salto mortale

While Salto is clearly politically informative, there's a lack of ongoing debate here. I intend to rectify this lack with a series of debates. A question shall be posted, and Salto contributors will engaged in an ongoing dialogue, hopefully parsing the issue with wit, delicacy, and the intelligence that you've come to expect here.

Question #1 is stolen from a book by Chuck Klosterman.

Let's say a presidential candidate was on the cusp of winning his party's nomination; his or her party affiliation doesn't matter for the purposes of this hypothetical example. But let's assume he is pulling away from all his political rivals in all of the polls and he seems to be outlining a sensible economic and social plan for the future of America.

Now, this presidential candidate is by no means an unorthodox outsider. He is a career politician and -- at least on the surface -- a totally rational man. But as the campaign continues, he begins to casually mention how one of his administrative goals would be researching the possibility of building an underwater city, kind of like Atlantais. He doesn't make this his single issue, nor does he insist that the underwater community needs to be finished within his own lifetime -- but he keeps offhandedly mentioning his hope that such a city will someday exist. And he has a bunch of semi-logical arguments for why this should happen.

So here is my question: Do you think this bizarre desire would destroy his campaign?

Since I have introduced this debate, I'll answer the inevitable clarifying questions.

Readers, please add thoughts in comments.

BigD: His opponents would make him a laughingstock, ending his campaign. I picture attack ads featuring Snorks discussing the candidates.

For something like this to not derail his campaign, there would need to be some sort of public desire for these things, and/or detailed, feasible, practical plans for same. And if these things existed, someone would have already done it.

So, hit list or shit list? Definitely shit list.

Ethan, are you mulling a presidential bid and trying to flesh out your platform?

jps3: Mars, bitches!

If Bush could survive his Mars plan from his state of the union speech back in 2004, I think the hypothetical candidate could survive mentioning the underwater city plan.

I want to live in an underwater city.

BigD: But the hypo specifically says "a totally rational man". Bush is a blithering idiot. We expect him to say stupid things, probably while flinging his own feces.

Also, he didn't mention it again. Just that one time when he was drunk.

ethan: Don't forget that our candidate has "semi-logical reasons" for the proposal. He would likely not come off as a total lunatic in interviews where it was brought up.

Monster, you have anything to say?

BigD: His not seeming like a lunatic doesn't matter. His opponents will make him look like a lunatic. Without a section of the population interested in the idea, the media will also portray him as a crackpot, or a formerly respected politician who has gone senile. Twenty-five years later, someone will build an underwater city, and no one will even remember this guy.

jps3: god damn haloscan just sent my comment into the void...[apologies, pls repost. -ed.]

jps3: I think Colbert and Stewart would destroy the guy. And this is where I may have to part ways with them, because I'm really starting to warm to the idea of an underwater city now that you've brought it up.