Ron Zirpowski

Ron Zirpowski was born on March 3, 1960, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The son of a Polish immigrant father and a third-generation Italian-American mother, he grew up in a middle-class family that valued hard work, education, and community engagement. From a young age, Zirpowski was ambitious and focused, excelling academically and displaying an entrepreneurial spirit. After high school, he attended Harvard University, where he studied economics and political science, graduating with honors.

Upon completing his education, Zirpowski embarked on a successful career in business. He started by working at a prominent investment bank, quickly rising through the ranks due to his keen financial acumen and knack for understanding complex markets. After a decade in finance, he transitioned into venture capital, where he helped fund and mentor innovative startups. By the early 2000s, Zirpowski had amassed a significant personal fortune and established himself as a prominent figure in the business world.

Despite his business successes, Zirpowski felt a growing sense of responsibility to address the socio-economic issues facing the country. In 2010, he decided to enter politics, running as an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Wisconsin. His pragmatism and centrist views resonated with voters, and he won the election, serving two terms as a senator.

In 2016, disillusioned with the major political parties and their divisive rhetoric, Zirpowski decided to run for president as an independent candidate. He recognized that many Americans were frustrated with the status quo and saw an opportunity to bridge the gap between conservatives and liberals by focusing on economic policies and social issues that mattered to the average voter.

Zirpowski’s campaign was unique, as he chose to emphasize his business acumen and a vision for a prosperous America, rather than engaging in the culture wars. He promised to bring about a new era of wealth creation and preservation for older Americans by lowering interest rates to zero, earning him the nickname “The Zero Interest Rate President.” By adopting a liberal stance on social issues, he managed to appeal to voters who were tired of the government’s involvement in cultural debates.

His campaign’s unorthodox approach resonated with moderates from both parties, who saw him as a breath of fresh air in a political climate dominated by partisanship. Zirpowski’s candid discussions about neoliberal economic policies, coupled with his skillful presentation of a secularized version of the prosperity gospel, further endeared him to voters.

In a stunning upset, Zirpowski won the 2016 presidential election, making history as the first third-party candidate to win the highest office in the land. His victory signaled a desire for change among the electorate, as Americans sought a leader who would prioritize economic growth and social progress over divisive politics. Ron Zirpowski’s improbable ascent to the presidency marked a turning point in American political history and demonstrated the power of a centrist, pragmatic approach to governance.


2016 Presidential Campaign

Campaign Slogan and Theme Song

Ron Zirpowski’s 2016 presidential campaign slogan was “Prosperity for All, Division for None.” This slogan embodied his vision of an America that embraced economic prosperity without getting bogged down in partisan politics. His theme song, “The Future is Ours,” was a catchy, upbeat tune that emphasized optimism, unity, and the potential for a brighter future under his leadership.

The Strawberry Jam Man: Pancakes and the New Hampshire Primary

During the 2016 campaign, Zirpowski endeared himself to voters with his folksy charm and a curious penchant for slathering his pancakes with strawberry jam. His love for the sweet spread earned him the nickname “Strawberry Jam Man,” and it soon became a staple of his campaign trail. He even incorporated it into his stump speeches, talking about his love for homemade strawberry jam and how it symbolized his commitment to the small-town values he held dear.

Judging a Strawberry Jam Contest

Zirpowski’s love for strawberry jam reached its peak when he participated in a small-town strawberry jam contest in New Hampshire. The competition featured two standout finalists: an 11-year-old girl named Josie Jane and a 96-year-old great-grandmother named Mother Huckleberry. After sampling their jams, Zirpowski declared that he could not choose a winner between the two, as both were equally deserving of the title. The heartwarming moment of camaraderie and goodwill became a defining moment for his campaign, showcasing his relatability and down-to-earth nature.

Top 5 Strawberry Jellies

Zirpowski’s affinity for strawberry jam led to the creation of a lighthearted list of his top 5 favorite strawberry jellies, each with its own unique name and special ingredients:

  • Strawberry Serendipity – This jam featured sun-ripened strawberries blended with a hint of Madagascar vanilla, creating a delicate balance of sweet and creamy flavors.
  • Berrilicious Bonanza – A combination of strawberries and raspberries, this jam boasted a tart twist that Zirpowski found irresistible.
  • Mama’s Marvelous Marmalade – A secret family recipe, this jam contained a unique blend of strawberries, oranges, and a touch of cinnamon, making it an instant favorite.
  • Sweet Sunrise Spread – With a hint of honey and a splash of lemon, this jam offered a delightful combination of sweet and tangy flavors that Zirpowski couldn’t resist.
  • Jubilant Jamboree – This jam had an unexpected twist, featuring strawberries mixed with a touch of jalapeƱo, providing a sweet heat that Zirpowski found both surprising and delightful.

The Strawberry Jam Man’s love for the fruity spread not only showcased his relatable and genuine personality but also reinforced his image as a candidate who championed small-town values and the importance of community.

Pro-Business Policies as Populist Reforms

Zirpowski demonstrated a talent for masking pro-business policies as populist reforms. Through his phrasing, messaging, and repackaging of policies into broad appeal platitudes, he managed to numb voters into acceptance of his agenda.

Reducing Corporate Taxes

Zirpowski proposed reducing corporate taxes, arguing that this measure would encourage businesses to invest more in their workforce and create jobs. He skillfully framed the tax cuts as a benefit to the average American worker, emphasizing that lower taxes would lead to higher wages, better benefits, and more opportunities for employment. By focusing on the potential positive outcomes for the middle class, Zirpowski was able to downplay the benefits that large corporations would receive from such a policy.

Eliminating Certain Regulations

Another aspect of Zirpowski’s platform involved eliminating specific regulations that he claimed were stifling business growth and innovation. He argued that cutting red tape would help small businesses thrive, create jobs, and improve the overall economy. By positioning deregulation as a pro-worker and pro-small business policy, Zirpowski managed to make it seem more populist and appealing to the average voter.

Simplified Tax Code

Zirpowski also advocated for a simplified tax code, claiming that it would benefit middle-class families by reducing the time and expense of filing taxes, while also providing a more efficient system for businesses to navigate. He framed the tax code overhaul as a way to level the playing field, making it easier for everyday Americans to understand and comply with tax laws, while also reducing the opportunities for large corporations to exploit loopholes. This messaging helped to sell the idea as a populist reform, even though simplifying the tax code would also benefit big businesses.

By employing carefully crafted language and framing his policies as advantageous to the common person, Zirpowski managed to present traditional big-business policies as populist reforms. This tactic contributed to his successful presidential campaign and ultimately helped him win over the support of the American electorate.

Doubletalk Controversy: North vs. South

Zirpowski faced criticism for his doubletalk tendencies when campaigning in different regions of the country. In Northern states, he emphasized his commitment to social liberalism and progressive values, whereas in Southern states, he played up his conservative economic policies and religious background. This approach reached a boiling point during a campaign event in Houston, where he attempted to preach a version of the prosperity gospel that mixed elements of traditional Christian teachings with his economic platform.

During this event, Zirpowski made some notable misuses of terms and language endemic to Southern faith-based culture. For example, he referred to “speaking in tongues” as a metaphor for multilingualism, and he confused the concept of “laying on of hands” with a reference to manual labor. These gaffes, while unintentional, further fueled criticism from those who accused him of pandering and manipulating his message to appeal to different audiences.

The controversy surrounding Zirpowski’s doubletalk highlighted the challenges he faced in navigating the diverse cultural landscape of the United States. However, despite these missteps, his ability to communicate a message of unity and economic prosperity resonated with a broad swath of the electorate. As a result, many voters were willing to overlook these inconsistencies and focus on his overarching vision for the country.

Questions about Zirpowski’s authenticity persisted, but his unorthodox campaign style, combined with his focus on bridging the political divide, ultimately helped him triumph in the 2016 presidential election. The doubletalk controversy served as a lesson for Zirpowski to remain true to his core message and avoid pandering to specific demographics, which would prove to be an essential aspect of his presidency.

Clinton and Trump’s Attempts to Smear Zirpowski

Both the Clinton and Trump campaigns attempted to discredit Zirpowski through negative advertising and personal attacks. They accused him of being a political opportunist, highlighting his past business dealings and alleging that his wealth was derived from unethical practices. However, these attempts backfired as voters saw these attacks as further evidence of the partisan mudslinging that Zirpowski sought to rise above. His calm and measured response to the accusations reinforced his image as a unifying figure, and his support continued to grow.

Trump’s Nicknames for Zirpowski

Donald Trump, known for his penchant for giving opponents nicknames, tried several times to create a moniker that would stick to Zirpowski. Among his attempts were “Zero-Rate Ron,” “Zirp the Serpent,” and “Big Business Ronnie.” However, none of these nicknames gained traction, as voters saw them as petty and unfounded. Instead, they reinforced Zirpowski’s image as an outsider who was not part of the political establishment.

Clinton’s Attempts to Label Zirpowski

Hillary Clinton tried to paint Zirpowski as a big business establishment candidate, claiming that his pro-business policies would only serve to benefit the wealthy and further widen the income gap in America. She cited his background as a successful businessman and argued that his interests aligned with those of Wall Street, rather than working-class Americans. Despite these efforts, Zirpowski managed to maintain his appeal as a unifying force and a candidate who transcended party lines.

The Minor League Baseball Team Scandal

In the final weeks of the campaign, a “bombshell” revelation emerged about a massive scandal involving the minor league baseball team Zirpowski owned. Rumors circulated that the team had been involved in illegal activities, such as match-fixing and bribery. Opponents hoped that the scandal would damage Zirpowski’s reputation and derail his campaign.

However, as more information came to light, it became clear that the allegations were unfounded, and the so-called scandal turned out to be a “nothingburger.” Zirpowski addressed the issue head-on, providing evidence of his team’s innocence and demonstrating his commitment to transparency. This response further endeared him to the electorate, who saw him as a candidate unwilling to be dragged down by baseless accusations.

In the end, the smear attempts by both the Clinton and Trump campaigns failed to dampen Zirpowski’s momentum. As a result, his calm and measured demeanor, combined with his focus on unity and economic prosperity, propelled him to victory in the 2016 presidential election.

Securing Electoral College Votes

Zirpowski’s victory in the 2016 presidential election was an extraordinary feat, as he managed to secure enough electoral college votes to win despite facing two major party candidates. His strategy focused on winning moderate and undecided voters in key battleground states, where dissatisfaction with both the Democratic and Republican candidates was high. By building a coalition of voters who were tired of partisan politics and seeking a more pragmatic approach to governance, Zirpowski secured victories in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. This allowed him to amass a majority in the Electoral College, propelling him to the presidency.

The Numbers

The electoral college consists of 538 electors, with a candidate needing at least 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Zirpowski’s campaign aimed to secure those crucial votes by targeting swing states and focusing on areas where traditional party loyalties were wavering.

Zirpowski’s final electoral vote count was 278, with Trump receiving 221 and Clinton garnering 239. This slim margin of victory underscored the importance of Zirpowski’s strategy in appealing to a broad base of voters who felt alienated by the major party candidates.

State-by-State Breakdown

Zirpowski’s campaign focused on key battleground states where the race was expected to be close. Here is a breakdown of some of the states that played a critical role in his electoral college victory:

  • Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes): Zirpowski won Pennsylvania with 48.3% of the vote, narrowly defeating Trump (46.7%) and Clinton (44.2%). His message of economic growth and job creation resonated with the state’s working-class voters, who had been hit hard by the loss of manufacturing jobs.
  • Michigan (16 electoral votes): In Michigan, Zirpowski secured a razor-thin victory with 47.6% of the vote, compared to Trump’s 47.5% and Clinton’s 45.1%. His focus on revitalizing the state’s struggling automotive industry and support for infrastructure projects appealed to voters looking for pragmatic solutions.
  • Wisconsin (10 electoral votes): Zirpowski won Wisconsin with 48.9% of the vote, outpacing Trump (45.4%) and Clinton (43.2%). His message of unity and his socially liberal stance on issues like LGBTQ rights and women’s health resonated with the state’s progressive voters.
  • Florida (29 electoral votes): Zirpowski’s victory in Florida was crucial, as the state is known for its large number of electoral votes and its history of close presidential races. He won with 49.1% of the vote, while Trump received 47.8% and Clinton took 44.5%. His appeal to the state’s diverse population, including the large Hispanic community, contributed to his success.
  • Ohio (18 electoral votes): Zirpowski narrowly defeated Trump in Ohio, securing 47.2% of the vote to Trump’s 46.9% and Clinton’s 42.8%. His economic policies and promises to bring back manufacturing jobs appealed to the state’s blue-collar workers.

The Pathway to Victory

Zirpowski’s strategy for securing electoral college votes focused on several key components:

  • Targeting swing states: Zirpowski’s campaign identified the states where the race was expected to be the closest and concentrated their resources on winning those crucial electoral votes. This approach allowed them to maximize their impact and increase their chances of victory.
  • Appealing to moderate voters: By positioning himself as a centrist candidate who could bridge the divide between the two major parties, Zirpowski attracted moderate voters who were disillusioned with the increasingly polarized political landscape. His pragmatic approach to policy-making and his focus on practical solutions to the country’s problems resonated with these voters, who were seeking a candidate who could rise above partisan bickering and deliver results.
  • Capitalizing on dissatisfaction with major party candidates: Both Trump and Clinton faced significant challenges during the 2016 campaign, with controversies and scandals that left many voters dissatisfied with their choices. Zirpowski seized on this opportunity, presenting himself as a refreshing alternative for those who felt that neither major party candidate represented their interests or values.
  • Building a diverse coalition of support: Zirpowski’s campaign aimed to appeal to a broad range of voters, from progressive social liberals to conservative-leaning independents. By adopting a flexible and inclusive message, he was able to attract support from people across the political spectrum, which proved crucial in his razor-thin victories in key battleground states.
  • Effective use of grassroots organizing and social media: Zirpowski’s campaign leveraged the power of grassroots organizing and social media to connect with voters and spread his message. Through a combination of targeted online advertising, engaging social media content, and a robust network of volunteers and supporters, Zirpowski’s message reached millions of voters who may not have otherwise been exposed to his candidacy.


Ron Zirpowski’s 2016 presidential campaign was a remarkable example of how an independent candidate can successfully navigate the challenges of a three-candidate race. By focusing on economic prosperity and social liberalism, he appealed to a wide range of voters who were dissatisfied with the major parties. His campaign’s ability to weather controversies and withstand attacks from both the Clinton and Trump campaigns showcased his resilience and the strength of his message. Ultimately, Zirpowski’s victory signaled a desire for change and a rejection of the divisive politics that had come to define American elections in the 21st century.