You’d think midterms would be a great time to get your name out there and run high profile candidates to win House districts led by charlatans…

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    105·
    3 days ago

    They’re not simply ‘third parties’. They are political parties organizing around every kind of issue, local or not, without any support or exposure and against the two major parties. What happens is they typically have to caucus with one of two parties anyway to not be fighting both.

    Third party candidates and their voters are some of the most engaged political operatives out there.

    Presidential elections are the only times the vast majority of people even look or engage in politics whatsoever. That’s actually the rare point in time every four years where there is enough visibility for any party, even the two major ones.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldOP
      6·
      3 days ago

      Is it the only point in time where they’re able to be visible, or is it the only point in time that they choose to be visible? I’m of the opinion that it’s the latter, and it’s because of a terribly flawed philosophy.

      Third parties have been trying to gain visibility through presidential elections for decades, and it’s been completely unsuccessful. They’re arguably in a worse place than before, since Perot was able to get at least >5% with Reform. It speaks volumes that the third largest candidate behind Trump and Biden is RFK Jr, without any contest at all.

      Let that sink in. A party that RFK Jr established at the beginning of this year is polling significantly better than the Greens, Libertarians, and anyone else. I wager the others combined aren’t even more than RFK Jr. It’s very clear that whatever they’re doing isn’t working. It doesn’t matter how engaged their supporters are if they’re pursuing an objective that has demonstrably been a failure.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        3·
        3 days ago

        I don’t think any third party has the power to choose their visibility, which is kind of my point. If they had the resources of influence (capital) to spend on media exposure they probably would.

        Third parties have been trying to gain visibility through presidential elections for decades, and it’s been completely unsuccessful.

        My view is most third parties are not fielding presidential candidates specifically because you’re not wrong: it is not a successful strategy to campaign for that office as a third party.

        But moreso, I would refer back to what I said about how most end up as a caucus within the two major parties. In a sense third party politicians have to actively obscure any willingness they have to break from the status quo.

        I wager a viable third party would absorb existing key caucuses from the existing two parties, rather than fully challenging and replacing everyone.

        Third party doesn’t have to be just for the presidency. It generally is anything but that.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldOP
          1·
          2 days ago

          Can’t really disagree with anything you’ve said. I especially agree with you that third parties should be looking at other offices and not the presidency. They can affect change far better that way.