Remember the last time you felt that no matter which presidential candidate won the election, things were going to be OK in your little corner of the world?

It’s been a while, hasn’t it?

We’re just over two weeks away from the Nov. 5 election and try as I might, I’m still a bit queasy about the prospect of either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris becoming the 47th president of the United States.

Are these really the best candidates America can produce? I say no.

The Republicans have signed on a third try with Trump. We know what we’re getting with him. He’s often crass and frequently obnoxious and — as Democrats like to remind us over and over again — he’s a convicted felon. But all the people — mostly hardcore leftists, celebrities, entertainers and a few right-wing never Trumpers — who predicted World War III if he defeated Hillary Clinton were simply wrong.

Trump’s tax cuts and efforts toward deregulation at least partially contributed to an economy that was chugging along nicely until COVID-19 reached our shores and threw the United States and the entire world into disarray.

Mostly, Trump was his own worst enemy in office, during his failed 2020 reelection bid and certainly immediately thereafter as he tried to convince everyone that the election was stolen. The Jan. 6 riots also damaged Trump’s standing — even among some big-name fellow Republicans at the time, and rightly so.

But by the time the Republican primaries came around earlier this year, the GOP quickly settled on Trump as the party’s nominee, even as he faced criminal and civil court cases and continues to be more than a bit “truth challenged”?

The poorly hidden decline of President Joe Biden also helped make a third Trump run happen. Despite ongoing anecdotal evidence that Biden’s mental and physical abilities had begun to get worse, those around him — including Harris — insisted he was as sharp and engaged as he ever was.

That was the story most Democrats stuck with right up until the moment they couldn’t do so any longer — when Biden stepped onto the stage to debate Trump on June 27. But it wasn’t just that Biden lost the debate and looked old, tired and even feeble under those lights on live television. The calls for him to step down began as whispers in the days after the debate, but they didn’t become shouts until polling data appeared to hint that there was no way Biden was going to win the rematch.

Joe and Jill Biden — and even Hunter — circled the wagons at first, but Joe later buckled to what had to be enormous pressure. Once the presidential polling went south for the Democrats, Biden’s usefulness was gone.

So the Democrats anointed Harris as their new and better candidate and she eventually selected the mostly uninspiring Tim Walz as her running mate.

But unlike Trump, who never saw a microphone he didn’t like (unless it was from “60 Minutes),” Harris spent most of the summer and early fall saying little about her plans and policies should she become America’s first female president. It seemed like the Harris campaign decided that the less she said in public, the better. In some ways, it called to mind Biden’s “basement” campaign in 2020.

Biden’s decline was sad to watch, and Harris frankly isn’t much better in front of the cameras with her steady diet of word salads and nervous laugh.

The problem with Harris is that when she sits for interviews, what she says is heavy on platitudes (“joy” and “an opportunity economy”) and light on details (“I was raised in a middle-class family.”) Harris gets around that with “friendly” interviewers like Stephen Colbert, Howard Stern and “The View.” She even did a podcast known as “Call Her Daddy.” Harris faced a steady diet of softballs in those appearances.

But Bill Whitaker of “60 Minutes” asked difficult and pointed questions, including some about Harris’ policy flip-flops — there have been plenty — and tried to get into specifics on what her administration might look like if she wins.

It didn’t go well. Harris seemed unprepared for the grilling she received from Whitaker. It shouldn’t have been a surprise to the candidate nor her handlers. “60 Minutes” has had a reputation for getting to the heart of these matters — and others — for decades.

But, of course, Whitaker’s approach was not appreciated by everyone at CBS News, and there were some edits to Harris’ interview, even after some of the original clips were made public.

Also troubling has been Harris’ insistence that she can find nothing that she would do differently than Joe Biden did in his term.

Really? Not a single thing? Oof.

This week, it became apparent that Harris’ support among black men is not where her camp needs and wants it to be. An Associated Press story carried the headline: “Harris announces a new plan to empower black men as she tries to energize them to vote for her.”

Just last week, former President Barack Obama — who supports Harris — suggested per AP that some black men “aren’t feeling the idea of having a woman as president.”

So in a campaign stop Monday in Erie, Pa., Harris announced “a plan to give black men more economic opportunities and other chances to thrive as she works to energize a key voting bloc that has Democrats concerned about a lack of enthusiasm.”

Harris’ plan, according to AP, “includes providing forgivable business loans for black entrepreneurs, creating more apprenticeships and studying sickle cell and other diseases to disproportionately affect African American men.”

The story notes that Harris already has said she supports legalizing marijuana and her plan calls for ensuring that black men have opportunities to participate as a “national cannabis industry takes shape.”

Never mind how many black men Harris sent to prison for drug crimes when she was California’s attorney general. That’s one of her biggest flip-flops.

Harris’ “new plan” seems more like a last-gasp attempt to shore up a voting bloc that may not be as wild about her as her camp expected. Didn’t black men need business opportunities and research into a possible sickle cell cure before? She’s just now figuring this out?

Kamala Harris or Donald Trump will be elected president on Nov. 5 — or perhaps a few days later, since we suddenly seem unable to count votes on Election Night.

Either way, I’m not thrilled. I’m a little uneasy about what’s going to happen in my little corner of the country no matter how this all turns out.

I can’t help thinking we should have better choices.

Ed Puskas is editor of the Tribune Chronicle and Vindicator. Write him at epuskas@tribtoday.com.