The Official President Stephen A. Smith Thread
- Thread starter Costanza
- Start date
I think it would be entertaining to see him debate on the big stage.
i wouldn’t vote for him though.
i wouldn’t vote for him though.
I see what he’s doing making himself out as a champion for black people while taking on someone who targeted him who happens to be the only famous sports commentator who is 10x worse than him on racial issues.
But I did think “Damn, if he was the nominee in 2016, he would’ve won.”
These old style mainstream media shows are so out of touch it aint funny.
You have to watch this:
I just listened to the exchange on the first question. AIPAC absolutely has talked to him and he is advocating for them STRONGLY. I don’t believe he will run for president but they have plans for him.
Also interesting that Maher urges him to run at the end— I doubt that was spontaneous.
Last edited:
Thanks Man, I caught some clips already.
Criticizing Slotkin for turning her back on AIPAC— one of the only decent things she has ever done— is WILD. Over “one thing,” like January 6th was no big deal and like there aren’t a million other reasons.
Bill is unapologetically pro-Israel. I have to find the clip where he admitted on air that Israel has committed war crimes but it was okay because other nations do it too.
"You've been tap dancing for the whole white Republican Party" - Matt Barnes calls out Stephen A. Smith for criticizing LeBron James' Memphis comments
Barnes agrees with LeBron that the Grizzlies need a better facility.
"You've been tap dancing for the whole white Republican Party" - Matt Barnes calls out Stephen A. Smith for criticizing LeBron James' Memphis comments
Barnes agrees with LeBron that the Grizzlies need a better facility.www.yahoo.com
“I don’t dance”— this may have been before the Barnes clip but if not I wonder if it was in his head.
Pretty sure Barnes ain't the only one accusing Smith of being an excellent dancer.
"You've been tap dancing for the whole white Republican Party" - Matt Barnes calls out Stephen A. Smith for criticizing LeBron James' Memphis comments
Barnes agrees with LeBron that the Grizzlies need a better facility.
I didn’t actually watch the Barnes video until I saw SAS responded. “We all used to have a lot of love for you, particularly me because you looked out” was the line that stood out to me most.
Regardless of what Smith has said, if it was like that, Barnes at least owed him a phone call and it was a bitch move if he said it first to social media via his phone camera.
I didn’t think of this until after I watched the clip but it is also weird that LeBron criticism was where Barnes drew the line with Smith.
If it was anyone else, I would agree with you. However, do you think Smith privately calls everyone he intends to offend, beforehand?
I feel like Barnes just gave him a taste of his own medicine.
Sean Hannity: “Names of three people in your head right now that you’d vote for, for president.”
Stephen A. Smith: “You won’t like it. I’d vote for Wes Moore, Governor of Maryland. I’d vote for Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania. I’d vote for Marco Rubio.”
Sean Hannity: “Okay. Talk about what is it about Marco?”
Stephen A. Smith: “He’s an adult in the room. There is no questioning his qualifications for the job.”
Sean Hannity: “If it’s Marco and anyone other than Wes and Josh, you vote for Marco over the Democrat?”
Stephen A. Smith: “Yes.”
Sean Hannity: “Over Newsom?”
Stephen A. Smith: “Yes.”
Sean Hannity: “Over Kamala?”
Stephen A. Smith: “Yes. I’d vote for Marco Rubio over anybody that’s out there right now, other than Wes Moore or Josh Shapiro.”
“He’s a former Senator. He’s the president’s Secretary of State. I think when you see what’s happening with our foreign policy. He deserves all the credit in the world.”
“He’s also the National Security Advisor. He’s also obviously, arguably, the second most powerful person in this country.”
“And he conducts himself like the adult in the room. He’s there for business. He’s not there to be fawned over like some people I know that happen to be president.”
This is so funny because its all vibes. Functionally, Newsom or Harris would operate almost identically to Moore or Shapiro as President. Like 95-99% similar on policy. Meanwhile, Rubio would be the polar opposite of Moore and Shapiro and likely hold opposite policy views on 90% of issues.
But this is the median voter in a nutshell. Just vibes based on absolutely zero objective analysis of policy agendas.
Instead of reflection, you’re focused on retaliation, spectacle and anticipation. You’re entitled to have that style, but it doesn’t give you the high ground either.
A nice way of saying “Instead of reflection, you’ve chosen to be a clown.”
Respectfully, that is the NYC in him
ChatGPT on a Smith presidency:
Analyze the rhetoric and stated positions of Stephen A Smith. If elected president, which previous president would he most closely resemble?
Based on Stephen A. Smith’s rhetoric and the positions he has actually articulated, I would not identify him primarily with Donald Trump, even though Trump is probably his closest rhetorical analogue. On substance, the closest historical president is Bill Clinton, with a significant Trump/Jacksonian streak in style.
The distinction matters because Smith’s politics are unusually mixed: he sounds much more populist and combative than his policy preferences generally are.
2. Donald Trump — closest rhetorically/personally
3. Jimmy Carter — outsider/anti-establishment component
4. Barack Obama — some social and racial politics, but considerably less ideological
5. Ronald Reagan — communication style and some fiscal instincts, but not enough ideological overlap
That combination is remarkably Clinton-esque:
Economically: Smith appears to favor a capitalist, business-friendly system rather than a Sanders-style redistributionist one, while still accepting a substantial social safety net. Clinton's politics had essentially that same instinct: market-oriented economics combined with a willingness to use government aggressively where he thought it produced practical benefits.
On immigration: Smith is substantially more restrictionist than today's Democratic mainstream. He has argued that the country needs to get its own house in order before accepting more immigrants, particularly illegal immigration, while simultaneously stressing that migrants aren't inherently bad people. (Complex) That's quite close to the "legal immigration, yes; uncontrolled illegal immigration, no" posture associated with Clinton-era Democrats.
On crime and disorder: Smith repeatedly emphasizes competence, order, accountability and consequences rather than primarily structural explanations. That is another strong similarity to the Clinton political tradition.
On social issues: Smith's own description is almost textbook Clinton-era triangulation: socially liberal but hostile to what he considers ideological overreach. His abortion position is particularly revealing: he says he is personally against abortion but does not believe he should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. (The Washington Post) That is much closer to an old-school Democratic "personal morality + legal tolerance" position than either contemporary social conservatism or progressive abortion politics.
Smith's great political asset would be the same thing that made Trump extraordinarily effective: he communicates as though he is talking directly to an audience rather than delivering a political speech.
He is extremely comfortable with confrontation, repetition, exaggeration, personal challenge and "let's just be real" arguments. Frank Luntz has described Smith as unusually authentic and said he could outtalk and outdebate virtually any politician he knows. (The Washington Post)
Smith also shares Trump's:
But there's a crucial difference: Smith does not seem to possess Trump's ideological flexibility. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to absorb positions that serve his political coalition. Smith instead presents himself as someone who has independently arrived at a mixture of liberal and conservative views and wants to judge every issue separately.
He has been devastatingly critical of the Democratic Party, calling for a fundamental change in the party and saying that its present leadership has failed to understand voters. He has also complained that Democrats talked about "woke culture," abortion and other cultural questions while failing to sufficiently address issues such as tariffs and the economy. (ABC News)
But that does not make him a conventional Republican.
As recently as 2025, he said he was an independent who leaned left, was socially liberal and would probably run as a Democrat. (RealClearPolitics) And in 2026 he has continued attacking Trump despite his growing alienation from Democrats. (YouTube)
The newest development is important, however: on August 15, 2026, Smith said Florida Republican Byron Donalds might actually be capable of persuading him to become a Republican, praising Donalds as "the real deal." (New York Post)
That suggests his political trajectory is becoming considerably more fluid than it appeared in 2025.
"Stop obsessing over ideological purity, fix the obvious problems, make government work, enforce the rules, don't tell ordinary people how they have to think, and judge everybody by results."
That's very different from a traditional progressive Democrat.
It also isn't really MAGA.
It is closer to Clintonian centrism delivered through a Trumpian communication style.
And there is a further historical resemblance worth noting: Smith's insistence that Black voters should not simply be treated as automatic Democratic voters goes back much further than his current political turn. In 2015 he actually argued that Black Americans should vote Republican for one election to force both parties to compete for their votes. (The Washington Post)
That is a very transactional, interest-based conception of politics: What are you doing for us? rather than Which party are we supposed to belong to?
The fascinating part is that Smith might look much more like Trump than Clinton while actually governing considerably more like Clinton. The Washington Post's "Democratic version of Trump" formulation is therefore more accurate as a description of his political vehicle than of his probable ideology. (The Washington Post)
One caveat: Smith still has no comprehensive presidential platform. Many major areas—tax rates, entitlement reform, the courts, foreign policy, environmental regulation, labor policy, guns, etc.—remain insufficiently specified to make a Clinton comparison definitive. His positions are still evolving, particularly given his increasingly open criticism of Democrats and his new openness to Republican figures. (New York Post)
Analyze the rhetoric and stated positions of Stephen A Smith. If elected president, which previous president would he most closely resemble?
Based on Stephen A. Smith’s rhetoric and the positions he has actually articulated, I would not identify him primarily with Donald Trump, even though Trump is probably his closest rhetorical analogue. On substance, the closest historical president is Bill Clinton, with a significant Trump/Jacksonian streak in style.
The distinction matters because Smith’s politics are unusually mixed: he sounds much more populist and combative than his policy preferences generally are.
My closest-match ranking
1. Bill Clinton — closest overall politically2. Donald Trump — closest rhetorically/personally
3. Jimmy Carter — outsider/anti-establishment component
4. Barack Obama — some social and racial politics, but considerably less ideological
5. Ronald Reagan — communication style and some fiscal instincts, but not enough ideological overlap
Why Clinton is the best substantive comparison
Smith explicitly describes himself as a centrist, independent, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He has said he dislikes high taxes and open borders, supports universal health care, favors government-efficiency measures, and is generally hostile to what he regards as ideological excesses on both the left and right. (Sporting News)That combination is remarkably Clinton-esque:
Economically: Smith appears to favor a capitalist, business-friendly system rather than a Sanders-style redistributionist one, while still accepting a substantial social safety net. Clinton's politics had essentially that same instinct: market-oriented economics combined with a willingness to use government aggressively where he thought it produced practical benefits.
On immigration: Smith is substantially more restrictionist than today's Democratic mainstream. He has argued that the country needs to get its own house in order before accepting more immigrants, particularly illegal immigration, while simultaneously stressing that migrants aren't inherently bad people. (Complex) That's quite close to the "legal immigration, yes; uncontrolled illegal immigration, no" posture associated with Clinton-era Democrats.
On crime and disorder: Smith repeatedly emphasizes competence, order, accountability and consequences rather than primarily structural explanations. That is another strong similarity to the Clinton political tradition.
On social issues: Smith's own description is almost textbook Clinton-era triangulation: socially liberal but hostile to what he considers ideological overreach. His abortion position is particularly revealing: he says he is personally against abortion but does not believe he should have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. (The Washington Post) That is much closer to an old-school Democratic "personal morality + legal tolerance" position than either contemporary social conservatism or progressive abortion politics.
But rhetorically, Smith is much more Trump-like
This is where the comparison becomes interesting.Smith's great political asset would be the same thing that made Trump extraordinarily effective: he communicates as though he is talking directly to an audience rather than delivering a political speech.
He is extremely comfortable with confrontation, repetition, exaggeration, personal challenge and "let's just be real" arguments. Frank Luntz has described Smith as unusually authentic and said he could outtalk and outdebate virtually any politician he knows. (The Washington Post)
Smith also shares Trump's:
- outsider status;
- contempt for conventional political messaging;
- enormous confidence in his own ability to communicate;
- willingness to attack his own nominal political allies;
- instinct that voters care more about concrete results than ideological vocabulary;
- ability to turn political discussion into a personality-driven spectacle.
But there's a crucial difference: Smith does not seem to possess Trump's ideological flexibility. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to absorb positions that serve his political coalition. Smith instead presents himself as someone who has independently arrived at a mixture of liberal and conservative views and wants to judge every issue separately.
The biggest difference from Trump
Smith is actually much less revolutionary than his rhetoric makes him sound.He has been devastatingly critical of the Democratic Party, calling for a fundamental change in the party and saying that its present leadership has failed to understand voters. He has also complained that Democrats talked about "woke culture," abortion and other cultural questions while failing to sufficiently address issues such as tariffs and the economy. (ABC News)
But that does not make him a conventional Republican.
As recently as 2025, he said he was an independent who leaned left, was socially liberal and would probably run as a Democrat. (RealClearPolitics) And in 2026 he has continued attacking Trump despite his growing alienation from Democrats. (YouTube)
The newest development is important, however: on August 15, 2026, Smith said Florida Republican Byron Donalds might actually be capable of persuading him to become a Republican, praising Donalds as "the real deal." (New York Post)
That suggests his political trajectory is becoming considerably more fluid than it appeared in 2025.
Smith's likely presidential philosophy
Putting all of his statements together, I think a hypothetical President Smith would probably govern according to something like:"Stop obsessing over ideological purity, fix the obvious problems, make government work, enforce the rules, don't tell ordinary people how they have to think, and judge everybody by results."
That's very different from a traditional progressive Democrat.
It also isn't really MAGA.
It is closer to Clintonian centrism delivered through a Trumpian communication style.
And there is a further historical resemblance worth noting: Smith's insistence that Black voters should not simply be treated as automatic Democratic voters goes back much further than his current political turn. In 2015 he actually argued that Black Americans should vote Republican for one election to force both parties to compete for their votes. (The Washington Post)
That is a very transactional, interest-based conception of politics: What are you doing for us? rather than Which party are we supposed to belong to?
If President Smith actually won
My best analogy would therefore be:If I had to choose one president and only one, however, I would choose Bill Clinton.
The fascinating part is that Smith might look much more like Trump than Clinton while actually governing considerably more like Clinton. The Washington Post's "Democratic version of Trump" formulation is therefore more accurate as a description of his political vehicle than of his probable ideology. (The Washington Post)
One caveat: Smith still has no comprehensive presidential platform. Many major areas—tax rates, entitlement reform, the courts, foreign policy, environmental regulation, labor policy, guns, etc.—remain insufficiently specified to make a Clinton comparison definitive. His positions are still evolving, particularly given his increasingly open criticism of Democrats and his new openness to Republican figures. (New York Post)
And he runs to FOX and Hannity...
He does not get it...
So much rambling
Similar threads
