May 10--Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump can be glad that "none of the above" won't be on the ballot in November. If it were, they'd probably both lose.
More than any campaign in memory, this one offers alternatives that most Americans find unpalatable, if not stomach-turning. "We appear to be headed for a matchup between perhaps the two most loathed general election candidates in modern U.S. political history," wrote Kyle Kondik and Geoffrey Skelley in Politico.
They have a point. Lately, polls put Donald Trump's unfavorable rating at 65 percent, and Hillary Clinton's at 55 percent. About this time in 2012, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney had unfavorable ratings in the mid-40s.
So the odds are very good that the next president will be someone most voters actively dislike or even detest.
"There are Dumpster fires in my town more popular than these two 'leaders,'" Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., has said.
The negative ads you can expect to see and hear between now and November are likely to create even more antipathy for Clinton and Trump.
If you're now writing out a campaign contribution to "Dumpster Fire," stop that. The campaign still has six months to go. It's not impossible that surprise developments could upend the race.
Trump could commit a gaffe so outrageous that many of his followers would abandon him and the Republican Party would be forced to find a way to deny him its nomination. Clinton could be indicted over her private email server, obligating the Democratic Party to make an urgent call to the bullpen for Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren or John Kerry.
In the fast-moving media environment of the 21st century, things can change in a hurry.
It's also conceivable that some other well-known figure will enter the race to offer a third option. Romney? Michael Bloomberg? David Petraeus? Alfre Woodard?
Let's not get our hopes too high, though. The stark reality is that barring a political earthquake, an independent or third-party candidate has almost no chance of becoming president. Ask Ross Perot, who at one point in the 1992 campaign led George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton by double-digit margins. Despite his initial appeal and despite spending $63 million of his own money, the Texas billionaire ended up with just 19 percent of the vote -- and didn't carry a single state.
A lot of Americans nonetheless thought they did the right thing in voting for him. Voting, you see, is not just about electing particular individuals. It's also a way of expressing sentiments that may have little chance of gaining majority support.
People who regularly cast their ballots for minor parties are often accused of wasting their votes. They reply that voting for someone you don't want is the real waste.
If you believe the two major parties are too similar to matter, or that each is irredeemable in its own way, voting for someone else makes more sense than staying home. The former conveys dissatisfaction and a desire for something better. The latter indicates apathy.
