How is someone supposed to interpret this comment, other than support for Clinton over Trump? 
You
could interpet it to mean not that the commentator
prefers Hilarious Rodent over Donaldus
Minimus but, rather, having weighed the options, he thinks Hilarious is liable to wreak less mischief in the
big picture.
Which
would be true if, somehow, Donaldus Minimus doesn't wreak enough damage to what
remains of the Republican Party and the downticket races provide Hilarious with her second-worst
nightmare, a GOP Congress. Which, alas, also assumes such a GOP Congress would re-assume
the supremacy the Constitution actually afforded the legislative branch, and that, of course, might
prove a crapshoot wild guess.
There is also a view that you could say, yes, Hilarious is going to be (or at least try to be, Congress
pending) as bad as we suspect . . . but we
knew that going in, there was
nothing to
suggest she'd be anything less than what we've known her to be. Concurrently, removing Donaldus
Minimus's too-well-known character and rhetorical flaws for the moment, we would have a case of the
devil we know versus the devil we don't know. Speaking strictly in political and policy terms, Donaldus
Minimus is such a ball of contradictions beyond his implicit belief that he, too, in his own way, believes
the State
uber alles and the citizen little to nothing, that such could be equally dangerous, with
a few different devils in a few different details, as Hilarious.
I've still seen nothing to convince me that any vote other than "None of These Candidates" would be
a vote unlikely to make me puke. I don't know how many other states beside my adopted Nevada
have the option, but one hopes a fair majority in those states votes likewise if the option is available
to them.
