For nearly every election, there is a strategic reason to vote for nearly any candidate, or none at all. Watching libertarians puzzle over this is hilarious:

• You vote for the "least unlibertarian" candidate (the debates that stem from this are ones I just avoid out of tedium. There is rarely a consensus. It tends to come down to which specific issues make you go apeshit more. For me it's guns. For others it's drugs. For others it's capitalism and financial stuff.)

• You vote for the candidate who you believe shows the most principle -- whatever principles those are. This is the beggars cant be choosers voter, for whom a meddly socialist Green is preferable to a centrist establishment Republican who is owned by special interests.

• You vote for the candidate most likely to be a spoiler, especially if that candidate is a third party...like any third party, to shake up the two party system. Turned on by the panic of establishment party hacks who say things like, "Don't vote for Ralph Nader you guys, omg, it will like totally sink Al Gore and then the Republicans will totally ban abortion!"

• You vote for the most authoritarian candidate to further the system toward its own destruction. People who do this seem blissfully unaware of just how far from that point we currently are. I admire them.

Except for the "push the system toward it's own destruction" voters who are likely prone to vote for Hillary Clinton, an argument along any of the above lines can be made for any candidate.

I am so alienated from this whole election cycle, that I can only say that my mood on election day will likely decide it. I've never not voted in any presidential election or primary, but this is the one I am most likely to simply get drunk on and give the whole thing a miss.

Except for this one thing:

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee, I would fucking vote for JOSEF STALIN just to vote against her.