Are policy positions the main factor in choosing the candidate YOU want to support?

[Alben Barkley]

No actually. I view voting for president as hiring someone for a job. The job of the president involves handling foreign policy, preserving/protecting/defending the US Constitution, and having massive influence over domestic policy and the courts. A stable, intelligent, rational, empathetic, good person is critical for this job. You have to meet these minimum job requirements for me to even consider voting for you. Trump is the exact opposite of all these things; thus, even if I agreed with him on policy, I would never vote for him. In an election like 2012, both candidates met the bare minimum standard for being able to do the basic job requirements of a president, so I could be more particular about who I thought had a better ideology and policy ideas and thus preferred Obama.

Ever since, however, the choice has been a complete no-brainer. It's like choosing between a candidate who shows up with an impeccable resume, years of experience, nails the interview, and has a kind and solid demeanor on the one hand; and an unhinged asshole who shows up to the interview late and drunk, spouts off incoherently in response to every question, has no experience and no respect on the other hand. The latter candidate would be crossed off the list swiftly when interviewing for a position as a McDonald's fry cook. The fact that there are otherwise smart, decent people in this country who are willing to hand the keys to the nuclear codes to such a person anyway (as evidenced by this thread; Sanchez and Aurelius are not idiots) is absolutely beyond my comprehension completely.