I'm starting to look at elections like job interviews.
At an interview, at first, you're all powered up and ready for anything. "Oh you need me to make coffee while answering the phone and completing tune-ups in the motorpool while I come up with the perfect ad campaign for adult diapers? SURE. Totally can do that."
When, in fact, Not Even.
Then the second interview you are perhaps not as formal, a little more relaxed. You let a little more of YOU peek through.
Of course, you still answer the questions in a positive, perfect world sort of way: "How would you handle *this* situation?" You give your very best answer, when in reality, you might handle it differently but OMG you want the job SO badly so you'll answer "perfectly" instead of "realistically".
Or, you answer based on your own set of experiences but then learn that it's not at all like you imagined once you're in the actual job.
This is why I usually focus on a persons characterstics and personality during interviews. Sure, their job history & skills are to be considered. To me, I am more worried about factors in the person's ability in the job they are getting Now, not the job they had. (not to ignore warning flags, for sure)
They can learn job skills, they can't necessarily learn people skills. You can have all the education and experience available, but if you're a d*ck, then it all comes to a halt. Dickishness cannot be unlearned.
So, while we wade through the last 45 days of the campaign, let's look at it like a job interview. Let's see if that makes it any more tolerable.