No matter what happens in next week's elections, our next president will be extremely unpopular.

Okay, that may not be exactly true. There are ten candidates, and we haven't heard enough about everyone to have equally passionate opinions about them. But at this rate there really are only two candidates with a reasonable shot at winning - and even then it's not exactly a level playing field. So let's just talk about those two, okay? Okay.

No matter what happens in next week's elections, our next president will be extremely unpopular.

First reason: there will always be a segment of the population whose opposition will be so loud it will be deemed as pesky by whoever's in power. Sure, it's not really a new thing - we've had that in the past, I don't know, two decades, and it was much louder in the past six years - but this current campaign has had this extra degree of toxicity that I can't quite put my finger on.

Not that it's all because of nothing. I mean, the frontrunner is the son of a wanton dictator, and the reasons to fear his likely victory are many, varied and definitely valid. The moment he assumes power, expect people to really voice their opposition against him - at least while they still can. But people who oppose the other candidate also have many - and arguably valid - reasons to fear her likely victory. They tend to be buried under varying degrees of snark, but the few good arguments that get through may make you pause. There are concerns about whether she'll rip apart everything the current administration will leave behind. There are concerns about whether she's really the capable leader boosters make her out to be, or just a puppet for other vested interests.

But then again, this campaign was never really about reasonable arguments. It's always been about "my candidate is better than you!" and "your candidate sucks balls!" and "you're stupid!" and "you're stupid!" And, as we've seen once the 2016 elections wrapped up, things never really cool down. It's too late for anyone to back down from their stands, not when they've made it a defining part of their identity. So, no matter what happens, things will be as toxic, if not more, than they are now. Of course, it goes without saying that one outcome will decidedly be more toxic, and for valid reasons.

Second reason: the next six years are really going to be testy.

Personally, I'm disappointed that the presidential candidates aren't talking about the cost-of-living crisis that's definitely going to happen in the coming months. Well, arguably, it's already happening. The massive increases in fuel prices is just one example. And it's not just because of Russia's war on Ukraine: it's something experts and observers have seen coming from the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, when lockdowns across the world led to delays in the movement of goods that we still haven't recovered from. This means increasing costs that businesses will have no choice but to pass on to consumers, who will have difficulty coping because their wages won't be going up. That's the "stagflation" thing you've probably heard.

Now, this isn't entirely because of circumstances beyond our control. I think if the government was more decisive in addressing the pandemic in its early days, and was not beholden to the current president's gung-ho, everything-will-be-fine-because-I-said-so rhetoric, we would not be as susceptible to these disruptions. And even then, it wouldn't make much of a difference, as we are heavily reliant on imports - fuel, particularly - and local businesses don't exactly have an easy route towards being competitive. A government that fails to plan long-term, choosing instead to make itself look good with edificial, sound byte-friendly projects, will always find itself in a pickle when a real emergency comes by.

Also, our two frontrunners have wildly differing proposals when it comes to the economy. Well, one has a pretty comprehensive plan, while the other hides behind "unity" as a silver bullet. Industry leaders, whether publicly or privately, have spoken about how they prefer one outcome over the other, and as I write this that line of thinking has made it to our suddenly doomscrolling-friendly social media feeds. But whatever happens, in the short term we will have to bite the bullet and go through the idea of our wages not doing as much as they used to. And you better not say bullshit like "well, you should've invested your money!" because that shows your privilege and lack of empathy. Sorry. Got distracted there.

Let me repeat that. Whatever happens, in the short term we will have to bite the bullet and go through the idea of our wages now doing as much as they used to. Reasonable governments know the best interventions are long-term ones, the sort that runs between administrations and can stand up whichever way the political winds blow. So, you know, encouraging foreign investment, improving infrastructure, expanding capacity, enhancing trust between stakeholders - those things take a while, if they ever do bite. And until that happens, whoever's in power will be blamed for their lives getting numerically worse, no matter what they choose to do, or not do.

Of course, the likely difference is, one will insist that everything is fine, perhaps to the extent of using the entire government apparatus to squash any negative coverage. The other, well... the other may choose to be honest, or she may choose to sugarcoat things, or she may retreat to campaign rhetoric like the previous president, but the troll armies will never let her sleep.