First off, the number of people that actually run off and vote for a non factor like Virgil Goode is next to nothing. The Green Party got nearly 4 times the number of votes - and they were also an after thought. Yes, many people here were talking about voting for Virgil Goode, but not many folks elsewhere across the country did. On activist, grass roots, political sites like FR you are just going to get a higher percentage of people that insist on candidates that better represent them. And this is to be expected, afterall, that is the whole mission of conservatives willing to spend time talking politics. The general public pays about 1/100th the attention to this stuff as we do.
I think the core of this debate is this - some people, particularly the most ideological/partisan, feel their vote represents an affirmative endorsement of a candidate or set of ideas. Therefore if X candidate holds a view they find repugnant, they believe they can't vote for him or her under any circumstances. Most people on the other hand, view their vote as a choice, and basically believe as you do that wasting a vote on a 3rd party nobody that has zero chance to win is utterly silly.
Arguing with people who truly want to throw away their vote (I mean those who will really do it, not just the ones that threaten to do so out of anger that their candidate didn't win) is pointless, I've tried it now and again and you'll basically get nowhere because of what they believe their vote represents. In a general election to you, me and most people it's a choice, to those who feel different it is an affirmative endorsement. If you truly felt your vote meant you were actively supporting a social liberal Republican's position on abortion/gay marriage/etc in some urban mayoral race, you might think differently . If you view that social liberal Republican as the better choice between the lesser of two evils (better than the social liberal Democrat who is also an economic liberal and worse than the Republican on most of the issues), then you'll have no trouble casting that ballot. Most people will continue to see casting a ballot in a general election as just a choice between the only viable alternatives. In reality, the primaries are people's moment to cast an affirmative vote - and look how few people even turn out for them.
So long as our system is a winner take all 2 party system that allows no opportunity for coalition government, I do believe voting in a general election is simply not an affirmative endorsement of anything - it's just a choice between the only realistic options available. One of two people will become president under these circumstances. Even if they both suck, you are simply casting a ballot for the least bad option. In our system, that is pretty much what we are going to have to deal with in the vast majority of general elections. Reagan was the only good candidate for President in a general election in my lifetime, and I was too young to vote for him either time. So I, like yourself, and most other actual conservatives, are stuck voting against the Democrat by casting a ballot for the Republican (no matter how bad he/she is). Heck even Ron Paul, the LaRouchies, etc, have learned that our system mostly doesn't allow for 3rd party to have much success.
In the end, most people see it the way you do when it comes to NOT voting 3rd party no matter what. Just watch the election returns threads right here on FR. Most people will cheer whoever the Republican is to win, if for no other reason than to keep the Democrat out of office or give the further left party a black eye.
Along with the rest of what you wrote, I pray you are correct. Sometimes it seems like the nuts are out in full force, but I suppose it might be that they just become more noticeable to me. Thanks for the analysis.