Every day, there is an election somewhere. Most people in the United States have at least one chance a year to cast a ballot, whether it's for dog catcher or mayor or whatever. But the only time a majority of Americans makes the time to vote is when the White House is on the line, and that happens only once every four years. The conjunction of these facts is what led to the bizarre apparition of Howard Dean on the cover of Time and Newsweek more than a year before the Democratic convention. The political writers are bored out of their minds, and they've decided that it's time to start getting some articles published.

Dean is the hottest thing going in politics today. He raises huge amounts of money from regular people via the Internet and he sounds truly pissed off (more circumspect commentators might say "impassioned") when he speaks. I like that kinda attitude, myself. Dean naysayers point to such candidates as William Jennings Bryan, George McGovern and Barry Goldwater, major party nominees who supposedly sat so far out of the mainstream that voters rejected them in droves. I don't know much of anything about Bryan's campaigns in 1896, 1900 and 1908 (he was the Democratic nominee all three times) other than the fact that his "Cross of Gold" speech at the 1896 convention is considered one of the greatest pieces of oratory of all time and is still taught in schools today.

I know a lot more about McGovern and Goldwater, and it should be obvious to any observer that these men ran dreadfully inept campaigns against master politicians and got stomped (with apologies to Dennis Miller) like narcs at a biker rally. Which means that speculating about Dean's chances today is like predicting the weather on election day. There's just no telling.

During the 20th century, three incumbent presidents lost their re-election bids (Hoover, Carter and Bush) and one withdrew during the primary process (Johnson). One thing unites all of these men: A dead dog could have beaten any and all of them. Each of these men managed to lose the trust of the American people (a cliche, I suppose, but I can't think of a better way to describe this metaphysical collective state of being) and had lost significant parts of their core support groups. Sure, F.D.R., Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were compelling figures (each of them serving at least two terms), but their initial electoral success was caused as much by the widespread antipathy toward their opponents as by a popular groundswell in their favor.

In other words, whether or not George W. Bush gets to deliver the 2005 State of the Union message is up to him, and him alone.

I prefer not to lay any money down on next year's go-round as of yet, though I will say that the Prez's position at the top of the G.O.P. ticket ought to be listed as even money. On the Democratic side, John Kerry and John Edwards have money and Dean has the buzz. Joe Lieberman claims to be the most electable and Dennis Kucinich claims to be the most progressive. Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun are saying that they aren't the goofballs we all knew and loved in the past. Retired Gen. Wesley Clark isn't saying anything in hopes that someone powerful lifts him up as a viable candidate. Any one of them could win the race (yes, there are a couple of marginally plausible scenarios that involve a potential President Sharpton) and whoever wins the race will be running against Bush and not on their own merits.

But enough stable talk. There are three things that should guide the formulation of your political wagering tipsheet next year: Bullets, burgers and brains.

If the situation in Iraq is just as messy at this time next year, the Prez doesn't have a chance. Ralph Nader could outpoll Bush at GM headquarters. This scenario is a no-brainer, but I think the military will have figured out a way to keep its soldiers from getting whacked by then. Anyway, there's an easy calculus for this: the muddier the Euphrates, the muddier the electoral picture.

I don't believe that the economy will be the major issue of the campaign, but again, if the jobless rolls are still packed next summer, then the Prez will be in the same boat as his dad. Chances are the economy will be expanding slowly, which will make for some shrill soundbites, but probably very little else.

As for the brains part, I think everyone's aware of the many, um, "mispronouncements" uttered by the Prez. While I think he has enough gray matter to avoid shooting himself in the foot, you never know. You might recall a certain Clayton Williams who ran against Ann Richards for governor of Texas in 1990. Claytie (that's the name he put on his yard signs, believe it or not) said--during an interview--that weather is like rape: if it's inevitable, you might as well enjoy it. He was guilty not only of repeating a cliche, but an offensive one to boot. Then he publicly celebrated his youthful forays across the border to patronize Mexican prostitutes. Again, I don't think the Prez is dumb enough to allow his mouth to venture that far afield, but you never know.

There's more than a year for these and other issues to rise up, fall away or simply float around the fringes. My own personal feeling is that we'll be in control of Iraq--one way or another--that the economy will be mucking along unpleasantly and that the Prez will continue to speak like a moron--but a respectable moron. Which means that the serious money will be on re-election. But I'm not making any serious predictions. Not yet.

You might find all of this wonky, obtuse or simply unreadable. That's cool. You'll probably like next week's topic: A new television show featuring five straight guys who help a butch lesbian pick up a spicy hot femme girl.

Jon Worley wishes political speculation paid better than tabloid trash.