On hearing that I come from that benighted place called Washington, the question on everybody’s lips as I travelled in Europe this summer was: who’s going to win the election?

The first thing to be said is that this is a distinct improvement on the past five years. For most of that time, the revelation that I lived and worked in America’s capital would generally elicit a clouded look of concern from my interlocutor, a whispered word of sympathy or encouragement, as though perhaps I might be seeking political asylum from the hellhole of militant nationalism, capitalist exploitation and religious bigotry that is George Bush’s America.

I’ve no doubt that the new response, the keen interest in the identity of the next president, reflects a yearning to be rid of the current one. But at least it means that, however briefly, the rest of the world is thinking the same way as America. Given the vagaries of electoral politics, and that we are still almost 15 months from election day, it’s not a question that I would normally feel comfortable answering. But the campaign has been in something like full swing for almost a year. What’s more, the early start is matched, at least in the primaries (the phase of the election in which voters in the two main parties separately select their candidate), by an early finish. We are probably less than six months from knowing the identities of the two main candidates.

So it’s a reasonable time to hazard some guesses about what the campaign has taught us so far. This week, I’ll start with the Democrats, the big favourites to win next year.

The most obvious and important fact we have learnt is that Hillary Clinton has firmly cemented her position as the prohibitive favourite to win the Democratic nomination, and with it the presidency.

Even occasional readers of this column will know that she has never been a favourite of mine. Prohibitive, yes; favourite, definitely not. I continue to find the ease with which she has sacrificed her principles on everything of importance, the makeover from radical feminist to soft-focused mother and devoted wife, from V-sign-waving peacenik to hawkish warmonger, all a little chilling even for my slightly cynical tastes.

But the truth is that no one ever lost money underestimating the credulity of voters. And to be fair for a moment, even I would have to acknowledge that Bill Clinton’s First Lady (though, assuredly not his last), on the evidence of the campaign so far at least, deserves her lead.

If a Martian were to come down and follow the main candidates for a few days he would wonder why there was any question at all why Mrs Clinton should not be the anointed Democrat. Through the numerous debates, and on the stump across the country it is evident that she is the most knowledgeable, experienced and disciplined. Most of the time, like a Queen Elizabeth I or a Margaret Thatcher, she easily dominates the inferior men shuffling around her.

But she has not quite sealed the deal yet. Though her opinion poll lead among Democratic primary voters has widened in the past month or two, in the more important polls that measure popularity in the early primary states, her lead is narrower, or even disappears completely. She remains unpopular with many Americans.

So all the while, a faint patter of hope continues to beat in the hearts of the men in her wake. Barack Obama remains the closest challenger. The 46-year-old son of a black African and a Caucasian American continues to generate an excitement rare in political circles.

To be frank, that same Martian would have to wonder what exactly all the fuss was about the Illinois senator. His campaign has been, in substance, quite underwhelming. For all the luminous media coverage, the endless comparisons with John F. Kennedy, Mr Obama remains an oddly unconvincing world saviour. Watching him, you are struck by a sharp contradiction. There is Obama the Phenomenon – the Ideal, the Hope-Giver, the avatar of political change, national renewal and racial unity. Then there is Obama the man, the speaker with a rather pedestrian style, seemingly hobbled by caution. If he weren’t young and black, let’s be honest, he would be considered quite dull.

And this is before you even get to his biggest flaw – his lack of any real governing experience. In the past couple of weeks he has been in trouble over a couple of statements on foreign policy that his opponents seized on as evidence of his woeful unsuitability for high office.

In the first he said, that if he were President, he would sit down and talk with leaders of rogue states around the world. In the second, he said that if he had actionable intelligence that al-Qaeda were planning attacks inside Pakistan, and if the authorities in Islamabad refused to move, he would authorise US military action against the enemy.

This twin commitment earned him what may be the most memorable putdown of the campaign so far, when one of the Republican candidates said you didn’t know where you stood with Obama – one day he was Jane Fonda, the next Dr Strangelove.

There was, substantively, nothing much wrong – or even very new – in what Mr Obama said. For Democrats and even some Republicans, talking with the leaders of unpleasant regimes is now seen as a necessary shift in US diplomacy, and no one in his right mind would really outsource American national security to the whims of the Government in Pakistan. But it somehow played into the perception of Mr Obama as not ready to be leader of the nation in a dangerous world.

The third main Democratic contender is John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator. He continues to run a campaign larded with a hypocrisy and opportunism that make Mrs Clinton look like St Thomas More. He berates the exploitation of America’s workers by evil global capitalists, then pops out of the picket line for a $400 haircut, paid for with money he earned in the past few years representing hedge funds as a wealthy lawyer.

He trails the other two candidates in the polls, but is staking all on a big win in an early contest – Iowa, probably – to propel him to a stunning nationwide victory.

The rest of the Democratic field – it would be doing unacceptable violence to the English language to call them hopefuls or contenders – continue to roam the country looking for scraps of comfort to sustain them in their pointless journey. For most of them now the campaign seems to be about auditioning for a spot in Mrs Clinton’s Administration.

Times Recommends

• Bank charges hit us for being human
• Sorry, Father, thou still shalt not steal
• The shed where Santa’s failures go to die