Ross Perot did all right, and he was a total amateur. If a group of people actually put some serious though and effort into it, who knows what might be possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot#1992_presidential_c...
In the 1992 election, he received 18.9% of the popular vote, about 19,741,065 votes, but no electoral college votes, making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election.[46] Unlike Perot, however, other third-party candidates since Roosevelt won multiple electoral college votes: Robert La Follette in 1924, Strom Thurmond in 1948, and George Wallace in 1968. Compared with Thurmond and Wallace, who polled very strongly in a small number of states, Perot's vote was more evenly spread across the country. Perot managed to finish second in two states: In Maine, Perot received 30.44% of the vote to Bush's 30.39% (Clinton won with 38.77%); in Utah, Perot received 27.34% of the vote to Clinton's 24.65% (Bush won with 43.36%). Although Perot did not win a state, he received a plurality of votes in some counties.[47][48] His popular vote total is still by far the most ever garnered for a third-party candidate, almost double the previous record set by Wallace in 1968.
A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper-middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[49] Exit polls also showed that 38% of Perot voters would have otherwise voted for Bush, and 38% would have voted for Clinton.[50] Though there were widespread claims that Perot acted as a "spoiler," post-election analysis suggested that his presence in the race likely did not affect the outcome.[51]
PG's statement:
> The second is about something politicians sometimes say — that the only way to become a billionaire is by exploiting people — and why this is mistaken.
He is framing it so he is debunking an absurd claim: that the only way (no other ways are possible) to become a billionaire is by exploiting people.
This is distinctly different from whether "exploiting people" (opinions vary on what this means) is the most common way it is actually done.
It's a shame we don't have a political party that would end this rhetorical he said / she said approach we take to this topic, and instead adapt a thorough data focused approach to this problem, accurately illustrating the situation in a way that the common man could understand. It would be nice to know with some level of accuracy how "bad" the problem really is, as it is we have little to go on other than our intuitions and propaganda from both sides.