No choice at all.

• Author: Vatz, Richard E.
• Position: POLLING PLACE - United States presidential elections

THERE ARE SO MANY ELEMENTS of the presidential campaign that sadden me, and I shall go over these, but let me start with my conclusion before building my argument: there can be no presidential winner in the 2016 election that will serve the country well. Whether it is Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump, the nation will be saddled with either the most ethically compromised leader since Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69) in Clinton or the least qualified leader since Warren G. Harding (1921-23) in Trump.

The 2016 presidential campaign began with the Republicans sporting almost a score of would-be nominees. There were hints much earlier on of the Republican electorate's dissatisfaction with "establishment" candidates, and the GOP increasingly has been notorious for low turnout when the presidential candidate was perceived to be insufficiently conservative. Apropos of the candidacies of John McCain (2008) and Mitt Romney (2012), many Republicans on the far right were yelling "RINO" ("Republican in Name Only") to signify insufficiently conservative credentials to warrant not only their financial support, but their voting support. (However, it must be recognized that Trump's presence helped generate the largest voter turnout in Republican primary history.)

As the presidential campaign of 2015-16 started, it appeared to most sentient pundits that something unusual was afoot, although nothing game changing. More and more Republican supporters were indicating their dissatisfaction, perhaps led in part by Ted Cruz, a far right senator from Texas, whose rhetoric would have seemed a candidacy-killer had this been one election cycle earlier. Also throwing their hat in the ring were former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Ohio Gov. John Kasich (although not early enough), and others, among whom was Trump, the preeminent charismatic businessman.

At the beginning, the lack of traction attained by Bush caused pundits to infer primary voter fatigue with him and not a general revulsion toward "establishment Republicans." No one seriously challenged Trump, yet, from the beginning there was not a major pundit who did not think his popularity would peak early and then fizzle out. Cruz, an establishment senator who successfully defined himself as a non-establishment type through his lack of cooperation with party regulars, had to drop out at the end when his off-putting style superseded his anti-establishment ethos.

Trump made gaffes...