The 2016 Republican Presidential Hopefuls.

I have no idea why people think I might have a better grasp than others on the Presidential election next year, yet what I am asked most often is “who will win?” I do my best to avoid the question because I truly have no idea. However, 22 months away from election night, the American press and media loves playing the guessing game.

So far, no one has declared a candidacy. Hillary Clinton has, apparently, cleared the desk for her run but she is wise enough to know it is far too early to put her hat into the ring. Jeb Bush, arguably the leading Republican candidate, is only “exploring possibilities.” He has not made any firm decision in public.

At the moment, there are no serious Democratic contenders to face Mrs Clinton. I doubt that this will last. However, some twenty men have indicated their willingness to examine a run for the Republican nomination. Most of the twenty, like former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, have a limited appeal and will fall by the wayside after the early primaries. However, there are some names who may well capture the imagination of the voting public and go a long way.

I have tried to put myself in the position of a Democratic Party grandee, one of those who works behind the scenes to get the desired result, i.e. facing a weak candidate. In such a position, I would not advocate the dirty political tricks of American politics at this stage. Far too early. Instead, I would seek to find some weakness to exploit through the media.

Take, for example, Rand Paul. Paul’s plan to get himself elected president relies on two long-shot bets coming true. Paul’s first wager is that his libertarian ideas will attract Republicans who oppose regulation and government control. Paul calls it “The leave-me-alone coalition.” The second bet is on Paul himself, a wager that he’s an unusually talented politician, persuasive enough to build a coalition out of groups that have never viewed themselves as allies.

This week, Paul’s ideas put him at the middle of a national controversy when he applied his trademark sceptical thinking to the question of childhood vaccines. “They should be largely voluntary,” Paul said, “as a matter of freedom.” He added that there was concern that children “wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines.” This is scare-mongering of the worst kind. Ten years ago in Britain, Dr Andrew Wakefield was a lone voice against the MMR jab. The media pushed the story and Wakefield was celebrated as a children’s champion, until his research was disclosed as totally bogus.

After Paul’s vaccine comments drew angry reactions, he accused the media of misconstruing his remarks. “I did not say vaccines caused mental disorders, just that they were temporally related,” Paul said in a statement. “I did not allege causation.” Really? I might add that Paul is a medical doctor. The Democrats now have a wedge issue to skewer Paul.

Scott Walker, the Wisconsin governor, is heading towards the top of the Republican list of candidates. He has staunch conservative credentials and is an evangelical Christian. He would be the first occupant of the White House since Harry Truman not to have a college degree. He flunked college. He could well enjoy popularity among moderate voters for his track record against trade unions. Angry at his plans to curb collective bargaining powers for public sector workers, in 2012 the unions forced a “recall”, a vote which Walker won, the only governor in US history to do so.

Walker will be in Britain this week as part of a trade delegation. I suspect the Democratic grandees will be watching very carefully in case Walker stumbles like Jersey governor Chris Christie, he of Bridgegate infamy. I believe he has little chance of success next year but it has not helped his cause that his recent trip here was described as a train wreck. Amongst other things, Christie refused to get into the vaccination debate. Enquiring about the ISL threat, a reporter was asked by Christie, “Is there something you don’t understand about no questions,” That’s not the way a candidate endears American voters.

Walker will have learned from Christie’s disaster but Walker may have an Achilles heel. His 2015-17 state budget includes a $300 million cut for the University of Wisconsin system over the next two years. That’s a 13 percent reduction in state aid from the latest budget cycle. Walker says his budget is a trade, a drop in state support for an increase in administrative autonomy. However, when speaking to his Republican base, he framed the proposal around retribution, going on talk radio in Milwaukee to tell the faculty about working more. Walker suggested they could teach another class each term, which sounds reasonable if you’ve never had to prepare a class.

Some Wisconsin Republican legislators have expressed concern at the magnitude of the cuts, asking whether they imperil the University’s mission and pointing to the likelihood of major tuition increases in 2017. The official legislative language released Wednesday eliminates a link between the university and the state. Till now, the link has been central to the university’s identity. I foresee the Democratic Party leadership saying publicly, “If Walker can do this to Wisconsin, what might he do nationally?”

The run for the presidency of the United States is a marathon. The story of the 2016 election will run and run.