Throughout our history, there have been very few excellent presidential candidates. We do not live in Plato's Republic. We live in the real, complicated, often corrupt and inefficient world where partially flawed or incomplete candidates are put forth
Again - to me - this total BS "they are both shit" sentiment. Really, 95? Trump and Harris are both just the same? No difference? Nom difference between what the elected officials would support and stand for from each if elected?
Obviously a largely subjective exercise, but while all presidential candidates are flawed, I can't think of a set of competing presidential tickets in any period of time that I can remember, either during my life or by reputation from an earlier era, in which both sets were this bad. I know I don't need to convince you of this with respect to the Rs (although Vance brings it up quite a bit in terms of what most people would consider "good," leaving aside what you may think of his policy positions ... no major scandals, highly accomplished, solid story and background, veteran, law degree from Yale, extremely articulate and intelligent, vast knowledge that he actually can articulate in a relatable manner).
As for the Ds, well, I don't want to contribute to the discord on here by delineating it in detail, but in numerous respects, those two are way below the typical bar in terms of things like apparent demonstrated intelligence, credentials, ability to speak, and other general manner of operation. Especially one of them, while the other has some issues with prevarication and self-described buffoonery, leaving the rest aside.
I realize some of this may reflect the era we are in, with social media and hyperpartisanship contributing to the views we form. Perhaps a Walz type, at least, would not seem so flawed in an earlier news coverage era where you didn't have constant clips of the gaffes and oddities, for example.
But really, again, without trying to make this contentious, just take a step back and compare these two, especially the presidential candidates themselves, with just about any other pairing you could recall--or perhaps even imagine--and it's not even close to what we'd typically see when you think about what most people would want from a presidential candidate on a policy-blind basis, especially considering one didn't even go through a primary process. (It would be pretty brutal if considering policies, too, perhaps even more, but that's another issue.) That isn't the same as saying they're indistinguishable and both "shit," btw, which I realize you are addressing. They are both quite poor but certainly not the same.