Calculated Risk

Although many would regard the 2016 election as depressing that is because it has been, far and away, the most information rich campaign in memory. The crucible of events have thrown penetrating lights on the strengths and weaknesses, characteristics and flaws of Rubio, Cruz, Trump, Hillary and Sanders.

Most of the time voters see elections as contests between two opposing statesmen.  By contrast, statesmen is probably not the word the public would use to describe the candidates who are now shown not as they wish to be perceived, but the way they would prefer not to be seen. The collapse of the Narrative, the breakdown in party discipline and the general chaos of 2016 has basically thrown the choreography and costumes out the window. We see the contenders pretty much as they are. The sight is not necessarily pretty, but it's true. There's a saying that the truth shall make you free, but only after it makes you miserable.

If both Trump and Hillary are so nearly equally flawed, the logical implication is that the 2016 election cannot be the solution, but at best only the necessary prelude to a real one. In the same way the wrecking-ball precedes the construction of the actual building perhaps the role of this election is to destroy politics as usual to make way for something different.

The question of whether Hillary or Trump will create more favorable opportunities down the track is interesting one to consider. The argument for Hillary is that she is a known catastrophe; that one should vote for her because she is bad and electing her will bring bring on a crisis that would make genuine reform unavoidable. On the other hand voting for Trump runs the risk that that he might not be as bad as the press portrays him; in which case he might actually delay the crisis which Hillary will reliably precipitate, without being skilled enough to fix the current dilemmas.