What evidence is there of that?
The part the owns the White House almost always loses seats in Congress. That will especially be true with Romney in the White House selling out conservatives on issue after issue. We'd maintain or gain seats in Congress if Obama is re-elected.
We're stuck with a Romney or another Democrat for eight years instead of just four more with Obama.
RINOs in Congress are much more likely to betray conservatives with a liberal Republican in office than they are when a Democrat is in office. Romney will have a much easier time passing liberal legislation that Obama, especially with a shrinking number of Republicans in Congress.
So, tell us why, then, Romney is an improvement.
The Supreme Court for one. There is a very good chance that the next President will be replacing at least Ginsburg. She is far left, loony liberal and even replacing her with a squishy Kennedy-like moderate would be a VAST improvement. And ofcourse there is the chance the next President will replace one of the conservatives if they get sick, die, etc. Just the chance to replace Ginsburg with even a centrist will shift the balance on the court. And considering conservatives have had some hard learned lessons about court appointments, it is even possible Romney would be forced to cater to the right (as Presidents often do with court appointments) and nominate some real conservatives.
I get your long view reasoning. I understand the point that sometimes being in opposition is better than being stuck having to defend a standard bearer that doesn't really represent the base. We had a lot of that under Bush when he was busy pushing NCLB and an entire new prescription drug entitlement.
Unfortunately, I've lived too many places in the world and seen too much damage caused by split opposition that couldn't stop a leftist because they refused to unite. Times change, the issues at the forefront of politics will change, there is just no telling what the next 4 years will bring. All we may get out of Romney is someone that slows down the march to the left. Quite frankly, given the choice in front of us - that is enough for me. Willard is better than Obama if for no other reason than he answers to a different constituency. He may do 7 bad things for every 3 he does good. With Obama it will always just be 10 bad things. In life, sometimes you have to be pragmatic.
It made sense to me to be fiercely opposed to Romney in the primaries. We lost. We have a nominee. He is a RINO. I don't buy your argument that he IS a liberal. I think he was a liberal when it was politically expedient, I think he will be more centrist to center right as a President relying on Republicans for support. Sitting out because a mushy moderate won the nomination is no better than mushy moderates sitting out because a conservative won the nomination. We have a 2 party system with no possibility of coalition building. Most of the time the average voter will be forced to vote for the proverbial lesser of 2 evils. Try to change the system if you want, but until then this is the reality.