I'm 62. I voted 3d party every time except 2 GOP guys for Pres. I worked hard for most 3d party candidates. Last time out, the LP purposely chose the weakest of its 3 options. The Constitution Party chose a weak option. If they wanted to win, those 2 parties would merge. But both are controlled by masochists. (If the Constitution Party is pro-life, why do its members commit suicide? If Alan Keyes is pro-life, why did he commit suicide in Illinois?)
We have reached the point where there are a number of issues the mainstream parties won't talk about because the parties are in agreement and the American people are on the other side.
The major parties avoid many issues, not because they agree... but because they are afraid of those third rails. Seniors who have been Republican all their lives and won't be affected by SS change turn on Bush because he touches the 3d rail of Social Security.
Immigration is such a 3d rail. Many of us far right Republicans including libertarians like me, and social conservatives, and evangelilcal abolitionist Republicans are pro-immigration. Others on the right are anti (illegal) immigration. The Dem party is also divided on the issue.
In neither party are the divisions liberal-conservative. They have a unique dynamic. Lies and irrational logic are prevalent among the high profile spokespeople on both sides of immigration. Most politicians see no way to win on that issue. To take one side or the other associates them with the lies and irrationality that will destroy them.
You may have an unusual point of view on the subject of immigration--and to be fair, the subject is not immigration, it is border control.
An overwhelming majority of the American people poll firmly on the position that we should close the borders--and kick illegals out; control non-citizens who live here for more than a week or two. Certainly not let them vote or burden the rest of us with health care and public service expenses with no contribution to the cost.
From Mrs. Clinton's point of view that is not an unmitigated positive even though she has a poll structured position in line with the majority--because Conservatives are more likely to be on this position than liberals.
The point of this discussion as far as Mrs. Clinton is concerned is that she is rapidly appropriating the mainstream Conservative position on a number of these issues. What she would do if elected is a legitimate question. But she has effectively transformed her public political agenda into the middle of the road with several dips into clear Conservative positions that have great political appeal.
I don't like her any better than the rest of you. But at least at this point, the Republican candidate universe consists of a bunch of wets. Mrs. Clinton is going to get more votes than any of the wets.