In regards to point one, it may be possible but is it necessary? Why not become a party and give supporters an easy way to reference the group and it’s goals and gain legitimacy. To that end, I have a few suggestions.
People don’t want unity, it sounds like a concession or reconciliation. People want to be winners. They don’t dream of joining a talented team, they dream of being an all star. Unity gardens don’t hold the same appeal as victory gardens. A much stronger name which suggests the intended outcome without laboring over details is much to be desired in order to go mainstream. One that allows people to paint with a broad brush and disagree over details yet give unwavering support. No one is opposed to victory gardens though they may despise the war.
Victory party is a tad on the nose and lacks context, it would be reframed as anti- something. At it’s heart this isn’t about inventing a new party and further splitting a divided country, it is about uniting reasonable people to responsibly govern in a way that neither extreme is capable of. We know polling shows congress is hugely unpopular with both parties, levels of public dissatisfaction with the system are sky high. This presents an opportunity.
A neutral third party would find countless issues which have not been addressed by red or blue concern the public and have broad bipartisan support. The strategy then is to deflect every divisive social issue used as a wedge with a legitimate concern. Refuse to engage the pro-life question, divert with frankly I am concerned about the well being of all the people in x and their ability to prosper because of y. Or, I trust people to make their own decisions on personal / /medical / religious matters, what really concerns me is x.
If one was to actually represent the interests of the american people, and avoid the pitfall of engaging in any discussion of wedge issues, I daresay people would flock to it in droves. Consequently I think an excellent name would be simply the majority party. A self fulfilling prophecy which beckons people to join the in group, to hold views which are popular, to become mainstream, not fringe but central, to agree with their peers, to join the crowd, and most importantly, to be on the winning side. How could a majority party lose?
I realize this is a long tangent and I am new here, the last question is not rhetorical. I’m half convinced the public is so fed up that this idea could work if you just called it the dog party and vowed eternal love and friendship for man’s most faithful companion. I believe 53% of Americans own dogs and that it cuts across party lines enough to allow formation of a neutral, dog centric party committed to… well just to being American really… and responsible enough to care for a dog? Or…actually,…that could work… “We are Canis major and we represent fidelity and personal responsibilty. and puppies.”