So what is the "key difference" between the parties? Rhetoric. When Republicans advocate a small contraction of the welfare state, Democrats claim that Republicans totally oppose the welfare state. And many Republicans oblige them by standing up for "liberty" and "responsibility." Similarly, when Democrats advocate a small expansion in the welfare state, Republican claim that Democrats oppose free markets. And many Democrats oblige them by saying things like "markets only benefit the rich."
This rhetorical illusion is so powerful that when a Democrat like Clinton adopts many pro-market reforms, Republicans still hate him as a 60s radical. And when Bush II sharply expands the welfare state, Democrats still hate him as a billionaire's lackey.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/09/how_dems_and_re....
What now? One of them may agree with me on a single, small issue, the other doesn't. But how can I vote for that guy if I know that he's going to continue eroding everything I stand for on every other issue?
The other?
There are more than two candidates.
Even if a 3rd (or 4th or fifth) party candidate doesn't have a chance of wining, a better showing in the election makes it, at least somewhat, easier for such parties to get press coverage and admission to national debates in the future.
I disagree with that stance. It appears you do as well.
I think you and I have differing opinions about the candidates. What do you consider "good"? Has there even been a "good" candidate in the past 20, 30 years?
"Underwhelming" is a good descriptor. I've yet to experience someone describable as "good".
You didn't vote. So, the better candidate (for whom you could have voted) wasn't voted into the office. So, the worse candidate was voted into the office. You are responsible for the election of a bad candidate.
q.e.d.
Note 1: I know, analyzing quotes is useless, but I couldn't resist. Note 2: If there are only bad candidates the situation is more complex, but this is an edge case which only happens in thought experiments.