It's worth noting that in the end, what Democrats and Republicans differ on--at least what I think their key difference is now--is the judiciary. Argue all you want about the Party of Labor (we don't really have one) and the Party of Owners (the truth of our "one party" system); the single important thing to vote for is a Party that appoints a judiciary that holds these truths to be self-evident--life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--FOR EACH PERSON--not the "faux" person-hood conferred on corporations. In other words--if our elected representatives won't really stand up for the benefit of the people over their own interests and the interests of the industry that writes the the biggest check then we have only the judiciary left to safe-guard us who (in the broadest definition) are the "have nots".
Judges are, like all of us, somewhat ideological in their reasoning--they cite legislative history and prior precedent to make their case, but often with the intention of serving their ideology--both left and right. There's a study that does show it's a "more liberal" tendency to site legislative history and a "more conservative" one to reason based on ideology ("reason" and "ideology", hmmm) but one imagines these not broad differences.
So, I believe that an individual should have a strong advocate in the courts and that rights should not be trammeled by "economic" or "corporate" will.
Well, looks like we (if you're like me) might be in real trouble even though we have a Democrat as President and a Democratic Congress.
We really could use some liberal judges to balance the conservative tendencies currently operating in the courts.