comment: >
  
  If you want to understand why voters focus on superficial traits like politicians' charisma, I recommend that you read Kahneman's popular-scientific summary of his work on behavioral economics: Thinking, Fast and Slow. At the risk of oversimplifying, it is because when faced with a difficult decision or tough problem, people intuitively try to replace the problem with a surrogate, simpler problem. So instead of trying to analyze the social and economic impact of a vast array of policy proposals - a problem overwhelmingly more complex than brain surgery - people reduce it to questions such as "do I like this candidate?"
context: Just gonna quote something I saw about this topic a while ago 
  “It was once explained to me that voting is actually a pretty irrational thing to do for a lot of people. As an individual, you will never make a difference. You just lose a part of a day, in fact.
  The reason most people vote isn’t because of rational assessment of policy, but rather to affirm who they are. It’s more of an identity thing than a society thing.
  Think about it, imagine if there was a candidate that agreed with all your policy goals, but he could only get off to pictures of spiders and was very open about it. You may be pragmatic enough to vote for him, but most people are not that pragmatic at all and you’d have a lot of difficulty explaining your choice to them. It might even make you wanna find someone else” >
  
  But isn't part of pragmatism also making sure that you support a candidate which can actually win? If I can vote for a candidate which supports 100% of my policies with a 5% chance of getting elected, or a candidate which supports 75% of my policies with a 40% chance of getting elected, then the second is probably the more pragmatic choice. >
  
  Vote with your heart in the primaries.  Vote with your head in the general. >
  
  But if I'm concerned someone can't win a general election, the make-or-break point is the primary. >
  
  If your only goal is victory for your side, then that is where your heart is.
  And I don't mean that as harshly as it probably sounds - I think any Democrat in the current stable would be preferable to any GoP in their current stable.
  But I vote for the person whose values most closely align with mine in the primaries.  If they can pull through and win the nomination, then I have no worries for them in the general.
  That's why I noted in another post in this thread that complete rationality is not desirable.
  I am a white, middle aged, owner of a successful IT company.  I own 35 acres, with 3 houses.  Financially, I am in a pretty good place.
  It would be rational for me to vote Republican.  That would probably benefit me financially.
  But I don't because I find most of their positions morally repugnant.  That isn't a rational decision, it's a moral one, that I do not regret. >
  
  
  But I vote for the person whose values most closely align with mine in the primaries. If they can pull through and win the nomination, then I have no worries for them in the general.
  
  I mean, that's a valid choice to make, but I don't think it's necessarily pragmatic. Winning a primary does not mean someone can win a general election. The pool of voters is very, very different. And if someone is particularly partisan (as both you and I seem to be, at least right now), then the only real choice I'm making is in the primary (since it's already a foregone conclusion I'm voting for that party in the general).
  That said, I think any of these choices are rational since the actions align with the goals. There's nothing irrational about voting for a primary candidate because they represent you the best, or voting for a primary candidate because they're more likely to win. The logic is solid either way, or even if you vote on moral grounds or something else. Prioritizing is logical, and there's nothing contrary to that by prioritizing a moral goal over a financial goal. The pragmatism would depend on the candidates and constituency. Although perhaps I'm just splitting hairs here.