I wish it were possible to shift people's thinking about presidential elections: Instead of framing the question in terms of who the president ought to be, one ought to think of it as a choice between two different potential administrations. Enough presidential power is delegated to the various Secretaries, that framing the vote as a decision between individuals serving in the office of president produces widespread error. It is technically correct, but it is a poor way of framing the choice if your goal is to produce correct decisions on the part of the electorate.
Indeed, this is one of the advantages that parliamentary systems have: People in parliamentary systems know they are voting for a party, not for a PM.
While I do not esp. love Joe Biden, and think he actually suffers from many of Trump's vices without the accompanying sense of humor, I can see why people would prefer him to Trump if they were esp. sensitive to, well, breaches of politeness and decorum. The man did say some offensive things though, in the interest of fairness, the media often distorted what he said to make it much, much more offensive than it was in its original context. However, when you cast the decision as a choice of administrations, take on a different hue.
As an example, I personally rather like Tulsi Gabbard. If I were better situated in life, more popular, and more attractive, I would happily socialize with her: However, if I think about the administration she would bring in, I would be much less likely to allow fondness to get in the way.
This way of framing the question also works the other way, while I know many find Trump to be far more charismatic than Desantis, it is hard to believe that a Desantis administration would not be more effective than a second Trump administration.
We need to change the way we teach kids civics: By telling kids that you “vote for the president” we are half lying to them, and making them think that presidents wield far more direct power than they presently do.