I think it a given we're talking about a relative factor: Romney vs. Obama. IF one thinks one or the other is a huge amount more harmful, the action becomes obvious. The less difference (in harm) one perceives, the opposite is true.
It's the difference that matters. If you see them as near equally harmful, one result and vice versa.
So we disagree on this gap. The gap can be increased in one of two ways. Either decrease the view of harm Romney will do or increase the harm Obama will do.
I believe the amount of harm Obama will do makes defeating him the most critical mission for the republic in this election. Obviously you don't. This is evidence, therefore, logically, you do not estimate the damage the same as I; and that would be in the underestimate direction - in my opinion.
The “gap” is the difference between a bullet to the brain and a bullet to the heart. So to speak.
As a moral conservative and a Christian, I don’t buy into utilitarian or morally relativistic arguments.
They’re the broad way to hell.