We are likely past the point of persuasion for anyone, so I feel free to make observations while it is still fresh.
I will be voting for Evan McMullin. You can spare me the observation that I am voting for Hillary/Trump by not voting for Trump/Hillary. I already covered two weeks ago that my individual vote has no effect. If NH comes down to a few votes - mine plus the 100 people I have 5% effect on - you can chastise me then. Except there would be a recount, which would change things one way or the other. It is not the vote itself but all the imperceptible influences we have on our friends and acquaintances in the runup. Those influences must be anchored in a legit secret ballot, else we have 99% votes for a dictator, because people do not dare go outside the lines even in private. But mostly, it is a measuring stick for ourselves. Why does this outrage me and not that? Am I swayed by seeming and feeling? James rightly noted that a personal examen of decades is a bit steep, but you can practice a bit here.
I have waited twenty-five years for Clinton dishonesty and accompanying media sycophancy to be finally exposed*, and this is the hour, but I cannot participate. Luther said he would rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian, which I guess can be stretched to cover wise rulers of low character, but I don't see the "wise ruler" part in Trump. In my Jesus Freak days there was a festival in Washington that some of my friends went to. The theme from Scripture was 2Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray
and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from
heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land. I didn't agree with the interpretation that any nation could just automatically claim this promise made to Israel, but I noticed tonight something quite special about this. The intent was that we Christians were supposed to pray, and live justly, and God would take care of the rest. I don't hear that now, except in quiet corners.
As to media, I read that Chris Wallace was fair as a moderator, and Jake Tapper is an honest man. I also note that it is primarily the national media that shows up badly in the favoritism of Democrats in general but very specifically of Hillary Clinton. The city and regional media lean left, but not as much, and I am hopeful this will be a wakeup call that there are acts of prostitution, not romance, lying ahead of them. Some will, some won't I suppose. It is disappointing that the same people who believe that implicit racism is responsible for all manner of ills regard implicit media bias as having negligible effect. Subtext, word choice, framing, facial expressions, and tone either matter or they don't. They can't have a huge effect in one place and no effect in the other. Escaping to institutional doesn't change that either, because the media outlets in question are very much long-standing institutions.
I am quoting Wikileaks, because I believe the information is true. We should be cautious in what conclusions we draw, however. The information released is true, but selected. There may be other bits that would swing us a different way, were they made available. If some new emails came out that either made Hillary look better or Trump worse, there would of course be an annoying hypocritical flip-flop, but that aspect should be disregarded. And because no one can be unrelentingly evil, I imagine there are some benign things out there. So regard this as a palantir, that can show true things, but can still be bent to evil purpose. As for the idea that we shouldn't allow foreigners to try and influence our election, I think that's not clear-thinking. I don't see a sharp line between Europeans reporting things - sometimes bad things that we have done - around the world that the American papers won't, in an effort to break through to influence our voters, and Wikileaks. Obama not knowing which countries his contributions came from is worse. Democrats are objecting to this theft because Hillary left the keys in the ignition.
BTW, because Wikileaks is calculated in its timing, there is likely something left to know.
We vote myths, and I think Trump's appeal is that of Samson. (What's Hillary? Fairy Godmother? I think that's how her supporters see her.) Well, yes, Samson was used of God, but there are reasons mothers don't name their sons after him.
"Rigged" is a big word. Trump is using it, and a few are following, but it's crazy. However, shading an election, putting a thumb on the scale, is not crazy. People try to do it all the time, and sometimes they succeed. (My irony of this week is the psychiatrist who assured me about five years ago that "Jeb was never going to allow his brother to lose Florida" is complaining now that the Republicans are wild conspiracists for suggesting the election could be rigged.) You can slash the tires of the vans that are giving rides to the polls. You can be Mayor Daley and bring the dead to life, just for the day. I don't know that there are recent elections where we think that moved the dial more than 1% in a state, or even 5% in a precinct. Except Atlanta. I understand Atlanta is lots of paid votes for mayor, or was.
*And as I should have guessed, they are even worse than the right-wing crazies predicted.