For Quartz, I wrote about how the phrase “anti-establishment” has lost all meaning:

The 2016 election is unprecedented on a number of levels. The two candidates with the most delegates, Clinton and Trump, are the two least-favorably rated front-runners in American history. They are disliked not only by the traditional opposition, but by members of their own party. Left-wing websites like Salon are encouraging readers to vote for Trump against Clinton and right-wing Fox News is encouraging voters to back Clinton against Trump. The number of independents voters has soared since 2008, and now stands at a record 43%, constituting the largest group of voters.

With party loyalty flagging and reliable alliances hard to come by, the only consistency in the 2016 election has been a bipartisan loathing for “the establishment”—an entity each candidate desperately tries to distance themselves from. But in an election powered by voters weighing the lesser of two evils, does speaking out against the establishment–whatever that is—really mean anything anymore? And if not, why does the act of doing so continue to enjoy such widespread appeal?

Find out at Quartz!