Would I vote for Jon Stewart if he ran for POTUS? Probably.
This says less about my faith in Jon's ability to govern, and more about my lack of faith in current politicians to lead ethically.
I'd rather see Jon make the right decisions but make mistakes, than to see a seasoned politician make the wrong decisions and execute them competently.
I at least have faith Jon is smart enough and with a true compassion in his heart, that he'd be able to surround himself with real experts, listen open mindedly to their advice, and regularly make decisions with empathy.
All that said, he's said repeatedly he doesn't want that job, and I do not blame him.
To second this, I'd like Jon to keep doing the great work he's doing, and I'd like people with similar levels of integrity and thoughtfulness who are interested and good at political activism to rise through politics and lead.
It's a sad state of affairs in which we ask these questions, because it's just an indication that we're myopically focused on people with enough name recognition to discuss them.
You know who would be better considerations for president? Katie Porter. Ro Khanna. Maybe eventually Lina Khan. Despite what we're told, there ARE people with experience leading political agencies who have shown an understanding of the back doors that have been built into our power structures and show the integrity to fight against it.
The funny thing is that when people think about potential populists for president, we get options like AOC (who I admire, but is famous more than experienced), but we don't get enough people like Barbara Lee, who is the only member of congress who said "NO" to the PATRIOT Act, the War on Iraq, and the Authorization of Use of Military force that gave us the war in Afghanistan and our whole permanent war in the middle east. The woman is an absolute lion of courage and has decades of experience. She's currently running for Senate, and she has my vote because she's the only one in the race calling with the courage to call for a ceasefire in Palestine.
I love Stewart. But we need to look past the famous towards the people who've been quietly doing this work for many years.
That is the problem with representative democracy when each rep accounts for nearly a million citizens. You're at the whims of such a massive voting base. Name recognition is pretty much the only thing that matters at that scale.
It's like modern marketing and advertising. Half the time, they don't even say anything about their service. They just want you to remember the name and recognize the logo if you see it in a store.
Jon is a smart man. If he were to become President, he would have to make the same kind of hard decisions that Obama made that were unpopular among the public. Being a world leader is like that ethics question of changing the direction of a train to run over 1 person vs 10.
No one that wants that job should be allowed to.
For that very reason, I sometimes imagine a world where public office is handled like jury duty, picked semi-randomly.
I grew up watching Jon on The Daily Show. You can love Jon or you can hate him. But that guy used his celebrity status, as well as his own effort, to repeatedly shame, cajole, arm twist, plead with, and petition Congress to fund medical care for the 9/11 first responders. Many of whom suffered long term health issues due to exposure to hazardous materials.
He went to Washington with a group of said first responders and chased down as many Congressmen/women as they could find. He appeared before Congress to testify in support of legislation multiple times.
He did far more for those people than anyone else would. There are plenty of people in the world with power and influence. But there aren't a hell of a lot of them that would use that influence like a fucking hammer to pound out some justice for a bunch of people with no expectation of getting anything in return. For that, he earned my respect.
Hell no!!! I love Jon Stewart, why would I want to see him tortured for four years?
If we want to watch him struggle and age while a system designed not to change thwarts him at every turn, sure.
But I like him too much to elect him president.
I’m not in favor of celebrity moving to politics. Even ones that I think are intelligent. Stewart has long been involved in political mockery and has actual experience in helping a bill get passed, but I think he wouldn’t survive the frustration of being forced to work in DC as President.
There’s a video out there that I can’t find where Stewart is talking to (political science students?) who ask him about his time in DC trying to get the 9/11 First Responders Bill passed and what he thought of politics there. His disgust for real politics and how politicians operate is vividly apparent and borders on revulsion.
I think he’s a good man, but I don’t know that he would be a successful president.
not particularly invested in this comment but isn't the concept of "politician" essentially just "celebrity" nowadays anyway?
That someone has access to money and influence, can use those to set policy and maintain/secure both in-party and general-public votes. What's the difference between politician and celebrity there? One could argue that experience in setting policy and/or studying law, but that doesn't apply to a whole range of politicians anyway.
I think the lines are blurred, sure. However there are plenty of politicians that really just kind of do their job and stay out of the limelight, whereas celebrities are by default in the public eye. Also, the biggest difference is the part where you vote for a politician and they set policy. I don’t vote for celebs, and I don’t call them telling me what to wear or watch “policy”. We’ve had 2 legit celebrity presidents and they’ve both been disastrous.
Might be observation bias. You hear about the morons who can't shut up.
No, but I’d vote for him over any republican traitor shitbag, no question. And he’s better than a lot of career politicians. I just don’t want our politics devolving further into celebrity popularity contests. Do you want President Ye?
Normally for a celebrity I would say no.
Jon is the exception, and I've often spoken about how he would be an excellent President.
He knows, has been involved, and most importantly is disgusted in that knowledge of how the sausage gets made. He knows how to appeal for public support to tear down the institutional obstructions.
Also importantly, I don't think he can be bought. He's walked away from cash cow gigs after he made enough. He isn't infinitely greedy, and that's rare in politics because most of them get into politics explicitly to be bought. I think his combination of institutional knowledge, understanding of today's social ills, demonstrated empathy, and ability to say no to calls of making moooooaaaaaar money make him the ideal candidate.
That's also the problem, because I don't think he'd want it, which makes him an even better choice.
That's the paradox of power, from police all the way to POTUS, the ones that seek it out and fight for it tend to be the worst possible candidates to possess it.
This. Plus I genuinely think he doesn't want the spot, which makes him singularly qualified to have it.
What's that saying that those who desire power are the least fit to gain it?
Should he? Probably not. Would he do a better job in office than the idealogicaly brain dead choices being 'weekend at bernies'ed' by the highest paying lobbyists we've had since Citizens United? Absolutely.
Sure. Why the hell not?
From what I've seen of him he is very intelligent, I generally agree with his views, he doesn't seem to have have anger, greed, or vanity issues. I'm not sure his temperament would produce good Commander in Chief decisions but overall he seems like a great candidate.
Is that because of who he is or because of his TV personality?
How about we stop encouraging celebrities to hold political office...?
I've only seen a few minutes of him on TV. I can't think of many politicians whose positions I like and who wouldn't bow to corporations.
I'm not opposed to it. He would be an upgrade.
Since politic is a joke let's bring in a professional!
Coluche a very famous French comedian declared this during his campaign. He campaigned in the late 70s for the presidential election a blank candidate for the blank voters and really shakes up the entrenched political class. After polling at almost 10% and huge pressure he renounced. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coluche
Another famous comedian who get elected was Zelinsky the current Ukrainian president. His candidacy was seen as a joke by many including Putin. Must be less funny now for him. Not a professional politician and rose up quite well for the challenges.
Jon Stewart has strong principle and sound ethics he would make a better candidate than most of these professional politicians.
If he wanted the job (he doesn't) if I thought that congress wouldn't fight him (they would) if I thought the supreme court would allow most of what he wants to get done get done (they wont) and if I thought he had a better chance than Biden does of getting a second term (I dont) then sure.
Nope, and he doesn't want to. He would not be a good president. What be would be good at is a cabinet position. Maybe even a legislator, though he'd have to figure out how to pick good staff for that job.
Is Zelenskyy a good president?
Honestly? Under the circumstances, I’d say he’s an outstanding president overall.
And what would you say his primary qualifications and experience were before his election?
Well, he’s not a billionaire, unlike his predecessor. I generally view rich people in politics negatively as a rule.
That said: I do think Poroshenko did as well as he could, considering he was elected after Russia invaded the Donbas in response to Ukraine revolting and throwing his super Russia-friendly predecessor (who “won” the election with a lot of Russian help, hence the revolt) out.
He’s their Lincoln.
Good men like Jon don't seek that kind of power. They don't want it. That's why it's only ever assholes that get it.
You have to step on people to make it up the ladder as a politician. Jon Stewart is not that man.
Go watch the show VEEP and look at literally any character that has some amount of power. It's a pretty good look at the kind of person you have to be at that level of government.
Do you have experience in government to be able to claim that veep is a good example of how it goes?
I've worked in several states legislatures and have some limited experience working with congressional politicians. Most people I know agree that Veep is one of the more accurate depictions of the kind of people who work in politics. It's obviously exaggerated for entertainment and there's not nearly as much wacky hijinx, but it's pretty relatable to anyone working with politicians.
No, because he’s repeatedly said that he has no desire to do it, and that it’s a total indictment of our system that we are looking to a comedian for political leadership, lol. (He’s not wrong!)
No, he would only split the votes for Dems and give Trump an easy win
Op did not specify this election
He didn't specify what election, so I specified this one
That's not the way it works
Ah yes, the token argument that establishment Democrats use when a reasonable candidate who isn't theirs comes along
You think Biden running on the democratic ticket, trump on the republican, and Stewart on an independent ticket would have no impact on the election for Democrats?
I would expect him to run against Biden in the democratic primary and not pursue the office as an independent if he lost, like Bernie did.
Not what I'm saying at all. I'm fully aware that the "fringe candidate" would "steal" votes from the establishment candidate, but honestly? I'd take another Trump presidency if it actually lit a fire under the Democratic Party's ass and got them to start endorsing candidates who voters actually want, rather than minimally focusing on being the lesser of two evils. The Republican Party deserves all the shit they get, but you gotta hand it to them, at least they're backing candidates that their voters actually want.
OP isn't saying to compete against Biden this year, OP is asking in a future would you want John Stewart to be the democrat candidate for president
I was leaving it open to interpretation. I'm curious about what people think of Jon Stewart and if they would be willing to vote for him in the future.
@Cheesus@lemmy.world has a solid point though. There are too many neo-fascists, who are openly and quietly supporting Trump this election cycle. Not to say there weren't those back in 2016. It just seems like they have been making themselves more well-known among the general populous. Sadly we in the US don't have a Ranked voting system but instead First past the post. Which has IMHO, perpetuated disdain amongst everyone.
I think the US would be better off to finally have a president who is one of them. Meaning not rich or famous. Just a regular working class person who isn't well connected.
Seems like every president is rich, well connected, famous or totally bought off and they all end up running the country basically the same way. The only thing that ever changes is the surface level Idpol/who they pander to.
I'd vote for him
We should be so lucky
No, because celebrities are not the ideal people to represent America.
Celebrities become celebrities for a reason. Politicians become politicians for a reason.
Just because there is some overlap in the process, requiring popularity in order to be successful, does not mean that there is any overlap in the skill set.
Counterpoint: Volodymyr Zelenskyy has proven that there is a lot more overlap than it might seem if their entertainment included a lot of political elements.
I used to think Stewart would make a decent novelty candidate, but now I'm thinking he might actually be pretty decent.
Even though there are notable outliers, I still believe that the grand majority of entertainers would be terrible politicians.
Just because Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura and Volodymir zelinsky all made for reasonably competent politicians does not mean that by default all celebrities would also make for reasonable politicians. I can't imagine Governor carrot top, or senator Gabriel Iglesias.
My point was that some entertainers make fine politicians.
No. He's not substantially different than a mainstream Dem.
I dunno, he's a little farther left. Not much, but a little.
Hence my qualifier "substantially"
Fair enough :) please forgive my duslexia driven error
Would rather he didn't but I doubt I will ever vote R for any position above dogcatcher ever again. So if he wins the primary I would end up voting for him.
I've been saying this for years
Who?
Is he younger than 77 years old? Then yes.
(77 is 4 years less than the life expectancy in the US)
Which is what 50% of people should expect to reach…
Awesome username! Lol
The sad truth is that none of us, Jon Stewart included, get to choose. The established elite preselects candidates before the people get to pick them, and they would simply not allow Jon Stewart to run.
You'll never convince me that Donald Trump was selected by "elites". His policies might be good for the elites, but he was voted in by the people that think a secret cabal of elites run everything.
The last populist TV personality worked out great, so why not?
populism as an ideology that presents "the people" as a morally good force and contrasts them against "the elite", who are portrayed as corrupt and self-serving ... Populists typically present "the elite" as comprising the political, economic, cultural, and media establishment, depicted as a homogeneous entity and accused of placing their own interests, and often the interests of other groups—such as large corporations, foreign countries, or immigrants—above the interests of "the people".
By that metric, anything that is critical of capitalism is populist.
Really becomes a meaningless phrase.
Is Jon Stewart considered a populist?
I would consider him one, since he hasn't held public office before. But I'm not sure if there's a more strict definition.
It's generally defined by a claim to represent some unified idea of the "true people" as opposed to the corrupt elites running everything.
Stewart is not pretending to represent anyone, he's just a guy highlighting problems and making jokes on television. If he ran for office he could decide to use populist or non-populust rhetoric.
I think Volodymyr Zelenskyy was more recent than Trump but I would need to check the dates.
Stewart isn't a populist and neither is Volodymyr. Being popular isn't the same as populist.
What kind of outerspace rationalizing nonsense is this?
The Democrats should be forced to nominate him, just to even things out.
For what reason? He's never held a public office AFAIK. His personal politics are irrelevant with that in mind
Didn't we throw that litmus test out the window with 45?
Some people did. The results were less than satisfactory in my eyes
Should Jon Stewart run for POTUS? No.
Would I vote for Jon Stewart if he ran for POTUS? Probably.
This says less about my faith in Jon's ability to govern, and more about my lack of faith in current politicians to lead ethically.
I'd rather see Jon make the right decisions but make mistakes, than to see a seasoned politician make the wrong decisions and execute them competently.
I at least have faith Jon is smart enough and with a true compassion in his heart, that he'd be able to surround himself with real experts, listen open mindedly to their advice, and regularly make decisions with empathy.
All that said, he's said repeatedly he doesn't want that job, and I do not blame him.
To second this, I'd like Jon to keep doing the great work he's doing, and I'd like people with similar levels of integrity and thoughtfulness who are interested and good at political activism to rise through politics and lead.
It's a sad state of affairs in which we ask these questions, because it's just an indication that we're myopically focused on people with enough name recognition to discuss them.
You know who would be better considerations for president? Katie Porter. Ro Khanna. Maybe eventually Lina Khan. Despite what we're told, there ARE people with experience leading political agencies who have shown an understanding of the back doors that have been built into our power structures and show the integrity to fight against it.
The funny thing is that when people think about potential populists for president, we get options like AOC (who I admire, but is famous more than experienced), but we don't get enough people like Barbara Lee, who is the only member of congress who said "NO" to the PATRIOT Act, the War on Iraq, and the Authorization of Use of Military force that gave us the war in Afghanistan and our whole permanent war in the middle east. The woman is an absolute lion of courage and has decades of experience. She's currently running for Senate, and she has my vote because she's the only one in the race calling with the courage to call for a ceasefire in Palestine.
I love Stewart. But we need to look past the famous towards the people who've been quietly doing this work for many years.
That is the problem with representative democracy when each rep accounts for nearly a million citizens. You're at the whims of such a massive voting base. Name recognition is pretty much the only thing that matters at that scale.
It's like modern marketing and advertising. Half the time, they don't even say anything about their service. They just want you to remember the name and recognize the logo if you see it in a store.
Jon is a smart man. If he were to become President, he would have to make the same kind of hard decisions that Obama made that were unpopular among the public. Being a world leader is like that ethics question of changing the direction of a train to run over 1 person vs 10.
No one that wants that job should be allowed to.
For that very reason, I sometimes imagine a world where public office is handled like jury duty, picked semi-randomly.
I grew up watching Jon on The Daily Show. You can love Jon or you can hate him. But that guy used his celebrity status, as well as his own effort, to repeatedly shame, cajole, arm twist, plead with, and petition Congress to fund medical care for the 9/11 first responders. Many of whom suffered long term health issues due to exposure to hazardous materials.
He went to Washington with a group of said first responders and chased down as many Congressmen/women as they could find. He appeared before Congress to testify in support of legislation multiple times.
He did far more for those people than anyone else would. There are plenty of people in the world with power and influence. But there aren't a hell of a lot of them that would use that influence like a fucking hammer to pound out some justice for a bunch of people with no expectation of getting anything in return. For that, he earned my respect.
Hell no!!! I love Jon Stewart, why would I want to see him tortured for four years?
If we want to watch him struggle and age while a system designed not to change thwarts him at every turn, sure.
But I like him too much to elect him president.
I’m not in favor of celebrity moving to politics. Even ones that I think are intelligent. Stewart has long been involved in political mockery and has actual experience in helping a bill get passed, but I think he wouldn’t survive the frustration of being forced to work in DC as President.
There’s a video out there that I can’t find where Stewart is talking to (political science students?) who ask him about his time in DC trying to get the 9/11 First Responders Bill passed and what he thought of politics there. His disgust for real politics and how politicians operate is vividly apparent and borders on revulsion.
I think he’s a good man, but I don’t know that he would be a successful president.
not particularly invested in this comment but isn't the concept of "politician" essentially just "celebrity" nowadays anyway?
That someone has access to money and influence, can use those to set policy and maintain/secure both in-party and general-public votes. What's the difference between politician and celebrity there? One could argue that experience in setting policy and/or studying law, but that doesn't apply to a whole range of politicians anyway.
I think the lines are blurred, sure. However there are plenty of politicians that really just kind of do their job and stay out of the limelight, whereas celebrities are by default in the public eye. Also, the biggest difference is the part where you vote for a politician and they set policy. I don’t vote for celebs, and I don’t call them telling me what to wear or watch “policy”. We’ve had 2 legit celebrity presidents and they’ve both been disastrous.
Might be observation bias. You hear about the morons who can't shut up.
No, but I’d vote for him over any republican traitor shitbag, no question. And he’s better than a lot of career politicians. I just don’t want our politics devolving further into celebrity popularity contests. Do you want President Ye?
Normally for a celebrity I would say no.
Jon is the exception, and I've often spoken about how he would be an excellent President.
He knows, has been involved, and most importantly is disgusted in that knowledge of how the sausage gets made. He knows how to appeal for public support to tear down the institutional obstructions.
Also importantly, I don't think he can be bought. He's walked away from cash cow gigs after he made enough. He isn't infinitely greedy, and that's rare in politics because most of them get into politics explicitly to be bought. I think his combination of institutional knowledge, understanding of today's social ills, demonstrated empathy, and ability to say no to calls of making moooooaaaaaar money make him the ideal candidate.
That's also the problem, because I don't think he'd want it, which makes him an even better choice.
That's the paradox of power, from police all the way to POTUS, the ones that seek it out and fight for it tend to be the worst possible candidates to possess it.
This. Plus I genuinely think he doesn't want the spot, which makes him singularly qualified to have it.
What's that saying that those who desire power are the least fit to gain it?
Should he? Probably not. Would he do a better job in office than the idealogicaly brain dead choices being 'weekend at bernies'ed' by the highest paying lobbyists we've had since Citizens United? Absolutely.
Sure. Why the hell not?
From what I've seen of him he is very intelligent, I generally agree with his views, he doesn't seem to have have anger, greed, or vanity issues. I'm not sure his temperament would produce good Commander in Chief decisions but overall he seems like a great candidate.
Is that because of who he is or because of his TV personality?
How about we stop encouraging celebrities to hold political office...?
I've only seen a few minutes of him on TV. I can't think of many politicians whose positions I like and who wouldn't bow to corporations.
I'm not opposed to it. He would be an upgrade.
Since politic is a joke let's bring in a professional! Coluche a very famous French comedian declared this during his campaign. He campaigned in the late 70s for the presidential election a blank candidate for the blank voters and really shakes up the entrenched political class. After polling at almost 10% and huge pressure he renounced. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coluche
Another famous comedian who get elected was Zelinsky the current Ukrainian president. His candidacy was seen as a joke by many including Putin. Must be less funny now for him. Not a professional politician and rose up quite well for the challenges.
Jon Stewart has strong principle and sound ethics he would make a better candidate than most of these professional politicians.
If he wanted the job (he doesn't) if I thought that congress wouldn't fight him (they would) if I thought the supreme court would allow most of what he wants to get done get done (they wont) and if I thought he had a better chance than Biden does of getting a second term (I dont) then sure.
Nope, and he doesn't want to. He would not be a good president. What be would be good at is a cabinet position. Maybe even a legislator, though he'd have to figure out how to pick good staff for that job.
Is Zelenskyy a good president?
Honestly? Under the circumstances, I’d say he’s an outstanding president overall.
And what would you say his primary qualifications and experience were before his election?
Well, he’s not a billionaire, unlike his predecessor. I generally view rich people in politics negatively as a rule.
That said: I do think Poroshenko did as well as he could, considering he was elected after Russia invaded the Donbas in response to Ukraine revolting and throwing his super Russia-friendly predecessor (who “won” the election with a lot of Russian help, hence the revolt) out.
He’s their Lincoln.
Good men like Jon don't seek that kind of power. They don't want it. That's why it's only ever assholes that get it.
You have to step on people to make it up the ladder as a politician. Jon Stewart is not that man.
Go watch the show VEEP and look at literally any character that has some amount of power. It's a pretty good look at the kind of person you have to be at that level of government.
Do you have experience in government to be able to claim that veep is a good example of how it goes?
I've worked in several states legislatures and have some limited experience working with congressional politicians. Most people I know agree that Veep is one of the more accurate depictions of the kind of people who work in politics. It's obviously exaggerated for entertainment and there's not nearly as much wacky hijinx, but it's pretty relatable to anyone working with politicians.
No, because he’s repeatedly said that he has no desire to do it, and that it’s a total indictment of our system that we are looking to a comedian for political leadership, lol. (He’s not wrong!)
No, he would only split the votes for Dems and give Trump an easy win
Op did not specify this election
He didn't specify what election, so I specified this one
That's not the way it works
Ah yes, the token argument that establishment Democrats use when a reasonable candidate who isn't theirs comes along
You think Biden running on the democratic ticket, trump on the republican, and Stewart on an independent ticket would have no impact on the election for Democrats?
I would expect him to run against Biden in the democratic primary and not pursue the office as an independent if he lost, like Bernie did.
Not what I'm saying at all. I'm fully aware that the "fringe candidate" would "steal" votes from the establishment candidate, but honestly? I'd take another Trump presidency if it actually lit a fire under the Democratic Party's ass and got them to start endorsing candidates who voters actually want, rather than minimally focusing on being the lesser of two evils. The Republican Party deserves all the shit they get, but you gotta hand it to them, at least they're backing candidates that their voters actually want.
OP isn't saying to compete against Biden this year, OP is asking in a future would you want John Stewart to be the democrat candidate for president
I was leaving it open to interpretation. I'm curious about what people think of Jon Stewart and if they would be willing to vote for him in the future.
@Cheesus@lemmy.world has a solid point though. There are too many neo-fascists, who are openly and quietly supporting Trump this election cycle. Not to say there weren't those back in 2016. It just seems like they have been making themselves more well-known among the general populous. Sadly we in the US don't have a Ranked voting system but instead First past the post. Which has IMHO, perpetuated disdain amongst everyone.
I think the US would be better off to finally have a president who is one of them. Meaning not rich or famous. Just a regular working class person who isn't well connected.
Seems like every president is rich, well connected, famous or totally bought off and they all end up running the country basically the same way. The only thing that ever changes is the surface level Idpol/who they pander to.
I'd vote for him
We should be so lucky
No, because celebrities are not the ideal people to represent America.
Celebrities become celebrities for a reason. Politicians become politicians for a reason.
Just because there is some overlap in the process, requiring popularity in order to be successful, does not mean that there is any overlap in the skill set.
Counterpoint: Volodymyr Zelenskyy has proven that there is a lot more overlap than it might seem if their entertainment included a lot of political elements.
I used to think Stewart would make a decent novelty candidate, but now I'm thinking he might actually be pretty decent.
Even though there are notable outliers, I still believe that the grand majority of entertainers would be terrible politicians.
Just because Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura and Volodymir zelinsky all made for reasonably competent politicians does not mean that by default all celebrities would also make for reasonable politicians. I can't imagine Governor carrot top, or senator Gabriel Iglesias.
My point was that some entertainers make fine politicians.
No. He's not substantially different than a mainstream Dem.
I dunno, he's a little farther left. Not much, but a little.
Hence my qualifier "substantially"
Fair enough :) please forgive my duslexia driven error
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwSts2s4ba4
Haha. This still makes me grin to this day.
Would rather he didn't but I doubt I will ever vote R for any position above dogcatcher ever again. So if he wins the primary I would end up voting for him.
I've been saying this for years
Who?
Is he younger than 77 years old? Then yes.
(77 is 4 years less than the life expectancy in the US)
Which is what 50% of people should expect to reach…
Awesome username! Lol
The sad truth is that none of us, Jon Stewart included, get to choose. The established elite preselects candidates before the people get to pick them, and they would simply not allow Jon Stewart to run.
You'll never convince me that Donald Trump was selected by "elites". His policies might be good for the elites, but he was voted in by the people that think a secret cabal of elites run everything.
The last populist TV personality worked out great, so why not?
"Popular" would probably be more accurate.
Populist
By that metric, anything that is critical of capitalism is populist.
Really becomes a meaningless phrase.
Is Jon Stewart considered a populist?
I would consider him one, since he hasn't held public office before. But I'm not sure if there's a more strict definition.
It's generally defined by a claim to represent some unified idea of the "true people" as opposed to the corrupt elites running everything.
Stewart is not pretending to represent anyone, he's just a guy highlighting problems and making jokes on television. If he ran for office he could decide to use populist or non-populust rhetoric.
I think Volodymyr Zelenskyy was more recent than Trump but I would need to check the dates.
Stewart isn't a populist and neither is Volodymyr. Being popular isn't the same as populist.
What kind of outerspace rationalizing nonsense is this?
The Democrats should be forced to nominate him, just to even things out.
For what reason? He's never held a public office AFAIK. His personal politics are irrelevant with that in mind
Didn't we throw that litmus test out the window with 45?
Some people did. The results were less than satisfactory in my eyes
Stay in school, kids. 🤦🏼♂️
I'd like Seth Meyers or Stephen Colbert better