As I said, your position is defensible. However, I disagree that sitting out an election is irrational or illogical. And while you're free to opine that allowing dems to be elected can lead to a more conservative candidate doesn't make sense; history does not bear you out. It was Carter's incompetent, self-loathing, vacillating administration that directly paved the way for Reagan. It not only enabled Reagan to prevail in the general election, but it also allowed him to win the nomination over Bush 41 and a host of moderate contenders. There's also the fact that the klinton adminstration's initial leftward lurch, such as attempting to socialize health care, using the military for social engineering, and raising taxes ("contributions" in klinton-speak) led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Had we fielded a better candidate in 1996, we would have booted klinton out after one term. As it was, Congress largely kept him in check, though he had the gall to claim the prosperity of the 90s as his legacy (a largely unsuccessful effort since anybody with half a brain could see that he had as much to do with that as a rooster's crowing causes the sun to rise).
However, the point is that both sides are defensible and that good conservatives will be found on each side.
Again - no logic from you - just wishful drivel.