I didn’t claim the answer to the question was nothing, first off. I offer at least a few options that o think can cross off folk, which is a first step! I am honestly interested in thoughts about what the answer might be. Some alleged experts claim it is “the invisible primary” inclusive of elites and key figure support, small fundraising numbers especially new donors - many new small means more than a few real big, large donors accessible, etc. It would be interesting to that developed into some sort of metric …
But of course the thread is to have precisely because there isn’t a correct calculation answer! So it is on us to think about it and guess! What stories make the most sense for building coalitions and having a path? In retrospect it will probably seem obvious! Of course so-so was going to win!
Agreed, but there really isn’t any reason back down until after the early debates and the first couple primaries. In practice, some are likely to drop out before then due to fundraising problems, but I do not think there is any party loyalty reason for them to drop out before their vote-getting prowess is tested.
As to whether the polls mean anything now – they identify the front-runners. Some of those front-runners will fade due to gaffes, or because of debate performance, but they are part of the story of the 2028 campaign.
Which is what everyone says up until they announce that they’re running, especially if they’re running for something else in the meantime. “Reelect me so I can spend the next year and a half auditioning for a better job” doesn’t poll well.
Yes and no. What’s typically said is something like, “my only focus right now is on my current position, and this year’s election.” It’s less common for someone to flat-out say “I will not be running,” than it is to give a non-answer, or to sidestep the question.
How many Democrats had heard of Obama in 2006, or Clinton in 1990? Sure, folks who follow politics closely had heard of them, and maybe even considered them strong contenders, but I think that for both of them, the rank and file mostly heard of them precisely because they were running for President.
a friend in Chicago told me to watch Obama, who was going to be president, before he got that democratic address – which was the first time I saw him, and before he ran. I don’t recall when I heard of Clinton.
But I agree that the eventual winner doesn’t have to be known, yet. And I don’t think polls mean anything at this point. But I do think fundamentals are meaningful at this point. Who speaks well, who has done well in their state, and why, who is where on the political spectrum, who does or doesn’t have skeletons. Etc.
2032? Did Vance win fair and square in 2028, or did he steal it on January 6, 2029? If he won fair and square in 2028, there’s a better than even chance of him getting a second term, so, not that good a year for Ossoff. If Vance won by cheating, well, I’ve got a lot to think about before guessing how we get out of that mess.
As for the relevance to whether Ossoff will run in 2028, Senators generally want to get as much power as possible and will err on the side of running, especially in what feels to me a slightly-more-likely-than-not Democratic year.
Also, a lot of the time, the nominee is someone who ran for president before and lost the nomination. That’s how you get name recognition for the future.
So, if I was a betting man, I would do some research on how good Ossoff is at fund-raising. If good, I think he will run this cycle.
Clinton had given the opening-night address at the Democratic National Convention in 1988, and famously (at that time) went far past the time slot he had been given. That was the first time I’d heard of him. And, at that point, he had already served several terms as governor of Arkansas.
I’d imagine that a fair number of Democratic voters had heard of him by 1990, even if they didn’t know a lot about him, other than that he gave a very long speech.
Obama likely gained some national fame in 2004, albeit indirectly, because of the circumstances around his Republican opponent(s) during Obama’s run for the Senate: the initial GOP nominee, Jack Ryan, had been forced to withdraw when a sex scandal involving his ex-wife, actress Jeri Ryan, came to light. Ryan was replaced on the ballot by conservative radio host and frequent political candidate Alan Keyes (who was not an Illinois resident).
And Obama, too, had made a keynote address (this one well-received) at the DNC (also in 2004, during his Senate campaign).
Yes, and I made a point of watching that speech (not the sort of thing I generally do) because my friend had told me to watch out for Obama. So, the vaguely politically aware, like me, had kinda heard of him.
But it is not so common for someone not considering running to be spending on ads in early voting, swing, and donor dense states:
So do you believe his words or his actions?
And the “etc.” does some heavy lifting.
AOC polls well and I really would be surprised if she isn’t a force this cycle, but she really has everyone who wants “progressive” in her camp, while the … not progressive? … camp is split among many. At some someone will be solidly own that lane. AOC might be able to expand her support beyond that sphere but that is an open question. She doesn’t do well in those Southern states unless she does. More power to her if she can.
Really good. But he is running in a must win Senate race which confounds interpretation?
That’s a lot of individual donations. He’s not alone in raising lots? Talarico is raking it in too. But apparently it is then a gap to get to Sherrod Brown and no one else close.
Certainly; I live in Illinois, and I’d heard of Obama already by 2004 (with him being a state Senator), but I agree, in 2006, I would not have at all thought of him as a possible president just two years later.
My point, with both Obama and Clinton, is that, two years prior to their successful presidential bids, it was not that people had not heard of them at all; it was that they were not, yet, considered to be possible presidential candidates, much less nominees. Were we having a discussion like this one, back in 1990, or 2006, it’s possible that someone might have mentioned either of them as dark horses or “someone to watch,” but they would not have been getting much attention or consideration.
Special election, not an appointment by the likely GOP governor.
I will tell you what I don’t believe - propaganda from the GOP trying to make Ossoff look bad to voters in Georgia, which is exactly what the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) is trying to do in that link.
Good point. They were quoting a piece on Puck which was behind a wall when I tried to follow there.
And to be fair, building a diverse small donor base in a race identified as of national importance is something he might do without presidential ambitions. But the early state spends, small as they may be, seem to point to at least keeping the option open.
In Georgia, the governor appoints a temporary senator until an election can be held at the next November election that is at least 40 days from when the seat became vacant. That’s what happened in 2020 - Johnny Isaakson resigned and Brad Kemp appointed Kelly Loeffler to replace him, and she lost the special election to Raphael Warnock. That special election was for the remainder of Isaakson’s term, which was why Warnock had to run for reelection against Herschel Walker in 2022.
So, whoever is governor in 2029 would get to appoint President Ossoff’s replacement to sit until November 2029, and the winner of that race would serve out the rest of the term until 2032.
I think this is going to be a REALLY good year to run for President as a Democrat. The incumbent is both incredibly unpopular and ineligible to run again, so the GOP candidate will have the albatross of Trump’s record without the actual advantages of incumbency. That’s the situation Obama had in 2008, and it doesn’t come around very often. I think if you think you have any chance at winning the nomination, you should probably follow Obama’s lead and run even if it’s not the optimal point of your career to be making that move.
Right now it feels like Ossoff is the guy. I say that knowing it’s way too early and that I’ve been fooled before. In 1988 I was in the Babbitt camp. Of course he has to win his Senate race first, but if he does the Democrats might need him to run. Looking at the field of popularly professed possibles, Jon Ossoff has the greatest chance of catching fire, IMO. But yeah, it’s so early…2027 will be veddy interesting.