Posing, Posturing, & Positioning: 2028 Democratic Presidential Candidates

1904 Olympic marathon start. Photo by Nathan Lazarnick, New York, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Since Jaybird so graciously offered to help Team Blue out with their current messaging and branding issues, I’m inspired to try and help our friends of the Loyal Order and PartY of the Donkey out a bit as the stirring of potential candidates begins to take shape.
First off, let us check in on former mayor and former Secretary of Transportation Pett Buttigieg:
From Politico, among reports that the recent transplant to Michigan would be passing on potential runs at governor and the US Senate for the Wolverine state.
Buttigieg’s decision reshapes the Senate primary for a seat Democrats are desperate to hold after President Donald Trump won Michigan in November. State Sen. Mallory McMorrow told fellow Michigan Democrats she will run for the seat. And Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) has taken steps toward a Senate run, including hiring staff.
“He wanted to decide quickly enough to give other folks a chance to mobilize if they wanted to run,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), who talked with Buttigieg several times as he made up his mind. “He handled it responsibly. He’s a rising star in the Democratic Party.”
Now Buttigieg is eyeing another presidential run in 2028, a contest that sees him polling behind only his party’s most recent standard bearer, former Vice President Kamala Harris, who is weighing a potential gubernatorial bid in California.
He also has maintained a robust fundraising network in the party, having raised more than $15 million for the Harris-Walz campaign last year.
If he runs for president, Buttigieg could be hampered by his involvement in an unpopular Biden administration. But there are other factors in the post-2024 landscape that could favor him. At a time when the Democratic Party is searching for new ways and places to reach voters, Buttigieg has long made those efforts central to his political project.
As he considers a run, he’s started to become more visible in recent days, something a person familiar with his strategy said will continue.
Meanwhile current Governor of California, and perennially rumored to want to run for president, Gavin Newsom has fired up a side hustle many take to be campaign adjacent; his own podcast pending the release of a memoir that will make his third book.
And LA Times columnist Barabak is not impressed:
His new podcast debuted last week, featuring the MAGA megaphone and provocateur Charlie Kirk, and it immediately drew the nationwide attention Newsom desperately craves, and then some. His statement that transgender girls and women participating in female sports leagues is “deeply unfair” produced screaming headlines — this from a longtime champion of LGBTQ+ rights, no less — and acres of analyses from the political commentariat and those inhabiting social media.
The collision of sports and gender is sure to be litigated at length as Democrats wander the wilderness in the months and years leading up to the 2028 presidential campaign. Newsom has laid down his marker.
What was less noted after that first episode was the fawning and flattery — “Your success!” “Your influence!” — Newsom bestowed upon Kirk during an hour-plus, velvet-gloved belly rub.
Kirk has a history of making false and outlandish statements, echoing President Trump’s lies about the 2020 election being stolen, promoting antisemitic tropes and stoking racial discord, among other ingredients of his political celebrityhood.
You’d hardly know it, however, listening to his chummy chat with the starry-eyed Newsom. It is quite commendable to hold a civil conversation with those who have different political viewpoints. As a deeply polarized culture and society, we could use a lot more of that dialogue.
But congeniality is one thing. It’s another to sound as though you’ve been co-opted, yukking it up and nodding along to Kirk’s worshipful treatment of Trump, his anti-public health views and expressions of right-wing victimhood. In the words of one national Democratic strategist, who did not want to be identified criticizing the governor, “It seemed like the two were brothers in arms.”
Or at least awfully good buds.
The second installment of Newsom’s vanity project, released this week, featured an amiable chat with Michael Savage, the Marin County-based broadcaster, conservative agitator and author who has a history replete with anti-gay, anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim remarks.
You’d have to listen closely, however, to discern any major differences as Newsom chortled his way through a discussion of taxes, immigration, Savage’s climate-change denialism, his celebration of Tucker Carlson and the discrimination that Savage said he’s suffered as a white male.
“I agree,” Newsom said when Savage related a trip on Air Force One during which he was served a hot dog, and suggested Trump was actually a “very sensitive guy to other people.”
Never mind the insults the puerile president constantly dishes out, the demeaning nicknames he assigns — like “Newscum” — or the president’s heartless approach to governing. At least, Savage noted, it was a kosher dog.
“This Is Gavin Newsom” is full-on cringe. With its forced bonhomie, the show is neither informative nor engaging. It delivers all the pleasures of a bad office party.
Cuddling up to the Charlie Kirks of the world and truckling to the Michael Savages — “you’re the most entertaining person and personality … and storyteller on the radio!” Newsom gushed — is also a strange way to try to build national support among fellow Democrats.
If Newsom really hopes to be president someday, the best thing he could do is a bang-up job in his final 22 months as governor. Not waste time on glib and self-flattering diversions. People have told Newsom as much. But the only voice he seems to care about his own.
Meanwhile, Illinois Governor JB Pitzker is nominally choosing between running for a third term or running for president, while “tapping down” the latter with a trip to New Hampshire and a slew of media hits where he is depicting himself as a potential leader for the Democratic Party:
Pritzker will headline the New Hampshire Democratic Party’s McIntyre-Shaheen 100-Club Dinner on April 27 in Manchester. Pritzker’s team said the fundraiser is one of several speaking invitations he’s received so far this year. He plans to focus on the threat of Medicaid cuts, the impacts of Musk’s federal government gutting, and its impact on everyday Americans, aides said.
The Democratic governor has upped his national media exposure this year, including interviews on ABC’s “The View,” CNN and MSNBC, as well as appearances on popular podcasts, including “The Blueprint with Jen Psaki,” “American Fever Dream,” and “Raging Moderates.”
In his joint State of the State and budget address last month, Pritzker claimed he isn’t sounding the alarm because of his “ambitions,” but more so because of a moral obligation.
“My oath is to the Constitution of our state and of our country. We don’t have kings in America, and I don’t intend to bend the knee to one,” Pritzker said. “I am not speaking up in service to my ambitions — but in deference to my obligations.”
The governor spoke before the New Hampshire Democrats in June 2022, which sparked speculation of a White House bid. At the time, Pritzker aides tried to quell the talk of presidential aspirations, saying the trip was intended to help support Democrats in their fight for reproductive rights.
Prior to 2024, New Hampshire served as the first-in-the-nation primary and Iowa served as the first-in-the-nation caucuses. But last year, Democrats opted to give South Carolina the top spot, followed by Nevada, Georgia and Michigan, in an effort to give diverse populations more of an early voice in the long slog of an election year. A new primary calendar — which helps determine where presidential candidates must spend their money and time — is something the Democratic National Committee will explore for the 2028 cycle.
Pritzker was on a short list of Democrats under consideration to join Kamala Harris’ campaign as her vice presidential pick, but Harris chose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz.
And the most recent candidate for Team Blue for the Oval Office has folks wondering which of two fires former VP Kamala Harris will put her political iron:
Former Vice President Kamala Harris is seriously considering a run for governor of California — and has given herself a deadline to decide.
At a pre-Oscars party last weekend, Harris was asked by another partygoer when she would make a decision about jumping into the California governor’s race. She gave a definitive answer, according to two people with knowledge of the conversation: the end of the summer.
And in calls to supporters, allies and trusted aides in recent weeks, Harris has made clear that she plans to make a decision in a few months.
Harris’ timeline, reported here first, is the clearest indication to date that she may enter the race to succeed the termed-out Gavin Newsom in the Golden State. And, allies said, a win would almost certainly take a 2028 presidential run — which Harris is still mulling — off the table.
Harris maintains significant leads in early national polls of the field of possible candidates, yet she’s had some frank conversations with advisers and confidants in Washington about how difficult they expect the presidential primary to be.
Harris aides note she has long been intrigued by the idea of being the chief executive of the fifth-largest economy in the world and the first Black woman to be governor in America.
Harris’ public appearances since leaving office point to a politician who sees a future as a Democratic Party leader — from one coast or another.
Over the last few weeks, she made an appearance at the NAACP Image Awards to accept the Chairman’s prize. She is headed to Las Vegas, which is in an early primary state, this weekend for a moderated conversation about artificial intelligence and talking with advisers about other ways to keep her name in the national conversation.
Harris has also kept on some of her most senior and trusted aides under her newly formed organization Pioneer49, including chief of staff Sheila Nix and senior advisers Kirsten Allen and Ike Irby. Longtime advisers Brian Nelson and Minyon Moore as well as her White House chief of staff Lorraine Voles all remain key parts of her informal kitchen cabinet. Other top aides in California are waiting for the signal from Harris to engage. Since losing the election, Harris has told all her aides and allies to keep every possible path open.
“I am staying in this fight,” she repeated to allies in phone calls and at private gatherings.
So, who are you keeping an eye on, want to run, don’t want to run, or at least find interesting as we barrel towards 2028?
What does the future of the Democratic Party look like?
Is it skilled members of the Professional Managerial Class who demonstrate the best ability to act like a Project Manager able to herd the cats of all of the bureaucrats?
Is it a firebrand capable of whipping up the masses?
Is it Kamala Harris? I understand that she made zero mistakes in her last campaign for president (outside of the “nobody’s perfect” level nitpicks that are inevitable) and the only problem was that she didn’t have enough runway and Trump has demonstrated that you can win an election after losing one.
In 2012, Romney was a pretty good candidate and might have been a perfect candidate if you could drop him in the middle of 1996.
But all of the names listed above strike me as having a similar problem. Newsom would have been perfect in 2016! Pritzker? Perfect in 2016! Buttigieg doesn’t strike me as presidential quite yet… He might make a perfect VP, though. (Of course, maybe he’s paper-thin and would just be a gay Dan Quayle… at least he’d have the press on his side.)
The big problem the dems have is that they’re trying to go through their bench and find the guy best suited to win in 2016 and not the best guy for 2028.
But Pritzker, out of all of those, strikes me as the most capable of taking on Vance.Report
With the exception of Newsom, who is a proper ghoul, devoid of anything resembling a conscience, this looks like the most boring stable of candidates possible, comprised people who will run almost entirely on the message “Hey, at least we’re not Trump!”
Wouldn’t it be nice if there were potential presidential candidates in the party who had ideas, principles, even a message? That there aren’t is an indictment of the entire party. The Democratic Party delenda est.Report
In normal times, “I’m not Donald Trump.” ought to net you exactly 100% of the electorate. Alas, we live in more interesting times.Report
Imagine a candidate asking “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead?”
But, like, really asking this. Like, they’re actually interested in an answer.Report
The biggest difference I think voters see between Trump and Not Trump is not so much that Trump is selling a revanchist, nationalist, authoritarianism, but that he’s selling something, anything, to people who felt like neither party, outside of Trump, was selling much of anything. How bad must things be for people that selling anything, even far right authoritarianism, is better than selling nothing? Bad enough, I’d wager, that a bunch of Not Trump candidates with nothing to sell have little chance of defeating anyone in the Trump mold in 2028, so long as Trump hasn’t plunged us into the apocalypse between now and then.
I keep harping on this point, but the Democrats had their own candidate selling things that were not revanchist, were not nationalist, and were not authoritarian, and that could have had a huge impact on people’s lives, but the Democrats thoroughly defeated him, to the point that he’s now basically exiled, touring the Midwest giving speeches to overflow crowds who want to hear his message of a social democratic change that makes the government work for them, and not for the wealthy.
I know the most popular narrative around here is that the Democrats lost because they went too far left, but do you think people who were offered the choice between a nihilistic billionaire authoritarian who did a half-assed coup attempt and then spent the last 4 years treating becoming president again as an opportunity to get personal revenge, whatever the cost to the American people, and somebody who tells them they should never have to go bankrupt because they or a family member got sick, and that billionaires should pay their fair share of taxes, are going to choose the former because of pronouns in people’s email signatures and a half a dozen trans college athletes?Report
I completely agree with you. The problem America has is 2-fold, in my opinion.
First, the Electoral College disenfranchises a huge swath of the American electorate. Blue voters in red states and red voters in blue states may as well stay home. Because of its continued existence, America is teetering on, if it’s not already there, permanent minority rule. When was the last 50 state presidential campaign?
Second, the House is too small, resulting in a sclerotic Dem/Rep division of the spoils. State legislatures can gerrymander districts to get the outcomes the controlling parties like, resulting in relatively few competitive seats. When this country was founded each representative had about 60,000 people in his district. Today, it’s nearly 700,000. Who’s going to be responsive to that many people?Report