins in NC, Indiana, and Oregon I'll flip faster than Mitt Romney on (insert postion here).

I think it's more likely Obama wins those three.

Its the math.

If he were to lose NC he would still be in the lead, delegate and popular vote (if you want to include FL, you should also include all the attendees in the earlier caucuses, at least they were sanctioned events). She might actually have a slim mathematical chance to win the thing at that point.

Why would the person in the lead drop out?

It really is not a smart question.

I can't see the reason for the candidate with the most delegates and the most popular votes to drop out without a compelling reason other than another state loss.  

But I think that must be the reason the Hillary campaign is hanging in - they are hoping for something to appear that completely negates BO's chances despite his lead.  And it seems that without one, they try to create one or jump on others' attacks.

A more interesting question might be:  What type of information (aside from a bear attacking him or being caught in the act with a young boy) would put the Obama voters on the fence as to whether he should drop out or not?

Even if she pulled off a ten point win, she would net about 15 delegates and he would lead by 115 or so. No, I would not want him to quit while he holds the delegate lead.

AS a die hard Obama Supporter  I will answer your question  but first  let me congratulate your candidate on a fine win last night she is a very very remarkable candidate worthy of your support and my respect now that being said

If by some miracle she does pull a upset in NC  should Obama drop out  HELL NO he would have more reason not to drop out then Hillary would you agree ?  

If that were to happen that would give credibility to his electability argument and I can see more supers going for Hillary afterwards
but I see no reason for him to drop out

Honest answer, no.  

I don't think NC is any more or less important that Ohio was or Maryland or New Hampshire or Wisconson.  

In large part the "next state is the most important" line is mostly a media construst.  If Sen. Clinton looses Indiana and N.Carolina she has every right to continue too.  

Much of the suspense of this race is made up, in the end, one will lead in the metrics that equal nomination and be the winner.  

You can check my post history (if that's possible) I predicted Sen. Clinton would win by 8 points yesterday and never suggested she should get out of the race.  

I will be candid, I was very afraid Sen. Clinton might win by 15 or 20 yesterday and pick up 25-30 delegates with some 86/14 districts but now that she seems to have picked up between 10-12 I feel much better.  

The real reason the delegate math matters now Obama needs 15 fewer Super Delegates to come to his side than he would have if she won by 20.  I'm not playing the expectations game as I mentioned I thought she would win by 8, I'm playing the every extra delegate he wins means one less superdelegate he needs to get on board.  

That's my honest answer.

Ok I'll bite. I don't fully support either candidate so take that for whatever it's worth.

It's highly unlikely that he wins both. If he does, I'm ok with Clinton conceding. I would not call on her to do so.

It's probably equally unlikely that she wins both. If she does, I'm also ok with him conceding. I could care less about his leads in delegates or votes - this race long ago stopped being about either. I would not call on him to withdraw, however.

It goes without saying that both of these scenarios are unlikely. Even more unlikely is either candidate withdrawing regardless of the outcome. They're both too invested in this thing to want to quit now and nothing short of political suicide by one or the other will end this before June. I'll also go on record here saying that supers moving towards one or the other to end this anytime before the last primary is a terrible idea. I encourage supporters on both sides and in the national party (assuming they care what I think) to let this play out. It's far, far from over and both candidates have a reasonably good chance of winding up as the nominee.

No.

for either candidate to drop out at this point, it's going to June and by June I mean August.  

Let's see if I'm clear on this. Obama is up 155 pledged delegates after PA, a lead Clinton has no chance of closing.

Clinton was able to pick up 10 PDs out of 158 in a state that heavily favors her. Even if she wins the popular vote in NC, are you seriously arguing that she could pick up more than 5 PDs out of 115.

So she would knock Obama's lead down to 150. So in that case, you're saying that Obama should leave the race.

What you clearly do not understand is that nobody really cares whether Clinton stays in the race. Rather, they think that her kitchen sink strategy is toxic for everyone but McCain. (Clinton's negatives are up since she went into attack mode.)

If she would just stop the mud slinging, everybody would be just fine with her staying in until June 3rd.