RE: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] speaking of apocalyptic horsemen...

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2003, Michael wrote:

> > It's hard to say, really. If you listen to just the news media from
> > another state, then it sounds like Ventura was elected -because- of his
> > former profession. I've not heard anyone claim otherwise, but I can't
> > point to anything he did wrong as governor.
> 
> The story I usually heard on the news was that he was elected because he
> brought out people that didn't usually vote. Being an early adopter of
> politicing online and such. Got a large turn out of college age folks
> and such. Dunno, how true that is as I don't live there. :)

At the time of his election, the interesting thing was that he really did 
come out of nowhere.  Here are some ancient poll (and election) numbers:

Date         Humphrey   Coleman   Ventura   Undecided     

ELECTION       28%        34%       37%        --- 
Late Oct.      34%        33%       23%        10% 
Early 10/98    44%        31%       15%        10%
September 98   43%        29%       13%        15%
June    1998   46%        30%        7%        17%
February 1998  39%        33%       --         28%

Jesse isn't even in the *poll* 9 months before the election.  He's
nominated, and gets what amounts to the "Perot percentage" of 1996 in
June, gets "Perot plus people who don't vote Republican" by September, and
then takes about 40% of his famously-named Democratic challenger's support
by the election.  (That "Coleman" guy is indeed Norm Coleman, who lost 
this race but beat Mondale subbing in for Wellstone last November in the 
Senate race.)

This should be of interest to anybody who thinks that a 30% lead in the 
polls on Labor Day is safe.  I have no idea what the outcome will be, but 
I expect the 2004 election overall will make 2000 look pretty boring.

jking

        

  
  

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion