When you think of rising stars in American politics, ESPN’s fiery sports commentator Stephen A. Smith probably doesn’t top your list. But in the aftermath of the Democrats’ 2024 election loss, his name is quietly — and surprisingly — making its way into serious conversations.

As President Donald Trump begins his second non-consecutive term and the Democratic Party rethinks its direction, many voters — weary of polished politicians — are wondering: could a bold, media-savvy outsider like Stephen A. Smith be the unexpected challenger to a Republican nominee in 2028?

It sounds far-fetched. But then again, so did Donald Trump’s presidential bid in 2016.

More Than a Sports Commentator

At 57, Smith is widely known for his intense debates on basketball and football. His signature no-holds-barred delivery and strong presence on ESPN have made him one of the most recognized voices in sports media. Yet over the years, Smith hasn’t shied away from talking politics, tackling sensitive topics such as racial inequality, economic disparities, and gender equity.

With an estimated $100 million ESPN contract and a devoted fanbase, Smith commands both media reach and public attention — qualities that once worked in Trump’s favor.

Still, the idea of Smith running for president is more speculative than strategic. He has no political experience, no clear policy platform, and has never held public office. So why is his name even being discussed?

The Appeal of the Outsider

According to Daniel T. Durbin, director of USC’s Annenberg Institute for Sports, Media and Society, the curiosity around Smith isn’t about qualifications — it’s about the growing appeal of candidates from outside the political establishment.

“There’s always hunger for a new kind of leader — someone who speaks directly, isn’t afraid of confrontation, and feels relatable,” Durbin said. “We saw this with Trump. Voters are frustrated with the political system and want a voice that cuts through the noise.”

Durbin, however, is quick to point out a key difference: Trump had been toying with political ideas since the 1980s. Stephen A. Smith, in contrast, has yet to seriously wade into the political arena.

A Performance or a Possibility?

S. Mark Young, a professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business, sees the fascination with Smith as a reflection of “politics as performance.”

“Smith is a brilliant communicator with a commanding presence,” Young noted. “He’s articulate, fearless, and clearly passionate — but passion doesn’t always translate to policy.”

Young warned that the spectacle of politics risks overshadowing substance. “While Smith could energize a segment of the public, especially younger voters or sports fans, he lacks the executive experience voters ultimately value.”

A Symptom of Voter Fatigue?

Arnold Weinfeld, associate director of Michigan State University’s Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, interprets the buzz around Smith as a sign of voter frustration.

“People feel unheard. They’re disillusioned with career politicians,” Weinfeld said. “They want someone who speaks their language, someone who feels real. But they also want results — leadership experience still matters.”

Weinfeld suggested that if Democrats are serious about a nontraditional candidate, a business figure like Mark Cuban might be more viable — someone with both charisma and proven leadership.

Smith’s Silence: A Strategic Move?

So far, Smith hasn’t confirmed or denied interest in a political future. But his increasingly public commentary on social and political issues — coupled with his rejection of the status quo — suggests he’s aware of the speculation.

For now, he remains silent, perhaps wisely letting the buzz build while staying focused on his media empire.

Final Take: A Media-Driven Mirage or a Movement in the Making?

Stephen A. Smith’s hypothetical presidential run may never leave the realm of speculation. Yet the fact that his name is even in the conversation speaks volumes about the shifting nature of American politics — where charisma can rival credentials, and where the line between leadership and celebrity continues to blur.

In an age where influence matters more than titles, and media visibility can sometimes outshine policy expertise, it’s not unthinkable that more unconventional figures like Smith may continue to capture the public’s imagination — even if only for a news cycle.