Al Gore is a Democratic party superdelegate. If, as now seems likely, the popular vote in the state primaries goes toward Barack Obama, Obama should be the party's Presidential candidate.

Al Gore won the popular vote but the election was stolen from him. If Obama wins the majority in the primaries, I urge Mr. Gore, in his role as superdelegate, to vote with the people and opt for an Obama candidacy!

I'm guessing that Gore is leaning more toward Obama than Hillary.

I think it would be fine if Gore VOTED for Obama. I don't think he should ENDORSE anyone who's not in lock-step with his plans to mitigate global warming....so that leaves no one at all for him to endorse.

That is WHAT I am saying TN! I read that the Clinton Camp thinks a 'brokered' convention where Al Gore is a compromise candidate is NOT ONLY NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THEM...if Mr. Gore takes 5% then it would BE TOO HIGH! :mad:

The Clintons NEED to address THAT! And I SAY THE FIRST DEMOCRAT THAT PRAISES AL GORE...THE NOBEL PRIZE WINNER...(Oh OBAMA!...HINT!HINT!)...should get the FULL SUPPORT OF THE AL GORE ARMY ALONG WITH THE DEFENDERS OF GORE! (THE DOG)...SO SOMEBODY BETTER BE BUTTERING OUR LEADER'S BACKSIDES! :!:

AND DO IT NOW!!!

THE AL GORE ARMY IS 'LOYAL' TO AL GORE! THE LPOTUS! WHAT HE SAYS GOES! ;)

Everyone seems to have fallen for (and been fooled by) a misleading fallacy put out by the Clintons. Gore is one of the few intelligent enough to see, understand, and expose this fallacy, and in his anticipated role as neutral elder statesman guiding the superdelegates, it's crucial that he understand this, and communicate this to other superdelegates.

The Clintons claim that, because she won the “big” states over Obama, she would do better than Obama against McCain in November, in these big states with more electoral votes. Thus she should be the nominee, and the superdelegates should select her, even if she has fewer pledged delegates than Obama.

But her reasoning is totally fallacious and misleading. Why?

Clinton’s chief fallacy (which the press has mistakenly swallowed, without question and analysis and critique) centers on most of the “big” states that Clinton won over Obama, such as New York and California. True, these states have a lot of electoral votes come November. But these big states are already solidly blue states, who would certainly pick Obama over McCain just as surely as they would pick Clinton over McCain. Since the electoral college is winner-take-all, it doesn’t matter whether in these big blue states the margin of Obama over McCain happens to be a little smaller than the margin of Clinton over McCain might be, as suggested by Clinton’s primary win over Obama there.

Thus, for all the big blue states, it is totally irrelevant that Clinton beat Obama in the primaries. All these big blue states must simply be discarded from the equation, and discarded from the consideration and argument that Clinton is fallaciously suggesting as making her the preferred nominee over Obama.

Of course, this also means that for all solidly blue states, whether big or small, it simply doesn’t count, for purposes of November, whether Clinton or Obama won the primaries there. All these states must be discarded from the equation suggested for the superdelegates to consider.

Which states, then, do count? Certainly in the states which are purple swing states, it matters whether Clinton or Obama did better among the electorate in a primary. Furthermore, extra weight (say 150%) should be attached to those purple states with open primaries, since this realistically indicates for November whether Clinton or Obama would better draw independent and even Republican voters.

Then, moderately red states should also count, to a lesser degree. What is a moderately red state? Since primary voting is running 2 to1 for the Democrats, the Democratic superdelegates might optimistically assume that any red state with less than say 65% Republican track record is winnable by a Democrat, so in these moderately red states it does matter whether Obama or Clinton won the primary. Let’s assign a weighting of 50% to these moderately red states, on the presumption that there is at best only a 50-50 chance of any Democrat winning, and therefore it matters only 50% whether Clinton or Obama was the stronger Democrat in the primary here.

All the above suggests the following as a realistic calculation, to replace Clinton’s fallacious fairy tale.

First, totally discard the pledged delegates from all blue states, both big and small (this eliminates the main basis of Clinton’s fallacious claim about the big states, as to why she should be the preferred nominee).

Then total the pledged delegates won by Obama vs. Clinton: (a) in the purple swing states, weighting the closed primaries by 100% and the open primaries by 150% -- and also (B) in moderately red states, weighting these numbers by 50%. This calculation, using pledged delegates (won in primaries and caucuses) as an index, will indicate who, Obama or Clinton, would realistically be more advantageous vs. McCain, in just and only those states where a preference difference between Obama vs. Clinton will be electorally meaningful.

This first calculation schema, above, honors the voters by using their selection of pledged delegates as an index, while also being realistic instead of being a misleading, fallacious fairy tale.

An alternative (yet more realistic) second calculation schema, for the superdelegates to consider, would be to look at state-by-state polls, evaluating McCain vs. Obama compared to McCain vs. Clinton. Then model and project 2 mock November elections, and see who comes out with the most electoral votes against McCain. In any state where (say) both Democrats beat McCain by a margin greater than the sampling margin of error, then both Clinton and Obama would receive full electoral vote credit from that state, in their respective mock elections. If any race is a statistical tie, then neither of the two paired candidates in that tie receive any electoral votes.

For example, if Obama beats McCain by 6 points and Clinton beats McCain by 2 points, with a 4 point sampling margin of error, then Obama gets all the electoral votes from that state and Clinton gets none; or, if Obama beats McCain by 3 points and Clinton beats McCain by 2 points, then nobody gets any electoral votes from this state in the 2 mock elections, since everyone is statistically tied; or, if Obama beats McCain by 6 points and Clinton beats McCain by 8 points, then both Obama and Clinton get full electoral votes from this state in their 2 mock elections (this is an example of a blue state, where both Clinton and Obama would beat McCain and both would equally grab all that state’s electoral votes).

This second calculation schema would be more realistic than the first one above, but it might be troublesome for the superdelegates to actually use, since it relies on polls and doesn’t use the pledged delegates (selected by voters) as an index.