That sort of consistency is fine. We could have a reasonable debate. Might not agree at the end of it, but that's an acceptable outcome.
This "support a poor candidate in the moment because he's running against a candidate from the opposite party that you don't like, shit all over anyone who disagrees, and then act like you've discovered something new when you finally come around to the same way of thinking a decade too late" shit is getting old. We've seen it happen with Bush Jr. And McCain. And Romney. And probably Trump, too, the next time the wind changes direction.
I mean, shit, the far right is even quoting Glenn Greenwald. Go back in time to 2013 or 2008 and attempt to wrap your head around this concept.
This is not to say that changing one's position is bad, or that one should demonstrate excessive rigidity. Rather, coming around to a position that was obviously correct at some point in the past (maybe we shouldn't offshore important stuff like chip manufacturing; maybe it's a bad idea to let in 40 or 50 or 100 million immigrants at the same time that we're experiencing a boom in automation; maybe it's a bad idea to start a land war in the Middle East without a strategic goal and a plan to achieve it; maybe it's bad to give up freedom in the name of security) a decade or two after action could have been taken against said bad idea isn't all that helpful.
But, hey, if someone wants to kick off a civil war inside the party, cool. This is probably the right time to do it.