How would Neil deGrasse Tyson have done as the nominee?

[James Monroe]

What would the election results look like if pop science spokesperson Neil deGrasse Tyson enter into the election? Say if Tyson decide to get into electoral politics by running on a platform consists of scientific solvable solutions that will help promote a a better climate for the universe. Along with climate change and providing better funding for NASA, think about how Tyson would build a platform which would talk about social injustice, hackneying to the rhetoric that Martin Luther King used in his heyday.

The odds would be against him for not being a politician, which the Democratic membership would not be please due to Trump presidency.

On the other side, he could gain a great message that would resonate with the youth that was for Bernie Sanders, so that would be a plus. Many of the blue collar Democrats who went for Biden would still be vehomantly against Trump, inclining to vote for Tyson.

[James Monroe]

I don't think that the general American public is very amenable to New Atheist grandstanding or the same five smartass quips repeated ad nauseam on Twitter, let alone enough to consider the man a worthy politician.

Tyson is not an Atheist, nor does he speak for the New Atheist movement itself. He puts aside all ideologies and only would consider himself a person of science. The comments on Twitter could be tiresome and maybe a bit smug, we elected a deranged man who tweeted endlessly parroting lies to the public, Tyson should do alright in that regard.

[James Monroe]

Honestly, Tyson being nonreligious might not matter as much as a lot of people think. However, I don't think he'd be the best with messaging, and so would likely have lost to Trump.

Sanders is pretty obviously agnostic or atheist in all but name and Sinema won in Arizona despite not being religious. Tyson's problem would be he's associated with certain stereotypes of atheism as opposed to his actual lack of religious belief.

Do you think this would be a problem with the black voter base? They are the most religious population in America and despite Tyson being of the same race he remains agnostic. They might be one of his weakest groups if you think about it, at least amongst the core constituents of the party, in the primary at the very least.

[James Monroe]

No one wants to elect a smug Twitter personality who's made his whole schtick about speaking for "SCIENCE" (despite not being a particularly accomplished scientist) and wearing ridiculous ties.

Also, if he made his platform all about going to Mars, reinvigorating NASA, reviving the Space Age, etc. that would probably flop hard. There are enough concrete problems on Earth for people to worry about. Even if he focused more on improving our science education and such, I just don't see him having broad appeal outside nerdy liberals who already unanimously vote D.

Even Bill Maher would probably do better and that's really saying something.

I maintain that the only liberal media personality who had really strong potential to be a formidable political candidate was Jon Stewart.

If Tyson were to run on a science platform he would be wise to have a strong climate change position that will be the main focus of his candidacy. Pushing for that and a strong vaccination during the pandemic would be a sure way to gain some support among the base.  Would it be enough to overcome weakness remains the question mark, and you're right he just would not have a diverse base of voters to land on the path of nomination.

Jon Stewart would have been a very formidable candidate but Bill Maher would bomb much harder in the primary. If we think NDT is smug, Maher is the personification of it. Then you got the anti-religion views, his history of bigoted comments against multiple groups of people, pushing pseudoscience, he would be lucky to crack 2.5% in the primary.