It's why picking a president is about more than whether you "like" or don't like a candidate you will likely never meet or spend time with. It's about hiring someone to manage the entire federal executive branch. Trump's temperament & business history were a CLEAR foretelling.
I have met countless people who have told me they voted for Jill Stein or didn't vote at all because there was "just something about Hillary Clinton they didn't like." Yet the question: which one -- Clinton or Trump -- would have better managed this crisis answers itself.
Gendered weirdness, which is a thing in our electorate (just ask Liz Warren, Kamala Harris etc) aside, American voters are now experiencing the dire consequences of "rolling the dice to shake things up," or prioritizing negative feelings about demographic change over competency.
Sure, it's important to like who your president is. The president is an avatar for the nation; a human symbol of who we want to be (which of course makes the 2016 off-key in that the popular and elite/EC referenda were at odds.) but elections are fundamentally HIRING DECISIONS.
So is this president doing the job well or not? And who might perform the job with more competency, while also bringing as many people on board as possible? Who will at least try to hear every pocket of Americans and include them so most people hear & believe crucial information?
And who is most likely to repair & change this country for the better, particularly for those most in need? Those are the questions for November. Democrats still have a chance to decide who to send into the finals. And until then... whew... it's clearly going to be a bumpy ride.
