Flashback: Watch Stephen A. Smith's Blistering Answer to Who Can Beat Vance and Rubio in 2028 - Short Answer: 'Not a D*** Soul'

In what may be one of the least surprising developments in modern political media, ESPN personality Stephen A. Smith is openly inching toward a possible 2028 presidential run.

Long known for his outspoken commentary in sports, Smith has increasingly waded into political discourse over the past year. That trajectory took a notable turn in a recent interview with Robert Costa of CBS News, where Smith acknowledged he is seriously contemplating a White House bid.

“I will confess to you, I’m giving strong consideration to being on that debate stage for 2027,” Smith told Costa.

He added, “I’ve got this year coming up 2026, to think about it, to study, to know the issues.”

Smith, who has described himself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal, appears to be positioning himself as a potential Democratic contender. Yet that possible path raises a significant question — one Smith himself has already addressed.

Back in October, during a segment responding to audience questions, Smith was asked who would have the best chance of defeating Vice President J.D. Vance or Secretary of State Marco Rubio in 2028.

“Who has the best chance to defeat [Vice President J.D.] Vance and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio on the dem side in 2028?” the X user asked.

Without hesitation, Smith responded: “The answer would be no one. Not a d*** soul.”

He went further, praising Rubio as someone who “gets things done,” and noting that President Donald J. Trump has personally commended Rubio’s performance — particularly if diplomatic efforts such as the Israel-Hamas peace deal yield lasting results.

That earlier assessment now hangs over Smith’s exploratory rhetoric. If he genuinely believes that “not a d*** soul” can defeat Vance or Rubio, what would be the strategic rationale behind entering the race himself?

Politics is rarely static. Fields shift. Scandals erupt. Coalitions realign. But presidential campaigns are unforgiving arenas, especially when candidates must defend past statements in real time.

Smith has built a media brand around bold declarations and unapologetic takes. That approach can energize audiences — but electoral politics operates under a different set of incentives. Voters expect discipline, depth, and consistency, particularly when national security, economic stewardship, and constitutional governance are at stake.

If Smith ultimately steps onto a Democratic primary debate stage, he will not only be competing against seasoned politicians — he will also be contending with his own prior certainty that the Republican bench is effectively unbeatable.

Whether this is a serious ideological evolution, a long-term branding strategy, or simply a high-profile flirtation with political relevance remains to be seen.

But one thing is clear: should Stephen A. Smith run in 2028, the soundbites will already be waiting for him.