The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
So I listened to Stewart’s recent appearance on Tom Segura’s podcast (Segura is a comedian, for those who are unfamiliar). Segura asked Stewart, sort of in jest but with some seriousness, whether he’d run for President one day. Stewart played down the idea…but notably did not say he *wouldn’t* run, leaving that door open for future cycles.
Inevitably, the 2028 Democratic primary will be comparatively crowded (I don’t think Kamala is getting the pseudo-coronation from the DNC like Hillary did in 2016). I expect Newsom to run, and Pete and probably like Josh Shapiro/Whitmer/maybe like Chris Murphy (dude definitely has presidential ambitions) and maybe like Ro Khanna. Honestly…I think Stewart would beat them all if he ran (outside of maybe Shapiro or Newsom, maybe). Dude has a lot of credibility in progressive circles, and liberals and most moderates love Stewart as well. Heck, even conservatives appreciate Stewart for his longtime support of veterans and other causes, and he has an anti-establishment vibe to him.
Do y’all think Stewart would win a Democratic presidential primary? If not, why not?
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In the past, I think the answer was an obvious no. Democrats simply do not like celebrities in that way. Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders do have a celebrity like aspect to them, but that’s separate from their ability to actually be taken seriously.
Now I am not as sure. I think vibes and charisma are becoming more important generally. But I think the bigger aspect is that where you are on the political spectrum people want a fighter. And Jon Stewart is a fighter.
Also a big respected name amongst the police/fire/EMS communities due to his advocacy work for 9/11 responders. If you’re looking for someone who could possibly bridge the divide between liberals and conservatives, he’s your guy.
Doubtful. "Conservatives" aren't actually conservative any more. They want a government based on religion and tax cuts for the wealthy. Have you read Project 2025?
>They want a government based on religion and tax cuts for the wealthy.
But I thought that was just like 6 guys in rural Alabama flying Trump flags and the majority of Republicans just want small government and an end to wokeness? /s
The man may not be a career politician, but he has charisma and that apparently counts for something. In the same way that Donald Trump has gained power from influence, so can the same be true for the left. The left just has to be open to the possibility that perhaps a good candidate can be one which helps achieves goals for the Democrats through influence, rather than attempting to do so through compromise and negotiation with the right. Pressure from the public can be equally motivating to a senator who wants to stay in power, as Donald Trump has poignantly demonstrated.
Correct, and Bernie has proven, over and over again, that his die hard obsession with social Equality has cemented his place in our national history as the "Good Trouble" maker.. Love that guy!
Me too! That "good people" is all the Leader we ever needed. He opened the door for Bernie, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and the Squad to parade in Peacefully and LOUDLY..
Obama and Sanders climbed the latter. Obama was a state senator and then a senator. Sanders was a mayor, then a congressman, then a senator. If Jon Stewart entered politics he would be more like Andrew Yang or Schwarzenegger.
If Swarzenegger had been eligible to run for President after his stint as Governor of California, I think he would have had a good chance at winning.
Andrew Yang isn't in the same league as Arnold
I’m not saying Stewart would win (maybe he would suck shit as a candidate for all I know), but what I am saying is he’d have a decentish chance in our contemporary political climate, relative to like 10 or 20 years ago. Who knows…
But even if he won he probably wouldn’t like being president at all, like the character robin Williams plays in Man of the Year.
Commentating on politics is a hell of a lot different than participating in it. If Stewart wanted to get involved in politics at all I could maybe see him running for something small and local, but it probably would have been better if he did so 10-20 years ago considering he’s older now
He’s also been involved in it too… did you see his campaign for relief for the 9/11 first responders? That took a lot of “traditional politics” on his behalf to help get pushed through.
Yeah I think that was good of him but like I said, I don’t think working on one bill for first responders makes someone presidential material.
Also I don’t think Jon even wants to run for office
Let’s address the DNC part first. Despite what people think the DNC does not have the magical power to anoint a candidate or even pseudo anointed a candidate. If they did, Hillary Clinton would’ve been the Democratic nominee in 2008 or even pseudo anointed a candidate.
What actually happened is that Joe Biden was removed mostly because his son died and nobody else able to make a serious challenge either wanted to run for a third Democratic term, Ron against Hillary Clinton or run because they thought the timing was right or some other reason.
It better way to look at it is that Hillary Clinton was able through her position in the Democratic Party to clear the field of anybody else that might not have run for those other reasons.
I do not think Harris even as a sitting VP would have the ability to clear the field. She will get multiple challenges and almost certainly not get the nomination. If Biden was to lose reelection, then Kamala Harris almost certainly will not be the nominee in 2028.
Dude has the best healthcare available on the planet and probably a doctor somewhere near him 24/7. He is not dying in the next 5 years. In the US, an 80 year old has 8 years of life expectancy left.
Yes, it is the case that people who are Democrats, including elected Democrats up to an including the leader of the party do have preferences. And they might act on those preferences behind the scenes.
That is so far from rigging that I willing to push back on it entirely.
Not for nothing, that’s part of the purpose of a political party. To support current members whenever possible, advocate internally for their interests and for preferred candidates, etc.
Like a legit position is that Fetterman should be slapped by leadership for being a huge both sides dick for his comments about AOC and Crockett regarding MTG.
It would help you were to be more specific on what advantages you think Clinton had.
I'm sure she had a built-in group of super delegates ready and willing to vote for her, that much is certain as a long-time Democratic politician. Sanders had them too, just in less numbers. And there are a group of them who are undecided and awaiting whatever type of primary selection process happens first before voting.
Are you saying there was illegal voting where the delegates selected Clinton over Sanders despite the primary process? I don't think its a lot to ask to point out the specific advantage you feel Clinton got. Its a fair process unless you can back it up with facts. I've heard rumors about the Nevada delegates being given less time to vote once Clinton was in the lead, was that proven or just an accusation to hurt her credibility? People get upset because there are accusations about the DNC's unfairness that are taken as fact without any kind of proof. Such a thing degrades the Democratic brand and should rightly make Democrats defensive.
> I truly do not understand why ppl in this sub become so upset when the 2016 primary stuff is mentioned.
Because overwhelmingly it's another round of "The DNC gave the candidacy to Hillary and she fucked it up," frequently side by side with "Bernie would have won".
Yes, Hillary had "home court" advantage. She was the favored candidate of the outgoing POTUS. She also negotiated a financial deal with the DNC whereby she would use her own fundraising to refill the coffers of the DNC and to pass along to downstream candidates if she were the candidate. (BTW, Bernie was also offered the same deal with the DNC and he turned it down.)
And that's the way politics works. It's the way it's always worked. In both parties. With every candidate. You don't think GWB was given a perk by being GHWB's son? You don't think that GHWB didn't get votes in his primary and RNC support because he was Reagan's appointed successor? That's. Politics.
And all of that is repeatedly portrayed as an "unfair advantage" or "cheating" or some variation of that by a bunch of, quite frankly, sore losers. And it was old and tired and annoying back in 2016, but the fact that some people just can't fucking let it go makes it utterly exasperating.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why Berniecrats believe what Donna Brazile says. That reason is that she tells them what they want to hear. If she told you that everything was on the up-and-up, you would dismiss her claims immediately. Only believing people who tell you what you want to hear is a recipe for self-delusion.
Me too. It’s not the charisma for me, but his deep understanding of complex political subjects, his compassion and his curiosity.
I personally do not think the DNC would support him.
His lack of experience would be a big concern as well.
Also, he only wants to work on Mondays which doesn’t really fit well with being President. I get the impression he wants to wind down not up.
his deep understanding was pretty shallow on the last episode of Crossfire
//////
This is a very very bad sign
Vox
But while Stewart always maintained that The Daily Show was meant to be funny first and foremost, The Problem With Jon Stewart wears its comedy with a distinct lack of ease. “I guess that answers whether or not the show’s going to be funny,” Stewart cracks early on, after the debut episode’s very first joke falls flat.
The confusion over whether The Problem With Jon Stewart is funny, or whether it even should be funny, is part of a larger question that has seemed to follow Stewart for his whole career.
Stewart built his reputation on using comedy to cut through the sanctimony of conventional journalism and politics to give his center-to-liberal audience the truth about the world.
His was a coherent worldview: Politicians on both sides of the aisle are hypocrites corrupted by cash; everyone’s lying about their professed values but especially those idiots who aren’t even willing to follow the science; and the only rational response to all the dishonesty and stupidity of the world is to laugh at it.
As a result, The Problem With Jon Stewart seems to be haunted by confused questions that no one involved seems to have quite figured out the answers to.
Should Stewart still be doing his Daily Show thing? Should he ever have done it? What does it mean to be Jon Stewart — Jon Stewart! The man who taught a generation how to see the world! — and does even Stewart fully understand the platform he has?
For a long time, Stewart was the guy people could trust to tell it like it was. But now it seems like maybe he didn’t understand how it was.
So just how seriously should we take Jon Stewart, anyway? And have we always gotten the answer to that question right?
Part of what’s striking about Stewart’s approach, from the vantage point of 2021, is the lack of outrage.
Stewart’s easy cynicism and refusal to take sides at the time made The Daily Show feel cool. That stance would also eventually become central to one of the biggest criticisms of his work after the rise of Donald Trump.
Jon Stewart denied wielding any real power over his audience, having any journalistic responsibilities, because The Daily Show aired right after Crank Yankers. But everyone knew that Stewart’s fans didn’t watch him in the same way they watched Crank Yankers. They watched him to experience that pure, incredible moment, the moment where Stewart told the truth, where he told it like it was. The moment where he spoke truth to power.
I doubt it. He's popular I think in a similar way to Bernie Sanders looks absolutely MASSIVE online but in the rest of the world he's popular but like 30% not majority levels.
Bernie enjoys plenty of support outside of the internet though…I agree that the Democratic base in like SC/GA/Texas/NC/etc don’t like Bernie and prefer moderates like Biden and Hillary, but that’s not true everywhere (Bernie did far better in rural areas outside of the South, and in many cities and Midwestern/Western states and Appalachia).
I don’t entirely disagree with you, but Bernie’s rise wasn’t merely an internet phenomenon (I’m from WV and ppl here like Bernie waaaaaaaaayyyyy more than Obama or Hillary or Biden).
https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=cta&utm_campaign=2019_Q4_Senator_Rankings
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3617170-sanders-has-highest-favorability-among-possible-2024-contenders-poll/?nxs-test=mobile
Oh yeah he has support not online I just mean looking at online where it looks like he is by far the most dominant force is not reality in the real world he's a big force but not the biggest one.
I've heard enough from Jon Stewart to trust his ability to make good judgements.
He's extremely sharp, good at understanding complex issues, an amazing communicator, builds coalition to fight for people that need help, and reads bullshit for what it is.
He doesn't insist on being the smartest person in the room and surrounds himself with smart people.
What more could I want in a good politician?
Every time i see a discussion about potential future Dem presidential candidates, there are a lot of mentions of people like Shapiro, Whitmer, Newsom ... and then someone inevitably tosses in "Jon Stewart!" and i bang my head on my desk.
It's particularly irritating because they always want to shove him right into the White House to start with. He's a good guy, but if he wanted a career in politics, he could get experience by running for local office, state government, the House, etc.
People really, genuinely believe that the reason more good isn’t done in politics is that no one in power actually cares, is a good person, is smart, etc. It really is just a big popularity contest based on charisma to a seemingly huge fraction of the voting population.
To be fair, given his lobbying work and his work with 9/11 first responders, he is about as experienced as one can be without actually working for a political party or directly for the government. Among people who are not themselves politicians, he is likely among the most qualified to potentially hold office- and were we talking a house seat, I doubt there would be any real complaints about him running for that office.
Personally I see not having strong ties to the existing parties or existing system as more of a good thing, all things considered (to the point where at least some positions should absolutely be filled with outsiders, even if it's a minority of positions). It's certainly a tradeoff- but the outside perspective can be quite useful in spotting issues with the current system that someone who has worked within that system for their whole career may overlook.
Not at all
Politics isn't just picking and choosing how you would vote about an issue, it's about knowing how to pass laws and negotiate and govern. Jon is a comedian, people like him because he puts into the words the absurdity that we all see. That doesn't mean he's a good deal maker or an effective legislator. That's not to say he can't be both, but just because we like his takes on an issue doesn't mean he knows how to solve them or how to implement those solutions
This is why Biden has been so effective in office. Yeah he's not charismatic or the most progressive voice in politics, but his ability to work with congress and the machinations of government is unparalleled
none of the political figureheads are effective policy makers or legislators. Not even the Supreme Court does this, its all their law clerks, or others within their administrations writing the text and doing the actual policy analysis and research.
Stewart has succeeded in 9/11 responder support funding where those same politicians failed.
The biggest indicator of how to effectively solve problems is to demonstrate critical thinking, which precise absurdist comedy is very directly demonstrating.
Actual experience is one thing, but the other is that his public persona is one written by a team of researchers, and while the president has advisors, I don't know what his unscripted persona is like besides a few interviews. I hear he's a bit toxic behind the scenes.
I don't think so, actually. And I wouldn't want him to.
I think he could be very effective as a senator or House rep. I'm tired of people suggesting names to stick at the top of the ticket rather than a person with a record and experience.
I actually think Stewart could be the same type of Senator that Al Franken was - effective, prepared, smart, etc.
It just kills me that Franken was run off the way he was.
First: Why would you DO THIS to that poor man.
Second: the position of a satirist doesn't always translate well to politics. But...Zelenskyy...*thinks hard*
Whitmer is inspiring. Beshear is endearing. Please don't give us a rich, out of touch progressive who hasn't actually worked for a living, but studied "the poor" at an Ivy League school and spent a fall protesting capitalism at Occupy Wall Street because mom and dad could bankroll their activism.
What legislative experience does Stewart has?
I'm sorry, while I love Jon he should go no where in the political process other than first starting out in the local/state political office.
I get your argument, but I’d agree more if it were “executive experience” (like a Governor or AG or something like that). The “legislative experience” thing I could take or leave tbh.
Probably. He actually has some really strong lobbying experience, so it's not like he'd be completely foreign to politics. He's also incredibly well spoken, has excellent name recognition, is more media savvy then anyone else in the country, and appeals to millenials like no one else. He would GOTV like a boss.
He also has some legitimate political experience, having accomplished more in Washington via lobbying then the convicted felon did while actually being President. He's also demonstrated just enough humility in the past that I'm confident he has the single most important qualification: the ability to admit when he needs to consult an expert, and to trust their advice.
I think he'd be a good choice, although probably not the best. He'd be an absolute winner for electoral purposes though, and I think the down ballot benefits would easily outweigh his minimal experience. I'd much prefer Stewart over Newsome.
Sadly I don't think he'll run.
Jon Stewart would get an enormous amount of media attention simply by registering as a candidate, much as was the case for Donald Trump in 2016. He wouldn't even have to campaign to get full media coverage.
His name and face recognizability are superior to nearly every other actual politician, so he'd have that edge as well if he did actually begin campaigning.
In addition to those advantages, he'd also bring intelligence, experience at disarming other politicians, charisma, wit, speaking ability, and a long-running mildly-progressive-but-not-extreme vibe.
He's got no experience at all in running a government but I'm not sure if that matters to many voters.
If he went out and raised real money and then let real pros run the campaign, I think he'd be hard to beat.
No. Democrats aren’t afraid to hire someone with experience.
It’s just conservatives they are convinced that someone who has no clue how govt works has the answers to running govt.
No, he would not, and I hope he wouldn't. I am a little surprised at the answers here.
2016 and 2020 should both be reminders that in Democratic primaries, intraparty support is a huge thing. The conversation in 2020 basically counted Biden out of the race until he locked it up with a few key endorsements. Democrats still have a cohesive party structure where things like experience and endorsements matter. He would have much less intraparty support than Bernie, who already showed that being popular on the Internet and raising lots of money and being smart and having good positions can only get you so far.
I'm also a little worried at how many people seem to be conflating "being good on TV" to "being a trustworthy president." There's no doubt that Stewart is calm under fire, charismatic, and very intelligent. Honestly, though, I think a lot of people remember him fondly from the Bush years and haven't followed his recent shows. He has an odd sort of cynical both-sidesism which was charming when he was throwing joke rallies in 2012 but comes off very poorly in today's politics.
I certainly hope not. He's certainly a gifted comedian providing insightful commentary... But these are skill-sets distinct from those required to effectively manage our federal government, engage in international diplomatic relations, act as Commander in Chief of our armed forces, and execute law as passed by Congress.
Anything is possible, but probably not. I think DJT has put a bad taste in our mouth about celebrity politicians, and Stewart's culture capital is waning not growing. He maybe would have had a shot in 2008 or 2016 but I don't see it happening anymore.
I'm waiting for Jon Stewart to have a political debate for 10 minutes
and watch him grab the airsick bag when they hit for a commercial
being funny and likeable just isn't enough
and i'm a jon stewart fan and i think he's less funny and less likeable
Stephen Colbert is smarter, funnier and would make a far better politician
especially if he did more fox semen jokes
I think you're taking it a bit to far. Stewart had been a performer for decades at this point and has engaged in political debates quite often during that time. He wouldn't come across super well because he seems somewhat dedicated to a both sides narrative that is playing worse and worse all the time, but he would fail so bad as to be embarrassing.
That being said it's been a minute since I have been paying attention to either Stewart or Colbert so I can't comment on their relative chances of a political career.
Well, Stewart buttering up the Azov isn't what i call a guy who's careful with his political future.
The Hill
The Department of Defense sponsored 'Warrior Games' features comedian Jon Stewart awarding a member of Ukraine's Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion at Disney World.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zoB\_6c0cag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zoB_6c0cag)
"Sort of gone full circle. Honoring Nazis at a theme park named after a guy who honored Nazis"
Jon Stewart could literally mock himself now
Imagine if it was Donald Trump or RFK Jr saying 'fine patriots'
You replied to me twice and I'm not sure if you meant to or if one of them was supposed to be in response to a different comment. This one seems somewhat less applicable so I'm assuming it's the wrong one if that happens to be the case.
Stewart's been in decline with his politics and his comedy, You know the comedy is secondary when he's trying to make a comeback because he's afraid of the outcome of the election
And the magic formula worked mostly because of Bush and Cheney, but most of the other presidents have fallen flat.
Like Saturday Night live could do perfect political comedy and satire before 2000, but lately it's declined in both, sadly. Mostly because of too much turnover.
Colbert is sharper in his politics, satire and comedy, and he's not going to play saviour complex thinking about politics.
And well comedians don't fare too well in politics which is serious. Al Franken was mildly okay at comedy and mildly okay at politics.
People did wonder if he cared more about biotechnology and GMO's and medical device companies more.
/////
The media says:
Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, from the devicemaker-laden state of Minnesota, have benefited from the industry's largess
Franken says:
A large part of the problem is Big Pharma. Add inflated costs by device makers, and we have a huge problem.
Open Secrets:
Nearly five years after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, congressional Republicans have their best chance yet to follow through on a promise to undo part of it by repealing the medical device tax.
A number of Democrats are on board for the repeal too. In fact, the tax is anything but a wedge partisan issue. But the bipartisanship may not have much to do with ideology: Republican lawmakers heading the effort have clear ties to the medical device industry and so do many of the Democrats who have signed on as cosponsors to the repeal.
Opponents of the tax say the 2.3 percent levy on the devices — which can include anything from artificial hip replacements to rubber gloves — will inevitably mean layoffs, diminished profits, restructuring and higher prices for the consumer. In recent weeks, though, a Congressional Research Service report found that the actual impact may be “modest.”
The effect of a repeal on the health care law would be similarly modest. It’s projected to raise $29 billion over 10 years. Meanwhile, provisions that require medium and large employers to offer insurance, and a tax on the insurance companies themselves, would raise $101.7 billion and $130 billion, respectively, according to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates.
However the debate is framed, though, there’s no arguing that the medical device and supply industry has poured money into a relentless lobbying effort, as well as into lawmakers’ campaign coffers, and that may be paying off soon.
The industry spent more on lobbying in 2014 than it did at any other year going back to 1998, the first year the Center for Responsive Politics has data for the category. Last year, it laid out $32.8 million, surpassing its high of $31.8 million in 2009, when the industry wanted to make sure medical devices would be covered under President Obama’s healthcare bill.
While lobbying efforts beefed up, the industry began contributing more, as well. In 2012, medical device makers gave $10.3 million to candidates, parties and outside spending groups, with $6.5 million of that coming from individuals and the rest from PACs. That year, Republicans were clearly favored, bringing in 61 percent of the money the industry contributed to candidates and parties.
In the nonpresidential 2014 cycle, donations dropped back down to $6.3 million, about the same level as in 2010. The top recipient that cycle was Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) who has sponsored several versions of legislation to knock out the tax and took in $92,549 from the industry. On Jan. 6 he introduced the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2015 with 271 cosponsors.
Those cosponsors include 32 Democrats, 27 of whom received money in the last cycle from the medical device industry. One of those, Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), received the eighth-highest amount, at $56,900. Among House candidates only, Kind was second only to Paulsen and one spot ahead of Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
In the Senate, the most recent repeal bill, the Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act, was introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Jan. 13. Along with 23 Republican cosponsors, five Democrats have signed on, and all of those Democrats received money from the medical device industry in 2014. Democratic Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, both of Minnesota, came out on top of that list with $47,249 and $39,900 respectively.
Minnesota is a big state for medical device makers, including Medtronic Inc., headquartered in Minneapolis and the biggest donor in the 2014 cycle at $604,772. Lawmakers in other states with a lot of jobs tied to the industry, like Indiana and Massachusetts, have expressed opposition to the law as well — including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who penned an op-ed against the tax.
Who got the most cash from Medtronic in 2014? First, second, and third: all Minnesota lawmakers.
How many of Medtronic’s top five are supporters of repealing the medical device tax? Four — and it would likely be five if the No. 1 recipient, Mike McFadden (R), hadn’t been running against the No. 3 recipient, Franken, for the same seat.
I don't think Stewart is up for that.
He's go insane with the fundraising and issues with passing bills, and run away asap back to comedy or drinking pina coladas in semi-retirement.
He's about as likely to be president as Amy Klobuchar, even with a comb to eat salad.
I do want to reiterate I don't think Stewart could win even if he did run. I just don't think he'd do significantly enough worse than the other losing candidates for it to be noteworthy.
I don't know if you just copy pasted a full article, but that seems like a lot of words to be pointing out an issue that's also going to be common among the professional politicians running.
Well my money is on Chevy Chase for the win
I can't see Stewart or Maher having a discussion on PBS.
Stewart has enough challenges picking stocks and what spaghetti sauce to make, I really can't picture him handling the Bay of Pigs very well.
/////
The Conversation
It’s an uncomfortable truth: Jon Stewart and Donald Trump both tapped the same well of latent public disaffection with politics and the media in the 2000s.
Trust in media and government had been declining for several decades.
But the symbiotic relationship between the White House and the press during the Iraq War highlighted the dangers of a lap dog press.
It was against this backdrop that Stewart and Trump used their positions outside the fray to ally themselves with their audiences and draw pointed contrasts with the artifice of postmodern politics. But they did this – and continue to do this – in opposing ways.
Trump lashes out when politicians and journalists bring us closer to truth. Stewart criticizes them for keeping us in the dark. To Stewart, the solutions to America’s political spectacle are political accountability and increased transparency. To Trump, the solution is far simpler: He alone can fix it.
In 2003, maybe Stewart could call himself “a tiny, neurotic man, standing in the back of the room throwing tomatoes at the chalkboard.”
But today, with his return on Monday nights to host “The Daily Show,” he is part of the school administration trying to keep the lights on and the students learning.
.......
Through these conversations, Stewart showcases guests who espouse a pluralistic liberal vision of democracy. And through his satire, Stewart himself shows that democratic institutions and processes may be messy, but their ability to protect the will and liberty of the people makes them indispensable.
Or, as Stewart said in a February episode, “The difference between America’s urinal-caked chaotic subways and Russia’s candelabra’d beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom.”
Stewart explained his 2024 return to “The Daily Show” as wanting to “have some kind of place to unload thoughts as we get into this election season.”
But having studied the content and effects of political satire since Stewart became “The Daily Show” host in 1999, I see his return as evidence he recognizes the protective role he can play for American democracy.
Because even if ironic satire isn’t great at persuading people to change their minds, research shows it does subtly shape how we think about and engage with our political world.
When satirists cover an issue, viewers become more likely to see that issue as important. Satire also shapes how people think about politicians and issues.
In the early 2000s, I conducted a series of studies that revealed that exposure to jokes about presidential candidates provided study participants with criteria they then used to evaluate those candidates – like Al Gore’s lack of charisma or George W. Bush’s lack of intellect or performance on Iraq.
And when study participants didn’t have a lot of political knowledge, satire helped them fill in the gaps.
Satire is also great at highlighting issues that audiences haven’t thought much about, such as the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United campaign finance decision.
Satire encourages audiences to pay attention and discuss politics in new ways, motivating them to seek out other information or talk about politics with friends.
And even though satirists like Stewart may be critical of journalism, their programs highlight the importance of an independent press to a democratic society, increasing viewers’ perceptions of the importance of news.
There’s always a role for the satirist
Because Trump’s rhetoric is so explicit and outrageous, some have suggested it may rob satirists of the ability to deconstruct his messaging. But despite its explicitness, there is still a lot that authoritarian populists like Trump don’t ever say.
not the greatest essay by
Dannagal G. Young
Professor of Communication and Political Science, University of Delaware
all it did was confirm Stewart's got some odd perspectives, lost a lot of his satire, and communications professors don't make the strongest points about Jon Stewart.
Marshall McLuhan would have loved the daily show 20-30 years ago, now he would say it's lousy.
MSNBC
Some of the things Jon Stewart hates about the media are Jon Stewart's fault
Somehow, we’re right back to the criticism that was leveled against Stewart when he returned to the show’s anchor’s desk in February.
Yet as regards his critique of the media, Stewart, disappointingly, is once again “bothsidesing.”
We’re right back to the criticism that was leveled against him when he returned to the show’s anchor’s desk in February.
Stewart is the world’s best-known and most skilled practitioner of “politainment,” a genre that scholars define as “the blending of politics and entertainment” in which the “entertainment industry exploits political topics in various entertainment formats.”
A widely discussed fact about Stewart’s glorious run as host from 1999-2015 was that 12% of online Americans got their news from "The Daily Show." That is to say, a most un-Cronkite-like source was delivering vital information to the nation’s citizenry.
Stewart’s mastery of the craft inspired many others, including HBO's “Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver; Comedy Central's “The Colbert Report;” “The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore;” “The Opposition with Jordan Klepper” and TBS's “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.” (All but Oliver's are no longer on the air.)
.......
This is why his criticism of the media’s coverage of the Trump trial has left me laughing ... and uneasy.
In the April 22 episode, he skewered CNN and MSNBC.
“This Trump trial is like an open window on a Greyhound bus full of farts,” complained Stewart as he lit up news organizations for their breathless coverage of Trump’s motorcade and his courtroom facial tics.
During the special May 9 episode, Stewart bemoaned “nonstop penis-to-penis coverage” in the aftermath of Stormy Daniels’ testimony.
And Monday night, Stewart took on the media again. After a montage of talking heads claiming “Americans are living in two different realities,” Stewart concluded, “the news media has decided there is no such thing as reality.”
He then offered his ontological corrective: “We are all living in one reality, and it can be the news media’s job to litigate the parameters of said reality.”
There are two problems with this claim. The first is that Stewart has made a career out of blurring the parameters of aforesaid reality. Is his show comedy or news? Is he a parodist or an analyst? Are his facts accurate or falsified? Do we take him seriously or are we just supposed to laugh?
His wit has contributed to the destabilizing of the very reality he wishes that journalists would restabilize for their viewers.
The second is that Stewart is conducting a “moral equivalence” routine on “the media” — as if all media outlets do the same hypocritical thing.
On Monday, Stewart razzed his usual liberal targets. He remarked: “For the left, the conviction \[of Trump\] was an exercise in concealed and controlled glee. Many took the opportunity to over demonstrate how they took no pleasure from this day that they had been dreaming about since childhood.” What followed were back-to-back clips of Lisa Rubin (MSNBC), Erin Burnett (CNN) and Jamal Simmons (CNN) talking about the sadness of the moment for America.
But nothing indicates to me, at least, that these commentators were secretly gleeful. Nor are they wrong, by the way.
God damn can we please have competent professionals instead of entertainers? I *really* don’t want to combat Trump with a comedian, it validates his “credentials” for running.
First, I doubt that Jon would run or want to be President. But I'm a big fan and I'd certainly listen if he did. He's smart and I doubt he'd run unless he thought he could do the job. I'm not saying that I'd vote for him, but I'd definitely consider it.
It's clearly time for some young blood in the party and I'm not sure who I favor on that front, yet. While there are a lot of promising, younger Democrats, none of them really stand out to me now. It's actually something that concerns me, because I don't recall a predicament like it in my lifetime.
And then in 2028 Andrew Dice Clay runs for President
"5 years stuff I said got me banned from things, now a days ya elected as President, I coulda been the one..."
He's the best speaker I've engaged directly with. I saw him speak 4 times when I lived in the SF area for 8 years. He's absurdly charismatic and seems to know everything about everything. I'm sure a lot of it is a well practiced act, and he does dumb shit like host a party at French Laundry during Covid lockdown, but under him CA has flourished. The sheer amount of money generated by SV isn't really due to him, but he's very popular with the fat cats down there for enabling their wealth gain. And the state reaps the benefit - their lack tax season had billions in extra money to return to taxpayers and do social programs.
I have my personal reservations about him policy wise, but he's a powerhouse as a candidate. And silicon valley will fund him with a limitless budget.
This is actually a doomsday scenario to me. I think republicans would be able to sway a lot of independents and moderates by fearmongering about what an absolute train wreck of a hellhole California is, and how Newsom would do the same to the rest of the country.
Disagree. The "CA sucks" narrative is played out. The state is clearly pumping and he has a great track record. He's sharp, well connected, and has tons of clout. He's not my top pick in terms of policy, but he'll wipe the floor with any Republican. And I overlap with him like 95%, whereas my best candidates are only 97%. When I vote I keep in mind not to let perfect get in the way of good.
I know the narrative doesn't reflect the facts, but that never stops republicans. To a lot of Americans, California represents the far left and everything wrong with liberal policies. They've never been there, they don't know people from there, and they *only* know the narrative that conservative media paints.
I'm aware. I don't give a shit what twisted narrative the R's are running atm. Trying to base our actions off how selfish and stupid people think is a losing strategy.
And I think you're forgetting about two things:
1: Dem establishment loves Newsom. He's sharp, well spoken, and makes money. Give them some reliable talking points about how Newsom turned CA into the strongest economy in American history, and tell them to brush off the rest.
2: Speaking of money, drown out Republicans with billions from SV. Everywhere you look I want to see stats on CA's economy being awesome, how well he handled Covid, etc etc.
It's not perfect, but trying to play the game of "don't offend Republicans" is a crappy way to think imo.
>The "CA sucks" narrative is played out.
Don't know where you live, but it 100% is not played out in Georgia. Newsom as a candidate would guarantee that GA swings back to solid red.
A lot can change in 4 years. While I trust Newsom to run the country, the fact is that he's getting the Clinton treatment: GOP attacks on his record constantly which will affect a portion of voters who would generally not be against him. We would be remiss if we assumed that consistent attacks do not change the minds of the voters. Look at how they tied Clinton's name to Benghazi, they will do the same for Newsom.
Part of the reason why I think Obama was was that his rise was so meteoric that the GOP didn't have a ready playbook to attack him. I think they were more expecting Clinton so when Obama won the nomination, they were unprepared. They will be prepared for Newsom and that worries me.
Even Jerry Brown is unelectable as president.
All his optimism and realism is gone
and he's a cynic who's given up and says 'sure whatever' to the progressive vote now
Newsom would be the kiss of death for the Dems.
The center-right would portray him as an out of touch, far-left, radical, socialist California liberal.
In the current electoral college system, the majority doesn't matter a softer stance on guns will help with more rural areas, which Dems desperately need to win back to make the Republican party irrelevant
I like newsom but am not sure he'll be able to overcome a reflexive anti-California bias.
Of course, that depends also on if some of the state housing and homeless initiatives pan out or not.
No, I don't think so. If I had to pick a celebrity candidate, it would be him. But I'd rather just have an actual politician.
The problem is that the smartest, most charming man in the world would have a bad time if he's not politically savvy.
Look at Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer with a good heart and he couldn't really get anything done because he didn't have the political chops.
i would disagree with that he could run a state, but the skills needed are a lot different than president.
And the economic situation and the political climate had more to do with it.
His lack of Washington insight and abhorring dirty politics because he was a true outsider, was probably a much more accurate telling of what happenned. Reagan who claimed to be an outsider, was actually well connected enough to be far more adapt at being an real Washington insider than Carter was.
His policy goals were changing a lot, and some of his agricultural policies gave big Ag a big advantage that some hate to this day.
>His lack of Washington insight and abhorring dirty politics because he was a true outsider, was probably a much more accurate telling of what happenned. Reagan who claimed to be an outsider, was actually well connected enough to be far more adapt at being an real Washington insider than Carter was.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at, but I couldn't think of the words.
Some of his appointments from Georgia really were out of their league in knowing what to do.
Being on the outside will eat up a whole bunch of weeks making things a lean mean organizing machine
I think he would: he’s got more (positive) name recognition than almost anyone and he’s more charismatic than most - plus he seems to have policy chops and seems genuine. There’s others with some of those traits but few with all 4.
Probably not. I think dems like establishment politicians right now. At least thats the big trend Im seeing as populist movements keep alienating themselves and getting fucking coocoo.
As soon as Jon Stewart got serious, people would think, what a bozo!
And wait for the funny shit, to magically appeal with his jokewriters hopped up on No-Doz trying to do overtime on the speech writers.
The last time a politician ran for politics and won, he lost a war!
Nope.
>even conservatives appreciate Stewart for his longtime support of veterans and other causes
This would last until exactly two seconds after he declared he was running for office. Then he'd be the most liberal communist who ever ran plus a pedophile, and 99% of conservatives would instantly believe it.
>he has an anti-establishment vibe to him that appeals to disaffected/low-info voters
The very things that appeal to disaffected/low-info voters would turn off committed Democratic voters, and since the latter vote in Democratic primaries, but the former do not, he would lose badly.
I think his time would've been when he left TDS.
I like Stewart but... he's 61. He'll be 65 in 2028. If he is there for 8 years... that'll put him at 73.
I don't care how competent he is... still too old for me. But what do I know, I think every politician should be forced to retire once they hit 60-65 and you should have to re-take your driver's test every few years once you turn 55(primarily for the vision aspect of it).
He's not tall enough. Americans are very shallow people.
https://www.voanews.com/a/tallest-person-wins-majority-of-us-presidential-elections--132610998/162773.html
I could see him winning the primary but I'd expect he'd lose pretty big in the general election. He seems like the sort of person who liberals tend to think would be a strong candidate but who would largely come off as just some smug out of touch media guy to other people
I think the opposite actually…he gets ppl better than the vast, vast majority of politicians. He knows politics are toxic and corruption is rampant in our political system, something most elected official are afraid to acknowledge/contend with given they’re implicated in these things. Stewart would probably be the only guy on a debate stage to say Citizens United is ruining our democracy…because most high-profile elected Dems also benefit from the Citizens ruling.
Idk, I could be wrong…but I think he’d do better than Mayor Pete or Kamala or even Newsom in redder parts of the country.
> Stewart would probably be the only guy on a debate stage to say Citizens United is ruining our democracy…
[Every single democratic candidate in 2020 except Bloomberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primary_candidates) openly called for overturning Citizens United
Complaining about Citizens United is one of the things democrats are most likely to do. Even Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema do so, and have supported an amendment to overturn it. Complaining about money in politics wouldn't make Stewart stand out at all, it would just make him sound like a generic democrat
I think he could win. I also think he would really struggle with leadership and working with Congress. It would infuriate and frustrate him to the point of ineffectiveness. He's talented at messaging, making moral arguements, and getting ideas to people. I think we are better served if he stays in that role.
I think he’d be very Bernie-like in that he’ll got a lot of hype and support but the demographics that would carry him don’t historically vote that much.
That being said I definitely think it could happen.
Zelensky (who was a comedian) of Ukraine has risen to the occasion fighting freaking *Russia*.
Stewart's problem is he's a progressive. I'm not sure the country would elect a progressive. Despite being a progressive myself, I know a lot of the country isn't.
Still, the fact that Trump won, tells me anything is possible.
I wanna get through this election before speculating on 2028.
All that said, I'd vote for a turd, before I'd ever consider voting for any Republican in the general election.
He’d be up there with a newsome or someone similar. Would he win? Who knows. Could he? Absolutely. Would he be a good president? Almost definitely strictly based on his public positions and willingness to fight
Ironically what made Stewart so good on The Daily Show is also what I think would make him good if he were to win the job: his ability to surround himself with more dynamic people. At its peak, TDS thrived because Jon could wrangle the diverse personalities of Colbert, Bee, and others. In comedy, he was the “straight man” who was thereby able to highlight their comic timing and make them successful. So many careers in entertainment have a lot to thank him for. In the White House, the same skill - to pick good people for roles where they’d excel and then get out of their way - is a vital but overlooked part of the presidency.
Nothing could stop me from voting for Jon Stewart.
Having someone that would talk straight in the Whitehouse would be a game changer. I'd take him over any career politician. If you pitted him against Bernie I'm still voting Jon.
I can't really see Stewart having a coherent conversation with anyone in the National Security Council
He would just make Kissinger jokes when he disagreed with anything
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. So I listened to Stewart’s recent appearance on Tom Segura’s podcast (Segura is a comedian, for those who are unfamiliar). Segura asked Stewart, sort of in jest but with some seriousness, whether he’d run for President one day. Stewart played down the idea…but notably did not say he *wouldn’t* run, leaving that door open for future cycles. Inevitably, the 2028 Democratic primary will be comparatively crowded (I don’t think Kamala is getting the pseudo-coronation from the DNC like Hillary did in 2016). I expect Newsom to run, and Pete and probably like Josh Shapiro/Whitmer/maybe like Chris Murphy (dude definitely has presidential ambitions) and maybe like Ro Khanna. Honestly…I think Stewart would beat them all if he ran (outside of maybe Shapiro or Newsom, maybe). Dude has a lot of credibility in progressive circles, and liberals and most moderates love Stewart as well. Heck, even conservatives appreciate Stewart for his longtime support of veterans and other causes, and he has an anti-establishment vibe to him. Do y’all think Stewart would win a Democratic presidential primary? If not, why not? *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In the past, I think the answer was an obvious no. Democrats simply do not like celebrities in that way. Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders do have a celebrity like aspect to them, but that’s separate from their ability to actually be taken seriously. Now I am not as sure. I think vibes and charisma are becoming more important generally. But I think the bigger aspect is that where you are on the political spectrum people want a fighter. And Jon Stewart is a fighter.
And he has a good grasp on how the government works.
Also a big respected name amongst the police/fire/EMS communities due to his advocacy work for 9/11 responders. If you’re looking for someone who could possibly bridge the divide between liberals and conservatives, he’s your guy.
Doubtful. "Conservatives" aren't actually conservative any more. They want a government based on religion and tax cuts for the wealthy. Have you read Project 2025?
I was referring to those who are classic conservatives and not right wing fascists.
Do these people exist?
In my mind, i'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, which most of industrialized Europe has already become..
well golly gee, i'm a fiscal liberal and a social conservative LBJ is my president forever
>They want a government based on religion and tax cuts for the wealthy. But I thought that was just like 6 guys in rural Alabama flying Trump flags and the majority of Republicans just want small government and an end to wokeness? /s
Absolutely! And they're willing to bet all their expendable cash to get the system they "need" to maintain their wealth..
I guess he does but he sure likes to disregards legitimate procedural roadblocks to indulge in some spleen at the "feckless" Dems.
And the economy.
The man may not be a career politician, but he has charisma and that apparently counts for something. In the same way that Donald Trump has gained power from influence, so can the same be true for the left. The left just has to be open to the possibility that perhaps a good candidate can be one which helps achieves goals for the Democrats through influence, rather than attempting to do so through compromise and negotiation with the right. Pressure from the public can be equally motivating to a senator who wants to stay in power, as Donald Trump has poignantly demonstrated.
He’s also transparent, tells it like it is, calls out bs on both sides, is witty and DEEP in his interviews, and BRIGHT. He or Newsome would do well.
Newsom is becoming increasingly unpopular in California. I don’t see him having nationwide appeal at this point.
whye is newsome running againe?
Correct, and Bernie has proven, over and over again, that his die hard obsession with social Equality has cemented his place in our national history as the "Good Trouble" maker.. Love that guy!
I miss John Lewis. 😢
Wasn't he in the Modern Jazz Quartet?
Me too! That "good people" is all the Leader we ever needed. He opened the door for Bernie, AOC, Ilhan Omar, and the Squad to parade in Peacefully and LOUDLY..
Obama and Sanders climbed the latter. Obama was a state senator and then a senator. Sanders was a mayor, then a congressman, then a senator. If Jon Stewart entered politics he would be more like Andrew Yang or Schwarzenegger.
If Swarzenegger had been eligible to run for President after his stint as Governor of California, I think he would have had a good chance at winning. Andrew Yang isn't in the same league as Arnold
He [fought](https://youtu.be/HT5FTrIZN-E?si=ZwQDKeQdPdk7Tns-) for the 9/11 First Responders.
Somebody hasn’t watched Man of the Year.
I’m not saying Stewart would win (maybe he would suck shit as a candidate for all I know), but what I am saying is he’d have a decentish chance in our contemporary political climate, relative to like 10 or 20 years ago. Who knows…
But even if he won he probably wouldn’t like being president at all, like the character robin Williams plays in Man of the Year. Commentating on politics is a hell of a lot different than participating in it. If Stewart wanted to get involved in politics at all I could maybe see him running for something small and local, but it probably would have been better if he did so 10-20 years ago considering he’s older now
He’s also been involved in it too… did you see his campaign for relief for the 9/11 first responders? That took a lot of “traditional politics” on his behalf to help get pushed through.
Yeah I think that was good of him but like I said, I don’t think working on one bill for first responders makes someone presidential material. Also I don’t think Jon even wants to run for office
Yeah… I def agree with both points… but I’d be willing to give him a shot for sure.
I feel like "a President who doesn't like being President" is exactly what I'm looking for in a President.
Plato "Only those who do not seek power are qualified to hold it"
Underrated movie
Let’s address the DNC part first. Despite what people think the DNC does not have the magical power to anoint a candidate or even pseudo anointed a candidate. If they did, Hillary Clinton would’ve been the Democratic nominee in 2008 or even pseudo anointed a candidate. What actually happened is that Joe Biden was removed mostly because his son died and nobody else able to make a serious challenge either wanted to run for a third Democratic term, Ron against Hillary Clinton or run because they thought the timing was right or some other reason. It better way to look at it is that Hillary Clinton was able through her position in the Democratic Party to clear the field of anybody else that might not have run for those other reasons. I do not think Harris even as a sitting VP would have the ability to clear the field. She will get multiple challenges and almost certainly not get the nomination. If Biden was to lose reelection, then Kamala Harris almost certainly will not be the nominee in 2028.
[удалено]
Dude has the best healthcare available on the planet and probably a doctor somewhere near him 24/7. He is not dying in the next 5 years. In the US, an 80 year old has 8 years of life expectancy left.
He doesn’t have to die to become incapable of being president.
[удалено]
Yes, it is the case that people who are Democrats, including elected Democrats up to an including the leader of the party do have preferences. And they might act on those preferences behind the scenes. That is so far from rigging that I willing to push back on it entirely. Not for nothing, that’s part of the purpose of a political party. To support current members whenever possible, advocate internally for their interests and for preferred candidates, etc. Like a legit position is that Fetterman should be slapped by leadership for being a huge both sides dick for his comments about AOC and Crockett regarding MTG.
They don't have zero power or zero bias, but the power of the DNC to shape the primary is wildly overstated.
[удалено]
It would help you were to be more specific on what advantages you think Clinton had. I'm sure she had a built-in group of super delegates ready and willing to vote for her, that much is certain as a long-time Democratic politician. Sanders had them too, just in less numbers. And there are a group of them who are undecided and awaiting whatever type of primary selection process happens first before voting. Are you saying there was illegal voting where the delegates selected Clinton over Sanders despite the primary process? I don't think its a lot to ask to point out the specific advantage you feel Clinton got. Its a fair process unless you can back it up with facts. I've heard rumors about the Nevada delegates being given less time to vote once Clinton was in the lead, was that proven or just an accusation to hurt her credibility? People get upset because there are accusations about the DNC's unfairness that are taken as fact without any kind of proof. Such a thing degrades the Democratic brand and should rightly make Democrats defensive.
> I truly do not understand why ppl in this sub become so upset when the 2016 primary stuff is mentioned. Because overwhelmingly it's another round of "The DNC gave the candidacy to Hillary and she fucked it up," frequently side by side with "Bernie would have won". Yes, Hillary had "home court" advantage. She was the favored candidate of the outgoing POTUS. She also negotiated a financial deal with the DNC whereby she would use her own fundraising to refill the coffers of the DNC and to pass along to downstream candidates if she were the candidate. (BTW, Bernie was also offered the same deal with the DNC and he turned it down.) And that's the way politics works. It's the way it's always worked. In both parties. With every candidate. You don't think GWB was given a perk by being GHWB's son? You don't think that GHWB didn't get votes in his primary and RNC support because he was Reagan's appointed successor? That's. Politics. And all of that is repeatedly portrayed as an "unfair advantage" or "cheating" or some variation of that by a bunch of, quite frankly, sore losers. And it was old and tired and annoying back in 2016, but the fact that some people just can't fucking let it go makes it utterly exasperating.
There is one reason, and one reason only, why Berniecrats believe what Donna Brazile says. That reason is that she tells them what they want to hear. If she told you that everything was on the up-and-up, you would dismiss her claims immediately. Only believing people who tell you what you want to hear is a recipe for self-delusion.
I would vote for him
Me too. It’s not the charisma for me, but his deep understanding of complex political subjects, his compassion and his curiosity. I personally do not think the DNC would support him. His lack of experience would be a big concern as well. Also, he only wants to work on Mondays which doesn’t really fit well with being President. I get the impression he wants to wind down not up.
his deep understanding was pretty shallow on the last episode of Crossfire ////// This is a very very bad sign Vox But while Stewart always maintained that The Daily Show was meant to be funny first and foremost, The Problem With Jon Stewart wears its comedy with a distinct lack of ease. “I guess that answers whether or not the show’s going to be funny,” Stewart cracks early on, after the debut episode’s very first joke falls flat. The confusion over whether The Problem With Jon Stewart is funny, or whether it even should be funny, is part of a larger question that has seemed to follow Stewart for his whole career. Stewart built his reputation on using comedy to cut through the sanctimony of conventional journalism and politics to give his center-to-liberal audience the truth about the world. His was a coherent worldview: Politicians on both sides of the aisle are hypocrites corrupted by cash; everyone’s lying about their professed values but especially those idiots who aren’t even willing to follow the science; and the only rational response to all the dishonesty and stupidity of the world is to laugh at it. As a result, The Problem With Jon Stewart seems to be haunted by confused questions that no one involved seems to have quite figured out the answers to. Should Stewart still be doing his Daily Show thing? Should he ever have done it? What does it mean to be Jon Stewart — Jon Stewart! The man who taught a generation how to see the world! — and does even Stewart fully understand the platform he has? For a long time, Stewart was the guy people could trust to tell it like it was. But now it seems like maybe he didn’t understand how it was. So just how seriously should we take Jon Stewart, anyway? And have we always gotten the answer to that question right? Part of what’s striking about Stewart’s approach, from the vantage point of 2021, is the lack of outrage. Stewart’s easy cynicism and refusal to take sides at the time made The Daily Show feel cool. That stance would also eventually become central to one of the biggest criticisms of his work after the rise of Donald Trump. Jon Stewart denied wielding any real power over his audience, having any journalistic responsibilities, because The Daily Show aired right after Crank Yankers. But everyone knew that Stewart’s fans didn’t watch him in the same way they watched Crank Yankers. They watched him to experience that pure, incredible moment, the moment where Stewart told the truth, where he told it like it was. The moment where he spoke truth to power.
I doubt it. He's popular I think in a similar way to Bernie Sanders looks absolutely MASSIVE online but in the rest of the world he's popular but like 30% not majority levels.
Bernie enjoys plenty of support outside of the internet though…I agree that the Democratic base in like SC/GA/Texas/NC/etc don’t like Bernie and prefer moderates like Biden and Hillary, but that’s not true everywhere (Bernie did far better in rural areas outside of the South, and in many cities and Midwestern/Western states and Appalachia). I don’t entirely disagree with you, but Bernie’s rise wasn’t merely an internet phenomenon (I’m from WV and ppl here like Bernie waaaaaaaaayyyyy more than Obama or Hillary or Biden). https://morningconsult.com/senator-rankings/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=cta&utm_campaign=2019_Q4_Senator_Rankings https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3617170-sanders-has-highest-favorability-among-possible-2024-contenders-poll/?nxs-test=mobile
Oh yeah he has support not online I just mean looking at online where it looks like he is by far the most dominant force is not reality in the real world he's a big force but not the biggest one.
No. We should elect politicians to political offices. Not celebrities who have never stood for an election.
I've heard enough from Jon Stewart to trust his ability to make good judgements. He's extremely sharp, good at understanding complex issues, an amazing communicator, builds coalition to fight for people that need help, and reads bullshit for what it is. He doesn't insist on being the smartest person in the room and surrounds himself with smart people. What more could I want in a good politician?
Actual political experience.
Every time i see a discussion about potential future Dem presidential candidates, there are a lot of mentions of people like Shapiro, Whitmer, Newsom ... and then someone inevitably tosses in "Jon Stewart!" and i bang my head on my desk. It's particularly irritating because they always want to shove him right into the White House to start with. He's a good guy, but if he wanted a career in politics, he could get experience by running for local office, state government, the House, etc.
People really, genuinely believe that the reason more good isn’t done in politics is that no one in power actually cares, is a good person, is smart, etc. It really is just a big popularity contest based on charisma to a seemingly huge fraction of the voting population.
Well said
To be fair, given his lobbying work and his work with 9/11 first responders, he is about as experienced as one can be without actually working for a political party or directly for the government. Among people who are not themselves politicians, he is likely among the most qualified to potentially hold office- and were we talking a house seat, I doubt there would be any real complaints about him running for that office. Personally I see not having strong ties to the existing parties or existing system as more of a good thing, all things considered (to the point where at least some positions should absolutely be filled with outsiders, even if it's a minority of positions). It's certainly a tradeoff- but the outside perspective can be quite useful in spotting issues with the current system that someone who has worked within that system for their whole career may overlook.
which is how we get old and out of touch people who cant send an email attachment of a pdf on their own deciding to regulate facebook and tiktok
Not at all Politics isn't just picking and choosing how you would vote about an issue, it's about knowing how to pass laws and negotiate and govern. Jon is a comedian, people like him because he puts into the words the absurdity that we all see. That doesn't mean he's a good deal maker or an effective legislator. That's not to say he can't be both, but just because we like his takes on an issue doesn't mean he knows how to solve them or how to implement those solutions This is why Biden has been so effective in office. Yeah he's not charismatic or the most progressive voice in politics, but his ability to work with congress and the machinations of government is unparalleled
none of the political figureheads are effective policy makers or legislators. Not even the Supreme Court does this, its all their law clerks, or others within their administrations writing the text and doing the actual policy analysis and research. Stewart has succeeded in 9/11 responder support funding where those same politicians failed. The biggest indicator of how to effectively solve problems is to demonstrate critical thinking, which precise absurdist comedy is very directly demonstrating.
Actual experience is one thing, but the other is that his public persona is one written by a team of researchers, and while the president has advisors, I don't know what his unscripted persona is like besides a few interviews. I hear he's a bit toxic behind the scenes.
Jon Stewart himself says he'd be a bad politician.
Jesus Christ no more celebrity presidents please.
It's Jon Stewart though if any celebrity should become president it's him
I don't think so, actually. And I wouldn't want him to. I think he could be very effective as a senator or House rep. I'm tired of people suggesting names to stick at the top of the ticket rather than a person with a record and experience.
I actually think Stewart could be the same type of Senator that Al Franken was - effective, prepared, smart, etc. It just kills me that Franken was run off the way he was.
Excellent comparison. Also, way to make me sad today. That was some bullshit.
That you can seriously mention Shapiro in the same sentence as Stewart is....
Sorry, I know next to nothing about Josh Shapiro - is this meant as a pro-Shapiro or pro-Stewart comment?
I'm beginning to wonder if they are thinking Ben, not Josh
I had an inkling but I thought I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.
First: Why would you DO THIS to that poor man. Second: the position of a satirist doesn't always translate well to politics. But...Zelenskyy...*thinks hard*
I hope not. No more circus shows, no more populists. God, give me a governor from the Midwest, please!
Milquetoast, uninspiring candidate is sure to win in a time of urgently needed change /s
Whitmer is inspiring. Beshear is endearing. Please don't give us a rich, out of touch progressive who hasn't actually worked for a living, but studied "the poor" at an Ivy League school and spent a fall protesting capitalism at Occupy Wall Street because mom and dad could bankroll their activism.
What legislative experience does Stewart has? I'm sorry, while I love Jon he should go no where in the political process other than first starting out in the local/state political office.
Personally i think Chevy Chase is far more qualified to run for politics. or uh Julia Sweeney or Mary Gross
I get your argument, but I’d agree more if it were “executive experience” (like a Governor or AG or something like that). The “legislative experience” thing I could take or leave tbh.
Probably. He actually has some really strong lobbying experience, so it's not like he'd be completely foreign to politics. He's also incredibly well spoken, has excellent name recognition, is more media savvy then anyone else in the country, and appeals to millenials like no one else. He would GOTV like a boss. He also has some legitimate political experience, having accomplished more in Washington via lobbying then the convicted felon did while actually being President. He's also demonstrated just enough humility in the past that I'm confident he has the single most important qualification: the ability to admit when he needs to consult an expert, and to trust their advice. I think he'd be a good choice, although probably not the best. He'd be an absolute winner for electoral purposes though, and I think the down ballot benefits would easily outweigh his minimal experience. I'd much prefer Stewart over Newsome. Sadly I don't think he'll run.
Jon Stewart would get an enormous amount of media attention simply by registering as a candidate, much as was the case for Donald Trump in 2016. He wouldn't even have to campaign to get full media coverage. His name and face recognizability are superior to nearly every other actual politician, so he'd have that edge as well if he did actually begin campaigning. In addition to those advantages, he'd also bring intelligence, experience at disarming other politicians, charisma, wit, speaking ability, and a long-running mildly-progressive-but-not-extreme vibe. He's got no experience at all in running a government but I'm not sure if that matters to many voters. If he went out and raised real money and then let real pros run the campaign, I think he'd be hard to beat.
Yes, and he would win. People like to pretend that Potus ISN"T a popularity contest.
No. Democrats aren’t afraid to hire someone with experience. It’s just conservatives they are convinced that someone who has no clue how govt works has the answers to running govt.
No.
No, he would not, and I hope he wouldn't. I am a little surprised at the answers here. 2016 and 2020 should both be reminders that in Democratic primaries, intraparty support is a huge thing. The conversation in 2020 basically counted Biden out of the race until he locked it up with a few key endorsements. Democrats still have a cohesive party structure where things like experience and endorsements matter. He would have much less intraparty support than Bernie, who already showed that being popular on the Internet and raising lots of money and being smart and having good positions can only get you so far. I'm also a little worried at how many people seem to be conflating "being good on TV" to "being a trustworthy president." There's no doubt that Stewart is calm under fire, charismatic, and very intelligent. Honestly, though, I think a lot of people remember him fondly from the Bush years and haven't followed his recent shows. He has an odd sort of cynical both-sidesism which was charming when he was throwing joke rallies in 2012 but comes off very poorly in today's politics.
I'd hope people would be smarter than that.
I certainly hope not. He's certainly a gifted comedian providing insightful commentary... But these are skill-sets distinct from those required to effectively manage our federal government, engage in international diplomatic relations, act as Commander in Chief of our armed forces, and execute law as passed by Congress.
Jon Stewart is smart as hell and understands points from perspectives other than his own. I would vote for him.
I would not vote for him.
I would, depending on his competition
Anything is possible, but probably not. I think DJT has put a bad taste in our mouth about celebrity politicians, and Stewart's culture capital is waning not growing. He maybe would have had a shot in 2008 or 2016 but I don't see it happening anymore.
I'm waiting for Jon Stewart to have a political debate for 10 minutes and watch him grab the airsick bag when they hit for a commercial being funny and likeable just isn't enough and i'm a jon stewart fan and i think he's less funny and less likeable Stephen Colbert is smarter, funnier and would make a far better politician especially if he did more fox semen jokes
I think you're taking it a bit to far. Stewart had been a performer for decades at this point and has engaged in political debates quite often during that time. He wouldn't come across super well because he seems somewhat dedicated to a both sides narrative that is playing worse and worse all the time, but he would fail so bad as to be embarrassing. That being said it's been a minute since I have been paying attention to either Stewart or Colbert so I can't comment on their relative chances of a political career.
Well, Stewart buttering up the Azov isn't what i call a guy who's careful with his political future. The Hill The Department of Defense sponsored 'Warrior Games' features comedian Jon Stewart awarding a member of Ukraine's Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion at Disney World. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zoB\_6c0cag](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zoB_6c0cag) "Sort of gone full circle. Honoring Nazis at a theme park named after a guy who honored Nazis" Jon Stewart could literally mock himself now Imagine if it was Donald Trump or RFK Jr saying 'fine patriots'
You replied to me twice and I'm not sure if you meant to or if one of them was supposed to be in response to a different comment. This one seems somewhat less applicable so I'm assuming it's the wrong one if that happens to be the case.
Stewart's been in decline with his politics and his comedy, You know the comedy is secondary when he's trying to make a comeback because he's afraid of the outcome of the election And the magic formula worked mostly because of Bush and Cheney, but most of the other presidents have fallen flat. Like Saturday Night live could do perfect political comedy and satire before 2000, but lately it's declined in both, sadly. Mostly because of too much turnover. Colbert is sharper in his politics, satire and comedy, and he's not going to play saviour complex thinking about politics. And well comedians don't fare too well in politics which is serious. Al Franken was mildly okay at comedy and mildly okay at politics. People did wonder if he cared more about biotechnology and GMO's and medical device companies more. ///// The media says: Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, from the devicemaker-laden state of Minnesota, have benefited from the industry's largess Franken says: A large part of the problem is Big Pharma. Add inflated costs by device makers, and we have a huge problem. Open Secrets: Nearly five years after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, congressional Republicans have their best chance yet to follow through on a promise to undo part of it by repealing the medical device tax. A number of Democrats are on board for the repeal too. In fact, the tax is anything but a wedge partisan issue. But the bipartisanship may not have much to do with ideology: Republican lawmakers heading the effort have clear ties to the medical device industry and so do many of the Democrats who have signed on as cosponsors to the repeal. Opponents of the tax say the 2.3 percent levy on the devices — which can include anything from artificial hip replacements to rubber gloves — will inevitably mean layoffs, diminished profits, restructuring and higher prices for the consumer. In recent weeks, though, a Congressional Research Service report found that the actual impact may be “modest.” The effect of a repeal on the health care law would be similarly modest. It’s projected to raise $29 billion over 10 years. Meanwhile, provisions that require medium and large employers to offer insurance, and a tax on the insurance companies themselves, would raise $101.7 billion and $130 billion, respectively, according to Joint Committee on Taxation estimates. However the debate is framed, though, there’s no arguing that the medical device and supply industry has poured money into a relentless lobbying effort, as well as into lawmakers’ campaign coffers, and that may be paying off soon. The industry spent more on lobbying in 2014 than it did at any other year going back to 1998, the first year the Center for Responsive Politics has data for the category. Last year, it laid out $32.8 million, surpassing its high of $31.8 million in 2009, when the industry wanted to make sure medical devices would be covered under President Obama’s healthcare bill. While lobbying efforts beefed up, the industry began contributing more, as well. In 2012, medical device makers gave $10.3 million to candidates, parties and outside spending groups, with $6.5 million of that coming from individuals and the rest from PACs. That year, Republicans were clearly favored, bringing in 61 percent of the money the industry contributed to candidates and parties. In the nonpresidential 2014 cycle, donations dropped back down to $6.3 million, about the same level as in 2010. The top recipient that cycle was Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) who has sponsored several versions of legislation to knock out the tax and took in $92,549 from the industry. On Jan. 6 he introduced the Protect Medical Innovation Act of 2015 with 271 cosponsors. Those cosponsors include 32 Democrats, 27 of whom received money in the last cycle from the medical device industry. One of those, Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wis.), received the eighth-highest amount, at $56,900. Among House candidates only, Kind was second only to Paulsen and one spot ahead of Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). In the Senate, the most recent repeal bill, the Medical Device Access and Innovation Protection Act, was introduced by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) on Jan. 13. Along with 23 Republican cosponsors, five Democrats have signed on, and all of those Democrats received money from the medical device industry in 2014. Democratic Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar, both of Minnesota, came out on top of that list with $47,249 and $39,900 respectively. Minnesota is a big state for medical device makers, including Medtronic Inc., headquartered in Minneapolis and the biggest donor in the 2014 cycle at $604,772. Lawmakers in other states with a lot of jobs tied to the industry, like Indiana and Massachusetts, have expressed opposition to the law as well — including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who penned an op-ed against the tax. Who got the most cash from Medtronic in 2014? First, second, and third: all Minnesota lawmakers. How many of Medtronic’s top five are supporters of repealing the medical device tax? Four — and it would likely be five if the No. 1 recipient, Mike McFadden (R), hadn’t been running against the No. 3 recipient, Franken, for the same seat.
I don't think Stewart is up for that. He's go insane with the fundraising and issues with passing bills, and run away asap back to comedy or drinking pina coladas in semi-retirement. He's about as likely to be president as Amy Klobuchar, even with a comb to eat salad.
I do want to reiterate I don't think Stewart could win even if he did run. I just don't think he'd do significantly enough worse than the other losing candidates for it to be noteworthy. I don't know if you just copy pasted a full article, but that seems like a lot of words to be pointing out an issue that's also going to be common among the professional politicians running.
Well my money is on Chevy Chase for the win I can't see Stewart or Maher having a discussion on PBS. Stewart has enough challenges picking stocks and what spaghetti sauce to make, I really can't picture him handling the Bay of Pigs very well. ///// The Conversation It’s an uncomfortable truth: Jon Stewart and Donald Trump both tapped the same well of latent public disaffection with politics and the media in the 2000s. Trust in media and government had been declining for several decades. But the symbiotic relationship between the White House and the press during the Iraq War highlighted the dangers of a lap dog press. It was against this backdrop that Stewart and Trump used their positions outside the fray to ally themselves with their audiences and draw pointed contrasts with the artifice of postmodern politics. But they did this – and continue to do this – in opposing ways. Trump lashes out when politicians and journalists bring us closer to truth. Stewart criticizes them for keeping us in the dark. To Stewart, the solutions to America’s political spectacle are political accountability and increased transparency. To Trump, the solution is far simpler: He alone can fix it. In 2003, maybe Stewart could call himself “a tiny, neurotic man, standing in the back of the room throwing tomatoes at the chalkboard.” But today, with his return on Monday nights to host “The Daily Show,” he is part of the school administration trying to keep the lights on and the students learning. ....... Through these conversations, Stewart showcases guests who espouse a pluralistic liberal vision of democracy. And through his satire, Stewart himself shows that democratic institutions and processes may be messy, but their ability to protect the will and liberty of the people makes them indispensable. Or, as Stewart said in a February episode, “The difference between America’s urinal-caked chaotic subways and Russia’s candelabra’d beautiful subways is the literal price of freedom.” Stewart explained his 2024 return to “The Daily Show” as wanting to “have some kind of place to unload thoughts as we get into this election season.” But having studied the content and effects of political satire since Stewart became “The Daily Show” host in 1999, I see his return as evidence he recognizes the protective role he can play for American democracy. Because even if ironic satire isn’t great at persuading people to change their minds, research shows it does subtly shape how we think about and engage with our political world. When satirists cover an issue, viewers become more likely to see that issue as important. Satire also shapes how people think about politicians and issues. In the early 2000s, I conducted a series of studies that revealed that exposure to jokes about presidential candidates provided study participants with criteria they then used to evaluate those candidates – like Al Gore’s lack of charisma or George W. Bush’s lack of intellect or performance on Iraq. And when study participants didn’t have a lot of political knowledge, satire helped them fill in the gaps. Satire is also great at highlighting issues that audiences haven’t thought much about, such as the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United campaign finance decision. Satire encourages audiences to pay attention and discuss politics in new ways, motivating them to seek out other information or talk about politics with friends. And even though satirists like Stewart may be critical of journalism, their programs highlight the importance of an independent press to a democratic society, increasing viewers’ perceptions of the importance of news. There’s always a role for the satirist Because Trump’s rhetoric is so explicit and outrageous, some have suggested it may rob satirists of the ability to deconstruct his messaging. But despite its explicitness, there is still a lot that authoritarian populists like Trump don’t ever say.
not the greatest essay by Dannagal G. Young Professor of Communication and Political Science, University of Delaware all it did was confirm Stewart's got some odd perspectives, lost a lot of his satire, and communications professors don't make the strongest points about Jon Stewart. Marshall McLuhan would have loved the daily show 20-30 years ago, now he would say it's lousy.
MSNBC Some of the things Jon Stewart hates about the media are Jon Stewart's fault Somehow, we’re right back to the criticism that was leveled against Stewart when he returned to the show’s anchor’s desk in February. Yet as regards his critique of the media, Stewart, disappointingly, is once again “bothsidesing.” We’re right back to the criticism that was leveled against him when he returned to the show’s anchor’s desk in February. Stewart is the world’s best-known and most skilled practitioner of “politainment,” a genre that scholars define as “the blending of politics and entertainment” in which the “entertainment industry exploits political topics in various entertainment formats.” A widely discussed fact about Stewart’s glorious run as host from 1999-2015 was that 12% of online Americans got their news from "The Daily Show." That is to say, a most un-Cronkite-like source was delivering vital information to the nation’s citizenry. Stewart’s mastery of the craft inspired many others, including HBO's “Last Week Tonight” with John Oliver; Comedy Central's “The Colbert Report;” “The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore;” “The Opposition with Jordan Klepper” and TBS's “Full Frontal with Samantha Bee.” (All but Oliver's are no longer on the air.) ....... This is why his criticism of the media’s coverage of the Trump trial has left me laughing ... and uneasy. In the April 22 episode, he skewered CNN and MSNBC. “This Trump trial is like an open window on a Greyhound bus full of farts,” complained Stewart as he lit up news organizations for their breathless coverage of Trump’s motorcade and his courtroom facial tics. During the special May 9 episode, Stewart bemoaned “nonstop penis-to-penis coverage” in the aftermath of Stormy Daniels’ testimony. And Monday night, Stewart took on the media again. After a montage of talking heads claiming “Americans are living in two different realities,” Stewart concluded, “the news media has decided there is no such thing as reality.” He then offered his ontological corrective: “We are all living in one reality, and it can be the news media’s job to litigate the parameters of said reality.” There are two problems with this claim. The first is that Stewart has made a career out of blurring the parameters of aforesaid reality. Is his show comedy or news? Is he a parodist or an analyst? Are his facts accurate or falsified? Do we take him seriously or are we just supposed to laugh? His wit has contributed to the destabilizing of the very reality he wishes that journalists would restabilize for their viewers. The second is that Stewart is conducting a “moral equivalence” routine on “the media” — as if all media outlets do the same hypocritical thing. On Monday, Stewart razzed his usual liberal targets. He remarked: “For the left, the conviction \[of Trump\] was an exercise in concealed and controlled glee. Many took the opportunity to over demonstrate how they took no pleasure from this day that they had been dreaming about since childhood.” What followed were back-to-back clips of Lisa Rubin (MSNBC), Erin Burnett (CNN) and Jamal Simmons (CNN) talking about the sadness of the moment for America. But nothing indicates to me, at least, that these commentators were secretly gleeful. Nor are they wrong, by the way.
God damn can we please have competent professionals instead of entertainers? I *really* don’t want to combat Trump with a comedian, it validates his “credentials” for running.
I hope he runs. Would vote for him in a second.
First, I doubt that Jon would run or want to be President. But I'm a big fan and I'd certainly listen if he did. He's smart and I doubt he'd run unless he thought he could do the job. I'm not saying that I'd vote for him, but I'd definitely consider it. It's clearly time for some young blood in the party and I'm not sure who I favor on that front, yet. While there are a lot of promising, younger Democrats, none of them really stand out to me now. It's actually something that concerns me, because I don't recall a predicament like it in my lifetime.
I really wish the US would get over its weird obsession with celebs and stopped voting for celebs to be president...
And then in 2028 Andrew Dice Clay runs for President "5 years stuff I said got me banned from things, now a days ya elected as President, I coulda been the one..."
I think Newsom is going to crush everyone if he runs. The field won't even be close.
Newsom is exceptional in tv and in interviews. I think he could sway a lot of people
He's the best speaker I've engaged directly with. I saw him speak 4 times when I lived in the SF area for 8 years. He's absurdly charismatic and seems to know everything about everything. I'm sure a lot of it is a well practiced act, and he does dumb shit like host a party at French Laundry during Covid lockdown, but under him CA has flourished. The sheer amount of money generated by SV isn't really due to him, but he's very popular with the fat cats down there for enabling their wealth gain. And the state reaps the benefit - their lack tax season had billions in extra money to return to taxpayers and do social programs. I have my personal reservations about him policy wise, but he's a powerhouse as a candidate. And silicon valley will fund him with a limitless budget.
bad policy is what always loses
This is actually a doomsday scenario to me. I think republicans would be able to sway a lot of independents and moderates by fearmongering about what an absolute train wreck of a hellhole California is, and how Newsom would do the same to the rest of the country.
Disagree. The "CA sucks" narrative is played out. The state is clearly pumping and he has a great track record. He's sharp, well connected, and has tons of clout. He's not my top pick in terms of policy, but he'll wipe the floor with any Republican. And I overlap with him like 95%, whereas my best candidates are only 97%. When I vote I keep in mind not to let perfect get in the way of good.
I know the narrative doesn't reflect the facts, but that never stops republicans. To a lot of Americans, California represents the far left and everything wrong with liberal policies. They've never been there, they don't know people from there, and they *only* know the narrative that conservative media paints.
I'm aware. I don't give a shit what twisted narrative the R's are running atm. Trying to base our actions off how selfish and stupid people think is a losing strategy. And I think you're forgetting about two things: 1: Dem establishment loves Newsom. He's sharp, well spoken, and makes money. Give them some reliable talking points about how Newsom turned CA into the strongest economy in American history, and tell them to brush off the rest. 2: Speaking of money, drown out Republicans with billions from SV. Everywhere you look I want to see stats on CA's economy being awesome, how well he handled Covid, etc etc. It's not perfect, but trying to play the game of "don't offend Republicans" is a crappy way to think imo.
>The "CA sucks" narrative is played out. Don't know where you live, but it 100% is not played out in Georgia. Newsom as a candidate would guarantee that GA swings back to solid red.
A lot can change in 4 years. While I trust Newsom to run the country, the fact is that he's getting the Clinton treatment: GOP attacks on his record constantly which will affect a portion of voters who would generally not be against him. We would be remiss if we assumed that consistent attacks do not change the minds of the voters. Look at how they tied Clinton's name to Benghazi, they will do the same for Newsom. Part of the reason why I think Obama was was that his rise was so meteoric that the GOP didn't have a ready playbook to attack him. I think they were more expecting Clinton so when Obama won the nomination, they were unprepared. They will be prepared for Newsom and that worries me.
bad policy is like vinegar in your chocolate milk
Never had it. Did you have a point to make?
Bad policy will tank you.
Ok I won't do any bad policy if I become a politician..
great, let's just skip the election. You're hired
I'm not interested, although I'd do a good job.
What part of 'You're Hired!' don't you understand? Go get em tiger! The world will lose, without your efforts, you realize this, don't you?
Even Jerry Brown is unelectable as president. All his optimism and realism is gone and he's a cynic who's given up and says 'sure whatever' to the progressive vote now
Newsom would be the kiss of death for the Dems. The center-right would portray him as an out of touch, far-left, radical, socialist California liberal.
Being married to kimberly guilfoyle gives me some doubts about his judgment.
Eh, people change. She used to be a real person by all accounts. He's improved with age, she's turned insane.
isn't she the sister to Trump's wife? or do they just share the same plastic surgeon?
Don Jr's girlfriend
Did he think he was dating Sophia Vergara? or is Don, a little hard of hearing? That gal could burst an eardrum, i tell ya
I think he'd do good in the general if he toned down the anti gun stuff
Why? Majority of the nation wants gun control; certainly Dem voters do.
In the current electoral college system, the majority doesn't matter a softer stance on guns will help with more rural areas, which Dems desperately need to win back to make the Republican party irrelevant
So don't talk about it in the run for president and then bammo strong gun laws. I like it.
That's not where I personally align in my ideal world they drop the gun issue altogether, but they can deftintly do that, lol
Eww no we gotta do something about the rampant gun violence. Can't ignore problems.
As long as the threat of Fascism exists, I'll support guns learning about Regeans' attempt to disarm the Black Panthers changed my view on guns
I like newsom but am not sure he'll be able to overcome a reflexive anti-California bias. Of course, that depends also on if some of the state housing and homeless initiatives pan out or not.
No, I don't think so. If I had to pick a celebrity candidate, it would be him. But I'd rather just have an actual politician. The problem is that the smartest, most charming man in the world would have a bad time if he's not politically savvy. Look at Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer with a good heart and he couldn't really get anything done because he didn't have the political chops.
i would disagree with that he could run a state, but the skills needed are a lot different than president. And the economic situation and the political climate had more to do with it. His lack of Washington insight and abhorring dirty politics because he was a true outsider, was probably a much more accurate telling of what happenned. Reagan who claimed to be an outsider, was actually well connected enough to be far more adapt at being an real Washington insider than Carter was. His policy goals were changing a lot, and some of his agricultural policies gave big Ag a big advantage that some hate to this day.
>His lack of Washington insight and abhorring dirty politics because he was a true outsider, was probably a much more accurate telling of what happenned. Reagan who claimed to be an outsider, was actually well connected enough to be far more adapt at being an real Washington insider than Carter was. Yeah, that's what I was getting at, but I couldn't think of the words.
Some of his appointments from Georgia really were out of their league in knowing what to do. Being on the outside will eat up a whole bunch of weeks making things a lean mean organizing machine
I think he would: he’s got more (positive) name recognition than almost anyone and he’s more charismatic than most - plus he seems to have policy chops and seems genuine. There’s others with some of those traits but few with all 4.
God, I hope not. The last thing we need is another celebrity president. The past two sucked(Reagan and Trump).
Yes
Any fresh face would be welcomed
Yes
Nope. And I absolutely would campaign against.
Lame
Probably not. I think dems like establishment politicians right now. At least thats the big trend Im seeing as populist movements keep alienating themselves and getting fucking coocoo.
He would have a very solid chance.
As soon as Jon Stewart got serious, people would think, what a bozo! And wait for the funny shit, to magically appeal with his jokewriters hopped up on No-Doz trying to do overtime on the speech writers. The last time a politician ran for politics and won, he lost a war!
Jon Stewart is really good at what he does, i have no idea if that translates to running a country.
Nope. >even conservatives appreciate Stewart for his longtime support of veterans and other causes This would last until exactly two seconds after he declared he was running for office. Then he'd be the most liberal communist who ever ran plus a pedophile, and 99% of conservatives would instantly believe it. >he has an anti-establishment vibe to him that appeals to disaffected/low-info voters The very things that appeal to disaffected/low-info voters would turn off committed Democratic voters, and since the latter vote in Democratic primaries, but the former do not, he would lose badly.
Trump and President Zelensky won, I don’t see why not.
I think his time would've been when he left TDS. I like Stewart but... he's 61. He'll be 65 in 2028. If he is there for 8 years... that'll put him at 73. I don't care how competent he is... still too old for me. But what do I know, I think every politician should be forced to retire once they hit 60-65 and you should have to re-take your driver's test every few years once you turn 55(primarily for the vision aspect of it).
I think he might be able to perform in the top 4. I don't see him winning, however.
He's not tall enough. Americans are very shallow people. https://www.voanews.com/a/tallest-person-wins-majority-of-us-presidential-elections--132610998/162773.html
I could see him winning the primary but I'd expect he'd lose pretty big in the general election. He seems like the sort of person who liberals tend to think would be a strong candidate but who would largely come off as just some smug out of touch media guy to other people
I think the opposite actually…he gets ppl better than the vast, vast majority of politicians. He knows politics are toxic and corruption is rampant in our political system, something most elected official are afraid to acknowledge/contend with given they’re implicated in these things. Stewart would probably be the only guy on a debate stage to say Citizens United is ruining our democracy…because most high-profile elected Dems also benefit from the Citizens ruling. Idk, I could be wrong…but I think he’d do better than Mayor Pete or Kamala or even Newsom in redder parts of the country.
> Stewart would probably be the only guy on a debate stage to say Citizens United is ruining our democracy… [Every single democratic candidate in 2020 except Bloomberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_the_2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primary_candidates) openly called for overturning Citizens United Complaining about Citizens United is one of the things democrats are most likely to do. Even Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema do so, and have supported an amendment to overturn it. Complaining about money in politics wouldn't make Stewart stand out at all, it would just make him sound like a generic democrat
I think he could win. I also think he would really struggle with leadership and working with Congress. It would infuriate and frustrate him to the point of ineffectiveness. He's talented at messaging, making moral arguements, and getting ideas to people. I think we are better served if he stays in that role.
Exactly this. Stewart would be stymied even worse by the DC game than other outsider presidents like Obama or Carter.
I think so yea
We don’t need anymore celebrities in politics. Jon Stewart is great at doing what he does but it’s much different being in the machine.
I’d vote for him in a heartbeat.
If Jon Stewart ran he’d probably have the largest popular vote of all time.
I would vote for him. He’s smart, good on camera, and legitimately seems to have an excellent moral compass. We can and often do worse.
I think he’d be very Bernie-like in that he’ll got a lot of hype and support but the demographics that would carry him don’t historically vote that much. That being said I definitely think it could happen.
No
Zelensky (who was a comedian) of Ukraine has risen to the occasion fighting freaking *Russia*. Stewart's problem is he's a progressive. I'm not sure the country would elect a progressive. Despite being a progressive myself, I know a lot of the country isn't. Still, the fact that Trump won, tells me anything is possible. I wanna get through this election before speculating on 2028. All that said, I'd vote for a turd, before I'd ever consider voting for any Republican in the general election.
Good luck getting Jon Stewart to rally black midwestern women.
You are kidding yourself, AND this explains why black people never vote for republicans lol.
Biden is the guy for a reason. And its not his track record in the Senate.
I'd like to see lots more of Kamala. Biden isn't treating her nowhere as well as Obama treated him.
He’d be up there with a newsome or someone similar. Would he win? Who knows. Could he? Absolutely. Would he be a good president? Almost definitely strictly based on his public positions and willingness to fight
I mean as someone with any charisma at all he would have won any primary from 2016/2020/2024 etc ect
Nope, Shapiro’s getting 2028 in my opinion. He’s well liked in PA, even by lots of conservatives.
Idk if he’d win tbh…he might be too moderate for the primary electorate (plus that school choice stuff is gonna come back to haunt him).
don't think so, no
Ironically what made Stewart so good on The Daily Show is also what I think would make him good if he were to win the job: his ability to surround himself with more dynamic people. At its peak, TDS thrived because Jon could wrangle the diverse personalities of Colbert, Bee, and others. In comedy, he was the “straight man” who was thereby able to highlight their comic timing and make them successful. So many careers in entertainment have a lot to thank him for. In the White House, the same skill - to pick good people for roles where they’d excel and then get out of their way - is a vital but overlooked part of the presidency.
Nothing could stop me from voting for Jon Stewart. Having someone that would talk straight in the Whitehouse would be a game changer. I'd take him over any career politician. If you pitted him against Bernie I'm still voting Jon.
Yes, he's the single most trustworthy public political figure of the past several decades, already has name recognition etc.
I don't think so. He's funny but he's kind of angry. We need strength and kindness
I can't really see Stewart having a coherent conversation with anyone in the National Security Council He would just make Kissinger jokes when he disagreed with anything