Campaigning with the express intent to not win is dishonest. It is literally the exact opposite of the purpose of a campaign.
the only, and i do mean only, issue i really have with any of the criticisms you're making is this. i don't think it makes sense to say that they have "the express intent not to win." that isn't equivalent to a realist attitude towards elections for amerikkkan third party candidates. no one but Ds and Rs are going to win national elections. to be clear: i am not commenting one way or the other on whether their strategy is appropriate or effective. it just seems to me that this is a backwards way of saying "all third party candidates are inherently dishonest." which honestly, i think there's probably a compelling argument for that position. however, i don't think it's a productive means of criticizing psl to not make that argument outright. is every donation to a third party candidate with low polling a scam initiated by the campaigner? probably, but if so we should argue that to people when making the case against a vanguard party refusing to start local instead of saying that they're doing scams because they're trying to lose.
i don't think it's a productive means of criticizing psl to not make that argument outright
Fair. But I don't think being dishonest about the purpose of the campaign (and really only by omission since most people would only hear that they are running, not the intent behind it) is inherently a scam. It's just a bad look. I think people look at successes in Europe and think they can just do the same things here and expect similar results. But the political structure here just doesn't allow those kind of serious 'third parties' challenges.
Obviously this isn't like an official PSL board or something but the last time there was a big thread about their campaign (that I noticed) I got huge push back for suggesting they run local candidates instead and not make a point of focusing on foreign policy positions for like school board campaigns and whatnot. Though this thread is more critical of the campaign than that one.
the only, and i do mean only, issue i really have with any of the criticisms you're making is this. i don't think it makes sense to say that they have "the express intent not to win." that isn't equivalent to a realist attitude towards elections for amerikkkan third party candidates. no one but Ds and Rs are going to win national elections. to be clear: i am not commenting one way or the other on whether their strategy is appropriate or effective. it just seems to me that this is a backwards way of saying "all third party candidates are inherently dishonest." which honestly, i think there's probably a compelling argument for that position. however, i don't think it's a productive means of criticizing psl to not make that argument outright. is every donation to a third party candidate with low polling a scam initiated by the campaigner? probably, but if so we should argue that to people when making the case against a vanguard party refusing to start local instead of saying that they're doing scams because they're trying to lose.
Fair. But I don't think being dishonest about the purpose of the campaign (and really only by omission since most people would only hear that they are running, not the intent behind it) is inherently a scam. It's just a bad look. I think people look at successes in Europe and think they can just do the same things here and expect similar results. But the political structure here just doesn't allow those kind of serious 'third parties' challenges.
Obviously this isn't like an official PSL board or something but the last time there was a big thread about their campaign (that I noticed) I got huge push back for suggesting they run local candidates instead and not make a point of focusing on foreign policy positions for like school board campaigns and whatnot. Though this thread is more critical of the campaign than that one.