when i sorted through this in 2016, the argument i made that i felt was most compelling was to point out that i had about an equal level of agreement with hillary and trump, which you might think is insane, but from a libertarian-left perspective (that opposes corporate globalization, the "free trade" system, imperialist wars and a number of other things that are central to the core messaging of contemporary neo-liberalism) it's really not if you look at it carefully.

so, i said something like that i agreed with about 40% of what clinton said and disagreed without about 60% of what she said - which is probably not all that different than your average fake-left "progressive". but, how many of them sat down and carefully sorted through what trump said and really carefully quantified it? they may have been surprised to realize that they probably agreed with more than 30% of what he said, anyways - and specifically regarding his opposition to this core neo-liberal agenda, some of which has actually panned out better than i actually expected (and some of which hasn't).

yes, it's sad that so many of us disagree with 60% of what the candidate we dislike less has to say, but...

unlike a lot of people, i would actually prefer clinton to biden, overall. she's at least bright; biden isn't. but, with clinton the problem was that she was ultimately evil to her core. biden's problem is that he's just kind of a dipshit.

so, i'm still basically in the same place with both of them - i agree with roughly 35% of what either of them say, and disagree with most of what both of them say, it's just over different specific issues. trump pisses me off on the climate the most; biden's going to piss me off the most with his foreign policy.

but, i might agree with 3% of what mike pence says, and it will mostly involve clauses that utilize the word puppy. he's pretty much the perfect personification of everything i hate about the world.