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'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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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