Jon Stewart for president

Most Presidents have come in to the job with a bank of political experience (like Biden) and then have to learn more to get up to the presidential level. Somebody coming to the job without political experience would be far behind and might never catch up.

I think a lot of people have the mistaken impression that the part of being President that’s visible to the public is the main part of the job. I doubt that’s true. I think appearing in public and giving speeches is maybe ten percent at most of what being President is about.

Having a good idea and then firing up the public with a good speech is not enough. A successful President needs to then get bills written and passed through Congress (which may involve working with a party that is hostile to him), get past the court system (which may also be hostile), and then have the program carried out by various government agencies.

Al Franken has an actual understanding of what is happening in America. Jon Stewart is a throwback to the airy-fairy “let’s all be moderate and people will see sense” school of politics. His utterly inconsequential Rally on the National Mall showed that he is devoid of any real idea of what is happening in the country and what needs to be done about it.

His current show shows that he just doesn’t have the chops to fight for democracy on a serious level.

Define “successful”. Being dropped by one’s own party due to sexual harrassment claims doesn’t sound very successful.

Yeah, I lost a lot of respect for him on that.

He’s got his current show on apple TV that has extensive clips and extras on youtube, and most of it I enjoy, but sometimes he gets into some weird spaces and I’m not sure what’s going on in his head.

Anyway, he’s said in the past that he has no interest in being in politics. Personally, I think he would be much better on a campaign helping to manage the message they are putting out than actually running.

He’d get plenty of support on the Left Coast too so carrying California and NY/NJ and Oregon, Washington and Nevada would be an excellent start.

I’d vote for him, no problem. If a doddering senile drooling old fart can make it, why not a sharp intelligent thoughtful person with a gigantic level of name recognition and a wickedly pointed sense of humor? Can you just imagine the debates? Dayum.

36 years in the Senate + 8 in the West Wing hasn’t seemed to have benefitted Biden in that regard. I mean, I don’t think he’s terrible, but the guy with no political experience before him seems to have gotten more accomplished politically and culturally (to the detriment of our country obviously) than he has so far.

And if this isn’t true, then Biden and his team need to make it abundantly clear that it isn’t true! Just priding yourself on being a “normal” and traditional politician who wants to work across the aisle, and delivers occasional and measured responses as we all watch the Constitution and family bank accounts and personal freedoms burn to the ground, and people get blown away at schools and parades and churches and the grocery store, makes you a loser in 2024.

Connecting with people and stirring up their emotions is a huge fucking part of being president, especially in this day and age. Just twisting the arms of people you know in Congress like LBJ did, or cutting deals with the opposition in rooms where the sausage is made, doesn’t work any more. Building up mass support through effective messaging (and organizing) does.

Again, I think we’re in the age of needing candidates and electeds who put effective communication of a message in a way that excites the masses at the absolute top of their skillset.

Biden won’t be able to do that in 2024, imho. Jon Stewart, on the other hand, could. Now obviously, if he has no intention of running for anything, than this thread is moot. But my point stands that being an experienced politician is going to be less important going forward than being an exciting and effective communicator in a 24-hour news cycle with meme-ability is. It’s just a changing part of how to run for president and govern, imo.

Biden was only exciting and electable in 2020 because of how low-key and normal he was compared to the cancer-ridden bloated corpse of an administration he was running against. He barely needed to campaign, and that probably worked in his favor. In 2024, even with his 50 years of governing experience, if he can’t effectively communicate what he’s done in social-media-worthy soundbites and actively inspire people to keep him in office, we’ll all lose. We need someone who can do that, and I don’t honestly think a long resume of government experience (36 years in the Senate? check! Eight years as Vice President? check!) necessarily prepares you for the job nor makes you an effective president.

I actually hope Stewart is budgeable on this, because I think he’d be a formidable candidate.

AIUI Franken was a successful and effective Senator up until the groping/sexual harassment claims surfaced. Unless similar claims have been (or could be) made against Stewart, those claims against Franken aren’t really relevant to this thread.

I suspect that the job of president is almost entirely reaction.
Sure everyone comes in with an agenda and works on getting it working – but everyday your day starts by reviewing all the shit that happened all over the world while you were sleeping. Turkey and Greece posturing toward each other-- requires a Presidential response. A tidal wave in Japan or anyplace else – Presidential response. Florida has a few days of freezing weather and frozen concentrated orange juice is in short supply all around the world – presidential response.

So after getting the diplomatic corp, the military, FEMA, and NGOs like the Red Cross to address all the man made and natural disasters that have happened anywhere, you can look back toward the fights that congress is insisting upon on the Hill, what the courts are going to, or have already struck down that needs your attention. After that you can see what Administrative Branch employee said something stupid, or took a bribe, or quit to run for office after neglecting his or her responsibilities for the last month.

Then you have to spend a few hours in meetings that have been scheduled before disaster struck. Worry about interest rates, hear about grazing cattle on Federal Land, have some policy wonk drone on about international tariffs for an hour – then make a tough decision that is going to piss off an ally or an enemy, AND half the American population. Have some lunch before farmers and truckers and construction workers (well their representatives) tell you they need more pay and better working conditions and while they file out of your office the industries that employ all those people file in to tell you they cannot afford to give those people the raises or better working conditions they require. and absolutely everyone at every meeting has a good point, but also has an agenda that goes five steps beyond the actual truth where they have the moral high ground.

Absolutely everything the POTUS does has big and important consequences, often effecting the future of millions of citizens and sometimes involving life and death. Giving speeches and rewarding those who go above and beyond are the easiest parts of the job. And as others have pointed out- those things matter too because you have to get public support (and even then the opposition shits all over your sincere efforts- e.g.: right to choose issues and universal background checks for firearm purchases are hugely popular with a huge majority of the voting public yet remain bitter battlegrounds)

On top of this, you have to work with people who oppose you at every turn, people you hate, and you cannot fire most of them. You have to notify the top leaders from both parties to take any significant steps in many areas (maybe most areas??) You are constantly forced to make decisions without having enough information – and an hour or a day later information may and often does surface that makes the sincere decision you made seem either silly or stupid.

Does anyone really think Jon Stewart wants to wake up every morning and find out how many civilians were killed in Ukraine? Or what violence erupted in the West Bank? Or how some country defaulted on their loan and now international markets are going to be in the toilet for day or two? That is why I say give him an appointed job where his popularity and poll numbers are meaningless and he can focus on advising the administration on how to best react to an event, or how to use the country’s resources to solve a longstanding problem, or which path forward will net the best result. Hell, he might be a good press secretary, but I think more behind the scenes myself.

And one last thing that needs to be said in my view. Trump was never the president in any real way except ceremonially during speeches and state dinners and as a figurehead. Everything he personally touched turned to shit, there is no evidence he ever digested one single security briefing during his entire administration. Everything he delegated (especially to Jared, but to all those he brought in with him) were dropped ten minutes later. Besides stirring up shit at rally’s his biggest accomplishments were binders full of unrelated ideas upon a topic like healthcare or national defense. Every institution in the Administrative Branch was weakened and some were nearly dismantled. Trump was president like anyone with a fantasy football team is an NFL coach.

For the right person Stewart might be a totally kickass chief of staff. I could totally see him going to the hill and belittling some obstinate senator into complying just to stop him from ridiculing the office holder in front of his or her staff. His bullshit meter is finely calibrated and he might be able get results just by pointing out to an obstructionist how stupid they are going to look on the late night talk shows that night or next week. He is often so completely brutal and honest that some people who really care about how they are polling might respond to : “Do you mean to tell me that you would rather . . . . .”

In my opinion, even when he was forced to resign it did benefit the Democratic Party because they were allowed to maintain the high ground. The Republicans had plenty of scandals but they covered up or made excuses. The Dems took a stand and escaped being hypocrites because even the appearance of impropriety . . .

Also, do think Matt Gaetz is a net benefit for the GOP? Or a net loss for them?

This would be a strange reason to discount him. The idea that we didn’t land on the moon is a conspiracy theory. The idea that the Wuhan lab was somehow connected to the first outbreak is hardly on the same footing, it is a possibility that cannot reasonably be dismissed. The fact that some people you (and I) don’t like had an anti-China agenda to push the theory does not make it a conspiracy theory.

Did you actually see the clip?

It was more than just considering it as a possibility. He was very adamant that this is what happened.

I’ll take JS at his word that he’s uninterested, but I fairly swoon when I watch the guy. Always have. He’s a gift to the American zeitgeist.

But does he have any skills at “the art of the possible ?” If he didn’t get a filibuster-proof majority in both houses, how well equipped is he to deal with a stunningly obstreperous Republican Congress ?

He’s also something of a satirist, IMHO. When I took a writing course years ago, we had an assignment to write a lengthy satirical piece. We were repeatedly told that satirists are not responsible for proposing solutions; their job is to poke fun.

Would a hypothetical Jon Stewart have good foreign and domestic policy ideas – things to run on, much less assembling a Cabinet and staff to execute ?

Yeah. I like the guy a lot. If this were of interest to him, though, the above would be my first questions.

Really nicely presented OP, by the way !

We like to think this is important, but describe to me the Democrat who would be successful. On paper, Biden is the best person to “reach across the aisle.” How well has that worked out?

Good question, of course.

My take – and I felt it coming through the OP – is that what’s “on paper” may or may not be what’s critical right now.

Like him or hate him (I’m in the latter camp, TYVM), Trump was an iconoclast.

I tend to agree that Biden was Our Best Shot, but I didn’t have the hopes for him that I had for Obama. And, at this point, I have less hope for Biden than I started with.

I do think a shrewd negotiator, a skilled (figuratively) poker player, card-counter, vote-counter is pretty imperative. And somebody who captures the imagination of the public, and who they just want to watch and hear speak.

I really don’t know if it’s a person with Stewart’s strengths (and weaknesses). What I do see is a game that’s changed. The next Democrat to take their shot may very well need unprecedented (ie, not what we’re used to) strengths.

Fair enough, I didn’t watch it. That makes him poorly informed on the issue, since we obviously don’t have definitive evidence either way. But not in the same category as a conspiracy theorist.

I think we mostly agree. IMO Stewart could be a decent candidate and decent president. But to the OP’s point, I think that negotiating with Republicans is not currently a useful skill, given their complete unwillingness to negotiate with anyone.

“Something” of a satirist? I think I’d categorize him as one of the premier satirists working in media and has been for what, two decades? And the guy has ideas–not only of his own but he knows a LOT of people, has interviewed some of the smartest and most informed people on the planet and he is ALWAYS prepared to speak with them and is informed on their particular specialties. The man does research all day, every day, as part of his job and yes he has solutions and opinions AND he can gadfly anyone on the planet and make them look fucking stupid doing it. Give that man a bully pulpit and he will embarrass Congress into functioning, which is way more than it’s doing right now. He has plenty of money so he’s probably unbribeable, his self esteem comes from years and years of success so there’s no flattery that’s gonna work on him and he is a populist right down to the soles of his shoes. Honestly, I’d rather have him than pretty much anyone who’s likely to run.

Why wouldn’t he? Hence, in your next post:

His lack of political experience - as well as the concerns in the Atlantic article cited earlier - won’t be an obstacle for implementing a comprehensive Democratic agenda.

This is just talk. Does he want to run? No.

He has never committed himself to the idea of being a Democrat. Unless he does that, he isn’t going to be nominated.