A recent Bloomberg poll put Hillary Clinton ahead of Donald Trump by twelve points.  Spontaneous orgasm quickly spread along the barbarian horde of the Fourth Estate, along with ringing proclamations that The Donald is finally embarked on his his death spiral, doomed, damned, spurned, kaput, la comedia at last finite est!  Left and right, peacenik and neoconservative, Jonah Goldberg and Paul Krugman, link arms and prance about the burning cross singing “Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead.”

The witch is not dead, needless to say.  RealClearPolitics, which averages all the polls, puts Clinton’s lead at a paltry 5.8 points, with 3-4 points wriggle room.  One is tempted to call it neck-and-neck, except for the fact that the finish line is six months away, and we may fairly expect the lead to flip-flop several times more, as it already has.  One is also cynically tempted to wonder why the Bloomberg poll is so massively out of sync with the rest, claiming a lead literally four times the margin of other reputable pollsters.  Bloomberg’s well-known animosity toward Trump?  Whatever:  the poll is anti-Trump, so the whole of the press has run with it, ignoring all the other polls, not to mention ignoring the fact that the Bloomberg poll was taken before the terrorist incident in Orlando.

What we are witnessing?  Those of us who bother to witness mainstream media at all, that is.  Merely the elaboration of a pre-existing narrative, the continuing Media Medieval Morality Play in which the virtuous left confronts the venal right, with Trump assigned the role of Satan this time around and Hillary the de facto St. George cast to valiantly gore the Dragon.

For some strange reason — psychology researchers take note — black-and-white moralizing allows us to emote, and emote passionately and vividly.  Now that there are people and categories towards whom one is not allowed to show even the remotest coolness, from Nelson Mandela to any and all letters in the ever-expanding alphabet of LGBTQ, a stifling and fearful dread of crimethink has come to accompany and fatigue us.  But when a suitable scapegoat can be found, the heart dances:  a Trump can be loathed with an ecstasy of hatred verging on the Dantesque.

Students of aberrant pathologies, not to say theatre, must find it all pretty amusing, I’m sure, but it has nothing to do with politics, where in the end personality is ephemeral and what we ultimately have to endure is not narrative but policy.  This is why I wince when I hear people talk about politics being a matter of “doing the right thing.”  There really is no right thing, no best or worst choice in politics.  The world is so complicated and unpredictable that we can never really be completely sure of the impact of any of the policies of those we elect.  The pacifism of Chamberlain incites the blitzkriegs of Hitler; the dark rise of Stalin is the bright dawn of Hitler’s defeat.  What appears good produces evil, and vice versa.  Long-term we have no idea what will unfold.  All we can do is take our best guess as to the likely near-term impact of the stated policies of the principal players.

So let us put aside the question of which candidate is less evil and instead ask:  what are we likely to get if one candidate beats the other? What, for instance, is likely to actually happen if we end up Hillary in the Oval Office?

Foreign policy: expanded neoconservative wars that will keep us mired in the Middle East for another decade. Nuclear brinksmanship with Russia or North Korea, probably both. Numerous covert undertakings — and I do not use the term “undertakings” metaphorically.  Past actions tend to prefigure future ones:  the Clinton administration actions in Bosnia are likely to go brutally continent-wide if Europe collapses into civil war over its Muslim migration, as seems increasingly likely.  Israel will get complete carte blanche to do whatever it likes, of course.  Count on it:  offshore, a Clinton administration will be bloody.

Domestic:  crony capitalism will flourish as payment time for Goldman-Sachs’ inflated speaking fees and the like come due. Affirmative action will apparently flourish, partly as PR, but mostly as an excuse for Hillary to repay political favors by rewarding political allies of color with six-figure Chief Diversity Officer-style posts.  But this will only be ostensible: as Bill was being hailed as “America’s first black President” by Maya Angelou, street blacks were herded into prisons in great bison-like migrations; so with Hillary:  the Angelous will flourish, while areas like Detroit end up as more and more as African-American reservations, where self-inflicted ethnic cleansing waxes genocidally as policing wanes.

Expect much internal corruption, periodic unsuccessful investigations, and faux-fealty to Obama, who will be elevated to sainted so as to cater to the black vote, but also subtly dissed:  there will surely be an upgrade to Obamacare, just so as to rename it Hillarycare.  Immigration will explode as Hillary pays off the Kochs with dirt-cheap labor, and to assure herself of a solid leftist voting bloc come 2020.  In short?  The Hillary administration will be a mixture of the Clinton and Obama administrations — depressing, but frankly not unendurable.  Silver lining in the cloud: opposition to Hillary from the explicitly socialist left and the emerging Alt Right will deepen and intensify profoundly.  In short: more war overseas, intensified racial and ethnic strife at home, increasing political polarization and economic inequality. But probably not too much of each; not enough for the boil to burst.  Things will be as they are, just rather harsher.

Trump?

Foreign:  a slow-winding down of Empire.  Downgraded profile in the Middle East, NATO.  Trump doesn’t see any point in war for anyone but the military industry, and since he doesn’t need their donor funding, he has no reason to feed them any fresh conflicts.  Money that would normally go to destruction will go into domestic projects instead.  Trump will let Russia and China take over as world policemen, trusting them to screw up and bash heads with each other rather than himself.  Betting on Sino-Russian conflict goes up steeply if Trump wins, and chances of European survival in case of civil war go up too: a collapsing Europe will likely call on outside help, and Russia has traditionally been glad to move in and expand its influence as it does so, never quite realizing what a tremendous drain and burden Empire is.  Under Trump, America will merely look on, and chuckle, as Ivanka prepares to become our first Jewish and Female President in 2024.

Domestic:  Immigration will diminish considerably, wall or no wall.  Internal social cohesion will probably improve as there are more attempts to enforce English and other norms. Trump has zero interest in cultural politics, pro or anti — there will be no particular support for gays or trannies and such and no persecution either:  benign neglect will be the rule.  (The one big cultural change will be a sheer drop in political correctness; blunt talk on hitherto unspeakable topics will likely be more and more the norm.)  Trump does have considerable interest in tangible projects, hence infrastructure development efforts (likely funded by savings from reduced military expenditures) will be all over the place, creating many jobs and keeping Trump high in the popular polls.  Crime will drop as Guiliani-style enforcement is put forward — it worked in New York City, always a notable point for Trump.

Support for Israel goes without saying.  Benign neglect for blacks and Hispanic sub-populations goes without saying, but as we shift from a war economy to a protectionist economy, job growth should produce improvements there too.  Existing social programs like Social Security and Medicare will be shored up, and new ones discouraged.  The former may well expand operations: most likely Obamacare will be taken over by Medicare directly.  Overall, I see Trump putting major effort into getting America going again domestically, and letting the rest of the world go to hell without our assistance.  He may well initiate major reconstruction projects a la FDR both to create jobs and simply because he likes big physical projects.  Builders of skyscrapers do.

In terms of measurables, then, Trump may be surprisingly successful. But it’s in terms of culture that his impact may be most significant, and hardest to call.  Increasing Europeanization of our political system is certain.  Both the Democratic and Republican establishments have undergone near-coronaries courtesy of Trump and Sanders, but both contenders are in the vanguard of world-sweeping trends.  Win or lose, Bernie is likely to become de facto ideological leader of the Dems, and the party will increasingly style itself on the Nordic model.  Bernie’s support is in no small part the Occupy movement growing up; the more they grow, particularly under Bernie’s tutelage and example, the more substantive they’ll become.  The Clinton left is sheer gall to the potential neo-Swedish left that could be emerging with Bernie instead of Hillary as political director. Ditto the Republicans.  Buckley-style conservatism is on the ropes.  Euro-style neo-nationalism will undoubtedly take up the ideological slack, not least because Trump himself shows no sign of providing ideological direction.  Soon we will be looking at very different Lefts and Rights.

Certain cultural developments neither controlled nor initiated by either Trump or Clinton will probably accelerate whoever is  elected. The media situation, for instance.  Mainstream-style newspapers and TV are clearly going the way of the Triceratops — their completely futile assault on Trump may be the final blow in terms of their marginalization.  The Fourth Estate is already being replaced by the blogosphere; this is a form of balkanization for which Trump is not responsible, but it will certainly deepen as his Presidential tweets replace press conferences.

Higher education will be increasingly privatized, and government support flow to technical and business-oriented colleges as opposed to the Ivies.  Again, this has little to do with Clinton or Trump directly.  It’s just that alumni will find it increasingly hard to justify six-figure grants to colleges whose focus seems to be providing BLM safe spaces and anti-Zionist litmus tests.  Trump is likely to direct less Federal funds to such places, Clinton more, but in either case Asian and white educational flight will lead to elite universities for the elite, and a Detroitization of what remains.

I doubt that Trump will do anything all that much specifically for working-class whites, other than improve their employment prospects indirectly as fewer jobs go to China.  But that is not small. And the simple awareness that a candidate they want can still win elections will likely raise devastated redneck pride to the skies.  Expect the white suicide rate to drop and white life expectancy to rise.  In fact, should Trump reside in the Oval Office a full eight years I would not be shocked to see the beginnings of an Appalachian renaissance of sorts.

The interesting question is Trump‘s impact on the 1%.  I suspect it will be devastating.  They have no control over him whatsoever, cutting war and immigration will hit their finances severely, and he can certainly use their money for his upcoming projects and to support the economy.  As 1% funds that stem from war and cheap immigrant labor tank to the tune of tens of billions, they will be screaming to a degree that will surely take the form of an eventual assassination attempt.  If it fails, or is uncovered before it takes place, and Trump begins to see the situation in terms of his and his family’s physical survival, Trump will pound on them and pound on them hard, becoming a working-class hero in the process.  I expect Putin will be able to give him a few tips on that score.

A Clinton victory means leaving 1% domination in place; indeed cementing it in place, as loopholes like super-delegate selection is amped up in both parties to prevent future Trumps and Bernies.  Contrariwise a Trump victory will probably mean that Trump (and Sanders Democrats) will rolling be back all such loopholes, making future elections more radically democratic, and less susceptible to 1%-purchased influence, as Carlos Slim dildos like the Times yield to flash mobs from the blogoshere.  Hence, a Trump victory would likely do far more for an eventual socialist ascendancy — or an idiocracy — than not.  The responsibility for selecting rulers would be back in the hands of the ruled.

Of course, with Trump anything is possible, given that he so often seems to be improvising as he goes along.  But when you strip off the rhetoric, and a few quirky signature positions, Trump really appears to be more of a centrist than not — an exceptionally crass Rockefeller Republican, but not at all an extreme rightist, or any kind of rightist at all.  The left is so used to casting all evil in the role of right-wing perfidy that sections of a persistent left opposition may devolve into Weatherman-style excesses at first, so Trump may well have a bumpy first year or two.  On the whole, though, things should be work out pretty smoothly.

So which is worst?  I have to say, on the reading above, it’s Hillary.  But I’m not casting my vote yet.  There is short-term gain and long-term gain.  Under Hillary, things will likely worsen, but at the same time counter-currents as represented by Trump and Sanders will only grow stronger and deeper.  The social undercurrents buoying Trump and Sanders up are what really matter, not Trump and Sanders as individuals.  Timing is all.  More time to ripen may foster rather better Trumps and Sanders down the road.

That said, I don’t think the voters will look at things that way.  I suspect the decision will come down to people asking themselves, “Do I really want four more years of more of the same, or am I so sick of it all that I’ll chance a roll of the dice whatever comes up.”   The 1% and people living comfortable lives in the suburbs will want more of the same.  But they’re not the majority.

True, some among my few readers will likely sit things out, saying to themselves, “I’m sick of having to always vote for the lesser of two evils.”  Rouse yourselves, slackers:  the lesser of two evils is less evil, and when evil can wax macroscopic thanks to the technology at our present political disposal, less evil may well spare this suffering world much; the less evil may even be a concealed, imperceptible, self-unaware — but real — step in the direction of the good.