Whether Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump takes the White House, pragmatism is likely to be the eventual winner

In the US presidential election, the leading contenders – Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump – are now seeking to consolidate their lead from Super Tuesday’s multiple state contests.

According to polls, two out of every three Americans will vote on the basis of domestic issues (the economy, immigration, jobs and health care). But who will they vote for? Today, real estate billionaire Trump has about 40 per cent of Republican national support and more delegates than all his rivals, including Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who each attract 10-20 per cent of Republicans. Among the Democrats, Clinton garners almost half of the national vote and has twice as many delegates as Senator Bernie Sanders.

READ MORE: Trump and Clinton each secure seven Super Tuesday wins, edging closer to nomination

In US presidential rivalries, money makes winners. By the end of February, Clinton’s campaign had raised US$190 million. To the surprise of Clinton’s Wall Street donors, Sanders had garnered US$100 million, even though his funding stems almost exclusively from ordinary Americans. By the end of February, Cruz and Rubio had raised some US$100 million and US$80 million respectively. Trump had raised just US$27 million. However, he knows how to sell media bites without having to buy media time. And when the real game begins, he has millions to burn.

But how would the next president deal with China and Asia? In Beijing, Clinton’s politics sparks constipation, including Washington’s view of human rights and internet freedoms (which exclude cyber-monitoring). But when US economic prospects have dimmed, she has ignored her principles (her first trip to Asia as secretary of state in 2009). China and most of Asia tend to see her as a shrewd Machiavellian.

Clinton is also seen by China as something of an anathema, due to her role in the US “pivot” strategy and efforts to restrict (de facto “contain”) China’s rise. That policy stance accounts for the ongoing transfer of 60 per cent of the US Navy fleet into Asia by 2020 and the accompanying military build-up in the region. To benefit from Asia’s growth potential, President Barack Obama negotiated the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, which excludes China. To deter Sanders, Clinton has condemned the TPP but is likely to adjust her views in the end.

READ MORE: When it comes to China, and US foreign policy in general, Bernie Sanders needs all the help he can get

The US pivot is supported by those East and Southeast Asian nations – especially Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines – that have territorial and maritime disputes with China. But while many would like to hedge their bets between the US and China, most are focused on economic development and inclusive trade.

The same goes for the TPP. In China and much of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, it is seen as a step to a broader free trade agreement that would include China. Asia prefers engagement, not containment.