By Christine Todd Whitman

Pundits and politicians — myself included — completely misjudged this election.

I certainly did not think that Donald Trump had a serious shot of being the Republican nominee when he first entered the presidential race. When he got the nomination, few thought the polls would ever be this close. And far too many have failed to recognize that there is a difference between change and chaos.

The latter is what we will get with a Trump presidency.


At a time when the country is facing real issues and many are wondering if they have a future of any quality, when we desperately need candidates who will speak to those issues and give us their solutions, we have a candidate who can't get over having lost a debate. Instead of talking about immigration reform or job creation, Donald Trump has spent the last week obsessing about the weight of a former Miss Universe.

Instead of outlining how he would deal with international issues, he complains that the debate moderator didn't like him and that his mic didn't work. Instead of giving real details on his tax policies, he promotes a fantasy that Hillary Clinton got citizenship for Alicia Machado in order to use her in the debate.

Unfortunately, our realistic alternatives are not happy ones. Gary Johnson's refusal or inability to name a single foreign leader, current or former, whom he admired, showed that he is not ready for the presidency. Jill Stein does not have the experience necessary to lead at a national level. That leaves Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton has many faults: And though she has apologized for what FBI Director James Comey called "extremely careless" handling of confidential information in her private emails — with former U.S. Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey saying a criminal charge was justified — the email scandal continues to raise questions about her judgement and honesty.

A Hillary presidency promises more of the Obama failed policies, but she would at least walk into the oval office ready to govern. She would be a steady hand on the nuclear code and she demonstrated a willingness to work across the aisle when she was in the senate.

We desperately need change. We need a Congress that cares more about doing the people's business than their own. We need elected officials who care more about policy than politics.

We need the kind of approach developed by No Labels. It's tempting to think that only a radical change agent in the White House can make that happen, but that assumption is wrong.

You can't fire Congress, the Supreme Court, or the civil servants in government. You can't ignore laws or regulations that are already on the books and have been tested in the courts. Like it or not, you have to know how to work within the process to effect change.

In this election, voting your conscience is not a straightforward choice, but it is critically important to vote. If sensible centrists stay home because there are no great options, we risk ceding control to the fringes of our political spectrum.

Please consider the long-term consequences of your choice and make that choice heard in November.