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.
When will Schumer’s term be up? He’s 74 now. AOC could run against him next time, use a win to spring board WH run.
To me, it is frightening just how many did vote for Harris. Rep have to keep the swing states to win, inthe long time future.
We have real friends to support.
Who, pray tell, might they be?
All nations are more or less corrupt. The U.S. included. I don’t care that Ukraine is corrupt, more or less. It is strategically significant in the Great Game. Putin, and Russia, must be confronted and brought to heel, or something like it, and Ukraine is the place to do it. In the Second World War we allied ourselves with two of the most corrupt nation in history: the Soviet Union and China. It was necessary to do so. You all know why.
I have a soft spot for Ukraine, i.e. for Ukrainians, i.e., for Ukrainian females. In my youth I had a fling with a Ukie girl from — where else? — Ukrainian Village in Chicago. Long blond hair and a wonderfully curvy figure. Ah memories. Ukraine is home to some of the most beautiful women on the planet, and I for one think it would be a shame to lose them to Russia.
2028 he lives in fear of a challenge from the squad thats why hes signed onto the so called woke agenda
With the four seats that they stole this election jd will have to break most ties on nominees and legislation
What will they be offering in 2028 that will be appealing to most
She spent twice as much as hillary and loat by a larger moment i know they live in a world of make believe but seriously
Theres no integrity to miss parnes she went from politico to the times and now the Hill (another one of the former miss jobs sinecures)
They forced out john solomon because he had the receipts on a whole host of elements like those figures like podesta who were actually on Russias payroll
Miguel,
How is Vance going to have to break ties in a 53-47 senate? Might there be some, yeah sure, but the real issue is the house which is going to be 217-215, so one seat majority, until the three replacement elections take place in 2-3 months. And the house doesn’t confirm nominees and the VP has nothing to do with that. The Republicans are going to really need perfect attendance to pass much of anything in the house.
Ah the clown car of 2020, run two. I remember how each primary had someone else flare up, only to burn out by the next. Biden won by default or possibly underhanded skullduggery.
Are you required to be evil, to get to the top of the Democrat tree? It sure seems that way.
So many templates are ‘not even wrong’
Neo.
WRT your last sentence…. and some body thinks others will pay to read it.
Agree about holding in Ukraine. It’s not about Ukraine. It’s about convincing Putin not to try it again someplace else. Ukraine just has the luck to be the classroom.
Not sure what it will take to convince Putin, but perhaps his pension is vested or something.
1000 times this!
About the only Democrat of note who is even making an attempt to figure out what went wrong is John Fetterman. I don’t think any of the names listed in the article will be serious contenders. Of course much depends on what happens in the next couple of years. If Trump is at all successful, it won’t much matter who runs against JD Vance.
Kamala’s race and sex shield her from what would ordinarily be some fairly harsh criticism but I don’t think anybody thinks she has a political future. She will just quietly fade away and join the ranks of obscure former VPs like Dan Quayle.
We are going through a major political realignment right now and most Democrats (and many Republicans) don’t have a clue about what is happening. I think the next Democrat president has yet to appear on anybody’s radar.
@ Gregory Harper > “We are going through a major political realignment right now and most Democrats (and many Republicans) don’t have a clue about what is happening. I think the next Democrat president has yet to appear on anybody’s radar.”
Agreed with all three statements.
In re “don’t have a clue” — there are a few Democrats who do, and they get kicked out of the tent for “speaking truth to power” in the current Party, because of the major realignment kicked off by Obama’s two terms.
IMO he was the tipping point, not the initiator; to the socialists, he was the one they were waiting for to get their hands on enough power to fundamentally transform society. I don’t think they realized that the process of making that transformation would run them so far into left field (ahem) that the majority of the country, and a lot of their “captive” demographic blocks, would run back to the right.
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2024/11/29/if-democrats-listen-to-this-lawmaker-republicans-might-be-in-trouble-in-the-future-n2182623
Don’t get fooled into thinking Moulton is turning conservative, he is not (his policy positions, in the omitted portion, are standard for any pre-Obama Democrat).
But he IS pointing out where the Democrats ran off the rails, and how they can get back on — if they listen to him.
I note that he is NOT in the list of potential candidates for 2028, yet, but wiser heads (and donors) could prevail over the next 4 years.
Speaking of Obama, he was not on anyone’s radar, except for his handlers’, until that “break through” (and undoubtedly carefully planned) speech in 2004.
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2004dnc.htm
I see close to zero evidence that Democrats are listening to voices of sanity like Moulton. Those who say Kamala ran a great campaign and lost because Americans are racist and sexist are firmly in charge. I am reminded of a line from Citizen Kane: “You’re going to need more than one lesson. And you’re going to get more than one lesson.”
It’s not too early to start looking at what kind of dirty tricks the Democrats will use over the next four years.
Matt Taibbi reveals some in the last four we might have vaguely guessed at, but didn’t know all the gory details.
The Save Our Democracy party really is all about getting and keeping power, and they will destroy any actual democratic institution and norm to do so, including breaking and bending any law that gets in their way.
https://www.racket.news/p/the-democrats-dirty-tricks-playbook
(Some paragraphing added.)
I’m not a lawyer, but surely that kind of blatant forgery is illegal in some way.
And if not, it should be!
More details follow, and the dirty tricks get more and more serious.
I remember reading about the Maine operation, but without knowing the background.
It’s only “striking” if you haven’t followed the long list of stories (over at least the 20 years I’ve been following the news relatively closely) showing how hypocritical the Democrats are about their stances on just about everything, but especially on what used to be their core principles (see the Moulton story I posted above).
Surprisingly, the DOJ was not quick to jump on these examples of election interference. I’m sure you are all surprised.
As soon as No Labels dropped all their efforts to get on the ballots, the focus of the obstruction moved to RFK jr and others.
They were not “forgetting” but deliberately ignoring both ethics and laws.
The chicanery continued.
So, Matt shows them to you.
If someone had told the public, as Scherer apparently did, what the Democrats had seriously proposed doing, no one would have believed it without seeing the documents.
As with Kamala’s promises to use taxpayer funds to cover sex-changes for prisoners, even with the proof in front of them, some people still won’t believe it.
Those people know exactly what they would see in the mirror; it’s the Independent voters and LIV Democrats who are getting a long look at them now, and who showed on November 5th that they don’t like what they are seeing.
Stopping the opposition is not limited to Trump.
The Democrats will use the same kind of dirty tricks to undermine ANY Republican candidate; they have already field-tested a lot of weapons on candidates for other offices over the years.
If the Democrat leaders stay with this election strategy, and refine it to be more successful, they really don’t care who runs as their figurehead president in 2028.
In fact, a serious candidate who won would just mess up the plan.
“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.”
But, but, but! Crooked Hillary (but probably with a new Scooby van) wants to run again. She was robbed last time!!!
Name recognition.
Get back to us in about 18 months. Usual Suspect + 1 or 2 relative unknowns.
Don’t look now, Dems, but the Trump Cabinet is stuffed with young, energetic people.
So much depends on what happens over the next 4 years and I will never underestimate what the left may be capable of. But I will say it seems clear that a majority of people are at least skeptical of the legacy media, if not outright distrusting of them completely.
And at this point I think most of the media propagandists and deep state operatives are still trying to figure out the new order of things and how best to proceed. Many of them will doubtless attempt to continue to fabricate lies and narratives, but whether any of those attempts will bear any fruit anymore remains to be seen. It may be that most oridinary citizens will dismiss such attempts, but at this point it’s impossible to know.
Then there’s the larger world to consider. A lot is likely to happen in the coming years. There could be wars and financial crises, maybe even likely. And depending on how this admistration faces such things, there will likely be opportunities for the opposition.
In re “don’t have a clue” — there are a few Democrats who do, and they get kicked out of the tent for “speaking truth to power” in the current Party, because of the major realignment kicked off by Obama’s two terms. — AesopFan
The “get kicked out of the tent” part is in keeping with my thinking on this.
neo does a good job pointing out the disconnect between what these Dem “strategist” people are saying and the realities of a good or bad campaign.
However, I believe the most important thing about the Democrat party is the upper power structure, how that power is wielded behind closed doors, and that everyone in the party demonstrates fealty to that power. Kamala played the game according to their rules. That she did it badly is secondary. “She just needs better media coaches and a lot more coaching,” they will think.
And naturally she has name recognition now. But it’s certainly possible that some charismatic pol can come along and displace her.
I didn’t think much of obama, once I discovered where he came from, well that made me anxious, environment plays a large part, they played the obama card in this camoaign, but the candidate was too lazy to employ it properly, they came from similar left wing venues, mr harris was a more accomplished version of barack sr, not burdened by personal habits,
I thought him being born here, I found the whole birth certificate kerfluffle foolish and beside the point, (hillary couldn’t challenge him on the merits of his policies,)
I think any candidate from their whole perspective slate, whitmer pritzker and co would be laboring under an enormous weight, but in four years time perhaps not, with obama the fortuitous collapse of lehman brothers, cleared the path for him, that an mccains lackluster performance, a dozen years later another
deus ex machina, enabled the theft of the nation,
I think Karmi is on to something with AOC. The Dem base loves her, and she would be the Bernie of 2028. Would the party elders be able to push her out of the way like they did to Bernie? I think it would very difficult to do so.
Kamala will likely run (as it looks from 2024), but I recall in 2019 she got nowhere, fast. When in a crowd of choices she does poorly, and if AOC is in the mix she gets the female voters. I believe that Kamala is history, politically speaking.
I don’t like saying this, but AOC could run and win, primary and general. As Art Deco points out, any Dem has a 45% base in the general. That’s where she starts. And she’s photogenic, power-hungry, and she has the fire (as in hate) in the belly that the modern left loves.
So, does she go for it? I think the tell will be if she gets some braces between now and 2026.
I think it will be Wes Moore. He’s black, young, thin, neat, clean, articulate, and doesn’t have an accent except when he wants to. How can you beat that?
Telemachus
Like former Trump Treasury official Monica Crowley said: ‘However, just a word of warning to the Republicans, to my party: Do not underestimate AOC. She’s young, she’s vibrant, she’s attractive.‘
I could never stand her…then I admired her fight & courage even tho I couldn’t stand her. Then I started researching her after Kamala Harris became the DEM’s candidate, and clearly Michelle Obama didn’t want anything to do with the presidency…didn’t think much of her still, but she had stood in defense of American Jews (losing important support) – she had caught my attention, and not because of her looks.
Then The Hill article that neo linked to, which I had already seen, and that one article rapidly spread to many other articles about AOC may run in 2028. News that went around the world amazingly quick!?
Just posted – THIS after finalizing my research.
Well, I actually like her now. Just turned 35 – making her eligible for a shot at being president.
She is a lot smarter than the GOP makes her out to be. Heck, she beat some 10 term DEM in 2018/19 with grassroots and $83,000!?! She is a strong debater.
If she moves a little closer to center, drops the Child Butcher & Trans crap…
She is gonna be waiting for Trump & Vance to make a slip…
AOC may conceivably be young and vibrant but attractive? With those teeth that make a barracuda look like Snoopy? Not to mention she’s as dumb as Kamala.
@ Karmi > “If she moves a little closer to center, drops the Child Butcher & Trans crap”
Gonna be hard for any Democrat to drop that agenda unless the entire Party links arms and puts the trans-activists outside the power loop.
https://notthebee.com/takes/welp-lib-journalist-aaron-rupar-helped-build-the-trans-monster-that-just-came-to-eat-him
“She is a lot smarter than the GOP makes her out to be. Heck, she beat some 10 term DEM in 2018/19 with grassroots and $83,000!?! She is a strong debater.”
I think she is smarter than Kamala; she is certainly more articulate.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-face-the-nation-full-transcript-09-24-2023/
However, I doubt that she won her first election on her own merits. I didn’t follow that event closely enough at the time, but I suspect there is an analogue to Obama’s mentors/handlers behind her career.
One fact check from 2018:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17506970/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-primary-new-york
“She eventually fundraised about $600,000 through small-dollar donors.”
And note that she had some well-connected people in her corner, who might possibly have had either personal or ideological reasons to oust Crowley.
Oops – missed a blockquote close after the chopped liver line.
However, that segues into another important part of the Vox post, which has interesting resonance this month.
At the end of the, the author offers an explanation of AOC’s win in 2018, which omits any kind of back-stage hanky-panky by opposing power-brokers, and might even be correct:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/26/17506970/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-joe-crowley-primary-new-york
I agree the complacent Democrat establishment took their voters for granted in 2018, as they have for decades; they kept doing that all the way to 2024.
And progressives, whether of color or not, have certainly reshaped the party, beginning with Obama.
However, if their voters got pulled to the Left in 2018 (and arguably 2020 & 2022), they were catapulted to the Right in 2024 — because the Democrats doubled down on ignoring their base voters in favor of their niche activists, instead of mending the fences that AOC and others stampeded through.
As we have mentioned many times here since November 5, they don’t seem to be interested in mending any fences now either.
Which is fine.
AesopFan on November 30, 2024 at 3:06 am
Great comment about the Democrat’s dirty tricks, etc. Your focused and dedicated searches and analyses of several issues benefits all of us here at Neo’s blog. Thank you for your efforts.
If the original No Labels group does not manage to surface enough dirty tricks to thwart the D party, perhaps someone on our side will need to create a faux 3rd party effort to help draw out those tricksters and hopefully slap them down (or into jail) with court cases and publicity. A lot will of course depend on how the media behaves or “reforms”.
@ R2L > ” perhaps someone on our side will need to create a faux 3rd party effort to help draw out those tricksters and hopefully slap them down (or into jail) with court cases and publicity”
I think the courts would throw out a “fake” case; although they have accepted them against bakers and florists where LGBTX activists deliberately provoked a quasi-illegal response, somehow that only seems to work for Democrats.
However, the situation positively screams for James O’Keefe to work his magic and get some of the tricksters to boast on camera of their exploits.
Somehow, visual evidence is more convincing to the public than just reading a plaintiff’s brief.
I can’t imagine why!
“A lot will of course depend on how the media behaves or “reforms”.”
CNN and LA Times seem to be moving back to at least part-time reporting rather than full-time advocacy, although I doubt any of their employees have actually changed their convictions.
Personally, I would rather observe the reporters’ bias up-front, rather than having it slipped into an ostensibly “neutral” story. On the other hand, practicing responsible journalism might actually lead to some changes in outlook for some of them.
https://notthebee.com/article/la-times-editorial-board-brings-on-cnns-conservative-voice-scott-jennings
There’s always Dennis Kucinich.