Who would you vote for: 2 Races, 5 candidates

[Pragmatic Conservative]

This is a fun political question I though I would ask.
Their are two races (you may vote for both Races)

Race 1- Two Candidates
Candidate 1- This person is highly charismatic, both media and people friendly. This individual exudes a high level of confidence, and would be someone you would personally   hang out with (define what this means to you), you relate very closley with their personality. On top of this they are known to be highly transparent, and demonstrate  a high  level of morals/ethics(define what this means to you). However the one problem is this persons platform almost completely goes against your political beliefs/opinions(define what this means to you).

Candidate 2-This person while sharing nearly the exact  same political beliefs/opinions as you (define what this means to you), is noted as not being overly charismatic. This individual has been known not to be highly transparent, and on many occasions their ethics/morals (define what this means to you) have been brought into question . You generally do not relate with their personality, nor would you hang out with them.(define what this means to you)  


Race 2
(this question was an email I saw at one point )

Candidate 1 - Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologists. He's had two Mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.

Candidate 2 - He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon, used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.

Candidate 3 - He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.


In this race these are the only candidates allowed,  their is no write in option

[H. Ross Peron]

For Race 2 they are FDR, Churchill, and Hitler respectively I believe.

[dead0man]

I'd rather vote for a "good" person that disagrees with me politically over a piece of sh**t that agrees with me.

and I'd vote the third one, unless, ya know, he wanted to kill all the Jews or something.

[ElectionsGuy]

1: 2 (I vote on policy exclusively)
2: 3

[Mr. Reactionary]

1: 2 (I vote on policy exclusively)
2: 3

[OSR stands with Israel]

1: 2 (I vote on policy exclusively)
2: 3

[Clark Kent]

1: 2 (I vote on policy exclusively)
2: 3

[Vosem]

I'd vote for someone who'll enact the policies I want, thank you. Person 2 in Race 1. And as for Race 2:

I'd vote the third one, unless, ya know, he wanted to kill all the Jews or something.

[Intell]

Race 1- Candidate 1
Race 2- 3

[angus]

First race, definitely candidate 1.  I go with good judgment over all other considerations.  It's not entirely clear from your description which would have more, so I made an executive decision and decided that candidate 1 has better judgment than candidate 2.

Second race, clearly none of them have good judgment, so then we have to look at other considerations.  I'll have to go with candidate 1 in that one as well.  For all his problems, at least he hasn't yet been kicked out of office and he is not a vegetarian. 

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

1: 2 (I vote on policy exclusively)
2: 3

Unless, of course, 3 happens to be a modern-day Hitler.

[Goldwater]

1: 2
2: 2 (3 sounds a bit too pure, if that makes sense.)

[Sumner 1868]

I suppose it would depend on exactly what level of depravity candidate 2 is at. If it's bad enough, I could see myself picking candidate 1.

[/]

Hitler had a wife for like five minutes