Could there be a 2028 Democratic dark horse candidate for POTUS?

Gretchen Whitmer is not running. She was never running.

I like Cory Booker.

I like Greg Casar.

Jon Ossoff

Ossoff first has to win reelection next year, R4.

I just hope we get fair primaries, there was so much monkey business in 2016 and 2020, and no primaries in 2024.

By 2028 no one of sound mind will vote Republican.

Mark Kelly, Tammy Duckworth, Cory Booker or Andy Beshear. Make Jasmine Crockett the VP nominee.

Andy Beshear

R7 I believe that's already been true for years. But lest you forget, we're surrounded in this country by a bunch of uninformed fucking idiots with no apparent short-term memory.

Team Ossoff. And I bet he can rock a jockstrap.

Two not so dark horses:

JD Pritzker will certainly throw his hat in ring. (And self finance his whole campaign if necessary.)

And there's a reason Rahm Emanuel is suddenly popping up everywhere. He will attempt to pull the Obama machine together and run. If not for the first slot, then certainly the second.

Very slim pickings so far and none who inspire overwhelming support. I'm hoping that whoever it will be is someone as yet unnoticed or even unknown.

2028 is a crucial election because if a MAGA Party POTUS is re-elected then we will lose whatever remains by then of the country. There still might be some chance to fix some of the damage from Trump if we can take back the White House, house and senate in 2028.

Ossoff and Pritzker are Jewish like Shapiro, they might have a hard time winning over Christian Independent voters.

I am steadfast in my firm, long-held convictions -- or whatever they will be in 2028 -- and stand ready to serve the United States as its leader.

[quote] And there's a reason Rahm Emanuel is suddenly popping up everywhere. He will attempt to pull the Obama machine together and run. If not for the first slot, then certainly the second.

Based on what, his dismal track record as Mayor of Chicago? I think not.

Im betting on dark horse current and former governors who are centrists:

Roy Cooper from NC

Wes Moore from MD

And the uber long shot: Steve Bulloch from Montana

Joe Biden should have put up Antony Blinken as the presidential candidate.

Joe Biden should have done a lot of things including pulling out of the race in time for there to be a primary R18.

Mark Kelly

R19 Wifey wanted him to stay in. She seemed to have a lot of influence over him. Hey, he trusted her so there's that. It's past now.

Tim Walz

What did Big Gretch do to screw up her chances?

Do a google R23.

Andy Beshear has the highest approval rating of any Dem AND he's in a red state. He's a 'safe choice' for the skittish Dems.

AOC with Beshear as VP - or vice versa. She's Bernie's Chosen One, and I in my gut believe she mighbe able to do it. There is so much going wrong right now, and the absolute scariest of the scary are in charge and we're not even to 100 days and we are already to the secret prisons chapter.

And then there's Hungary..

But AOC is gonna be President one day, if we survive Trump, not sure when, but have felt this since the last election.

Be realistic R26. The 2028 election is too important for a "might be able to do it" candidate and then to say "oh well, at least we tried"... Fuck no.

The 2028 candidate has to be a sure-fire winner. Otherwise, we can just kiss the rest of whatever still remains of the US in 2028 away and it will never return. It will be Gilead.

This means the 2028 Democratic Party presidential candidate has to be white, male, fifties, straight, Christian, married with at least 2 children and a dog with no skeletons in the closet and no previous close association with Biden. Also the DNC cannot allow the Biden campaign advisors and staff to be involved in the 2028 campaign in any way, shape or form. Those are the cold hard facts. That's how we will win.

I don't deny that AOC has a good chance at becoming POTUS down the track. But not in 2028. I think she is more likely to be a Nancy Pelosi replacement and more useful there. That she could step into almost immediately.

R6 There was no monkey business in those years you dumb fuck.

2028 is critical for so many reasons, including the fact that it will be so more difficult to win presidential elections in the post-2030 Census years.

Actually, R24, I am the first person to refer someone to JFGI.com, but I couldn’t see anything that she did specifically that derailed her chances.

Hence my question.

Mary Trump

Honestly, I don't see any Democrats right now that could win. They're too out of touch.

George Santos

Nothing that a crashed economy cannot cure, R32.

And one must assume that R32 is IN TOUCH

R32 They're out of touch? Bitch, Republicans are off the fucking cliff. STFU.

The one who can talk the loudest and promise the most stuff will become the nominee. That’s AOC.

R5 If Ossoff wins his own race in 2026 (a real hurdle), he's a viable candidate. A Senator from the south.

Beshear... It'd not clear yet whether he has the strength/magnitism.

If Mallory McMorrow wins the MI Senate race, she'd a dark horse rising for sure.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss another possibility. Kennedy DNA and vibe.

Maryland Gov Wes Moore has the image and strength.

But I think the real dark horse might be out of the box: Mark Cuban. Don Osborn the Independent who ran for NE Senate and almost won.

[quote] Don Osborn the Independent who ran for NE Senate and almost won.

He did much better than any Democrat would have - especially with Trump at the top of the ticket - but losing by 6% is hardly almost winning.

It would help things enormously if the Dems had a celebrity run. Considering that the Rs shit on Hollywood all the time, they're the ones who keep electing failed entertainers (Sonny Bono, Arnold, Fred Grandy, Trump).

So idk - its about time the Dems ran a legit celebrity.

I’ve been advocating for Jennifer Aniston for a while.

We are still a couple of years away from the race getting serious. At this point neither Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama would have been seen as a probable nominee. Even Bill Clinton started his 1992 run thinking of it as a dry run for a later campaign. In other words, plenty of time for a dark horse to emerge, and maybe it would be better if they emerged later, still the new thing and with less time for them to be demonized by Fox etc.—just not as late as Kamala Harris and with some primary victories along the way (but given the short lead time, I thought Harris ran an excellent campaign, give or take one The View question.)

I think Beshear is the safest choice.

No women. Sorry, it sucks, but it won't be the time to take any chances.

[quote] I think Beshear is the safest choice.

Be careful of what you wish for. He has zero personality. And it's not like he's gonna win Kentucky.

Ossoff, Pritzker and Shapiro are Jewish so no way. They will lose. And I don't want anyone in the White caving in to Israel.

AOC will never win a Democratic primary. There are many Dems that never going to go far left or vote for a far left progressive.

She will never be a VP running mate either. Jasmine Crockett or Melanie Stansbury might have better of being a VP

I was hoping for Wink Martindale, but this week has not been good for me

[quote] Roy Cooper from NC

I like him. But, he's a little too old. He'll be 71 in 2028.

I think we’re already beyond fucked no matter who the nominee is.

[quote]AOC will never win a Democratic primary.

AOC has social media and messaging savvy that all of the older candidates lack. She would not be a good President, but I wouldn’t underestimate her ability to tap into disenfranchised voters and get them out to the polls.

Re: the AOC and the Left thing. Things are disrupted. The continuum is Corrupt v Competence, Oligarch v social democracy... and the conflict will be played in the posdcast/social media universe. AOC is better there than any current Dem contender.

By 2028 I perceive few will care about a "Leftist" history.

Sorry, no women need apply.

I do think it’s going to be AOC. I just have a strong feeling.

If past is prologue, Black women will pick the nominee. I don't see AOC having any special appeal to this demographic.

James Clyburn picks the nominee.

AOC can't appeal to moderate Democrats living in Midwestern or southern states. She would perform poorly in primaries in those states. She's not going to be the nominee in 2028.

The 2028 nominee will be a straight white guy who will probably pick a female running mate who is a moderate. The VP pick will be a midwestern woman who is a Congresswoman or a senator and no it won't be Elissa Slotkin or Amy Klobuchar.

*Gretchen Whitmer hiding behind a binder matching her outfit in front of the mantle filled with gold statues*

If Gretchen Whitmer's binder debacle hadn't happened, she still wouldn't have had much of chance in 2028. She has a lesbian daughter which would turn off some swing voters.

And it’s probably the lesbian daughter who was always the firm no vote on a presidential bid.

They didn’t understand me and I was second stepdaughter.

Keith has the 🍵

AOC is drawing huge crowds in Red states.

To what end, R62? It's not like she's gonna win them. In late October, I pushed back on those who were so impressed with Harris's crowds, by pointing out the great crowds McGovern was drawing at a similar stage in the '72 campaign. On his way to losing 49 states.

Cheney’s lesbian daughter didn’t matter to voters. Let’s be real- only controversial issues matter to conservative voters when it’s on Democrats. If it’s a thousand gay conservative Republicans taking rights away from us, voters DGAF.

Andy Beshear is a sure-fire way to lose. He's less exciting than Al Gore.

R65 Don’t be so sure. W was not exciting. HW Bush was NOT exciting. Republicans will struggle without Trump on the ticket. They’ve done TERRIBLE when he’s not running.

I find AOC annoying, loud, aggressive and attention-seeking. As in, she can’t hide that she is overly ambitious.

I nominate Martha Reeves instead.

AOC is too young. She’s not going to be a serious candidate.

No one could’ve predicted Clinton in ‘92 actually winning. Everyone thought Hillary had it locked in’08 by ‘05. A lot can change.

FCI, the Rhodes Scholar Bill Clinton had future president written all over him ever since being elected governor at the age of 32.

R69 It wasn’t as clear as ppl remember.

R69 No one could have seen the harm he caused.

Well, FCI, at least for political junkies like me, it was pretty apparent.

Mayor Pete.

R73 is Chasten.

Chasten calls his husband, “Peter,” R74.

R75 His peter is reportedly pretty big.

Nate Silver likes AOC's '28 chances.

Cory Booker cannot be elected because hes a closet case who has never married a woman. It's within my imagination there have been other closet case presidents but they were traditionally married. An out gay man, maybe. But a closeted gay black man. Just no.

R77, Nate is despicable. And runs about 50/50 on his predictions.

I’d like to see him shipped to the isle of Lesbos or adopted by a tribe of Amazonian like Franklin Hart. He’s a vile piece of shit.

I’ve been … TO SPACE!

You might want to dial down the outrage a tad, R79. If Nate's despicable, what does that make Trump?

Whatever politicians and suddenly cursing with gusto are running

*are suddenly cursing

Andy Beshear will heal the nation. He is just about perfect.

[quote]I nominate Martha Reeves instead.

Callin' out around the world, are you ready for a brand new beat?

Nate Silver is trolling. Plenty of people know AOC wouldn't win primaries in various states.

Jon Hamm

Can the DL PLEASE stop trying to make Andy Beshear happen? He's like if you took a men's J Crew mannequin and filled it with margarine and individually wrapped pocket protectors.

R88 -- don't think we can immediately rule out a Democrat who managed to win in Kentucky.

I'm a republican who managed to win in Massachusetts, R89, but it didn't help me win the presidency.

[quote]This means the 2028 Democratic Party presidential candidate has to be white, male, fifties, straight, Christian, married with at least 2 children and a dog with no skeletons in the closet and no previous close association with Biden.

While I completely understand and respect this perspective, there is one big hurdle: the person can not be boring.

The person has to energize people that would not normally vote to vote. They have to be interesting. They have to be entertaining. I'd say that's more important than policy to many people.

That shouldn't be the way that it is, but it's exactly where we are.

[Quote]don't think we can immediately rule out a Democrat who managed to win in Kentucky.

[quote] Andy Beshear will heal the nation. He is just about perfect

It's either him or someone will a similar personality who can appeal to a wide range of people. The usual faves like AOC or Jasmine Crockett aren't capable of doing that.

It will be AOC. She's creating a movement of people who normally don't vote but now are fed up. Much like Trump did in 2015.

AOC wouldn't be able to win over enough people in battleground states to win the electoral college.

Nobody is voting for milquetoast hee-haw Andy Beshear.

R94 Yep. 90 million eligible voters did not vote in 2024. Getting these voters to polls will be key (like Obama did in 2008 and Trump did in 2016. You can be assured that the MAGA strategists have tracked this and is the purpose the SAVE Act and other initiatives by MAGA to put up more barriers to voting.

AOC might be a draw. Someone from outside the usual political suspects needs to attract "protest" voters... Stephen A. Smith, Mark Cuban, John Stewart... someone we are thinking about yet.

[quote] Yep. 90 million eligible voters did not vote in 2024. Getting these voters to polls will be key

Unless they are more likely to vote Republican.

Trump's largest voter gains between 2020 and 2024 were Hispanic/Latino men. Hopefully the past few months and the next few years will reverse that. It's very much a, "I never thought the face eating leopards would eat MY face," kind of situation.

[quote]Unless they are more likely to vote Republican.

We have an idea that 1.8 million Democratic voters didn't vote in 2024 that did vote in 2020. It likely would have been much worse if Biden had of remained the nominee and they probably figured that out and had him step down. The goal is to play it safe but not so safe that people are put to sleep, sorry Andy Beshear.

[quote]Someone from outside the usual political suspects needs to attract "protest" voters... Stephen A. Smith, Mark Cuban, John Stewart... someone we are thinking about yet.

I thought it would be fun to run a "Deep Research" query on ChatGPT to see what it thinks based upon recent articles/polling/etc.

Most Likely to Be Nominated if They Ran: Kamala Harris and if she doesn't run then Gavin Newsom or Gretchen Whitmer.

Most Likely to Win the General: Gretchen Whitmer and if not her then Wes Moore.

Most Likely to be Nominated and Win: Gretchen Whitmer but she wouldn't beat Harris in the general because of Harris' name recognition.

What Ticket Would Wake up 90 Million Non-Voters: AOC as VP followed by Wes Moore since he'd be new. There's also Beshear or Shapiro.

Most Electable Ticket: Gretchen Whitmer and Shapiro. (With the best combo being Whitmer and Wes Moore for exciting non-voters.)

Most Exciting Ticket: AOC and Wes Moore.

I think a woman from Michigan will be POTUS someday, but it won't be Whitmer.

It will be one of these women

-Jocelyn Benson

-Haley Stevens

-Elissa Slotkin

-Hillary Scholten

-Mallory McMorrow

Dark Horses are so much fun to think about, fantasize about, but the reality is that the candidate will likely have to **already** be famous. A national profile, who has demonstrated they can raise money, is a known brand. That narrows the field to the usual suspects.

That said, I think Booker is a really intriguing idea. He's run before - which really helps.

ChatGPT did not get the memo that Whitmer’s not running for president.

ChatGPT and Meta AI are hilarious to use when put in very specific political questions or prompts. On Meta AI, I asked a question about prominent moderate female Democrats and Meta mentioned AOC as "prominent moderate Democrat".

[quote]ChatGPT did not get the memo that Whitmer’s not running for president.

She’s definitely said she has no plans to run and wants to finish her term, but she hasn’t explicitly ruled out 2028. In interviews, she’s said “never say never” and left the door open.

So technically, she hasn’t declared … but she hasn’t declined either. She's being very responsible and doing the job she has now and has made it clear that this is the only thing she's focusing on. It's way too soon for all this anyway. Who knows where we'll be in a couple of years?

[quote]ChatGPT and Meta AI are hilarious to use when put in very specific political questions or prompts.

I just had to give a presentation on this at work as they decide if we should even be using ChatGPT.

Meta AI’s reasoning is good for back-and-forth, but its search just drops snippets.

ChatGPT’s Deep Research, though, pulls full quotes, cites the source, and synthesizes the info. It doesn’t just say “Here’s what Politico said," it actually puts it in context and tells you how multiple outlets are framing it. That’s what makes it more useful for nuanced stuff, like politics or policy research.

I know they limit the use of it for Non-Paying users and (since they gave me a paid account), I can tell you it takes forever to run since it's doing some reasoning, asking the right questions, going to each article, and it will even think about how else it can see a paywalled article if it can't. It's super brilliant and also scary.

What purpose would it serve her to rule out a presidential bid so far in advance, R104?

Some congressman from California. Just read about it, some guy I’ve never heard of

That Cortez woman.

R106 Robert Garcia ?

1) Will there even be an election in 2028?

2) there are zero sure bets, at this point.

R105, I was responding to R102 who said she wasn't running. I was responding and saying, she still might. It's too soon.

R108 Robert Garcia?

Born in Peru, so no.

If AOC runs, I suspect she'll be running as Bernie's successor, the semi-official head of the Left Wing of the Democratic Party, which is fine. Hopefully, though, when she loses the primaries we can skip all the bullshit about some secret DNC plot to defy the mystical Will of the People.

And yes, anything can change this far out, but I'd still assume the nominee will be standard straight, white, male, in his fifties or sixties. All the traumas from 2024 will still be lingering, and the country will be such a wreck people will be looking for safety. Although, again, drama can be so severe that all bets are off.

R110, the longtime dean of the Lansing correspondents, Tim Skubick, who has known Whitmer a very long time, said a couple of years ago that she was not running. An observation he's reiterated in the past month. Likewise, the head of a Democratic consulting firm in Lansing was quoted recently to like effect. Sure she could change her mind, but I don't believe she's running.

[R17] I second Wes Moore. Handsome, young and no real baggage.

I also think it would be smart for Democrats to focus generally on governors instead of members of Congress. Both sides are incredibly sick of the DC folk.

I think Whitmer hates Tim Skubick. He is a condescending asshole whenever he interviews her and other elected women in office. Whitmer can barely tolerate him in interviews. I could see her telling him different things just to fuck with him.

If the dems put up another woman they are fucked. A lot of straight white men are not voting for a woman.

The Atlas Intel poll shows Buttigieg as the front runner, even ahead of Kamala. It will be a Buttigieg vs Vance matchup, and Usha vs Chasten, if Pete is still married and hasn’t moved on by then.

[quote] The Atlas Intel poll shows Buttigieg as the front runner, even ahead of Kamala.

Yes, polls this far out are always so meaningful.

[quote] I think Whitmer hates Tim Skubick. He is a condescending asshole whenever he interviews her and other elected women in office. Whitmer can barely tolerate him in interviews. I could see her telling him different things just to fuck with him.

Skubick interviewing Whitmer in 2020.

Yesterday's WSJ headline:

America’s Second-Richest Elected Official Is Acting Like He Wants to Be President

Billionaire Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois is one of the top Democrats being watched as the party searches for a way out of the political wilderness

CHICAGO—If JB Pritzker runs for the Democratic presidential nomination, he will be betting his party’s best prospect is a political punch-throwing heavyset billionaire who inherited massive wealth. While that sounds like President Trump, the two-term Illinois governor would be wagering on himself.

Pritzker, an heir to the Hyatt hotel fortune, has become one of the most-outspoken critics of Trump at a time Democrats are struggling to counter him. Wealth has long opened doors for Pritzker and there are signs he wants the next one to be into the Oval Office.

The 60-year-old is visiting New Hampshire, traditional home of the nation’s first presidential primary, to speak April 27 at a party fundraiser about what he sees as Trump’s authoritarianism and to call Democrats to action. The trip is likely to boost speculation that Pritzker, among those vetted by Kamala Harris’s presidential campaign as a possible running mate, is interested in the 2028 nomination.

“There is no doubt that he is going to run,” said Chicagoan Bill Daley, who served as President Bill Clinton’s commerce secretary and President Barack Obama’s chief of staff. “The real question is whether he runs for re-election first or just runs for president.”

The governor, who declined an interview, has yet to say whether he will seek a third term. An announcement is expected in the next few months, with the March 2026 primary less than 11 months away.

Daley said he would recommend against another gubernatorial bid because a crisis or scandal can pop up at an inconvenient time. Pritzker, he said, has the financial wherewithal to do something most candidates couldn’t: announce a presidential bid in 2026 and lock down the best available campaign staff talent.

JB looks like he has lost some weight.

Article from The Hill. It's the usual people who get mentioned. The 2028 nominee is probably someone who isn't on this list.

It's Pete, Booker, or Pritzker. That's my gut feeling. But we're a long way off. I'd say whoever brands themselves as the biggest contrast to Trump likely gets it. The electorate has been in a zig-zag mood for several cycles.

[quote]Yes, polls this far out are always so meaningful.

Yes, polls on the day of the election are always so meaningful.

If you have a candidate you want to surge ahead in the polls, call Ann Selzer. She’ll make it happen.

Jasmine + VP Liz Cheney

George Clooney

George Clooney + Patti LuPone

[quote] Yes, polls on the day of the election are always so meaningful.

That the perennially-undercounted Trump was polling better last year than he ever had before was why I believed he had a 75% of winning.

Chris Murphy.

Longtime Democratic pol Elaine Kamarck has "a soft spot for Wes Moore — this is a man who has the cool of Barack Obama and the warmth of Bill Clinton. I’ve never seen this combination in one person."

We need someone who doesn't kumbayah around. Time to call things as they are. Coarse directness and simple repetition. Straight maga playbook. I'm thinking AOC or Pritzker.

Pritzker and Pete. Prez, VP.

A Jew & a Gay. Now that's a ticket that'll appeal to Middle America.

Too many people are ignoring the US is still homophobic, anti-Semitic, and sexist.

The people suggesting AOC, Buttigieg, Pritzker, or Shapiro are painfully naive. The best chance for the Dems to win in 2028 is a straight Christian white guy,

100% true R135. Reading the suggestions in this thread makes me realize that suggested candidates like these - the Dems have no chance of winning in 2028. Very depressing thread full of posters who have no grip on reality and no understanding of the current political environment.

Al Gore

[quote] Chris Murphy.

He seems like a great pick to me. He's a real leader.

Maybe as VP R138. Murphy is a great guy but with limited charisma.

And we don’t elect (Democratic) divorced men.

Does a Jew, a black "confirmed bachelor," a "radical left" unmarried Latina, or a married gay man trump straight white male divorcee? Seriously who gives a shit when the current administration is full of people who make a mockery of marriage.

Democrats need to get over the identity politics. ie “we can’t have a Jew, a woman, a Latino, a x, y, z…”

Most people don’t think that way. Just nominate the most effective communicator. Messaging is the Democrats’ biggest problem.

Doesn't Pritzker have the unpopular trans thing about his family as a negative?

[quote] 100% true [R135]. Reading the suggestions in this thread makes me realize that suggested candidates like these - the Dems have no chance of winning in 2028. Very depressing thread full of posters who have no grip on reality and no understanding of the current political environment.

It's not only this thread. If you watch YouTube channels like Brian Tyler Cohen, Medias Touch, Pod Save America etc they are all pushing for Butttigieg and AOC in their 2028 possible Dem nominee videos. Also, news outlets like The Hill, Politico etc keep pushing AOC, Buttigieg, Pritzker, etc as well.

I think Buttigieg would have a better chance of winning the nomination than AOC. He knows how to appeal to centrist Democrats. AOC doesn't know how to appeal to that crowd. Years ago, Elissa Slotkin went on David Axelrod's podcast and talked about a Bronx Congressperson (she didn't say AOC by name) who acted like their constituents mattered more than Slotkin's constituents in mid-Michigan. AOC's interactions with Tim Walz last year during the election seemed phony and forced. You could tell she barely tolerated hanging out with a Midwestern guy. I bet if you put AOC in the same room with Gretchen Whitmer, AOC would probably view Whitmer as some corny Midwestern woman with a weird accent.

Aren't we caught in a Catch-22 or whatever this is called? Progs won't turn up for the general if a moderate wins the primary, and moderates will be turned off by a super progressive candidate. Which is what happened both in 2016 and last year.

2028 will be "back to normal business", with the threat of T gone, so don't expect Dems to come together again like in 2020.

Democrats have been killing it across social media lately. They really did learn their lesson after 2024.

I can't remember a time when Democrats were as connected to voters and the Democratic base as much as they are right now.

^^^They're staging a sit in today. But for all that we still have this to contend with...

You third way dinosaurs will literally die before you even consider sensible reforms that benefit the working class and poor. It was time for you dinosaurs to be extinct ten fucking years ago. Eat shit OP.

Schumer's early bid coupon was not honored and he WILL speak to the manager.

I definitely agree that the identity stuff harms Dems - and I had forgotten Pritzker was Jewish! But boy, Bashear and Murphy are so, so bland. I just can't see them catching fire.

What other democrats are drawing huge rallies in fucking red Idaho and Utah right now other than “leftist” Sander and AOC. Moderate neoliberal democrats are OVER. They suck. Fucking kill the oligarchy.

All these years Ive known this person to be a wolf and now there a horse.

R136, you don't understand the political environment if you don't understand how unpopular Trump is. They got Musk to bribe people in Wisconsin and still couldn't win that race

R125 = Trump. Did you Republicans forget all your "red wave" polls?

R153, Trump is - & always has been - unpopular among the those with college degrees. The kind of people who are most likely to vote in special elections like the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. But he does well when his name’s on the ballot.

Oh my this is one depressing thread.

None of them will call Marge a hillbilly to her face.

R146 you’re joking right?

The #1 priority for Democratic leaders right now is protecting illegal immigrations from deportation.

Trump is deeply unpopular right now but the only difference is, he has a legion of loyal followers. Usually when presidents are unpopular and polling in the 40s, they don’t have a group of idiots in the 40 percentile caping for them.

We can hope. The vetted and preferred candidates route doesn't work so well.

R150 I actually think most people do. Pritzker's the only prominent Jewish politician that wasn't targeted by pro-palis, aside from Sanders and Stein. They don't seem to have a problem with him. I actually don't know anyone who has a problem with him except for the most hard-core downstate maga zombies. Moderate Republicans love him (or at least deeply respect him), moderate dems love him, and progressives love him.

He's kind of perfect because he has moderate messaging but quietly fought for progressive policies, so he never got the chance to scare Republicans in Illinois with "socialism", but slowly their lives just got better and they realized they didn't want to go back to how things were before him. He's a pragmatic progressive that fools moderates into thinking he's a centrist, and a billionaire that progressives respect because he firmly believes he should be paying his fair share in taxes and says it often. That's a hard thing to pull off but he does it quite effortlessly and with little fanfare. There's nothing obnoxious or phony about him, and I think it's because he's just a genuinely really good guy.

And I think his weight actually works for him--it gives him a kind of jolly appearance that makes him feel more trustworthy. He's the anti-Newsome but also the anti-Trump. Kind of like Tim Walz, except without the pure-as-snow "aw shucks" factor that got old fast quick for a lot of people, and made Republicans obsessively determined to unearth skeletons from his past.

I personally believe Bernie would have won in 2016 if the Democrats had not stolen the primary from him.

^ I'll add that what I think is most important about Pritzker is that he seems to be the only stand-out dem right now with the seemingly impossible ability to bridge moderates and progressives--he doesn't piss off either side of the left-wing and makes them both feel like they're being heard and served, which is the mark of great governance and great politics.

He's not polarizing while also not being boring, which is basically a superpower in the left-wing these days.

[quote]The #1 priority for Democratic leaders right now is protecting the constitutional, including due process, the rule of law, and checks and balances.

R158 Fixed it for you.

R161 I am also coming around to Pritzker. He's fat and not charismatic, but he seems strong, unwavering, balancing progressive ideas with a "real guy" (even as a billionaire) tone... his lack of "polish" is attractive. Fat and strong and no nonsense... I think this works.

If Jews can apply, & we’re looking for candidates outside the traditional lane, Dan Abrams merits some consideration. He’d definitely appeal to first responders & their partisans.

How has Whitmer screwed up her chances?

No more celebrities, no more neo-liberals, no more "third way" politicians. I'll vote for a left-leaning candidate with a history of public service and a working class background, preferably under 60 and definitely under 70.

R167 Why do they need a working class background so long as they're serving the working class. Also, that pretty much limits your choices to Tim Walz and AOC. You're saying you won't vote for anyone but Tim Walz and AOC?

I don't need to justify my reasoning to you, R168.

No Dark Whores coming.

I know it'd be too much to ask of my fellow citizens, but Rep. Melanie Stansbury of NM should get a serious lookover.

Give her a few lessons in smoother speechifying and dropping her speaking voice a bit lower, and she'd be a home run.

I so enjoy watching CSPAN and seeing her, Rep. Crockett and Rep. Casar DESTROY Republicans in real time.

Gov. Wes Moore is no dark horse, but I'd love to see him run, as well. Maybe with Rep. Jason Crowe as VP.

We need some good veterans to run for POTUS, thus my darkest of dark horses pick would be Paul Rieckhoff. Love him and his suffer no fools attitude.

Whitmer’s not running, R166, so the point is moot.

Buttigieg, Pritzker, Shapiro and AOC are the party's best communicators. Presidential elections in the modern age are all about communication, and who's the best at it. Clinton, Obama and Trump have proven that a million times over.

We need to only look at good communicators for 2028. We don't need another Biden, Gore, or Hillary. Fortunately, Buttigieg, Pritzker and Shapiro have the experience to handle the job, in addition to being good communicators.

[quote] Buttigieg, Pritzker, Shapiro and AOC are the party's best communicators.

And what are they going to communicate? Are there any Democrats working on an affirmative policy platform for Democrats to run on, one that isn’t a replay of “vote for us for no reason other than to defeat Trump”? What will the top initiatives be for producing tangible results? Green energy, mass transit, college education, better education - you have to give the voters something to vote for. Put aside the person for now and work on the platform.

The Dems need to come up with a plan to create lots of affordable housing.

It’s a crisis. Young people starting out don’t have options within their reach, at least many if not most of them.

And subsidized daycare.

R169 oh so you’re a troll then. Why won’t you answer that person’s question. What currently serving democrats with enough visibility or time in public service have a working class background.

Just keep in mind the old political trick of choosing your opposition. Picking the person you want to run against. And the other trick of raising people's expectations so you can disappoint them. Touting AOC right now is giving the Left some oxygen. As with Bernie in 2016, a lot of people will be disappointed and stay home because they wanted rainbows and popsicles.

R175 Ban franchising and convert worthless commercial real estate into subsidized housing, empower the government to bulldoze over NIMBYism.

And if it is Wes Moore on the ticket he should be practicing right now this answer. Because it’s going to be asked all the time every time.

Why did you lie?

“ yes I lied about having a bronze star but I have a great reason for doing so and it goes like this, it was someone else’s fault that I knowingly lied”

Americans love their vets and practice forgiveness it’s a great answer

Or just go on attack, R179. Always. It’s worked for me like a charm.

He didn’t lie you dumb cunt. He just didn’t correct a journalist.

He lied when he said he had a bronze star when he had not received one. And that is what Wes will be asked about and attacked on 24/7.

Stolen Valor

Having to explain why you claimed a bronze star you did not have is not a great way to run a campaign even if you have a good excuse,. Once you spend your time defending and explaining you are fucked.

Maybe someone like Mark Kelly instead who would have to do no explaining,

I mean there’s a low bar for the 2028 democratic platform. Just reversing all the shit Trump will inflict in the next four years will be a good start. All don’t anything, no matter how minor, will be a better than to what republicans offer. Republicans never offer anything to help people, they only offer culture wars, anger, and hate.

R182 Why did Trump lie about building a wall.

R184 Trump lied? Seriously?

[quote] I know it'd be too much to ask of my fellow citizens, but Rep. Melanie Stansbury of NM should get a serious lookover.

Melanie Stansbury gets written off by many people because she's from New Mexico. The mainstream media mostly ignores her because she's a plain Jane ginger woman who doesn't fit into the narrative of cool female politicians like Jasmine Crockett and AOC have been made out to be.

I say things are shaping up quite nicely for the democrats.

Scratch Whitmer off your list.

I don’t have a problem with Whitmer developing a working relationship with Dump. She’s getting things done for Michigan. That’s how it works in a swing state.

Whitmer's more concerned with her legacy as governor of Michigan than any imagined presidential candidacy.

I don't think working with him to benefit residents would be a problem.

Posted this in the Pritzker thread:

“I understand the tendency to give in to despair right now, but despair is an indulgence that we cannot afford in the times upon which history turns. Never before in my life have I called for mass protests, for mobilization, for disruption. But I am now.

“These Republicans cannot know a moment of peace. They have to understand that we will fight their cruelty with every megaphone and microphone that we have. We must castigate them on the soap box, and then punish them at the ballot box. They must feel in their bones that when we survive this shameful episode of American history with our democracy intact—because we have no alternative but to do just that—that we will relegate their portraits to the museum halls reserved for tyrants and traitors.”

“Cowardice can be contagious, but so too can courage…. Just as the hope that we hold onto in the darkness, shines with its own...special light.

“Tonight, I’m telling you what I’m willing to do...is fight—for our democracy, for our liberty, for the opportunity for all our people to live lives that are meaningful and free. And I see around me tonight a roomful of people who are ready to do the same.”

“So I have one question for all of you: are you ready for the fight?”

-JB Pritzker, New Hampshire, April 27, 2025

I just watched Pritzker's full speech from Sunday night--it was honestly electrifying. I gotta say, I think this guy's got it. He's the dark (and rotund) horse we were looking for.

I'm sold. Pritzker/Buttigiege 2028

(with Kamala Harris as AG, and AOC as Speaker of the House)

[quote] Pritzker/Buttigiege 2028

You're clueless R193.

I listened to a critique of the Pritzker speech by the Pod Save America guys... while they were, for the most part, supportive of his message, they were a little snide and condescending about his roughness, and lack of finesse in his blunt rhetoric. (These are Obama's guys, one of him Obama's speechwriter.) It showed me that these guys and many of the old democratic party cliques and elite still haven't understood that our media/public sphere is completely different than it was even as recently at 2022. Pritzker's assertive and forceful tone, in all it's "rough hewn" simplicity, is exactly what's needed now.

Obamaesque eloquence will not inspire turnout now, as it did in his time. Who can speak Big and Blunt and Meme/Podcast-ready? I am not sure Pete's clarity and balance is helpful any more. Perhaps I too am clueless, but I appreciate the Big Guy from Illinois.

Why not go with Shapiro, who has the same blunt speaking style…minus the morbid obesity?

Whitmer is strictly on the VP list. Democrats are not nominating another woman for the top of the ticket anytime soon. Hillary and Kamala have spooked the party for years to come.

R194 Care to expand on that? Why is that clueless? I understand very well that as much as I might want Pete to have a real chance at a presidential bid in '28, America is still too misogynist to give women and gay men an honest chance--but VP is a different story. He would be glorious on the campaign trail and he is clearly open to serving in that position as his obvious thirst during the 2024 VP headhunt demonstrated. Not to mention that 4-8 years as VP would put him in the absolutely best position for a 2036 presidential bid. I think it's a win/win for everyone.

I'm reading "Fight!" - behind-the-scenes story of the 2024 election. Mentioning it here as the race was seen as the Old Guard fighting off the Progressives (for the last time). It will have been a long time since Clinton or Obama will have been on the ballot next time (regarding their loyalists/operatives) in four years.

Rearranging deck chairs on the Arizona, as always

[quote] Whitmer is strictly on the VP list. Democrats are not nominating another woman for the top of the ticket anytime soon. Hillary and Kamala have spooked the party for years to come.

Yes. The Dems can't have a woman as the nominee in 2028 they will lose. I don't think Whitmer will be considered for VP in 2028.

I think these women would be good for VP

-Tammy Duckworth

-Melanie Stansbury

-Brittany Pettersen

-Angie Craig

[quote] I don't think working with him to benefit residents would be a problem.

This is what people are ignoring in regards to Whitmer meeting with Trump. She will always loathe him , but she still has to think of her residents and partnerships with the federal government to get things done for her state.

Whitmer's father was a Republican who worked for Republican governors in Michigan in the late 60s/early 70s. Her mother was a Democrat who was an assistant attorney general for the Michigan AG office.. She was probably trained on how to work across the aisle with people who she disagrees with on many things.

Whitmer appeared on the David Pakman show today where she talked about working across the aisle. I have to get Pakman credit for having her on his show. Other progressive YouTubers like Sam Seder, the Leftist Mafia Brats, Francesa Fiorentini, Matt Leich and others demonize any Democrat who works across the aisle to get things done.

A ticket consisting of Beshear, Shapiro, Pritzker, Whitmer(VP only) would be unbeatable, in my opinion. I think it would usher in a golden age of American politics after the chaos of the Trump/MAGA era,

[quote]A ticket consisting of Beshear, Shapiro, Pritzker, Whitmer(VP only)

It’s going to be one of them for sure. Unless AOC can bring out the primary voters.

“ unbeatable” thank god

Oh it’s been far too many long months since we last heard democrats touting a ticket that could not be beat. Early November was the last time I think.

It’s great to know once again we have an unbeatable ticket. I can already see Trump in handcuffs.

There is no one who can defeat MAGA. I thought Newsom was the man, but he’s extremely self serving. And the fact that he’s Kimberly Guilfoyle’s ex gives me pause as well. If he really had strong political convictions, how could he hook up with her?

Any Democrat from California won't be able to defeat MAGA. Hopefully, douchebag Eric Swalwell will stay out of the 2028 race.

^^^ I meant to type "a" of "any"

Stephen A. Smith?

[quote]And the fact that he’s Kimberly Guilfoyle’s ex gives me pause as well. If he really had strong political convictions, how could he hook up with her?

She's become a lot more radical since they were together (2001-2006)

R206 And no self-serving New Yorker could ever win.... oh, wait.

Pritzker is going to be on Jimmy Kimmel tonight.

R196 😂 I was waiting for shots to be fired about that waistline.

I actually the fact that Priztker's resemblance to Jackie Gleason helps him. Like Trump... fat and unhealthy... appealing to Americans.

Wes Moore or Andy Beshear. I don’t see it for any of the others mentioned.

R214 They don’t like Trump because he’s fat, they like him in spite out of it. Trump knows how to work that media. Hell the cunt might be more media savvy than business savvy. This big tall scrub lookin mofo better be coming with the real. We cannot lose against these fascists.

I can’t even think that far ahead. Voting may not exist then.

R215 Beshear is vanilla pudding and Moore is chocolate pudding, but they're both just pudding--the least exciting dessert at the Golden Corral Buffet.

We need a Type A person. Democrats seem to be passive Type B personalities. We need someone who gets angry and yells in an intimidating voice in defense but also in offense.

There was one person who fit this bill, but he blew it by being a sleazy cheater: Anthony Weiner

Moore is more fake bronze pudding , not in Maryland where we are Blue Blue Bkue and do t care but in a general election. It’s not the bronze that’s the problem it’s the fake bronze part,

Aren’t there any once popular dems that were really popular until Me Too and more perfect people got them thrown out of the party?

Someone with a sense of humor but not obesely fat.

Those were the days when the Dems were so popular they could throw away rising super stars. Now we are a smaller less popular people make fun of.

[quote] We need a Type A person. Democrats seem to be passive Type B personalities. We need someone who gets angry and yells in an intimidating voice in defense but also in offense.

No. Fuck no.

I want a serious president who can stay emotionally regulated and isn't an aggressive bully or a chaotic, clownish embarrassment. I don't care if it's someone "boring" or lacking charisma. I would welcome boring right now.

[quote]We need someone who gets angry and yells in an intimidating voice in defense but also in offense.

Shapiro or AOC are the options. Elissa Slotkin seems like she could cut a bitch too.

R218 we don’t need “exciting” for the media ratings we need someone who turns out votes. This is the same mistake very online people made in 2020. Biden was the least exciting candidate in that primary but he got more votes than any prez candidate in history because actual everyday Americans loved him.

Biden’s win was more an anti-Trump vote due to his mismanagement of Covid. Americans didn’t “love” Biden.

Biden was "anointed" by Clyburn, black SC voters fell in line, effectively ending the race. He was pretty much dead in the water before that.

R225, Trump’s support among white suburban woman had cratered well before Covid. And I’ve never accepted the prevailing wisdom that the pandemic hurt Republicans. Down ballot Republicans did much better than Trump in 2020.

[Quote] We need someone who gets angry and yells in an intimidating voice in defense but also in offense.

I've got our campaign anthem.

I wish more people would consider Tammy Duckworth for 2028.

Agreed, R228.

Al Franken would fit that bill R221. I'm still pissed at Kirsten, original Karen, Gillibrand for that one.

Pritzker is running - Speech in New Hampshire, appearance on Kimmel...

Great. Another fat billionaire. Just what Americans need.

Waddling slowly not running I bet.

Chris Murphy? Well spoken WASP Senator who has taken a strong stand against Trump.

Before any candidate is selected, the party has to decide where it is going. Jen Psaki said that they will lose if they continue to old way of doing politics. A purge of the old-liners is necessary, but the far left-ers will never win either.

Every time I hear about the far left, it shocks me, that since the country has moved so far right, they are no farther left than FDR. Hardly radical.

The identity politics insistence is a serious part of the problem. For one thing: NH is bemoaned as "too white" yet the Dem primary in SC is overwhelmingly black, hypocrisy much?

R225 Right. When are establishment dems going to get that through their thick skulls. IM SICK OF THIS SHIT. THESE AGING DINOSAURS DON’T KNOW HOW TO FUCKING WIN.

R226 Can you preach it for us. I cannot believe the Dems would let Trump beat them again. They refused to fucking listen. It’s making me sad all over again.

[quote]The identity politics insistence is a serious part of the problem.

Listen R238. We all know that. It was too much too fast and too over the top. Nobody disputes it. The Democrats I hear interviews acknowledge the fact. It's done. You're talking about the gender politics aren't you. I don't hear Democrats speaking about it. It's not in their official 2024 election policy.

But while we're all complaining about it - let's also remember that gay people are an identity - whether we like it or not. We are a political identity and tend to vote similarly (86% Dems in 2024 election) - both out of necessity and because we are "othered" and have to stick together. And because we did stick together and because of identity politics - we have gay marriage and federal and state legal protections and the same/similar rights to all other people. So it's a two sided issue I guess.

R241 you’re an idiot. You didn’t say shit but I already know what your purpose is.

[quote]You didn’t say shit but I already know what your purpose is.

You do R242? I don't have a purpose. So what is it?

My pussy stinks

[quote] A purge of the old-liners is necessary, but the far left-ers will never win either.

Yes, Schumer, Pelosi, Maxine Waters, and other dinosarurs and so does asswipe Bernie Sanders. I laugh at the progressive asswipes who constantly whine about Pelosi and others being too old, but they stay quiet on Bernie's age. They remind me of the MAGAts who whined about Biden's age, but would stay quiet on the fact that Trump isn't a spring chicken.

A far left-er will never win a POTUS race. Far left politics should be rejected. There are other political races that far lefters are going to lose in the 2026 midterms and in 2028. I'm following the US Senate seat race in Michigan in part for laughs. Abdul El-Sayed and his supporters are delusional morons who think he will win the Democratic nomination and a general election. HIs dumbfuck supporters ignore the fact that he flopped in the 2018 Michigan gubernatorial Democratic primary. El-Sayed and his supporters back then thought he could defeat Gretchen Whitmer who had years of experience as a state legislator. Whitmer grew up around politicians and knew how to play the game better than El-Sayed does. This time around, El-Sayed's current contenders are Haley Stevens and Mallory McMorrow, both women know how to play the game better. Stevens worked for the Democratic party in her college days and later worked in the Obama administration in auto rescue task force. Stevens received a lot of support from working class white people and non-Republican veterans in her Congressional races. Mallory McMorrow is a state senator in Michigan, but she can play the game better than El-Sayed because she has people like Lis Smith and Tim Miller from The Bulwark advising her.

Both the older "left v right" and the more recent "Identity v anti-woke" continuums are increasingly irrelevant, in terms of who can win elections.

In my view two things work in elections now: 1) who can present a strong voice and presence to support "working people" 's interests against the elites - in a way that suggests radical disruption to the status quo, and 2) who can communicate in the new forms... social media, podcast "authentic talk", memes, short attention spans, rough speech and assertive confidence, troll-ready.

Not sure there is a Dem yet who can meet these criteria, though AOC is closest among those we see now.

The candidate’s name is Mr. Straightwhitemalechristian. VP Mr. Exactlythe same.

R247 Hi boo.

The Dem candidate for 2028 needs to be a straight white Christian male. That type of nominee could win with a male POC or female (of any race) VP running mate.

Andy Beshear is starting to on podcasts. He's probably considering a run.

Kamala did better with white people than she and Joe did in 2020. Trump won because he talked that shit that Americans want to hear especially young men of all races. The big narrative is Trump won because of men yeah but he specifically won because of young minority men who usually go for the dems, he made soul crushing margins. 25% of black male Detroit going to Trump. Almost 30% in North Carolina. Twenty something Asian and Latino men voting for Trump in the 60 percentile. Democrats better wake the fuck up.

[quote] Kamala did better with white people than she and Joe did in 2020.

Isn't it that she did better with white college graduates than Biden?

The Democrats smartly should prefer a white male lead the ticket but they shouldn’t try to manipulate the outcome based on 90s respectability politics. They need to ride the momentum. People are tired of that shit. They want authenticity. And yes Trump is a fucking piece of shit but his followers think his real because he is going to what they feel is authentic and that’s calling the limousine left out on thy eir hypocrisy, and generally avoiding all respectability and saying how he truly feels.

Bernie would have beat Trump in 2016.

Trump won the young male vote because the Dems abandoned them, offering nothing to help them get ahead; everything was geared toward women and female empowerment. Trump appealed to their anger and got their vote.

R251 No she did better with white people overall by a percentage or 2, and 4 point increase for white college graduates.

The '24 breakdown by demographics.

The '20 breakdown by demographics.

Even though it was electoral landslide, it was the closest election in American history in total numbers. It is just mad hard for democrats to win them states that don’t have enough big cities. A fucking 20 year brand had been created which Trump honed in during immediate post Covid days.

Harris did slightly better than Biden among all white voters, although still losing by a big margin. But, in a reversal of past elections, the white percentage of the total electorate grew in '24.

[quote] Even though it was electoral landslide

It was no more an electoral landslide than was Biden's election. The only difference in the EC totals of Biden '20 & Trump '24 is a result of the '20 Census.

R258 That too. Thats what I keep saying. A higher voter turnout doesn’t always benefit the Dems. So this country is still mad white. It’s just that in the most importances places ie the cities they have become so in ways that are noticeable and impactful. The fucking electoral college fucks us. Trump got on the radio and told all them fucking hillbillies in Pennsylvania and Georgia to go vote for him. And they did.

[quote] A higher voter turnout doesn’t always benefit the Dems.

I was just listening to an interview of Doug Sosnik, who said that, in a reversal of what had been true since the '60s, a higher turnout now benefits Republicans. He also said that education was the most dispositive marker in elections now, with Democrats regularly doing much better than Republicans among those with (at least) 4-year college graduates. Alas, 70% of the electorate does not have college degrees.

As to Sosnik's point about the significance of education, of the fifteen most educated states, only one, Utah, voted for Trump. Conversely, of the fifteen least educated states, only one, New Mexico, voted for Harris,

R269 Cities, big important suburbs have become less white that’s what I was tryna say. But the country is still 60% white and they live in all the important places.

Yet Dems keep focusing on groups concentrated in either heavily blue, or red, areas.

They live in all the important places electoral college wise. Let me clarify.

R261 It’s sad and almost scary. Are these low iq low wage drifters going to purge us professionals like The Purge movies. I’m a little frightened.

R257 the dems start in a hole every national election now. Tht is just the way it is. AND ITS NIT CHANGING. The system favors the red states currently and likely forever. That means the democratic side needs to be more robust and larger than the gop not smaller and weaker.

The dems did not lose young men just over lack of policies as some suggest. The democrats have to stop being painted and coming off as weak soft feminine cuddly and woke.

There is a great fight coming between progressive and moderate dems.

Fuck sorry for the stupid caps ^

They need to laser-focus on economics, NOT social justice warriors.

Please, no.

[quote]Senate Democrats are skeptical about their former colleague, former Vice President Kamala Harris, making another presidential run in 2028 after she lost all seven battleground states to Donald Trump in November, but most of them aren’t ruling out the possibility that she could clinch the party’s nomination if she plays her cards right.

“ 2028 Harris Walz We Got It This Time”

Sadly neither would win a primary democratic primary.

It will be interesting to see if - as now expected - Harris runs for governor. If she does, it's hard to see her then pivoting to a presidential run.

Hard NO, she shouldn't have been the candidate before, but it was what it was.

I was so all in on Harris. I knew she would win .

But we had one man as soon as her name was being mentioned , a black man from California I believe , he said—-he called it right away he saw this loss coming and her blowing it.

I will give him props now you were a lot smarter than I and the rest of us.

[quote] They need to laser-focus on economics, NOT social justice warriors.

I'm sure whoever we nominate will try to that. But they should be prepared for the inevitable Republican attempt to paint them as a leftist extremist who only cares about "them."

I suspect we will pick a straight white male in his fifties or sixties because of all the lingering trauma from 2024, but whoever we nominate will have to face the same culture war attacks the Republicans always wage, no matter what he's actually like. And one way is to constantly remind people that Republicans are the ones who really are for "them" as long as them is rich fuckwads. And after four years of Trump openly taking bribes from everyone in return for favors, it should be pretty easy.

R273: She never had more than a couple of percentage points in the 2020 race, despite being a female POC. Showed poor political skills then, why would 2024 be better?

Harris is running for governor. Even she knows the country isn't ready to elect a black woman as president.

There won't be a woman on the 2028 Democratic ticket.

If there's a woman on the ticket, the woman will be the VP and it will be a white woman.

Will there be a girl ?

Just last year I would have said there will always be a woman on the Democratic ticket. But now, just for 2028, I wonder. r276 might be right. We're desperate to let white males know we don't hate them, and the candidate might just decide not to risk a female running mate.

R279: Tammy Duckworth would be an excellent choice.

An ideal female VP for 2028 should be a woman with a military background (Tammy Duckworth, Mikie Sherrill).