Displeased with Obama != Wouldn't vote for the guy. When the only alternative is someone like Romney (whose ass Wall Street has stuck its hand up into so far that he's called 'Mitt'), that ineffective centrist becomes slightly more appealing...
Actually in my case it does. I would write in Stewart Alexander given that Bernie Sanders chose not to run.
How about if you knew that Rick Santorum would become President of the United States if you didn't? Keep in mind that the American right-wing agrees with this sort of thing. Can't afford to be picky.
Tactical voting. That's a hard one. It's like asking me if I'd vote Tory to keep UKIP out. I probably would if it was really that close and if Rick Santorum or Rick Perry was the Republican candidate, but it would have to be a
very close race. Nine times out of ten I'd be writing in Bernie Sanders or Stewart Alexander or even Peta Lindsay depending on who chose to run.
EDIT:
Thinking about it, I dislike the Democrats so intensely I would probably end up writing in Stewart Alexander anyway. I'm usually an advocate of tactical voting but when the choices are as bad as that I'd probably just go for what I actually believe in.
It's not even remotely incorrect. Classical Liberalism became fused with Socialism during the New Deal Era, and the former name stuck while the latter did not.
Can you explain why it is correct to call American Liberals "Liberals" and not Social Democrats when they are predominantly Social Democrats? The only "Liberal" thing about them seems to be their heritage, but that smells an awful lot like calling British Labour "Socialists" because they used to be Socialist decades ago.
I suppose it is possible to be a "socially conservative" Social Democrat i.e. you advocate the redistribution of wealth and the creation of an American NHS but you disagree with drug legalisation and equal marriage, so American Liberals are "socially liberal" Social Democrats in that sense.