Let's face it, neither one of thee two corrupt, shameless individuals deserve to be President of the United States.
There is no legitimate equivalency between these two candidates. Period.
Both are not good people to elect. The difference is that one is a half-criminal addicted to focus groups who loves wall street, and the second is a bankrupt businessman with no experience and a friendship with Vladimir Putin and David Duke. Neither is the sort of president I want.
There's a lot of truth in this, but one difference is that Clinton is likely to be an effective President, in the sense of being able to work with both parties in Congress, just as Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan were. As a centrist, the ability to work with both sides is something that I value highly; if it tells you anything, two of my political heroes were Howard Baker and Sam Nunn (both of whom would have made excellent Presidents IMO.)
Unfortunately, the increased polarization of both parties, and especially the intransigence of the GOP, makes consensus and bipartisanship a lot more difficult now than it was back then, but I think Hillary can do about as well in this regard as any current politician could. In contrast, I don't think Trump could work effectively with
either party.
