I've given this a lot of thought since 2000, especially in light of my vote at the time for Nader. The welfare reform act and Lieberman's 'Hollywood is evil' act turned me off. I also bought into the argument that only by growing a strong progressive third party could the Democratic party be forced to take a look at itself and begin much needed reforms.
It also seemed a safe protest: I was living in NYC at the time (recently abandoned for Milwaukee thanks to the crappy economy), and Bush was way too big of an idiot and asshole for Americans to fall for his campaign. You know the rest.
This confession may lead you to discount my 2 cents from here on out, and I wouldn't blame you. I have, in the past, voted following my ideals, often filling out ballots for candidates who had no chance to win, but were representing a message I believed in. That's not going to happen this year. It's ABB this time. I'm not going to say "Go '***'" here, anybody who's read my meager posts here knows who I support.
I support the candidate I do because I've read his positions, weighed the ones I like against the ones I don't, and added my understanding of his campaign's tone, style and tactics to the equation. I've learned, through postings here and elsewhere, things about my candidate that I don't like, but also things about him that make me glad so far with my decision. If I ever work again in time, I'll be throwing hard-earned ducats his way.
Many folks here, in their diaries and in their thread postings, make powerful and passionate arguments for make or break issues that determine their support. Others for cold, hard breakdowns over tactics. That we have such an even mix of the two contributes to the passion of the debates and enables us all to learn more as we go along.
Anyway, how do you decide? Let your heart guide your hand to the lever, or hold your nose and make compromises. Or is this a false choice?