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…

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldOP
    153·
    6 个月前

    Third parties should be running House candidates and putting ads on airtime for them. You aren’t going to win an election if it’s based on people doing research instead of you doing heavy advertisement.

    Third parties should try doing anything noteworthy to get attention. The parties and their candidates don’t deserve anything intrinsically.

    • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
      9·
      6 个月前

      There’s plenty else they could be doing… outreach in off-years, for example. Start on campuses building awareness and building the kind of word-of-mouth and grassroots supporters you really need for a campaign. Having your name on the ballot isn’t enough. Having rallies isn’t enough. You can’t ask the people to come to YOU, and the media certainly won’t give you any coverage… you have to reach out to THEM.

    • fiercekitten@lemm.eeEnglish
      7·
      6 个月前

      Third-party candidates don’t have much money. They typically don’t have corporate donors and dark money funneling in, and individual contributions simply aren’t enough.

      • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
        81·
        6 个月前

        That is true… of a traditional campaign. But we live in an era where people can get millions of devoted followers by twerking on a webcam. A savvy third party that uses the internet effectively to build followers and then spreads into the greater population through word of mouth could conceivably work. Heck, it’s not all that different from how Trump managed to build his base.

        I’m not sure exactly what such a thing would look like for a third party candidate with some kind of scruples, but it shouldn’t be IMPOSSIBLE.

    • rayyy@lemmy.world
      7·
      6 个月前

      Third parties should be running House grassroots candidates and developing a support system. That’s how the teabaggers took control. Of course they had the financial backing of wealthy conservatives.

    • Phegan@lemmy.world
      35·
      6 个月前

      But then the argument would be “we lost this house seat because of the 3rd party”

      • frezik@midwest.social
        5·
        6 个月前

        Not when the seats are heavily garrymandered, anyway, and only one party is normally running in that district. Gerrymandering can be an opportunity.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldOP
          2·
          6 个月前

          Some third parties have a thesis that their message is inherently superior to the other parties and would win simply by the virtue of being morally right. Gerrymandered districts are the perfect opportunity for them to prove that.