Yeah, Johnson got screwed here. The odds Donald J. Trump knew where Aleppo was (before all this) are approximately zero percent, but instead Matt Lauer asks him if he's "ready to be President".
Still, politics are unfair. At the end of the day what matters is that this is the first time Johnson has gotten real mainstream media coverage, so a fair number of voters have been introduced to him as Mr. What's-Aleppo Guy. Bye-bye Johnson.
Yeah, Johnson got screwed here. The odds Donald J. Trump knew where Aleppo was (before all this) are approximately zero percent, but instead Matt Lauer asks him if he's "ready to be President".
Still, politics are unfair. At the end of the day what matters is that this is the first time Johnson has gotten real mainstream media coverage, so a fair number of voters have been introduced to him as Mr. What's-Aleppo Guy. Bye-bye Johnson.
I don't think it will do him any favors, but I think it will be easier for him to recover from this particular gaffe because it turns out Gary Johnson's gaffe introduced a significant part of the US population to Aleppo who had no idea what or where it was either, including media sources reporting on the gaffe, the general public googling Aleppo...
I'm not gonna lie, I mostly know where it is because I play a lot of Crusader Kings II. But I was aware of the current situation there.
And I don't think "He didn't know something I also didn't know" is exactly endearing in a presidential candidate. Even in this race where Donald Trump has a non-trivial chance of winning it all, I think the American electorate still believes in the idea of a president who intelligent and well informed. It's just that a lot of them inexplicably think Trump has those qualities.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In my opinion it was a gotcha question. Johnson is well aware of what's going on over there, and the interviewer could easily have asked "What do you think about the crisis in Syria", but instead said "what do you think of Aleppo". I wouldn't know what the hell the guy was talking about either. At least he owned up and admitted his mistake and committed to doing better, which is far above what the other 2 would have done.
I like Johnson for president, especially when you square him against the 2 dunces the main parties have put up, but the debates are key. If he can get into the debates I think he has a reasonable chance at winning the presidency. If he doesn't make the debates he doesn't have a shot, but his poll numbers are going up every day, and I'm confident he can make it into the debates.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: GR Pummeler
Modern: Mono-Red Control, Lantern Control, Eldrazi Taxes, Skred Infect
Pauper: Affinity
EDH: Gaddock Teeg Kithkin Tribal, Meren
Legacy: 8 Rack, Omnitell (Both in progress)
In my opinion it was a gotcha question. Johnson is well aware of what's going on over there, and the interviewer could easily have asked "What do you think about the crisis in Syria", but instead said "what do you think of Aleppo". I wouldn't know what the hell the guy was talking about either. At least he owned up and admitted his mistake and committed to doing better, which is far above what the other 2 would have done.
If "I don't know where it is" is the standard for a gotcha question, then asking about Syria is a gotcha question - most Americans don't know where Syria is either. As long as we're going to lob Johnson softballs, maybe we shouldn't go throwing obscure country names out without providing him a map showing where they are?
I think that drastically more Americans know about Aleppo because of his slip-up than did before, so that's a good thing.
Gary Johnson could potentially be as bad as Hillary or Trump. People shine a good light on him because he's the "Other" choice, but he's really just another garbageperson.
In my opinion it was a gotcha question. Johnson is well aware of what's going on over there, and the interviewer could easily have asked "What do you think about the crisis in Syria", but instead said "what do you think of Aleppo". I wouldn't know what the hell the guy was talking about either. At least he owned up and admitted his mistake and committed to doing better, which is far above what the other 2 would have done.
If "I don't know where it is" is the standard for a gotcha question, then asking about Syria is a gotcha question - most Americans don't know where Syria is either. As long as we're going to lob Johnson softballs, maybe we shouldn't go throwing obscure country names out without providing him a map showing where they are?
I disagree. Anybody who's been following the election at all knows something is going on in Syria. The refugee crisis has been in the headlines as a key point of the debate for months. Asking about Syria isn't a problem because it's borderline common knowledge that something is going down there. It's quite a different thing to ask about some random ass city in the country that's supposedly the "center" of the crisis. He didn't ask where Aleppo is either, so most people not knowing where Syria is isn't a valid argument. He asked what Aleppo is, since he thought it was an acronym for something.
Blinking Spirit with all due respect I think you're wrong. The voters in this election are far more disenfranchised with the available options from the leading 2 parties than they were in the '92 election. The voters want a third option, and Johnson in the debates will show them there is one.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Standard: GR Pummeler
Modern: Mono-Red Control, Lantern Control, Eldrazi Taxes, Skred Infect
Pauper: Affinity
EDH: Gaddock Teeg Kithkin Tribal, Meren
Legacy: 8 Rack, Omnitell (Both in progress)
Blinking Spirit with all due respect I think you're wrong. The voters in this election are far more disenfranchised with the available options from the leading 2 parties than they were in the '92 election. The voters want a third option, and Johnson in the debates will show them there is one.
Everyone knows there are third options. The question is whether or not there are any viable third options, which of course Johnson is not.
This is reflected in Johnson's inability to qualify for the debates. The qualifying number is 15% support, which Johnson does not have.
Blinking Spirit with all due respect I think you're wrong. The voters in this election are far more disenfranchised with the available options from the leading 2 parties than they were in the '92 election. The voters want a third option, and Johnson in the debates will show them there is one.
Don't confuse what you want to happen with what you expect to happen. I'm not just being negative on Johnson for the hell of it here. There's lots and lots and lots of electoral science confirming that Gary Johnson has no hope at all of winning a single electoral vote, much less two hundred seventy. And unless he's completely divorced from reality -- which I don't think he is -- Johnson himself has to be well aware of this. His campaign is not about winning. It's about increasing visibility for his party.
If you think I'm wrong, tell me: which states exactly do you think Johnson might carry? By what margins? What poll data do you have to back up these predictions?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I disagree. Anybody who's been following the election at all knows something is going on in Syria. The refugee crisis has been in the headlines as a key point of the debate for months. Asking about Syria isn't a problem because it's borderline common knowledge that something is going down there. It's quite a different thing to ask about some random ass city in the country that's supposedly the "center" of the crisis. He didn't ask where Aleppo is either, so most people not knowing where Syria is isn't a valid argument. He asked what Aleppo is, since he thought it was an acronym for something.
So the standard for fair questions is "common knowledge"? We can't expect the candidates to know more than the average uninformed American?
I guarantee you Hillary Clinton knows what Aleppo is.
Blinking Spirit with all due respect I think you're wrong. The voters in this election are far more disenfranchised with the available options from the leading 2 parties than they were in the '92 election. The voters want a third option, and Johnson in the debates will show them there is one.
Everyone knows there are third options. The question is whether or not there are any viable third options, which of course Johnson is not.
This is reflected in Johnson's inability to qualify for the debates. The qualifying number is 15% support, which Johnson does not have.
He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?
If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?
Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?
The threshold used to be lower than 15%, mind you. Why did it change? Ross Perot?
Quote from Tiax »
So the standard for fair questions is "common knowledge"? We can't expect the candidates to know more than the average uninformed American?
I guarantee you Hillary Clinton knows what Aleppo is.
I guarantee you that Gary Johnson knew as well. He said he did in his statement after the fact, and the dude spends plenty of time talking about foreign policy/the Syrian refugee crisis. Do you really think he didn't know what Aleppo was just because he had a brain cramp when it was brought up completely out of context as a "gotcha" question? I guarantee you that Barack Obama knew there were only 50 states, too.
I guarantee you that Gary Johnson knew as well. He said he did in his statement after the fact, and the dude spends plenty of time talking about foreign policy/the Syrian refugee crisis. Do you really think he didn't know what Aleppo was just because he had a brain cramp when it was brought up completely out of context as a "gotcha" question?
Oh, well, if he said he knew it, then I guess that settles it.
I guarantee you that Barack Obama knew there were only 50 states, too.
And unless he's completely divorced from reality -- which I don't think he is -- Johnson himself has to be well aware of this. His campaign is not about winning. It's about increasing visibility for his party.
I remember seeing a radio interview with Johnson (I think it was Penn Gillette's radio show, which would make sense since Penn is also a libertarian), where Johnson himself said that his goal was to raise issues and force the Republicans and Democrats to deal with them, that he wasn't expecting to actually win the race.
He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?
If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?
Someone polling at 15% or above, clearly.
Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?
I know you think that the Libertarian party is this put upon party and if only people knew about them they'd get more votes. As though their only problem were lack of exposure. But it isn't. There's one reason people are Libertarians, and that's ignorance. Ignorance of economics. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of law. Ignorance of foreign policy. Ignorance.
Gary Johnson would make a better president than Donald Trump. But that's about all I can say, and really, that's faint praise.
He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?
If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?
Someone polling at 15% or above, clearly.
Unless they move the target up again and why the heck not? They've done it before and they have a vested interest in doing it again.
That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.
Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?
I know you think that the Libertarian party is this put upon party and if only people knew about them they'd get more votes.
That's not unusual for anyone that believes that their conclusions are derived from a proper understanding of reality - whether they be Christians or Atheists, libertarians or socialists. In fact, your repetition of the word "ignorance" hereafter seems to suggest that you too believe that very same thing, only in reverse. If people only had a proper understanding of history, economics, etc. then they wouldn't be libertarians. Yeah, I get that, we disagree.
In this scenario, though, I think I'm making a much more modest proposal: that, if equally informed, the American people as a whole might dislike Gary Johnson less than they dislike Trump and Hillary. Not than every Democrat or every Republican, but than these two specifically.
[quote] As though their only problem were lack of exposure. But it isn't. There's one reason people are Libertarians, and that's ignorance. Ignorance of economics. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of law. Ignorance of foreign policy. Ignorance.
Yeah, I get it, we disagree.
But you know, we're not exactly talking about radicals here. Yes, I'm sure you could isolate some radical elements within their agenda but Johnson and Weld were both elected as Republicans to the office of governor for 2 different Democratic states. They're not exactly Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. Heck, they're not even Ron Paul.
Gary Johnson would make a better president than Donald Trump. But that's about all I can say, and really, that's faint praise.
That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.
There are many such scenarios, but they all start with a third party adopting a platform which is not comically out of touch with Americans.
That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.
There are many such scenarios, but they all start with a third party adopting a platform which is not comically out of touch with Americans.
When you say platform, are you talking about the party's written platform?
When you say platform, are you talking about the party's written platform?
I mean more generally the set of policies the party and the candidate in particular advocate. The written platforms the parties put out, especially third parties, are often too vague to make much of a judgment about.
It's official. he will not be on the stage. According to the polls utilized only 10% of the electorate (average) would vote for him, so he is out of the first debate.
The two party lock has never been more obvious, and while there have been electoral outcomes I disliked and disagreed with this is the first time since I've been eligible to vote that I am legitimately disappointed by the system itself.
The former New Mexico governor added that the commission "may scoff at a ticket that enjoys ‘only’ 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states."
It's official. he will not be on the stage. According to the polls utilized only 10% of the electorate (average) would vote for him, so he is out of the first debate.
The two party lock has never been more obvious, and while there have been electoral outcomes I disliked and disagreed with this is the first time since I've been eligible to vote that I am legitimately disappointed by the system itself.
The former New Mexico governor added that the commission "may scoff at a ticket that enjoys ‘only’ 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states."
You're disappointed that the guy who has a 0% chance of being president isn't in the debates to figure out who should be president?
You're disappointed that the guy who has a 0% chance of being president isn't in the debates to figure out who should be president?
Absolutely. Presidential elections (and really any office of significant enough import) involve substantially more than just picking a winner. Pressure from other candidates can force policy shifts the eventual winner that are hard to backtrack on. And, when you have 62% of the country wanting to hear what he has to say it is absurd to me that the CPD refuses to allow him to participate.
Do I think he can win? No, not realistically. Do I think his participation would have an immensely positive impact on the debates, and the subsequent policies? Absolutely.
The fact of the matter is the CPD exists to exclude non (r) or (d) candidates from participating. They've done their job admirably.
It's official. he will not be on the stage. According to the polls utilized only 10% of the electorate (average) would vote for him, so he is out of the first debate.
The two party lock has never been more obvious, and while there have been electoral outcomes I disliked and disagreed with this is the first time since I've been eligible to vote that I am legitimately disappointed by the system itself.
The former New Mexico governor added that the commission "may scoff at a ticket that enjoys ‘only’ 9 or 10% in their hand-selected polls, but even 9% represents 13 million voters, more than the total population of Ohio and most other states."
You're disappointed that the guy who has a 0% chance of being president isn't in the debates to figure out who should be president?
Being one of just 3 candidates that is on the polls in all 50 states + carrying more than 10% of the electorate with very limited media coverage, fundraising and support structures is not insignificant. For a small d democrat, I'm surprised that you'd be so interested in limiting the public's right to know and make an informed decision.
Also, do you think Donald Trump actually has a legitimate chance of winning?
Absolutely. Presidential elections (and really any office of significant enough import) involve substantially more than just picking a winner. Pressure from other candidates can force policy shifts the eventual winner that are hard to backtrack on. And, when you have 62% of the country wanting to hear what he has to say it is absurd to me that the CPD refuses to allow him to participate.
Do I think he can win? No, not realistically. Do I think his participation would have an immensely positive impact on the debates, and the subsequent policies? Absolutely.
The fact of the matter is the CPD exists to exclude non (r) or (d) candidates from participating. They've done their job admirably.
If 62% of the country want to hear what he has to say, there are endless interviews, forums, and other debates in which he and his VP have participated. The presidential debates should be a way for people to find out about the people who might be president. Not yet another platform for irrelevant candidates to grandstand.
If Gary Johnson's presence would have a significant impact on the debates and on the resulting policies, should we also allow Jill Stein to participate? Darrell Castle? Vermin Supreme?
Being one of just 3 candidates that is on the polls in all 50 states + carrying more than 10% of the electorate with very limited media coverage, fundraising and support structures is not insignificant. For a small d democrat, I'm surprised that you'd be so interested in limiting the public's right to know and make an informed decision.
Also, do you think Donald Trump actually has a legitimate chance of winning?
The public is not obstructed from finding out everything there is to know about Gary Johnson by him not appearing in this debate. That's an absurd strawman.
I think Donald Trump has a legitimate chance of winning. He's not the favorite, but his chances are non-zero. Fivethirtyeight has it as 60/40, which given recent polls is probably a fair picture of the current state of the race. Unlike Johnson, whose chances are literally zero. His chances of getting even a single EV are essentially zero. Having 10% is insignificant. If Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump had 10% they'd be laughed out of politics forever.
I think it just makes his advisors look bad.
I don't think it will do him any favors, but I think it will be easier for him to recover from this particular gaffe because it turns out Gary Johnson's gaffe introduced a significant part of the US population to Aleppo who had no idea what or where it was either, including media sources reporting on the gaffe, the general public googling Aleppo...
...and me.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
~~~~~
And I don't think "He didn't know something I also didn't know" is exactly endearing in a presidential candidate. Even in this race where Donald Trump has a non-trivial chance of winning it all, I think the American electorate still believes in the idea of a president who intelligent and well informed. It's just that a lot of them inexplicably think Trump has those qualities.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I like Johnson for president, especially when you square him against the 2 dunces the main parties have put up, but the debates are key. If he can get into the debates I think he has a reasonable chance at winning the presidency. If he doesn't make the debates he doesn't have a shot, but his poll numbers are going up every day, and I'm confident he can make it into the debates.
Modern: Mono-Red Control, Lantern Control, Eldrazi Taxes, Skred Infect
Pauper: Affinity
EDH: Gaddock Teeg Kithkin Tribal, Meren
Legacy: 8 Rack, Omnitell (Both in progress)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
If "I don't know where it is" is the standard for a gotcha question, then asking about Syria is a gotcha question - most Americans don't know where Syria is either. As long as we're going to lob Johnson softballs, maybe we shouldn't go throwing obscure country names out without providing him a map showing where they are?
Gary Johnson could potentially be as bad as Hillary or Trump. People shine a good light on him because he's the "Other" choice, but he's really just another garbageperson.
Vermin Supreme '16
I disagree. Anybody who's been following the election at all knows something is going on in Syria. The refugee crisis has been in the headlines as a key point of the debate for months. Asking about Syria isn't a problem because it's borderline common knowledge that something is going down there. It's quite a different thing to ask about some random ass city in the country that's supposedly the "center" of the crisis. He didn't ask where Aleppo is either, so most people not knowing where Syria is isn't a valid argument. He asked what Aleppo is, since he thought it was an acronym for something.
Blinking Spirit with all due respect I think you're wrong. The voters in this election are far more disenfranchised with the available options from the leading 2 parties than they were in the '92 election. The voters want a third option, and Johnson in the debates will show them there is one.
Modern: Mono-Red Control, Lantern Control, Eldrazi Taxes, Skred Infect
Pauper: Affinity
EDH: Gaddock Teeg Kithkin Tribal, Meren
Legacy: 8 Rack, Omnitell (Both in progress)
This is reflected in Johnson's inability to qualify for the debates. The qualifying number is 15% support, which Johnson does not have.
If you think I'm wrong, tell me: which states exactly do you think Johnson might carry? By what margins? What poll data do you have to back up these predictions?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So the standard for fair questions is "common knowledge"? We can't expect the candidates to know more than the average uninformed American?
I guarantee you Hillary Clinton knows what Aleppo is.
He has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. His VP has gubernatorial experience as a Republican governor of a Democratic state. He's polling at 10%+ nationwide with very limited media coverage. Multiple high profile politicians (including Mitt Romney and ex-governors like Schwarzenegger) have voiced their interest in having him at the debates. The two big party candidates are probably the most reviled duo in modern election history. There are only THREE candidates on all 50 state ballots and guess who the 3rd is?
If he can't qualify for the debates, who else will ever have that chance in this media climate?
Why cede control of our election to the big parties and the media?
The threshold used to be lower than 15%, mind you. Why did it change? Ross Perot?
I guarantee you that Gary Johnson knew as well. He said he did in his statement after the fact, and the dude spends plenty of time talking about foreign policy/the Syrian refugee crisis. Do you really think he didn't know what Aleppo was just because he had a brain cramp when it was brought up completely out of context as a "gotcha" question? I guarantee you that Barack Obama knew there were only 50 states, too.
Oh, well, if he said he knew it, then I guess that settles it.
A slip of the tongue is not the same.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
I know you think that the Libertarian party is this put upon party and if only people knew about them they'd get more votes. As though their only problem were lack of exposure. But it isn't. There's one reason people are Libertarians, and that's ignorance. Ignorance of economics. Ignorance of history. Ignorance of law. Ignorance of foreign policy. Ignorance.
Gary Johnson would make a better president than Donald Trump. But that's about all I can say, and really, that's faint praise.
Unless they move the target up again and why the heck not? They've done it before and they have a vested interest in doing it again.
That was not entirely what I meant, though. To be clear: I am wondering if there are a reasonable number of realistic scenarios under which a 3rd party hits 15% again. If not, I think a lot of people would agree that we've got a problem.
That's not unusual for anyone that believes that their conclusions are derived from a proper understanding of reality - whether they be Christians or Atheists, libertarians or socialists. In fact, your repetition of the word "ignorance" hereafter seems to suggest that you too believe that very same thing, only in reverse. If people only had a proper understanding of history, economics, etc. then they wouldn't be libertarians. Yeah, I get that, we disagree.
In this scenario, though, I think I'm making a much more modest proposal: that, if equally informed, the American people as a whole might dislike Gary Johnson less than they dislike Trump and Hillary. Not than every Democrat or every Republican, but than these two specifically.
Yeah, I get it, we disagree.
But you know, we're not exactly talking about radicals here. Yes, I'm sure you could isolate some radical elements within their agenda but Johnson and Weld were both elected as Republicans to the office of governor for 2 different Democratic states. They're not exactly Murray Rothbard and Lysander Spooner. Heck, they're not even Ron Paul.
Add Hillary to that list and we're good.
There are many such scenarios, but they all start with a third party adopting a platform which is not comically out of touch with Americans.
When you say platform, are you talking about the party's written platform?
I mean more generally the set of policies the party and the candidate in particular advocate. The written platforms the parties put out, especially third parties, are often too vague to make much of a judgment about.
It's official. he will not be on the stage. According to the polls utilized only 10% of the electorate (average) would vote for him, so he is out of the first debate.
The two party lock has never been more obvious, and while there have been electoral outcomes I disliked and disagreed with this is the first time since I've been eligible to vote that I am legitimately disappointed by the system itself.
You're disappointed that the guy who has a 0% chance of being president isn't in the debates to figure out who should be president?
Absolutely. Presidential elections (and really any office of significant enough import) involve substantially more than just picking a winner. Pressure from other candidates can force policy shifts the eventual winner that are hard to backtrack on. And, when you have 62% of the country wanting to hear what he has to say it is absurd to me that the CPD refuses to allow him to participate.
Do I think he can win? No, not realistically. Do I think his participation would have an immensely positive impact on the debates, and the subsequent policies? Absolutely.
The fact of the matter is the CPD exists to exclude non (r) or (d) candidates from participating. They've done their job admirably.
Being one of just 3 candidates that is on the polls in all 50 states + carrying more than 10% of the electorate with very limited media coverage, fundraising and support structures is not insignificant. For a small d democrat, I'm surprised that you'd be so interested in limiting the public's right to know and make an informed decision.
Also, do you think Donald Trump actually has a legitimate chance of winning?
If 62% of the country want to hear what he has to say, there are endless interviews, forums, and other debates in which he and his VP have participated. The presidential debates should be a way for people to find out about the people who might be president. Not yet another platform for irrelevant candidates to grandstand.
If Gary Johnson's presence would have a significant impact on the debates and on the resulting policies, should we also allow Jill Stein to participate? Darrell Castle? Vermin Supreme?
The public is not obstructed from finding out everything there is to know about Gary Johnson by him not appearing in this debate. That's an absurd strawman.
I think Donald Trump has a legitimate chance of winning. He's not the favorite, but his chances are non-zero. Fivethirtyeight has it as 60/40, which given recent polls is probably a fair picture of the current state of the race. Unlike Johnson, whose chances are literally zero. His chances of getting even a single EV are essentially zero. Having 10% is insignificant. If Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump had 10% they'd be laughed out of politics forever.
Or reality.
The two party "lock" exists because people aren't voting for anyone else, bLatch.