Many people habitually vote for a political party, while others focus on the individual seeking to represent each side. Some merely follow their parents‘ example. Over recent decades, population growth, demographic changes, and differing personal circumstances have caused the traditional parties to recognize new constituencies in order to remain relevant. Leaders of 50 years ago would not recognize the varied present-day sources of support – or the massive funding required for solicitation using modern communications technology. Certain interest groups (age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, income, vocation, religion, location, etc.) advance their own agendas through multi-media that debase the traditional spirit of negotiated American unity. Grab-bag instincts factionalize public thinking to the lowest level, the very opposite of comprehensive Presidential perspective and judgment. What combination of legislative will and executive responsibility is best for the nation as a whole at this time? One side knows what to expect from a leader vowing to repeat previously demonstrated full-term accomplishment. The other, suddenly introducing a substitute candidate lacking a convincing leadership record, must rely on “trust me” appeal subject to hastily conceived platform definition on the fly just two months prior to Election Day. Is early voting advisable in this unusual scenario? Phil Osifer