Did you live in one of those precincts of Florida where your vote “might” have mattered? I didn't.

I do agree that change is a unifying theme, but I think there is a great deal of difference among voters as to what the dangers inherent in continuing along the same track are and the specifics of what needs to change.

And you can't influence the specifics by voting for candidates whose proverbial thumbs are constantly testing the political winds. You have to vote those specifics so that the ever changing policies of our leading candidates can be influenced.

So yes, there's not a viable candidate but some of the campaigns can say things that will make them appear more viable. But they would only do so for political reasons. The voters want change and unity. While the Repubs. were campaigning on a platform of (for all intents and purposes) non-change and felt they needed to win the party's base, it was the Dems. who got out, talked with voters, listened to their concerns and are proposing big changes and unity within the US. The Dems' talk about unifying the country is actually progressive these days. But the truth is that the Bush admin has divided the country so much. It would really be great to have a leader who leads all Americans (even though there will always be differences of opinion) rather than a leader who caters to a small group of people (and does not even attempt to find common ground among the American people). The Dems. are a more inclusive party whereas no one can seriously say that the Republicans even try to appeal to all Americans, nor would they know how if they even wanted to suddenly change their whole thinking.

My personal opinion is that voting for the lesser of two evils does nothing to effect change. You either get Tweedledee or Tweedledum.

I see this opinion expressed often, but I believe it is usually inaccurate. For example, the “lesser of two evils” available to us in 2000 should have indicated to us in hindsight that the differences between Bush and Gore could have been enormous. Does anyone really think that a candidate who governs in the current white house mold will result in only minor differences compared to a candidate who recognizes the inherent dangers of that and adjusts accordingly?

If we can agree that the definition of viable is “capable of winning”, then a look at the Highlights of Iowa Caucus-Goers' Survey should convince any reasonable person that there simply is no viable Republican candidate.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hRjXALuBdL_I...

“In the Democratic race [...] Among the one-fifth who were independents, Obama had a substantial lead”

“at the GOP caucuses [...] Of the roughly one in 10 who were independents, Ron Paul was doing best with about one-third of their votes, followed by John McCain, Romney and Huckabee”

Around 240,000 people participated in the Democratic caucus, whereas only 120,000 participated in the Republican.

If the Iowa results can be applied nationally, some simple math shows that for every 1 independent that votes Republican there will be 4 voting Democrat. It will be interesting to see how independents vote in New Hampshire.

The most viable Republican candidate is the one who gets the independent vote: Ron Paul.

My personal opinion is that voting for the lesser of two evils does nothing to effect change. You either get Tweedledee or Tweedledum. However, if you vote your ideology then the mainstream candidates can quantify those result in the primaries and decide whether or not it is in their best interest to attempt to co-opt those voters.

The fact that Ron Paul got 10% of the vote in Iowa while openly campaigning against farm subsidies should tell you that his 2 big issues: non-interventionist foreign policy and a smaller constitutional government are issues that all of the mainstream candidates interested in capturing the independent vote should strongly consider co-opting.