It’s also technically a lot more if you remember that we do in fact have several marginalized parties running in every general election.

I feel similarly, but my whole life Democrats keep thinking "maybe if I compromise with the right wing and move right, I'll get more votes" and saying aw dang better luck next time when the right wing's dwindling base votes red down the whole ticket, while party insiders actively sideline Democrats who win big on left wing messaging. So when I hear Harris striking a tone of inclusion and unity, I'm glad because I feel it's laudable, but I'm also not thrilled because I've heard this song before.

She's the first candidate in a while where I feel she might genuinely be good as a president, not just "not bad".

The problem isn't appealing to centrist moderates. The problem is getting leftists excited to vote. Polarising is good.

Dude....I'm 40. I probably don't have the energy for ONE party tonight. Let alone TWO!!!

UGGGGHHHHHH........

slaps own face really hard, chugs 750ml of whiskey, and splashes some water on my face

OK.....LETS DOOOO THISSSSSS!!!!! RAAAAWWWWRRRRRRR!!!!!

Someone said to me that even if the majority would now vote for a third party, they wouldn't get anything done because the Senate Ave Congress are still all dems and reps.

I don't know enough about how US elections work though

Beating women does seem to be on-Brand for him...

he'd* better not win

This is your year dude, good luck in Paris!

Interestingly, if Kamala wins, that last streak will still hold true.

facepalm thanks, fixed the titled

Edit: I’m still wrong. But this was a shower thought. There’s a reason this community isn’t called “well thought out comments”

That's right.

Hell, at least one, Shirley Chisholm, campaigned to be on the Democrat ballot in 1977. That counts as running for president, even if they don't win the primary right?

I’m not sure it’s happened in a general though. Maybe a super small party but I’m not aware of a Green or Libertarian candidate that was Black

I remember the first election I was old enough to vote in (the 2004 election) paying close attention to all the political ads I saw and, at least for that election, only the Republican ads were focused on "other guy bad, so vote me." The opposing side's ads were entirely focused on their own platform and never even mentioned the other side.

From what I see most elections always are.

There was a time, a few decades ago, when there was a real demand to get away from the negativity of most campaigns. Everyone says they wanted it, polls clearly showed it, etc.

But then there was another study which analyzed the effectiveness of campaigns (i.e. if they won) vs how negative they went.

Negativity was clearly proven to be the winning tactic.

Bold of you to think the yanks will have a good enough sample size in 1000 years