The infrastructure of a political party is power. Power over those in power. Both parties have that in spades.
Campaign offices are a joke compared to that
Because everyone is nice and happy in their little tribes. Very little fear of crossover these days.
But the creation of a 3rd party will INEVITABLY pull more supporters from one party than the other. Which creates a war between the 2 main parties to either, A. Crush new 3rd party, or B. Which side loses more supporters.
And the reality is this magical 3rd party won’t be pulled out of a hat and win a presidential election. It would first pull supporters from 1 party moreso than the other, creating an adjustment period of the party that is least like the 3rd party to have an insane majority. Both sides would correctly fear that scenario and would shut that shit down
Without an infrastructure in place you’re looking at state level, MAYBE Congress of a tiny state tops. That doesn’t get you the access to accomplish anything of real substance to prove your concept, and you’re still the odd duck out
One of the big lessons is that rhetoric is cheap. Things began to fall apart when 1) Perot and his followers attempted to devise some type of cohesive platform and 2) they began to grapple with the specifics of what Perot was suggesting.
There were other issues with the Perot campaign; but the net result is that often people have a tendency to retreat back into their own comfort Zones.
Yeah…I want change…just not for me…and as long as someone else is doing all the sacrificing and changing.
It wasn’t that long ago that you would have found the idea that a President (who paid the woman hush money to cover up an affair) calling a woman horseface in a public setting would never happen.