This might be a good time to remind everyone that trump has a dick that looks like a toadstool.

So the other day I got to thinking about what a great candidate Jon Stewart would be for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is that it would be great fun watching him debate Trump. He'd be progressive enough for the base, relatable enough for moderates, popular among young voters, charismatic and he'd be effective as POTUS because he gets the bull**** that is the modern right wing in America and understands that you can't try to be all hunky dory about it. He also wouldn't be playing the bull**** games like, "I support Medicare for All I think maybe sorta kinda, but I'm not sure which version," or whatever the **** Beto is saying this week.

I consider it a huge indictment of the party's field that I even spent five minutes thinking about Jon Stewart as a candidate.

I was literally just sitting there going through the field like, how many of these candidates are:

1) Charismatic/electable enough to be big favorites in the general election.

2) Principled in their stances on issues and progressive enough.

3) Going to go in fighting from Day 1 in office because they get what the modern GOP is.

4) Able to serve two terms before they're like 85.

Right now we have zero as far as I can tell, and it's making me waste time thinking about random people that could run and win.

For each of 1, 2, 3 who do you think fits of those currently running?

#1 comes down to the "electability" factor. Not only does no one know who will appeal to the most people, but you have to apply level 2 thinking because everyone else is thinking the same thing.

So who do you think others will think is the most "electable?"

No offense, but I think it says more about your personal preferences than it does the party that you would prefer a career comedian over a career politician? I don't really agree with that tbh.

Anyway, I will only be voting a woman. An uncircumcised woman.

The first part of this is false, and the second part makes no sense.

+1.

genuinely considering that Jon Stewart is a superior candidate to everyone else running is not 'a serious indictment of the field', it's a serious indictment of yourself.

I think experience in government is very important and would be reluctant to vote for anyone for POTUS without plenty of experience in different levels of government including the Feds, but Jon Stewart is a smart guy who has similar values and cuse may trust him as a decent and honest person who doesn't represent either big donors or misrepresent his preferences in order to pander for votes. That puts him ahead of most of the candidates.

Does Jon Stewart want to run for president or be president? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.

Another indication that he'd be a better POTUS than most.

None taken.

I'll just point you back toward this part of my post. Hopefully I made it clear that I'm not out there trying to draft Jon Stewart to run.

In other words, I think we have so many flawed, good but not great candidates in this field that I'm wasting time thinking about people who are ridiculous/out of left field. I'm not actually serious about wanting Jon Stewart to be the president. If I could pick anyone to just become president, he wouldn't be on the list unless you made me list like 1,000 people and then we might sneak him on there somewhere between 500 and 1,000.

That said, I would vote for him over a lot of people in the current field, because some of my top choices in terms of actually doing the job I view as unelectable or at least more of a risk to lose.

Also for what it's worth, classifying Jon Stewart as a career comedian as if he's only that is pretty unfair to him. He's an intelligent person who has closely followed politics for decades, also played a not-insignificant role as an activist, and also played a key role in pointing out hypocrisy of the right wing to millions of Americans. He's undoubtedly in the top 5% of the country, and probably the top 1%, in terms of understanding what's going on politically and how the right wing strategy/disinformation campaign works and succeeds.

Me: Hey guys, this huge field of Dems is so bad right now, and I'm so annoyed that I'm actually thinking Jon Stewart would be better than all of them lol, what a mess this field is!

Super Intelligent People: You want Jon Stewart to run and be president??? What a moron!

Some Guy: Man, this game is so boring I'd rather get a root canal than watch the second half.

Super Intelligent People: You want to get a root canal? What an idiot!

One of the more recent Current Affairs podcasts (doing a deep-dive roundtable on several presidential candidates) brought up an interesting point, about how one of the more disqualifying qualities of a presidential candidate is the fact that they're running for president in the first place. Like, no one who's hungry enough for power to dedicate two years of their lives to saying "pick me, pick me" actually deserves that power, but unfortunately those are the only people we get to pick from.

So, I can kinda understand the general sentiment of taking someone who isn't seeking that power but otherwise has good political ideas, and being like "yeah, they'd make a great president"; the fact that they don't appear to want to be president bestows a certain sincerity to their positions, much like what microbet said.

That said, Steward is probably more centrist than most people would guess and I don't agree he'd be a particularly good president.

Man there are a lot of great 2020 candidates compared to the usual scrubs the Dems bring to the field. Kind of a shame the Dems are gonna **** up and pick Biden.

Using a list of the people who have either declared or formed an exploratory committee or are expected to run who I consider actual major candidates... And pasting the criteria again:

1) Charismatic/electable enough to be big favorites in the general election.

2) Principled in their stances on issues and progressive enough.

3) Going to go in fighting from Day 1 in office because they get what the modern GOP is.

4) Able to serve two terms before they're like 85.

Also, I'll clarify that progressive enough means progressive enough to get the support of the base in both the primary and general. What that means is debatable, but I'd say strongly and clearly supporting a specific form of Medicare for All is mandatory, as-is making climate change a priority, supporting a form of gun control that includes banning AR-15's (lol Beto wtf?), etc. I'm not saying they have to want to go straight to single payer, ban 100% of guns (not even my position personally), or adopt AOC's tax plan (also not my exact position personally).

Without further ado... Here are the flawed 11.

Joe Biden - He's perceived as #1, I don't think he is.

Cory Booker - 1 and 4. He may get #3, but he's running on holding hands and singing Kumbaya so I'm not giving him #3.

Pete Buttigieg - 2, 3, 4. He's charismatic enough, but I don't think he's electable (small town mayor is a ding, and I don't think America is ready for a gay president). I hate that it's that way, but this isn't the election to die on that hill in the name of progress.

Kirsten Gillibrand - 1, 4. Having seen her speak in public at a Women's March, she's got decent/underrated charisma. She'd be more electable in the general than most of the field, but she's got very little shot in the primary because of whiffing big time on #2.

Kamala Harris - 1, 4. Maybe 3, I'm not sure.

John Hickenlooper - 4.

Jay Inslee - Going to admit I don't know a ton about him on specific issues, but I'm pretty sure he's 2, 3 and 4. (Giving him credit for Washington being one of the states fighting pretty hard vs. Trump, assuming it extrapolates.) I don't think hes charismatic enough to be a big general election favorite.

Amy Klobuchar - 4.

Beto O'Rourke - 1, 4. Loved him six months ago, super pissed at him now for turning into an empty suit standing on tables spouting platitudes. If you want electability and charisma, though, he's a mortal lock to beat Trump in the general if he gets there.

Bernie Sanders - 1*, 2, 3. The age hurts his electability a bit, as does the "democratic socialist" label. But I've heard enough people who are right of center say they like him when they hear him speak on issues to think his charisma and ability to message overrides it and gives him #1. But he'd turn 80 his first year in office. (For my personal taste, his policy is a little too far left on a few issues, and while I think his views/beliefs are good on gender and race, he's had a few questionable news stories on that. But he's one of the 3-4 I'm considering voting for at this point.)

Elizabeth Warren - 2, 3, 4. I think she's awesome at town halls and retail politics, but not charismatic enough giving big speeches, and not the best campaigner from a strategic standpoint.

As for my personal considerations at this point in the primary...

Hard no: Biden, Booker, Gillibrand, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar.

I Could Be Convinced: Kamala, Inslee.

In the Mix: Sanders, Warren, Beto, Buttigieg.

That said, there's nobody on this list who I wouldn't both vote for and volunteer for in the general election. My preferred candidate will come down to weighing their policy stances, their general election electability, and their performance in the next ~year on the campaign trail. My vote will come down to that plus pragmatism. In other words, if the race is clearly down to Biden and Kamala by the time I get to vote, I'm probably voting for Kamala. Or if it's Klobuchar and Biden, I'm probably voting for Klobuchar. I'm not going to waste a vote on someone who has no shot at winning.

I don't want to start a huge derail about Jon Stewart, who I don't want to run/be president anyway (I agree he's probably more centrist than many would guess, but also pretty liberal on key issues - probably a lot like my views which is probably why I picked him as my random celebrity to make my point).

But I do think there's a key distinction to be made with a lot of this... A relative centrist who is ready to go fight like hell for the stuff they believe in, including democracy reform (HR1 & PR statehood) is waaaaaaaaaay better for progressives than a left-wing progressive who thinks that stuff isn't important.

For example, the odds of getting any meaningful gun control done from 2020-2022 are probably like 1%. The odds of getting it done from 2022-2024 if we do not get democracy reform done are probably around 1%. The odds of getting it done from 2022-2024 if we do get democracy reform done before 2022 are probably around 20%. From 2024-2028, democracy reform probably takes the odds from ~3% to like 50%. And from 2028-2034, it probably jumps from like 10% to 90% if we get democracy reform done first.

And I could be underestimating the impact, because not only will it turn a few swing states blue and a few red states into swing states, this will also force the Republican party to move back toward the middle over a few election cycles and acknowledge common sense conclusions on stuff like climate change, healthcare and guns. (In other words, they'd have to admit climate change is real, then just fight for like a minimalist approach. They'd have to admit that the ACA & fixes is the bare minimum, and probably a few would have to support a public option. Some of them have to admit that banning people on the terror watch list and requiring universal background checks is probably a good idea.)

So for me, the two important characteristics in a candidate are: maximum or near-maximum chances of beating Trump, going to go hard in the paint for democracy reform. At the end of the day, I'm far more concerned with having a government that serves the will of the people on issues than winning the battle on any other one issue in the next 2-4 years. If we get the government to actually represent the will of the people, then we've got a fair fight on the issues going forward, and we're going to make a lot of progress in a fair fight on healthcare, climate change, tax policy, gun policy, etc...

I guess I find it troubling that you consider this field to be so bad when a significant portion of the field are women who are very much qualified for the job... Much more than a (male) comedian.

Especially when your top criteria

seems like coded language for "likability".

The second part is probably talking about a Keynesian beauty contest.

Al Franken (aside from the sexual harassment and the anti-piracy agenda) turned out to be a rather solid and effective politician.

Sarah Silverman for comedienne POTUS!

The men in the field mostly suck too.

The Christians running for POTUS pretty much all have some serious problems. Warren is probably the only exception.

And statistically there's really no better correlation between deplorableness in America and any group than Christianity.

Also 100% disagree with this. Her speeches on the senate floor re womens health care have been some of my favorites ever.

Cis white men have always sucked tho

I don't know about "charismatic". She definitely seems a bit introverted. But I think E. Warren is quite likable.

This is a good talk