Guest, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't think any of us are saying that third parties are ineffectual, but the examples that have been given show how they are usually created for one issue. As important as these issues are, none of them have adversely effected presidential campaigns. I seriously doubt that most Americans voted for George Wallace because he was "tough on crime". Actually if he weren't in the 1968 race, Nixon would have probably won by a much wider margain.

I don't think anyone said that Kenndy would have been assured the nomination, but the signs were pointing that way. It should be remembered that in 1968 the primaries were not as important as they are now. Back then there were only 16 states that held primaries, compared to 33 in 2004. Winning California, even by a small margin, could have tipped the momentum. Back then, power brokers in the Democratic Party lobbied delegates from all 50 states and the candidates received all the delegates from the particular state if they received the most votes. Kennedy certainly was an opportunist, but he had support in the party. Democrats were not comfortable with Humphrey because his position on Vietnam wasn't very clear. Kennedy was the golden boy and many people believe he would have received the nomination based on the system that was in place at the time.   You are right guest, Humphrey and McCarthy were still in it - and don't forget that McGovern also threw his hat in the ring in August just before the convention.

It should also be remembered that McCarthy was pushed into the race by Allard Lowenstein as the anti-war movement was gaining momentum in 1967. Lowenstein approached Bobby Kennedy, Frank Church and a number of other potential candidates before McCarthy agreed to run on a platform opposing LBJ's policies in Vietnam.   At the time, none of the other Democrats were willing to stick their neck out and oppose the party leader.

Getting back to third parties, yes, it is wonderful that they bring these issues to the public, but it has relied on a major party to be elected to champion those causes. Third parties have historically backed out of presidential elections if their cause could be hurt by the results of a divided election. There were and are other ways of getting the message out.   Strategy is important, but with Nader I don't think many people see a clear strategy or even a one-issue message. Most people are seeing someone who is doing this for his own ego. Why now? Why did he not accept the Green Party this time? Something is wrong here.