Her loons will sit it out.

I'd say .6% tops.

Third party polling ALWAYS collapses on election day, particularly since Perot, and more so since Nader.

Johnson in particular, I'd be shocked if he gets more than 1% in any swing state whatever his poll numbers say now. Even libertarians don't really like him much, and his votes will break left way more than somebody like Barr or Paul would.

People will say they support him to get him into the debates or to avoid admitting to intending to vote for someone they don't like or are embarrassed about (a lot of that this cycle) or even to get a third party matching funds, but when it comes down to pulling the lever, in a state where it might matter, they're going to vote against whoever they consider the greater evil, just like they always do.

He might get stronger single digit numbers in safe states, Stein might too, doubt it will be consequential.

Is the Green Party even on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC?

I seem to recall 34 states

are not going to give those up this year (read: California and New York, where Nader picked up a good deal of his 2.74% in 2000).

But, yes, of course these third party numbers are a total joke relative to Election Day voting. Surely, nobody at the NY Times believes that a 4% Stein national vote share is actually a predictor of the final result.

Nader was at 4% in many polls in Sept.

How do you come to your conclusion knowing this fact?

Stein is on par to do worse than Nader in 2000. Nader hit 4% in many polls.

That's a prediction, not a fact. It is based on my observations:

1) That her campaign is a fucking joke relative to Nader's campaign of 2000. Nader was filling arenas at campaign events by this time in 2000. Stein would be lucky to fill a small community center. Now, another poster on this thread has made an interesting point: there are more disaffected Leftists now than then, even if Stein's campaign is an embarrassing clown-act, while Nader's 2000 operation at least had some chops. Perhaps true, perhaps not. I think disaffected left-of-center folks were probably just as numerous then after the Clinton years, and the threat was less clear, as we'd been largely free of war and economic catastrophe for some time. Bush was a buffoon, but he pales in comparison to Trump. For this reason,

2) I do not believe (prediction, not fact) that Stein will pull even the meager margins that Nader did from safe states like New York and California. The disaffected types (not people, they're older now) who "safely" voted for Nader in 2000 won't be there for Stein in 2016, precisely because the threat of Trump so far outweighs the threat of Bush Jr that only the truly imbecilic embittered lefties will stomp their feet and throw their little tantrums on Election Day. And that's a small number.

To state that I didn't properly read your op. I didn't edit because of how quickly you replied to me. Didn't want to edit while you were in the middle of another reply. I believe we are in agreement. Thanks for your thorough follow up here.

The campaign and candidate are not as potent by a ways this time, but the electorate has a bitter small radical left fringe peeled off from the Dem party, that was not there in 2000. My guess is she'll end up just a bit less than Nader, bolstered from intervening elections thanks to Clinton Derangement Syndrome sufferers on the left.

I only hope they come to their senses on election day.

has strong appeal to a bunch of 18-30 year-olds who consider themselves too cool to vote for a 69-year old woman.

Too late to repeal the 22nd?

I'd guess he'll end up with something like Nader's 2000 numbers, perhaps less: 2.5-2.75%. It will be mostly from typical Republican voters in safe states like California and New York.

We're looking at a 2004 type of nailbiter this time around. Hopefully we can win a close one for once.

So, no, I don't think she'll outperform Nader.

Johnson might hurt us more.