Dear Vet, I've already FACED the only alternative conservatives will have, faced it and accepted it. The CHALLENGE is to convince good people like you that it IS an alternative. :^)
The alternative is to skip playing that loser's game of voting for a Republican to do what you abhor on the pretense that "it's better than a Democrat doing what I abhor," and to instead VOTE FOR A THIRD PARTY LIMITED GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVE with the complete understanding that the operation will have been a success if that third party vote does what Perot did and split the vote into a plurality. Perot's voters unwittingly HELPED conservatism by making Clinton weak -- the clear majority of Americans were opposed to Clinton BOTH TIMES he was elected, though the MSM has spun the myth that he was a "popular" president.
The facts are that Clinton was never "popular" enough to get a majority of voters!!!! What the media narrative is and what the truth is are very different, yet conservatives right here on FR drink the "Clinton was popular!" myth like koolaid!!!
"Popular" my foot!!! He was popular with the media. That's different than being popular with Americans. Clinton was OPPOSED by the clear majority, rejected by most American voters BOTH TIMES he was elected, and it made him weak. He was dominated by the Republican Revolution (emboldened as well when left-leaning Dole and Bush lost, which proved that Americans rejected them as well as left-leaning Democrats) and then he was IMPEACHED.
PLEASE think of these things when considering the alternative in 2016, because very likely, the GOP is going to nominate a functional Democrat Republican and I and millions of other Americans will refuse to vote for him the same as they refused to vote for either Clinton or Bush/Dole so long ago, and the same as they/I refused to vote for Romney in 2012.
If our limited government third party candidate actually wins, so much the better. But if all that candidate does is split the vote into a plurality so that whichever big government-pushing tyrant wins, the Democrat or the Republican, goes into office with a clear majority of Americans on record as rejecting that president. That would be preferable to a majority mandate for either the Democrat or the Republican IF the Republican is a Jeb, Romney, Christie, etc.
Again, I HAVE ALREADY COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE. You just don't want to consider it.
Vet, ask yourself: If Romney had won with a majority in 2012 instead of Obama, do you really think the mid terms would have resulted in the kinds of Republican gains we saw in 2014?