The point is the number of modern indies that have been successful (as you note, Perot was not) can be count on one hand with change. It’s rarely a recipe for success and also just leads to spoiling (e.g. Perot). In general, it’s just not a path toward winning.

It tends to only happen in states that don’t have a truly competitive two party system and a limited number of media markets — Bernie wins in VT because the GOP is mostly uncompetitive and VT is small. While GOP is competitive in ME, Dems are ascendant and, again, limited pop and media markets.

This is poll shows you very little beyond name ID. A poll 25 months before an election isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on — just ask Presidents Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton.

No. In our electoral system, parties are more or less critical to winning elections, especially in swing seats/states.

BlueSky needs an “ugh” button.

It’s also difficult to talk about because there are no good solutions. We’ve hooked ourselves up to something even worse than the consent-manufacturing machine we were hooked up to in the television age. It’s hard to see something as a problem when it might as well be the air you’re breathing.

I’m not as close to it as I was in 2017, but this moment feels somewhat different.

IDK, I think the argument is that the way she ran the party during the 2016 primary — overtly trying to undermine Sanders, enabling underlings to do the same — tore a hole in the party that led to much disfunction in the aftermath of that election.

📌