How to decide which button to push in the voting booth?


So Election Day is upon us, and Tuesday we face our constitutional duty to select our leaders.  Normally this is a mundane task that we take for granted (so much so that 2/3 of us decline to bother). For the so-called down-ballot races, largely this is still true. Ironically, THOSE were supposed to be the important ones on the ballot, since government was supposed to much more local than federal. The President, and (especially) the Supreme Court were NEVER intended to impact the daily life of the average citizen.  Article 1 of the Constitution describing the function of Congress was Article 1 for a reason. The fact that congress has largely abdicated its responsibilities and authority to unaccountable bureaucrats and the courts is a problem that will eventually have to be addressed if we are to keep our current form of government.

That said, here we are, forced to make a choice for President that unfortunately DOES matter, regardless of the Framers’ intent.  Many of the electorate have made up their minds along party lines, regardless of the qualifications of their respective party’s candidate. If you’re one of those, well, I’ve got nothing for you. I hope you rest well. If you’re one of those who actually considers positions/policies of the various candidates however, you might very well be left in something of a quandary as to what is best to do in that voting booth this time around. I know I am.

So what are the comparative advantages for each candidate, or rather the advantages to the country if each wins?  In this case the term “advantage” is relative, but here’s my thoughts.

First off, McMullin. As far as he’s concerned, he’s a qualified write in in my state, but he’s not on the ballot, which means his vote total will be negligible here.  Trump will win my state handily regardless (if he doesn’t, then Hillary likely wins with 450+ electoral votes, and all this is academic), so the only place McMullin matters is Utah. A three way race going to the House…tantalizing, to be sure, but that requires so many unlikely occurrences that I can’t even imagine the odds. They’re not zero, but they’re probably less than 1%. I can’t bring myself to even hope for it, although that may be our best outcome. If I were in Utah, I’d probably vote for him. Best I can tell, outside Utah, he’s not an option.

Should Hillary win (the most likely scenario, although far from certain), the disadvantages are obvious: she’s corrupt, and at best would represent a continuation of the last eight years, and likely not even that good.  In my opinion she would sell this country out to the highest bidder. I shudder to think what Lois Lerner’s ilk would do under Clinton. But the advantages? Well, Trump is unstable, and makes Obama look positively thick skinned regarding insults. Say what you will, but Clinton isn’t unstable. Cold, calculating, and self-serving, yes. Pathologic? That too. Unstable, no. In fact, she’s all too stable, changing very little in 30 years of public life.  Consider, too, the damage to conservative principles that would occur under a President Trump.  Every liberal idea, every half-baked plan, not to mention every off the cuff midnight tweet would be hung around conservative necks like Barry Goldwater’s loss in 1964 still is.  Hillary’s win would avoid that particular disaster.  Then there is 2020.  If Hillary wins, there is a chance to replace her with an actual conservative in 4 years, not 8. Furthermore, the impending continuing disaster will be difficult to blame on Republicans/conservatives, though I’m sure some will try.  There will doubtless still be problems caused by liberals that will be blamed on Bush long after everyone reading this is dead. But for the most part, Hillary and the liberals would get the majority of the blame for the damage. So there’s that.

As for Trump, I’m no fan. I didn’t like him through the primaries, and he’s done nothing to endear himself to me since.  He’s a lifelong liberal (by his own account), and even if you take his conversion to conservatism at face value (I don’t), it’s not a good idea to make a new convert the leader of the church. He’s not a good example of what conservatives are/aspire to, but nevertheless he’ll be used to bludgeon us for 4(8?) years, and probably squander a chance for a real conservative for quite some time. BUT, should he defeat Hillary, the biggest benefit would be that a genuine felon (let’s face it, anyone else would already be wearing an orange jumpsuit) wouldn’t be elevated to the Presidency.  That would be a bigger stain on the Oval Office than anything left on a blue dress ever was.

There’s the judge issue. We may be rightly concerned about Trump’s nominations, but we KNOW Hillary’s choices will be hideous. Then just imagine what Hillary would do in office with executive orders.  After all, we knew she was corrupt, and we voted her in anyway.  Why should she be concerned about what we little people think now? Marie Antoinette would seem downright compassionate in comparison.

Additionally, look at how the two candidates got here. Hillary was propped up by the media and DNC who collectively (again) chose sides. By God, she WAS going to win the primary.  Look no further than the superdelegate setup that basically precluded anyone but her from getting nominated.  That’s before the DWS forced resignation, and the subsequent revelation that the interim DNC chair fed her debate questions.  Then there’s the media cheerleading (coordinated with the Clinton campaign) to elevate Trump.  If the media had done their jobs and presented facts, there’s no chance he wins the primary.  The RNC primary was set up to allow someone to get the nomination without majority support.  That person was supposed to be Jeb Bush this year, just like it was Romney last cycle. That system instead produced Trump, much to the chagrin of the party elite (although they did prefer Trump-even if he lost-to Cruz). So the media turn on him as soon as he gets the nomination, even to the point of withholding hot mic tapes from a decade ago until after he’s nominated and just before the election to make sure he loses.  You just can’t convince me that NBC news (remember the objective Travon Martin coverage?) just happened across that hot mic tape a few weeks ago.  So all that effort designed to elect Hillary by the media (and party elites) just shouldn’t be rewarded. They’ll never learn any lesson as long as their tactics keep working. Remember Harry Reid: “he didn’t win, did he?” Any tactic is allowed as long as it works.  They have been doing this as for years (Dole, Romney, McCain, not to mention choosing Obama over Hillary in ‘08). The electorate is being manipulated, and that’s got to stop. They’re so sure of themeselves that Newsweek already printed the President Hillary issue this week.  To paraphrase a line from a movie: Arrogance is not a trait unique to the media, but they do it better than anyone else. If it takes a Trump Presidency to knock them down a peg or two, maybe it’s worth it. Maybe.

On the other hand, since my state is going Trump with or without me, I can safely leave the top line blank.