These are some things that have been rattling around in my head for some time and I thought I'd put them down in black and white to help clarify my thinking. I'm not sure how much clearer it is, since the presidential race is nothing but muddy and mucky water, but still... 
There are a few things quite unique about the upcoming presidential election.
Never before have we had a woman as a party-nominated presidential candidate.
Never before have we had someone with absolutely zero governmental experience as a party-nominated presidential candidate (while U.S. Grant never held elected office, he worked for the government.)
Never before have there been two more-reviled characters vying for the top spot.
Never before has there been such nearly-solid opposition to the other party's candidate by members of each party. In this case it's nearly a flatline: no democrats are supporting Trump, and while there are republicans willing to vote for Clinton (because she's not Trump), they don't support her.
A bit more about that last point. While we often talk about a presidential election as a "lesser of two evils," in truth, rarely has an election ultimately been about that. What I mean is that typically you can find many, many people who actually support one of the candidates. But in this election, if you drill in far enough, most often it really boils down to "X is better than Y." (While I know a few people who actually support Trump and agree with much of what he has to say, I can honestly say that I know absolutely no one who truly supports Clinton; rather, again, if you push far enough, they will concede that they're really voting against Trump, not for Clinton. Remember, too, that I live in one of the most liberal areas of the U.S., the S.F. Bay Area.)
So what is one to do?
At the end of the day, I think Trump is the ever-so-slightly-less-abominable choice, and for one simple reason: he won't be able to get much done.
Let's look at the facts: Trump has a history of "what he wants, he gets" and usually that's because he has lots of money and clout. But that's not what a president needs; s/he needs to be able to actually work with people and negotiate; to cajole, mollify, and schmooze a path through Congress in order to get things done. Even if Trump is willing to learn and grow in this regard (and little suggests that he is), it will take at least a year or two, and in the meanwhile many of the enemies he's made will simply be unwilling to work with him no matter what. Basically he'll be a lame duck president throughout his term. He won't be able to pack the court for the same reason he's going to have trouble with pushing for legislative change, so the justices will likely be more mainstream (and unpredictable), rather than a right-leaning strict constructionist (like the late Antonin Scalia).
Comparatively, though...on the other side of the menu we have a sharp huckster of a career politician, someone who indeed knows how to get things done. But what will Clinton plan to do? Well, that's part of the rub: exactly what she'll do is uncertain, because her thoughts, opinions and beliefs have changed over time apparently due to the winds of political and personal expediency. Do we believe her now? Or then? Or next week? That aside, there is not doubt that HRC absolutely knows how to play the political game, and her leftist leanings (or at least those she presently embraces) are in various degrees scary and scarier. Even if her winning margin is razor-thin, she's going to go off as though she has a mandate for change...and may I digress for a moment to pose the query: when has that ever been good for "we the people?"
Couple that with the odds that Clinton will appoint at least two liberal judges (and more likely three) to the highest court in the land -- the one that can trump (no pun intended) congress -- and you have a leftist legacy that could well result in a sea change starting soon and continuing for at least a couple of decades.
So unless you favor of lots of change, the safer vote is with Trump. He won't do much good, but he won't do much bad, either, since he won't be able to do much at all except continue his blowhard ways. True, our international light will dim a bit, but ultimately that will let it burn all the brighter after the 2020 election when we might actually have a candidate a majority truly supports.
At the same time, it may be even more important to be sure not to vote too liberal for congressional seats. If Trump is elected that won't really matter (since he's managed to frost as many republicans as he has democrats), but if Clinton wins, at least she won't have a left-leaning congress waiting to swoon over her every word.
Whatever it may be.
There are a few things quite unique about the upcoming presidential election.
Never before have we had a woman as a party-nominated presidential candidate.
Never before have we had someone with absolutely zero governmental experience as a party-nominated presidential candidate (while U.S. Grant never held elected office, he worked for the government.)
Never before have there been two more-reviled characters vying for the top spot.
Never before has there been such nearly-solid opposition to the other party's candidate by members of each party. In this case it's nearly a flatline: no democrats are supporting Trump, and while there are republicans willing to vote for Clinton (because she's not Trump), they don't support her.
A bit more about that last point. While we often talk about a presidential election as a "lesser of two evils," in truth, rarely has an election ultimately been about that. What I mean is that typically you can find many, many people who actually support one of the candidates. But in this election, if you drill in far enough, most often it really boils down to "X is better than Y." (While I know a few people who actually support Trump and agree with much of what he has to say, I can honestly say that I know absolutely no one who truly supports Clinton; rather, again, if you push far enough, they will concede that they're really voting against Trump, not for Clinton. Remember, too, that I live in one of the most liberal areas of the U.S., the S.F. Bay Area.)
So what is one to do?
At the end of the day, I think Trump is the ever-so-slightly-less-abominable choice, and for one simple reason: he won't be able to get much done.
Let's look at the facts: Trump has a history of "what he wants, he gets" and usually that's because he has lots of money and clout. But that's not what a president needs; s/he needs to be able to actually work with people and negotiate; to cajole, mollify, and schmooze a path through Congress in order to get things done. Even if Trump is willing to learn and grow in this regard (and little suggests that he is), it will take at least a year or two, and in the meanwhile many of the enemies he's made will simply be unwilling to work with him no matter what. Basically he'll be a lame duck president throughout his term. He won't be able to pack the court for the same reason he's going to have trouble with pushing for legislative change, so the justices will likely be more mainstream (and unpredictable), rather than a right-leaning strict constructionist (like the late Antonin Scalia).
Comparatively, though...on the other side of the menu we have a sharp huckster of a career politician, someone who indeed knows how to get things done. But what will Clinton plan to do? Well, that's part of the rub: exactly what she'll do is uncertain, because her thoughts, opinions and beliefs have changed over time apparently due to the winds of political and personal expediency. Do we believe her now? Or then? Or next week? That aside, there is not doubt that HRC absolutely knows how to play the political game, and her leftist leanings (or at least those she presently embraces) are in various degrees scary and scarier. Even if her winning margin is razor-thin, she's going to go off as though she has a mandate for change...and may I digress for a moment to pose the query: when has that ever been good for "we the people?"
Couple that with the odds that Clinton will appoint at least two liberal judges (and more likely three) to the highest court in the land -- the one that can trump (no pun intended) congress -- and you have a leftist legacy that could well result in a sea change starting soon and continuing for at least a couple of decades.
So unless you favor of lots of change, the safer vote is with Trump. He won't do much good, but he won't do much bad, either, since he won't be able to do much at all except continue his blowhard ways. True, our international light will dim a bit, but ultimately that will let it burn all the brighter after the 2020 election when we might actually have a candidate a majority truly supports.
At the same time, it may be even more important to be sure not to vote too liberal for congressional seats. If Trump is elected that won't really matter (since he's managed to frost as many republicans as he has democrats), but if Clinton wins, at least she won't have a left-leaning congress waiting to swoon over her every word.
Whatever it may be.
