Mal Fletcher comments on the US presidential primaries

Arguably, many of the remaining 42 percent of registered Democrats, not to mention the wider electorate, would not want a President who, while she has long been a political insider, is associated with questionable dealings reaching from as far back as her husband's governorship to her recent stint as Secretary of State.

Nor would they relish the idea of a President Trump. They would balk at handing the US nuclear codes to a man whose present demeanour and past record in private enterprise suggest that he is impulsive, insecure, often angry and given to favouring hyperbole and inflammatory comment over informed insight.

Politics seldom throws up the two very best candidates for any top job at the same time.

However, voters are also seldom offered the choice between a hot-headed political novice and a calculating political junkie, both of whom seem primarily interested in achieving the highest office for its own sake.

To this point, neither seems to possess an overriding image of what America aspires to be or could become - at least, that is, in their statements reported in the international press and media.

While Trump's speeches seem mostly to be filled with hype and bluster about making America "great", Clinton's appear to change tack as the occasion demands.

One minute, Mrs. Clinton is pushing her credentials as a proven political player, the next she is claiming that elections are not easy for her because she isn't a politician. At the start of her campaign, she is a centre-left candidate, yet she soon tacks further leftward to out-manoeuvre her opponent, the self-confessed socialist Bernie Sanders.

In the process, she gives the impression that her stance is primarily shaped by politics, not ideals.

Both major candidates appear to be making things up as they go along - even more than is usual - sounding off about being proactive while behaving in completely reactive ways.

For his part, Senator Bernie Sanders does offer a vision, with some fairly clear policies to back it up. He has at least tried to match his ideals with concrete ideas.

But is his vision credible? Many Democrat voters seem to think so. I wonder, though, whether anyone seriously imagines that the mighty, global home of capitalism might willingly morph into a quiet social democracy akin to tiny Denmark?

This, after all, is one of Mr Sanders' stated goals. If it happened it would represent more than the political revolution he has promised. It would signal nothing short of a game-changing tsunami in global politics, socio-economics and more.

As far as I'm aware, Mr. Sanders has never lived in a social democracy. I have. During almost ten years in Copenhagen, I found a good deal to appreciate about Danish society and culture.

The same is true for each of the Nordic countries, where I have spent a lot of time working and have felt privileged to do so.