Stop thinking of your leanings as dogmatic beliefs rather than hypothesis. You don't need to retract anything without cause, just be open to the possibility that you're wrong, that there's a way of looking at it you haven't considered yet or new data you haven't seen or factored in. Being challenged isn't an attack by an enemy... it's either an opportunity to learn, an opportunity to teach, or both. It's easier to keep it a discussion rather than a fight if you don't take attacks on ideas you (possibly temporarily) hold as attacks against you personally.
Stop thinking of the outcomes of elections primarily as wins/losses and more as trade-offs. Obviously, there's preference to what the results are or there would be no buy-in. But even if government action (unlike most market action) is often a zero-sum game, specific individuals or even parties are always mixed bags with silver linings. Individuals are irrational, successful parties are just shifting coalitions without cores, and there's bound to be upsides.
Listen. If half the country is on the other side, and you're unable to steel-man their case whether you agree or not... you not only are failing to understand their side but by extension unable to defend your own. If you're unable to understand their motivation without thinking they're all just stupid, evil, or both, you're gonna be cynical and unhappy and that'll hurt you more than them. If you have zero friends on the other side of the aisle, then the problem is you, not the other half of the country.