Hmmm. So you have laid out why Johnson is not a good substitute for Bernie Sanders, but while some of your claims are absolutely 100% accurate in characterizing the differences, not all of them are accurate. For instance, when it suits your purpose, you substitute a stance or plank of the Libertarian Party in theory when Johnson’s actual campaign proposals do not always jibe perfectly with the Party position. (For the record, not every Democrat subscribes to every plank of the Party platform, yet they still run as a Democrat and call themselves a Party member.)
All of that notwithstanding, you really don’t speculate on why milennials are flocking to Johnson. Your premise is that it must be the result of a misunderstanding. If they understood how little Johnson resmebles Sanders, of course they would all embrace Hillary Clinton.
What if Sanders and Johnson don’t have to have anything in common but this: their supporters summarily reject Hillary Clinton as an acceptable candidate?
What if Sanders’ energy wasn’t really being generated by the wondrousness of his socialist agenda? What if all those young people aren’t just clamoring for more free stuff? What if they see Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as the logical manifestations of the corruption that has enveloped our political machine?
What if it really is all about Hillary and the perception that she is a terrible candidate who has risen to the entitlement of the highest office in the land on the basis of longstanding quid pro quo arrangements with Wall Street, as well as dubious suspicious relatinoships with foreign billionaires?
No one is more of a product of the Establishment than Hillary Clinton, and the milennials have a tendency to reject the Establishment out of hand. Sure, Trump is awful, but how much different is his brand of objectionable from Hillary’s brand?