there was an absolutely objectively better choice.

That doesn't matter. Like I said, I do not believe in Lesser Evilism. Lesser Evilism tells us to betray our allies if we see an advantage and I don't believe that's a viable long-term strategy.

That is unless you have the mindset of “just tear it all down”, in which case, you reek of hypocrisy

Neither part of that is accurate. There is nothing hypocritical in opposing the state and opposing the state doesn't necessarily mean "just tear it all down."

Policy is determined by the balance of power between classes. Who's in charge is a secondary concern. When FDR implemented the New Deal, that could only get past the political establishment in Congress (and was only something he considered doing, as he was also from the political establishment) because the economic crisis of the Depression had weakened them, and there was a fear of collective action, even revolution. That is why the New Deal policies continued regardless of which party was in power.

Conditions shifted after things like the AFL/CIO purging communists, which weakened the power of organized labor. At that point, the ruling class was able to start destroying them through anti-union and neoliberal policies, because they couldn't fight back. Although Reagan is the face of that, the shift began under Carter and would be upheld under Clinton. It was the material conditions and the relative strength and organization of the classes which determined both the bipartisan creation of the New Deal and the bipartisan destruction of it.

When The Black Panthers started giving free breakfasts to kids, the government did everything they could to stop it, destroying the food, spreading misinformation that it was poisoned, etc. But eventually they realized that as long as children were going hungry, it wasn't going to be possible to convince or propagandize families to keep them away from free food. So the government instead stopped the Panthers by implementing its own free breakfast program. Decades later, with the Panthers no longer around, the government's free breakfasts have disappeared. Once again, it's not a question of who held office and what they wanted, but of the relative power and organization of the classes.

None of those examples required "tearing it all down," although in some cases the threat of that existed. It would be naive to pin all one's hopes on some great revolution, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing to be gained from strengthening ourselves and shifting the balance of power, while working towards a future where that threat is a little less inconceivable.

I am not against supporting cooperative elements within the state, but that is always secondary to class conflict. I'm not going to allow my positions to be defined along the lines of electoral politics, unless doing so is not toxic to the non-electoral approach. Therefore, it's not just about who's the lesser evil, but about whether endorsing someone is going to disrupt efforts at building solidarity.