Both parties definitely don’t lead to the same outcome. One party supports cutting welfare for the poor and the other party doesn’t.

This statement is inherently contradictory. So one party is for cutting welfare. If they win, welfare gets cut. If the other pary wins, welfare stays the same, or gets cut only a little (good ol across the aisle compromise). Next cycle the other party wins, welfare gets cut. Same outcome.

Now, if the other party was for increased welfare, or for stopping fracking, or for naturalizing more undocumented immigrants, or for reducing military spending, then you'd have a point. But in selling the democratic party as the alternative to vote for, you can't even bring yourself to say they stand for something positive. Best we get is that they're not actively harmful on purpose.