NYT quotes anti-Trump conspirator Erick Erickson on the possibility of Rick Perry running as a third party candidate:

“He would win Texas and at least obstruct Trump.”

But it’s better than that for Erickson’s conspirators, no? If Perry runs as an independent and wins Texas’ 38 electoral votes, that could throw the whole election into the House, where the GOP’s majority in a majority of state delegations could then pick Perry as President, (even if he’d only won that one state). The Constitution says the House can choose from among the top three. Why think small, conspirators! … P.S.: An obvious initial problem–this gambit only works if the remaining non-Texas electoral votes are split fairly evenly, so neither Trump nor Clinton win a majority.  That means the Ericksonian third party would have to not field its candidate in states it might want Trump to win, lest they steal Trump votes, throw the states to Hillary and give her a majority. The anti-Trumpers might even have to root or campaign for Trump in those states. … I’m sure there are other complications. … P.P.S.: Why not eliminate the middleman and nominate Erickson? He is surely a beloved figure on the right. Right? … Hello? …

Update: Yes, if the electoral vote was close enough — i.e. virtually tied — the “House Decides” scenario could also be triggered by faithless electors who held the balance of power and decided to vote for a third candidate, any third candidate, even if this person had won zero electoral votes.  Don’t think the #NeverTrumpers won’t try this if the winner of a near-tie is Trump. They’re hooked on anti-majoritiarianism now, as Byron York notes. …

Backfill: CNBC’s Jake Novak reached the same conclusion last Friday, though he thinks the third party candidate would have to win two states, not just Texas. (Why?) [via Taranto, whose objections to this insane plan seem non-dispositive]