If that choice was available i would chose "Neither", of course.
I think the consensus on the board is that Sealion is truly ASB. The extreme maximum extent of Nazi conquest, one which borders the realm of ASB but just barely not there, would be the Nazis conquering the USSR west of the Urals.
I vehemently disagree with such blanket statements regarding "consensus", which to me, like i said several times before is nothing but trying to shove one's particular opinions onto others, and bullying those who have a different opinion on the subject. I have seen a fair number of posters who correctly define what Sealion is: an operation with a poor/very poor chance of success. Very poor does not mean impossible, and certainly it's not "ASB" - again the abuse of this concept - entirely broken for what is possible in the real world - to donwplay/ ridicule opinions and ideas that does not corespond to one's view is quite infuriating.
I also do not agree with the concept that in order to have a successful Sealion you must have nazis not be nazis, which butterflies Sealion in the first place (or something along those lines). Relatively simple PODs could theoretically bring a succesful Sealion, for instance more attention prior to mid-1940 to possible operations against the UK, drop tanks on Bf-109 and Bf-110 earlier, a disaster at Dunkirk for the UK and France resulting in the loss of most british troops (mostly made prisoners) as opposed to them being evacuated, maybe an even faster fall of France, continued attacks against RAF airfields as opposed to switching to London attacks, better attention and emphasis on war production as opposed to contemplating peace after the fall of France, and the list goes on and on. Could Sealion fail even with all these PODs? Absolutely, perfectly possible. But improbable does not mean impossible.
Constructive arguments of why Sealion could fail are certainly very welcomed and educative, attempt to forces one's pet opinion and censor interesting and engaging discussions on this subject are certainly, definitely not.