Option 1 - seasoned government professional who can navigate politics with diplomacy
Option 2 - an old man who bankrupted a4 _ casinos_ and has ties to russia, has zero political experience. edit - thanks everyone - traitor, felon, rapist, attempted a coup to overthrow the government, ex president consistently considered one of the worst terms america has seen.
Those casinos were in Atlantic City. He also lost tens of millions of dollars on one of the most famous and prestigious hotels in New York City. He lost money trying to sell mail-order steaks and whiskey in the United States. He also lost money trying to operate a university during the biggest education bubble in history. He also stole classified documents, 'lost' them, and got huge numbers of foreign assets killed. He openly advocates for ending democracy. And as the cherry on top of that shit sandwich, brags about sexually battering women.
He does have political experience actually. Still has a huge ass following base where he can spout the most insane shit and they'll still follow him. That's why he's so dangerous.
But he was doing poorly. Newsweek has fallen off in quality, but so have lots of other papers too. The friggin New York Times was running articles about how trump was amazing and so much more vibrant than Biden. They had a big op-ed focusing on just Biden stepping down from the campaign, completely ignoring trump's failings.
Now it's obvious that they just wanted to cover a Democratic primary horse race. Trump is clearly just as slow as Biden, compared to Kamala.
Also presenting a view that Trump is destined to lose gets us in the situation in 2016 where people didn't go vote because it was a given that Hillary would win. From a polling perspective, the information is really only useful to the campaign, to know where to focus and what is doing well. For everyone else, it's a curiosity to see how the rest of the country is feeling. The only real way to ensure Trump doesn't get back into the White House is to vote.
Being pessimistic, this is how you have a clearly predictable election - put a clear villain as the other candidate, put a walking corpse as the "good" candidate, make everyone doubt but slowly-slowly accept that you have to vote for the corpse, and then replace the corpse with the person who some time before had kinda ominous reputation, and everybody is suddenly enthusiastic.
"Better than Trump" is not arguable, but this is still the lesser evil.
For those who don't want to open it, the article showed Clinton having 50% versus Harris' 43%. And it has to be over 50% because of the severe degree of gerrymandering.