I would say a huge senate victory is what might start his path to the nomination rather than cause a premature peak. Obama’s huge win in 2004 is definitely part of why he was catapulted into the nomination discussion.
I think the thing that would really push me to believe he, or a different candidate, was going to overcome the friction that keeps Harris at the forefront, is if they pull down a bigtime endorsement. Like if AOC or Pritzker realized there path wasn’t quite their and backed a candidate slightly out of their lane, to actively consolidate some blocs.
The fact that we’ll have a lot of red state Democrats to weigh in creates some interesting opportunities to jockey through the primary too. A Rob Sand, or James Talarico may be able to give someone a boost the way Klobuchar managed to get Biden to win Minnesota on super Tuesday.
Buttigieg is also a “loser” but he is still mentioned. Joe Biden lost in 2008. Nixon lost and came back.
Why not just say Jon Ossoff, who- according to several posters here- is disqualified as he is Jewish. : I do not think Gaza will be such a big issue in 2 years, but who knows?
Buttigieg is still a fresh face to most. Losing a primary race is very different than losing the general election.
I don’t disqualify a Jewish candidate because I don’t think it necessarily plays against them, if anything I suspect it helps thread the needle of being against Israeli actions but supporting Israel’s survival.
But there is real antisemitism to have to be aware of.
On the other hand, on paper, John Kerry looked like exactly the sort of candidate Republicans would cross over to vote for. I don’t think anyone in the US actually cares about military experience, in their candidates. I think it’s just an excuse some folks use when it happens to align with the candidate they intended to vote for anyway.
For me, the biggest reason is how she ran her 2024 campaign. The perception I got is that she ran her campaign on Biden’s record. Yes, there were some attacks against Trump scattered here and there, but she didn’t go 100% negative against Trump and the MAGA movement despite having the opportunity. That’s why her campaign felt stale. It was the old fashioned Democratic idea of not getting into the mud with the pigs. I think that idea is incorrect. Whoever Democrats nominate needs to not be afraid at going negative. Given everything that is currently going on, there should be no shortage of material in that regard. Who might that be? I’d go with JB Pritzker.
Yeah. As I pointed out, the last batch of Americans who were eligible for the draft are in their 70s now. Military service isn’t the universal experience it once was.
I was not saying her 2024 campaign was stale. I was saying that a future campaign in 2028 will feel stale. I watched her at virtually every public appearance she made in 2024, and I thought she was terrific. She had a difficult fine line to walk and she walked it well.
I disagree with you about going negative. Our presidential candidate IMHO should be someone with a positive message. But there are plenty of other Dems who simultaneously can and should shiv Trump every chance they get.
Not sure the new vein if leftist antisemitism doesn’t end up helping Ossoff. He can go straight at that. Go after Israel without being accused of antisemitism then go after the exact parts of the left the party needs to distance itself from. Stay at the center of the discussion.
I think the main reason Harris did so poorly in 2024 is how she became the candidate. That is, it was Biden being forced to drop out after the primaries because he fell on his face at the debate. That created such a terrible look for her and for the Democratic Party that I doubt any candidate could have overcome it.
That being said, I don’t think Harris would be a good candidate in 2028. She carries the taint of having lost the general election. She isn’t well-loved by any constituency. She has a tendency to lash out at criticism rather than address what she’s being criticized for (and yeah, I know Trump does this more than anyone). I don’t see any evidence that she’s a strong campaigner.
Ossoff would be a strong candidate. He’s a Democratic senator of a red state, which shows he can appeal to voters other than progressives. He’s a strong and consistent critic of Trump and his administration. He’s good in front of a crowd.
Ossoff’s two biggest problems are lack of name recognition, and the fact that he’s Jewish. He has plenty of time to address the former issue. The big question is whether the American public will vote for a non-Christian for president. So far, all U.S. presidents have been Christian, and only two haven’t been Protestant (Kennedy and Biden). There could be a lot of bigotry expressed in the privacy of the secret ballot. If he does become the nominee, I expect the Republicans to conduct a nasty campaign of antisemitic dogwhistles.
This is playing out in the current Georgia senate race:
I do not see evidence that the minority group (or gender) identity of a candidate would be more salient in a presidential race than a senate or gubernatorial race. True, that’s because the sample size of presidential races is too small. But I would go with evidence (candidate can win in a Trumpy constituency) over pure speculation (voters are OK with a Jewish politician except for president).
Not as far as I can tell. 65% of veterans voted for Trump. None of the things he’s said or done to disrespect the military matter. The fact that he evaded the draft doesn’t matter.
Well, it was not like Harris had any Military experience.
But voters do care-
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans view prior military service more positively than prior government or business experience when considering political candidates’ credentials.
Fifty-five percent of U.S. adults say that military service on a candidate’s resume makes it much (16%) or somewhat (39%) more likely they’ll vote for that person, compared with 7% who say it discourages them from doing so. Thirty-eight percent say it makes no difference to their vote.
Also Shapiro in PA and Stein in NC both won governorships by huge margins. Jacky Rosen held her senate seat in Nevada on 2024. So it doesn’t seem to have hurt anyone’s election chances so far.
First, context was my saying that the electoral history of the candidate is a lot more important than any guesses one might make about how their life history would work in a campaign.
Second, although this is tricky to explain, I didn’t exactly says that veterans want a president with an outstanding military record. I was more thinking that if both the Democratic and Republican standard bearer turn out to be involved in wars with Iraq, running in the same race will highlight that. And if one was a combat fighter pilot (Kelly) and the other a military journalist (Vance), it would a plus for the fighter pilot.
As for what about Bush v. Kerry, yes, Kerry did have a more impressive record. But in the first election after 9/11, emotions were still high enough so that voters were unlikely to throw out the incumbent. Kerry’s volunteering for swift boats might have helped him, just not enough.
Another thing I could be wrong about, but: If the 2028 election is Kelly v. Vance, I don’t think the military background of the candidates will be the big overt issue it was with Kerry v. Bush. It would more be something that swing/uncertain voters weigh deep in their unconscious (which is where decisions as to who to vote for are IMHO made).
I guess Kelly isn’t a front-runner right now, but he should be.
is disqualified as he is Jewish. : I do not think Gaza will be such a big issue in 2 years, but who knows?