comment: >
  
  Maybe if Biden was as effective as Trump at passing his agenda then maybe. As it stands Biden has wildly outperformed peoples expectations of him. Pushing though much more domestic legislation and scoring public victories. My prediction, Trump goes to jail and runs a campaign from it. Will probably only pull 2 or percent from the republican vote but that will be enough to hand the democratic candidate the win.
context: there would be no risk of a spoiler effect.
  
  This isn't true, there are just multiple spoilers in this scenario. Spoiler means somebody whose entry into the race peels off votes from a would-be winner and makes them into a second place finisher. With the right configuration of votes, it is possible for both the progressive and MAGA third parties to be spoilers and cause a Republican or Democratic victory respectively.
  Therefore, were I a progressive, given the current American electoral system, I would not vote for the progressive third party spoiler. >
  
  This makes me wonder if everyone who supports a third party run just doesn't understand how spoilers work. >
  
  Probably not.
  While I am a progressive, the opportunity that a Trump led party with his own slate of candidates against Republicans led by DeSantis is too big of an opportunity. A devastating Democratic victory in which MAGA candidates and Republican candidates are splitting the vote would lead to dozens of new seats in the House and Senate that Democrats would otherwise have no shot at.
  This could give Democrats (and whoever the 2024 nominee is) a resounding mandate to reshape the nation for good. >
  
  This is an excellent point
  The notion that a hypothetical progressive party is going to not only generate enough support to win the majority of the electoral college but hundreds of Congresswoman seats is farcical
  A 65 seat Senate, even with a significant number of Manchins, would have a once in a generation opportunity to kill the filibuster - which only needs 51 votes - and enact pretty much anything that wouldn't get vetoed
  Might they 'overreach'? Sure, and so what. They would never be able to retain this many seats in two years, and even if the GOP got a trifecta in four years, they still wouldn't have as free a hand to unwind policies if they proved to be popular >
  
  I hate that third party is only discussed in presidential elections. I’m for another party that wins multiple state legislations and governorships, grows into a real political force, and then with established policies and coalition runs for the oval office. This bullshit as running every 4-8 years as a spoiler for president and then bitching about being hated is annoying. No, no democrat needs to run third party when we have such a slim margin and the other side has no interest in governing or being a democracy. >
  
  It's always funny how people shooting for some silver bullet third party president never seem to realize that president would be facing off against a Congress with a massive super majority opposed to their politics. >
  
  I don't know. Look at how Republicans are bullied by a piece of their base. >
  
  The things you listed as a potential progressive party platform are the current Biden administration platform platform. Idk why anybody would feel the need to run against the party working towards the very things they claim to support, and idk why voters would vote for the same. 
  A progressive third party would absolutely be a spoiler, it doesn’t matter if there is a right leaning third party. 
  To answer your question, there isn’t a universe where I would vote for the original election denier, Sanders. He can go get kicked out of more hippy communes and write more rape fanfic for all I care. >
  
  Sanders was an example of who could run on a progressive platform but not necessarily him, I just picked him because he and AOC are the most well known. One thing that progressives could uniquely run on would be campaign finance reform to get money out of politics, both major parties need the money and most likely would not attempt anything like that lest the money be spent on opponents, universal healthcare would also be something most politicians couldn't attempt to push through right now as the Healthcare lobby would cut the funding if any serious attempt was made. >
  
  Democrats are currently running on a universal healthcare platform and have been actively trying to get the bills passed for decades. 
  Democrats are currently running on campaign finance reform, and the sanders/AOC’s of congress are the ones who receive the most dark money out of everyone. 
  Neither of those issues are unique, and the people you mentioned would be the worst possible champions of them. >
  
  Oh, we’re doing conspiracies now? Do Qanon next >
  
  Congress as a whole votes on their own term limits. They vote on their own audits and salaries. Why do people hate the players like the mega corporations when we set it up for them by allowing Congress to vote on their own lobbyist regulations? Do you think anyone in Congress is going to advocate for a requirement for all bills to be stand-alone? Why not? Do you think any would consider blockchain election infrastructure? No?
  This isn’t a partisan issue and is the way Congress is typically set up around the world in “free” countries.
  Not to mention the vast number of citizens that still think Operation Mockingbird and Biden’s Ministry of Truth simply aren’t real…
  Our POTUS doesn’t even matter nearly as much as people think. Whats he gonna do? Restore original and rightful constitutional authority to coin currency to Congress and abolish the Fed? Pfft. Nah how would we pass special interest pork filled spending bills and fund international wars if we were forced for spend responsibly on the gold standard 🤡 >
  
  
  Congress as a whole votes on their own term limits.
  
  From your first sentence, you're off the rails.
  No terms limits for Congress exist, period.
  And Congress couldn't amend the Constitution to change that with a simple vote.
  
  Not to mention the vast number of citizens that still think Operation Mockingbird and Biden’s Ministry of Truth simply aren’t real…
  
  Uh...yes. Those are called sane people.
  Good grief. >
  
  Stopped reading after your first point. Who do you think ultimately votes on keeping Congressional term limits nonexistent? Who votes on enacting Congressional term limits? Use your brain child. >
  
  You stopped reading after it was pointed out that what you're talking about doesn't exist, since it's forbidden by the Constitution?
  Okay, then.
  If insults are all you've got, that says quite a lot. >
  
  Nope, not me. America is not set up for a multi-party system right now, and if trump wants to split the power of the right, let him do it. Remember Al Gore's loss? And Hillary's votes got siphoned off for Bernie and what's her name. >
  
  He won’t because he needs RNC funding. If he did he couldn’t get enough votes to win. He only had the support of about 30% of the country and a good portion of that wound vote Desantis in the end. A Sander 3rd party would most likely screw the democrats, just like his supporters did in 2016. So we end up with Desantis >
  
  He's is still very popular in the south and primary voters are split fairly close. I'd think DeSantis would get the great plains, Florida and rockies, while Trump gets the south. I'd think Biden would still get most of the states he did last time with maybe the exception of the midwest, but it wouldn't be enough to push either right wing candidate over the edge to 270 >
  
  I think Desantis on the RNC ticket and Trump on some BS third party ticket would be fantastic for the Dems. However, I think his hardcore followers would fall even further down the racism and violence rabbit hole. >
  
  No. A progressive third party would allow Trump to win with HIS third party. 
  The risk is far too high. >
  
  No. It's a good way to make Desantis president. Unless that's what you are hoping for. >
  
  No.  Let  the GOP split their vote. Splitting the Democratic vote just plays into the Republicans hands. >
  
  This seems to follow the old adage that, when one's opponent does something stupid, one should do something just as stupid. I assume that's the goal right? Show off how foolish we behave in public? >
  
  No. In that scenario the best way to ensure progressive outcomes would be for the Dem to win in a rout by allowing the right to trip over itself. Adding in another element of chaos might not yield the result progressives want. If Dems won decisive majorities in both chambers and the presidency as a result of the GOP/Trump splitting votes, they could get a lot of progressive legislation done. >
  
  I think public opinion has to shift more to the left to actually accompIish anything. Until public opinion changes I genuinely believe half measures or right wing bullshit are the only viable options. These are the only options corporate america will allow right now, and at this point corporate money rules our country. New parties may better allow people to vote their conscience but they cannot actually win. I do think that a progressive primary challenge to Biden could be beneficial as it would spur public discourse over more left wing policies; this is putting a lot of faith in the electorate to pay attention and thoughtfully evaluate policy though. >
  
  I think the main problem is money in politics, but nobody wants to loose their millions of dollars in campaign funds. >
  
  Money in politics is just a red herring.  I think the main problem for your political agenda is that the vast majority of Americans across the political spectrum simply don't support your agenda.  That's kinda how democracy works. >
  
  This, of course, is complete bullshit foisted by the nutjob right. Poll after poll shows Americans supporting:
  Abortion rights
  Stricter gun measures
  Health care
  Better pay
  And so on. >
  
  The problem with this argument is that you are assuming these to be uniquely progressive positions.  Minimum wage increases, for example, poll well in blue collar red states but not when coming from progressive voices.  That's because progressives don't "own" these positions like they think they do - they are positions maintained in various forms across large swaths of the spectrum.  The mistake progressives often make is mistaking support for positions they share as support for progressives.  Not so. >
  
  You know what, I fucking detest the life long grifter who conned his way into the Whitehouse. But America could use a few more viable political parties. Others have tried in the past. But hey if this jackass could somehow attract enough simple farmers, people of the land, the common clay of the new west, then I would have to give him credit where credit is due. >
  
  You mean… morons? >
  
  Rural people are just as smart as anyone else.
  Except you, they're smarter. Modern Farming would be well beyond your abilities I feel. >
  
  Someone clearly missed the Blazing Saddles reference. >
  
  It’s the only chance biden has. You don’t want to split your vote. The only person biden beats clean in 2024 is Donald trump. >
  
  I'd think in this senerio Trump's main base is in the south and rust belt, as a lot of the plains and rockies Republicans are becoming more into the DeSantis camp, the Midwestern states usually respond to whoever is most economically populist and a progressive talking about raises and better working conditions could pry off the Midwesterners that voted for Trump. I'd still think that Biden would win in this senerio, but it would send a message that more direct action is needed to fix America and running on not being Trump isn't enough to win an election and more actions to help the average American and not the party sponsors have to be made. >
  
  I originally expected a progressive to primary Biden but after the midterms, and a possible GOP split, the entire party will be behind him. There will be no progressive candidate on the ballot