I recommend taking this survey/quiz thing. Be sure to click "more stances" for more multiple choice options (even if your answer is a resounding yes/no). You can also click on "learn more" to get a quick description of the issue if you're not fully aware.

http://www.isidewith.com/

Another sort of shorter one is...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec...atch-your-vote

I recommend taking both of them. You might find that you really do want Trump!

Just remember, it's not just about their ideas aligning with yours. It's also about will they be able to convince congress to do those things as well. Who up there is least naive, or most persuasive when it comes to bi-partisanship?
For me
On the either side most will be pretty good at convincing their own to do what they intend. I think Hillary Clinton will be best at getting some Republicans. On the other side, I think Trump would fail miserably at convincing Democrats as well as a good chunk of Republicans. Rand Paul would probably be best at efficiency on bi-partisanship. He's a true Republican, but he's got a decent head on his shoulders that align more with how Democrats think.

Furthermore, consider the idea that most of the Republican candidates want to basically revamp America. They want to tear it down and rebuild it.
Now...think of the many things that you can do this with and when those are good things or bad things.

Utopia for example. A province/Kingdom that has been here to yr 13 (with no necessary 'end date'), maybe you've decided that things are a bit screwed up. So you have a few monarch/leader options. There are few with similar ideas as your previous monarch but with intentions to correct the existing problems in alignment with those same ideas. There are a few who say, nope - this KD is just f'd - let's all destroy our provinces and recreate them as different races/personalities. Sure, there may definitely be reasons for the former or latter. Just think about what it all entails.