I'd say they lose because the media talks about their non-electability as a done deal. Even if we didn't have plurality primaries, there's a strong pull for peo

I'd say they lose because the media talks about their non-electability as a done deal. Even if we didn't have plurality primaries, there's a strong pull for people to only support candidates they think are going to win. So this type of candidate is in that 3% polling target you've already excepted (and it's only that high if they're doing well in spite of the media!). I tried applying our argument while considering the validating [0] media coverage as a type of lobbying (in-kind donation. But I think this is being too reductive, and the two are really different types of support. We've seen candidates that are independently-wealthy outsiders come into political races trying to spend their way to legitimacy, and how they end up being portrayed. [0] ie casting a character as a serious candidate regardless of whether they're judged as "good" or "bad" (also, nit: "DOGE" did exactly what it was "supposed to" do. it would have taken a much different type of nuanced approach to actually trim fat to cut down spending while not being penny wise and pound foolish)