I've been following Bret pretty closely the past couple of months and I've come to the conclusion that he just doesn't understand politics in pretty fundamental way.
I don't think it's an act or a scheme at all. https://twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/1296531018749325314

I watched the entire stream where he and his brother talked about politics for two hours. I don't think they spent a consecutive minute discussing any political principle or policy.
Occasionally theyd happen to stumble into some policy, for instance when Yang's name came up...

They both agreed they liked him and that he was a good man. Then also agreed that UBI was bad and wouldn't work, no explanation. Then they just quickly moved back to their favorite topic: listing people who they had pleasant conversations with an who agreed with them...

There was another part where they were listing conservative politicians who could run on their fantasy presidential ticket (side note: Eric was on the pod to say he had been skeptical about this idea, but now was won over, but still didnt support it, but might later)
...

Several possible names came up, from Dan Crenshaw to Ted Cruz to Tucker Carlson. All of whom are strong Trump supporters.
Now it seems to me if you're looking for a 3rd party candidate to run against Trump and Biden a minimum requirement would be that they oppose Trump and Biden-

This objection doesn't seem to have occurred to the Brothers Weinstein, who agreed that these were "good men" and "patriots" and "agreed with them" even though they were on opposite sides of the aisle. The specific points of agreement were not discussed.

At one point they did consider Mitt Romney, who is at least a Never Trumper which seems kind of important. Unfortunately he was deemed to be insufficiently good and patriotic. Eric also had some disagreement with him over some arcane issue that was not elaborated on.

Later they considered Joe Rogen for their fantasy candidate. They both agreed that Joe was completely on the left but that the Left all hated him. And it was decided that the reason the Left all hated him is because he does bow hunting.

As far as I can tell Bret's understanding of politics is merely a list of famous people and whether he deems them to be "good men" according to some undefined standard.
He constantly falls back on these political labels: far left, liberal, progressive...

... but afaik they dont seem to mean anything beyond a way of saying "I like you" or not ("liberal" means he likes you. "far left" means he doesnt")
At one point in his interview with Crenshaw Bret described himself as a "radical" or something to that effect. Crenshaw looked ...

... skeptical but then they just moved on. What is radical about Bret's politics? No explanation.
I think this is the best clue into Bret's politics: He claims to have supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election. The 2016 general election. Which Bernie notably did not run in...

Now, I would say that by definition you can only support a candidate if they're actually running. Otherwise that's just a daydream your having or a fantasy.
But to Bret the distinction between a fantasy and a real candidate is a mere technicality...

a minor detail hardly worth getting caught up on.