A Japanese diplomat said: 'America drags the entire world into its four-year scramble. So much rides on the outcome for us - and we don't even have a vote.' This year, at least, the major parameters have been set early. It is a race between George W. Bush and John Kerry for the White House - and it is only March. For that we can give thanks.
If Asia did have a vote, whom would the major players support? Let's take the easy cases first. Japan is a pretty clear win for Mr Bush. The obvious tradeoff between support for Mr Bush's Iraq policy and Washington laying off Japan's yen manipulation gives Tokyo breathing space as it organises - finally - a real recovery. To get to this stage, it had to deploy troops abroad to a war zone for the first time, against the nature of its constitution. But more than this, Japan's government has never been comfortable with American liberals. Tokyo likes the kind of deals it can make with Mr Bush's people - hard-nosed and quiet.
Taiwan would pull out all the stops for Mr Bush. Senator Kerry's emphasis on 'strategic ambiguity' over America's proposed response to any mainland aggression against Taiwan is a red flag to the island's leaders. If President Chen Shui-bian wins re-election and if the two referendums - calling for increased missile deployment and for a zone of 'peace and stability' between Taiwan and Beijing - are overwhelmingly endorsed, the strategic environment will certainly be tense, until the new realities have settled in. Washington will continue to veto independence, but officials in Taiwan know Mr Bush's people like them and would support them at the drop of a hat. Taiwan's survival will be wholly dependent on America's commitment.
China is the hardest case to call. Beijing resents the Bush administration's refusal to yield over its support for Taiwan. But at least Mr Bush is the 'devil they know'. And know him they do: the 'summit' at Mr Bush's Crawford ranch was an appreciated honour for then president Jiang Zemin in October 2002.
The latest annual strategic survey by the International Institute of Strategic Studies said that Beijing wishes to 'minimise external distractions' and concentrate on its economic reform agenda. That is fine by Mr Bush.
Senator Kerry was, for a long time, the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on East Asia and Pacific Affairs, and said perhaps too much about human rights for Beijing's liking. Moreover, he has frequently insisted that China cannot be a 'strategic partner', adding in a speech four years ago, 'but it is not an enemy'. He has not shifted that lukewarm stance in the meantime. Mr Bush, in that same period, has gone from election talk about 'strategic competition' with China to an almost congenial relationship with Beijing.