Posing, Posturing, & Positioning: 2028 Democratic Presidential Candidates

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

You may also like...

6 Responses

  1. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    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

  2. Chris
    Ignored
    says:

    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

    • Slade the Leveller in reply to Chris
      Ignored
      says:

      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

      • Jaybird in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        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

      • Chris in reply to Slade the Leveller
        Ignored
        says:

        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

        • Slade the Leveller in reply to Chris
          Ignored
          says:

          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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *