For Some Reason…
By Mitch Berg
Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein is getting shut out of media coverage.
Wonder why that is?
By Mitch Berg
Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein is getting shut out of media coverage.
Wonder why that is?
This entry was posted by by Mitch Berg on Wednesday, September 12th, 2012 at 5:00 am and is filed under Campaign '12. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

Shot in the Dark is a
WordPress joint.
Entries (RSS)
and Comments (RSS).
September 12th, 2012 at 8:00 am
The glee in reporting a poll result of 2% is wonderful. “That’s over 2.4mil Americans.” Also being on the ballot in 40 states. “85% of Americans will see our ticket on Election Day.” Does this count as a moral victory?
September 12th, 2012 at 8:45 am
Her candidacy may be irrelevant, but I’d like her to get as much coverage as possible. Anything that takes votes away from Obama is a good thing in my book.
September 12th, 2012 at 9:40 am
On the other side of the coin, three percent of likely voters responded that they would vote for Johnson, the Libertarian Party’s candidate for president, in November.
How much media does Johnson get?
September 12th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Johnson will pull more dem voters than repubs this year. That is not always the case (Perot), but it is this year.
September 12th, 2012 at 11:30 am
“Johnson will pull more dem voters than repubs this year. That is not always the case (Perot), but it is this year.”
Can you link to data/polling that shows this? Thanks.
September 12th, 2012 at 12:28 pm
That is my opinion. I didn’t say it was hard fact that I could back up with data if I wanted to but just don’t want to right now.
Just my opinion.
Have you seen data that shows otherwise? Then I will stand corrected.
Lefties angry at Obama for continuing the Bush war on terror programs, and looking for someone who wants us out of all foreign affairs, will turn to the Libertarian party. Just as socially liberal, but without the foreign entanglements.
And why would a Repub turn to the L party? Not for fiscal reasons, Romney is fine in that area. Because they perceive him as too socially liberal? And so what, turn to an even more socially liberal party? I don’t see that happening.
Now, if the Repub was perceived to be another compassionate conservative like Bush, a big spender, I could see more R’s voting L.
But not this year.
September 12th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Don’t know whether Johnson will pull more votes from the R rather than the D column. I know that some of the Tampa delegates have been tacitly campaigning for months against Romney and are trying to use the rules battle as their justification for voting for Johnson. I find that about as believable as Keith Ellison’s theory that the attacks on our embassies in Egypt and Libya on the anniversary of 9/11 had anything to with a movie on YouTube.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
It is obvious that Sanity doesn’t believe any poll to be valid if it shows that the libturds are behind. Then, they get their media propagandists to manufacture polls with more favorable results.
September 12th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
You know what Sanity, maybe I am wrong. I forgot about the Ron Paul contingent.
September 12th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Kinlaw – I think it depends to the extent that the “Ron Paul contingent” overlaps with Republicans. There are quite a few to be certain but Ron Paul made his pitch as much to Truthers and the “Occupy” crowd as he did to libertarians and Tea Party types (who were just as likely to favor the other candidates). Part of this may be that Ron Paul wasn’t so much the head of an ideological movement as he was the head of a cult of personality similar to Jesse Ventura.