Factually, that’s what he did during his time in office as well. I’m not sure what they thought had changed.
Yes, I figured as much when you said you voted 3rd party. Unless we get ranked choice or some other form of voting, we are going to get a president from one of the two main parties for the foreseeable future. Until then, a vote for the person who shares 90% of your views instead of 75% will help the guy who shares 5% of your views with you. Not to mention that the 75% candidate had about a decade of being dragged through the mud prior to the election to make her seem worse than she really is.
I (and a lot of others) are not going to “Toe the line” for whoever the DNC shoves down our throats if we don’t feel like it. The DNC learned a good lesson in 2016. I’m not ashamed that I didn’t vote for Hillary just because she was “better than Trump”. I didn’t like either candidate, so I voted third party to help boost their numbers to help get away from a 2 party system. I’m not sorry for that, and whatever shit you give me isn’t going to change my opinion.
In 1992, Ross Perot got about 20% of the popular vote as a third party candidate. How did that “help get away from a 2 party system”? That’s not a rhetorical question, I’m curious.
What “lesson” do you think the DNC learned in 2016?
What’s your plan to institute ranked voice voting & national popular vote?
“Boosting their numbers” in the single biggest election doesn’t make them a viable party. Third party candidates got an average of 5% of the vote in the 2016 presidential election (unless you include Utah to blow the bell curve to a whopping 7%).
Getting that party’s candidates established in local governments across the nation so they gain a following, experience, and momentum is what does make them viable. It’s not easy, but it’s the only way. Zero people care who didn’t win the presidential election or why - it’s winner take all. No message is received.
