Ventura is a paleolibertarian who takes all sort of conspiracy theories seriously and Howard Stern is a shock jock/radio show host/comedian whose politics are not well known. His Presidential web page is here.
One of Ventura's platform planks is scrapping the political party system by outlawing political parties.
Would you vote for them if only to keep a major party candidate out of the White House?
Oh, yeah, I forgot his wrestling career, which preceded being elected Governor of Minnesota. Minnesota must have strange voters.
The guy can't keep a job. :)
Or...he has a knack for always being employed.
Like all politicians, these guys have all the answers. I'm waiting for the total weirdo who says to a reporter's question something like, "Well actually I haven't finished thinking about all the implications of that. I'll have to get back to you." I'd vote for him (or, more likely HER) in a heartbeat.
Oops, I forgot about that end of the spectrum. I withdraw.
Had Obama answered questions 100% honestly, Mitt Romney would be President. The unrealistic expectations of both conservatives and starry-eyed idealists make being honest a bad game plan. Don't blame the candidates, blame the voters.
Imagine had Obama's position on Gitmo been "Well, it's complicated. We can't try 'em in the U.S. because there isn't any place that wants the trial in their jurisdiction. If we do military trials, nobody will see the process as impartial. And if we let them go, they may simply turn back into threats."
Who would have said, "Yeah, that's my position!"
OR...release them in Somalia...and...RELEASE THE DRONES.
(sorry couldn't resist.)
Would it matter if the GOP & Dems still ruled congress?
He'd probably be in a worse position than Obama.
Hasn't seem to matter for the last 50 years, why should it matter now?
The desire to get rid of the parties is as old as the United States itself. At least one founding father was heard to complain about it. Washington was technically neither a Federalist nor a Democratic-Republican but his sympathies apparently lay with the Federalists most of the time.
When you have disputes over policy and the same groups of people end up together no matter what the issue is, they will inevitably find they are more effective at defeating those other guys (who are wrong all the fricking time, what the hell is wrong with them?!?!) if they form a more permanent organization, and you have your political party.
It's a curious phenomenon actually. Issues as disparate as government-provided medical care, abortion, guns, when to go to war, etc. and by and large you will find the same people grouped together. One would think that it'd be more random; Diane Feinstein and Rand Paul would surely agree on some oddball issue. Thomas Sowell tried to argue for a fundamental difference in visions of human nature being at the root of things, but I never finished reading the series as the last two books never (to my knowledge) came out in paperback. If I recall correctly, the "conservatives" tended to think that fundamentally, humans were flawed (fundamentally selfish) and that institutions needed to either counter or re-channel this, versus liberals who thought humans could be educated/indoctrinated out of this if you only got to them young enough. Although somewhat illuminating it doesn't explain everything, and it certainly doesn't explain everyone; most people seem to believe one way and vote the other ("if you think that then what on earth are you doing voting for them?!?!"), or it's totally random, or they eschew such philosophical considerations entirely and just vote for whichever party they believe will deliver the most taxpayer money to them.
A lot of third parties break this paradigm, and end up mixing-and-matching issues in ways that won't fly with most people. If Sowell is right, the ideologies represented by them are fundamentally doomed, though sometimes a third party will "pivot", change its emphasis, start to look more like one of the two visions he enunciated, and if one of the majors is weak, sweep it aside.