No national figure has emerged to campaign on immigration because the Parties prevent it, and Gilchrist's showing is somehow the harbinger of doom for the GOP. I heard this same argument when Pat Buchanan ran for President.
I find this argument less than convincing when both Bush and Kerry got more votes than any other living American in history.
Thank you for you reply.
Buchanan captured 25% of the vote in a general election? I must have missed that.
By the way, you've neglected certain factors, among which that Gilchrist and company aren't tarnished with the same things Buchanan's been tarnished with that have left a bad taste in many people's mouths: alleged anti-Semitism and theocratic tendencies. Absent those things, a third-party candidate running on a border-security platform has a lot going for him, as third-party candidates go. This is especially true in the Southwest.
I find this argument less than convincing when both Bush and Kerry got more votes than any other living American in history.
So you can conclude from that datum either a) that Bush and Kerry are the two most popular politicians in America, or b) that the two parties really do not serve the interests of the people. Assuming the latter (which I think would be the conclusion of most rational people), then on an issue that resonates so well with the public, they clearly can't hold out forever. And the cracks are already showing.