"Clearly, some sizable portion of the Republican base is less than thrilled with McCain as their nominee. Ironically, in this context, they face this choice partly because the social conservative vote was split among many candidates, most prominently ...

The real question is can Barr replicate the Wallace/Perot type response where the candidate gets 13 to 18% of the popular vote. We shall have to see to believe that.

And if he does start to show any such capabilities (or the green party equivalent), then expect the major party getting hurt to make exactly the argument that James makes.

Of course people aren't always (often) rationale about politics. I suspect there will be people on both sides who will gladly cut off their nose to spite their face.

"In the current election, we have a choice between a female Democrat, a black Democrat and a Republican Democrat. Can someone please explain who I should vote for?"

Except, of course, that it's not true. Compare the ACU ratings for McCain, Obama, and Clinton. They ain't even close.

The war? Judges? Social spending? Just not close, at least rhetorically. (I think Obama and Clinton are less knee jerk on the war than their rhetoric, most notably.)

You might not have your ideal choice in November but, certainly, you have a real one.

I merely note that if you have two Republican candidates drawing a sizable percentage of the vote and only one Democrat, you're liable to wind up with the Democrat.

This reminds me of a recent letter to the editor of our local paper, written by a woman. It was a simple two-sentence letter that, as far as I can remember, said the following:

"In the current election, we have a choice between a female Democrat, a black Democrat and a Republican Democrat. Can someone please explain who I should vote for?"

Are you going to tell me now that they won't or shouldn't consider a third party simply because of historical precedents???

I doubt they well be have insufficient basis to make that judgment at this time. The post, though, is about the "should." I merely note that if you have two Republican candidates drawing a sizable percentage of the vote and only one Democrat, you're liable to wind up with the Democrat.

Regardless, however, only McCain and Obama are plausible winners in November.

I remember being told at this venue back in January that the candidates for both parties would be all wrapped up on Super Tuesday. Back then, it was going to be Hillary Clinton and some unknown Republican with nobody betting on it going to McCain. Funny how conventional wisdom ain't what it used to be.

One undisputed fact is that the Republican party is currently in a "crash and burn" mode as evidenced by yesterday's special election in Mississippi. Boehner and Cole see the hand writing on the wall and it's not pretty.

So the voters who previously looked towards the Republicans to represent their interests are suddenly looking for another alternative.

Are you going to tell me now that they won't or shouldn't consider a third party simply because of historical precedents???

Are there any states that Bush carried narrowly in 2004 in which libertarian voters as opposed to, say, social conservatives who are willing to split off and vote for a third party candidate can mean the margin of victory? I'm asking this as a real question. I actually have no idea.