In the race for President of the United States, Vice President Kamala Harris (D) faces former President Donald Trump (R). The Virginia ballot also includes two minor candidates—Chase Oliver (L) and Jill Stein (G). Two nonviable candidates and one withdrawn candidate are excluded from consideration.
The United States has a unique system for electing presidents. The citizens of the fifty states and the District of Columbia vote for electors pledged to a particular candidate, and those electors choose the president. Each state has the same number of electors as it has representatives in the two houses of Congress combined. The District of Columbia also has three electors.
Most states and the District of Columbia award all their electors as a “slate” to the candidate who won the most votes in the state or district. Maine and Nebraska allot two of their electors to the statewide winner and divide the rest based on who wins the most votes in each congressional district.
There are 538 electors; a candidate must win an outright majority of at least 270 to win. If no candidate wins an electoral majority, the House of Representatives chooses a president by a ‘majority of the states’ vote. Presidents are elected to four-year terms and may serve up-to two terms.
Major Candidates
A “major candidate” is one who appears on the Virginia ballot, appears on enough ballots across the U.S. that they could theoretically win a 270-elector majority, and is expected to receive five percent or more of Virginia’s popular vote.
Kamala Harris (D)
Vice President Kamala Harris (D) stands as the Democratic Party nominee for president. She is joined on the ticket by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz (D). The Harris/Walz ticket is on the ballot in all fifty states and the District of Columbia and could win a theoretical maximum of 538 electors. Harris was nominated in an unusual Democratic National Convention (DNC) vote after incumbent President Joe Biden (D), who had been the presumptive Democratic nominee, dropped out of the race.
Harris holds a bachelor’s degree in political science and economics from Howard University and a law degree from the University of California’s Hastings College of Law. She served as a deputy district attorney in Alameda County, California, a member of California’s Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, a member of California’s Medical Assistance Commission, an assistant district attorney in San Francisco, California, and head of the Family and Children’s Services Division of the San Francisco city attorney’s office.
In 2002, Harris was elected District Attorney of San Francisco, California; she served two terms. She was elected Attorney General of California in 2010 and reelected in 2014. In 2016, Harris was elected to represent California in the U.S. Senate. She unsuccessfully sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 before joining Biden on the party’s ticket as his vice-presidential running-mate. Harris took office as vice president in 2021 and is nearing the end of her first term.
Harris is mixed-race African American and Indian American. She is the first woman, first African American, and first Indian American vice president. If elected president, she would be the first woman, second African American, and first Indian American to serve in that office.
Many career politicians are shameless opportunists; few are quite as shameless as Harris.
When she was a deputy district attorney in Alameda, Harris had a secret romantic relationship with then-California Assemblyman Willie Brown (D-13th), who was serving as Speaker of the California State Assembly. Brown was married but had been separated from his wife for more than a decade. Without disclosing the relationship, Brown appointed Harris to the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board and the Medical Assistance Commission. He also helped raise her public profile in California and was one of the first major public figures to support her district attorney campaign.
Harris was reasonably competent, if sometimes misguided, as San Francisco district attorney and California attorney general. She made efforts to reduce crime and clear case backlogs, but sometimes got distracted by political gibberish like “environmental crimes” and an irrational refusal to enforce immigration laws. When she became a U.S. Senator, she, like so many others, fell in line with the most extreme dictates of the DNC machine. You’ve got to keep the party bosses happy if you want to move up. The nonpartisan legislation tracking website GovTrack rated Harris “most liberal compared to all senators” in 2019.
She supported widespread race protests in 2020 (but, to her credit, condemned the violence, riots, and looting). She praised the moronic “defund the police” movement, and, with her husband, donated thousands of dollars to a DC-based legal and advocacy group that supports it and other pro-crime initiatives. In one egregious example of how Harris has abandoned the principles of justice, she condemned the jury acquittal of an innocent teenager who faced false murder charges in Kenosha, Wisconsin. His “crime” was shooting and killing two attackers who were beating him and trying to steal his gun, then shooting and injuring a third who was approaching aggressively and pointing a pistol at him. It was an obvious, indisputable case of self defense. Harris wanted the victim to go to prison.
During a Democratic presidential debate, Harris famously slammed Biden for praising colleagues who “built their reputations and career on the segregation of race.” She prefaced her remarks by telling Biden, “I do not believe you are a racist,” but that is precisely what she was implying. When Harris dropped out of the race, criticism turned to praise, and she immediately endorsed Biden. I’m sure that had nothing to do with how Biden was pulling ahead in the polls, or how he’d already said he wanted a running mate “of color and/or a different gender.” Hiring based on race or sex is illegal and immoral, but Harris was happy to take advantage.
Some presidents treat their VP as a partner and assign them many important tasks. Most don’t. The first to hold the office, John Adams (F), described it as “the most insignificant . . . that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” It is unclear how much influence or control Harris had in the Biden administration because this has been one of the most secretive presidencies in modern history. According to the University of California Santa Barbara’s American Presidency Project, Biden averaged only ten press conferences per year. Every other president since 1923 except Richard Nixon (R) and Ronald Reagan (R) averaged more than twice as many.
Biden has praised Harris as a key part of his administration. “There wasn’t a single thing that I did that she couldn’t do,” he said. “I was able to delegate [to] her responsibility on everything from foreign policy to domestic policy.” For her part, Harris can’t seem to decide whether she was part of the team or not. She speaks of charting “a new way forward,” which implies a deviation from Biden, but on ABC’s The View she said, “I’ve been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact,” and answered a question about what she would have done differently saying, “There is not a thing that comes to mind.”
I expect her to leave the administration’s worst economic and foreign policies in place; continue undermining human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law; and, if given the chance, appoint Supreme Court justices who would work to undo recent progress. It is also important to note that Harris has not publicly criticized the Biden administration’s worst activities—illegal censorship programs, arrest and harassment of pro-life protestors, and outright disinformation campaigns. These demand condemnation. Silence makes her complicit.
For insight into Harris’s leadership abilities, we can look at two administration initiatives Biden assigned to her.
First, Biden chose Harris to “lead our efforts with Mexico . . . and [other] countries . . . in stemming the migration to our southern border,” a role with the unofficial title of “border czar.” When NBC reporter Lester Holt asked months later why she hadn’t yet visited the border, she said, “And I haven’t been to Europe, . . . I don’t understand the point that you’re making.” Record-setting illegal immigration continued unchecked, and communities across America are struggling with the resulting social service costs and skyrocketing property crime. Harris’s allies can’t defend her performance, so now they say she never really was the “border czar,” and “Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.”
Second, Biden put Harris in charge of the administration’s implementation of the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, a role with the unofficial title of “broadband czar.” BEAD is a $42.5 billion program intended to bring high-speed Internet access to underserved areas. It took two years for the program to award its first planning grants. BEAD is entering its fourth year and is still in the planning phase; it has not connected a single household or business to the Internet.
Harris is also partly responsible for a serious presidential scandal. Biden’s performance in the first 2020 presidential debate revealed that he was pretty clearly “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the presidency. We now know his condition has been hidden from the public for months or years. He refused to resign or declare himself unable, though he did (eventually) end his reelection campaign. The vice president and a majority of the president’s cabinet can declare the president unable, which makes the vice president the acting president. This is one of the few cases where a vice president can—and must—lead. Harris did nothing.
On matters of policy, Harris promises the usual suite of modern Democratic Party positions. She is hostile to the right to life—the first and most essential right. She seeks to limit the rights to free speech and press, freedom of association, and self-defense rights. She supports policies that would undermine and invalidate the right to vote and the right of self-determination. She does not appear to acknowledge any limits on the power of the federal government. Her economic proposals fall on a spectrum between useless and harmful.
It’s all very depressing and predictable.
Donald Trump (R)
Former President Donald Trump (R) stands as the Republican Party nominee for president. He is joined on the ticket by Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH). The Trump/Vance ticket is on the ballot in all fifty states and the District of Columbia and could win a theoretical maximum of 538 electors.
Trump holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. He is chairman and president of The Trump Organization, a nearly century-old conglomerate with interests in real estate, investing, and property management. He was the star of NBC’s The Apprentice from 2004 to 2015. Forbes Magazine estimates that Trump’s net worth is about $3.9 billion.
Since the late 1970s, Trump has attracted widespread media attention for his lavish lifestyle, high-profile romances, bombastic personality, and controversial public statements. His first book, The Art of the Deal, ghostwritten by Tony Schwartz, was a number one best seller. He briefly sought the Reform Party’s nomination in the 2000 presidential election but dropped out before voting began. Trump’s meteoric rise to the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential nomination, and eventually to the presidency, confounded political analysts and observers—including me. He was the sixth president with no previous experience in office, and the first in more than sixty years. If elected this year, he would be only the second president to serve non-consecutive terms.
From day-one, critics accused Trump of working with “the Russians” to steal the election from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D). Russian intelligence agencies did try to influence the election, and did favor Trump . . . after Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) dropped out. It was appropriate to name Special Counsel Robert Mueller to investigate. He found no evidence of collusion or inappropriate contact between the Trump campaign and Russia, but did find possible obstruction by Trump and his associates during the investigation. The evidence was inconclusive.
In 2019, Trump became the third president to be impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives.
The first 2019 impeachment article alleged Trump abused his power by threatening to withhold foreign aid to Ukraine if it didn’t resume its investigation into Hunter Biden’s association with the energy firm Burisma. The company likely hired Hunter to gain access to his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden (D). The impeachment charge was factually inaccurate; it alleged Trump solicited an investigation of Joe Biden, but the Burisma influence-peddling scandal revolved around Hunter Biden, who is a different person. Regardless, the charge was not supported by sufficient evidence and Trump was acquitted.
The second 2019 impeachment article alleged Trump obstructed Congress by refusing to comply with subpoenas. When an administration or its officials are subpoenaed, they must either comply with it, challenge it in court, assert executive privilege, or assert the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Trump’s White House just never responded at all, which was unprecedented. Congress should have brought the dispute to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution but skipped to impeachment instead, making the charge procedurally invalid. Trump was acquitted.
Despite these and other distractions, things were going well. The economy was strong. Unemployment was low. Regulatory burdens were reduced. Improved border policies were reducing drug and sex trafficking. Most importantly, Trump kept his promise to appoint pro-liberty, textualist jurists to the Supreme Court.
Things turned south when the COVID-19 pandemic struck in 2020. When I reluctantly supported Trump again, I described the administration’s response as “imperfect but generally sound.” In retrospect, Trump was far too trusting of “experts” who were willing to lie to him—and us—for their own inscrutable purposes. It will take decades for public health officials to recover even half their credibility. Trump’s support for misguided “COVID relief” pay-outs and massive increases in deficit spending also contributed to the economic recession and out-of-control inflation that struck after he was out of office. Biden shares the blame, but it is not his alone.
After Trump lost the 2020 election, he declared the election stolen and refused to concede. Pandemic-era expansions of early and absentee voting, combined with other half-cocked efforts to make voting “easier,” significantly increased the theoretical ease of cheating . . . but there is no evidence that fraud occurred on a large enough scale to affect the outcome. (All anybody has to do to change my mind is present proof . . . not inferences, assumptions, guesses, and innuendos, but proof. I’m still waiting.)
On January 6, 2021, Trump and his supporters held a rally on the National Mall while Congress gathered to certify the election. Members of the Proud Boys extremist group made their way to the Capitol grounds a mile away and started a raucous protest long before Trump took the stage. While Trump was speaking, protestors at the Capitol breached the barricades and the protest turned into a riot. In the hours that followed, members of Congress had to evacuate their chambers, the building was badly vandalized, and one rioter was shot and killed by law enforcement when she tried to break into an area where members of Congress were sheltering.
For more than three hours, Trump made no effort to stop the madness. Eventually he did tell the rioters to go home . . . while praising them. “This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people,” he said. “We love you. You’re very special. . . . I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.”
Trump was impeached again just before he left office, this time for allegedly inciting an insurrection. But there was no insurrection; this was no organized revolt against the government. It was a stupid protest that spiraled into an even more stupid riot. Trump’s rambling address that the House cited in its charge contained no incitement to violence or illegal activity, and the storming of the Capitol began while he was still speaking so there could not have been a causal relationship anyway. Trump was acquitted.
That doesn’t mean he’s innocent. When Trump learned his supporters were breaching the barricades at the Capitol, the minimum acceptable response would be to immediately and forcefully tell them to stop. Instead, he sat idle for hours, watching the riot on television and reveling in the chaos. This was an inexcusable dereliction of duty. It was less deadly than Clinton’s dereliction of duty while American diplomats were under attack in Benghazi, Libya, leading to the death of U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans, but equally galling. You may object to this comparison—the January 6 rioters wielded fists and blunt objects, not rifles and mortars. You’re right. The events warranted vastly different responses, but both warranted immediate responses. You don’t stand idle while American officials and institutions are under attack.
Since leaving office, Trump has faced ninety-one criminal charges in four indictments. He has been accused of falsifying business records, mishandling classified documents, and engaging in conspiracies. Five charges have been dismissed and thirty-four have resulted in conviction (but are very likely to be overturned on appeal). Fifty-two charges are pending. In my analyses of the charges, summarized here, I found that most were invalid or unproved . . . but there were some fires burning beneath the smoke. I am convinced of Trump’s guilt on eight charges, including withholding subpoenaed documents, attempting to destroy subpoenaed video footage, and conspiring to forge official documents and impersonate public officials.
I opposed Clinton in 2016 for many reasons; one was that she was an unrepentant felon. She violated multiple laws governing public record keeping and the handling of classified information. I cannot hold Trump to a lesser standard. Yes, he is a victim of political “lawfare,” and most of the charges are baseless, but that does not absolve him of guilt for the handful of crimes he did commit.
I must also [reluctantly] mention that Trump is seventy-eight years old. If elected, he will be eighty-two at the end of his term. Age is not a disqualifier in-and-of itself, and there is no evidence of cognitive or physical impairment that would make Trump “unable to discharge the powers and duties” of the presidency . . . but it’s hard to avoid thinking of the eighty-one-year-old incumbent—who is unable—when we are asked to elevate another geriatric man to the presidency.
On matters of policy, Trump promises to stem the tide of illegal immigration, bolster federal support for law enforcement, reverse Biden’s most damaging economic policies, slash unnecessary regulations, and improve election security. His rhetoric on human rights is mixed, but his administration was consistently supportive of the right to life and wasn’t bad on liberty and property. He also plans to increase tariffs and enact other counterproductive, protectionist trade policies, and has no plan to reduce deficit spending or the federal debt. Finally, he says he will “restore peace in Europe and the Middle East,” but offers no details. I suppose having a foreign policy—any foreign policy—would be an improvement over the status quo.
Minor Candidates
A “minor candidate” is one who appears on the Virginia ballot, appears on enough ballots across the U.S. that they could theoretically win a 270-elector majority, but is expected to receive less than five percent of Virginia’s popular vote.
Chase Oliver (L)
Chase Oliver (L) stands as the Libertarian Party nominee for president. He is joined on the ticket by Mike ter Matt (L). The Oliver/ter Matt ticket is on the ballot in forty-seven states and could win a theoretical maximum of 477 electors.
Oliver worked thirteen years in the restaurant industry, starting as a dishwasher and eventually becoming a restaurant consultant. He then became an account executive for an import shipping company. Oliver unsuccessfully sought election in 2020 to represent Georgia’s 5th District in the U.S. House of Representatives and in 2022 to represent Georgia in the U.S. Senate. If elected, this would be Oliver’s first time holding elected office.
Like past Libertarian Party candidates, Oliver wants a small-but-effective federal government that avoids war, avoids meddling in people’s personal lives, avoids meddling in the economy, and generally gets out of everybody’s way. And like those past candidates, he falls short on some key issues.
On the right to life—the first and most important human right—Oliver says wants to eliminate “abortion restrictions before viability.” This is legally and ethically incoherent. Human beings have human rights because they are human, not because somebody else determined they were “viable.” We judge the viability of presidential campaigns, not of human beings. Oliver also holds typical Libertarian Pollyanna views on immigration and foreign policy—practically open borders and no foreign military entanglements. In a perfect world, that would be lovely. We don’t live in a perfect world.
I am hopeful that the Libertarian Party is on its way toward a better version of itself. Oliver represents the moderate “Classical Liberal Caucus” of the party, which is essentially the new version of the long-dominant “Pragmatist Caucus.” An ascendent faction known as the “Mises Caucus,” named for Austrian American economist Ludwig von Mises, is trying to push the party in a more rational direction on the right to life and immigration policy. If the Mises Caucus can shed its more controversial personalities and unnecessary polemics, it could be a source of renewal and growth for the Libertarian Party. It hasn’t happened yet.
Jill Stein (G)
Jill Stein (G) stands as the Green Party nominee for president. She is joined on the ticket by Butch Ware (G). The Stein/Ware ticket is on the ballot in thirty-seven states and could win a theoretical maximum of 420 electors.
Stein holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology, sociology, and anthropology from Harvard University and a medical degree from Harvard Medical School. She has been a practicing physician and environmental activist for much of her career. Stein was elected to serve on the Lexington, Massachusetts, Town Meeting (local legislature) in 2005 and 2008. She unsuccessfully sought election to the Massachusetts House of Representatives in 2004, Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 and 2010, Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 2006, and President of the United States in 2012 and 2016.
It is difficult to write a serious analysis of Stein’s campaign. She describes herself as “an organizer for people, planet, and peace” who has “helped lead initiatives to fight environmental racism, injustice, and pollution,” but when I see phrases like “environmental racism” I immediately assume I’m dealing with an idiot. Yes, I know, “If you can’t say anything nice. . . .” That’s the nicest version of the sentence I could come up with.
According to Stein, “countless millions” are being denied their basic rights. That’s true, but not in the way she means. She’s talking about some imaginary “systemic discrimination” against various trendy identity groups. Here in the real world, the millions of people being denied their basic rights are the “Untermenschen” (subhumans) or “Lebensunwertes Leben” (life unworthy of life) still in the womb. But she doesn’t care about them; she’s fine with letting them die as victims of “choice.”
She also worries about “runaway global heating” and “climate collapse” like it’s 1999 and all that hyperbolic, unscientific nonsense hasn’t been disproved a hundred times over yet. I guess every presidential race needs some comic relief.
Excluded Candidates
Three candidates are excluded from consideration, including two nonviable candidates and one withdrawn candidate.
Nonviable Candidates
A “nonviable candidate” is one who appears on the Virginia ballot but does not appear on enough ballots across the U.S. that they could theoretically win a 270-elector majority. Nonviable candidates are excluded from consideration.
- Claudia De la Cruz (I) is the nominee of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) who appears on Virginia’s ballot as an independent. Her vice-presidential running mate is Karina Garcia (I). The De la Cruz/Garcia ticket appears on the ballot in nineteen states and could win a theoretical maximum of 220 electors. De la Cruz is a political activist who advocates dismantling capitalism and replacing it with Marxist-Leninist communism.
- Cornel West (I) is an independent candidate. His vice-presidential running mate is Melina Abdullah (I). The West/Abdullah ticket appears on the ballot in fifteen states and could win a theoretical maximum of 132 electors. West is an author and professor who describes himself as a “non-Marxist socialist.” He is most well-known for falsely attributing virtually every social ill to racism.
Withdrawn Candidate
A “withdrawn candidate” is one who ended their campaign and is no longer seeking election. They are included here if they appear on the Virginia ballot or on enough ballots across the U.S. that they could theoretically win a 270-elector majority. Withdrawn candidates are excluded from consideration.
- Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I) was an independent candidate. His vice-presidential running mate was Nicole Shanahan (I). The Kennedy/Shanahan ticket qualified for the ballot in forty-nine states and the District of Columbia and could have won a theoretical maximum of 510 electors. The ticket was removed from nineteen ballots, including Virginia’s, but still appears in thirty states and the District of Columbia and could still win a theoretical maximum of 283 electors. Kennedy is a lawyer, writer, and activist who left the Democratic Party as it became more radical. After withdrawing, he endorsed former President Donald Trump (R).
Conclusion
It’s hard to decide who to vote for when there are no acceptable candidates.
The next president must address the most pressing issues before us. First and foremost, they must reassert the fundamental human rights—life, liberty, and property—by enacting policies that acknowledge and uphold them and by appointing judges who will do the same. This includes a coherent defense of all human life from conception to natural death, upholding the rights to free speech and the free press, upholding the freedom of association and collective speech rights, protecting the rights to self-defense and self-government, and improving the security and trustworthiness of our elections.
Next, they must enact policies that will help reduce inflation and promote economic recovery. Presidents get more credit—or blame—for the economy than they deserve. Government policy influences the economy but does not control it. We were practically guaranteed to have significant inflation after the economic disruption and spending from the pandemic era, but President Joe Biden (D) and his administration made it worse than it needed to be. Policy corrections will not fix everything overnight, but the next administration needs to push things in the right direction, not the wrong one.
Many Americans feel like they can’t afford another four years of Biden’s policies, but that’s basically what we’d get with Harris. She can’t come up with a single thing she would have done differently. This, combined with her complicity in the Biden administration’s worst offenses, her participation in the cover-up of Biden’s inability to perform his duties, and consistently poor judgement across the board, makes her unworthy of the office she seeks.
Stein is also unworthy, for the simple reason that a president needs to live on the same planet and exist in the same reality as her constituents.
Sadly, former President Donald Trump (R) is the best choice on policy. Despite uneven and inconsistent rhetoric on matters of human rights, he was the most “pro-life” president in recent history, and his administration was generally supportive of free speech, the free press, free assembly, self-defense, and self-government. A return to the Trump administration’s pre-pandemic economic policies would be welcome. Other aspects of his record give me pause—particularly his awful pandemic-era policies, protectionist views on trade, and penchant for wasting taxpayer dollars like a Democrat.
We must consider more than just policy. Like Republicans used to say, “character counts.” They might not believe it anymore, but I do, and in terms of character Trump in 2024 is even worse than he was in 2016 and 2020. His false claims about the 2020 election were destructive, his dereliction of duty during the Capitol riot was inexcusable, and he committed at least eight felony crimes since he last appeared on my ballot, including hiding subpoenaed documents and conspiring to create a fake slate of electors from Georgia, complete with a forged electoral certification. I cannot put these facts aside. I cannot ignore things that would be disqualifiers for any other candidate in any other election.
Some people happily toss their principles out the window when they become politically inconvenient. Others tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels, using every loophole and exception they can find, to convince themselves they’re being consistent when they aren’t. I don’t play those games. My principles are my principles. The rules don’t change based on who’s breaking them.
If it was wrong for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) to claim, without evidence, that the 2016 election was stolen, then it is wrong for Trump to say the 2020 election was. If it was wrong for Clinton to stand idle while American diplomats were under attack at the Benghazi consulate, then it was wrong for Trump to stand idle while American legislators were under (an admittedly less serious) attack at the U.S. Capitol. If it was wrong for Clinton to run for president when she had committed serious felonies and never served time or apologized, then it is wrong for Trump to run for president when he has done the same.
This sorry state of affairs leaves us with three options to consider.
First, we could vote for Chase Oliver (L). He does not properly apply the non-aggression principle to all humans at all stages of their lives, he advocates untenable, utopian policies on border security and international affairs, and he has no chance of winning . . . but he’s not a felon and most of his other policy views are fine. Unfortunately, this would increase the likelihood of throwing the election to Harris.
Second, we could leave the presidential election blank, or write-in somebody’s name. This would be a protest vote . . . a way of saying you can’t stand the given options in this wretched race, so you’re throwing up your hands and refusing to participate. You can write in my name if you want. My policies are great. But this, too, would increase the likelihood of a Harris win.
Finally, you could vote for Trump . . . then wash your hands like Pontius Pilate saying, “I am innocent of this righteous [republic’s] blood; see to it yourselves.” The MAGA-hatted crowds will respond saying, “[Its] blood be on us and on our children!” I’m kidding . . . I think. This is the only option that would decrease the likelihood of a Harris win.
Between the two candidates with a real chance of winning—Harris and Trump—it would be better if Trump wins. He is the “lesser of two evils” on matters of human rights, economics, and foreign policy. You probably ought to vote for him, especially if you live in a “swing state.” I’m leaning that way (but could still change my mind). Either way, this weak suggestion is the most I can offer. I will not endorse him.
I can’t even offer a strong argument against “throwing your vote away.” If Harris wins, we’ll have bad executive policies for the next four years; we have survived that before, and we’ll survive it again. We will be partly protected by a likely Republican Senate majority that will block her worst proposals and nominations. Harris won’t be able to “pack” the Supreme Court even if she wants to, nor shift its ideological balance enough to reverse recent progress. The risks of a Harris presidency are also limited by her low odds of reelection and her proven inability to competently execute even very simple political tasks.
We are not facing the kind of existential threat we faced in 2016, or even the lesser threat we faced in 2020. Meanwhile, Trump’s flaws have expanded and multiplied. Does Harris pose a grave enough danger to the American people to warrant violating the many principles that would normally preclude a vote for Trump? There is no clear or easy answer.
Whatever you or I decide, and whoever wins, the Republican and Democratic parties should be ashamed of themselves. We deserve better candidates. I am tired of having to choose between people who are not politically, ethically, or temperamentally suited to serve on the Loudoun County Art Advisory Committee or Police-Directed Towing Advisory Board, let alone President of the United States. Do better.
But for now, it is what it is.
I make no endorsement for President of the United States.