There's a crass and cynical formula for any given political candidate to follow, when any political issue is being discussed. It goes something like this (yes, I made up all this terminology, so please bear with me):

For any political issue P:

If V(a) < V(p), then: P.

If V(a) > V(p), then: –P.

If V(a) = ??, or V(p) = ??, or V(a) ?? V(p), then: avoid P.

First, let's define the terms. "V(a)" is the number of voters (or votes) that are against any particular issue or political stance "P." They're the "antis." This is weighed against "V(p)," the number of voters that are for (or "pro") issue P. So, in English, here is the same formula:

If the number of voters against political position P is less than the number of voters for it, then the candidate should come out for P. If the situation is reversed and there are more voters against P than for P, then the candidate should come out against P. If either the number of voters for or against cannot be accurately determined, or if it's not easy to see which group is larger, then the candidate should just avoid talking about P altogether, in the hopes that it will go away.

As I said, this is an incredibly crass and cynical way to describe politics. But unfortunately, it is indeed a reality for many politicians from both sides of the aisle, on many issues. There are other, less harsh terms to describe this phenomenon, such as saying a politician is "poll-driven" or "relies on focus groups to make decisions," but they all boil down to the same thing: political over-cautiousness.

I was reminded of all this cynicism due to two presidential candidates this week, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Much of the country is going to be disappointed if these two are the eventual major party nominees, mostly because of the inbred American disdain for political dynasties. At the presidential level, we've only had three of these in all our past history (the Adamses, the Harrisons, and the two Bushes). If the race really does come down to Hillary versus Jeb, then we will have to select one of two possible dynastic choices: the first husband-and-wife team, or the first time three members of the same family become president. The fact that both would be something unique (even among our dynastic history) isn't really going to excite a large portion of the electorate, though, whose feelings might be summed up as: "This is really all we get to choose between? Another Clinton or another Bush? Really?"

I might be a little disappointed if the race does become Hillary versus Jeb, but for a slightly different reason. I think that these are the two candidates most prone to actively using the aforementioned cynical political formula out of the entire field of both parties. And that would indeed be a bit disappointing.

Hillary Clinton's husband Bill relied upon the focus-group mentality in much of what he did and stood for. He invented a new twist on the formula: "triangulation." This is where you tweak your political position delicately enough that for all those on one side of the issue that you lose, you will pick up more support from those voters in the middle, toward whom you are moving. Bill's team was indeed masterful at calculating such triangulation.

Now, I don't want to paint Hillary using the brush of what her husband did. Hillary is her own person. But this isn't her first run at the White House, either. Her 2008 campaign showed that she could be exceedingly timid about contentious issues, which was rather strange, because at the time she was a sitting senator and could have showed leadership on any issue simply by standing up and making a speech on the Senate floor. To be fair, Barack Obama was just as timid (he was also in the Senate during the 2008 campaign).

I wrote about this extensively, at the time. I called for leadership from both Clinton and Obama directly, over the bill which reauthorized the FISA wiretapping process. I wrote again when John Edwards boldly staked out a position, while Obama and Clinton still both refused to. By the time the bill passed, I was using the word "pathetic" in the title, writing:

While John McCain managed to make both roll calls (unsurprisingly, he voted with the Republicans both times), Hillary Clinton skipped both votes. Barack Obama voted to strip the immunity out of the bill, but then disappeared for the final vote. It is worth noting that the usual excuse of being "on the campaign trail" does not apply here, because today's primaries (Maryland, DC itself, and Virginia) are all a stone's throw from the Senate chamber. So where was Hillary? So much for "leadership" and "experience" and all of that -- she was too chicken to put her votes on the record, in fear of them being used against her later in the campaign. Obama likewise has no excuse for missing the final vote, which just brings up the subject of his numerous "present" votes in Illinois all over again. And neither candidate has even mentioned the issue at all in a recent speech, as far as I know. Here is an excellent opportunity for the Democratic Party's leading candidates for president to show us exactly how they'd stand up to Bush and the Republicans... and there is a resounding silence from both of them. This does not bode well for what either of them would do as leader of our country, I have to say.

When I fantasized about what questions I would ask the two if I moderated a debate, one of them was a broad appeal for them to show any sort of leadership whatsoever in the Senate:

Senators Clinton and Obama, no matter which of you gets your party's nomination, it appears almost certain that for only the third time in American history, we will be electing someone straight from the United States Senate to the White House. But it doesn't seem as though either one of you has used the bully pulpit of the Senate to champion any of your key issues during your campaign. Please name one issue you've given a speech on in the Senate in the past six months that you feel strongly about. And please give an example of one Senate vote you missed, due to the campaign, that you now regret not being present for.

Jumping forward to this week, Hillary Clinton has been noticeably absent in the debate over the free trade agreement (and giving the president fast-track negotiating authority) currently going on in Congress. Now, I'm inclined to cut her a little slack for the moment, as her campaign is deliberately getting off to a gradual start, and they deserve to open Hillary's campaign in whatever fashion they choose. So far, it's been annoying the media no end, but it seems to be pretty well received among her supporters. So I can understand why Hillary's not jumping into every hot debate that comes along, since she'll have plenty of time for that later (the T.P.P. deal won't actually be voted on for a while, we're just in the preliminary fight over it). But while I'm willing to cut Hillary some slack right now, that doesn't mean I'll be willing to do so forever. Within the next few weeks, Clinton is going to have to begin to move beyond her own favored positions on her own chosen issues to tackling some tough day-to-day political questions being debated in Congress. Especially on issues that are dividing the party.

I don't mean this to be all about Hillary Clinton, though. Jeb Bush is why I really started thinking about the issue of cold political calculation. Because after a disastrous week where Bush took a whopping five days to come up with a believable answer to a simple question (that he really should have been expecting in the first place), my guess is that he's going to very quickly sift every new stance he now takes through the that cynical filter at the start of this article. Look for him to stop giving snap answers to interview questions, in other words, and look for a lot of obfuscatory answers which will give him time to consult with his team to come up with a proper political position on any given issue. Look for, in a phrase, Bush to become much more "handled." While there has been a lot of focus on Hillary Clinton's slow start to her campaign, few have noticed that Jeb is doing almost exactly the same thing. It's more of a gradual rollout than a kickoff to a campaign, in both Jeb and Hillary's cases. Bush hasn't even formally announced his candidacy yet.

This time around, if we do ultimately get a race between Hillary and Jeb, neither candidate will be a current political officeholder. This will make it even easier for them to dodge issues. There won't be any tough Senate votes for them to avoid, and no sticky executive decisions to be made. In the 2008 race, we had a rather unique field of three strong sitting senators (Clinton, Obama, and McCain). When any of them decided to dodge a vote, it was obvious. This time around, we do have three (and possibly more) Republicans running from the Senate, but Jeb Bush has been out of office for a long time. So has Hillary (if you're only counting elected office).

This article started off cynical, and it's going to end by becoming even more cynical, just to warn everyone. Because there is a simple reason why the two frontrunners for their respective party's presidential nomination are being so cautious (and will likely remain fairly cautious, compared to the others in the race). The reason is that it works. It's a proven winner. Winning presidential candidates often win precisely because they bend over backwards to avoid offending any large group of voters. Look at the article I previously cited: the only one who boldly took a stand was John Edwards, and look where he finished (even before his sexual dalliances became headlines). The populist issues Edwards championed have now become standard rhetoric in the Democratic Party, but he was seen as being too radical at the time.

It's a hard truth to face, because most voters who genuinely care about politics (as opposed to those who just pay attention a week before the election) truly want someone who takes bold stands. Even if every voter doesn't agree with each and every stand, candidates get credit for the act of taking such stands. But usually (though not always) when such a bold individual makes it through to the general election campaign, they get crushed. Barry Goldwater and George McGovern are the two classic worst-case examples of this.

So I expect to see a lot more cautiousness from both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both think they can win, and both will be filtering the issues using that algorithm at the top of this article to one degree or another, especially on issues which they haven't previously personally championed.

But while I expect to see timidity winning out over leadership in both candidates, I'm not exactly happy about it. I'll be doing my best along the way to hold both their feet to the fire, demanding answers rather than bland platitudes. If enough people put enough pressure on the candidates, they can indeed be forced to take a stand of some sort. If a candidate refuses to answer a question or refuses to stake out a clear position, that question should be asked over and over again until a satisfactory answer is given. These people are auditioning for the biggest leadership position in the country, and if they get the job they will have to take positions, like it or not. It's entirely reasonable to demand that they do so before they get to the Oval Office.

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant