Democrats Looking Forward To 2028 (Part 1)
Yes, this is way too early. Insanely early. I get that.
But looking into the future with hope is what Democrats are going to have to start doing at some point, and I figured now -- while Democrats are in some pretty deep despair -- is a pretty good time to start doing it. So today let's think about the 2028 Democratic primary season, and run down the list of possible Democratic candidates. Hey, it's better than watching Donald Trump make cabinet picks, right?
In 2028 we will have a rare election, because both political parties will have open races. Trump is term-limited out of office (assuming the Constitution is still relatively intact, of course), and there will be no heir apparent on the Democratic side.
I say this assuming Kamala Harris is not going to run again. She could surprise me and make a third bid, but it's doubtful many people would get excited about her as a candidate after she lost to Trump. I doubt many big Democratic donors would line up behind her either. So even if she does run, she wouldn't be seen by anybody as the prohibitive favorite, not by a long shot. It will still be an open race either way, but as I said I really don't expect Harris to run again.
So who else would run? Well, there are three main groups on the Democratic bench -- governors, senators, and everyone else -- so let's take them one at a time.
[Editorial Note: When we wrote this out, we found it was so long that we decided to run it as a two-part article. Today we look at Democratic governors who could launch presidential bids, while tomorrow we will look at Democratic senators and "other Democrats" who also might be expected to run.]
Governors
Governors quite naturally see themselves as presidential material, since they occupy the executive office of each state. They have experience running a government, just on a smaller scale. They know the ins-and-outs of the job, and the ones who stay popular within their own states during their time in office naturally start thinking about moving that final rung up the political ladder.
There are two Democratic governors who are definitely already running for president, and three others who are also almost certain to run. First on the list is California's Gavin Newsom. Newsom has been running what might be called a "shadow campaign" for president, even as he had to mask it as merely supporting Joe Biden (and then, later, Kamala Harris). His second term in office in California will be up in 2026, which is perfect for a 2028 presidential run.
Newsom has positioned himself as the best fighter against Republican overreach, which is mostly evidenced by the fact that everyone already knows his name. Newsom picks very public fights with Republicans, and he will do so with an absolute frenzy once Trump takes office again. California will take the lead on suing the Trump administration in court, in the same way that Texas is usually the first Republican state to sue to block Democratic policies they don't support. Newsom just called a special session of the California legislature just to pass some stuff to combat Trump with (such as an increase in the budget for the attorney general, to handle the increased caseload expected). This is a purely political stunt, designed (as with lots of things Newsom does) to get Newsom's name and face out there on a national level as the one leading the charge against Trump.
Newsom does have a chance at becoming the Democratic nominee, mostly because he is so feisty. He's not afraid to call out Republicans on their nonsense and lies, and he knows how to be provocative. He's also very camera-friendly (although what might be called "too slick" for some). His personality is outsized, which is pretty perfect for the political environment we find ourselves in.
Newsom's biggest drawback is the fact that he's from California. I live in the Golden State, but I did not grow up here -- I moved here as an adult. So I know how the rest of the country sees the state, which many native Californians really never come to grips with. California is seen as being a sort of paradise in terms of natural terrain and weather, but since the 1990s it is also seen as a liberal bastion (not counting the interlude where Arnold Schwarzenegger ran the state, since he was a very odd sort of Republican). This goes back even further than that, too. The rest of the country has a sort of love/hate view of California -- many people dream of moving here, but this envy is leavened with resentment too. I try to explain this to native Californians my age by reminding them of an ad campaign from the 1980s, when "wine coolers" were all the rage. A brand called "California Cooler" ran a marketing campaign which featured people drinking their product in bars, while raging about everything they hated about California (the tagline was even: "One more reason to hate California"). It was supposed to be ironic -- because the people obviously loved the coolers they were drinking. But it exposed the love/hate feelings about California in the rest of the country better than anything else I can point to.
Those feelings have gotten much worse since the collapse of the Republican Party in the state. Now California is derided in rightwing media as some sort of hellscape -- the wreckage of too much liberalism run amok. And it just taps into the complaint that the Democrats are the party of the "coastal elite" who don't understand (and ignore) all the "flyover country" states. Those would be some serious headwinds for Newsom -- especially considering the fact that Kamala Harris is also from California. "We just saw how well a Californian did as our nominee... maybe let's try something else?" will be the strongest argument against Newsom.
The other governor who I see as already running is J.B. Pritzker of Illinois. Pritzker has also been prominently fighting back against Republican overreach, and he both ran and governed as a progressive, even though he is a billionaire. Pritzker is also serving a second term through 2026, but Illinois has no term limits for their governors, so theoretically he could run for re-election a second time. But his eyes are obviously on a larger prize.
Pritzker represents a state in the Midwest, which is a big plus for where the Democratic Party finds itself. He could self-finance his own campaign if he needed to, so he wouldn't be as beholden to big donors as others might be. He is just as feisty as Gavin Newsom in terms of taking the Democratic argument to the Republicans. So he's got a clear shot at winning the nomination.
Three other Democratic governors are also almost as certain to run as well: Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. All are popular in their states. All do a pretty good job of communicating the Democratic Party message to the voters in plain language. And all have an excellent built-in geographic asset going for them. Michigan and Pennsylvania can be the key to winning the White House (obviously), and Beshear runs an extremely red state, and he managed to win re-election there in the age of Trump. Which is precisely what the Democratic Party is now desperately seeking: a Democrat who can win over voters that have largely abandoned the party. Beshear even wrote an opinion piece this week for the New York Times titled: "I'm The Governor Of Kentucky. Here's How Democrats Can Win Again." He's got a longer way to go to build name recognition than Newsom or Pritzker, which is probably why he wrote the article in the first place.
Whitmer's best asset is her feistiness, and the fact that she speaks like a regular person rather than a politician (something many Democrats struggle with). Her campaign slogan was: "Fix the damn roads," and she regularly touts her own political viewpoint as: "getting stuff done" (or a not-so-Bowdlerized version that scatologically replaces the middle word). She's very relatable, in other words, to a whole lot of people. Sad to say, however, her biggest drawback in the 2028 nominating contest is likely to be the fact that she is a woman. The Democratic Party has now run two women and one man against Donald Trump, and their combined track record is sure to be on people's minds when contemplating who should be the party's next standard-bearer. This is unfair, but true.
Shapiro is also quite popular in his own state, but much less well-known nationally, so he'd have a long way to go towards building name recognition. He could probably guarantee carrying the state of Pennsylvania, however, and that would likely be his biggest asset. He is Jewish, but religious bigotry in America seems to be at a low point (the fact that we now have only the second Catholic president in history is rarely even mentioned), so this probably wouldn't be much of a headwind for him (it certainly wasn't for Bernie Sanders, to put it another way).
The other Democratic governor who might have presidential aspirations is Tim Walz. He's built his name recognition already, thanks to being on Kamala Harris's ticket, but he shares the fact with Harris that their campaign lost. Could Walz do a better job on his own? Perhaps. Would he be interested in making the attempt? That is unknown for now, but having the name recognition would certainly make the path a lot easier for Walz.
This is probably not a definitive list, I should mention -- other Democratic governors might also decide to toss their hats in the ring as well. The ones listed here are merely the most likely to run, at least at this juncture.
[Part 2 of this article will run tomorrow, where we take a look at Democratic senators and everyone else who might be considering a presidential run.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
OH. MY. GOD!
Heh.
Seriously, though, it's not too early at all. I just think the Dems will be pretty much wasting their time for the next four years on things that are less than meaningful. Just like they did during the four years leading up the 2024 presidential election.
Chris, I think you should start making plans to be at the 2028 Democratic convention.
Because, there is a chance - negligible though it may be - that it will be unlike any other Dem convention, in every way possible.
IF the Democratic party understands enough about why their 2024 convention was a total waste of time. Actually, it was worse than that because it confirmed for a lot of voters that NOTHING would change with another Democratic administration and something definitely needed to change!
Forget the celebrities, for one thing, unless they show up to play some good LIVE music. I still can't believe that James Taylor got nixed!
And, forget the pols, too ... bring on more of the people! Not flashy and polished but real and heartfelt.
One real person for every real policy prescription to bring it all to life.
In 2028, the Dems could have real people talk about what the Biden administration did for them and, perhaps, what the Trump administration took away.
There would, presumably, be enough people and issues to fill the entire four days ... with lots of live music, of course, from a variety of performers of different genres and possibly even different political stripes, representing the entire country, state by state.
Now you've got the beginnings of what could be a real fun convention!
Hillary and Kamala are in a forever notorious club of two. And, I hope neither one of them shows up at the next Democratic convention. And that goes for their husbands, too. ;)
Ditto for the Obamas. Ahem.
Finally, if Chelsea Clinton shows up in Part Two or, God forbid, Part Three ... you'll feel my own version of The Scream. Seriously.
Actually, in [9] I meant the 2028 Democratic convention, not the Democratic primary. That would really finish me. :)
WOW! :D
Liz, you have definitely been hanging around me too long.. :D
Caddy,
I am impressed. Truly I am..
Now let's keep this going.. :D
Remember when Democrats claimed to believe in Free Speech and other freedoms as a matter of principle? HA..
Hey, it's better than watching Donald Trump make cabinet picks, right?
OR... You could actually be commenting on the cabinet pics and congratulating President ELECT Trump on his great selections...
Hell, even the harpies on THE VIEW have said that President ELECT Trump is making some great picks...
But I understand why ya can't do that. PTDS and all..
Newsom picks very public fights with Republicans, and he will do so with an absolute frenzy once Trump takes office again. California will take the lead on suing the Trump administration in court, in the same way that Texas is usually the first Republican state to sue to block Democratic policies they don't support. Newsom just called a special session of the California legislature just to pass some stuff to combat Trump with (such as an increase in the budget for the attorney general, to handle the increased caseload expected). This is a purely political stunt, designed (as with lots of things Newsom does) to get Newsom's name and face out there on a national level as the one leading the charge against Trump.
SO.... What you are saying is that when a REPUBLICAN Governor sues a DEMOCRAT POTUS that's treasonous...
But when a DEMOCRAT Governor sues a REPUBLICAN POTUS, that's good politics...
Hypocrisy. It's not a bug in Democrat programming. It's a feature..
:eyeroll:
The other Democratic governor who might have presidential aspirations is Tim Walz. He's built his name recognition already, thanks to being on Kamala Harris's ticket, but he shares the fact with Harris that their campaign lost. Could Walz do a better job on his own? Perhaps. Would he be interested in making the attempt? That is unknown for now, but having the name recognition would certainly make the path a lot easier for Walz.
Walz's negatives are part of the reason Harris lost..
Walz is a non-starter if he were to run for POTUS.. People will remember how JD Vance totally slaughtered Walz in the debate..
Take him out of the possibilities and stick a fork in him. He's done..
President ELECT Trump is making his cabinet picks at break-neck speed, eh!?? :D
Right off the bat, President ELECT Trump is showing us he learned his lessons from 2016. Not gonna give the criminally partisan Leftist Media time to denigrate his picks one by one..
Get them all done in a few days putting the Leftist Media in a tailspin.. :D
President ELECT Trump is getting shit done!!! :D
Even the biddies on THE VIEW are marveling how good some of President ELECT Trump's picks are..
It's going to be a hellasciously fun four years, watching President ELECT Trump run roughshod over Democrats.. :D
And President ELECT Trump is showing people how shit gets done!! :D
President ELECT Trump announced that billionaire Elon Musk and former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy will lead the Department of Government Efficiency.
President ELECT Trump said that the pair will work together to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies."
"It will become, potentially, ‘The Manhattan Project’ of our time," the announcement on Tuesday evening said. "Republican politicians have dreamed about the objectives of ‘DOGE’ for a very long time."
We very well could see the beginnings of the "Democrat Nightmare" I wrote coming true!! :D
Next stop, MARS!!!! :D
Liz,
Forget the celebrities, for one thing, unless they show up to play some good LIVE music. I still can't believe that James Taylor got nixed!
Yep, that was a really boneheaded decision on Harris' part.. Cemented the DEMOCRATS THINK OF THEMSELVES AS THE ELITE concept in the eyes of everyday Americans..
And, forget the pols, too ... bring on more of the people! Not flashy and polished but real and heartfelt.
Just like President Trump did.. President Trump worked a shift at McDonalds!!! THAT was a campaign stroke of genius!!!
And Weigantians pooh-poohed it away, but it worked EXACTLY as intended.
:D
Hillary and Kamala are in a forever notorious club of two. And, I hope neither one of them shows up at the next Democratic convention. And that goes for their husbands, too. ;)
Yep... The Clintons, the Obamas and Harris need to just disappear, if the Democrat Party knows what's good for them. They have definitely over-stayed their welcome..
And President ELECT Trump is still winning the Popular Vote by a considerably great margin... :D
That more than anything else is what hurts the Democrats... They always had that smidgen of a fact that President Trump lost the Popular Vote..
Now the Democrats don't even have that to hold onto..
Democrats are lost in the wilderness and the breadcrumbs to find their way back are gone... :D
Ya'all Democrats wanted to kill the filibuster..
Do ya'all still want to do that?? Because we can do that if ya'all really still want to.. Hmmmmmm????
Ya'all Democrats wanted to pack the Supreme Court and add Justices to it..
Do ya'all still want to do this?? Because if ya'all do, I am CERTAIN that President Trump and the GOP Senate will be MORE THAN HAPPY to accommodate ya'all… :D
I seem to recall a while ago CW said:
The filibuster has been so shamelessly abused in the past two decades that is has outlived whatever usefulness it once had. I would say it is time to make such a change.
And then I replied...
When President Trump has a FIRM control of ALL levers of government and a clear and unequivocally MANDATE from the American people, we can re-visit the issue and see if you are STILL so gung-hop to get rid of the filibuster...
So, let's revisit the issues..
Do ya'all STILL want to pack the SCOTUS and get rid of the filibuster???
Or are you saying that it was NOTHING but a partisan trick that ONLY had the best interests of the Democrat Party at heart and to hell with the American people, eh??
So, which is it??
Why is CW even TALKING about 2028!!??
I thought ya'all said that President Trump was going to "destroy democracy" and that 2024 was "the last election"!!???
Were ya'all just spewing campaign rhetoric and ya'all were just bullshitting Americans????
If President Trump is going to destroy democracy and there won't be any more elections, then why even bother talking about the 2028 election that YA'ALL claimed would never happen!!??
Hmmmmmm????
This column is part of the problem.
Democrats should be focused on party-building, and on recruiting candidates for everything from drain commission to state legislature, in every district and municipality where only Republicans have been on the ballot for those offices. If we put half the budget of a losing presidential campaign into pizza and flyers for monthly meetings of county party chapters, and had those people actually do stuff to reach out to their apolitical neighbors, we could have a situation where even Hillary Clinton or Martha Coakley could have a chance of winning.
Dan
That would require a whole re-alignment of the Democrat Party psyche to get to where Democrats actually CARED about something other than themselves and their power and their Trump/America hate..
That's not going to happen...
let's say for the sake of argument that the republicans actually do kill the filibuster. would that really necessarily be a bad thing? donald and the maga types would pass their policy, and when they overreached (as all administrations do when confronted with a government they fully dominate), dems would sweep in their policy the same way in the next cycle. and republicans the following cycle, and so on.
JL,
Are you saying that this huge policy flip flop for the country is a GOOD thing??
Further, what if the GOP, once they get rid of the filibuster, make such huge policy changes that they insure government dominance by the GOP for a thousand years?? That's what Democrats wanted to do..
The filibuster is a GOOD thing because it eliminates the tyranny of the majority..
It's a good thing regardless of who is in power and needs to be preserved..
Having said that, it would serve Democrats right to have the GOP eliminate the filibuster while the GOP was in power..
"THERE! Ya'all got what you wanted!! Are ya happy now??!!"
-GOP TO DEMOCRATS
I'm not weighing in on whether it's good or bad because frankly I'm not sure. my point is just that it would most likely even out over time
And I am saying it would be very very bad precisely because it WOULDN'T even out over time.
With one faction holding a lock on all levers of power a filibuster-less Senate could arrange things so that they would have absolute power in perpetuity.
Matt Gaetz is Trump’s pick for AG?!?! Trump thinks the best person to run the Justice Department is a serial child-fucher! It is such a shame that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide; I’m sure he would have been an even better choice based on Trump’s standards.