Are you excited yet? Now that the nominating conventions are over and this wild election cycle has entered its final stretch, it seems we’ve finally returned to a political process we’re used to: two disappointing candidates who remain widely unpopular and disliked by large factions of the electorate have been formally named their respective party’s presidential representatives. Consider it a new tagline for the nation: “America, better living through lower expectations.”

As we’ve noted before, themes of populism and a resistance against the status quo have taken this election cycle asunder. Many Americans now seem less intent on expressing views than pathologies, and this has proven to be the sine qua non for Donald Trump’s incredible ascendancy. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand — who, like Trump, enters the general election as one of the most unpopular presidential nominees in modern history — personifies the establishment candidate, and as a result, finds herself uniquely disadvantaged: to conservatives, she represents a continuation of the last eight years; to liberals, she’s insufficiently progressive, too hawkish on military policy and largely unconcerned on issues pertaining to income inequality, Wall Street and campaign finance reform.

The hold-your-nose-and-vote prospect facing so many Americans is made slightly more tolerable by candidates’ VP picks, where each contender basically has a chance to perform some final edits on his/her campaign message for the masses and work in spaces where there exists a perception deficit. Trump, who epitomizes everything that’s wrong with our society, needed a vice presidential nominee to reel him in. Clinton, who embodies everything that’s wrong with our government, needed someone to spread her out.

Kaine Clinton

It seems Clinton’s choice of Senator Tim Kaine didn’t exactly blow America’s collective hair back. On first glance, I didn’t understand why the Clinton camp, given the themes that have characterized this election cycle, would choose a running mate who appeals to centrists and GOP apostates turned off by the Trump ticket instead of working to galvanize a Democratic party that has made a marked shift to the left in the last twenty years. Clinton’s primary order of business, from my perspective, was to pick a VP who would rouse Sanders’ sizable base, and the strategy of instead creating a safe establishment ticket that pitches to waffling Republicans seemed to ignore where the energy is.

As it turns out, Kaine is no slouch. He practiced civil rights law for nearly two decades and is a strong supporter of immigration reform, Planned Parenthood and the Affordable Care Act. Gun control has been a key part of his political platform (he currently holds an “F” rating from the NRA, a good sign if I've ever seen one). He’s also never lost an election, which is great, because Clinton will need Virginia. He’s no Bernie Sanders, but he gets things done, even if his record doesn't make for great TV.

Still, theories abound as to why other, more popular names didn’t make the cut. Labor Secretary Tom Perez has a history of scandals. Senator Elizabeth Warren — who I think would have been a shoo-in — has her own agenda and won’t dance to the beat of Clinton’s drum (also, it turns out many of the big Democratic players who write sizeable checks absolutely hate her). Ditto on all counts for Sanders.

Then there’s New Jersey Senator Cory Booker and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, two widely popular party players who are from states where their vacant seats could conceivably go red if they up and leave for the White House, thus making a potential Democratic Senate takeover far less likely.

The decision to bypass these two top-shelf politicos illustrates, I think, what’s going on here. Clinton and her team have created a ticket aimed not only at a Democratic White House but a Democratic Senate, and this means she wants to keep the heavy hitters where they’re most effective while setting the foundation for a progressive administration that will be supported eventually by a similarly progressive Congress. Clinton has sidestepped a last-minute splash in the polls to work on the larger picture. In an election where beneath-the-belt-insults are mistaken for policy, Clinton has subverted our new reality TV political climate by offering a longterm plan and vision. A novel concept.

Call it risk disguised as safety. In an unconventional election, Clinton is taking the biggest gamble of all by hoping voters, when faced with the prospect of a Trump presidency, will come to their collective senses, just like how Clinton supporters eventually backed Obama in ’08. She’s hoping the “Bernie or Bust” crowd is all talk and will pull the lever, regardless of their grievances. Indeed, a large part of her stirring acceptance speech last night included a rousing refrain for Sanders supporters to “join us.” Clinton’s notion that “your cause is our cause” is shorthand for “we might not align on every issue, but if you want to defeat Donald Trump, I’m the only way to do it.”

And, of course, she’s right. I feel that once people begin thinking about what’s truly at stake here and what a threat to the country a Trump presidency could be, even those staunchly dissatisfied with establishment politics will see that, when faced with the prospect of an entertainer or a life-long public servant leading the country, the choice is clear. It won’t be a contest. I’m willing to bet money on it.