An Election Year Quandary

I am concerned that we are fast approaching a "no win" situation. 

For those of us (such as myself) who simply disagree philosophically with most positions to which the Democrats generally hold (i.e., larger government, abortion on demand, "spreading the wealth", political correctness, just to name a few), the November elections--should Mr. Trump be the Republican nominee (which at this point seems more and more likely)--will provide us with no choice at all. For those of us (such as myself) who would normally vote for the Republican nominee in the general election, voting for the Democrat candidate would be a vote against the governmental principles which I support. A vote for Mr. Trump would be pretty much as bad. A vote for a third party candidate (for a person such as myself, who would generally otherwise vote for the Republican nominee) would in essence be akin to casting 1/2 a vote for the Democrat nominee, since it will almost certainly be the case that either the Democrat or the Republican nominee will win the general election. Simply not voting would have the same "1/2 vote effect" as voting third party.

This is a difficult ethical position in which I find myself.  If I withhold a vote from Mr. Trump, it is in essence helping the Democrat, with whose philosophies I highly disagree.

Sometimes I wonder if people recall that before Mr. Trump announced his candidacy, he contacted the Clintons to discuss the situation with them.  Could this have been what they wanted all along?  Let's face it: Mr. Trump's political history is such that he has been on both conservative and liberal sides of many issues.  He (in theory) could have run for the nomination of either the Democrats or the Republicans.  And before Democrats start the "There's no way I would ever vote for Trump" objections, let me draw from history.  

Prior to the 1952 election, both the Democrats and the Republicans were courting the same person to be their nominee in the 1952 Presidential elections.  The person had no political history, but had great name recognition (for reasons other than those of Mr. Trump).  No less than the then-President of the United States, Harry S Truman, tried to recruit this person to run for President on the Democrat ticket.  President Truman was very supportive of this potential candidate--until the candidate chose to run as a Republican.  It was only after that point that President Truman had basically only negative things to say about that person, General Dwight Eisenhower--who indeed was elected President as a Republican, and served in that position honorably.

As for the 2016 election, what if Mr. Trump had decided to run as a Democrat?  It is my opinion that his candidacy for the nomination would likely have been much more of a threat to the candidacy of Secretary Clinton than has been the candidacy of Senator Sanders.  In fact, had all three of these people been running for the Democrat nomination, a similar splintering of the primary votes as is currently happening in the Republican field would likely have happened in the Democrat field.  As it is, Secretary Clinton seems poised to far outdistance Senator Sanders for the Democrat nomination.

And it currently appears as though Mr. Trump is headed for the Republican nomination.

Maybe this is what the Clintons hoped for all along.  After all, to this point, Mr. Trump hasn't ever topped 50% of Republican support.  If only half of the Republicans support the Republican candidate, things heavily favor the Democrat candidate in the general election.

And for people such as myself, if Mr. Trump indeed does secure the Republican nomination, we will be faced with an election year quandary as to how--or if--to vote in the general election.