I’m beginning to think my old political friends aren’t too happy with me.

Why else wouldn’t they call? Why haven’t they come by?

I tried going to their house - they weren’t there.

I tried calling - I got no response.

And all I wanted was to find out if the political rancor of the 20th Century had gotten any better.

Well, actually, ‘no.’ In fact, the bitter resentments could be even worse today.

Back in the 20th Century, elections weren’t much more complicated and any ‘politico’ playing ‘Solitaire’ could still – without question and uncertainty - count themselves out of the picture.

In fact, you could easily draw a parallel between the acrimonies in today’s politics and the conflicts in the games we play.

Politics is, after all, all about controlling territory.

The more territory you control, the more people you command, the more people you command, the more wealth you acquire – like playing Monopoly.

But Monopoly isn’t the only board game that draws an analogy to the games politicians play.

Some candidates play ‘Battleship,’ taking shots in the dark hoping they’ll hit something. Some play ‘Risk,’ planning each move strategically. And some just roll the dice hoping for a ‘Lucky 7.’

There are other similarities as well.

In Monopoly, politicians profit from landing on “Community Chest,” earning money as they pass ‘Go;’ collect dividends from the bank when taking a “Chance;” or ‘Go to Jail” or “Get out of Jail Free,” as is often the case with real-life politicians.

In Monopoly, the object of the game is to deprive your opponents of their wealth; in Battleship, the idea is to sink your opponent’s ships; and in “Risk,” the aim is to occupy every territory on the board.

Just like playing politics!

Politicians aren’t the only ones playing the game. Voters are also sucked in, forced to make moves, as well.

They’re asked to vote for candidates they don’t know, are hurried off to the polling places on Election Day, and are forced to make sense of the bewilderment and confusion around them.

Do you vote for Mr. Mustard and Professor Plum?

Or will Mrs. Peacock and Mr. Green make better candidates?

And what is this thing about candidates saying bad things about each other?

Why not focus on the contributions they could make?

Why not debate their platforms in open forum?

Instead, voters are thrust into a game of “Clue” - constrained to wander from room to room in order to gather information on candidates’ qualifications.

The parallels are incontestable.

So, after this brief preface into “Politics 101,” the question now is which game best describes the upcoming March election?

Are candidates skillfully weighing every move playing “Chess” or is the game of preference “Candy Land,” where colorful candidates in the limelight live in a fanciful world of magic and fantasy?

The only prediction I’ll make is that after March 2, not all candidates will remain unscathed.

The winners will declare checkmate while the game pieces collapse around their opponents.

“Ouch.”