Jon Stewart is our only hope
Democrats have a huge advantage in coming elections given how much of an unmitigated shitshow Trump 2.0 has been, but the party itself still doesn't know what time it is and has very little of substance to say on anything (except the younger DSA wing). The field of Democratic candidates is also pretty abysmal. AOC is seen as radical and unlikable outside the left (unlike Bernie who was seen as radical but likable) and doesn't have the same excitement around her that she used to even among progressives. Bernie and Warren are too old. Kamala Harris would be a disaster for obvious reasons. Gavin Newsom is overtly corrupt and insincere.
It seems to me very plausible that Democrats could still fumble the bag in 2028, especially if Kamala takes the nomination or if some other black swan event happens (Trump dies in office, JD takes over and runs a relatively competent administration; or Trump and JD become horribly disgraced even among MAGA, leading to Tucker Carlson running—in which case I think he'd win handedly against a generic establishment Democrat).
There's also the problem of the main Democratic contenders simply being not very good. A Democrat in office would be miles better than a Republican, but I'm not at all convinced that a generic Democrat would be prepared to face the enormous challenges we as a country face (soaring debt, money in politics, AI, eugenics/transhumanism, Israel/Russia/coping with multipolarity, a highly fractious cultural and political environment, a public that finds classical fascism/white nationalism increasingly enticing).
The only person I can think of that is both electable and suited for the current moment is Jon Stewart. He's a political moderate who's comfortable calling out the establishment. He's well read. He's broadly liked and respected, even among people who disagree with him. He has a highly dialectical style to politics (ie. bringing people together to hash things out), which I think is sorely needed right now.
I think it's telling that the women are always unlikeable and we are forced revert to a old white dude every single time. But fuck we have Pritzker at least.
He's progressive, white, rich, and has actual leadership/governing experience. He's from a Midwestern blue state, is actually consistent and seems at least to be sincere.
I loathe the idea of intentionally electing a comedian, but perhaps it's the fitting end to things because I don't actually see us coming back from it.
Ehh, Hillary and Kamala I think were uniquely bad candidates. Misogyny certainly influences things, but I don't think the American people are fundamentally opposed to having a woman in office. I don't think Warren would have had the same problems, but the progressive vote being split was what sank her in the primary.
I'd also much rather have a thoughtful comedian over another billionaire.
And AOC? The same behavior in a guy does not get the same response. I also don't think Kamala was a fundamentally or uniquely bad candidate. I think she made several mistakes but probably did better than anyone else could have in the situation she was given.
So is Pritzker excluded for being rich despite all the qualifications? I just thought he was a notable absence in your post.
This feels a bit like the people wanting Michelle Obama to run even though she has zero interest. Jon Stewart would have to want it in the first place and he doesn't even want to host a show five nights a week?
Harris is not articulate or knowledgable on policy. She's had many gaffes that are hard to ignore. Perhaps she would've been treated better if she were a man, but that's a depressingly low bar to accept regardless. She also refused to pay even lip service on Gaza and failed to describe how she'd be any different from Biden.
If you don't think both racism and sexism - misogynoir if you will- were involved in the opposition to her, especially given the state of the world as it is today, I have some very bad news about antisemitism.
I don't see a point in me continuing though, so I am dipping out.
I think Harris made a lot of bad choices in the last campaign, especially surrounding Gaza, and I would not want her to be the nominee in the next presidential election. But calling her "not articulate" is an absurd step beyond that, especially given that in 2024 the alternative when she took the reigns was a Biden who could barely function.
I've only ever really heard people refer to candidates as "articulate" or not when they're black anyway, though, so perhaps it's better to avoid using that adjective in this context entirely.
I definitely stand by the charge that she's inarticulate (pardon the snark in the video). Again, you could argue she's no worse than Trump, Biden, or Bush Jr, but that's a depressingly low bar to set. There are plenty of articulate black women in American politics, and Kamala Harris isn't one of them.
I think referring to any black candidate as either "articulate" or "inarticulate" carries too many bad connotations from ages of its use in a very demeaning way specifically regarding black people for me to really want to debate the finer points of who qualifies as one or the other.
I fail to understand the significance of her articulateness if 3 of the last 4 presidents aren't any better, or 4 of the last 5 if you count Trump twice. Whether it is a depressingly low bar or not, the reality is that it IS the bar. It's not as though you're comparing her to other candidates that didn't win, you're comparing her to people who actually assumed the office of the President. If you expand the comparison to include VPs, which would include Kamala of course, the bar becomes more weighted with examples that show why highlighting someone's level of articulation seems rather asinine. Clearly most of these people aren't being favored for their articulation and scenarios where articulation is meeting a higher standard is an exception and not the rule.
That isn't to say that I favor lowering the bar for candidates to the lowest common denominator for any given trait, ideally we would select people for being better than past candidates and presidents, but that's just not the reality of modern US politics. Most voters are morons that vote based on emotion, not logic, which is why being articulate doesn't matter generally. Articulation only matters if someone can manage to connect it in a way that can reach people emotionally, otherwise it's probably a negative to the average voter.
All this to say that I disagree with the notion that Kamala lost because she isn't articulate enough. I think there were many other reasons, and I do think there is some slight element at least of her being a woman and possibly her skin color too, but Biden flubbed significantly by deciding to run and then backing out and not letting there be a Democratic primary where if Kamala had won that at least there may have been some opportunity for those on the Democratic side to feel they had the opportunity to choose their representative and give a normal level of progression for people to fold their support to the winner.
She's a bad communicator and often communicates in a way that suggests that she hasn't the slightest clue what she's talking about (ex. her trying to explain the Russia Ukraine conflict). Maybe she's really that clueless or maybe she really knows her stuff and is really bad at showing it. In either scenario, it goes without saying, that you need to be a good communicator to do well in politics, whether that's through pathos (ie. like Trump) or logos (ie. like Nixon) or both (ie. like Obama).
Confusing the cause of her defeat with being fundamentally sexism or racism is wrong and probably dangerous (leading the Democratic establishment to abandon merit in the opposite direction, pushing them to nominate a generic white dude if and when a minority is more qualified and electable). Ultimately, you need to be able to excite people to win the election, and Harris did not have the political talent to do so. You also can't discount that being a candidate who would make history as the first woman president will motivate a lot of people to vote.
Compared to Trump, she had many gaffes? Compared to Trump, she is not articulate or knowledgeable on policy?
This is not what made the difference. The difference is the pitch, plain and simple. Trump was promising what voters wanted.
I do actually think this was a major factor. I’d ballpark gender at 20% of her loss.
Not being different than Biden is dramatically better than Trump’s policies. I can’t put myself in the mind of a person who voted for Trump because they thought he would be good for Gaza. It would take a startling level of ignorance of his stated policies, while also simultaneously being a voter who cares about policies.
Not disagreeing here, but I think the point is that sadly this was a factor in some leftists not voting at all, which is not as bad as switching to Trump, but it is a problem.
This is not (edit: should not be) a factor in the decision. If the other option – Trump and Vance – does the same, it cancels out when choosing who to vote for. It wouldn’t make a difference, so you look at all other factors in the decision.
Having to choose this way is an unfortunate effect of first-past-the-post voting, because it’s more likely to find similar stances in just two candidates vs. in a plurality of parties/candidates.
At the end of the day, if your plan is to convince people you're the lesser of two evils, you're running a bad campaign.
I don’t disagree with you on that, I’m just saying that ideally this issue could have been tackled at e.g. the primaries level already so you’d have two candidates with meaningfully different stances on the topic in the actual election; and that Harris’ campaign shouldn’t have suffered due to this specifically, but very likely did. I.e., the anti-Harris pro-Gazan people (non-)voter demographic helped reelect Trump.
In any case, while all political systems are flawed, I’m thankful to be living in a place with more than two major parties as a baseline. For all the complaining/ranting I could go on regarding national and local elections herr – it really does help to represent a wider spectrum.
TL;DR: what @V17 already said here.
To be honest at this rate the Republican party will be the one to elect our first female president.
Clearly Americans aren't keen on astro-turfed, forced, or DNC-anointed women. I'm sure sexism is playing a part but I'd need to see a woman I actually think could win lose an election to think it's the deciding factor.
I'm a Warren fan but I think she's too much of an intellectual persona and would be perceived as a scold. She's also too old at this point. W. Bush defeated Kerry and Gore based on seeming down to earth and likeable.
Boomers plus the remaining Greatest Generation people are still a big chunk of the voting public. Not everyone thinks a woman could make a good commander in chief of the US military.
Harris was a fine candidate, her problems were Biden refusing to give up early and Trump getting almost shot.
I think we should focus on 1. policy and 2. their ability to execute. Plenty of good and bad leaders have come from rich and poor backgrounds.
Nicolas Maduro always strikes me as a shining example of how poverty does not impart wisdom.
Warren dropped out before I even got to vote in the primary.
I'm fairly confident that a charismatic president who can articulate issues to inspire the public with a shred of moral integrity would be the best president since Nixon, who at least had the decency to resign in the face of blatant corruption.
I don't think he wants the job. Which would make him all the better suited for it tbh. But he's unelectable as he's an atheist, which is probably worse to Christian Nationalists than any gender or race issues.
It's not that I think he's the worst though there are many others who have the same qualities, it's ultimately that i am watching people be enthusiastically supportive of fascism and it being countered with the idea that Jon Stewart and only Jon Stewart is our savior?
It's just not something I can take seriously. So I'll probably leave it here.
Also this is Carter erasure, but I suppose it depends on what scale you're measuring on. (Also a lot depends on how good of a person Stewart is outside the public eye, something I don't know)
Also just broadly speaking, name recognition is critical. Trump won because people recognized his face from a reality show.
I could not tell you a single thing about Pritzger. But I can tell you with certainty that Stewart was calling out the fascist shit as such, which puts him a solid leg over half the actual party members.
And no...I don't agree he's the only option. But I also think doing anything other than doubling down on Bernie endorsements is a losing strategy.
Jon Stewart also has some shitty opinions on the origins of COVID 19.
I wouldn't say Jon's opinion on the issue is fringe
You should also consider where the science has gone.
TL;DR there's very, very little - if any - evidence supporting a lab leak, accidental or otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_lab_leak_theory
Emphasis mine.
It is definitely a conspiracy theory that China was studying and modifying that virus, accidentally let it spread, and then successfully covered it up. But not an absurd one.
It was when he voiced it, and in no way did he mention actual science or studies. The harm that opinions like his have done to my family means I'd be reluctant to vote for someone like him.
And don't come at me with "it's nuanced". I know it is. A nuanced argument does not survive a sound bite made for TV. He chose to insist that because a pandemic's point of origin happens to share a region with a coronavirus lab, that it's an obvious smoking gun.
That's not an argument; it's a shitty, lazy joke made at people's expense, at a time of increased violence towards Asian Americans.
Not discounting your experience at all, but Stewart didn't talk about it in a xenophobic way at all or with intent to stoke anti-Asian sentiment. Especially because there wound up being scientific merit to the theory, true or not, the people who actually committed the act or stoked anti Asian sentiment should be held accountable.
He doesn't think it originated from the Wuhan lab?
Him being an atheist, I agree, is probably his greatest hurdle. Though, we've had a few skeptic presidents already (looking at you, Jefferson and Lincoln). I think an "agnostic who doesn't deny God and wants to believe in him" could potentially squeak through.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Elizabeth Warren, Barbara Lee, Tammy Duckworth, Stacey Abrams, Gretchen Whitmer, Jasmine Crockett, Amy Clobuchar. Any one of these women could be a good, maybe great, president. I have doubts about ever seeing it in my lifetime, and I'm not that old.
I've omitted Harris since she already lost once, which is anathema to the party, and Michelle Obama who has stated she won't run, and a number of other great women politicians because they are ineligible to run.
Every single thing I've seen people say they don't like about one of these women is something that is excused or admired in men.
Barbara Lee is from my state and in my opinion she is too old. (born 1946)
Sure, but that was absolutely ignored by the general populace with Trump. (In that he was clearly still elected). @aphoenix has it exactly right.
Yeah, but I've come round to wanting an age cap for the presidency, because of Biden and Trump.
Barbara Lee is a great politician with an awe inspiring record. She voted against the Iraq war when that was extremely unpopular.
Sure, same personally, but it's missing the point IMO for this comment. I could probably find disqualifying things about several of them. But in general, societally, the age criticism is something mostly ignored when it comes to men.
Even if you're personally ideologically consistent, this is excused in men.
I don't think it is excused but it is overlooked in favor of other factors in some cases. Arguably I think Bernie could fare more favorably in more recent political climate than he had in the prior elections, but his age would absolutely be a major issue raised about him. Even from people that support him. No I'm not advocating for Bernie, in part because he already was unable to get the Democratic nomination twice before but more so because he is too old, I'm just using him as an example of an old white man that I do not believe his age would be excused if he tried to run, despite his popular support from progressives.
Biden perhaps could have gotten away with that trainwreck of a debate if he was 60 years old as his excuse for being sick would have been more believable and would have excused his behaviors, but instead I think his age very much played a factor in why people reacted the way they did to that debate performance. Obviously his age wasn't a solely disqualifying factor to begin with and people were willing to consider him and already voted for him 4 years prior because he didn't exhibit significant enough impairment as far as some people were concerned anyhow to consider age to be a detriment, but once people got some kind of apparent indicator that his age is more than just a number, it wasn't being overlooked anymore.
Furthermore, saying what an individual does not like about a person or candidate is not fair to compare what the general public considered. I'll compare this to the other comment in here where someone said Kamala lost because she wasn't articulate, and my response to that is to compare her to other candidates, because they weren't just stating their opinion is that she is inarticulate so they don't like her, they were stating the public didn't vote for her because she was inarticulate. Someone stating their opinion is that they don't like a candidate because they are old is not the same as saying that the public won't like that candidate because they are old.
I have no doubt that women get criticized for things that men get praised for, or at least that men don't get criticized for, but I don't think someone voicing their personal opinion that someone's age is a problem is an example of that in this case.
I said it was "missing the point" in reply to the previous comment. Which was not whether any of those individuals should be elected, but that every criticism is something excused or admired in men. (And that there are so many women who are actually qualified politicians and not comedians. But that wasn't where we went.)
Replying with an example of that criticism - when literally the last two presidents are very old men, I think it's a fair conclusion that age at least excused in men - is really just proving the point.
So, no, individuals and society aren't the same. And I don't think the previous poster was intending to make this point, but IMO they demonstrated it exactly. For comparison if I said "I don't like how Crockett talks shit on social media" that would be my opinion but it's something that Newsom and Trump are praised for (by different people). My opinion is still valid* but its proving the point made by aphoenix.
Also the person saying she's inarticulate is IMO wrong and linked to a very skewed YouTube video to prove their point. But I think they're wrong about a lot on this topic so I don't really hold to that. Either way being inarticulate isn't something that disqualifies Trump.
*I don't hold this opinion.
This is what I'm disagreeing with, because it's not proving the point. It would be proving the point if you said that about Crockett, but then you also praised a man for doing the same thing, but it's not if you say that about Crockett and also say it about Newsom or someone else.
The way I see it, there are two ways to interpret that comment by aphoenix but only one way actually makes sense.
In one interpretation, it is saying that they can find conflicting opinions about people, which is so meaningless as to not be worth saying. I can say that I've seen criticisms about anything that others get praised for, because I can find an opinion about anything or anyone that goes in any direction. There are contrasting opinions about everything. So if this is what the statement intended, I disregarded it because it's utterly meaningless.
The other interpretation is that they can find people who criticize women for something and then those same people excuse men for the same things. This is the interpretation that makes the most sense to me because it is highlighting a double standard. It's not inherently a double standard to be able to find conflicting opinions if you source them from anyone anywhere, it's a double standard if we are comparing the same people holding different standards for different people.
I like @DefinitelyNotAFae's example of Crockett, because Crockett does get pretty constantly talked about for being "uppity" on social media (I have chosen a charged term) whereas Newsom (and Trump) both are generally lauded for their social media presences. Similarly, AOC is often called "brash" and "unlikeable" whereas a man would be called "bold".
And yet, people stand by that instead of examining why they think Crockett is uppity and Trump is bold.
Are the same people making these claims? I could see it for politically biased media, for example, Fox could call Crockett 'uppity' while praising Trump for the same actions, but I doubt Fox is praising Newsom for those same behaviors as they would Trump. They may not call Newsom 'uppity', so there would could still be a double standard there and some element of sexism at play in that specific word choice, but its still quite clear their double standards are primarily political bias in that case.
Are the same people claiming AOC is 'brash' and 'unlikeable' also calling men 'bold'? One media outlet describing AOC one way and another outlet calling JD Vance something else isn't proving the original claim you made to me. Again, I can go on X or any social media for that matter and find 100 different opinions about any given person, or find 100 different media outlets with 100 different opinions on any given person, the appearance of conflict in comparing those would not inherently reveal a double standard.
The word choice would demonstrate not just sexism but racism. I think you remain far too focused on individual actions and not societal trends
The focus on individual actions is not really specific to even one individual, but to the source of the behaviors that are being compared. The source can be multiple people or an entity, but you cannot shift the source and then claim there's a double standard, it just doesn't make sense. No one has yet explained how you can compare behaviors from different sources and somehow that makes a double standard.
I'm focusing on what the original claim was, you may be talking about societal level issues but that isn't connecting to the original claim.
To be quite honest, it's quite frustrating the level of disconnect in the comments here so I'm just not going to engage any further, my mind is nearly melting at something that seems so apparently obvious to me that either I cannot convey in a way that is understandable to others or they cannot convey in a way that is understandable to me, and I suspect others are apt to be frustrated by me as well, so I just don't see this going anywhere.
I think we are looking at things with a fundamental difference.
For you, it seems important to find individuals who hold a double standard, people who think differently about men and women and who express those specific differences in a way that is individually and obviously sexist. I understand that, but I think it is relatively uninteresting to find an individual or organisation that is sexist or otherwise prejudiced; it is unfortunately always easy to find such.
For me, I think it is more of interest to look at the zeitgeist of how media and society have a tendency to speak or report about women in politics, because that goes to systemic issues of sexism. I understand that you are making a claim that this is uninteresting because it can be entirely different individuals expressing their opinions, but I think it's wrong to dismiss things like this.
However, if you want examples of specific people who are individually sexist, then just find the closest person over the age of 70. They are statistically likely to praise a man for being brash and outspoken, and to find a woman to be unpleasant and pushy. They are statistically likely to say an old white man is strong and a young black woman is uppity. But I don't think "sexist people exist" is much of an interesting thing to point out. I think it's much more interesting and important to examine the gestalt of how media portrays and reports on women in politics.
Edit: I think that this is one of those times where "agree to disagree" is pretty acceptable by the way, so I'm not trying to make sure you accept my point, or change your mind and say that my way is the one true way to think about things. I also want to acknowledge that looking for specific individuals or media outlets that have bias is important as well, and I see the value in looking at things in that way.
You've omitted my take entirely with your two options. I have been consistently talking about societal level issues when it comes to the exclusion of and dismissal of women as presidential candidates.
You seem to be focusing on individual hypocrisy and I'm definitely focused on the societal level misogyny. Because of that we don't agree on this.
I'm also not talking about finding individual opinions on any side of an issue when I talk about societal approval or excusal. I'm talking about people who are elected, praised fairly loudly/widely. "Too old" is something that was excused in both Biden and Trump to the point they were elected for the past three elections. I'm calling that a societal level excusal. Society has double standards. Those may be informed by individual ones, but often people think they're being ideologically consistent, even when they're holding those subconscious biases. (Not the previous poster)
Yeah, I just looked her up and she's 79 which is old. Not as old as the men who have been running the country, though, and she doesn't act or feel as old as the last two presidents, and I could see her being effective, timely, and appopriate for the next 20 years, whereas Trump and Biden are both near their death beds.
Even though she's physically old, she's not feeble.
This has been excused (or even admired) with many men, and specifically the last two presidents.
True, and she's now mayor of Oakland. She's not retired.
Agreed, though the odds of a disabled Asian woman being elected or a young Black woman in this era feel nil. Not when we can't even acknowledge how they're treated differently.
I would love to see Stacey Abrams make it, but I think her loss to Kemp has rendered her relatively unlikely as a candidate for the presidency of the US (much less of the whole dang earth much to our own detriment) but Crockett and AOC both give me hope and make me feel that things are possible. AOC especially with her rallies with Bernie.
Of course I am saying this as a Canadian, mostly just worried about the downstairs neighbour with all the nukes and all the crazy, hoping that things turn out well.
I'd say we're doing our best, but uh, gestures at this thread so idk.
Indeed, this thread has an abundance of unexamined prejudices throughout.
Late to the thread, but for the other stragglers I want to add: The midterms are our only hope. Full stop.
Looking to a theoretical future candidate is fine I guess. A unifying figure would be nice, but the midterms will decide the future of America long before we need a candidate. If it goes the wrong way it's unlikely it will still be a functional democracy by the time Trump's term is over. Think about the rate of dismantling over just a single year.
The special elections this year have shown democrats overperforming significantly. They still lose in republican bastians like Tennessee and Mississippi but they took back the city of Miami after 30 years of Republican rule. The trend is consistent. Voters are pushing back.
Inasmuch as Ukraine did well in a catastrophic situation by electing a comedian who satirized a corrupt government, I don't think Jon Stewart is a good pick.
Firstly, it's my thesis that celebrities generally make 💩 politicians until they've had a governorship or a couple of terms in a Congressional seat. The U.S. record is very mixed. Celebrities don't generally have policy or governance experience, they understand fame but not public accountability, they're not connected to a network of reliable advisors nor do they have the judgment about what advice and influences to follow. Pres. Barack Obama had too little experience and succumbed to a business-oriented conventional wisdom about economics that let the country down after the 2008 crash, bailing out banks but not households and letting austerity budgets win the day.
Say what you will about Pres. Biden, but he did bring a domestic policy team that started to make inroads on greener energy and industrial development, anti-trust enforcement, environmental regulation, judicial appointments, and a host of other worthy goals. I don't see Jon Stewart bringing much besides sass and sarcasm. He is a trenchant debater, so I expect he'd get in some memorable zingers. However, I'd rather see him as a media and press consultant (his real areas of expertise) to a deep bench of experienced progressive legislators and policy experts.
And I'll freely admit I'm wrong about electability - my Presidential political faves have flamed out in the primaries or general for decades because I'm too far left and too fixated on policy [Anyone remember Howard Dean? And with the exception of Barack Obama.].
Personal takes: Govs. Tim Walz and Gretchen Whitmer are too culturally and politically Midwestern. They're really nice people, with some moral authority and policy backbone but no articulated vision. Not enough aggression to resonate with New Yorkers or Texans, not enough vividness for Californians or Arizonans, not enough eccentricity for Oregon or Washington, not enough crazy for Florida.
Govs. Andy Beshear and Jared Polis (kind of a political flake with a Libertarian bent) are young enough and might have broad enough appeal. I'm not including Gov. Josh Shapiro because I think his positioning on Gaza was heinous.
Senators Mark Kelly, Chris Murphy, Elissa Slotkin, Ruben Gallego, Alex Padilla (I'm a sucker for someone with an engineering background as President), Tammy Baldwin, and Michael Bennett are all young enough and bring various strengths/weaknesses to the table.
Anyway, way too soon to start speculating. The bench is deep enough for some good candidates to materialize, and as /u/post_below said, everything hinges on this year's elections.
Edit note - Whichever Democrat wins is going to be f-ed over by the media and electorate's perennial amnesia about the Two Santas tactic. No one will be able to administer the medicine of social industrial policy and higher taxes.
And then there's the sheer disillusionment when parties narrow their ambitions to the "possible".
This is one of the most American posts I've read in a while.
Please, please, please stop electing people based on how much you like the TV shows they were in and how you feel when they talk good, and instead read the policies that they put out and what they are going to do for the country.
Kamala Harris was a great candidate with a good platform. If she fumbled her words a few times enough to make a supercut of word salad, please consider that she's given literally thousands of hours of press conferences, and they cherry picked 20 bad minutes. She is an articulate and actually quite compelling speaker, and I say that as someone who recently heard her speak on her book tour.
Vote for policy not personality. Picking Jon Stewart is an absolutely horrendous joke of an idea. He is not a politician, he would be wildly ineffective, and he doesn't know what to do.
Thank you.
We're currently living through the second term of someone elected based on their TV persona. It's not going great.
I feel crazy for watching my initial reply play out in rest of the comments. The women are all unlikeable (or perfect and unattainable, but someone else will call them unlikeable too.) We must put our hope in an old white TV funny guy to save us.
We must do absolutely no ground work between now and the presidential election and just think about finding someone who isn't running and name him our savior. There are no intermediary events worth engaging with and zero activism worth doing.
We will then complain in 4 years that our guy didn't save us, probably. Assuming we get the opportunity because such complaints are already called treason by the current president.
My hot take is it’s not important in the current age for the president to be a politician. The cabinet can run the show. Today we might just need someone charismatic that can get elected and then defer their power to a set of qualified people. If anything their job is to select or veto cabinet members. And to be humble enough to not try to inject their own unqualified ideas.
Of course I think it’s preferable for them to be both charismatic and a capable legislator and leader.
You are very optimistic that an executive with as much power as Trump, Biden, or Obama has had, would willingly give it away.
Presidents don't legislate either, so a President being a capable legislator doesn't really factor in that much.
Does the President necessarily need to be politically savvy, or a political figure beforehand? No, not necessarily. But we've seen what we get when we vote in someone based on their TV persona, and it's resulted in... this.
Is Jon Stewart as bad as Trump? Almost certainly not. Is he a good choice for a leader? Someone with exactly zero political experience, let alone leadership experience? Also, probably not.
He's a funny guy who said things we all liked sometimes. That does not necessarily a good leader make, even if it seems to be working out in one case (Zelenskyy).
Just so you don't think I'm an idiot, I'm aware. But many Presidents have been legislators and I have to imagine those skills come in handy.
A president who has served in the legislature and knows the process and knows the people and personalities, has an advantage getting an agenda enacted into law. Johnsons Great Society is a good example.
Nah. No one is our only hope. The calvary is not coming
Trump is and was too old and clearly not in great mental health. The bar keeps getting raised on this front unfortunately.
I don't think either of these is feasible personally. Trump will be a cult of personality until he dies, and will continue running for office in some shape or form. Tucker Carlson has no such personality and no semblence of real authority/success like Trump had in the 2016 election. That doesn't mean he can't create his own model of electability, but it's not 1:1 in my own estimations
Virtally nobody knew who Obama was at this point in 2005. Way to far out to predict much of anything meaningful, especially with the speed at which culture changes. My opinions included
Bill Clinton was exceptionally charismatic. He had a crazy good memory for names and faces and he habitually charmed people.
I've written even here on it before, but I believe only a Kennedy or Stewart could excite the populace again. Then again, the animosity towards Trump is higher than ever (rightfully), so sadly a Kamala win is possible.
If you want seasoned politicians, then Mark Kelly, astronaut turned politician with a strongman airforce veteran vibe is my preferred choice that I think would win in a landslide on the astronaut part alone.
A Kennedy ran last time. He's horrible.
If Kamala runs again, I have little doubt we'd wind up with a Vance presidency or possibly a Trump switcheroo/third term. Honestly Kamala running again would be a great way to fully tank the DNC and fuel a true third party, so maybe I should actually hope for that outcome? Seems like it would be astonishingly easy to run a candidate somewhere in the McCain vein and capture 60% of the vote from both the radical republicans and the social issue-fixated democrats.
Honestly i'm curious why you think a Kennedy would do much. Just because of boomer inertia on the name? Most of the new generation knows more about Ted and Jr, and portions JFK/RFK's actions haven't aged tremendously well under scrutiny.
Is Sen Mark Kelly rich? Quick internet search says 22m so no. He has no chance, he'll get swift boat veteran'd immediately.
I believe that fundamentally the huge mass of "undecided" Americans only recognize wealth and power, not good ideas or moral fibre nor left vs right. Oprah could win for either side for example, net worth 3 billion.
Wiki: too 25 Americans by net worth
Bill Gates could make a run for it to get ahead of Epstein fallout. Again, for either side.
Jon Stewart is extremely unlikely to even run, let alone win. Campaigns cost money, he doesn't have it. Newsom is the likely candidate from about 100 different angles.
Kamala/Bernie/Warren/AOC are almost certainly not even worth discussing in any serious capacity.
I expect a lot of these names to get thrown around in primary season and then evaporate barring Newsom catastrophically screwing up (which he could, its the democrats after all). This is how primaries used to go (lots pie in the sky candidates who disappear sometime between iowa and the south).
Further i'm not sure Stewart would actually be a GOOD candidate. He does have an understanding of how the political machine works thanks to his activism in regards to 9/11 and past career before The Daily Show and god knows "sane normal human" is an upgrade over candidates from the past few years, but another 60 year old isn't exactly stellar (I believe he'd be 65 by then).
That's before you get into the "ok so who do you trust on the economy, diplomacy, and everything else you know dick about" issue. As much as no one wants to hear it, a lot of economic or diplomatic decisions are based on factors the average voter doesn't respect or understand (a common criticism of the opposition but rarely of allies), and the cabinet is SUPPOSED to matter.
And then you've got the whole "will congress actually work with you" issue which god knows the answer on the R side is "fucking never" but leave it to the dems to find someone they'd turn their nose up at because he's not part of the in crowd (and i'm not even going to touch the whole Jewish thing but it'd also ABSOLUTELY matter).
Democrats especially seem to have this bad habit of thinking you win by picking someone you like, but like it or not the electoral college is a thing, and more importantly, a BIGGER thing in the democratic primaries.
Everyone knows dems aren't carrying Kentucky or Mississippi but you DO need votes from people there to make it through the primaries. This has always been bernies problem (the south voted for Hilary over him which is all sorts of sad) and I suspect it would be stewarts as well. We're not in an age where some massive grass roots machine gets you the election.
I think Stewart could pull hundreds of millions of dollars in a couple hours if he wanted to. The bigger problem for him is the hundreds and possibly thousands of sound bites of him joking about all the swing states that he would need to carry. The ads write themselves.
I think you're overrating his pull and underrating how much he needs. The 2020 and 2024 election had north of 10 billion each spend (combining both R and D spending). So assume 5b per candidate (despite their official spending being about 1/5th of that, PACs and all...).
It is an ungodly expensive thing.
That's for the general. The primaries are relatively cheap. About $200m each for Hillary and Bernie, for example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
Maybe that doesn't matter as much in the modern age. See: hispanics voting in large numbers for Trump in 2024. People want someone who's authentic more than anything, and I think Stewart would get some grace on account of being a comedian.
I wouldn't call Trump authentic, and I don't believe his fans loved him for that qualify either. I think the quality they are drawn to is "brashness": shoot from the hip, don't care who he offends and don't care if it's factual or accurate. Most liberal people are focused on electing someone who can change things for the better: what we often forget is that conservative people vote mostly to keep and preserve what should never ever change. They don't want people with great ideas, they want people who are loudly claiming they won't change core values, even at the sacrifice and erosion of everything else.
There's an interesting psychology today article that tries to analyze why 59% Latino Protestants backed Trump. Link
I think he should at least put his hat in the ring in the primaries. If he were to win the nomination, he would have no trouble securing funding to win the general. Looking at how much Biden/Kamala outspent Trump in 2024 and at Zohran's campaign in NYC, I'm also skeptical that money would be a deciding factor. Stewart already has a massive media advantage for free. He would need just enough to get a decent ground game going, which I think he could do through independent donations like Bernie did in 2016.
The regime has proven they can now cancel any show they want on a whim. Without a network, Stewart doesn't have the same reach
I think you're underestimating the reach he already has. He hosted The Daily Show from 1999-2015, and only recently got back into it. In between he did a couple cameos on shows, including Stephen Colbert's show, and hosted an Apple TV series which I barely heard anything about because I don't have/use Apple TV.
Yet even with that nine-year career gap, he's still very well known and hasn't been forgotten. He became a household name back before media began fragmenting and the monoculture weakened. I knew his name when I was in middle school because my dad would watch him almost every night (and had hilariously bad luck the few times he'd put on The Daily Show during dinner). I'd be shocked to find someone from older generations who doesn't know who he is, or haven't at least heard his name in some capacity. And his general stances are fairly well-known. I can't say the same for a majority of politicians right now. Even when I recognize a name, I often have to double-check why the name is familiar because there's a good chance it's due to something scandalous.
Canceling his show wouldn't really weaken his reach that much because he's already a firmly established figure in the minds of older voters. A lot of people would vote for him just based on familiarity with his time on The Daily Show back before 2015. He also has a lot of media connections since... well, he works in that industry. John Oliver and Stephen Colbert are directly linked to him, and both are still fairly popular and big names. I imagine many others in that vein of programming would also be willing to openly voice support for him given he's unlikely to threaten to take dissenters off the air.
I don't know whether he'd be a good president, and he's stated he doesn't want to run for office anyway, but I've thought for a long time that he'd have a good shot at winning for those reasons. Name recognition is powerful, and he's probably more well-known than a lot of top politicians. Especially when you discount those known for controversial reasons (e.g. pretty much every high-ranking Trump official).
I love Jon Stewart but I also love Jerry Seinfeld and neither of them have any interest in nor the qualifications to run…
I really think the US is fucked regardless for the time being. You’re talking about 2028 elections like it’s obvious they will even happen. As a country it has crossed the line into authoritarianism long ago, and there is little coming back from it unless a significant revolution happens.
Every day that passes, Trump solidifies his stay in office in ways that would make any other dictatorship jealous.
I get it. It's got 2016 vibes to it, but I get it. John Stewart has that outsider, no nonsense thing going and he appears to be good communicator, or, he is on his show, at least. Meanwhile, voters are disillusioned with politicians, the Democrats have done a poor job meeting the needs and demands of their base, and they have done an ever poorer job building up the next wave of leaders within their party. Though in their defense, the Gerry Connolly thing was a total shock. I mean, who could imagine that a 75-year old cancer survivor would die so quickly? But if you're looking for the bright side, one small benefit to this is that future candidates are unknown and therefore have room to improve. Even AOC, whose net favorables are slightly higher than Trump's still gets a 'no opinion' from ~30% of voters. And no matter who the candidates are, the election will almost certainly boil down to the gut feelings of a few hundred thousand morons spread across 4 or 5 states after an all out media blitz. The likelihood of someone breaking through the partisan divide, fueling a monumental shift in Congress, and actually passing substantial legislation is pretty low. Oops, I was supposed to be optimistic.
Looking back at the bright side, it is very early. If you asked Republicans about who they should run back in December 2013, the answer would not be Donald Trump. Instead, you'd hear names like Chris Christie, Rick Santorum, and Bobby Jindal. In fact, the conventional wisdom then was that they should NOT be so racist. Ha!
Same goes for Democrats in 2005. Outside of Illinois, very few people knew who Obama was. And just this past year, we watched a no-name 33 year old Muslim socialist turn into a national figure over the course of about six months. Not only that, he helped make "affordability" go from a third-place issue in a NYC primary to the national issue. Things change quickly.
Besides, we might not even have an election in 2028, so there's no use worrying about it now ;)
Hot take. Michelle Obama would be hugely electable. I wish for a younger, more progressive candidate; but if they want a shoe in, it's Michelle Obama.
That might have been a good idea if Hillary hadn't failed. I think at this point it would bring up memories of 2016 and all of the shenanigans that happened.
Even if Hilary had succeeded I don't think there's a position that I could disagree more with. Michelle Obama has the last name going for her and that's about it. She would be problematic to run from several angles, perhaps most importantly because she does have a Hilary-esque charisma issue.
Other than both being first ladies, I don't think there is much to compare between the two women. Michelle Obama was a very well liked first lady and continues to be culturally relevant. I brought this point up with my parents in 2020 and even they were like "Oh, she would be an exciting candidate".
I really dislike Hillary Clinton and have nothing but positive associate with Michelle Obama. She doesn't feel scripted or placating. When she speaks I believe that she thinks most of what she is saying. So either she is a very convincing actor or has a set of standards and morals. Either way she feels authentic in a way Clinton and Kamala could only dream of.
Run the idea past folks in your circle and hear what they say. I was blown away by the amount of positive feedback when I talked about it back in 2020 and 2024.
I think if she wants to run in a primary and wins it on her own merits that’s enough to prove she has a shot. But if it’s like 2016 with all of the shenanigans the DNC pulled to keep Hillary in the spotlight we’re in for a century of Republican control.
Oh for sure. I'm also not wanting Michelle to run and don't see her as "my candidate". I'm a very fringey lefty, she would likely be a centrist/right like Barack. I just think she is the most electable "traditional" democrat and one I would be ok with. I was just putting out the option as someone electable other than John Stewart.
Personally, give me AOC or give me death. I don't think she would get elected as the GOP and DNC have spent the last decade running her name into the ground as hard as they can. But man would I feel represented!
I would vote for Jon Stewart in a heartbeat (and probably campaign for him). IMHO he won't run (he's been clear about this in the past), but he knows the flows of power in Washington and I believe his policies would be well in line with my ideals.
Absolutely understand the idea that electing comedians in general might be a bad idea but I think Stewart is a special case. I would wager that his vision would be much clearer than most campaigns since he seems to have consistent principles guided by ethics. Where he has been directly engaged with politics in the past (burn pit survivor and 9/11 first responder advocacy), he's been pretty effective.
The movie Man of the Year with Robin Williams is basically this exact scenario. Been a while since I watched it but I remember it concluding that experienced politicians would do a better job. I disagreed then and I disagree now, at least in Stewart's case specifically.
I don't think he's our only hope but I'd be pretty excited if he was an option. Certainly much more so than our nigh certain 2028 candidate, Newsom.
No.
Jon Stewart is too old to be the president of the United States.
He was born in 62. Tim Walz was born in 64. Mark Kelly was born in 64 and is a contender for 2028. . Pritzker was born in 65 and is a known contender for 2028.. I don't think there is a majority of people who believe 65 is too old to be president.
There have been 6 presidents who would have started at the same age or older (13 at 60+). Yes 65 is old. Jon is lucky in that he doesn't look it (yet, as getting the job also age's people considerably), but it would show quickly should the scrutiny be turned up.