Should Jon Stewart Run for President in 2028? The Movement Is Growing — and It’s No Longer a Joke
Should Jon Stewart Run for President in 2028? The Movement Is Growing — and It’s No Longer a Joke
Jon could absolutely destroy anyone on a debate stage. Mainly because it's a popularity contest, and he's spent his entire life learning to be popular on screen and stage. He's also a smart guy with great insight into a lot of situations.
None of that means he would be a good president. It's a different set of skills.
The bottom line though, would he be better than the alternative? And I hear what you're saying. Those nazi crack monkey's put on a hell of a show, how could Jon possibly do a better job? I'm not sure, but given the option, I think I'd give him a shot.
I think the Jon for president thing is copium, but to be fair Jon does have two of the most important traits in a president: conviction and a good bullshit detector. Whether he'd be able to do the day to day work aside, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be able to lead the country in a better direction in a big picture sense.
I think Jon would have the intelligence and humility to have very qualified, intelligent people to advise and challenge him.
My only concern for him is he would take it very seriously, and not be able to let anything go. He would burn himself out hard in 4 years.
most important traits in a president: conviction
And not in the way that Trump has convictions.
He would mop the floor at the debates but I’m not sure debates matter anymore. I remember “they’re eating the cats” not mattering as much as it should have.
Oh it mattered, it became a chuckle line used in memes that I couldn't enjoy even at the time because I knew that his stupid, racist bullshit would not be interpreted in a normal way by most of the electorate.
Debates matter. Remember when Biden beat medicare?
I would say the most important skill is listening to experts, and knowing when you aren't one. Jon has this down.
You don't want a president who thinks they're an expert in everything. You want one who knows that aren't and is willing to bring experts in to guide them.
If Jon Stewart became the Ronald Reagan of progressiveness, I wouldn't complain.
None of that means he would be a good president. It's a different set of skills.
Of course. Current Mr President is clearly way more skilled at presiding.
He's too conciliatory to win debates. He'd have to seriously change his personality because I don't think he likes face to face conflict, given how he softballs interviews with asshats like Jeffries.
He softballs when he wants to get more guests. If he goes after every politician, they all run and hide. To see him actually debate you have to see him off his own show. He's given very compelling addresses to congress as well.
And seriously, he's one of the most popular TV personalities in the country. What you're saying is you don't like Taylor Swift's music, so she must be a shitty entertainer. Maybe you're just not the target audience?
Watch him mop the floor with Tucker on Crossfire.
Yes, yes, yes. He’s not just a TV show host. He legitimately puts his time, money, and reputation where his mouth is. I have a lot of respect for Jon Stewart as a person with moral character, intelligence, and influence. I would advocate forcing him into the election even if he doesn’t want it. In fact, that he doesn’t want it is all the more reason to push. We need someone like him desperately.
Anybody that doesn’t want the job is imminently more qualified that anybody who does in my opinion.
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
– Some hoopy frood
I'm not sure if this is some idiomatic usage I've not encountered, but "eminently" would seem more appropriate than "imminently". If only because John's already more qualified than he apparently needs to be.
Ooo so you're saying I'm qualified? That's a shit job I don't want. Fucks up your hair and ages you. Plus there's a good chance I might send some reps I don't like on a scouting trip to Mars.
...
Oh dang, I AM qualified!
Fairly stupid opinion considering the breadth of people that would encompass.
I mean after Trump got elected, it really did show the world that anyone can become anything, twice.
There's no such thing as unqualified anymore. I think picking a random person off the street and having them do the job would have statistically been more likely to perform better than Trump has done so far in either term. Even if that random person chose to do NOTHING and just continue to allow the government apparatus to churn unimpeded, it would have been preferable to what we got.
He'd crush it IMHO.
I would advocate forcing him into the election even if he doesn’t want it.
Are you fucking serious?
I mean, there are precedents...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Franken
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_of_the_People_(2015_TV_series)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy is a Ukrainian politician and former entertainer
I loved when Al Franken was my senator. He was a sacrifice to main the high road against some shithead right-wing pedophile whose name I forgot. There's been so many since
Or, hear me out: we abolish the presidency. There’s absolutely no need for so much power to be vested in one person.
I mean for a country that fought the monarchy you have sure been making the president the king. Your ceremonies for them have always reminded me of monarchy.
Even the constitution agrees with that. Just over the decades more and more powrr has been ceded to the president
Personally, I think that the USA should be divided up into four regional blocs - West Coast, Middle America, East Coast, and all of the external territories like Hawaii, Alaska, and others as an Outer Region. Each of them can have their own president elected by popular vote, and those four presidents select a previous president from one of the regions as a Figurehead President, who represents the nation as a whole - such as diplomacy with the EU, making public national policies the regions have agreed upon, and so forth.
This divides up the executive into branches. Each region can have their own house and court, with a supreme court & senate drawing an equal amount of members from the four regions. This means we get regional laws, and then a national version when 3 out of 4 regions manage to agree on something.
I feel that the root of America's issues comes from too few people representing too many people, which also means the few have too much power and no incentive to really care about folk.
The problem with this is you are screwing over liberal bastions (e.g. Chicago) in conservative zones. Or what about somewhere like New Mexico? We'd be grouped with Arizona and Texas? New Mexico is liberal and that'd kill us. The arrangement also gives even more power to sparsely populated sections of the country vs highly populated sections. It is almost like you are suggesting gerrymandering at a regional level.
Keep in mind that we already have regional representation - state governments. They don't work great because of the lack of attention they get vs presidental elections. The here part is that states need to have power, but there are things they are insane to declare as "states rights" issues. How do we divide them up? I don't know. We even have "majority agree" as you suggested via constitutional amendments.
Doesn't sound too different from the parliamentary system we have in Canada, except we divide things much more finely than into 4 quadrants.
Basically, we're divided into "ridings" that can be a small section of a city if you're in a dense city or multiple towns where population is sparse. Each riding votes in someone as a member of Parliament (MP). The MPs then select someone to be the figurehead that represents us (i.e. the prime minister).
yeah, texas is never gonna agree to be in club with minnesota or michigan or wisco.
it’d be cool if they did, but yeah, no.
Personally I think all nation states should be dissolved
I definitely think the US needs to split up. What’s the point of having another president though? Won’t we just end up with the same problem over time?
Its a fine branch to have. But definitely needs an overhaul after Trump. He exposed the "good faith" loop holes we have and they need to get fixed
Ok sure, fantastically realistic solution for 3 goddamn years from now. We will "just" eliminate the highest seat in our government. Problem solved. Thank you.
You’re welcome.
I think people are seeing now that our system of government is broken beyond repair. Maybe it will take more than 3 years but we need to change far more than who sits on the throne.
Abandon presidents, return to monarchy
Americans elect a non celebrity challenge (impossible)
Well when you have 24 hours news and you have repelled the law that kept them at least somewhat grounded then you have created a fucking show and so celebrities thrive.
Also electing a celebrity is not automatically a bad thing
I mean we could do a lot worse than Jon Stewart. He is exactly the type of anti establishment candidate that could possibly pull moderate conservatives into the fold. I'm not saying that's the best or only way forward but it seems to be what the DNC are planning.
He's been an advocate for Veterans and First Responders in Congress and at least his forward facing personality is decent.
Also he isn't a pedo grifter.
If Zelensky is any indication, comedians make for excellent heads of state and ministers of war. A good leader not only has wits, but also the voice to convince people of a vision.
Comedians have a day job of making people agree with them, without needing bribes or institution to back them.
Zelensky is actively censoring Ukraninan journalists from reporting any criticism on the war. Is this what you mean by comedians being good at making people agree with them?
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/18/world/europe/ukraine-press-freedom.html
A lot of people here are condemning celebrity in US politics, and I get it... but at this point in time we might need someone who is already famous yet consistent and trustworthy. Stewart has shown himself to be a good person for decades. He's also politically informed, progressive, and whip smart.
We need a candidate who wants real change for the betterment of the working class. Somehow people thought that was Trump... I guess because he said he would be, a few times? And people were hoping hard? And not looking at his track record at all? Also racism? More importantly though: people didn't think that candidate was Harris, who got pushed through by the Democratic party and ran an uninspiring campaign. Those people didn't vote. Those people were excited about candidates like Bernie, who's track record on class issues is indefatigable. Those people could potentially be excited about Jon Stewart tearing shit down for the actually betterment of the poor, and might trust that he would try.
That's my read, anyway. A Mamdani could come along and stir up some real enthusiasm, but I think it's harder for a no-name without a proven record to win a national election. Last time that happened we ended up with Obama, and people still feel burned by his lack of progressive action.
Can you stupid fucks stop worshiping celebrities for like FIVE MINUTES.
I don't get how mindless our population is.
Just have him be White House Spokesperson. Perfect role for him.
Exactly this.
The Dems are so bereft of charismatic folks in their ranks because their own internal power-squabbling and pressure between dusty old skeletons to keep themselves in office, that anyone who HAS the skill set has had to spend that time in the entertainment industry at best. They're so dogmatic about internal "it's your time" protocols that they would rather sink AOC and Bernie forever so that the political equivalent of Assistant Regional Managers can get promoted to Regional Manager.
Both parties are broken to shit, and this is why Dems aren't doing a single thing to fight anything, they expect to just sit back and have it handed to them later. It'll be too late by then. We need an entire wave of new blood. Fuck this 2-party system.
they would rather sink AOC and Bernie forever so that the political equivalent of Assistant Regional Managers can get promoted to Regional Manager.
I agree and disagree. The ability to successfully lead a government as chaotic (i.e. democratic) and large as the republic of states known as the US is very rare. It requires not only a strong physical and mental constitution, but also a wide set of skills and intuitive abilities that usually only make themselves apparent during trials by fire. Compared to the sometimes explosively violent centralizations of power that occur when the rare charismatic tyrants fight their way into power (e.g. Napoleon, Hitler), democracies grow in fits and starts as they rely upon a panjandrum of popularity contests to find talented leaders. In contrast to dynasties that fiercely burn hot with their founder's fervor then languish in subsequent generations, democracies have the potential for sustained competence as long as incumbent leaders continue to hold popularity contests with the goal of finding new leaders better than themselves from as wide a candidate pool as possible.
When the contests fail to find the rare talented leader, the process does resemble a farcical out-of-touch revolving door of mediocre middle managers like you suggest: because talented leaders are rare. And even when a talented individual does prove thenselves, they cannot cling to power lest they destroy the talent search apparatus that brought them to power in the first place and which will eventually replace them with an even more talented individual in the future. To destroy that apparatus reverts the civilization back into purity-obsessed gatekeeping fascism and boring dynastic tyranny.
So, if this decade's popularity contest is restricted to late-night comedian talk-show hosts, I say that's better than a Trump dynasty. But, I hope winners of those contests steer government to promote talent searches with larger candidate pools than they came from. That could take the form of government propaganda rewarding people to run for local elections. Without leaders consciously promoting wider popularity contests, the people of a democracy default to choosing the photogenic faces and entertaining voices they see and hear on their screens: actors like Ronald Reagan or Arnold Schwarzenegger or game show hosts like Donald Trump.
GreenShimada 2028
No.
Don't do this. Let him be. Jon deserves a break, not more work
Read the article. This has come up before and Jon always says no. Here he implies he's considering pretty explicitly. Zelensky has done pretty well for a man who played penis piano on TV.
Hasan’s reflexive response — please, no more reality hosts — came with one notable exception: “Unless Jon, you’re thinking of throwing your hat in the ring… we can talk about that.”
Stewart laughed. He didn’t deny it. He didn’t wave it off. He just leaned back, smiled, and chuckled — the kind of non-answer that fuels speculation.
You’re saying this is Jon Stewart explicitly implying that he’s considering a run?
Obligatory Link.
He took a break during trump's first term. Now, he's up to bat.
Fuck that. If he's the one that can do it, then he NEEDS to do it.
I'd normally say "hells no, stop electing celebrities!" but this is a person who is actually politically informed (savvy even) and at this point possibly bthenonoy person why might get the US out of this miserable shit it's in and on to a path towards an actual representative democracy.
If anything, Jon Stewart might be the only person able to get the US to stop electing celebrities in the first place
So yeah, Jon 2028!
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”
The Dunning-Kruger effect is probably at least partially responsible for most of the world's ills.
And our stupid brains are wired to see confidence as capability. I guess there's an evolutionary advantage to organizing even if you pick the wrong leader.
"The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job."
If we must have leaders, then, the corollary to Adams' Law must follow: presidents should be drafted.
With that quote in mind Jon Stewart may well already be the Anonymous Ruler of the Universe.
Nor should he. He's also too smart to want to trade his retirement years for becoming by default one of the most hated people in the world. This is more celebrity cult worship but from the other side.
Can we please start trying to elect qualified people instead of popular faces.
There is no such thing as a qualified US presidential candidate. There's no job, or training, or comparable experience that can ready a person for that role. Anyone who honestly thinks they are the most capable person in the world to assume control of the largest military and the largest economy that has ever existed should immediately be disqualified from the role. You'd have to be a madman to think that. But that's all we ever get.
There's no indication that a senator, governor, or vice president makes a better president than someone with no political experience (of which there have been 6). In fact, coming through that system seems to teach people to make peace with corruption, bribery, complacence, and protecting the status quo at it's worst.
As much as I hate Donald Trump's policy, and flagrant disregard for the law, it would be hard to argue that his experience as a narcissistic game show host hasn't proven more effective at the day to day politics of implementing his policy than almost any other president of the last 40 years. It's hard to keep up with how fast he's getting disastrous shit (that we voted for) done.
And he's only in office today because 50 years of "qualified" stuffed shirts have wrung all the money, opportunity, and hope out of the middle class. Then the "qualified" people told America to vote for a clearly senile "qualified" candidate.
No sane capable person would. That's why all the people that make it there are there for the power or the money.
He's always expressed an active disinterest... but in the interview the article's talking about, he brought up the possibility of "the right reality host" taking over the Democratic party on his own. Then didn't deny it or push back when the interviewer asked if he meant himself.
That's the most positive I've heard him be about the possibility.
Colbert. I'm pretty sure he meant Colbert.
Just because he doesn't want to be president doesn't mean he shouldn't run. Every election cycle has at least one candidate who just wants to stir the water.
I'm going to go with no. I appreciate John Stewart, but can we please stop having TV stars run for office? Same goes for career politicians.
I will raise the point that he REALLY doesn't want the job. One thing about leaders is that the person who most wants it is often least qualified for the position. The reverse is true as well. As much as I agree about pop stars in politics, he has a record of political action and commitment. He's not just talk.
The Beeblebrox paradox
He's been saying he doesn't want the job, but did you read the article? He brought up on his own the idea of a reality show host taking over the Dems; and when Mehdi Hasan (his interviewer) asked if he meant himself, Stewart didn't deny it. Didn't push back.
Just chuckled.
It sounds to me like he's reconsidering, and testing the waters.
This is true, and I'm not saying I wouldn't support him as a nominee. Depending on who else would be running during the primary, he might truly be the best pick.
I’d go for al franken. He was a very intelligent person who was a good senator. The me too movement took him down. He stood too close to a girl/ fan during a photo shoot. He then. Resigned. After all that uproar the country knowingly elects pedophiles and rapists
He definitely shouldn't have pretended to grab that lady's tits while she was sleeping (I believe she was a soldier??? she was a reporter) and taken a photo, but honestly in hindsight he probably should have just apologized, and put in a lot of effort to making up for doing something like that instead of resigning.
He did something really dumb, but he still wasn't a rapist or a pedophile. America has set a very low bar in his absence.
It was more than that. He pretended to grope a girl while she was asleep and also coerced her to practice making out in preparation for a skit.
I agree, but clearly lack of executive competence isn't a blocker for much of the electorate. Jon Stewart does seem genuine informed and engaged on current political topics, so he'd certainly be better than someone that's "simply" well-known and well-liked.
I think TV stars could be valuable resources to a campaign, but I don't think they should generally be the candidate. I'd actually prefer a "career politician" that has a career they celebrate.
On the other hand, someone who doesn't have the background and has a good head on their shoulders is just the right kind of person to be a figurehead instead of a driver. The idea SHOULD be that they surround themselves with a competent cabinet and advisors to offload the requirement for deep personal expertise. For someone who isn't an expert, that should make them more inclined to ask for help. Of course... current tv personality excluded.
If Jon Stewart was the nominee, I'd vote for him. I'd honestly prefer him to someone like Buttigieg bc he seems more genuine, but I wish America would just give a scientist or an economist (or really anybody that can make educated decisions about the policies being created) a shot before we turn to another TV star. I know it's never going to happen in my lifetime, but that would be my preference.
When I say career politician, I mean the not so great aspect of politicians. Jon Stewart actually seems like a genuinely caring and empathetic person, and I would prefer someone like that to someone who is willing to compromise their values for a check.
I would vote for him if he was the nominee, it's just not ideal to keep having TV stars at the helm of a country. He probably would make some really well informed and bad ass cabinet picks. I'm kinda picturing him as the anti-Reagan.
If we eliminate career politicians with term limits you can expect to see more celebrities, billionaires, CEOs etc running.
If you want normal people to run and you don't want career politicians, elections need to be publicly funded and your job needs to be guaranteed when your term is done similar to maternity leave and military service. Otherwise who is going to throw their career away and go to Washington besides celebrities and people who are already rich?
I mean I feel like Walz is a pretty good example of someone who had a career and then became involved in politics.
I don't think you necessarily need to throw your career away, and I'm not sure we really need term limits for house and Senate seats (although 6 years between reelection is a bit ridiculous).
There are definitely some career politicians who have proven that they earned and deserve their seat, it would just be nice to see a bit more variety in the track most people take to politics.
We should really get off this train of pushing only career politicians into high office. Seems like the liberals hold this high bar so we end up with old farts that don't know how to use the bully pulpit. I don't care at all that they have no experience in office, I care if they are smart enough to listen to their staff that does.
"Jon".
We've already decided our political system is basically satire so why not have fun with it?
Why not? The fuck Ronnie Reagan, an actor, made it into office. Like many have indicated below Zelensky is another good example. If Stewart runs, who should be his running mate. I would choose AOC.
Isn't there some thing where the pres and VP can't be from same state?
It's not a requirement. It's a political strategy. If the candidate is from a "liberal elite" coastal state, then the running mate has to be from flyover country. It's pandering.
John lives in Jersey, actually.
That's not a requirement, it's more a tradition because the "electoral math" is better.
They could be from the same state but picking a VP candidate from another part of the country is seen as one way to balance a ticket. They could pick someone from a swing state in the hopes it would help win that state, or try to balance out the ticket on the political spectrum by picking someone further left or right than the presidential candidate. In 2008 the Democrats balanced out the young black candidate with an old conservative white VP candidate, so there are other ways to balance a ticket.
They can both be from the same state and electors from all the other states except their own can vote for both of them if they win that state (Potus and VP are actually voted on as separate votes). BUT electors from their own state could only cast their votes for one of them!
Per the 12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves
Just another stupid thing about the Electoral College system. Say for example Newsom ran for POTUS and his VP pick was also from California. California electors could only cast their votes for one of them (obviously they'd choose to apply them to the POTUS seat. So the VP might lose to the VP of other party! So stupid. When Bush picked Cheney, Cheney was a resident of Texas and moved to Wyoming so Texas electors would be able cast their votes for him.
It's so cute that Americans think there will be a 2028 election.
Stuart Colbert 28'! My fingers would break I'd vote so hard for that.
President John Stewart
Vice President Stephen Colbert
I love this idea (edit:) A LOT, but presidency ages people so fast, and I want that man to live a long, healthy, happy life.
Love Stephen, but no. Walz, AOC, one of the Kellys, maybe.
President AOC would be phenomenal. But, more boomers need to die off first
Colbert was a dick to Zohran about Israel, right? No thanks.
Fuck Colbert. Sleasy ass "Liberal".
Secretary of State: Chris Farley.
I'd vote for him. Even when we disagree on stuff-- a rarity-- he is still leagues better than anyone in the Pedo Party. John is more of a man and a human being than that scum sucking pig drumple thinskin could ever be.
Why the fuck are people so obsessed with celebrities? Elect someone actually competent for the job. Idiots.
He's way too smart to accept that job.
Jon himself is not behind this idea, he constantly reminds people he's just a comedian. We need to stop confusing age, fame, whiteness, and being male with actual experience.
Counterpoint from Douglas Adams:
The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.
I am 100% in favor of Jon Stewart for president, especially if he refuses to run.
Well…
Stewart dropped a line that made Hasan pause: maybe Democrats just need “the right reality host” to take over the party.
Hasan’s reflexive response — please, no more reality hosts — came with one notable exception: “Unless Jon, you’re thinking of throwing your hat in the ring… we can talk about that.”
Stewart laughed. He didn’t deny it. He didn’t wave it off. He just leaned back, smiled, and chuckled.
As another commenter brought up, when the idea has been suggested in the past, Jon has unequivocally and instantly shut it down.
Big “Hmmmmm” vibes here.
Actual experience is irrelevant to the office of the President.
Being able to listen, learn, and discriminate between lies and truth are what matters.
got it, Tom Hanks for president.
Well, the Ukrainians elected a comedian and got a true leader.
Ukraine got Zelensky. We deserve Jon.
No. We need to stop fetishizing celebrities.
Jon Stewart has his heart in the right place and even knows where the democrats are really lacking
It’s easy to criticize from afar. When he’s actually in the muck, he will be scrutinized for every thing he says. We need more people like him to stay in the media.
Are you familiar with Jon? He's qualified. The Rock or Tom Cruise would be poor choices. So would Mark Cuban. But Jon knows government and all the individual assholes that make it up at the top. The only other hope the democrats have is AOC. Bernie and Warren are too old.
Having Jon only excites me in that he could get things done using his popularity. Biden got a lot done, but he used backroom deals and clever policy negotiations. But he's one of the worst communicators of our generation. And his stubbornness may have lead to Trump (no guarantees Trump would have lost, but Biden almost guaranteed he won).
Honestly, I would have been excited to have Biden a second time over Trump, and I don't love him to begin with.
Hell, at this point if Trump dropped dead and we somehow got Romney as president instead of the nut jobs in the maga party, I'd be pretty stoked.
TLDR: I want anyone who can move us back towards okay.
This is more fetishizing good people. Something that is in severely short supply.
He’s a comedian, yet less of a clown than anyone in the current admin.
Oh Jesus more celebrities in politics is the last thing you guys need
John Stewart is probably the only one I could actually get behind.
And that's a problem. He's a really great guy and all, but his biases are obvious and he maintains the neoliberal status quo. He also acts as a pressure relief valve to air our frustrations and make us feel sane in a completely bonkers world, but that's the opposite of fighting back.
We don't need celebrity presidents, we need a fucking revolution.
I mean he worked hard for veterans rights.
Hey. Shut up.
Trump has done exactly one thing right. He has united his entire party to accomplish their goals. They're utter shit goals by utter shit people, but they're accomplishing exactly what they set out to do.
Name one candidate who could do that better than Jon Stewart.
Why do people keep repeating this as if Jon Stewart is some vapid movie star? He's essentially campaigned for the past 20 years or so and has shown himself to be politically capable and well informed. Also, Jon Stewart is the court jester, not simply a comedian.
You guys implies you’re trying to other us, go fuck yourself. I’m intolerant of intolerance go jam this opinion up your own ass.
No wonder America is a dumpster fire with your toxic hate
So finaly, you will get Stewart instead of King
enthousiastically chews on a cherry tomato*
People really think there will be an election in 2028?
Well either way, ya'll better be showing up somewhere when we're supposed to be voting
Election, yes. Fair election, no.
Ya know Russia technically still has elections
I mean, ideally we shouldn't be just running celebrities but after 8 months of this shit I don't give a fuck anymore. Mentally I am here:
If it works I literally could not care less. Clearly the people want vibes so let's just give them the fucking vibes and deal with THAT issue when things aren't actively on fire.
Whatever else Stewart is, he's knowledgeable, charismatic, willing to fight for a cause, and DOES genuinely seem to give a fuck about the average person. That's a damn good start at least.
And all of THAT is even under the assumption we get something at least vaguely resembling a normal election, which at this point I think is entirely dependent on when exactly Diddler on the Roof finally strokes out on the shitter.
Don't tease me. I just can't take it.
The Venn diagram overlap of personality characteristics of modern politicians and celebrities is extraordinarily large. Pure charisma drives success in modern media-driven politics. It's sad, but I believe it's truth now.
I love John Stewart... but this is a terrible idea.
edit: Based on the responses to this I'm just gonna be thankful I'm not American. You guys apparently have so little clue what is actually involved in civics that you're unironically doubling down on reducing the entire system to a reality tv debacle.
His 911 advocacy is common knowledge. Bringing it up like that automatically makes him the ideal candidate to run the worlds largest economy and military is ludicrous.
Similarly people comparing Zelensky in Ukraine to a potential Jon presidency are comparing apples to coconuts.
Honestly I don't even know why I said anything. Americans slept while their democracy devolved into the world shittiest reality show. Expecting them to see the folly in tripling down on populism was clearly my mistake.
Disagree. Democrats need someone who can make Trump look like a loser
He wouldn't be running against Trump anyway.
Disagree. Each and every political party needs to focus on finding leaders that have made their name through action, not through commentary and grandstanding. We don't need another TV president with infinite experience hiding behind words and cameras, we need a person that can fulfil the executive function of the executive branch government.
No matter who the Democratic nominee is the right will attack him or her in the exact same way, calling them radical communists that want all of our boys turned into girls and all of our murderers to have taxpayer funded penthouses. I just want a candidate who understands the severity of the situation and isn't going to fuck around. Jon Stewart definitely fits the bill.
*Jon
I think the biggest determinant of a politician's success is their ability to delegate to the right people, and a big determinant of that is their ability to assess other people and to question them critically. Stewart’s interview skills suggest he wouldn’t be terrible at that.
Jon Stewart has been working politics for decades as essentially a pundit. I get that you want to think your politicians are better and educated for the position but that's a lie you're telling yourself.
There is not one nation on this earth who's politicians are chosen for being exceptionally qualified. Politics is at it's core theater. Because while you may(think) you're always chosing based on logic that logic is always perception driven.
Also money. Duh.
Please elaborate...I gotta hear this
I wish I wasn’t American with this BS.
You’re right, except I’d say comparing apples to screws or something. Zelenskyy and Stewart, Ukraine and the US like our situations…. Are only similar in that they are in fact people and those are in fact nations.
Also, yes can we stop electing ….. tv personalities?
Just an interesting observation I've had about the comments here: everyone against this is misspelling his name
Zelensky was an actor who started in a hit sitcom about a teacher who gets elected president to fight corruption, and Ukrainians responded by making him president.
I look at John Stewart, and see how that could happen. I'd for Stewart in a second, over ANY MAGA candidate.
Yes. He would make the hard choices we would understand we needed to make. Not the choices of self-preservation most all politicians make.
Edit: would we be willing to sacrifice him to force him into the position? It would probably wreck the man…
would we be willing to sacrifice him to force him into the position? It would probably wreck the man…
That's my thinking. When the job is done well, it becomes very stressful and puts all of your morals and ethics to the test. Most people tend to cave at least a little bit and drift to the side of corruption. (our current flung itself headfirst to that side)
He was on that side before he became president. Always was a scumbag, rapist and child molester.
I hope he still would have time to do the Daily Show on Mondays if he was president.
TBH we need to bring back fireside chats. A more direct communication from President to people. Imagine if that was just the expectation
For my part, if I were President, I would explain what I am working on and who is in my way. Just every week. "This week, my main goal is still universal healthcare. I want everyone to be able to get the medical care they need. Here is a list of the senators currently opposing, and the state they represent...."
The Daily State of the Union.
Yes please. I've been wanting him to run for decades and I was hoping when he left the daily show he might end up on the path. I know he doesn't want to do it, but no one who SHOULD have the job really WANTS the job, because they know what it means to do that job properly.
This is true. Jon Stewart held that extremely cringe march to restore sanity some time ago. And if I recall, he later said that calling the Republicans fascists was a step too far.
Look, I'd vote for him if he was the only option, but he does not represent the anger burning at the heart of the American left-of-center. I believe, much like Biden, Harris, Clinton, Obama, the other Clinton, who are all flavors of the same exact person, he would naively want to make peace with Republicans, to heal the divide, when what we need is to punt them out of congress entirely.
I mean, has he signaled anything different? Does he recognize the cliff the US is being steered over?
I think it would burn him out. So while I think he'd do a good job, I don't think he'd be the right candidate.
If we have to elect a comedian, I would prefer Colbert. Not least because it would be a really funny twist given that Trump basically bullied the network into firing him because Stephen hurt his fee-fees with his jokes. Plus, the debates would be really spicy.
Plus so many republicans are fans of his not understanding that his work was satire. So he'd get a good bunch of their votes.
I don't think there exists a person who would both take the job seriously and not be burned out by it.
I doubt he'll run, if he runs, I doubt he'd get the nomination. But, there are much worse choices. I'd vote for him. I think he'd have a better chance than AOC, because he's an old white man. That's not what people want to hear, but I think it's true.
What's a joke is thinking you are going to get there when you haven't even seen what's going to happen during the midterms, or that there is still over a year to get to even that.
A joke for clowns!!Honk honk
And AOC as vice, bring youth into office.
I'd vote for them in a heartbeat. Stewart-Ocasio-Cortez 2028
Yes. Take my vote, all of them, forever.
Why the fuck not
Americans dont really know how to judge a persons character... Look at the choices for the last few decades... They have all been horrible people, except maybe Joe Biden who was unable to function instead.
Yes, Jon seems like a good person but I dont think good people are attracted to career politics. Its for the snakes and the lizards.
But yeah, he would be a good fit if he wanted to sacrifice his happiness for that role. I think he is way too smart for that.
I've said for years that I wish he would run for any office. I'd vote for him comptroller if I could and I dont even know what that job is. But for real, he has a great mind, a good viewpoint, a take no shit attitude and a massive fan base for more than just his jokes. Plus he has already spent a lot of time as a successful advocate for 9/11 first responders and other groups that the government has failed to take care of despite their culpability in their situations. I would be shocked if he didn't have an incredibly successful career as a Representative in the house at least. Though, I think he has no desire for that amount of stress and responsibility.
I love Jon Stewart as much as the next guy. I think he could do a better job than Trump is doing, but that’s setting a very low bar. Surely there’s someone more qualified than comedy news host John Stewart.
Jon needs to run as a Democrat, and he needs Colbert to be his running mate ars a Republican for teh lulz
Did I time travel to 2000?
The fact that anyone still believes there will be anything resembling "fair" elections by 2028 is baffling to me.
The american capacity to stick their head in the sand as long as they have the newest gadget in front of their face and an endless stream of tiktok content to look at is fucking insane.
There are some pretty big claims that the 2024 election wasn't fair either. I'm not talking about the obvious GOP actions to disenfranchise minority voters, calling in bomb threats to Dem leaning areas, purging voter rolls a few weeks before the election, rejecting many votes due to minor inconsistencies, etc.
I'm talking about Election Truth Alliance's claim that there was active vote flipping just for president. It's a huge claim, so it needs irrefutable evidence, but I would fully believe that a guy who has cheated and lied his whole life, who was surely going to prison from the 4 cases he was being investigated for, would cheat with Elon to rig the elections in a few swing states.
I 100% agree. And I think that, if America survives this and gets back to normal, future historians will most certainly discover this to be true.
But as say, without evidence, how it happened just becomes less important that stopping it by any means necessary.
There are certainly worse candidates. Stewart still seems like he has a soul, unlike most republicans.
Whoa, this thread has the most comments I've ever seen on Lemmy, I think.
God, I hope we can do better than Jon Stewart.
I love the guy, but a Bush Jr. era comic is not what we need right now.
Eh, I trust Stewart's motivations, but not necessarily his judgment. I listened to him interview Ezra Klein and Stewart fell for his neoliberal Abundance bullshit without any pushback of critical thought. I could see him getting led astray by some of the same Democratic hacks that destroyed the party.
In the grand scheme of things I don't think Jon Stewart wouldn't be that different from Gavin Newsome as president. I'd prefer Stewart 100x more than Newsome, just on a personality level, but the direction of the office would be pretty much the same. Newsome is a slimeball but he's not the worst Dem option on the progressiveness & electable matrix. I'm pretty sure Stewert isn't to far from Newsome on the spectrum overall. I'd much rather have AOC personally. I think she's far to the left of either Jon and Newsome.
Newsom has been leaning into transphobia recently, he's a slimeball and I don't trust him to not throw the trans community under the bus for some bullshit.
Newsom would straight up push the DNC to abandon transpeople
Well unlike Newsom. John isnt a transphobe
I would host parties just for the debates alone. Please God, let this happen!
Last thing we need is another fucking celebrity in the office
Fr, this all went downhill with Reagan.
I’d vote for him twice.
Yes
Why would he want to take the helm of this dumpster fire?
So says “allchronology.com” — whatever the fuck that is.
It's reporting on an interview. I've watched that interview and Stewart for years and the quotes and commentary about how he usually emphatically refuses are accurate.
He should have run in 2016.
I'd want someone to represent the populace, not the power. I'd want them to be competent in how society works more so than how money works. I'd want them to have both compassion and charisma. Changes should piss off the minority of the electorate, not the majority. Change should be progressive and forward thinking not the old..."How can we capitalize on this and produce a revenue stream?". I don't care if they are famous or not. That being said, I do like to be entertained. I am really tired of the sell, sell, sell business shit that goes on nowadays. Hell, you can't even write and perform a nice pop song anymore without automatically having a new scent and a clothing line. Hawks everywhere, picking apart the dying corpse of mother earth.
Maybe. But the time for Jon Stewart was 2024. There wasn't a single person alive in a better position to take down Trump.
Sure, if they let him.
They'd never let him, the system is all cancer at this point. He HAD to have old pedobear Cliton on the show just a few weeks back but pawned him off to Jordan Klepper
I love this idea but what if he was bernie sanders vice president first?
My biggest complaint for people saying sanders should be next is that I think he's too old, But if john Stewart was his vice president I would love that idea. And then immediately follow up with two terms of Stewart
I can't imagine I will be alive to see the day that the US elects two Jews to the White House.
Shawn Fain
But we like Jon Stewart. Why ruin a good thing?
The bar is now so low that you could even have a thief, a serial killer or a regular rapist of adults, and it still wouldn't top having a PDFile Rapist Nepo Baby megalomaniac with authoritarian and racist, genocidal tendencies.
Seriously, worse than him I'd think only the likes of Hitler. And there's still a lot of time and leeway for him to become worse than Mr. Funny Mustache in the history books, if allowed. Imagine surpassing the worst man in history by triggering mass nuclear destruction across the globe, ending billions of lives, and for what it'd likely be the pettiest of reasons from a small excuse for a human stain.
Please.
Better than Newsom
Sure, why not. We're in uncharted waters anyway.
I mean, he passes more bills than most.
No.
The entire point of having a democracy is to avoid gambling on the next heir of a bloodline dynasty being fit to rule. So, a popularity contest among celebrity television entertainers isn't the worst, but the qualities of personality this population selects for are generally those that assist maintaining distracting fantasies rather than engaging with harsh realities.
This was written by someone who has never seen Jon passionately speak about something.
It worked for 2 tv stars why not¿
No.
Please for the love of anything!
I would vote for him instantaneously
Why not Naomi Murakawa?
At this stage of US history, only a sadist or a scam artist would want the job of President.
Stewart doesn't strike me as either.
I mean it'll still be a joke even if he gets elected, but it's a bigger joke that's largely independent of him.
One question, why?
No.
Literally 0 lessons learned. Lmao. The US is so fucked
For fuck's sake, NO.
Why are we countering Trumpism by repeating it.
Obviously Trump is a fascist because he was on TV once
No one is laughing after trump.
I mean he’s better than 99% of politicians but if AOC isn’t the candidate I’m just joining the fascists (haven’t yet but as a straight white “Christian” man at least I have that option open)
"If I can't have a progressive, we might as well kill the minorities"
I mean I was being an ass
Great Man Theory strikes again.
I would normally say "no, absolutely not," but he might be a little better than Gavin Newsom or Pete Buttigieg. I think Stewart's centrist instincts are not what this country needs.
I would say it's still a joke even if he goes through with it
Doesn't really matter if he's choosing not to run. Besides, things didn't go great for Cenk Uygur.
I'm gonna fucking puke.
No
No.
If this is what we've come to where you have to be a popular TV star to win, then somebody get AOC her own TV show ASAP.
An informed, competent, liberal? A successful communicator? Noooooooo.
“lefties”: hE sUpPoRtS iSrEaL! hE’S dOnE NotHiNg fOr tHe WoRkiNg cLAsS!!
Jon Stewart supports Israel? Source?
Not another celebrity.... These people aren't relatable and don't reflect the reality of life I know.
Americans, seriously, fucking stop it. You look like the dumbest cunts in the world right now. Stop looking to celebrities to fix your problems. Look at yourself, look at how you are letting yourselves be influenced into thinking everyone else a cunt, and youre the most perfect thing to every live. This is text book how the democracy fails. Once you start thinking the other side is all cunts who are cheating, you'll never trust the system again. Look at Trump, lost in 2020, none of his followers believed it. Its rigged, the dems stole it, etc etc etc. In 2024, Harris lost. None of her followers believed it. Musk rigged the voting boxes, MAGA stole the election, etc etc etc.
When you lose, or when you win, youre just supposed to go on with your day. Youre not supposed to think and act like its the end of the fucking world, and that you only lost because someone else cheated. Youre supposed to look at your opposition, still as countrymen. Sure, they disagree with you on some issues, but they are still Americans, like you. But whats happening now is the same thing thats happened many times before. The extreme polarisation of party identity politics. Instead of arguing with people, you write them off as evil. You forget the core principle of democracy is compromise. You vote, you win, you lose, you get on with it. But that only works when you dont look across the aisle and see literal nazis. Look at the Spanish in the 1930s. Same thing. The saw each other as evil, it only took 6 years to go from arguments to violence in the streets to full blown civil war.
You all need to stop doom scrolling and thinking everyone you dont agree with on every single issue is a cunt, and should be murdered. And Im not speaking to just one said, both sides are dong it. Creating the extremism thats started to turn super ugly. The United states is currently run by a paedo. Instead of this being a huge issue, what we are seeing is next to nothing being done by any of the safe guards in place. This is on you. All of you. You didnt vote for people, you voted for party. Not all of you, but enough of you. And whats worse, some of those on the right think this is the best thing ever. Which is usually what happens before Hugo Chavez types completely fuck the country.
And if youre right wing, and going to spin some bullshit about how Chavez is left wing, please. Continue reading. Donald Trump and Hugo Chávez, though ideologically opposed show the very same political behaviours and leadership styles, particularly in their use of populism, media manipulation, and personalization of power.
Both leaders employed a populist strategy centred on portraying themselves as avenging outsiders battling a corrupt elite to restore national greatness. They used vulgarity and humour to break political norms and forge visceral connections with their supporters. Chávez famously hosted the marathon TV show, where he improvised for hours, blending policy, personal anecdotes, and political attacks. Trump mirrored this with unscripted rallies, freewheeling speeches, and prolific use of Twitter to dominate media cycles, often attacking opponents and the press.
Their rhetoric was marked by personal insults and inflammatory language. Chávez called opponents “assholes,” “squealing pigs,” and likened George W. Bush to “a monkey with a razor blade,” while Trump labelled critics “pussies” and “disgusting”. Both used sexualized comments for political effect: Chávez once leered at the camera telling his wife, “you’re going to get yours tonight,” and Trump bragged about his penis size.
They also both vilified journalists, expelled reporters, and promoted their own versions of reality. Chávez built a state-funded media network to amplify his message, while Trump weaponized social media and sympathetic outlets to bypass traditional journalism.
The also both turned their illnesses into political performances. After being diagnosed with cancer, Chávez portrayed himself as a Christ-like figure enduring suffering for his people, especially during the 2012 election. Trump, after contracting COVID-19 in 2020, staged a dramatic return from the hospital, proclaiming a “total cure” and calling the infection “a blessing from God,” using it to promote unproven treatments like Regeneron. Both turned their illnesses into political performances.
Ultimately, while their ideologies diverged, their methods, polarization, media dominance, personalization of power, and the use of crisis for political gain, reveal a shared playbook of populist leadership.
If anyone is looking to the future of American politics. Might I suggest a radical option? Vote for people who actually know what they are doing! John Stewart, Im sure, is great guy. Hes certainly funny, and knowledgeable. But hes not someone who knows how to be a politician. But more to the point, the last fucking thing the America needs is another old man running the country. Look to GenX, Look to Millennials. Who there speaks to the good of America, not just "your side", but the country as a whole? Find that person, and start some grass roots shit. And never again look to populists to fill the shoes of people who should be making your lives better, not making others lives worse.
Jon Stewart is kind of meh. I guess I'd vote for him though.
I'll take "kind of meh" over Trump anyday.
Hell, a stinking turd floating down the Potomac river would make a better POTUS than Trump...
I was talking as compared to other democrats. Hes not as progressive as people think.
That said yeah obviously I'd be to the moon if he was president right now.
Right now because Trump won a second time I'm dead inside. And I think I'll probably be dead inside forever because even if we elect someone better in 2028 I'll know we elected Trump twice. That will haunt me forever.
What about the Rock? He's way more famous and has more money.
I mean, sure. If we're just going to vote in "entertainment value" I want a whole Hollywood administration.
Lets get The Rock as the president who doesn't know anything about politics but has a heart of gold and doesn't give up, John Leguizamo as the street-smart VP who always saves the day, and like, an animated cat as head of national intelligence.
Our population deserves what's coming to it.
For every Zelenskyy, there's a Trump. So no.
We already have Trump, so we're due a Zelensky.
The dude that chastised those calling out fascism because "it's what we voted for"? Yeah, that's a terrible idea.
Ric Flair should run also.. It’s serious and the movement is strong nobody is laughing!
liberals want to lose more and more elections. might as well continue to roll out the red carpet for these nazis.
Removed by Moderator — Modlog
Trump would bulldoze Stewart and spike his ass. Make it happen!
Dotard Trump bulldozes kids.
Stewart must be barely legal ooooh
Zelenskyy did it. Ukraine would no longer exist as a sovereign nation today if he didn't; it would have been entirely annexed into Russia right now.
Exactly. In the US right now, only a comedian is capable of getting the joke. It works everywhere else it's been tried. Vote Stewart!
It'd be a better analog if everything else Zelenskyy has done as president wasn't eclipsed by Russia invading. Would he have been considered a good president if that hadn't happened? We'll never know.
He stepped up as a leader when his nation needed him. That is one of the best qualities to have. Anything else is just whatsboutism that can be applied to anyone.
A quick glance back shows very much no. However, he stepped up for the war.
I mean, Trump did it and he was a fucking TV clown. The bar is really, really, reaaaaaaally low for who can become the next US president.
Probably not. It's pretty common in history that leaders that are great In crisises aren't as great in peace times. But it doesn't really matter because what Ukraine needed was the president they had.