comment: >
  
  
  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.
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 🤡