Put it this way:
Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton have long histories in politics. Bernie in particular is a deeply ideological figure, but both are predictable. The Donald has thrown up a gigantic smokescreen with extreme ideas that he's backed away from, and while I'm pretty sure his personal life is strong enough evidence that he's no social conservative, the direct question of what exactly HE STANDS FOR is hard to answer.
We can take Trump at his word, at which point he's considered settling on US Debts, ordering the US Government to kill the families of terrorists, punishing women who have abortions (TBH - not that extreme a position in the USA as a whole) , openly advocating torture and aggressive posturing with nuclear weapons and even use them.
We can disregard Trump's words and ask what the Republican Party itself stands for. There is more to like here, if you're part of the 1%, or a social issues voter. Hate abortions? Want Gay People to get fixed? Want to own your own Military Grade Ordinance? Fine. But the GOP's vision of economic policy has fundamentally not changed since W.'s administration, and any economic policy that has caused an economic Depression is irredeemably stupid. The increasing disparity of wealth between the 1% and the poorest Americans isn't just vaporizing the middle class, it has implications ranging from people simply turning to crime for a lack of opportunities to the fundamental assumption that all men are created equal fails. This isn't free market capitalism, this is feudalism, and the party that promotes the "Original Intent" of the founding fathers as a constitutional interpretation would put another King George in power.
I tend not to ascribe to either of these ideas. I think Trump is less extreme than his mouth and deeply wishes to be loved by the American people as opposed to simply telling them to eat cake. But Trump is a business bushwaker with a high threshold of risk tolerance. I don't hold his bankruptcies to mean that he's a bad businessman--there is a whole school of investing that suggests that betting on a lot of high risk ventures will make money if you do it enough times--but the United States can't go bankrupt once. Besides writing checks to political candidates and some 3rd party stuff with the Reform Party, he lacks political experience. Even generously allowing that he may well have some strong insights in how to run communications, he seems to lack the mechanical qualities of running a business. He's an investor far more than a manager, a salesman far more than an operator.
I can't rule out Donald Trump starting a nuclear war or permanently alienating a formerly US Ally, or trashing the US Economy.
Meanwhile, for those of us who aren't super-rich, issues voters or interested in military adventurism, either Hillary or Bernie will be a safe pair of hands. Bernie will struggle to get his vision passed by congress; Hillary is somewhat damaged by two decades of political crosshairs being trained on her--but if we're comparing scandals, I have to think Trump U. tops Benghazi and Emails. If we're comparing personal lives, compare being married to a womanizing scandalous sort and trying to make peace with it versus being a womanizing scandalous sort. Or, of course, the straightforwardly monogamous lifestyle of Bernie Sanders.
There are a lot of ways to make decide who to vote for, but if I want to maximize the minimum performance of the United States and maximize the most likely performance, it's simple - vote Democrat.
That's why he even wanted to intervene, just to give him a boost back at russia)
