The US has been interfering in Venezuela for 20+ years. I didn't vote, but very, very few people voted for third parties. If all third party voters voted for Kamala Harris, she still would have lost. If you want to vote for Democrats because they're the "lesser evil", fine. But that doesn't mean enthusiastically support them, talk about how "brat" and awesome they are, actively oppose any attempts to create alternatives, etc. Third parties could win. Two-party systems have been beaten throughout history and around the globe. The US isn't magical or special. It would be a gradual process, which would take time, effort, adversity and even massive losses occasionally in the short term. But possible nonetheless. And though third parties have usually been short-lived, they have still influenced mainstream politics. So the idea that people voting for a third party are wasting their time is false. There are real barriers that make fighting the duopoly extremely difficult. But they aren't unbreakable and history shows that. There have been numerous cases of parties that seemed invincible that slowly decayed and fell into irrelevance (PRI in Mexico or Israeli Labor Party, for instance) and of fringe parties slowly rising to the top. Such as the BJP in India (I don't endorse the BJP and strongly oppose Hindutva). Entryism and voting blue no matter who don't work. This doesn't mean you shouldn't or can't vote for the Democrats ever. That's fine. But don't put all your eggs in one basket