Millennials suffer from a severe case of apathy in regards to politics in this day and age. The tumultuous political atmosphere surrounding the upcoming presidential election has not appeared to alter much in this regard. Whether it's the choice between Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, or Trump or Sanders, the Democratic candidates have a massive lead over Trump with among likely millennial voters, according to a new Odyssey/UMass Lowell survey of millennials.

In the instance of Clinton or Pence, Clinton leads among likely voters 63% to 21%; which is a very similar margin to Clinton’s lead over Trump, 67% to 23%. There has been much speculation that different candidates would vastly change the outcome of the impending election. However, the poll just referenced proves otherwise. It all boils down to millennial’s political identifications.

These people, aged from eighteen to thirty-five, display no overwhelmingly overt ties to political parties, ideologies or issues - aside from the legalization and use of marijuana. As the United States has become more polarized Americans are less likely to identify with a side, rather preferring the mixed middle approach. Due to this adherence to the middle ground, the polarized portion of the election has become more active in seeking defectors of the mixed middle and therefore more aggressive. And reactions to this form of aggression turns this election into the choice between ‘the lesser of two evils’.

Phrases such as ‘the lesser of two evils’ and ‘pick your poison’ embody the mindset that many likely voters have dawned in wake of the looming election. The race has transformed from choosing the most qualified candidate, to settling with a candidate that is mildly better than the other. Such a sentiment is displayed in the polling numbers of millennials who identify with a party and are voting for their party in the election, 68% of Republicans intend to vote for Trump and 78% of Democrats will vote for Clinton. What is interesting is that of the people who register for a political party, about less than a fourth of them do not plan to vote with their party. This speaks to the millennial’s lack of identification, and party loyalty.

To put the phrase to test, millennials were asked to rank the following: A Clinton Presidency, a Trump Presidency, Obama appointing himself to a life term as President, a giant meteor strikes the earth and extinguished all human life, and the President selected by a random lottery amongst all US citizens. For first choice, the most preferable of the options: Clinton’s Presidency received 33% of the votes, life term for Obama and therefore a suspension of the Constitution at 27%, a Trump Presidency with 16%, and 12% to each the meteor and random lottery.

When political parties fail to engage the majority of their citizenry, either in activism or voting, something is amiss. The severe polarization of bipartisanship in the United States appears to have driven away potential millennial voters, which could cost either side or both the election. Millennials lack trust in their government and in others, so it stands to reason that the upcoming election has shied away from what the forefathers intended. Rather than choosing from two capable candidates, one must now think: Would you rather live in a world with Trump or Clinton as President? Thinking through that question, millennials factor into their decision not only who they support, but who they think would make a terrible President. Based on the polling numbers, it seems that Hillary Clinton is the candidate less likely to mess the United States up, following millennial logic.