Was it tarnished? Schwarzenegger was elected governor the year Ventura left office, and of course Minnesota would go on to elect Al Franken as one of their senators. And it's not as if Ventura was even the first celebrity to get into politics.The model of celebrities running for office isn't tarnished by his one, not very successful, term as governor.
Maybe not in a huge way, but he didn't leave much of a positive impression on the state either as a result of his policies, or personally. From what I know he strongly disliked the media's treatment of him and his family. As I said a more dedicated celeberity turned politician could have stomached that, or fought back in a more constructive way.Was it tarnished? Schwarzenegger was elected governor the year Ventura left office, and of course Minnesota would go on to elect Al Franken as one of their senators. And it's not as if Ventura was even the first celebrity to get into politics.
An interesting thing to note is that Ventura was Mayor of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota from 1991-1995. He actually had some political experience before becoming Minnesota Governor.I honestly couldn't say which of the two mainstream party nominees would have won, but as I understand it both were pretty forgettable. Two things that come to mind as effects of this are 1. Ventura doesn't gain the legitimacy of public office that he would later parlay into a career in conspiracy theory type stuff and 2. The model of celebrities running for office isn't tarnished by his one, not very successful, term as governor. As Amadeus said above, this could affect Trump's outlook on politics, but it might also lead to the door being open for another outsider who is more competent and dedicated entering public office.
That sounds like the opposite— his term as governor soured him on frontline politics (and is probably why, despite mulling presidential bids in like every cycle since, he's never taken the plunge). I don't think he had any appreciable difference in how voters see celebrity candidates.Maybe not in a huge way, but he didn't leave much of a positive impression on the state either as a result of his policies, or personally. From what I know he strongly disliked the media's treatment of him and his family. As I said a more dedicated celeberity turned politician could have stomached that, or fought back in a more constructive way.
IIRC, before Ventura jumped into the race, Humphrey and Coleman were pretty close, either tied or with Humphrey having a slight lead. Between that, and the Republicans being the incumbent party, I think it's a fair assumption that Ventura took more from Humphrey than Coleman; and that in a straight two-way race, Humphrey would win by a decent margin. A Governor Skip Humphrey has some interesting butterflies to consider. The obvious one is his own ambitions: does a two-term Humphrey mount a presidential bid in 2004? But also, if he's re-elected in 2002, his presence on the ballot might push the concurrent Senate election in the Democrats' favour, with Walter Mondale returning to the Senate. (It also completely upsets Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman's careers.)Skip Humphrey is the son of Hubert Humphrey. He was Attorney General of Minnesota at the time, where he got Big Tobacco to release documents confirming that they knew the dangers of smoking before the Surgeon General's Report of 1964. He was also the chairperson of the Minnesota wing of Bill Clinton's 1996 campaign. He said, "If you think that being too liberal means raising the minimum wage, advocating health care for everyone, protecting the environment, taking on the tobacco industry, enacting campaign finance reform, and putting more cops on the streets, then guess what? That's what Minnesotans want."
Was it tarnished? Schwarzenegger was elected governor the year Ventura left office, and of course Minnesota would go on to elect Al Franken as one of their senators. And it's not as if Ventura was even the first celebrity to get into politics.
As I understand it he left office with very low approval ratings. Even if he'd wanted to run for reelection I think he knew he couldn't win. Maybe he didn't bring down the notion of celebrities as political candidates, but he certainly wasn't an argument for it.That sounds like the opposite— his term as governor soured him on frontline politics (and is probably why, despite mulling presidential bids in like every cycle since, he's never taken the plunge). I don't think he had any appreciable difference in how voters see celebrity candidates.
I wonder what Skip thinks of opioids, global warming, high fructose corn syrup, guns, Goldman Sachs, etc. Skip would also have been useful for pushing progressive ideas in politics.IIRC, before Ventura jumped into the race, Humphrey and Coleman were pretty close, either tied or with Humphrey having a slight lead. Between that, and the Republicans being the incumbent party, I think it's a fair assumption that Ventura took more from Humphrey than Coleman; and that in a straight two-way race, Humphrey would win by a decent margin. A Governor Skip Humphrey has some interesting butterflies to consider. The obvious one is his own ambitions: does a two-term Humphrey mount a presidential bid in 2004? But also, if he's re-elected in 2002, his presence on the ballot might push the concurrent Senate election in the Democrats' favour, with Walter Mondale returning to the Senate. (It also completely upsets Tim Pawlenty and Norm Coleman's careers.)