No one should tell any of the rest of us how to vote. So let me try. 🙂
I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a woman or a man. I, like you, have many female and male friends, and it is a fact that their gender does not automatically make them capable — or incapable — of being a wise President.
I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are black. Nope. I, like most of you, have friends who are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, etc. Their race has not made any of them more — or less — qualified to be President.
I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they have no political experience. Let’s face it; many of the elect have had substantial, lengthy political resumes. Resumes do not necessarily equate to wisdom nor success; resumes do not teach them how to work with other parties nor people. Hence, a political resume will not automatically garner my vote.
I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Christian or faithfully adhere to some other religion. I’ve known far too many who pick and choose which aspects of their faith to serve and observe. I’ve known far too many believers and non-believers alike whose arrogance and lack of humility was a clear, non-permeable obstruction to effective leadership.
I will not vote for anyone — or against — solely because they are a Democrat or Republican. I realize this may get somewhat trickier, but the reality is we have witnessed far too many on both sides of the proverbial, partisan aisle who have been either narcissistic, crooked, or both — none of which, with all due respect, is worthy of representing me. Sharing similar political leanings is simply not enough.
Hence, I will not vote for or against anyone solely because of their gender, race, religion, party, or other demographic factor. 

I will, however, vote for the following:
(1) Someone, as best as possible, that I believe to be ethical.
(2) Someone, as best as possible, who has demonstrated sound comprehension of economic principles. And…
(3) Someone, as best as possible, with whom I agree on multiple policy issues (…notice that I didn’t say “all” nor a single, specific one.)
In that order. That’s it.
If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether they truly comprehend the economy. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, then I cannot discern accurately whether we agree on policy positions — or if they are flip-flopping, evolving, or what. If a person isn’t perceived to be ethical, I cannot trust them to tell me the truth.
I want a candidate whose “yes” means “yes” and whose “no” means “no.” I want a person who will say what they think — as opposed to say what they think I want them to. This means more to me than consensus and agreement. (Note that I have yet to find a person with whom I agree on all things… not even in my own household.)
Too ideal for today’s culture? Too ideal for a culture where partisan politicians incite and divide more than listen and unite? Too ideal for a culture infused with a biased, 24 hour news cycle?
Back to that ideal candidate…
Did I mention I’d also like them to be a Bengals fan, support Pete Rose in the Hall of Fame, and believe Tom Brady should be suspended for “Deflategate”?
Ok… maybe I am an idealist after all.
Respectfully…
AR