John Rapley

London's Economist newspaper ran an article last week which more or less declared the U.S. election - or at least, the presidential race - over. Its prediction: Hilary Clinton will be the next president.

As is typical of Economist articles, it contained little nuance and made a strong case. Yet, even though the U.S. election is more than a year away, the sentiment is one which is starting to make its way into the American political establishment.

Two developments over the last few months have led Mrs. Clinton to become the odds-on favourite for the presidency. First is that she has taken a clear lead in the campaign for the Democratic nomination. She has edged past Barack Obama, who still draws crowds but has fallen behind her in fund-raising. And polls indicate that among Democratic supporters, she now enjoys a strong lead ahead of next winter's primaries and caucuses.

Not impressed

The second is that the Republican Party appears, at least for now, to be splintering. No one candidate has yet excited the party's imagination, let alone that of the wider the public. Moreover, the supposed base animated by the presidency of George W. Bush is less than impressed with the leading Republican candidates. There is a real danger to the party if it nominates a candidate that conservative Christians don't like, only to see them stay at home next year.

Yet the candidates that conservative Christian leaders do like, enjoy little support outside the party. Even within the party, there is a growing divide between old-fashioned conservatives and the current crop of neo-cons around the president - hardly a new divide, but one that has been exacerbated by this administration. And among evangelical Christians, who were so instrumental to Mr. Bush's two election victories, sentiment splits. Some want the party to broaden beyond the traditional-values agenda it has promoted, and there are even some signs of drift towards the Democratic Party.

Mr. Bush hasn't done his party many favours, either. Beloved though he may be of conservative Christians, his presidency is disliked by mostly everyone else. The number of Americans who now declare themselves to be Republicans has sunk to levels which would make it all but impossible for the party to win the next election.

So it all looks to be over. Instead, pundits can begin debating what Bill will get up to now that Hilary gets to select the interns.

I am always puzzled by this proclivity to declare U.S. elections over well before time, as if nothing can be expected to happen between now and November 2008. It's not as if journalists have no experience with this. I remember when Bill Clinton was declared all but dead in 1992; when Al Gore was declared unstoppable in 2000; and when Howard Dean - remember Howard Dean? - was virtually handed the Democratic nomination by journalists about this time four years ago.

Harold Wilson said it best: a week is a long time in politics. That makes a year an eternity. True, if things continue the way they are going, a Clinton presidency looks likely. If there are no surges in the Democratic race, because it does seem unlikely Hilary Clinton will stumble now, and if the Republicans cannot coalesce around a nominee, then the betting is probably reasonable.

But those two 'ifs' are big indeed. And all this optimism brushes aside Mrs. Clinton's highly problematic 'negatives' - the fact that not only do many Americans dislike her and her husband, but that the intensity of their dislike will turn them out to vote against her.

I wouldn't want to place this bet, at least not yet.