Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

Don’t let your minds be kil­led, but I was won­der­ing if there were any ex­is­ten­tial risk an­gles to the com­ing Amer­i­can elec­tion (if there isn’t, then I’ll sim­ply re­treat to raw, en­joy­able and empty trib­al­ism).

I can see three (quite ten­u­ous) an­gles:

  1. Obama seems more likely to at­tempt to get some sort of global warm­ing agree­ment. While not di­rectly re­lated to Xrisks per se, this would lead to bet­ter global co­or­di­na­tion and agree­ment, which im­proves the out­look for a lot of other Xrisks. How­ever, pretty un­likely to suc­ceed.

  2. I have a men­tal image that Repub­li­cans would be more likely to in­vest in space ex­plo­ra­tion. This is a lot due to Newt Gin­grich, I have to ad­mit, and to the close­ness be­tween civilian and mil­i­tary space pro­jects, the last of which are more likely to get boosts in Repub­li­can gov­ern­ments.

  3. If we are hold­ing out for in­creased pop­u­la­tion ra­tio­nal­ity as be­ing a helping fac­tor for some Xrisks, then the fact the the Repub­li­cans have gone so strongly anti-sci­ence is cer­tainly a bad sign. But on the other hand, its not clear whether them win­ning or los­ing the elec­tion is more likely to im­prove the gen­eral en­vi­ron­ment for sci­ence among their sup­port­ers.

But these all seem weak fac­tors. So, less wronger, let me know: are the things I should care about in the elec­tion, or can I just lie back and en­joy it as a piece of in­ter­est­ing the­atre?