Say, for the sake of argument...

[Vaporous]

...that Super Tuesday comes and goes, and no one candidate has enough delegates to win. For the Democrats, Hillary and Obama are relatively tied up, with Edwards holding enough delegates to swing the race. As for the republicans, it's even crazier: the pattern of "win a primary, lose a few, win another" keeps up to the point where we have a few viable candidates at the convention- lets just say, based on results to this point, McCain, Romney and Huckabee come in close.

What do you think happens next, both to the parties and to American politics on the whole?

[Stravo]

If current polling numbers continue we can see a real split in the Democratic party along racial lines. There's been rumblings about this for awhile now and it looks like it's starting to shape up that a large majority of blacks are fully behind Obama and a growing number of whites are solidifying behind Hillary. There was even a rather hostile reaction from an African American crowd to Hillary in Manhattan of all places yesterday - one her supposed power bases. Things could get ugly real fast with Edwards (if he's still in it) acting as a spoiler for either one though more likely than not we can see an Obama Edwards ticket because I know damn well Hillary won't play second fiddle.

[Gerald Tarrant]

[Suppose]...that Super Tuesday comes and goes, and no one candidate has enough delegates to win. For the Democrats, Hillary and Obama are relatively tied up, with Edwards holding enough delegates to swing the race. As for the republicans, it's even crazier: the pattern of "win a primary, lose a few, win another" keeps up to the point where we have a few viable candidates at the convention- lets just say, based on results to this point, McCain, Romney and Huckabee come in close.

What do you think happens next, both to the parties and to American politics on the whole?

For the Democrats? Backroom deals. Edwards could parlay his support into a VP nod, or a cabinet seat, or some policy concessions.

As for the Republicans, there's been some strain lately. Ever since Reagan the strength of the Republicans was the "Big Tent": disparate and seemingly contradictory factions' Libertarians, Anti-Communists (from the cold war era, some turned into Neo-Cons), Bible-Thumpers, and Paleo-Cons (who have a strong preference for state's rights). Those are the big ones anyway. What kept the "Big Tent" working was that the factions would try not to step too much on each other's toes. The recent pre-eminence of the Bible-Thumpers has hurt the traditional cooperation. Any backroom deals between two candidates are likely to leave some faction out in the cold, and while I don't think the Republican party would fracture completely, it might start hemorraging a signifigant amount of votes to 3rd parties.

[Guardsman Bass]

If current polling numbers continue we can see a real split in the Democratic party along racial lines. There's been rumblings about this for awhile now and it looks like it's starting to shape up that a large majority of blacks are fully behind Obama and a growing number of whites are solidifying behind Hillary. There was even a rather hostile reaction from an African American crowd to Hillary in Manhattan of all places yesterday - one her supposed power bases. Things could get ugly real fast with Edwards (if he's still in it) acting as a spoiler for either one though more likely than not we can see an Obama Edwards ticket because I know damn well Hillary won't play second fiddle.

They've sort of pulled back from that kind of rhetoric . . . for now. I could see that kind of issue coming up if they went divided into the Democratic Convention. It would certainly make for some divided votes, although maybe Obama would agree to a Vice President slot (I agree in doubting Hillary would agree to the vice versa, since unlike the 46-year old Obama, she's getting old and has only a weak chance of getting it 8 years from now if she loses out). Or the Edwards-Obama ticket, as you pointed out (and which is probably more likely if the above scenario were to play out).

Now, the Republican Party . .. if McCain, Romney, and Huckabee went into the Republican Convention with no clear leader (or even the semblance of a leader) - well, that leaves the GOP in quite a quandary. Each one of the above, to some extent, would be pleasing to the different aspects of the Reagan Coalition - McCain appeals to independents (although less so than in 2000) and can claim the foreign policy experience bar, Romney can claim he's the business candidate if Giuliani is knocked out, and Huckabee, of course, would be the candidate of choice for the evangelical base (although not necessarily their leaders). Pissing off any one of them would cause problems with one of the key groups underpinning the GOP.

I'd imagine you'd get a ton of re-votes at the Convention, since the non-evangelical wing of the Republican Party is in dismay over Huckabee (and would probably be in more dismay if he made it to a divided convention), and it seems highly unlikely that McCain and Romney would ally with each other. It's possible Huckabee could consider taking the VP spot for one of the other two (especially if he's the weakest going into the divided convention), but I have a hard time imagining him playing second fiddle to Romney.

[Guardsman Bass]

Sorry, I forgot one other option: Since none of the three Republicans listed are in any way leaders in the national Republican Party (even McCain is still on the outside looking in, for the most part), it's possible, although unlikely, that the Republicans could decide the risk of a 1968-style riot is worth it, and screw all three to nominate somebody whom all factions found acceptable.

[Androsphinx]

I just posted most of this over in the "Dumb Huckabee" thread, but it seems relevant here as well.

Each of the 3 main elements of the Republican party has a clearly outlined sphere of influence - the neocons get to run their wars, the theocrats get to push their social agenda and the anti-taxers get their money. While each group may be unhappy with the impact of some of the others' policies, no faction is attempting to push an alternative ideology on the others in their sphere.

The moderates, such as they are (many, like Hagel, are just giving up), just don't have the muscle to regain policy on any of these issues. And so you have the remarkable phenomena of the four front-runners (Rommey, Huck, Guliani and McCain), although they come from such disparate sections of the party and country, all agreeing with:

The neocons on "staying the course" in Iraq, sanctions on Iran, cultural view of a "War on Terror"

The theocrats on appointing "strict constructionist" judges (even Guliani, who would be the first pro-choice Republican candidate for over thirty years, would almost certainly appoint as JP Stevens' replacement someone who'd be entirely happy to overturn Roe v. Wade). Even though they're the least happy with their options, they'll settle for anyone who can offer the promise of doing that.

The fiscals on lower taxes, less government and less regulation.

All three groups know that they will find no home elsewhere, and will ultimately settle on any of the four candidates. If there was a genuine moderate conservative running, who rejected any of the basic assumptions then the party might split. As it is, they're leaching moderate support, especially from the fiscals, but people like the "Club for Growth" and "Americans for Tax Reform" have everything they asked for.

The thing is, the money simply isn't there for four candidates (or really, even three) to run national campaigns through to October. I just can't see this going on much past February even in the worst-case scenario - the money will out. Some sort of deal will be cut - and really, any combination of the four would mollify the concerns any one faction has over the others.

Interesting fact- 50% of those who voted for McCain in NH did so because they thought he'd be less conservative than Bush. And 40% thought he'd be more conservative.

[Androsphinx]

[
Now, the Republican Party . .. if McCain, Romney, and Huckabee went into the Republican Convention with no clear leader (or even the semblance of a leader) - well, that leaves the GOP in quite a quandary. Each one of the above, to some extent, would be pleasing to the different aspects of the Reagan Coalition - McCain appeals to independents (although less so than in 2000) and can claim the foreign policy experience bar, Romney can claim he's the business candidate if Giuliani is knocked out, and Huckabee, of course, would be the candidate of choice for the evangelical base (although not necessarily their leaders). Pissing off any one of them would cause problems with one of the key groups underpinning the GOP.

Just to explicate that although each candidate can play to a specific faction, all three (or four - I expect Guilani to do very well in Super-Duper Tuesday) have pandered sufficiently to each part of the base. It's not as if any of the candidates could be described as actually liberal, "big government" or anti-war.

[CmdrWilkens]

The problem on the Democratic side, and to a lesser extent the Republican, is that the state delegates are NOT the only source of votes in the convention. There are something on the order of 800 votes that are not tied to the result of any caucus or primary and those are the superdelegates: basically the party power structure. Every Democrat above the rank of about state senator has a delegate vote at the convention and they are not bound by anything other than their personal choice. Right now Hillary has the support of anywhere from 150-200 of those delegates with Obama trailing far behind with a few dozen and Edwards owning basically himself and a couple close friends in the party. Essentially if the participants enter the convention in essentially a dead heat then we are looking at Hillarry and Obama with maybe 1200-1400 delegates (of the neccessarry 2025) and Edwards with perhaps 400. In that case there are deals to be made all around.

For starters after the first ballot the delegates are released and can vote however they please so you would be looking at immediate and unpredictable shifts based on who actually goes to the convention. Edwards could provide an immediate boost (likely in return for the VP nod) meanwhile the Superdelegates are suddenly the deal makers and breakers as those 800 votes would be basically all one would need to go over the top (well minus the fact that each candidate is a superdelegate themsleves so likely wouldn't vote for another candidate without a deal).

Honestly at that point I think the odds favor a Clinton outright nomination as she has the experience at backroom politics that would get her the number of superdelegates and stray delegates to go over the top. I think for Obama to win he has to enter the convention with enough pledged delegates that a deal with one or two people is enough to put him over the top on the first or second ballot. If it goes to a thrid ballot then i think Clinton has too much skill and Bill has too much pull with the party elite for Obama to overcome that.

[Adrian Laguna]

If it goes to a thrid ballot then I think Clinton has too much skill and Bill has too much pull with the party elite for Obama to overcome that.

You're forgetting something, Senator Kerry is supporting Obama. That amounts to jack and shit far as the primaries and caucuses are concerned, but the man does have considerable influence within the party. He was, after all, the last candidate the party united behind.