The #NeverTrump Republican Argument Against Evan McMullin

I haven't paid a lot of attention to Evan McMullin's presidential campaign other than one early column on his likely motivations. But this morning's Erick Erickson column is a bit of a challenge that I think should be answered. The column concerns USA Today's condemnation of Trump but non-endorsement of Clinton. Erickson closes his opinion of that piece out with:

It'd be nice if they highlight Evan McMullin. He is a sound alternative.

In what universe is McMullin "a sound alternative" to any of the top three (by polling) candidates for president?

Apart from a year as a Goldman Sachs investment banker, McMullin appears to have spent his entire adult "working" life on one government teat or another. First the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Then the CIA. Then Congress (as an advisor/policy director to House Republicans). Almost no private sector experience, zero electoral political experience, and so far as it's possible to tell (I'm allowing for the opacity of CIA employment here), zero executive experience.

He's also only on the ballot in 12 states representing a maximum potential 84 electoral votes. He's a write-in candidate in 18 states, bringing his maximum potential up to a winning 317 electoral votes (that's per Wikipedia as accessed this morning -- I suspect Richard Winger of Ballot Access News might offer different, more accurate, numbers). He's neither on the ballot, nor a write-in option, in two of the three largest states (he's a write-in in Texas, but totally absent as an option in California and Florida).

I don't support Gary Johnson, but if I was a #NeverTrump Republican, it wouldn't even be a close call between Johnson, McMullin and Trump when it comes to traditional "qualifications" to head up the DC gang. Johnson became a multimillionaire in the private sector (construction) then won two terms as a Republican governor. He's also on the ballot in 50 states and DC.

McMullin's not "a sound alternative," he's a punchline.