Well, I'm not sure... yet. But here's what I am sure of:
It is quite stupid to vote for the greater evil as a means of protest, in hope that your party will learn something. Fact is, parties have been not learning anything for the past 200 years. Why else do we have such a broad ideological range of candidates? Because issues don't sell in America; style and persona does. What else explains the Huckaboom? GOP primary voters don't typically vote for big nanny-state liberals, but they sure did in Iowa.
As for me, I focus on the issues. Not just one, but several that are important to me. Which is why I'm leaning toward Mitt Romney, a bitter-sweet candidate strong on the economy and defense, shady on gun rights, and questionable on other social policies since he'll say virtually anything for a vote. So why in hell would I support Mitt Romney?
Because we rarely get exactly what we want in a candidate, so we either play it smart and vote for those most compatible while lobbying him and the party to become more in line with your views. Or you can help ensure more life-time appointed federal judges very similar to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. -Yeah, that sounds like a plan.
I'm not saying I'm supporting Mitt as of now, but I am saying I could. I don't trust him when it comes to gun rights or abortion, but I do trust him on the economy, immigration, and defense. And that's more of my trust than any other candidate has right now.