I see that my views are more in sympathy with those of my fellow Americans than either those who support Hillary Clinton or those who support Donald Trump are, as pointed out by the editors of the Wall Street Journal:
A Monmouth University national survey published Monday asked whether voters had a favorable opinion of the Democrat, the Republican, both or neither. Some 33% had positive views about Mrs. Clinton only and 24% about Mr. Trump only. An unprecedented plurality of 35% responded neither, which means neither meets the 15% threshold to make it into the presidential debates. Can neither get a podium on stage?
This situation is unprecedented. Previous to this year “Neither” had never scored in double digits and now it’s more than a third of eligible voters. Monmouth is not the only polling organization to find this. Earlier in the summer the Reuters/Ipsos poll dropped the alternative of “Neither” from its poll for just the same reason (and rendered it impossible to cross-compare the results of its polls to identify trends).
It’s not merely due to adverse advance publicity. Both of the major party candidates really are bad. As the late Mayor Daley once noted, regardless of what it looks like now somebody will be elected but the large number of voters who reject both candidates or who will vote against rather than for one or the other candidate presents a unique challenge.
Voting for unified government will place considerable hands in the power of someone who has confessedly poor judgment, manifestly bad demeanor, or both. Voting for divided government doesn’t provide the buffer it might have in previous elections. How do we mitigate the risks presented by either candidate being elected?
I think this dispenses with the charge (of which I’ve been accused) that I’m just being contrary. Empirically, it’s those who support either candidate with a whole heart who are being contrary.
Similar polling from ABC/WaPost:
“Hillary Clinton’s unpopularity reached a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, putting her on par with Donald Trump among registered voters and cementing their positions as the two most unpopular presidential candidates in polling dating back more than 30 years.
. . .
“Clinton’s rise in unpopularity follows renewed attention on her use of a private email server and alleged conflicts with Clinton Foundation fundraising while she served as secretary of state. It’s
most pronounced in some of her core support groups: women, post-graduates, Hispanics and liberals.”
She flipped from net positive to net negative among women, post-grads, moderates and those ages 50 and over, while her favorability rating dropped by double-digits among Latinos (-16%) and Liberals (-13%).
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144-59ClintonTrumpFavorability.pdf
Clearly, Hillary Clinton’s best strategy is what used to be called a “Rose Garden strategy” with surrogates savaging Donald Trump. By far the best critiques I’ve read of Hillary Clinton have been written by Sanders supporters.
“How do we mitigate the risks presented by either candidate being elected?”
By voting third party. First, it’s a vote against two bad candidates and a vote for someone who is demonstrably better. Second, it denies the two bad candidates political capital. One of them will almost certainly win, but the more third party votes there are the weaker they will be politically.