I understand the lesser of two evils point, but that's not what Locke suggested is the case, nor you for that matter. The lesser of two evils argument would require a Republican candidate who had similar policies to Obama, but supports them even more fervently, assuming one dislikes Obama's policies.
Locke listed some policies, implying that Romney would do the diametric opposite of each. Surely then, Romney cannot be the lesser of two evils in relation to Obama?
Assuming the polls I've seen are correct (they may not be, obviously), then Obama is simply more popular, and Locke is just going through the motions again.
Bookmarks