I am speculating that Jesse Ventura may be giving some consideration to an independent run at the White House in '04. (Of course, he would deny this, but some of his comments give me the impression that he may be angling for the office.)
This raises several questions for possible debate:
[list=1][li]Can Ventura get onto the ballot in enough states to win? (Given the implosion of the Reform Party this year, and, IIRC, his own withdrawal from that party.)[/li][li]Would you consider Ventura a viable candidate?[/li][li]Is his apparent atheism a fatal flaw for a politician? (Remember his comment about religion being “for the weak”?)[/li][li]If Ventura were running against Bush and Gore, would you vote for him?[/li][li]Has he ever betrayed his stance on any major issues?[/li]
My first impression of Ventura was that he was a political side-show freak. “Former-wrestler-turned-politician?” Come on. I have to admit, though, that the more I hear from Ventura, the more I am impressed by his common sense and aversion to BS. Though he seemingly doesn’t have a lot of formal education (at least judging from some of his grammatical mis-cues), I’m not so sure he doesn’t have more native intelligence than either of our current major-party candidates. Lord knows he has more charisma and “presence” than Gore and Bush combined.
I would be interested in hearing more about Ventura’s political views. He seems to be a strong proponent of personal liberties (opposing the War on Drugs, favoring legalization of marijuana, e.g.). I’m not sure he could properly be called “libertarian” though, because I’m not sure where he stands on economic and social issues. I’ve never really seen him take a stand on those issues. (Heck, for all I know, he could be a full-blown socialist.)
In fact Ventura has been a bit of a sphinx on the issues. I think some folks tend to project onto him whatever particular philosophy they may hold themselves, even when he has said nothing which might betray his own ideas.
Four more years of partisan bickering, and another slate of bland candidates, and I can see Ventura making some noise in '04, just on the sheer force of his personality.
Jesse Ventura would have one additional thing going for him that no other candidate would: Since he used to be a professional wrestler, it is impossible to dig up personal dirt on him. If the Democrats or Republicans were to find out that he was, say, at a cocaine party with 3 prostitutes 20 years ago, and they tried to smear him with it, he’d just come back and say, “Yeah, I f*cked 3 hookers while snorting coke! It was great! You wanna make something of it?” And his approval rating would increase.
Speaking as a Minnesota resident, I would not vote for Ventura for dog catcher.
He seems to be taking the governorship as a money-making opportunity, including but not limited to acting as referee in professional wrestling events, selling his book, selling his next book, appearing on Letterman, etc.
So far he has supported a uni-cameral legislature, an idea whose time has not (and should not) come, light rail between downtown Minneapolis and the Mall of America, a venture which the Dept. of Transportation has projected to cost roughly twice as much and carry about half as many people as highway upgrades, and supported a bill that puts homeopaths and other ‘alternative care’ practitioners on a level with MDs.
No thank you. I prefer my professional comedians to remain outside politics.
Now now, a unicameral legislature kinda makes sense. I mean, the districts for State Senators are determined by population the same way the districts for State Representatives/Assemblypeople are, so it’s kinda redundant.
Now if State Senators were allocated 2 to each county, that might be different.
Which begs the question: Did you vote for him the first time around?
The light rail proposal doesn’t bother me. In fact, it makes Jesse sound forward-thinking and environmentally friendly, both of which are plusses for me.
As far as the DOT projections are concerned, I would take those with a grain of salt. My experience with state DOTs is that they are often in bed with road contractors, and are consequently inclined to push road projects over rail projects.
Decide for yourself whether graft is involved, but an inordinate number of DOT employees seem to become wealthy in spite of paltry state salaries. Hmmm…
See, this is precisely why the idea of a Ventura candidacy intrigues me. As an independent, he would not be beholden to the major political parties or their campagn contributors. Seems like that would allow him to make more independent judgements (as with the decision to pursue light rail). What does he care what some road contractor might want?
No, he’d be beholden to his own organization and contributors. Let’s not kid ourselves into thinking that anybody who could mount a serious challenge to the Ds and Rs wouldn’t have a whole lotta backs to scratch in return.
Incidentally, most people I talk to think of Ventura as a clown who accidentally stumbled onto a good gig. Whether this is fair or not, it would take a lot to overcome that image. So, no, I don’t think he’d be a viable candidate.
Ventura managed to get elected governor of Minnesota without major corporate sponsorship. He used free news coverage and the forum of the debates. The biggest obstacle to doing the same thing at the national level will be simply getting onto the ballot in all 50 states.
Even now, Ventura gets a ton of free publicity from the national media. Imagine the media circus that would ensue if he declared his candidacy.
What are the war chests of the Republicans and Democrats used for? Attack ads? Don’t think those will work on Jesse for the reasons stated above. At the same time, Ventura would not need to run attack ads of his own. He would be running almost as a protest candidate. A none-of-the-above choice.
The biggest area where Ventura would need help would be in the effort to get his name on the ballots in all 50 states. That’s where he’ll need foot soldiers and funding. On the other hand, that’s where a true grass-roots movement might spare him some expense.
There have been all kinds of impressive candidates who have run as part of a 3rd party, and none of them have ever made it into the running (except for Perot, for a very short period of time).
Consider the libertarians. They have a message that resonates with a lot of Americans, they have a pretty strong party organization (they’re almost always on the ballot in all 50 states), but they rarely win more than 2 or 3% of the vote. The deck is just too heavily stacked against them. They can’t get into the debates, their message makes it hard to raise lots of money because they don’t promise government money to organizations that vote for them, and they refuse to accept federal matching funds.
For Ventura to win, he would have have to form a party around himself to build an organization large enough to get him on the ballot in all states, plus he would have to find a wealthy sponsor who could afford to fund his campaign. We’re talking about maybe 50 million bucks or even more, so that doesn’t leave a lot of people who could afford to take a shot at for him.
IMO, the only chance the U.S. has of getting a viable 3rd party is for a very wealthy person to make a personal mission of building one. Someone like Perot, except without the paranoia and scary personality. And the new party actually has to have a platform that the American people agree with. Even then, it would be extremely difficult.
See, this is Ventura’s big advantage, IMHO. Just by throwing his hat into the ring, I’m betting Ventura could poll 15%, which would be enough to get him into the debates.
With Ventura in the debates, people would tune in. It would be a ratings blockbuster. And that’s where the election would be won or lost.
Now call me crazy, but I think Ventura could debate rings around Bush and Gore if he put his mind to it. (Based on what I’ve seen in this year’s debates.) Ventura proved himself a talented debater in the Minnesota gubernatorial race.
Getting on the ballots is the biggest obstacle, I still believe.
I have my doubts about his making it into the debates. How many percentage points did Perot have at one time? 30%? He was tracking very high when he first entered the race, and THAT is what got him into the debates, although I think he was back down below 20% by the time the debates actually happened.
Other people have polled fairly high and never made it into the debates. Nader was excluded despite hitting close to 10% at one point. No Libertarian has ever made it into the debates, even though they’ve had a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states for every election since the early 80’s. And Harry Browne is a great debater - he might not win, but he would sure expose an awful lot of Washington hypocrisy that both candidates accept. THAT would be great for the political process, yet it will never happen.
I don’t know why one of the major networks doesn’t sponsor a 3rd party debate in prime time. They’d pick up some reasonable ratings. Put it in place of some dud show that’s going nowhere, put a celebrity in for moderator (like, drag Cronkite out of retirement, or if it’s ABC put in David Brinkley), and they’d get some ratings.
I think that’s a good idea. But then, I’m not a network chief. I said in an earlier thread that Nader and Buchanan ought to hold a debate, with a couple of empty podiums to represent the absent Gore and Bush.
Regarding Ventura’s ability to get into the debates:
I used the 15% figure because that’s the figure the Presidential Debate Commission uses. Perot got in because he polled at better than 15%. Nader has never polled that high. Browne has certainly never polled that high. Ventura would, and therefore he could not be excluded from the debates.
I’d like to know the specifics of that bill before I would be prepared to condemn him for it. What does “putting them on a level with MDs” mean? For all I know, the bill may just require licensing.
Figures. Here is the only Minnesota bill I could find relating to alternative medicine. Near as I can tell (without reading every bit of legalese in there), all it does is subject such practitioners to state regulation and oversight. It appears to be an attempt to tighten the reins on shady operators.
If that’s what you mean by putting them “on a level with MDs” then I’m all for it.
I’d vote for Ventura in a second, and I know more than a dozen other people who would, too. Even if he advocated eating babies and bathing in raw sewage.
Why? ‘Cuz, dammit, he’s smart. A Navy effin’ Seal? You don’t get much more trained than that.
Oooh, big whoop, he was a guest referee for a wrestling match. You know what? I watched that match, and it was one of the coolest things I’d ever seen.
Oooh, big whoop, he wrote a book. Horror of horrors, he wrote a book!!! We all know how evil books are!
Oooh, big whoop, he appeared on Letterman. That’s undermining national security right there.
Exactly how are these bad qualities, if you don’t mind me asking?
No. There is little in common between running for Governor in Minnesota and running for President of the United States. The “free news coverage” wouldn’t cut it for the latter, and the national news outlets would happily rip Ventura to pieces. There is a reason independents and third parties go exactly nowhere in this country, and that’s because they are poorly funded and don’t have the resources. The only way to compensate for this is to raise bucks, and when you do that you are beholden to somebody.
I don’t know why you think the general rules of politics wouldn’t apply to Ventura–I assume it’s just because you like him–but you’re wrong unless you are thinking of him running as a “statement.” He could do that…but it wouldn’t get him elected.
Didn’t Gore write a book? Gore and Bush have both been on Letterman, and neither did as well. Clinton used his offices to grope women, if the reports are to believed.
Personally, I like him. I waited for him to say something really stupid, and he never did. Or I just never heard it. I liked what I’ve heard him say much better than Gore/Bush.
I would vote for Ventura in '04!!!
[sub]as long as he doen’t support school vouchers[/sub]
Apparently, Ventura polls very well with voters whose user names begin with the letters “s-p-o”.
I actually can’t say that I would vote for the guy. I would need to know much more about his policy ideas, before making that decision.
I imagine that if he runs, the Republicans would go after him pretty hard with dirt-digging and smear campaigns. (Looks like it may already be starting with the “alternative medicine” business.) I believe the Republicans would go after him, because I see him as pulling off more Republican voters than Democratic voters (at this point anyway). Hell, I’d like to see him run if for no other reason than to keep the Republicans out of the White House.
MysterEcks, I am not saying that the rules of politics would not apply to Mr. Ventura. What I am saying is that he is particularly well-suited to play the game without selling his soul to special interests. He would come into the campaign with high approval ratings. He has charm and charisma which (sadly enough) carries tremendous weight with American voters.
Unlike the major-psrty candidates, he doesn’t strike me as a guy who is going to spend a lot of time, money or energy trying to figure out what sells with focus groups. He has a Harry Truman-esque shoot-from-the-hip quality that people like. As you can see from SPOOFE Bo Diddly’s post, it almost doesn’t matter what he says. People are looking for alternatives to the main-stream candidates.
For these reasons, I can see Ventura picking up a lot of grass-roots support, including contributions, which may be enough for him to manage a lean campaign without relying on heavy-hitting contributors.
Let me start by saying that I don’t necessarily agree with Ventura’s politics. That aside,
The quote about religion being for the “weak” was taken out of context by the press. Not the first time Ventura’s been taken out of context. He’s so plain-spoken he’s really easy to snipe. I’ve seen him change slightly since his election, getting better at anticipating how he might be taken out of context and doing a better job of managing PR so his actual message doesn’t get lost as much. Interestingly, he’s NOT starting to become more of a major-party style speaker (which seems to involve trying to say nothing that can be taken in any context, so as to avoid the problem entirely).
Every argument I hear about why Ventura wouldn’t fare well in a national election has already been used to explain why he wouldn’t fare well in a state election, back when he was running for governor. Oops! That said, I don’t think he could win in '04 as an independent, 'cause no independent party has enough leverage with the populace or cash yet.
Say what you will about his politics, if you’ve ever heard him debate or heard him interviewed at length (none of this sound-bite crap) he’s pretty articulate (surprised me!) and very charismatic. I think that charisma alone could garner him a pretty hefty chuck of the vote. I don’t think the 15% mentioned previously is a stretch - unless one of the major parties happens to field a candidate in '04 that also has major charisma. I don’t see anyone on the horizon at present.
