So Trump and Clinton are pretty neck and neck. But why is Johnson getting like 10% while Stein is only getting 2%...

So Trump and Clinton are pretty neck and neck. But why is Johnson getting like 10% while Stein is only getting 2%? Why do so many people look at the past decade and think, "you know, what this country needs is MORE hypercapitalism"?

Other urls found in this thread:

scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-the-presidential-candidates-know-about-science/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

It has nothing with how people feel about capitalism, it has to do with the fact that no one has confidence in the Green Party.

And although I do think that the media tries to make them see whackier than they are, they've certainly facilitated stereotyping over the years.

Because they're uneducated, barely functioning idiots.

1) Johnson is getting all that sweet Porky cash that isn't going to Trump
2) Large sections of the electorate are low information and just see Johnson as the anti-war guy that wants to legalize weed
3) Many of Jill Steins' supporters aren't in the "electorate". That is to say, the media and polling organizations don't regard people most likely to be attracted to Stein (the young, the poor, environmentalists, etc) to be "likely voters"

Voters are less intelligent than cattle or maybe dogs.

Because the libertarians have a very catchy catchphrase: "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative".

It's kind of a national past-time for americans to hate government and taxes but love Freedom™ and the libertarians appear to fit the bill nicely. Problem is that most americans don't understand how much they rely on government services and "handouts". They don't understand that the problem is The Government and its current population of corrupt politicians, and not the concept of government itself. When Johnson rolls in and promises lower taxes and more freedom but without the religious bullshit attatched people will blindly follow him.

Isn't that because Americans in general see parties other than the Democrats and Republicans as unlikely to ever win?

The libertarians are a third party.

everyone thinks socialism means big gov, big tax, big spend, free shit. Plus lolberts are like Republicans except a lot of them distance themselves from Republicans conservative social platform, so it's more socially acceptable for people living in liberal communities to call themselves "libertarians" than "republicans." Since /idpol/ is literally the only thing that matters to liberals, most of them are pretty sympathetic to lolbertarianism anyways.

Compare how the Libertarian party appears to the uninformed vs the Greens.

The libertarian party on the surface appears pro-civil liberties, anti-war and anti-drug-war. The party's ideological baggage only shows if you dig a little deeper.

Compare this to the Greens: To the uneducated they appear like crazy hippies that hate technology, meat and vaccines and want to hug trees.

The free market will fix it. All hail the invisible hand!

what's the point of tripping if you're gonna post like one sentence?

Most browsers save name info, so it's more effort to delete the trip from the field and then put it back in afterward.

Is there any proof that muh free market, small government is better even within a capitalist frame. I don't know much about bourg economics, but it's pretty clear that social democratic states in Europe and elsewhere have better results while roughly equal gdp per capita, sometimes less. Even within America living standards rose the most between 40s-70s with pretty heavy keyenesean policy and union involvement. And aren't blue states better off than red usually?

Stein's been getting 4-5% from what I've read. Because part of the issue is that a lot of polls have outright excluded her as an option while including Gary Johnson.

Also understand that the Johnson campaign has somewhere around 40 million dollars while the Stein campaign has only 1-2 million dollars. The difference is that Johnson accepts corporate/lobbyist donations while the Greens do not. He has a lot more money to through out ads in the media.

Stein is batshit insane. Look at her proram. Wants to stop "global warming" and shames anyone who has doubts and 3 lines down says she wants to label and maybe even ban muh evolved plants. What happened to muh scientific consensus?

The Greens don't have a lot of visibility or as much money + your average voter is incredibly ignorant and maybe read some Ayn Rand in high school.

...

Red states also have large groid populations.

Cool source friend.

Stein lacks charisma. Nader would've killed this cycle imo

scientificamerican.com/article/what-do-the-presidential-candidates-know-about-science/


The science on GM0s is settled what's her problem?

name a single thing wrong with this

The scientific consensus is that GM0 foods are perfectly safe. There have been hundreds of scientific studies. Just pointing out the double standard.

I think she means approving evolved plant foods on a case-by-case basis

*have large poor populations

you p much just said the same thing he said

The only candidate with the guts to stand up to this bullshit. Fucking thank you.

THIS

And Ron Paul told all his supporters in 2012 on CNN and other places multiple times to go into the Libertarian and Constitution Parties. After that, their activity surged like crazy. People follow figureheads, and the Libertarian Party is now the zombie Ron Paul party. If S█████ had done something like that with the Greens, Stein would easily be ahead.