One perennial feature of presidential election season is the forecast of doom if the other party’s candidate wins. These forecasts are inevitably extreme, often nonsensical, and easily ignored by most voters.

The hyperbole this time around seems richer than ever. Democrats have bet the house on convincing voters that the reelection of Donald Trump will destroy our country — that he poses an “existential” threat, will be a dictator, will eradicate democracy, will cancel the Constitution, persecute and jail his opponents, etc. At the tail end of a dismal four-year administration, they have little else to run on.

Surely, no one really believes all of that, but the core message pitched incessantly by Democrats — that voters should be very much afraid of a Trump victory — just as surely has taken hold.

Meanwhile, on the other side, Republicans are working overtime to convince the electorate that electing Kamala Harris is akin to putting a student driver behind the wheel in midtown NYC rush hour traffic — that is, she would be totally out of her depth, an accident waiting to happen.

But in fact, neither Trump nor Harris is new on the scene. We’ve seen them both in action. So, as we head for the polls, now is a good time to tune out the political chatter and take a more realistic view of a Trump or a Harris victory. Here’s my view. Trump first:

A second Trump administration will be vastly tamer than that fantasized by his opponents. How boring: no police state, no martial law, no dragnet to pick up and incarcerate his enemies. Any legal actions against members of the prior administration will be trivial compared to the lawfare leveled against him over the past two years.

But it will be no picnic, that’s for sure. The problems Trump keeps railing about are deep-rooted and will take time to heal. His promised shift in energy policy will reinvigorate healthy use of fossil fuels and reduce spending and dependence on green energy, which in turn will help to stabilize and reduce energy prices. His taxation policies will strengthen the U.S. economy as they did in his first term. But neither will yield immediate results.

Trump will quickly stem the flood of illegal immigration, but his bigger challenge will be dealing with illegal immigrants already here. He has glibly promised massive deportation. That is wildly popular among his core supporters but extraordinarily difficult — and surely controversial — to fulfill. In his in-depth interview last week with the Wall Street Journal editorial board, Trump hinted at a more selective deportation strategy, targeting the criminals among them rather than those who prove themselves to be productive, (otherwise) law-abiding residents.

Like it or not, our nation is complicit in the illegal immigration mess — in effect, we invited the migrants, opening the door and making it clear that we would allow them to stay. Many came at great personal risk and cost. Rather than a massive deportation program, I believe a better approach would be a comprehensive process to identify, vet, and register all those here illegally, provide work permits and U.S. benefits, but without a path to citizenship — and, of course, no voting privileges. Any who have criminal records or who commit crimes while here would be subject to immediate deportation. That would be a more humane approach, less than satisfying, but the price we must pay for four years of open borders.

A Harris administration would be less exciting than a return to Trump but, in my view, riskier and more harmful in the long term. It would resemble a continuation of the Biden administration — if anything, with a further tilt to the left. In her campaign, she identified no fundamental changes, so we must expect to continue plodding along with the same debilitating economic and energy policies.

The U.S. presidency is an extraordinarily challenging executive position, and Harris has zero executive experience and has demonstrated no talent for it. Consequently, she would be heavily dependent upon unelected (and largely invisible) advisors — of the same ilk that pulled the supposedly moderate Joe Biden so far to the left during his term in office.

In the foreign policy arena, we can expect that a Harris administration would be more tentative than a Trump administration and largely reactive — taking action to fill the potholes as they reveal themselves rather than proactive prevention. Allies and adversaries would be watching our behavior and quite possibly testing us rather than heeding unambiguous advance communication from our president.

In my view, the greatest risk of a Harris administration is the potential for a big mistake, miscue, wrong action, or inaction that could suddenly plunge the country into war or economic recession — the unintended consequence of a leader not up to the job.

The bottom line is that the election of either candidate does not mean the end of the world as we know it. In fact, once the election is over, the election hyperbole will be quickly forgotten, replaced by here-and-now issues.

But make no mistake: The electorate’s choice in two weeks, both for president and for leadership in the House and Senate, will make a huge difference in the direction of our country. Don’t vote based on promises for a quick fix. Vote for the overall health of the country and the future of the next generations.