Are they serious about these Democrat candidates for 2028?
I increasingly find that the vast majority of political analyses I come across are just plain stupid, and transparently so. And yes, that’s been the case since I began blogging twenty (!) years ago. But still, it’s gotten significantly worse.
It’s not just that news has become almost entirely propaganda, although that’s true. It’s that the propaganda is unconvincing on the face of it, ignoring the obvious. I once read that Soviet propaganda was like that – not meant to convince, but rather meant to tease and insult because the public knew it wasn’t true but it was an assertion of power: “See? We lie to you all the time and there’s nothing you can do about it.”
As I think I’ve said before, analyses of Kamala Harris’ loss skip her all-too-obvious failings for the most part. And why? Is it just that her identity groups – female, person of color – make her untouchable on a personal level?
Which brings us to this article at The Hill, listing possible Democrat presidential candidates in 2028. Who leads the way? Why, Kamala Harris, that’s who:
… Harris showed that she could run an impressive campaign even in the short time she was in the race, according those pining for another run.
The vice president’s political instincts have also grown, and she now has the understanding and experience of someone who has run a $1 billion campaign.
Well, it sure impressed me – with how inarticulate and inauthentic she is. And that one billion – well, totally squandered in payments to stars and Oprah’s company and people like Sharpton, and who knows what else. Granted, the article does mention that, but much later on, and in a tangential way:
Harris also led a billion-dollar campaign that lost. And her campaign was far from perfect.
It’s not just that she lost; it’s that the money was totally mishandled and used for grift, and there seems to be no accountability. Is that so hard to say? Apparently it would ruffle too many feathers.
Other suggested candidates listed in order of appearance: Newsom, Whitmer, Shapiro, Buttigeg, Pritzker, and AOC. Quite a crew. And as part of the discussion of Whitmer, there’s no mention of her behavior during the COVID lockdowns, which I believe makes her exceedingly vulnerable, and a “Democratic strategist” named Christy Setzer says the following re Whitmer:
I think Harris ran a much better race than anyone could’ve asked for, [but] the obvious takeaway is going to be that we shouldn’t run a woman of color or a woman at all. Sucks, but I don’t see people having a different analysis.
With strategists like that, who needs … Then again, maybe Setzer is well aware that a person could have asked for a better race than the abominable and almost ludicrous one run by Kamala Harris, but it’s just not cricket to say so. And maybe Setzer is also well aware that it wasn’t the fact that Harris was a woman that caused her loss.
Oh, and the article manages to analyze Josh Shapiro’s chances in 2028 without even mentioning that the current Democrat Party would never run a Jewish person who supports Israel.
Nevertheless, people get paid to write this garbage.
[NOTE: And here it is – the tag “Election 2028.”]
I looked to see if this was an opinion piece, but it appears to be “reporting.” If this is all the Dems have, they’re in real trouble, which is fine with me.
One of hillarys hagiographers pay her no mind
The bits and pieces I’ve encountered suggest Harris is serious about running in 2028. Inasmuch as that adjective applies to Harris.
But she’s already created the first 2028 Republican attack with her bizarre recent appearance:
–“‘Finally un-bourbon-ed by what has been’: Kamala’s ‘drunk’ video message appearance mocked”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVl4C5VyJeI
“Un-bourbon-ed by what has been … ” 🙂
It’s got a beat. You can dance to it.
That’s hilarious, huxley!
Re: Harris “drunk”
It’s one thing to have filmed such an unflattering performance. It’s another to have it aired.
The best explanation I’ve encountered is that some disgruntled Harris underling said, “Suuuure… Broadcast that one. [evil laugh]”
The Dems are still grieving. I think we will have some clarity as to who they are getting behind by the mid-terms in 2026. For now, it is all entertainment for me.
About the only thing I think you can say pretty confidently about the candidates from the two major parties in 2028 is that neither will be elderly. I’ve talked to a few different people who were big Trump fans who have gone out of their way to say that after him they are through with super old candidates.
If the Democrats refuse or otherwise fail to objectively assess and analyze why Kamala lost in 2024 then they will be doomed to lose in 2028. Harris did not run a good campaign, even with the qualifier that it was abbreviated. The most recent indicator of her and her people’s cluelessness is that “drunk” video – they put it out, it wasn’t hacked or leaked, so they clearly didn’t understand how poorly it would be received.
As for 2028, that is a long time from now. Trump hasn’t even taken office yet. Speculating as to who will be the nominee, from either party, is just silly. No one that has life outside politics (most of us) is currently thinking about such things.
Please recall that the line up of Democratic presidential candidates in 2019 included three men who had founded lucrative businesses, two men who had experience both as business executives and public executives, and a state governor who had successfully appealed to a red state electorate. Democratic voters took a glance at Michael Bloomberg (both a business founder and a business executive) and ignored the rest. The candidates who were competitive were Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden. They then proceeded to nominate Biden, the worst of the bunch. Partisan Democrats do not give a rip about accomplishment or experience. Idiocracy is now.
Assertion, from “steve+walsh”:
As for 2028, that is a long time from now. Trump hasn’t even taken office yet. Speculating as to who will be the nominee, from either party, is just silly. No one that has life outside politics (most of us) is currently thinking about such things.
Preemptive rejoinder, from Neo:
[NOTE: And here it is – the tag “Election 2028.”]
Hee hee! Also sad …
Democrats are not doomed to lose. About 45% of the electorate would vote Democratic if they nominated an orangutan. A few swing voters and some ballot harvesting and they get what they want.
Christy Setzer earns her keep hustling aspirant Democratic office-holders. Idiocracy is now.
Nikki Haley was my last try for a Republican woman president. GOP’s power base (MAGA) just isn’t ready for a woman or any person of color…simple fact.
If Trump sells or gives Ukraine away to the Russians—then I will be voting against the GOP in at least 2026 & 2028. Am thinking the DEM’s Child Butchery agenda is headed for some remote trash heap after this recent election.
Interesting to see that The Hill has Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez listed. Have been working on a AOC post for sometime now—much too disruptive for this blog, but my Musings & Tech then copied to X account will do fine (when ready).
Way early still, but I believe AOC can smoke The Hill’s list of candidates—all listed ahead of her, BTW. When I finally believed that Michelle Obama was NOT INTERESTED in running—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was perched quietly in ‘The Catbird Seat’.
Am allowing Trump to change…am watching AOC closely for even a tad of change. If Trump & GOP start failing again, then AOC could be *HOT HOT HOT* in 2028…
Karmi must be smoking something powerful.
As for Ukraine, I don’t care about it. Never an ally of ours, purveyors of corruption to Biden and his friends, I dont want another $ spent on them. We have real friends to support.
And AOC? You seriously think she’s viable? Better keep whatever day job you have.
Bill
“corruption” – Funny, coming from an American. Ditto on the Funny when considering that a President of the United States of America approached a foreign Govt—offering more arms support for it if they would rat out his Political Opponent. That’s about as corrupt as it gets…
Regardless of their negatives, Newsom and Whitmer are the only politically viable nominees from that list. If Trump manages to effect real changes that result in positive results, J. D. Vance will easily win the 2028 election. Granted, that encompasses a lot of ‘ifs’.
Karmi, the truth is that conservatives, Republicans, MAGA, or whatever you want to call them, do not make voting decisions based upon race or sex. The base would be very happy to accept a female or someone of non-European ancestry if that candidate’s policy preferences were congruent with what the base wants.