I don't think Donald Trump is an ideal candidate; far from it. Given my druthers I'd like to have a real statesman running, someone who has as clear a vision as Trump does and is not afraid to articulate it the way Trump has. Someone who's not going to kowtow to the press and the special interest but instead speak to what the voters want and need, yet who has consistently articulated a nationalist or traditionalist platform through the years. But we live in an imperfect world, and Trump is the only person who is talking about doing the important and politically difficult things ("difficult" only because the D.C. establishment stands in the way). I can put up with his peculiarities only because he is focusing on the biggest problems we face right now and has a plan for dealing with them, which is more than anyone in the Republicrat party cares to do. (More than just saying, "Oh, this isn't really the problem you make it out to be," before raising taxes and removing civil liberties.)
On the plus side, "fixing the economy" is at least a reasonably definite goal. When politicians talk about space exploration this way, usually it's in the context of "we have all kinds of problems to fix on Earth, first!" which usually means poverty, war, famine, injustice, inequality, and so on--all the commie-lib-prog bugaboos which never seem to be solved regardless of how much money gets thrown at them, because they cannot be solved, ever. Jesus said it best: "The poor you will have always," He said. We spend five million dollars a minute on welfare yet there are still poor poeple in the US; that poverty is relative rather than absolute considering that an awful lot of poor people have $800 smartphones and big screen TVs.
"Fixing the economy" is a bit more tractable. 5% GDP growth and 5% unemployment--real numbers, that is, not the fake crap ladled out by the D.C. aristocracy--would mean the economy had gone a long way towards being fixed, and if our country is doing that well it would mean having a lot of money to spare for space exploration. Maybe we could then fund useful things at higher rates. (Assume NASA's annual budget is $25 billion; the feds spend that much on welfare in about four days, yet NASA is considered a waste of money by most of our politicians. Primarily because there are no votes to be bought in space.)
This is, therefore, a small deviation. Trump is still the best choice.