Why Stein Doesn’t Stand a Chance

Pragma, Principles, and Perception

(It should be noted that I’m writing this as a libertarian, and almost completely from my personal perceptions.)

Ignoring even what she could even accomplish once in office, Jill has a snowball’s chance in hell of making it big in this election. It’s not because she doesn’t have supporters, it’s because of who those supporters are.

Jill draws nobody from the right-wing. From the view of third-parties “robbing” votes from the main parties, Jill pulls almost exclusively from democrats (specifically, Sanders supporters). Prove me wrong, but there’s hardly policy she upholds that your stereotypical republican or libertarian agrees with.

Here’s why that gives her a snowball’s chance in hell:

1. Leftist Groupthink

Groupthink and “banding together” are much more prevalent on the “left” side of the aisle. Whenever you hear a left-winger talk about “unity” it’s always in a positive tone. Right-wingers? Unity is considered more of a necessary evil; we’d just as soon not have to deal with what others think, and we tend to not care as much of what others think.

Yes, you’ll hear people on both sides of the aisle talk about voting based on what’s popular. However, the reception for each side is different. Democrats care about unity and solidarity. They believe that progress in government can only be achieved by unity.

While conservatives and libertarians on the right side of the aisle are realizing they have nothing to lose by switching to Gary Johnson, Stein supporters have been beat down because “allowing Trump in the White House would reverse years of progressive policies” (which somehow, allowing Clinton to wouldn’t). This leads us to point 2:

2. Clinton vs. Stein is not a stark contrast (on the cover, and on popular issues)

I’m not talking about actual policy differences. I’m talking about perceptions. (And perceptions are what matter here, folks.)

If you were to wind back say, eight years, when climate change was hotly debated, then perhaps there might be a perceived policy difference. But this is 2016, and Trump has pretty well settled what the hot issues are: immigration, war, and… uhmmmmmm… well, I can’t really remember anything besides those two things which has been discussed recently. This cuts into point 3:

3. Stein is quite simply, lost

Prove me wrong, maybe the landscape will change. But Stein wants to continue what is received among many as “blabbering” about environmental issues. If she gets into the debates, maybe, just maybe, she’ll be able to get Hillary to give anything more than a brush-off answer to things like the environment.

Prove me wrong. But I doubt she’ll shake up much.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.