It won't be necessary, because you will see them all play out in the coming months. Just trying to save you a lot of grief. But if you must, which you will, then carry on, but the future of the 2008 election is already written for the most part.
You're not saving me any grief. You're avoiding a substantive reply to my challenge. You're only saving yourself from - and I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, because you seem sincere and thoughtful - having to re-assess your position when your arguments are dismantled. Rather than string them out over months, wouldn't it be more fruitful to present them so we can hash them out early and - in theory, at least - come to an agreement that will benefit party unity and increase the chances of victory? Otherwise, it seems as if you simply don't want Hunter to win, and your arguments about his viability are a smoke screen.