A mathematical proof that the next president of the United States will be Jesse Ventura. by Jeff Wrobel
(libertarian)
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Ron Paul presidential campaign was a true phenomenon, with a degree of success that most fans of the Constitution never expected. But his campaign is virtually over now. He has said this on his campaign web site, but reminds his supporters that "The Revolution" was never about him, and is certainly not over. He urged people to continue the fight for the ideas of freedom.
In the spirit of Dr. Paul's request, it is time to choose his successor. It's time to choose a candidate who can avoid the pitfalls of the Ron Paul candidacy. As discussed in a previous NolanChart article, Paul's followers should sponsor a moderate libertarian celebrity for president. In the following mathematical model, I will prove that if Paul's supporters place Jesse Ventura on the ballot, he will be the next president of the United States.
First: an introduction for those unfamiliar with Jesse Ventura. He's 56 years old and is a former Navy Seal. He became famous as Jesse "The Body" Ventura in the World Wrestling Federation. He used his success there to become an actor. His most famous role was as a member of Arnold Schwarzenegger's crack commando team in the movie Predator, where he uttered his most memorable line: "I ain't got time to bleed." In 1998 he ran (as Jesse "The Mind" Ventura) against very well-known candidates, Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Hubert Humphrey III, for governor of Minnesota -- and Ventura won!
Jesse Ventura could be placed at about the center of the Libertarian quadrant of the Nolan Chart. He describes himself as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". Like most libertarians he supports a smaller government in general, lower taxes, gay rights, medicinal marijuana, instant-runoff voting, opposes helmet and seatbelt laws, opposes the use of the National Guard overseas, and opposed the teachers union. In a few areas he disagrees with pure libertarians; for instance, he approves of well-funded government-run lower education and government-run public transportation.
Ventura can avoid most of the troubles that befell Ron Paul. First, Ventura is taken somewhat seriously by the media since he has actually served in a high public executive office (as both a mayor and governor) and has considerable media experience with his own radio and TV talk shows. Second, and most importantly, he is not as radical a libertarian as Ron Paul, so he'll appeal more to liberals, centrists, and conservatives. Third, he is not nearly as old as Ron Paul, has an imposing 6' 4" frame, and (no disrespect to the very honorable Dr. Paul) has a fair deal of charisma.
Now for the math:
People of the U.S. are spread all over the Nolan Chart. Here is my estimate of the percentage of population that fall into each category:
Libertarian 15%
Liberal 25%
Centrist 25%
Conservative 30%
Statist 5%
This tabulation is certainly up for debate. The numbers are based on my own perceptions built from years of reading, debating, analyzing election results, and working a Nolan Chart booth at fairs and other events. I'd love to hear other people's opinions on what the real numbers might be.
Now let's look at how each block of people might vote. First we have to guess who will be running. It's looking fairly likely that the ticket in November might be Obama, McCain, Bloomberg, and some little-known Libertarian. (It's true that Nader is running, but he doesn't offer much that Obama doesn't, so he's irrelevant in this election). Based on how each block might vote, the November election could turn out something like this:
% Pop
Obama
McCain
Bloomberg
Libertarian
% Block
% Total
% Block
% Total
% Block
% Total
% Block
% Total
Libertarian
15
40
6
20
3
30
4½
10
1½
Conservative
30
0
0
80
24
10
3
10
3
Liberal
25
90
22½
0
0
10
2½
0
0
Centrist
25
40
10
40
10
20
5
0
0
Authoritarian
5
0
0
100
5
0
0
0
0
Total
100
38½
42
15
4½
How to read this table: As I claimed earlier, libertarians comprise 15% of the population, as listed at the top of the second column on this table. In the next column I’m estimating that Obama will get 40% of the libertarian block of votes. That’s 6% of the total vote; shown in the next column. Adding up all the block totals for Obama yields 38½%, shown at the bottom.
In this analysis, Bloomberg acts as a spoiler, giving McCain a victory over Obama. I admit that it does seem unrealistic that the Libertarian could get nearly 5% of the vote, but then again, there is no other candidate remotely libertarian or even conservative. If the Libertarian Party managed to draft Ron Paul, 5% is conceivable.
Now imagine that Jesse Ventura entered the race. Just as Obama makes Nader irrelevant, Ventura would make the Libertarian candidate irrelevant. Here's what I estimate the results to be:
% Pop
Obama
McCain
Bloomberg
Ventura
% Block
% Total
% Block
% Total
% Block
% Total
% Block
% Total
Libertarian
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
15
Conservative
30
0
0
30
9
0
0
70
21
Liberal
25
80
20
0
0
10
2½
10
2½
Centrist
25
40
10
30
7½
20
5
10
2½
Authoritarian
5
0
0
100
5
0
0
0
0
Total
100
30
21½
7½
41
Even if these numbers are wrong to a substantial degree, Ventura will still win. For instance, even if Bloomberg doesn't run, and every one of his votes goes to Obama, Ventura is still ahead by 3½ percentage points. In reality though, most of Bloomberg's centrist votes would go to Ventura.
Or suppose that McCain and Ventura split the conservative vote 50/50. The results would then be: Obama 30%, McCain 27½%, Ventura 35%. That's still a 5 point victory.
My guess is that if Ventura enters the race before Bloomberg, Bloomberg will not run and may even support Ventura.
Here is my prediction for the results of the popular vote on November 5:
% Pop
Obama
McCain
Ventura
% Block
% Total
% Block
% Total
% Block
% Total
Libertarian
15
0
0
10
1½
90
13½
Conservative
30
0
0
30
9
70
21
Liberal
25
90
22½
0
0
10
2½
Centrist
25
40
10
30
7½
30
7½
Authoritarian
5
0
0
100
5
0
0
Total
100
32½
23
44½
There is much conjecture in these numbers. I encourage you to come up with your own numbers and do the calculations. If you come up with a set that has Ventura losing, I'd love to see them.
Looking realistically at how different political blocks will vote, you come to the surprising conclusion that Jesse Ventura could win in a pluralistic landslide. He is ideally placed on the Nolan Chart to appeal to all the voters left out in the cold by the other candidates. He seems to be the ideal heir of the Ron Paul Revolution.
Ron Paul supporters need to act before The Revolution dies. There is no time to bleed. Draft Jesse Ventura today.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 52
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jeff Wrobel only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jeff Wrobel is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I acutally had the opportunity to speak with Ventura in Pueblo. He is alot more intelligent that you'd actually think and he impressed the heck out of me. I was shocked to learn that a friend of mine from college served in the same Navy Seal unit side by side and that is how i had a chance to speak with him. He was governor at the time and i will say that he's more complex than he appears but a true American on our side.
Toby: I've heard Ventura interviewed a couple of times and he's definitely much more intelligent than his wrestler image would suggest. I'm totally serious about him being the best man for the job of President. If you think there's anyway you could directly or indirectly contact Ventura, I would encourage you to do so and lobby him to run. You could refer him to my article here to show him his guaranteed victory. :-)
Sadly Jesse Ventura has proven he's not up to the task. He's too temperamental. To suggest he can carry the flag for the revolution is an insult to Ron Paul supporters.
Ventura has the credentials as far as I'm concerned. He's a man with real principles whom I feel will fight for the restoration of this country. I'm not comparing him to Dr Paul; he's one of a kind and his own self, but Ventura is of the caliber to lead us back control of our country.
I'm from Minnesota....Ventura was a terrible Governer, he got nothing accomplished because he couldn't work with any of the legislators in the house and senate.  He also has a terrible temper. He may have good ideas but his ego is way too big. Just my two cents......He can't even compare to Ron Paul in anyway possible!
Ventura was not a NAVY SEAL the way he says he was. He joined a SEAL reserve unit after active duty. The facts about Ventura's lies and cheating are all in my book
Just a question. How did you categorize Ron Paul as a "radical" libertarian?
Ron Paul is a conservative libertarian. Not a "radical" libertarian !
Ron Paul didnt lose primaries because he isnt appealing. Ron Paul got no media coverage at all, less than 1% as explained in the "factual" link below. He was BLACKED OUT! How do you think he got all this support? Its because of his few hours he got on tv buddy. As for appearance I guess McCain is a lot more "sexier", "healthier", and "charismatic".
By the way as much as I like Ventura he is incomparable to Dr. Ron Paul in any means. Also Ive read that Ventura is pro-abortion. This is gonna kill him with the conservative votes just like it killed Giulliani.
last this article has no facts to back it up, just pure speculation and subjective material, not much objective.
Remember friend. Ron Paul recieved no coverage or very little on Tv
here are some FACTS that your article is in need of:
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-03-13 05:51:07
Dear Jeff,
Here is a YouTube link that gave me the same thought as yourself. Like your "proof", its basically a cut off the idea that the closer you are to the middle of the pie, the more likely you are to win an election. A Paul-Ventura or vice versa ticket would be very strong indeed.Â
Canuk Kid: Do you disagree with my placement of Ron Paul and Jesse Ventura on the Nolan Chart? Someone who describes himself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and who generally wants less government is a libertarian. Someone who wants to immediately shut down huge government agencies, return to the gold standard, and immediately walk out of Iraq is a radical libertarian. It's true that Paul does not share the top corner with some of us, but he's pretty close.
I completely agree with your statement that a big part of Paul's problem was that he was blacked out of the media. When he wasn't being blacked out he was being treated as a joke. That's totally unfair and we should try to change that, but for now that's the world in which we live. That's why I've suggested that libertarians need to find a candidate that the media cannot so easily ignore. I invite you to read my previous article on this: [link edited for length] (the link near the beginning of this article).
But aside from the media treatment, many people were scared off by Paul's (I'm sorry) extremist views. I convinced people to join The Revolution but some of those people left when they realized that he really would end their favorite agency and really would just walk out of Iraq. I share his extremist views, but they are simply too extreme for the average uneducated voter.
Jake: Thanks a lot for the link for the link to the YouTube video ([link edited for length]). I'd definitely go for a Ventura/Paul ticket.
It's true that Ventura is certainly no Ron Paul (for instance, I can't imagine him debating details of monetary policy with Bernanke). But they're definitely on the same page.
Bloomberg has said he would not run. I think he would have run had Huckabee or Romney being the GOP nominee. I have seen polls that gave him about 5% initially and Ron Paul 11% plus, probably splitting the libertarian and Independent vote. I do not think Ventura would be a strong candidate. I also think Paul should campaign hard and see how much momentum he can get in PA etc. Â and if McCain is the GOP and depending on how McCain is received, how his VP would be and the dissatisfaction among the conservative GOP base evolves, and a CLinton Democratic nomination, there could be an opportunity for Paul get get sufficient conservative and libertarian support, combined with Independents and also anti-war Democrats to make an Independent run possible? He needs a charismatic strong running mate with wide appeal, like judge Napolitano. Otheriwse Bob Barr could run for the Libertarians with Paul's support, but this could only lead to a spoiler..? Nader & Co. and Gravel would not be able to get much support, but could take some off from the Democrats...
W.A. Andrews: I claim that Obama, Clinton, and McCain are statists because none of them have any intentions of reducing the size and scope of government in any way.
Obama claims to be anti-war, but when he had the chance to vote against the war he skipped town. It's hard to figure out his exact position on anything, but in general his rhetoric involves getting the government involved more in every area.
McCain panders to conservatives by claiming to want lower taxes, but he has no plans whatsoever to reduce our spending, so he is definitely not fiscally conservative. He's proven to be anti-free speech (McCain-Feingold). The 100 years he plans to spend in Iraq is enough by itself to qualify him as a statist.
Clinton is the biggest and scariest statist of them all. She's not going to end the war in Iraq. She tried (and thankfullly failed) to give us a corporate/government run healthcare system. She has a plethora of new programs and plans to better manage our old programs.
Are any of the 3 major candidates going to end the war on drugs? Are any of them going to return to the gold standard? Don't they all want National ID cards? I can harldy find an issue on which any of themy are not statists.
Every "solution" all these candidates have proposed involves new government agencies and new laws. They claim to love freedom in one form or another, but when you look at their voting history and think about how every plan they have involves more government, you can see that they are all statists.
I can't see how you come up with 100% of the L's supporting anyone: even a full fleged libertarian. Last poll results I saw had only 70% of L's supporting Ron Paul.
Canuk Kid: I took this post as tongue-in-cheek humor...not serious in the least. I hope I was correct ;-)
Saying that Obama and Hillary are statists because they don't plan on reducing the size of government is equivilent to saying McCain is a Libertarian because he's advocated reducing government spending in some areas.
 This is, without a doubt, the most ridiculous piece I've ever seen. A radical statist has *nothing* in common with Clinton , period. At best, she fits into the area where far left liberalism meets statism.
It's very clear, despite your claims, you don't understand Statists or the Nolan Chart. Let me break it down for you: a statist in the position you have Clinton in would suggest:
1. Total outright invasion of the entire Middle East
2: State controlled religion
3. Complete regulation of the economy
4. Since a majority of the people are against same-sex marriages and gay rights, criminalization of gays and homosexual activity.
5. Since a majority of the people are against abortion, criminization of abortion.
Please, stop using "statist" as some kind of smear to villify people. You just make yourself look, well, like you're trying to manipulate things the way several others have called you on here.
Logical Premise: What is the root of the word "statist"? The answer is "state". Obama, Clinton, and McCain all love the state. In what areas do you think Clinton doesn't want the state involved?
Posted By: Kev in Brussels
Date: 2008-03-14 20:49:13
I'm not American, but I've been following Ron Paul since 1999, especially this past year.
I've also came across Ventura a few times.
To write off Ron Paul and proclaim a replacement in Ventura is ridiculous. Ron Paul is the soul of this Revolution. Ventura is a loud-mouthed bafoon as far as I'm concerned.
This article has made a lot of people angry, and I'm sorry for that. I didn't realize that Ventura would arouse this much emotion. Maybe he's not the right guy for the job.
This article was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. But I am serious about my main point, which is that Ron Paul's support (which includes me 100%), is not nearly deep enough for a revolution. We'd need at least 10 times our numbers.
One thing we love about Ron Paul is that he never compromises. None of us want to compromise either. But if we want to pull the country back towards freedom by electing a freedom lover to the Whitehouse, we're only going to be able to do that by choosing a candidate that has a chance of winning. That means finding someone with whom we can agree 75% of the time rather than 95% or 100% of the time. Otherwise the mob will vote in one of those with whom we agree 0% to 20% of the time.
I've been supporting Ron Paul since 1988 when I proudly campaigned for his first run for the presidency. 20 years later I'm just as avid a supporter, but 20 years later I'm also much less free than when I started. If we want to increase our freedom, we're going to have to start winning some elections, which means we're going to have to compromise.
We've begun a "Draft Jesse" campaign on YouTube supporting Jesse as a veep candidate with Ron Paul. To view it, go to http://www.youtube.com/newslamp; we've also been pushing it on our website, which can be found at http://www.newslampoon.com
I was forwarded to this page by your more recent article and your last comment, here, Jeff, rings true.
Â
I remember reading a post, (can't remember if it was here on Nolan Chart or elsewhere) about Ron Paul supporters in general. I said in another reply to someone else's article that there are basically two camps of RP supporters. The main point of that post and my reply was that these supporters are more radical than Ron Paul is, which is in fact, another reason why "only 70%" (still a sizable number) of the LP support him.
 This whole revolution has been about the silent majority, aka us, the minority crying for freedom, but it's the absolutists that form the loyal core of the RP campaign. Compromise is something they are not willing to accept, having somehow been conditioned into foolishly thinking that there are no repercussions for immediate and absolute action.Â
 After watching the Heartland Libertarian Debate, I can't say I'm really impressed with any of these guys becoming the nominee, as they all seem to have egos. But Jesse Ventura, whatever anyone might say about him, has something to show for it, and he shoots from the hip.Â
 Ron Paul has also said that to make the transition to a more libertarian society and government, the work would span multiple administrations to achieve that end safely. The people trolling you refuse to admit that. Absolutism rarely works, and in such a political system as ours, Ron Paul really isn't radical so much as those who vote for him are.Â
 If it's non-compromising officeholders you're after, target the Senate. Their numbers are more crucial in that area. I mean, look at the Democratic majority today! It seems we've got our priorities mixed up. That's why, it would be a mistake to invest too much energy into Ron Paul's campaign now, especially because we're armed with knowledge to hold office ourselves. That's one way the radicals can put the money where their mouth is.
 As for the rest, leave the presidency to someone more rounded and moderate.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
He describes himself as "fiscally conservative and socially liberal". Like most libertarians he supports a smaller government in general, lower taxes, gay rights, medicinal marijuana, instant-runoff voting, opposes helmet and seatbelt laws, opposes the use of the National Guard overseas, and opposed the teachers union. In a few areas he disagrees with pure libertarians; for instance, he approves of well-funded government-run lower education and government-run public transportation.