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

[WalterWhite]

Do you value policy positions most, or do you value something else above that?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Generally speaking, yes, but being a force of nature (like Trump) is a benefit.

[darklordoftech]

Yes by far.

[Aurelius2]

By far, which is why I am supporting someone as vexing and (at times) infuriating as Trump.

[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.

[WalterWhite]

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.

They probably hope that checks and balances would prevent ANY candidate from doing anything extremely stupid, such as starting a nuclear war.

[Vice President Christian Man]

Definitely although the way one presents themselves is important too.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Usually, though a willingness to confront the enemy (or at least acknowledge them as the enemy) is also key, and part of why I'd prefer even someone like Gavin Newsom to Joe Biden as a nominee.

[Ferguson97]

Policy positions are why I choose the Democrats over the Republicans.

Electability and leadership are why I choose candidates in primaries.

[Del Tachi]

The main factor for me is "vibes."

[sting in the rafters]

I choose whomever advances my goal of becoming a student debt-free homeowner with affordable health insurance and good PTO/sick leave before my first gray hair

[BigZuck08]

Yes.

[Sheikh Scott Walker]

My top priority is getting someone who can win. It doesn't matter how based someone's policy is if they can't win an election to implement it. With the current state of polarization, any Republican is far better than any Democrat, meaning that the main factor is simply their odds of winning.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I wish I could be this idealistic anymore, but now my main foremost criteria for supporting someone is who can best keep a Republican out of office.