Opinion | Harris vs. Trump Is Taking Shape. And Then There’s Vance.

Gail Collins: Bret, we’re beginning a whole new era in presidential politics, and before we get rolling I want to give you ample opportunity to retract your threat not to vote in a Trump-vs.- Harris election.

Bret Stephens: My feelings about this election are approximately what Henry Kissinger’s were about the Iran-Iraq war: It’s a pity both sides can’t lose. You know that I will never, ever vote for Donald Trump. But I can’t quite see why I should cast my New York vote — a meaningless vote, as we both know — in favor of a politician whose views I oppose and whose judgment I doubt.

Persuade me that I’m wrong ….

Gail: Democracy is ideally about voting for the good guys and rejecting the bad, but we’re all well aware of the many, many elections that feature two unwelcome options.

Refusing to pick a less-bad choice is being, well, a kinda snob.

Bret: Guilty as charged.

Gail: And when you’ve got a choice between a woman who you don’t agree with about taxes and spending versus a man who’s shown himself perfectly capable of trying to overthrow the government if he loses, the options are pretty obvious.

Bret: That was pretty much my reasoning when I cast my votes for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden: two liberal Democrats who nonetheless struck me as safe pairs of hands, particularly when it came to world affairs.

I just don’t have the same faith in Kamala Harris. She’s given no indication that she can run a campaign or an office competently, much less a country. She frequently speaks in inanities. Her contribution to fixing the border crisis was less than zero — in fact, she publicly denied there was a crisis. I doubt she strikes fear in the hearts of the tyrants in Tehran, Beijing or Moscow at a moment when all of those dictatorships are on the march.