I wasn’t the only one commenting on Mickey Kaus’s speculations about a Dean third party candidacy yesterday. The New Republic’s &c. blog picked the idea up and ran with it. &c. believes that in a three way race with Gephart and the president, Dean could win. Drawing on the 40% of Americans who supposedly oppose the Iraq war, Dean could come out on top if Gephart and the president split the pro-war vote. I find this unconvincing. People are reluctant to vote for a third party candidate. It is extremely unlikely that a third party Dean candidacy could round up anything like 40% of the vote on the basis of the war issue alone. Of those who supposedly oppose the war, a much smaller percentage see the issue in the sort of decisive and Manichean terms that Dean’s core voters do. I find it remarkable that The New Republic’s blog not only takes a Dean third party candidacy seriously, but seems positively enthusiastic about the idea. I thought The New Republic was all about rescuing the Democratic party from the likes of Howard Dean and his constituency. I guess TNR is changing more than I’d realized. In any case, the fact that folks are giving credibility to wild scenarios about a Dean third party candidacy–even welcoming it–shows how volatile and dangerous a situation the Democrats are in right now. When the front runner for the Democratic nomination–just endorsed by the last nominee–is being touted as a third party candidate on Slate and TNR before the first primary is held, something very odd is happening. There are lot’s of ways to look at such talk, but here’s what strikes me as most likely. The Democrats are beginning to see the crackup they’re headed for, yet can’t quite accept that this will be a disaster. So instead of trying to figure out how to patch this deadly intra-party split, they’re spinning wild scenarios to convince themselves the situation is all silver lining and no cloud. It sure looks like rain to me.