Party Politics in the U.S. and Utah

I made a genuine fool of myself today--actually, I did something which public speakers usually call "eating the microphone".
It was during a group discussion in one of my classes where we talked about the two party system in the U.S. and gave opinions on pros and cons to this and how it related to the voting system the U.S. has in place.
Long story short I was inserting a comment into my group's discussion, and although I knew generally what I was talking about, I did a very horrible job of explaining it. I fumbled over the explanation and made the assumtion "I'm doing a horrible job of explaining this but I'm sure you guys know what I'm saying". And one of the people in my group said "No...well, I'm still a little confused."
--I simply couldn't put into words what I wanted to comment on and it reached a point where I gave up trying. In public speaking if you get stumbled like that the proper response is "I'm not sure where I am going with this, give me a moment and I will come back to you" --but I didn't even do that. I just talked until I ate the microphone and people got so lost and confused that they didn't care what I had to say anymore.

Now I want to have another go at it:
My intended comment was this: In U.S. politics, with the way we have a two party system, our diversity in candidates comes from the primary elections in the two parties. --the two main parties (democrats and republicans) have several potential candidates for the general election and they seek consensus first within the party by choosing from this diverse group of potential candidates who can vary on many levels but still have a mutual agreement with the values of the party.
After the party has made a decision, the option is placed before the entire country (speaking of presidents) or states (speaking of senators and representatives), but at this point, the general population merely has two options because the diversity of it is already eliminated.
What that means is that when you are voting at general elections you aren't really voting for a candidate, you are voting for what types of changes you would like to see happen in the government: liberal changes, or conservative changes?

In modern rhetoric they teach you that when you make an argument you never make it to the extremes of the situation--they are unlikely to change--you make your case to the moderates who are still choosing a side or who aren't fully settled with the side they have chosen.
In primary elections (where the party chooses their candidate) all focus is placed on those people within the party who want a diverse option--the people who want to perhaps change some of the party values that are in place, or who want more representation and a "better" method of handling affairs.
Once candidates are chosen, for both sides, the election moves on those people who are unaffiliated with either party and those who are in minor parties.--The option to be diverse is missing though and really it comes down to whether this country needs a more conservative approach to government over the next few years or whether this country needs a more liberal approach to government over the next few years.

My comment was in response to another person claiming he would vote if he had a more diverse selection to choose from.--I agree with him, in Utah, the vote is always for the republican. However, ever election offers a somewhat diverse group of people to chose from who ARE republicans and yet have different views of how the government should be run. Personally, at this point I've given up on voting democratic--I disagree with them more often than not anyway--but really I think the place to vote in Utah is on which republican candidate will support my views better.