Is another party the answer? Not if the Republican politicians will recall their roots and start acting like Republicans. I believe there are a lot of centrists that would regualrly vote GOP if the GOP representatives remained faithful to their doctrine and their electorate.

You don’t need 50% +1 in the presidential election. Clinton never got 50%, and W. didn’t get 50% the first time. In many states (including Texas) you don’t need 50% in the general election — you only need to finish first. In fact, many observers believe that the winner of the Texas governor’s race will get under 40% — and even the most optimistic predict a winner with less than 45%.

That may be a big part of why the independent movement is so strong in Texas.

Some states do require 50%+1. (Lousisiana does, but has a open election in November, followed by the top two finishers — not necessasrily from different parties — in December.) But not all states have this requirement. And the presidency never has. Lincoln got (IIRC) around 40%. Woodrow Wilson was also a minority president, as was JFK, and IIRC, Nixon in ‘68.

But when will they move? In many states, including Texas, the filing deadline has passed. Some of them may vote Dem this fall out of frustration, but the Democratic Party is no longer the natural home of anyone opposed to increased Balkanization of America. In effect, I believe this gives the GOP two years to make a substantial move to the right on immigration enforcement. The GOP may lose the House in the meantime, however, and that means that the amnesty forces will be the only Republicans with national power.

The combination of these effects should propel Tom Tancredo (or someone very much like him) into the front rank of GOP presidential candidates in ‘08, though he will ultimately prove unsuccessful. The question then for the GOP is: do they put Tancredo on the ticket in the number two spot, or do they risk the emergence of a third-party challenger on this issue, and lose enough votes (a la Perot) to guarantee a Hillary victory?

In any event, given the onerous requirements of signature gathering, a third party candidate (Chris Simcox, perhaps?) would have to begin organizing his/her efforts no later than the last quarter of ‘07.

Tying this issue to the bloat in the federal government, and making the point (as has been made recently by a number of Washington think-tanks and some conservative columnists and bloggers) that amnesty and increased immigration will bloat the welfare state and balloon its costs might give the third party not only more echo of Perot on the issues, but it would also serve to lance the claim of Republicans that they are the party of fiscal responsibility. This would also bolster the candidacy of Hillary, as Bill presided over years of fiscal surplus.

In any event, it seems virtually impossible for the GOP to win in ‘08 without adopting the current House bill on immigration enforcement or something quite similar. Amnesty (heavy or light) appears to be High-Caliber suicide.

Possibly, but here’s why I think not. Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Hillary in 2008 has 15+ years of interaction with the American public. She’s not an unknown… and what the country knows about her will likely be her biggest obstacle.

Peggy Noonan’s blood is boiling:

Something’s happening. I have a feeling we’re at some new beginning, that a big breakup’s coming, and that though it isn’t and will not be immediately apparent, we’ll someday look back on this era as the time w…