Winning a primary doesn’t mean much if the party crushes you in the general.

He’s beating every other candidate combined in the polls.

Democratic and Republican primaries are completely controlled by these two private organizations not some house always wins.*

Then what winning strategy do you recommend, and can it be implemented before midterms?

I don’t know what the ‘correct’ approach is

This is the crux of it. I’m advocating imperfect but immediately implementable actions, and you’re fighting that to remain pure for “Perhaps some actual grassroots organizations” doing something at some point in the future.

You can do both. A bandage doesn’t heal a wound, but it keeps you from bleeding out long enough to get to the hospital. We’re a long long way from the hospital, and you’re refusing first aid.

We see the truth being cast aside or drowned in a bunch of noise.

And you see truth coming out and spreading like wildfire. Social media is a tool. You can leverage it with money, or you can leverage it with numbers. We’ve got them beat on the numbers.

How are these people “the best option” in hindsight when we know for a fact that they lost the election?

Because the options are Democrat, Republican, or third party. A perfect third party with no chance of success is a bad option. Policy doesn’t mean anything if you stand no chance of winning. So it’s really a binary choice, and whichever one is less bad is by definition the best.

I legitimately cannot understand how someone like yourself can agree that we have terrible options while simultaneously arguing that we need to support the people determining said options.

Because we’re bleeding out. A dirty t-shirt as a makeshift tourniquet is a terrible medical option, but it sure as hell beats bleeding out. Stop focusing on historical-scale problems, since the ones in front of you RIGHT NOW. The best hospital in the world is useless to you if you bleed out before it’s built.

The incinerator is your vote and what you decide to do with it.

And when you’re a smattering of third party voters, that “incinerator” is a matchbook.

The environment we exist in isn’t limited to these two private parties. That’s just what they want you to believe.

Functionally it is. That’s what the math proves. This has been extensively studied. Parties can change, but as long as the mechanics of the election stay the same, it will always be a choice between the two biggest parties.

You think if the Dems can just win this next election they’ll turn things around

I do not. I think that building a grassroots coalition takes years, even decades. I think that the Republicans are an immediate existential threat to that kind of coalition, and do-nothing Democrats aren’t. I think it’s a lot easier to plan a revolution when your vanguard hasn’t been abducted by the gestapo.

And regardless of which party wins any given election, we’ve been steadily approaching that reality with each passing day.

What? No we haven’t. We approached that reality like a rocket after inauguration day. This is a dramatic, breakneck acceleration, directly tied to one party. It’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise. This is not a serious statement, I can’t have a discussion with someone that divorced from reality.

Seems like a great wakeup call that some actual change is needed, no?

Yeah, just like the last couple dozen wakeup calls over the last century. Until you’ve got the army to back up your plans, maybe let people address immediate threats in peace, and help them out while you build the resources and influence to IMPLEMENT your big plan. You’re no different than the worker voting red because when they’re a billionaire they’ll want tax cuts for their private jet.