You are assuming that Romney would be better than Obama. I reject that assumption having become familiar with Romney's record and projecting ahead into the probable consequences of a Romney win. They are equally dangerous for America, and it is blind fear that immediately screams back, "No they're not!!!!!" Yes, in their own ways, they are, and Romney's record DEMONSTRATES IT.
An angry person is going to blame others when things don't go their way, just as if Romney loses, you will blame those of us who refused to vote for him and went third party instead. That is anger, not logic, talking. That is stomping your foot and saying, "But Romney WAS ENTITLED to your vote!!!"
And that is your mistake. There is no voting "against," and there is no "indirect vote." They are both illusions.
Voter turnout often decides elections. I was just calling voter turnout an indirect vote.
How much more clear can it be that if the voter turnout is poor for a candidate, his opponent benefits by being able to win with that many less votes. Or trying to be even more crystal clear for you, if one candidates voters do not turn out, then the election is handed to his opponent.
So yes, it is entirely factual and truthful that when a Conservative fails to support the GOP nominee, then he is helping the opposing Democrat candidate win.
This is clear as day.