I’d expect the number who prefer one who would not support the other to be very small.
Of course I think the number of them who wouldn’t support any of the possible Democratic nominees is tiny.
Not zero but not significant.
Also - If AOC gets the nod the center left and establishment folk will support her and likewise for the progressive wing if it is another establishment politician.
I’d expect it to be in the millions.
However, the number, in the millions, who would vote for Harris but not Newsom, and the number, in the millions, who would vote for Newsom but not Harris, could be similar numbers.
As for possible reasons for this, I cannot imagine them all because low info voters often have an idiosyncratic reason for their choice. But to cite one definite, a lot of voters have a bad memory of the Biden administration and would vote for Newsom as a fresher face. And a lot of other voters would vote for Harris because, despite being conservative on some other issues, they think it is time for a woman to be President.
It might be more accurate to say that one group will “vote for” the other candidate rather than they “support” the other candidate. I expect that many voters will be reluctantly voting for a candidate that they may not really support, but they are voting for them to prevent a Republican candidate from winning. Harris and Newsom are pretty much regular Democrats, so a supporter of one will likely vote for the other since the person is voting to put a Democrat into office. Supporters of polarizing candidates, like AOC and Sanders, are more interested in supporting those kinds of candidates rather than voting for the Democratic Party. If their candidate isn’t a choice, they may sit out rather than vote for an establishment candidate.
Maybe the question needs to be clarified.
This is not a question about appealing most to the low information voters many of whom are deciding about whether to bother to vote or not. It is about people who actively supported one who would stay home if the one got the nod.
The historical precedent quoted was the threat of staying home made by “Bernie Bros” who both believed something unfair happened and who had the candidate end up being a very different lane than the one they supported. And a not enthusiastic support from the losing candidate. No hijack to use that as worst case and to say that end of day the experts think that may have been up to 1.5 to 2 million voters. (Maybe less, not relitigating, go with bigger end for sake of discussion.)
So end of a process more perceived as “fair”, pretty much same lane, both fairly establishment politicians very committed to getting a D win? Don’t see how that comes out to “millions”?
Pushing it to very different lanes? AOC supporters vs … eh let’s use Kelly as middle of the road …?
I still see both groups feeling strongly that circling the wagons against a president who would try to be a continuation of Trump is the most important thing. There is no delusion that there is no real difference between a Kelly say, and a continuation of Trumpism. No delusion that a Progressive would be worse than Trumpism is even by those far outside of that lane.
I feel – I hope – that scenario plays out. Granted, the whole PUMA (“Party Unity My Ass”) meme that disaffected Hillary voters were going to stay home and not vote for Obama was largely the creation of Drug Limpnodes and the other righty-radio mouthpieces.
But suppose it comes up to AOC vs Newsom? That’s a little farther of a stretch, IMHO. Granting your premise of “Anybody but tRump 2.0”, Democrats have a long track record of reverse Midas touch.
I think you’ve touched on one of the biggest weaknesses of our prognostication abilities. Imagine telling Democrats after a bloodbath of 2002 midterms, and Bush actually winning the popular vote in 04, that the next presidential candidate will be a progressive, black, four year senator with named Barack Obama, and that he’d win the most one sided presidential election blowout of the 21st century.
Based on what I see I don’t think Newsom or AOC have a broad enough support base to win the nomination. But there is a good chance either of them will destroy Vance/Rubio/RFK/Tucker Carlson or whoever else wins the 2028 Republican nomination because the country will be in shambles. Just like it was in 08, just like it was in 2020.
Dems don’t have to worry about popularity too much because Republicans are wreckers who ruin everything and make their replacement a necessity. I think any person capable of winning the Democratic nomination probably demolishes the eventual Republican nominee.
But trump can not run, so things will be way different.
I was only speaking of the primary side of the equuation. I’m hoping general will look like 2008 regardless since some successor candidate is going to have to be sell Republican governance in an absolute garbage heap of an economy.
Of course, that is predicated on the hope that one-third to two-fifths of the eligible voting population doesn’t suffer a collective case of ennui, or be so howl-at-the-moon stupid as to swallow the Both Parties Are Same meme.
If only highly engaged voters show up to the polls in 2028 Dems will have a super majority in 2029. Dems got rocked in 2024 because they couldn’t wrangle the disinterested electorate that wanted change and novelty.
Correction, 82 year old Trump can not run.
DJT’s age is irrelevant to the fact he can’t legally run in 2028.
I’m not clear about the point you were making.
Moderating:
These are all hijacks from the topic at hand. @DrDeth, you seem to be on a hijacking kick again lately. Next one gets a warning.
All, please get back to the topic. Donald Trump has nothing to do with which Democrats are running for the presidential nomination in 2028.
Mea culpa. Sorry for that.
Newsom says he won’t run if Harris does.
Makes sense, I guess. His concern is that their bases overlap too much.
That does make sense. Newsom is not stupid.
Oof, that’s definitely the team player move, but I think the smarter move would be to let both make moves as we head into a primary and whoever gets less momentum can drop out early and fully endorse the other. I get that Harris probably has “seniority” here, but she also has a lot of baggage from her failed run and so she might not be the best candidate from that wing of the party.
That said, I’m more than happy for her to prove me wrong with a fantastic primary campaign.
There’s probably a fear that donors won’t see him as viable with Harris running.
And banking on an assessment that she isn’t going to run, so having said this both makes him look noble and implies that he is the one those who prefer Harris should support if she doesn’t run. It really pressures her to support his run when doesn’t as well.
Two Californian “mainstream Dems” would create a dilution on that faction of the electorate, as he recognizes, so it’s a sensible move.
(It also prevents a repeat of Crockett/Talarico where people are still sore that it had to be a contest at all.)