Why, and why not, to "Call It"...
First, a primer for people who aren't familiar with DU's process:
Every election season, at some point, DU goes into "GE Footing". The reason is pretty clearly stated in the TOS:
The reason why DU must, at some point, enact this policy isn't truly to discourage Democratic participation, but because it's impossible to tell if a poster's criticism of the Nominee or other Democrats running is legitimate concern or GOP baiting. If you've never served on the MIR team, you may be blissfully unaware of just how crazy it gets -- but even outside of election season, DU is such a popular forum that GOP trolls show up all the time.
It's also because even if we may never nominate a perfect candidate, WHOEVER we nominate is better than the alternative. Obama, as great of a job as he did, was not in politics long before his election in 2008. Continuing to harp on that after he was our Nominee wasn't going to help us defeat McCain. We needed to be working on building him up, not tearing him down. He chose a running mate with a great deal of experience in public service, and that's one way we deal with a nominee's less than stellar attributes. No President does it alone. Hillary will, if she does win the Nomination, look for a running mate to overcome her own negatives. I'm not sure who she'd pick and who would say yes, but I have confidence it will be someone both experienced and to her left on several areas. (Would Dennis Kucinich accept? I always liked him.)
Finally, people want to come to DU and see constructive discussion of how to make our party and country better. Primaries, while they are ESSENTIAL to our Party and Democracy because we do need a chance to vote our conscience, and it's the way we show the direction we want the party to go -- can get extremely ugly when we become attached to our candidate. There comes a point when the ugliness is not helping the Party anymore.
But there are also good reasons NOT to rush to a call, (and no, they don't include things I wanted to slap my candidate for saying in 08).
First, we still have states that haven't voted. Even if the math seems terrible, they deserve the chance to vote. Until they get that chance, suppressing their voice on DU too is not going to help with the fact they may rightly feel disenfranchised already because their states are voting so late.
Second, people who are passionate about the Party and their candidate deserve some time to come to terms with what our election gave us. I don't think our process is anything close to perfect, but we can try to learn and make future primaries more Democratic. We need to listen, as a Party, to those in it who have legitimate criticisms of how the process played out this time, and try to make positive changes (alternatives to Saturday voting, just as one example). If we do listen, and do try to work together, it will help people feel less ignored, shunned, left out.... and that's a huge theme I am seeing here among dedicated Bernie supporters.
Third, those dedicated and passionate supporters have obviously demonstrated they do care about the Party enough to actually participate in the Primary process, which speaks to their ability to work with the Party if they are welcomed instead of feeling like they are tossed aside just because their candidate didn't win. I want to see civility and constructive work to get Democrats elected. I want to see that passion help us in the General.
So instead of asking Skinner to "call it" just yet, I propose that those of us who want to have Democratic Underground not suck try to reason instead of attack... sympathize with instead of insult, listen rather than assume...
And try to remember we really are on the same side.
= new reply since forum marked as read
called. Not a moment sooner.
Those are the rules of the DNC. And since Hillary is "the only democrat running" that should be understandable to all. 
... who will benefit from processing this Primary. The idea that it's entirely a "grieving" process is short-sighted -- we ALL need to figure out ways to make our Party better, even if you believe the best candidate won.
I like the discussion and interaction idea inherent in the caucus process -- instead of just going in and casting a ballot, the caucuses are great for getting to know your fellow Democrats, talk about the issues that matter as well as the candidates, maybe even change a mind. But maybe in states whose turnout is now overwhelming the caucus process, or to let the people who can't make it at that EXACT time to still be be heard, maybe the solution is to encourage voter discussion sessions before the primary that are scheduled like a caucus would be, and run by the county/state party rather than candidates.
Maybe to reform campaign finance in how it affects the Democratic Nominee decision process,, we ought to consider agreements to raise money jointly to be spent on each state getting to have a Town Hall and voters actually talk with the candidates there, instead of each candidate raising their own money and spending them on TV, radio, and Intenet ads in our primaries.
Okay, so that's probably more of a pipe dream than an idea easily implemented, but it might be worth it just because most people really hate political ads anyway. 
But more realistic ways to reform what our Party does with funds we aren't using against the GOP are heartily welcomed by me. I feel like every dollar spent in a primary election is one less we weren't able to use against the GOP.
The whole voting on Saturdays, absolutely, needs to be fixed before 2018. If no other solution at all is possible, absentee ballots or early voting must be available for people who have religious observances on Saturdays that are a long-standing part of their faith.
As a Party, even when we're great, we can always get better. When we're obviously NOT great, it's our duty to try to get better.
