Assuming for a moment that things are very close to being cooked, but not
completely there yet...
This might really annoy some people, because to some extent it's the dreaded horserace way of looking at politics, which has done and is doing a lot of real harm. And it's very early for this anyway. And we don't know what might happen later this year. Or the year after it. Or the year after
that. So this is all just hyper-premature sillines.
But, you know, I still just want to get all this off my chest. So here are some thoughts on possible 2028 US presidential contenders. Only Democrats for now. I may or may not snark about the other side at some point in the future.
I'm starting out from two basic assumptions: First, it's really very important that the Democrats win in 2028, and second, the Democratic nominee really really really shouldn't be Gavin Newsom. So I'll mostly judge potential candidates among the Democrats, other than Newsom himself, by three basic standards:
1. Could they beat Newsom in the primaries?
2. Could they win the general election?
3. If they end up as POTUS, could they actually achieve stuff and, then, get people to notice that they've achieved stuff?
That last part is important because, if there's a POTUS from the Democratic Party again at some point in the future, and if, then, that POTUS ends up being generally seen as a failure, then everything would be even more toast than it already is.
I'm mainly listing people I've seen talked about as potential candidates who seem plausible to me, plus two people who I think
might be potential candidates whom I haven't seen talked about.
So, without further ado...
Gavin Newsom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Newsom
Born 1967
Current and outgoing Governor of California; before that, Lieutenant Governor of California; before that, Mayor of San Francisco.
During the 2008 primaries, someone somewhere on the internet compared the
Republican primary candidates of that year to various
Buffy villains, and wrote that Mitt Romney would be really a lot like The Mayor. I think The Mayor's resemblance to Gavin Newsom is even more striking. (Romney himself, on the other hand, reminded me more of the teenage version of Principal Snyder from
Band Candy.)
I can't really think of much to say about this guy that hasn't been said before. And I don't think I really want to, either. He's doing really well in the polls. Then again, so did Rudy Guiliani in the runup to 2008. Still, there's a very real risk that he might be the nominee. Brrrr.
Kamala Harris
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
Born 1964
Former Vice President of the USA; before that, Senator from California; before that, Attorney General of California; before that, career prosecutor; lost the general election in 2024.
Unlike some other people, I don't really have anything against her as a person. I think she
might beat Newsom. I think she
might win a general election. But I'm not sure about either, because I'm not really convinced that she's good at getting people fired up.
And, given her, in terms of career and personality, fairly conventional background (her family background is a different matter), I suspect that, if she'd somehow end up in the White House, she'd eventually be perceived, fairly or unfairly, as a dud. Which would be very bad.
Pete Buttigieg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Buttigieg
Born 1982, which, back in 2020, made him the first half-way serious presidential primary candidate from my generation.
Former Secretary of Transportation; before that, a candidate in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries with a little bit of success; before that, Mayor of South Bend, which is a small city, or, if you have stricter standards in that regard, a mid-sized town, in Indiana.
Seems to have gotten himself a bit of a reputation for being blunt and outspoken about opposing Trump and Trumpism, which, other things being equal, would be good. But other things aren't equal.
My own bias here is that back in 2020, for a short time, I was quite excited to see someone roughly my own age make a serious run. And I don't mind that he jumped into the race right from the city hall, either. Yes, major politicians should have
some serious relevant political experience. But spending years as the full-time mayor of an, at any rate, larger-than-tiny town meets that requirement, IMO.
Another factor is that I'm seriously annoyed about the attacks on him by various more-LGBTQ+-than-thou people for supposedly being The Wrong Kind Of Gay, apparently because he doesn't dress or style himself like a member of the Village People or something. While I don't have a dog in internal fights of the LGBTQ+ Community, I do hate it when the Cool Kids get very selective about who is or isn't allowed into their Super Secret Special Tree House. And this seems to be one specific case of that. Live and let live. It takes all types. Even the somewhat boringly conventional ones.
But, all that said, I can't get over the fact that he used to work for McKinsey. Yuk. Yuk. Yuk. I simply don't see anything good coming from someone with a background like that. And last but not least, the reports that apparently, during his time as mayor, he had fairly bad relations with the local Black community are a pretty big red flag. So no thanks, I guess.
In case anyone's wondering, his name's Maltese.
Ruben Gallego
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruben_Gallego
Born 1979
Senator from Arizona; before that, Member of the House from Arizona.
Apparently one of the Democratic presidential hopefuls who threw trans people under the bus to show how Very Serious they are. Apparently made comments complaining about men in his party looking like women and women in his party looking like men. Though for
some reason, as I write this, his Wikipedia page doesn't contain
any information about what he did or said related to LGBTQ+ issues. Very mysterious.
Additionally, during the 2026 electoral cycle, he endorsed Eric Swalwell for Governor of California until Swalwell had to drop out over a rape allegation scandal, and endorsed Graham Platner for Senator from Maine until Platner had to drop out over a rape allegation scandal. This is starting to look like a rather disturbing pattern.
Enough said.
Mark Kelly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Kelly
Born 1964
Senator from Arizona; before that, astronaut and Navy pilot; husband of former Member of the House Gabby Giffords, of "survived getting shot in the head by a mass murderer during an assassination attempt" fame.
Has been pretty clear in expressing his very low opinion of Donald Trump and the people around him. When he pointed out that under US military law as it officially stands, members of the US military are theoretically required to disobey illegal orders, the Trump Administration threatened to call him back up for active duty and then have him court-martialed. And given that his wife once almost got murdered by a man who, though his political views at the time were kind of a confused mess, had still emerged from the same fever-swampy parts of the internet which, not that much later, would produce major parts of the Trump movement, he clearly has a strong personal motive to seriously fight against Trumpism.
Has shown that he can get elected to statewide office as a Democrat in a red-ish purple state that was just a plain red state until not too long ago. And yes, my inner little boy thinks the idea of an astronaut POTUS sounds pretty cool. Plus, Gabby Giffords as First Lady would be a nice fuck-you note to certain people.
But, well, while his actual policy stances are pretty good on gun policy, they appear to be rather moderate or conventional on everything else. I'm not convinced that this would either fly in the primaries or in a general election, and I'm not at all convinced that it would lead him to deliver enough good results to be seen as a success if he should end up in the White House. And as I said, I think it's very important that the next Democratic Party POTUS is generally seen as a success.
People might also argue that anyone who can get themselves elected to statewide office as a Democrat in a red-ish purple state that was just a plain red state until not too long ago should stay in that office until they either want to retire or their voters get tired of them.
Fun fact: not too long before I wrote this, he posted a photo of his wife and himself at some kind of major public event on the internet, and one of the brilliant mastermind geniuses among the Republican-friendly internet influencers asked who the woman in the photo was, apparently assuming that Giffords had been in a coma since her assassination attempt and couldn't possibly appear at public events.
Ro Khanna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro_Khanna
Born 1976
Member of the House from California; before that, minor administration official in the Obama Administration and corporate intellectual property lawyer.
Judging from what I've heard about him, he seems to be to a large extent a corporate Democrat with a focus on carrying water for the tech industry, but with the additional secret superpower that he's fairly good at convincing
some members of the Bernie corner of the political spectrum that he's one of them.
The focus on being tech-friendly might be inavoidable, given that his electoral district is basically Sillicon Valley, but then again, he originally won that district by beating a previous incumbent who seems to have had
less of a reputation for being close to the tech industry in a Democrat-against-Democrat contest.
While I worked on this piece, he reported having been "detained" for a while by armed Israeli settlers in the West Bank when he visited a Palestinian village they had destroyed. This may or may not make up for his closeness to the tech industry in primary voters' minds.
Nevertheless, even aside from the question of whether he
should be POTUS, I don't see how his career and political background would play well in the current anti-"AI" climate.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aka
AOC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez
Born 1989
Member of the House from New York.
Probably no introduction necessary. Has been one of the main stars of the left wing of the Democrats for about eight years now. Self-described democratic socialist. Comes across as clearly pretty smart to most of those people who do not assume as a matter of course that someone with her political views couldn't possibly be smart.
Hm. Hmmmm. Hmmmmmmmm. I'd say nominating her would be what's commonly called a high-risk high-reward move.
Her policy positions are too left-wing for my taste on security-related matters, but otherwise really great. And I think she's smart enough that she wouldn't do anything politically stupid in foreign policy. Perhaps most importantly, she's clearly a fighter.
If she'd end up in the White House, she'd definitely
do stuff. Even if she'd run into trouble getting laws passed, she'd still do as much as possible through executive actions. And she'd make sure that people hear about it.
But, well, nominating her would be a
really big risk. Which
might pay off - but then again, it might not. We'd be talking about a woman, a Puerto Rican, a self-described socialist, and someone in her late thirties trying to win a nationwide election in the USA. After her previous electoral experience was entirely in a very solidly Democratic congressional district in New York City.
Not to mention that during the 2026 electoral cycle, she pulled the "brilliant" move of both endorsing and praising an unrepentant Stalinist who even has some other pretty repulsive positions
on top of being an unrepentant Stalinist. Not sure if she'll ever get rid of that albatross.
On the other hand, there do seem to be some people in her district who voted both for her and for Trump. To some extent, important divides these days are as much about establishment versus anti-establishment as about left versus right. And, there always seem to be substantial numbers of people who find it impressive if someone comes across as standing for
something, even if they don't completely agree with that something themselves. So the risky move
might work. But it would be a disaster if it wouldn't.
Reportedly, at one point, she posted a link to a poll showing her ahead of JD Vance in a hypothetical one-on-one contest for the US Presidency. That's a bit reassuring, but not that much. Beating JD Vance in a one-on-one poll among the general public isn't
that impressive.
I could probably beat JD Vance in a poll among the general public if I'd be an eligible US citizen. I'd just have to legally change my name to "Not JD Vance".
A smaller aspect is that it would be a very good idea if
someone would challenge Chuck Schumer in the 2028 New York primary for US Senator. Some people might say that she should be that someone. She might want that - or she might aim higher right away. If she would challenge Schumer, she'd probably win both the primary and the general election. And the specific results, especially how well or poorly she's do in various not-solidly-blue places, could be an important indicator of what her chances at the nationwide level might be.
So, all in all, I have fairly mixed feelings about the idea of her running.
Jon Ossoff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Ossoff
Born 1987
Senator from Georgia; before that, involved in documentary filmmaking behind the scenes; before that, congressional staffer.
Made himself a name for his outspoken opposition to Trump and Trumpism on social media. That's why I'm listing him here.
Has explicitly said that he doesn't want to run. But, well, as much as I like a lot of what I've heard about him so far, he's still a politician, so, you know, grain of salt.
Seems to be generally more politically moderate than AOC, but still a fighter. That might be exactly the combination that's needed, to stop Newsom in the primaries, to win the general election, and to avoid being seen as a failure if elected.
On some points, he's too moderate. He's opposed to abolishing ICE, for instance, and wants to base health policy on expanding on the ACA. Progressives would certainly hold that against him. Though he might, as they say, "evolve".
Then again, he has shown that he can get elected to statewide office as a Democrat in a red-ish purple state that was just a plain red state until not too long ago.
Given that his mother's Australian, and that he used to be a dual citizen, he might end up getting hit with serious amounts of birtherism by the more evil clownish parts of the political spectrum, based on arcane interpretations of what the phrase "natural born citizen" means, despite the fact that, by reasonable people's standards, he's a white man.
Some people might suspect him of being too friendly towards Israel given that he's Jewish. Well, judging from his Wikipedia page, his record on the matter seems to be mixed. He's voted for some and against some other failed measures that had been intended to exert some pressure on Israel, and said some more worrying and some more reassuring (from the perspective of people who are critical of Israel) things. Perhaps another opportunity to "evolve".
It should be noted, though, that
if he should end up as a household name, he'll probably get a fair amount of hostility from certain people in Israel. Partly simply because he's a Democrat, and has voted differently from how they would have wanted him to vote on some occasions, and partly because he's from a mixed marriage - he himself became Jewish when he converted in preparation for his bar mitzvah, and he's Reform, so many Israelis would not see his conversion as valid. That means that some of the people currently running the show in Israel probably think that his parents' marriage was invalid and generally bad, that he himself should never have been born, and that, by their standards, he's literally a bastard. And from what I've heard about these people, if he should ever seriously show up on their radar, they'll probably tell him that very clearly.
So if there should be a need for him to "evolve" on Israel, many Israelis themselves might well supply him with plenty of motivation to do so.
I wonder about whether his background in documentary filmmaking might be relevant. He seems to have been mainly involved in production. Those of the documentaries he contributed to seem to have dealt with some pretty serious things happening in Africa and the Middle East. Perhaps that might give him a bit of a global perspective which might in useful in navigating the world. And it might be interesting to see a POTUS with IMDB credits for something else than acting or reading the audiobook version of their memoirs.
And, yes, to be completely honest, on a purely personal note, it
would be nice to see a fellow half-and-half in the White House.
Some things I've read about his life do, however, make me wonder if he might be a bit too much of a stereotypical child prodigy or boy wonder. There seem to have been at least two occasions in his life when, while he was very young, he made a good impression on an adult VIP, which then later helped him get somewhere in life: in high school, he did an internship in the office of John Lewis, who, then, later recommended him to Hank Johnson, for whom he worked as a staffer in his 20s. And also while he was in high school, his family went on a vacation to France, where they met a British journalist with whom he stayed in contact and who eventually helped him get into documentary filmmaking. I hope that the times when he was apparently seen as such an impressive nice young man by older and more prominent people didn't go to his head too much, and that they don't put off too many voters.
One additional complication is the question of what would happen to his Senate seat (assuming he gets reelected) if he should end up as POTUS or VP, or even just with some other Administration post. Some background for people who might not know that much about the more obscure details of the US political system: US law generally bans people from holding two public offices at the same time. And vacancies in the Senate usually sooner or later require a special election - when exactly depends on the state. But in most states, including Georgia, the Governor gets to appoint a replacement for the time until the election. In Georgia, if a Senate seat should become vacant in 2029, the appointed replacement would serve until an election in late 2030.
At the moment, the Governor of Georgia is a Republican. There's some chance that the Democratic nominee might win the 2026 election. In that case, she
could theoretically appoint a Democrat to a vacant seat in 2029 -
unless the Republicans in the State Legislature manage it to get the relevant state laws changed. So it's all pretty shaky for now.
And, as with Kelly and (yuk) Gallego, people might argue that anyone who can get themselves elected to statewide office as a Democrat in a red-ish purple state that was just a plain red state until not too long ago should stay in that office until they either want to retire or their voters get tired of them.
One last, comparatively trivial problem: on some photos of him that I've seen, his facial expression seems to look a bit creepy.
All that said, I think that it might be better if he would be on the ticket in some spot. At least if AOC isn't. There should better be at least one millenial with a serious social media presence and a position of unapologetically taking the rhetorical fight to Trump and the larger Trumpist movement on the ticket.
(...to be continued...)