Interesting analogy. I've been thinking about Churchill's dilemma in with this very choice. He said: If Hitler invaded hell, I would find cause to compliment Satan in the House of Commons
Now, our problems seem trivial compared to what Churchill faced, we are playing tiddlywinks.
Each person has to decide for themselves who is their personal 'Hitler' or 'Stalin'. It doesn't make Hitler any less Hitler or Stalin any less Stalin, nor does it glorify each, all it is is strategic positioning yourself for the next move.
Now, this is in no way an endorsement of any candidate or voting any way, just a thought.
There are more variables to consider than just which candidate will be “better” for the next 4 years. I can give you a Republican candidate that is an exact clone of Obama, except he’s pro-life. Undeniably that candidate is better than Obama. Does it still make sense to tell to the GOP that you’re willing to support that candidate? Likewise, say you’re negotiating a contract. Do you accept the deal as soon as your contract is “better” than your previous one? Or do you sometimes stand firm and hold out for something better rather than settle?