As far as I am concerned, this election has produced two suitable presidential candidates, Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Both of these gentlemen represent certain aspects of America's former greatness, and both have good ideas about getting the country back on track again. Their confrontation would have been a true battle of competing visions, although they share a certain old-fashioned blue-collar appeal which is common to both of them (their bases overlap), and which separate them from the majority of the US political class. Regrettably, this battle of ideas could never take place, because Sanders was thrown under the bus by his own party establishment using underhanded and most likely illegal means. Trump had to fight his own as well, and he emerged bloodied but alive from that confrontation. This is the difference now, and he remains the only viable candidate representing some sort of alternative to the elites pushing for unlimited globalisation, the rising influence of unelected interest groups subverting democracy to enrich themselves, and increasing thought control in public and private life -- all phenomena which Hillary Clinton not only agrees with but seemingly embodies. Donald Trump is a crass and vulgar man, the archetype of "the American Businessman". Nevertheless, he is at least someone with human vices, which makes him the least bad candidate still standing. As Republicans go, Donald Trump is a rather centrist one: he is far less hawkish than George W. Bush (or Hillary Clinton), he has a moderate 'Main Street over Wall Street' view on economic topics, and he isn't a religious fundamentalist. His most controversial position is on mass immigration, where I am in full agreement with him: it is a clear and present danger to western societies, and should be severely curtailed. The most promising thing about Trump, however, is precisely the hatred he seems to invoke in the ruling elites. That's good, because these groups need an occasional reminder about the ultimate source of their powers, and their accountability to the voters. In fact, it is precisely the disturbing degree of unity they have demonstrated when facing the prospect of a Trump presidency that is showing these groups to be "different branches of the same tree" - suddenly, politicians and newspapers who were supposed to be mortal enemies are all singing the same tune? That, right there, is the problem, especially when things are going in a bad direction. The political centre has morphed into an increasingly corrupt and repressive oligarchy, stifling political competition while showing less and less respect and responsibility towards the society it is supposed to serve. It is a much larger problem than Trump can solve, but at least he recognises it, and has ideas to solve it (his proposed limitations on campaign finance and conflicts of interest for govt. representatives are promising). I expect that if he wins, he will face a hard battle against bitter and resourceful enemies, which will occupy most of his presidency. He will be a much weaker president than Hillary, who would have all the levers of power in her hands, and eager support to do what she pleases. That prospect, to me, is far more scary than a guy with a taste for crass Twitter comments and gilded furniture.