I'm sold on the fact that a third-party candidate can be well-supported through political action groups (as explained by kos on the front page). However, my question is, does the advice espoused in
this diary post apply?
That is, would it be most beneficial for such groups to focus on winning smaller state and congressional seats first?
I can see benefits to both sides. By focusing on smaller races, where outside money has more effect, the potential exists to build a slow, strong base of people who support the party's ideas. However, going straight to the top and presenting a respectable presidential candidate offers the potential for vastly more publicity (but increases the chances of being a spoiler like Nader).
What are your thoughts? Take the Poll.
--Chris
http://www.chrisamiller.com/blog