How did this happen? I think it was because people who normally didn't vote who watch reality television and think it's okay to call people names, as long as it is funny, voted in the Republican primaries. That, and there were several very similar candidates running against each other. Cruz, Rubio, Carson, Fiorini, etc. were all for the good social conservative stuff on abortion, family values, etc. Christi sounded tough, but he was out-toughed by Donald Trump. The vote for a regular conservative candidate was divided up among ideologically similar candidates. The reality-TV watchers outnumbered each of the other candidates. Last time, the choice was between Obama and a Mormon. I think that was a more difficult choice for me, even though the Mormon had at least some decent 'family values' that he mildly held to. He'd been soft on abortion in the past. Since presidental nominees are not immortal, if you are faced with two equally unappealing presidential candidates, does it make sense to vote based on the VP candidate?What if Trump got elected, took the job, felt satisfied that he got elected president, and decided to just quit and be the contractor for the best wall in history? Then we'd have his VP candidate. Why not vote based on the VP?We could do a 'protest vote' and vote for some minority candidate (who isn't in favor of killing babies), but we know that won't result in a candidate who can be president this go-around.Another concern is judges. Hillary Clinton seems to have a left-wing agenda. Trump seems to have a Trump agenda. Which one is worse for the courts? Someone with no particular political agenda choosing whatever judges he likes, or a left-winger with a specific agenda appointing pro-baby-murder, pro-sexual-perversion judges. I think appointing (professional qualified) judges at random is better than letting a left-wing idealogue appoint them. Let's pray for both candidates