If I were there and eligible it would be a difficult call. I see Health as the most important issue, and the choice there is between the unenforceable and the unworkable. The only one who had it right was Kucinich. Billary is less worse.

But then there is the economy. The only way to get your economy right will be tax and spend to create domestic demand, and sort inflation later. Tax and spend could direct spending away from the places where money is hoovered up and sent to other countries as dividend, too. You desperately need that spend on infrastructure, if I read it right. You need proper unions and proper sanctions against criminal union-busters, and you need tougher competition law and cartel-busting. I don't think either candidate promises much, but there may be a smidgeon of a hope that Billary is less in the pocket of donors.

Then there's the war. De-invading may be the start of a path to reducing terrorism. You told us that about Northern Ireland and now we're telling you. You need to get out, but get out safely. McChips will keep you there for ever and probably start new wars, if allowed. I worry that Obama might make a grand gesture and leave you with another Saigon. So for me it's prudence Billary again.

Electoral reform - a desperate issue. Neither of them will do a damn thing.

At the end of the day, I'd feel that if someone has actually promised policies, there was a better chance of shaming them out of abandoning them, rather than one who simply promised a "better tomorrow". When was the last politician who promised a worse tomorrow? Was it Winston Churchill "I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears, and sweat..."