This is a continuation of a discussion on Facebook. I've got a bit more to say on the subject so I thought I should start my own thread.
In a nutshell the debate is whether it's best to vote for your favored party, even if the candidate is not a strong advocate for your basic principals, to avoid a victory by the other party. I submit that it is not.
It's been said that "party trumps person". I'd say that ideas and ideals trump both party and person. Parties and people come and go. Ideas, both good and bad, linger on. That's the real battlefield.
If more people believe that individual freedom, with all its risks, will lead to a better quality of life than central control, they will support individuals that promote individual freedom over central control. Simply convincing them that party A is good and party B is bad may win an election, but does not advance the cause of the war.
Some progressives openly admit that they are progressives. That means they are working within the system, to change the system, to one where we collectively, through our government, provide for everyone's essential needs (as determined by the government). A progressive Republican is no more appealing to me than a progressive Democrat, and I'll support a Democrat that convinces me that he or she is ready, willing and able to work to defeat the progressive movement.
If we do all we can to educate and influence people with regard to the basic principals and merits of individual freedom, and the people reject it, we lose and the consequences will be dire. That's the risk you run when you step into the arena. But it's better to fight and lose than to not fight for fear of losing. As someone who was fodder for bullies in my youth, I can attest to that. I brought misery upon myself by avoiding the fight, rather than engaging in it. Don't settle for "less wrong" because you fear "more wrong". Take wrong off the table.