Early Voting Results: How are Jill Stein & Gary Johnson Polling Nationally?

jill stein, gary johnson, early voting

Could Jill Stein or Gary Johnson get 5 percent of the vote? (Getty)

Current polls show that more people from third parties or unaffiliated parties are voting this year as compared to 2012. But how do these early voting results and national polls indicate that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein might actually do in the general election itself on November 8?

Here’s what you need to know.

Johnson’s Rank in National Polls Today vs. 2012

SALT LAKE CITY, UT - AUGUST 6: Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks to a crowd of supporters at a rally on August 6, 2015 in Salt Lake City, Utah. Johnson has spent the day campaigning in Salt Lake City, the home town of former republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. (Photo by George Frey/Getty Images)

Gary Johnson is moving toward 5 percent. (Getty)

In a match-up for Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson, Gary Johnson is behind in all the major polls, according to Real Clear Politics. However, he is averaging between 4 and 6 percent in national polls. RCP’s average puts Johnson at 4.8 compared to Clinton at 44.9 and Trump at 42.9. Johnson’s highest standings are found in a McClatchy/Marist poll from November 1-3, placing him at 6 percent compared to Clinton’s 44 percent and Trump’s 43 percent. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from October 31-November 4 puts Johnson at 6 percent with Trump at 39 percent and Clinton at 47 percent.

In the 2012 presidential election, by contrast, Johnson pulled in a total of 1 million votes and exactly 1 percent of the vote. This was after he polled at 5.1 percent in a CNN November poll and at 4 percent in a CNN September poll. So Johnson’s slightly ahead of where he was in 2012. But he might need to be a lot farther ahead than that to reach the coveted 5 percent of the popular vote.

Stein’s Rank in National Polls Today vs. 2012

Jill Stein (Getty)

Jill Stein (Getty)

Meanwhile, Jill Stein received 469,501 votes in the 2012 presidential election, which averaged to about .36 percent of the popular vote. This made her the most successful female presidential candidate in history at that point in time. A CNN poll in October had shown her bringing in 3 percent of the vote.

Right now, Johnson is polling around the same as he did in 2012, and Stein is polling a little less well than she did this time in 2012. It’s unclear how this will affect their final standing in the election. In 2012, both candidates ultimately brought in fewer votes than they had shown they would get in the CNN poll.

Early Voting Results for Third Parties Show Higher Turnouts Than in 2012

However, it may be too early to lose hope. Early election results show that third party candidates may be seeing higher turnouts this year overall.

Early election results typically only say if a voter came from an unaffiliated party or was Democrat or Republican. The results make no indication as to how that person actually voted. However, we can glean some information from the results so far. CNN reported that in Nevada, 107,023 people who early voted weren’t from any party. This is up from 96,010 in 2012. In North Carolina, the increase was more significant. 550,141 voted early who weren’t from either major party, up from 379,686 in 2012. And in Delaware, 26.1 percent of absentee ballots cast were from unaffiliated voters, and .32 percent were from Libertarians. In Arizona, meanwhile, 277,286 people voted from no party/other, up from 178,587 in 2012.  Florida saw a huge jump: 707,612 voters from no party, compared to 396,188 in 2008. Ohio reported a decrease: 420,340 from no party, down from 557,088 in 2008.

In general, more people who are unaffiliated are turning in ballots during the early voting process this year than in 2012. This might help boost their turnout in the end, when the votes from November 8 are tallied.

To read more about third-party and independent candidates, please see our stories below:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



Characterizing the current election as a choice of “the lesser of two evils” is hyperbolic cognitive dissonance constituting political malfeasance.

Progressive politics is not supported by a majority of the white electorate (period). The Trump presidential campaign has exposed a timeless intractable axiom that is at the core of America’s dysfunctional political existence, that is, that portion of the national electorate for which white racism is embraced or is of no disqualifying concern constitutes a majority of the white electorate. The political survival of the ideal expressed in the nations’s founding DECLARATION depends on an overwhelming, over 90% majority support, of the nonwhite electorate. White racist, whites indifferent to white racism, and whites who only need any flimsy rationale to abstain or vote to sustain white racism while in denial of supporting white racism is the white swing vote that adds to the consensus white electorate. Unfortunately it appears that progressive politics depends on depressing the white majority to low single digits while maximizing the nonwhite majority vote and turnout to super high double digits.

People voting over 90% one way are alarmed by the lessor evil!, people voting within a 10% spread are indifferent to a lessor evil that will after all represent the majority choice of their people. For the undecided ten percent or less of whites, it’s about what can be endured, for the over 90% of non whites it’s about survival.

A Black electorate faced with the choice of a white nationalist favored by a white majority has to suffer the timeworn ahistorical arrogance of paternalistic white single digit progressive purist insulting presumption that over 90% of Blacks of all classes, by voting for Hillary, would be voting against their interests, and are just as naive as the the over 90% of working class white males and a likely majority of white women voting for Trump against their interest.

This is not a normal electoral moment. This election is not just a choice about the Executive, but it affects the Judicial Branch as well. Where a generational change in the direction of the Supreme Court is at risk, wherein progressive change is possible, weighted against a regressive choice that is certain, under these circumstances, the demand for “political purity” by advocating voting for a fanciful “greater good” while characterizing the current election as a choice of “the lesser of two evils” is hyperbolic cognitive dissonance constituting political malfeasance. “Black Lives Matter” cannot coexist dismissive of White Racism Matters. The Trump is lesser for whites, but is monumental for blacks. This (“lesser” = “huge”) evil poses a threat to the Executive Branch for two presidential terms with an assured lifetime appointment of evil to the Judiciary.

As a pragmatic black Green progressive in behalf of the ~43% minority of pragmatic white progressives and over 90% of the black electorate_
A sensible Goal: Exploit the progressive change that has occurred in the “Feel the Bern” movement, provide for its growth and the growth of the Green Party; remove the Green Party from any future charge of being political spoilers that caused the demise of Bernie’s nascent “political revolution” while continuing to develop a progressive political alternative party.

Vote Hill in the Swing States, Vote Jill in the Very Safe Red,Blue States.


they should have done more better but the system failed them ,these two party controlled every thing from big businesses to mainstream media outlets ,so it is very toughest road to compete and get news coverage to reach the voters.

Discuss on Facebook