When it comes to predicting elections, we can refer to our usual tools of prognostication — charts, maps, trends, stats, data, logic, common sense — or we can turn to a more reliable bellwether: cookies. Yes, those small, innocuous, and oft-times heavenly morsels of greatness can hold the key to elections.

While seemingly unrelated to politics, it turns out that there’s a very special link between cookies and Presidential ascendancy. For the past four elections, the readers of Family Circle magazine have accurately predicted the next President based on the cookie recipes of the candidates’ wives. Whoever has had the more popular cookie has gone on to win the whole shebang. Why? Not sure. Maybe it’s because a scrumptious cookie recipe speaks of a candidate’s good judgment. After all, what candidate would ever allow a substandard cookie to represent him on the campaign trail? Anyone that abides by such silliness surely can’t be fitting for the White House. (Of course, by this logic, Ina Garten could power her husband Jeffrey into the Oval Office without a problem; so, as you can see, the theory is a bit flawed.)

Nevertheless, cookie is key, and now that the presumptive Presidential field has been narrowed down to Obama and McCain, it’s time for their lovely ladies to bust out recipes (and before your sexist alarms start ringing, fear not: apparently, Bill Clinton had a choice ready to go, too). For the Dems, Michelle Obama has submitted her choice: “shortbread cookies with zest of lemon and orange, and a cheeky kick of almond liqueur Amaretto.” And in the other corner, Cindy McCain with oatmeal butterscotch cookies.

Hmmmm…

Is it me, or is there a whole lot of bland going on with these selections? History has told us that the cookies that have fared the best have all involved chocolate in some glorious capacity. So why, oh why, did these ladies neglect that godly ingredient from this ever-so-important endeavor? It’s like getting to the last lap of a NASCAR race and then willingly popping your tires. I know, I know — these elections are about change, but this is entirely too severe a turn. The good news for both women is that since they both curiously omitted chocolate-based recipes, they’re still on an even, if less appealing, playing field. The only question that remains is: whose cuisine reigns supreme?

Well, given the fact that I haven’t tried the cookies (nor do I plan to bake them), my judgment is a bit impaired. However, if I were a consumer in a bakery and faced with these options — well, it would be tough. On the one hand, you have Michelle Obama’s Shortbread Cookies, which feature all sorts of funky stuff (i.e., liqueur) and flavors (i.e., liqueur again). It feels very Food Network-y, and I appreciate the colorful presentation. But still…shortbread? I know there are many who adore shortbread, but I tend to think of it as akin to British humor: Irespect it, but I don’t necessarily get it. It just seems so staid, so boring. Shortbread never gives me that satisfying, guilty pleasure fulfillment that a brownie or chocolate chip cookie can provide. It’s a tough sell.

Then there are Cindy McCain’s oatmeal butterscotch cookies. These bad boys look more like traditional cookies (metaphorical message, perhaps — the status quo in cookie form?), but they also look incredibly boring, too. Oatmeal is fine to use in cookies, but don’t we need a strong flavor to punch through it — chocolate or raisin, perhaps? I’m not sure that butterscotch, as tasty as it is, can get the job done. Still, the folksy appeal might be a major selling point with readers.

So when faced with this choice — boring vs. bland — what do we do? I say we all just pretend it’s 1975 and reach for Gerald Ford’s favorite Double Chocolate Chip Cookies. With that option, who knows? Maybe we can stay on a collective sugar high all the way through the election.

–Ben Mandelker