2028 Presidential Election

[Toni]

I am pessimistic enough to have little confidence there will be a legitimate election in 2028. (I expect the Fascists to refuse to seat California's 2026 Congessional winners.)

But Polymarket shows the following probabilities for Who will be elected POTUS in 2028?

• 28% Vance
• 20% Newsom
• 9% Rubio
• 8% AOC
• 4% Trump
• 2% Buttigieg
• 2% Shapiro
• 2% Harris
• 2% Dwayne Johnson
• 2% DeSantis
• several, each < 2%

Tim Walz and Mark Kelly appeal to me -- any chance for them?
(A problem with predicting years ahead on a market like this is that your funds get tied up, not earning interest. It looks to me like Polymarket is addressing this to encourage bettors.)

(Would there be interest in some prediction gambling here at IIDB? Only pretend money would be at stake, of course.)

Ocasio-Cortez highlights poll showing her beating Vance in 2028 ....
“Bloop!” Ocasio-Cortez responded to the poll on the social platform X.

What does "Bloop!" MEAN?

I do LOVE Alexandria. But as much as I admire her, I don't think she would be a particularly good President (maybe when she's more experienced); nor do I think she'd be a successful candidate. Beating Vance -- by far the most obnoxious candidate in history I think -- is a very low bar. I think Polymarket's numbers are wacky, though the high Vance number may include a high chance that by then he will be the incumbent.

Sadly I think the next POTUS will be white and male simply to be elected. I think that Walz is being dragged through the mud already enough that he’s a no-go. Mark Kelly has all the manly man bona fides plus being a devoted husband to a woman disabled by an attempted assassination.

I’m not sure that Buttigieg can overcome the amount of bigotry that would be necessary to actually win. Also AOC would have the same issue.

I think that it is urgent that the Dems nominate a safe candidate in 2028, which means a straight white married man. Sadly enough. No offense intended. I have nothing against straight white married men. I’m just being very pragmatic.

 

[laughing dog]

I think Walz is done in politics. Since the VP run, he has appeared ham handed and clueless as governor. I vote for him when he was in Congress and when he ran for Governor and as VP, but I would not vote for him again.

 

[Elixir]

This thread looks like a quaint anachronism to me. A”2028 election”? Fat chance.
The tale will be told on Monday January 4, 2027.
If by some fluke, a sufficient number of Democrats are seated in the House, there MIGHT BE elections in 2028. If by some miracle the Dems take the senate as well, THEN we can start talking about a 2028 election. Failing that, do y’all think Uncle Vlad will win whatever passes for an election in Russia?

 

[Derec]

I think Walz is done in politics. Since the VP run, he has appeared ham handed and clueless as governor. I vote for him when he was in Congress and when he ran for Governor and as VP, but I would not vote for him again.

He was always ham handed and clueless. He wasn't even on the short list for Veep. But then he said a funny thing about Republicans and Kamala picked him because of that.

 

[laughing dog]

I think Walz is done in politics. Since the VP run, he has appeared ham handed and clueless as governor. I vote for him when he was in Congress and when he ran for Governor and as VP, but I would not vote for him again.

He was always ham handed and clueless.

That's why he was

He wasn't even on the short list for Veep. But then he said a funny thing about Republicans and Kamala picked him because of that.

Funny, that's not the story from Politico (Why Harris picked Walz) or the Brookings Institution (Why Walz and not Shapiro). What inside information do you have that contradicts their story and analysis?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think Walz is done in politics. Since the VP run, he has appeared ham handed and clueless as governor. I vote for him when he was in Congress and when he ran for Governor and as VP, but I would not vote for him again.

He was always ham handed and clueless. He wasn't even on the short list for Veep. But then he said a funny thing about Republicans and Kamala picked him because of that.

Walz went viral. So the Harris campaign tried to go with that. Walz was not the reason she lost. And if Harris picked Shapiro and lost because of inflation complaints, you'd say she shouldn't have picked an East coast liberal, and should have went with a chummier, more moderate Midwest person. Walz was likely always on the radar because the Midwest is more moderate, and a left-wing Senator turn VP from California could use moderation on the ticket. The question was, who would take the role. Whitmer would have likely been the best, but I don't think she liked the writing on the wall.

 

[ZiprHead]

Here's a surprising result in a recent Emerson College poll:

Looking ahead to the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination contest, top contenders include former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg (19%), California Governor Gavin Newsom (17%),Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff (13%), and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (13%). Eight percent support former Vice President Kamala Harris, 7% Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear, 5% Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, and 3% Illinois Governor JB Pritzker. Thirteen percent are undecided.

 

[Derec]

Here's a surprising result in a recent Emerson College poll:

Polls are pretty useless at this stage. But I must wonder if the unwise decision by the DNC to keep SC as the first state is partly motivated by wanting to help Kamala.

 

[Derec]

That's why he was

That's why he was, what?

Funny, that's not the story from Politico (Why Harris picked Walz) or the Brookings Institution (Why Walz and not Shapiro). What inside information do you have that contradicts their story and analysis?

Even the Politico article talks about the "weird" quip as an important reason.

Walz is seen by Harris’ camp as a deft messenger, popularizing “weird” as a messaging framework to describe former President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance — a cutting and clear tagline that went viral over the last two weeks.

I agree also with the Brookings article is right that Shapiro was dismissed because he was not acceptable to the Hamas caucus and they also proved prescient in calling the Walz pick risky:

In two respects, however, Harris’ choice could have negative consequences. First: During her years in the Senate and her failed quest for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she adopted a number of progressive positions—endorsing the Green New Deal, opposing fracking, supporting Medicare for All (including for undocumented immigrants), and comparing ICE to the KKK—that she is now repudiating. Choosing a running mate seen as strongly progressive could make it more difficult to separate herself credibly from her past record.
Second: In the context of the Electoral College, Harris’ choice could backfire. While Walz’s Minnesota is safely Democratic, Shapiro presides over the most important swing state in the 2024 election. Although many pundits see Walz as especially appealing to rural and working-class voters, the evidence suggests otherwise. Compared to Biden’s 2020 performance in Minnesota, Walz received the same share of the vote overall (52%), and he did no better than Biden among rural and small-town voters, working-class voters, and Republican identifiers while running four points behind Biden among Independents.
By contrast, Shapiro far exceeded Biden’s 2020 baseline statewide, racking up 57% of the vote compared to Biden’s 50%. And he outpaced Biden in virtually every electoral group, exceeding the president’s share by seven points among rural and small-town voters, seven points among non-college voters, nine points among Republicans and voters leaning Republican, and five points among Independents.

And sure, Politico article lists other positive qualities the Kamala camp citied for their choice. But none of these would have mattered had Walz not made it onto the short list and he was certainly flying under the radar before he said "weird".
For example, there is this Politico article from 7/21, just days before Walz will utter the word that propelled him to the bottom of the ticket.
9 possible running mates Kamala Harris could pick
On their list: Josh Shapiro, Mark Kelly, Gretchen Whitmer, Andy Beshear, Roy Cooper, Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, Wes Moore and Pete Buttigieg. Notably absent: the actual future running mate.
PBS had an article from a day later, 7/22, with their list of four. Still no Walz.
NBC is the only one I found that had Walz on before "weird", but their list of twelve is not really that short.
Walz wasn't even in the IIDB poll of potential running mates.

So, yes, I stand by my statement that it was him saying a funny thing about Republicans that is responsible for him having been chosen as Kamala's running mate.

 

[Derec]

Walz went viral. So the Harris campaign tried to go with that.

Walz' "weird" was a good fit with Kamala's attempt to win the election on vibes and memes. Think "coconut trees" and "Kamala is brat". The problem was that this campaign strategy was bonkers.

Walz was not the reason she lost.

He was a reason. And the election was relatively close - it would not have taken many of these partial reasons to flip the race.

And if Harris picked Shapiro and lost because of inflation complaints, you'd say she shouldn't have picked an East coast liberal, and should have went with a chummier, more moderate Midwest person.

In reality it is Shapiro who is the moderate (and also PA is not on the coast) and Walz is well to his left.

Walz was likely always on the radar because the Midwest is more moderate, and a left-wing Senator turn VP from California could use moderation on the ticket.

Midwest may be moderate, but Walz certainly isn't. Shapiro would have been a good choice on that front, as would the likes of Kelly and Beshear. And no, Walz was very much under the radar until "weird".

The question was, who would take the role. Whitmer would have likely been the best, but I don't think she liked the writing on the wall.

I wonder if she would have ran for top of the ticket had Democrats allowed a blitz primary instead of coronating Kamala.

 

[Toni]

I think that in the end, Harris lost because of misogyny. Sure there was racism thrown into the mix. Abd many people did not care for how she came by the nomination, myself included. She was never my top pick in 2020, but Biden ( also not my top pick, largely because of his age) picked her. Still, Biden was a canny choice: safe older white man with a long history of working across the aisle, and a very solid family man with a poignant back story. Very reassuring after the disruption that was Trump. He was the anti-Trump and he defeated him. I think he would never have run again if Trump had not thrown in his hat for a third time.

I think Mark Kelly would be a good candidate for 2028. He’s got the right credentials to win the traditionalists. And my personal opinion is that for now, the best way forward for the Democrats is to elect a moderate and let the senate and house pull us left.

 

[Elixir]

I think that in the end, Harris lost because of misogyny.

In the end I think she lost because she was never nominated, never had a chance, and the Dems never had a chance to put someone else up for consideration. I blame Biden’s handlers.

Eventually Dems need to learn to curtail the amount of time given to Republicans to poison the well. They worked Hillary over for thirty years, and Dems stupidly nominated her anyway. Kami had been trashed six ways from Sunday, for over four years and with maximum intensity. Newsom is damaged goods, as is every other democrat ever suspected of potentially becoming a candidate.
It might not matter this cycle, as Republicans are ALL smeared with the stench of Trump’s Depends but it would be best if the Dems come up with someone not yet burdened by years of the “insufferable prick” constructions favored by Republitards.

 

[Toni]

I think that in the end, Harris lost because of misogyny.

In the end I think she lost because she was never nominated, never had a chance, and the Dems never had a chance to put someone else up for consideration. I blame Biden’s handlers.

Eventually Dems need to learn to curtail the amount of time given to Republicans to poison the well. They worked Hillary over for thirty years, and Dems stupidly nominated her anyway. Kami had been trashed six ways from Sunday, for over four years and with maximum intensity. Newsom is damaged goods, as is every other democrat ever suspected of potentially becoming a candidate.
It might not matter this cycle, as Republicans are ALL smeared with the stench of Trump’s Depends but it would be best if the Dems come up with someone not yet burdened by years of the “insufferable prick” constructions favored by Republitards.

I think those are excuses.

They all would have mattered had she been running against a semi-decent candidate.

She ran against Trump.

Misogyny sank her the same as it sank Hillary.

Against a known conman, serial adulterer, bankrupt ( morally and financially) low quality reality star of a low mid defunct tv show. With zero qualifications and a semi-truck full of liabilities.


Neither women were my favorite candidates. By a long shot. If they had run against say, John Mc Cain, it would not be hard to imagine them losing. I might have struggled with my vote. I think there is a good chance—no, almost certainty-/both would have lost anyway but we will never know how McCain would have been as POTUS. Or Hillary or Kamala. Who are known by their first names, unlike McCain, Obama, Reagan, Trump, Kennedy, Roosevelt ( either one), and so on.

Why were those women trashed? They were women.

 

[Elixir]

Misogyny sank her the same as it sank Hillary.

Hey, whatever works. Give Republitards enough time to belittle, insult, defame and lie about someone and they can virtually guarantee a loss, even to a megaturd like trump.
A female candidate definitely makes the job easier for them, due to the right’s embrace of misogyny. But make no mistake - the smear machine can do it to anyone, given sufficient time.

 

[Toni]

Misogyny sank her the same as it sank Hillary.

Hey, whatever works. Give Republitards enough time to belittle, insult, defame and lie about someone and they can virtually guarantee a loss, even to a megaturd like trump.
A female candidate definitely makes the job easier for them, due to the right’s embrace of misogyny. But make no mistake - the smear machine can do it to anyone, given sufficient time.

Please don’t kid yourself that only MAGA are misogynists. Plenty of middle of the road and leftists are as well.

Trump just revealed how misogynistic the US still is. Along with racist, xenophobic and ignorant.

 

[Elixir]

Please don’t kid yourself that only MAGA are misogynists.

I don’t think I implied that. Certainly didn’t intend that. I WILL venture that misogyny is the party platform of only one party, though.

 

[Derec]

I think that in the end, Harris lost because of misogyny. Sure there was racism thrown into the mix.

Of course you do. But blaming it on race and sex is too facile. And it's counterproductive for progressives, as it gives a reason not to go with a woman or a black candidate even if they are a best choice in that particular cycle.

No, Kamala didn't lose because of her demographic markers. She lost because

• She was Biden's veep and Biden administration was unpopular because of several things, some self-inflicted, others not.
  • Inflation and other post-Pandemic malaise - mostly unavoidable, but made worse with Biden's too loose spending
  • Gaza War - where the islamoleftist part of the base doesn't want Israel to defend itself from Hamas
• Biden administration botched the transition
  • he should have decided not to run before the primaries so the successor could have been chosen by the voters
  • even if the withdrawal were to come after that disastrous debate, it should have happened right after, so at least a blitz primary could be held
• Kamala herself ran a poor campaign
  • she was hampered by lefty positions she held in 2020 like banning fracking and offshore drilling
  • many in the left-wing base detested her because she was a prosecutor
  • for months she focused on vibes and memes like coconut trees
  • afterwards, her policy proposals were stale - things like an even higher child tax credit or even more race-based benefits
  • last but not least, she chose Knucklehead Walz as running mate
• Trump was more popular than in 2020
  • people remembered the first three years of his term more fondly
  • he benefited from misguided prosecutions, esp. the "hush money" felony misdemeanor

Reducing this complex election to Kamala's genitalia and skin color is very misguided.

Abd many people did not care for how she came by the nomination, myself included.

This was probably the single most important factor in her loss.

She was never my top pick in 2020, but Biden ( also not my top pick, largely because of his age) picked her.

All the more reason why restricting picks to a particular demographic are a bad idea. Biden pledged that he would only consider women. After the George Floyd riots, his choice became de facto restricted to black women only - and there were only so many viable choices in that subset.

Still, Biden was a canny choice: safe older white man with a long history of working across the aisle, and a very solid family man with a poignant back story. Very reassuring after the disruption that was Trump. He was the anti-Trump and he defeated him. I think he would never have run again if Trump had not thrown in his hat for a third time.

Biden certainly disappointed in office. He governed far more to the left than his past or his campaign would have suggested. I like the metaphor of Biden as King Theoden being controlled by AOC Wormtongue and Bernie Sandersman the White.

Unfortunately, a Gandalf did not come: "I have not passed through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a serving-wench till the lightning falls".

Also, the Corrupt Bargain with Jim Clyburn to save his at that time troubled campaign left a bad taste in my mouth.

I think Mark Kelly would be a good candidate for 2028. He’s got the right credentials to win the traditionalists. And my personal opinion is that for now, the best way forward for the Democrats is to elect a moderate

With you so far. Mark Kelly would be a strong choice. Not sure that he can win the nomination in today's Democratic Party though.

and let the senate and house pull us left.

Not with you there. We don't need left-wing politics, and certainly not a more DSA inspired governance. Kelly would be well advised to not cave to the DSA fringe like Biden often did.

 

[laughing dog]

That's why he was

That's why he was, what?

Funny, that's not the story from Politico (Why Harris picked Walz) or the Brookings Institution (Why Walz and not Shapiro). What inside information do you have that contradicts their story and analysis?

Even the Politico article talks about the "weird" quip as an important reason.

Walz is seen by Harris’ camp as a deft messenger, popularizing “weird” as a messaging framework to describe former President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance — a cutting and clear tagline that went viral over the last two weeks.

I agree also with the Brookings article is right that Shapiro was dismissed because he was not acceptable to the Hamas caucus and they also proved prescient in calling the Walz pick risky:

In two respects, however, Harris’ choice could have negative consequences. First: During her years in the Senate and her failed quest for the Democratic nomination in 2020, she adopted a number of progressive positions—endorsing the Green New Deal, opposing fracking, supporting Medicare for All (including for undocumented immigrants), and comparing ICE to the KKK—that she is now repudiating. Choosing a running mate seen as strongly progressive could make it more difficult to separate herself credibly from her past record.
Second: In the context of the Electoral College, Harris’ choice could backfire. While Walz’s Minnesota is safely Democratic, Shapiro presides over the most important swing state in the 2024 election. Although many pundits see Walz as especially appealing to rural and working-class voters, the evidence suggests otherwise. Compared to Biden’s 2020 performance in Minnesota, Walz received the same share of the vote overall (52%), and he did no better than Biden among rural and small-town voters, working-class voters, and Republican identifiers while running four points behind Biden among Independents.
By contrast, Shapiro far exceeded Biden’s 2020 baseline statewide, racking up 57% of the vote compared to Biden’s 50%. And he outpaced Biden in virtually every electoral group, exceeding the president’s share by seven points among rural and small-town voters, seven points among non-college voters, nine points among Republicans and voters leaning Republican, and five points among Independents.

And sure, Politico article lists other positive qualities the Kamala camp citied for their choice. But none of these would have mattered had Walz not made it onto the short list and he was certainly flying under the radar before he said "weird".
For example, there is this Politico article from 7/21, just days before Walz will utter the word that propelled him to the bottom of the ticket.
9 possible running mates Kamala Harris could pick
On their list: Josh Shapiro, Mark Kelly, Gretchen Whitmer, Andy Beshear, Roy Cooper, Gavin Newsom, J.B. Pritzker, Wes Moore and Pete Buttigieg. Notably absent: the actual future running mate.
PBS had an article from a day later, 7/22, with their list of four. Still no Walz.
NBC is the only one I found that had Walz on before "weird", but their list of twelve is not really that short.
Walz wasn't even in the IIDB poll of potential running mates.

So, yes, I stand by my statement that it was him saying a funny thing about Republicans that is responsible for him having been chosen as Kamala's running mate.

Even though there are multiple reasons given by her and her staff, you claim to know better.

 

[Derec]

Neither women were my favorite candidates. By a long shot.

You must understand that a great many people felt that way. That played a much bigger role than that they were women.

Hillary never had the charisma of her husband. She should have taken the hint instead of demanding nomination like it was her due.

Kamala was stuck in no-man's land. Too left for the moderates, too much of a prosecutor for the lefty base. They even called her "Copmala" even though they are two separate, yet equally important groups.
And she played her cards, such as they were in 2019, exactly wrong. She overspent and ran out of money. Instead of using her mixed background and family as an example of unity, she tried to position herself as "blacker than thou" and foster divisions, like when she attacked Biden on the 1970s forced bussing policies.

If they had run against say, John Mc Cain, it would not be hard to imagine them losing. I might have struggled with my vote. I think there is a good chance—no, almost certainty-/both would have lost anyway but we will never know how McCain would have been as POTUS. Or Hillary or Kamala. Who are known by their first names, unlike McCain, Obama, Reagan, Trump, Kennedy, Roosevelt ( either one), and so on.

Hillary is known as Hillary because Bill in already Clinton. With Kamala, that is unique, unlike "Harris".
You would not expect McCain to be known as "John" - too commonplace. John, who? Say Kamala, and you immediately know.
Obama, Reagan, Trump - all unique last names too. With Kennedy, you usually call him JFK because that family was prolific in politics of the time. Same with Roosevelts. FDR for the latter, Teddy Roosevelt for the former. And of course, note the diminutive, familiar form of his first name. If it was a woman, you'd be saying we only called her "Teddy" because of her gender.

Why were those women trashed? They were women.

Nope. They were poor candidates.

 

[Derec]

Even though there are multiple reasons given by her and her staff, you claim to know better.

Yes, I have provided evidence that Walz wasn't considered a likely running mate pick before he said "weird".