> If they had "abandoned" them you'd think it would show.

A left-leaning candidate that has "abandoned" worker's causes is still a better prospect than a candidate that openly opposed to them.

I find it odd that so few people vote in the US - like I said, if all candidates are terrible, one is certainly less terrible and your job, as citizen, is to vote for the lesser evil to prevent the worse one to get power.

Working people are effectively slaves. Everyone has children or college debt. Health care is useless in not urban areas and even then it's restricted by insurance or lack of it. There's not much hope to own a home other than through inheritance. Even inheritance is unlikely as health care for aging parents is very expensive.

People are uneducated, don't have time, and rightly feel like politicians don't represent them. No one wants to have no home or the worst health care system except the people taking bribes. There's no incentive for reform.

Still, even if all options are bad, there has to be one that's less bad.

Which is why sane people should vote democrat, even if they're objectively bad. GOP is infinitely worse.

I'll have to strongly disagree, the turnout is way too high if anything. Voting for the "lesser" evil just legitimizes an institution that doesn't deserve it.

There isn't an asterisk next to your vote that says "this person disagrees with this candidate's platform". No, your vote will be used to legitimize that candidate's platform to other people, future generations, and the history books.