Ok, here’s how the scoring works. You get 33 points to allocate among the following 11 categories. A rank of 1 indicates a low ability/knowledge in the area and a rank of 5 indicates a high competence/knowledge with 3 being average. The categories you can allocate points to are:
Foreign policy
Fiscal policy
Civil rights
Welfare
Education
Health Care
Environment
Energy
Defense
Labor
Crime
Also, please include your party affiliation (if any).
The most important things I look for first is integrity, honesty, consistency, and if a candidate can understand and agree with the constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It is only after he is acceptable on the basic issues, that other things are looked at.
The issues you list can be temporary concerns, eg, defense if we are at war or not at war, depending on what the media is focusing on at the moment. Who knows what issue, and his the importance of his position on it, will be important in 2, 3 or 4 years?
I purposely excluded character traits and beliefs. Notice that the ratings indicate competence in the area, not priority so your supposition that a Presidents score in a given area will fluctuate based on world events is only true insofar as his/her competence is affected. In other words a president who is highly competent (say a 5) at issues pertinent to welfare services/reform could reasonably be expected to be a superior performer in that area. That doesn’t necessarily mean, however, that it will be a top priority for them. Current world events may dictate that popular opinion demands a higher priority for other things (like terrorism for instance). Capability is the question here. Not priority.
Foreign policy: 4
Fiscal policy: 3
Civil rights: 3
Welfare: 4
Education: 3
Health Care: 1
Environment: 4
Energy: 4
Defense: 1
Labor: 4
Crime: 2
Party affiliation: Registered Democrat, but I vote according to the candidates, not party affiliation.
I’ll vote for any candidate that fires two six-shooters into the air like Yosemite Sam at a political rally.
Re: the list, I have to cheat and group some together to really capture my views.
Foreign Policy: 9
Economic policy (Fisc., Welf., Lab., & parts of Edu., Env., Health, Crime): 11
Defense: 3
Civil rights: 5
Energy: 3
Left over bits of Edu., Env, Health, Crime: 2
Unaligned.
I think we may be making a mistake by assuming that knowledge in an area is what we want. For example, the candidate may be a constitutional lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court, and therefore is an expert on civil rights. Does that mean that she supports more civil rights, or does that mean that she knows how to get around the Constitution in order to create a more interventionist state?