esp. if they run openly under the Socialist name. Since the Russian Revolutions, the US and many other plutocratic nations have devoted many decades and may trillions, in both private money and tax dollars to fight that brand. That is a massive, massive obstacle for the Socialist name to overcome, esp. when Republicans think New Democrat Obama is a socialist. And people so shrink from the word "socialist" that they don't know the difference between "Democratic Socialist" and "Socialist."
As a lesser matter, the Republican and Democratic parties have made things very difficult for third parties. Nader pursued a lot of lawsuits around even getting so-called third parties on the ballot, but you can't force networks to include them in televised debates, which is fairly important in this age. In this year's gubernatorial race in Massachusetts for example, the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate again joined hands to exclude other candidates from televised debates. I think they made it into only the first debate after the primaries ended. After that, the Democrat and the Republican candidates sat side by side around a table with the debate questioners. When third parties just can't compete as to media buys, free TV is so very important and they get very little of it. (Can we spell dead "Fairness Doctrine?"
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read