"That's not true because most people hate both parties", yet members of congress are re elected more than 90% of the time..
We're talking about presidents, but even by your own example, you are wrong because one of the most popular members of the senate, your very messiah, is in fact "independent". So, since he's doing so well as an "independent" in the senate and two of Rushmore's faces were third party, the historical precedent certainly supports the notion that Sanders would have fared better as a third party candidate than what we clearly saw, he flopped as a Democrat.
Right, George Washington wasn't affiliated at all!
We're talking about modern American politics, not ancient history. The political atmosphere George Washington faced is not the same as politicians face today.
I said "it could be argued". The fact is, at least two of the most popular presidents in history, were not stuck in the dichotomy. For the other two, it could be argued. Half of Mount Rushmore is enough to make the point. This is not ancient history, this is valid historical precedent. These people shaped our republic. They framed our constitution and laws. They are invoked at nearly every turn to make arguments, shape policy and explain context for just about everything that happens in gov't. They accomplished this BECAUSE they were not constrained by the two party dichotomy. It doesn't matter WHY they were not.
You talk about political atmosphere as if you do not want to see it changed, as if change was not the very platform that shapers and movers represent. Very telling indeed that you would top it off with insults to my intelligence. You, like your hero Bernie Sanders, can only speak as though you're making arguments in the hopes that they will fall upon ignorant and stupid ears.
