What if, in the end, you have to choose between Trump and Bernie Sanders? Who do you pick?

My son John asks and answers the question here.

How about you? (Me, I'm not answering. I'm maintaining my cruel neutrality.)

What if you had to choose between Trump and Sanders for President?

I'd pick Trump.

I'd pick Sanders.

I'd abstain from voting (or throw a vote to a third party candidate).

I'll pick, but I'll figure it out when the time comes (or I know but won't say).

pollcode.com free polls

ADDED: Poll results:

"Trump won because he was willing to say loudly what his supporters believed deeply; because, in his disdain for what politicians are supposed to be and do, he exuded authenticity; because he was hated..."

"... by the people his base found hateful; because he had an opponent who, in the minds of his supporters, epitomized corruption and self-dealing; and because he offered radical cures for a country he diagnosed as desperately ill. Despite being the oldest man ever elected president, he seemed (to his voters) fresh, true, bold, and sorely needed. So it is, and would be, with Sanders. Depth of conviction? Check. Contempt for conventional norms? Check. Opposed by all the right people? Check. Running against a 'crooked' opponent? Check. Commitment to drastic change? Check. Like Trump, too, he isn’t so much campaigning for office as he is leading a movement. People who join movements aren’t persuaded. They’re converted. Their depth of belief is motivating and infectious."

From "Of Course Bernie Can Win/To say Sanders is unelectable is indefensible" by Bret Stephens (NYT).

I'm giving this post my "the Sanders and Trump phenomenon" tag, and now, I've got to remind myself what got me started with that. Oh! I see I used it once. It was March 14, 2016:

Trump and Sanders represent a single phenomenon, no? It's a phenomenon that Hillary and the GOP establishment have a motivation to minimize, and portraying Trump as toxic (and Sanders a nice, but unrealistic old man) is a minimization device.

"Wow. Finally. An article from the NYTs about economic populism. The working class has been screwed by the political elites since the 1990s."

"By both political parties. True, many jobs may never come back. But our manufacturing base, what made America, has been decimated. We can rebuild, but the politicians really need to clamp down on the EPA and the other useless alphabet soup federal agencies. Obama has waged war on coal. That means more job losses for Americans. This is why Trump is leading. This is why Sander's won Michigan, and may win other 'rust belt' states."

Says a top-rated comment at a NYT column titled "The Era of Free Trade Might Be Over. That’s a Good Thing" by Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Joe Biden.

Trump and Sanders represent a single phenomenon, no? It's a phenomenon that Hillary and the GOP establishment have a motivation to minimize, and portraying Trump as toxic (and Sanders a nice, but unrealistic old man) is a minimization device.