Exactly how deadlocked is a matter of some debate:

•  Obama ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates, catching her in superdelegates (TPM Election Central)

(Hat tip: Donklephant)

Interesting, but not too surprising, to see superdelegates jumping ship to support Obama given the closeness of the race.  The difference between the two candidates is far less than the number of superdelegates, no matter whose numbers you use.  If this keeps up, superdelegates will decide the Democratic nomination — and that’s bad news for the Democrats.

McCain pretty much has a lock on the Republican nomination.  (Take that with a grain of salt; after Iowa, I thought Obama pretty much had a lock on New Hampshire.)  He’s a hawkish interventionist on the Team America: World Police model, but so is Clinton — and if you look at what Pelosi and Reid have done since 2006 you’d be forgiven for thinking that most Democrats are, too.  He has some centre-left credibility (viz. McCain-Feingold and his stance on immigration) and a reputation — at least in some circles — for willingness to “reach across the aisle”.  People see him as a moderate, at least compared to people like Giuliani and Huckabee.  Note that Obama has at least a little bit of the same thing going on the Democratic side of the fence.

He also, in some circles, has a reputation as an independent-minded maverick — especially since he’s most recently been compared to Romney.  As far as I can tell, that’s what got him his five hundred-some delegate lead: he’s a palatable, “safe” kind of maverick, unlike (say) Huckabee or Paul, who scare the bejeezus out of mainstream Republicans.  Note again that Obama has acquired the same kind of reputation — he’s a “change” candidate, particularly compared to Clinton and her two previous terms as President.  (Hey, if she wants to campaign on her experience, I get to make jokes about it.)

Now, suppose that Clinton receives the Democratic nomination by a small margin.  She’ll have a hard time persuading people that she wasn’t crowned by unelected superdelegates within the party establishment — she is, after all, the establishment candidate.  Everyone who voted for someone other than Clinton in the primaries and caucuses will feel cheated, their votes overruled by superdelegates appointed by the Democratic elite.

And here, on the other side of the fence, is McCain: a purportedly moderate, independent-seeming candidate with what appears to be an actual popular mandate (we won’t get into the actual math of the Republicans’ winner-take-all primaries; suffice to say that McCain doesn’t have as much of a mandate in actual votes cast as it appears).  The “R-” in front of his name will probably scare off most of the disaffected Democrats; some of those will hold their noses and vote for Clinton, but I imagine that more than a few will simply pout and sit out the election.

But the story so far has been “it’s the independents, stupid“.  Independents gave Obama his early momentum by handing him Iowa and narrowing what seemed like an uncrossable gap between his polls and Clinton’s in the early races, convincing later voters that Obama’s actually electable.  (Exactly the opposite happened to Giuliani, and I’m still gloating about that.)  Those independents will find McCain much more palatable, and will probably give him the Presidency.

Let me repeat that: if Clinton wins the Democratic nomination on superdelegates alone, I expect her to lose to McCain in the general election.

I’m not convinced that a McCain presidency would be an unmitigated disaster, mind you.  I expect the Dems to gain full control of the Senate and increase their majority in the House.  That gives us a divided government — despite McCain’s rep for working with Democrats and Pelosi’s and Reid’s record of caving in to the lunatic demands of a Republican President — and the extra friction inherent in a divided government is a very good thing indeed.  For example:

• Divided government and ch-ch-ch-changes (Donklephant)

Suppose we switch the scenario around.  If Obama wins the Democratic nomination on superdelegates alone, he can retain support from “his” independents.  He’ll lose support from some of the die-hard Clintonistas and the like — but they’re far more likely to simply sit at home than vote for McCain (even though Clinton’s policies are much closer to McCain’s than Obama’s are).  Would that cost him the election?  Hard to say.  He would, however, get into less trouble than Clinton.