I don't see how who sits in a position, mostly ineffectively, is more important than internet censorship, disregard for internet privacy, and other various foot-to-ground policies and their corporeal enforcement. As I've said before, neither Trump, Hillary, nor even Jill Stein, was ever going to come to every community, teach every child how to read, give every individual a place to live and/or work, every community an outreach center or social structure... no, that was never going to happen as the "president" level, that is solely reserved for community and city and, to a lesser degree, state. I say lesser degree, because 50 randomly massive individual governments doing different things can in fact be a bother, so there's few things they should enforce that the federal doesn't (and very few things the federal should, meaning both should enforce in a hands-off-other's-lifestyle manner). The one thing I can think the state should do, is represent the multiple communities at the federal level as a liaison. They should have almost no "flavor" laws. Looking at you, "acts against nature" law in Michigan, which is in direct violation of the SCOTUS ruling in Lawrence vs Texas. That's probably the worst thing about certain issues. Is that crummy suit-politicians got everywhere, or very colorful character politicians. Goes for both sides, like De Leon, or Abbott, both have pros and cons but both/either could have no cons at all if they conceded liberties they shouldn't lay their pecker-beaters upon. Like gun control based on hardware limitations. Or abortion and bathroom enforcement. Ridiculous to think this is why we pay politicians more than I make in 3 years, not including their agenda-based stock portfolios. I'd do it for free, if it meant I could scrap unnecessary laws.