Schmidt is a syndicated columnist and editorial board member with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
The dislike for the candidates at the top of both parties’ tickets is so unpalatable, “Literally Anybody Else” might be coming to a ballot near you. While the dissatisfaction with the race is palpable, the basis for the disappointment in the candidates could not be more different.
Dustin Ebey, a 35-year-old U.S. Army veteran and seventh grade math teacher in the Dallas suburbs, legally changed his name to Literally Anybody Else and is running for president of the United States to prove this point.
The Texas man says he believes anybody else should be president instead of the Democratic and GOP frontrunners. "America should not be stuck choosing between the 'King of Debt' (his self-declaration) and an 81-year old. Literally Anybody Else isn't a person, it's a rally cry," Else's campaign website stated before being updated, according to
Else told a Dallas news outlet that his campaign wasn't about sending him to the White House; rather, he said he wanted to give voters a chance to express their unhappiness with Trump's and Biden's candidacies. "People are voting for the lesser of two evils, not someone they actually believe in or support. People should have the option to vote for someone who resembles and represents them, not the lesser of two evils. I reject that,” he said.
Both candidates are disliked by a majority of Americans. A YouGov-University of Massachusetts Amherst poll conducted in January showed that 45 percent of Americans believe a Biden-Trump rematch is bad for the country.
In a ABC-Ipsos survey, 36 percent of Americans said they trust Trump to do a better job leading the country as president, while 33 percent trust Biden more – and 30 percent trust neither.
A New York Times-Siena College poll from March found that 19 percent of voters disapproved of both men, but Biden is slightly less hated, with a spread of 7 points between them (45 percent to 38 percent).
The voters reflected in these surveys have been labeled “double haters” and they make up as much as one-fifth of likely voters according to various polls. This group is likely to decide the 2024 election.
Judith Smith, from Moncks Corner, S.C., discussed the choice between Trump and Biden with The Guardian. “That’s like choosing between a hedgehog and a porcupine,” she said.
I disagree with Smith here and would suggest changing the analogy from animals to fruit. It is like choosing between an overripe, mealy apple and an orange that is completely rotten and you don’t really want to eat either.
Since we live in a hyper-partisan world, the percentage of the electorate who will not vote party line has been shrinking. Those voters who are up for grabs, including the “double haters,” should consider weighing both the character and policy proposals of each, while being mindful of the fallacy of moral equivalence. This fallacy occurs when one suggests that two morally different actions are equivalent, simply because they share some similarities. This is no easy task for responsible citizens as they consider the characteristics and qualifications of any candidate before Election Day.
While neither man is popular, it seems too easy to fall into the moral equivalency trap and to compare them as if they were the same.
Trump incited an insurrection and is an adjudicated rapist. He faces 91 felony counts after being indicted four times within the last year. He is accused in Georgia and Washington, D.C., of plotting to overturn his 2020 election loss to Biden. He is also accused in Florida of mishandling classified documents, and in Manhattan of falsifying business records stemming from hush money payments, made during his 2016 campaign, to a pornographic film actress.
Biden, on the other hand, is an octogenarian who many feel is not at the top of his game and has an even more unpopular running mate. He is trying to hold together a fragile coalition that stems from progressives to the left of him and soft Republicans to his right. He struggles to make any one faction in his alliance particularly happy. One has to look no further than Biden’s tightrope walk on foreign policy, specifically the Israel-Hamas war or securing our southern border.
Literally Nobody Else is not likely to gain ballot access, and therefore the double haters like him will need to go back and make the choice between not voting, voting for a third-party candidate, or judging Biden and Trump on their merits and which of the two “represents” them more.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally at Pinnacle Bank Expo Center on the Nebraska State Fairgrounds on October 05, 2026 in Grand Island, Nebraska.
The President Invited Iran to Bomb My Home
I was driving home to San Diego from Los Angeles on Monday night when I heard that the President of the United States had offered both cities up to Iran as bomb targets. At a rally in Nebraska, defending his war, Trump told the crowd, “let [Iran] take out Los Angeles, let ‘em take out San Diego.” It was, he said, “a very small price to pay.”
I was coming from a Bernie Sanders rally for Proposition 40, the one-time tax on California billionaires that would send 90% of its revenue to healthcare. We desperately need it to pass because, in order to give tax breaks to billionaires, Trump signed a law that will strip health coverage from 10 million Americans; this tax will make sure we can still cover Californians. Call me crazy, but I think taxing billionaires one time so we can make sure kids in California get to see a doctor is a very small price to pay. I also think that even if Trump were joking, it is indefensible to make jokes about the potential destruction of so many lives. Human life is never a small price to pay. Human life is priceless.
Plus, the reality is: here in San Diego, we’re already paying the price for Trump’s actions, and it’s not small at all. He has gutted FEMA, tried to kill climate resiliency programs, and destroyed public health standards, while his signature law is set to cut off health insurance and food support for hundreds of thousands of San Diegans. Like plenty of American cities, San Diego is already busy finding local solutions to respond to the problems this president has recklessly created.
Not to mention, at least 19 American service members have been killed in this war already. Human rights monitors have documented more than 3,600 dead in Iran by April alone. Here at home, gas is sitting just pennies below its all-time record. Taxpayers have already spent more than $45 billion on the war, while Trump’s oil and gas portfolio has grown by roughly $15.5 million this year alone. Of course anything is a “small price” to someone paying free.99 for this war, and profiting from it. Meanwhile, We the People are paying twice: first for the war, and then for the consequences of that war. But now he wants San Diego to pay a third time, flippantly offering us up to Iran.
It is worth noticing which cities he thought to name. Were San Diego and Los Angeles strategically chosen to signify something to his audience, or were they simply the first cities that came to mind as expendable places? Either way, the effect is to normalize—-and to gauge a crowd’s reaction to–the idea of massive violence in major California cities, suitable targets because of their perceived liberal lean. So what if Iran needs to bomb a little bit of America before the war can be over? Who cares, says Trump, if they target Los Angeles and San Diego?
By the way, why didn’t he offer up San Francisco, the free-love hippie-town MAGA loves to hate (and also my birthplace)? Could it be because that’s where the tech titans live? The same ones who joined Trump for Xi Jinping’s state dinner, a guest list worth a combined $2.4 trillion?
San Diego may have fewer billionaires, but it is home to more than 115,000 active-duty service members and 230,000 veterans. One in six active-duty sailors–in the entire Navy–is stationed here. So is one in four Marines. You cannot throw a rock in this county without hitting a military family: brats and spouses and veterans are among us. I got out of the Navy last year after ten years, and eight of those were here in San Diego. When Trump says “let ‘em take out San Diego,” he’s talking about the backbone of the United States military. He’s also talking about the people fighting his war.
San Diego has not been watching this war from the sidelines. Today, the USS Abraham Lincoln returns to North Island after an almost yearlong deployment to the Middle East that featured food shortages, broken toilets, and mold in the showers after 286 days at sea without a single port call. Eight sailors in the Lincoln’s strike group attempted suicide, but in August, when a reporter asked whether the deployment had gone on too long, Trump said “not nearly long enough.” Now he has told a crowd in Nebraska that we should let Iran take out the city those sailors call home. These are sociopathic sentiments.
Last week at Quantico, Pete Hegseth closed his address to the force by telling them, “President Trump has your back and so do I.” To the contrary, President Trump has put one of the biggest military towns in the country forward as a target for our adversaries. With friends like these, the “domestic” in “against all enemies, foreign and domestic” starts to sound a lot less hypothetical.
San Diego is home to Naval Air Station North Island, Naval Base San Diego, Naval Amphibious Base Coronado, the Point Loma submarine base, Camp Pendleton, and Miramar (and I have been permanently stationed at or trained at all of them). If Iran bombed San Diego and Los Angeles, aside from the devastating loss of life, it would cripple an immense share of our national security readiness.
And for what, exactly? Trump says the war is “essentially almost over with.” This is the same man who claimed in June 2025 that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated,” then launched a war over it anyway on February 28. More than seven months later, he wants us to believe two things at once: that we’ve basically won, and that we might need to sacrifice an American city or two to finish winning. If the war is almost over, why does anybody need to take out San Diego?
I wonder if Trump’s endorsed candidate for California’s 48th District here in San Diego County will respond to these remarks. He recently said “no pain, no gain,” when referring to the gas prices San Diegans are paying. Jim Desmond, would you apply that same mindset if we were bombed? Or do you have the moral courage to stand up for the people you’re running to represent?
Last November, six Democratic members of Congress, all veterans, including Senator Mark Kelly, recorded a video reminding troops of their duty to disobey unlawful orders, restating the law that says so. Trump called it “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH,” and then his Justice Department went looking for an indictment, which a grand jury refused. The president treated reading the law out loud to the troops as a capital offense, but then he himself invited a foreign enemy to destroy two American cities, possibly as a punchline. Is anyone calling the latter sedition? Who is demanding accountability?
Calling our lives a small price to pay affirms a moral bankruptcy, as well as an obvious dereliction of duty to the office he holds. While we can’t impeach him or invoke the 25th Amendment ourselves, we must stop being so quiet about what we’re paying already. We can make our voices heard by calling our representatives, writing op-eds, knocking doors, phone banking, and voting in defiance of the man who threatens the safety of our city. Ballots are already arriving in mailboxes. Vote, and vote yes on 40 (and no on 41 and 42).
Trump has been harming our cities for a while, but now he is inviting our military adversaries to join him in the harm. If we have any self-respect as Americans, we must not tolerate our leaders disregarding the dignity of lives in this way. We must fight for our home.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.