"that seems like quite a stretch though. republicans have little respect for civil liberties. even economically, they are not capitalist."

"quite a stretch"? Let's look at the alternative. Nationalizing auto companies. Continuing the bailouts (wrong in the past, wrong now, but Democrats and Obama in particular aren't even rhetorically against interfering in the economy in general). Taking over a sixth of the economy. Tire tariffs. Freedom-of-speech restrictions like the fairness doctrine, or limitations on political speech by corporations (but not media companies, of course, they're needed for political support!), unions, groups like Citizens United or whoever. What happened to "no law abridging the freedom of speech"? (McCain's completely wrong on this, by the way, as was Bush for signing one of the latest restrictions.) Making every effort as a party platform (actual representatives can be much squishier, thankfully) to see that a right which "shall not be infringed", is, as far as possible, even to outright prohibition. Civil liberties support? They seem to be missing one very clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. An overarching and fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the federal government, whose powers are "few and defined". Encroachments upon the rights of the states (yes, Republicans do this sometimes, but much less often and to a much lesser extent; Democrats don't even make a show of this, except when feebly attempting to rationalize gun control). Far more pernicious overreaching supposedly permitted under the Commerce Clause, with much more widespread and extensive effect, than the vast majority of Republican transgressions in this respect. A lack of understanding of basic economics: that you can't create equality without introducing huge incentives against working (tax increases foster avoidance), that there are no magic wands to make the poor not so (minimum wage is particularly misguided here), and that taxes are their constituents' money, not simply theirs to spend. And, of course, that it is immoral to attempt to create equality through income redistribution, because people are entitled to nothing more than the fruits of their labors (the permanently disabled might be an exception, but rhetoric and legislation is way past that possible dividing line). Support for sin taxes far beyond the point where they might be rational to correct negative externalities (tobacco).

Overall, I see nothing in the Democrat platform that demonstrates support for economic liberty. I see nothing for speech they happen to dislike or find inconvenient. I see nothing for the enumerated right to keep and bear arms. I see no attempt whatsoever to restrict government to the powers reserved to the federal government, leaving the vast majority to the states. All I see, sometimes, are greater rhetorical support for restrictions on the police power, restrictions at the margin whose importance is minimal to non-existent for the average citizen, and which generally only take effect during efforts to provide for the "common Defence" (which is an enumerated power, which inclines me to be more generous when considering oversteps).

And yes, Republicans overreach at times. But: it often is in execution of enumerated powers of the federal government (and in any case reasonable people can disagree about the precise extents of the imprecise language of the Bill of Rights), so at least they're doing the wrong thing for the right reason (versus the wrong thing for the wrong reason), and as noted these overreaches affect far, far fewer people. Also, as a practical concern, what I say can have effect in changing views among Republicans. Nearly all the basic premises of my beliefs will be laughed out of town among Democrats.

So: why would I ever support the only electorally capable alternative?