Hobson's choice: a situation in which you are supposed to make a choice but do not have a real choice because there is only one thing you can have or do.
- Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary

Without a doubt, the Election of 2016 will be one the historians (if any still exist before too much longer) will study and discuss for a long time. There is so much which is "not normal" about it as to warrant such discussion, for a great deal of behavior deviates from the norm.

One such deviance involves the large and apparently growing number of prominent conservatives who are openly declaring support for Hillary Clinton. Let's begin with George Will, whose connection to sentience and reality is at best tenuous despite winning Pulitzer Prizes. He wrote in an April 29 column:

Republicans should work to give Hillary Clinton the White House in order to regain establishment power in four years.

Dr. Ron Paul, the former Texas congressman and presidential candidate, opined to Fox Business in a May 9 commentary:

"I think what the neocons will do, the Bill Kristols of the world, and you hear it already, they're going to go with Hillary. A Wall Street person, and she is a neo-con."

Of course, it's now July, and these same people will have had plenty of time to vent spleens and accept the inevitable Trump, only it looks like that isn't happening either. The latest crossover supporter I've discovered is Daniel Pipes, who has served in five presidential administrations (although the bio with his article doesn't provide details as to his service). He declares:

...a Hillary Clinton presidency...would leave the conservative movement intact.

Much maligned Huffington Post poster and Bernie Sanders supporter H. A. Goodman is being revealed to be a seer with these Republican observations. Goodman wrote back on Aug 24, 2014:

Hillary Clinton, former senator and secretary of state, is more conservative than most Democrats, and ironically, most Republicans would ever admit. She might be so conservative that even if Clinton beats her GOP rival for the presidency, a moderate Republican would still sit in the White House.

Hillary is seen by many on both sides as representing a Third Obama term, and Obama himself revealed to Univision in December 2012 that he saw himself offing policies as if he were a "moderate 1985 Reagan Republican":

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=677elaGIsKU width:400 height:320]

Thus it is my contention that Goodman is correct, and has been all along. We ARE going to get either a Republican or a Republican in the White House unless a great many people vote instead either for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. It's a shame too many Hillarybots existed, and too many political dirty tricks used, all of which prevented Bernie Sanders from being the Democratic nominee and offering the USA a real choice instead of making us decide which Republican candidate of either party is the less odious.

The only remedy I see for this is that Barack Obama is about to hand over US sovereignty to the WTO once he gets TPP through the lame duck Congress. At that point, neither Hillary nor Trump will have any authority to preside over anything. But that is jumping from the frying pan into the fire.