The “Democrats” dont “find” candidates. A eligible person declares themselves a member of a party, then runs. The Party has nothing to do with it. Now, in the general election the DNC can decide how much of their funds to spend on any given candidate.
There is a whole thread on this.
Maine has always had weird candidates- for both parties.
And FWIW same applies to the Republicans (see: Tea Party; see: MAGA).
If it were up to the Democrat/Republican Establishment to “find a candidate” then no Obama, no Trump, no Mamdani.
What the Democratic Party apparatus do influence, they get dragged mercilessly for it. Remember all the weeping and gnashing of teeth about “Superdelegates” back when it was Bernie v. Hillary? Or about “democracy” because with only 3 months to go they went for Harris because she was the one there and ready rather than speedrun an open competition?
And yes, frankly, the voters want that brawler-but-for-my-side, or an Obama type with knockout charisma and intellectual substance, or a Bill Clinton relatable rogue with heart of gold type. Because for a generation they’ve watched classic professional competence get stomped.
I shared a link to an NYT article about him already in the Senate 2026 thread and in the Graham Platner thread. After reading the article I don’t buy the “he’s a Nazi” argument. He is a populist but I’m not sure that is always bad. Read the article yourself and decide. I’m not going to link again here but both are free gift links.
Then why did he literally quit the Marines rather than having it removed? Why did he keep it for 20 years until it became inconvenient to his political campaign?
Of course it is.
https://allen-faulton.medium.com/why-populism-is-bad-7b631a2e740e
Deleted my response as continuing this discussion here could be considered a hijack.
Did he?
Platner enlisted in the Marine Corps shortly after graduating from high school in 2003.[1] He attended the Marine Corps School of Infantry, then deployed to Iraq in 2005.[6] He served a total of eight years in the military, including three combat tours in Iraq, in areas including Ramadi and Fallujah.[10] Asked why he served in the Iraq War after protesting it, Platner said, “I thought I could do some good. And I wanted to play soldier. I might have read too much Hemingway.”[11]
After four years in the military, Platner enrolled at George Washington University, funded by the G.I. Bill.[1] Shortly after starting school, he enlisted in the Maryland Army National Guard and served an additional tour of duty in the war in Afghanistan.[12][13] He returned to Washington in 2011, resuming classes at GWU and working as a bartender at the Tune Inn on Capitol Hill.[14][15] From 2011 to 2016 he alternated between living in D.C. and military deployments, before withdrawing from GWU and returning to Maine in 2016 for treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder and other military-related injuries.[13][1][11][16]
He served two whole term in the marines.
And all this should really go in the Platner thread, right?
Interview with Pritzker in Politico today. Doesn’t really offer anything new, but if you want to see him in action, there’s a video of the interview included.
The headline’s a bit misleading (“This Husky Jewish Billionaire Could be Democrats’ Best Bet in 2028”), as this isn’t actually a column that makes the case for a Pritzker candidacy, but rather just a run-of-the-mill interview where he doesn’t commit to anything beyond governing Illinois.
Ok, good, they changed the headline. Now it’s 'We Want to Move on From Losing’: Pritzker on Antisemitism, Trump and 2028"
Current polling averages show Harris and Newsom in the top tier, though only polling about 50% between them. I think this is just name recognition and can’t imagine the voters will actually stick with them once they start paying more attention.
The next tier is Buttigieg, AOC and Shapiro. I think AOC’s low numbers are somewhat illusory. Democratic voters really like AOC, but are not sold on her as a viable 2028 Presidential candidate. But if she chooses to run, she will get a respectful hearing, and if she is fit for the job, she will be able to attract a lot of support. There’s no obvious sign that she actually is running, though. I think she would be smart to evaluate her position after the midterms before committing to anything.
Buttigieg looks good (to some people) on paper, but he’s never actually won a major election, and I think that after the midterms we’re going to have some candidates with recent records of success in red and purple States. James Talarico, anyone? Jon Ossoff’s profile will rise if he wins in Georgia again, especially by an impressive margin. I would think Shapiro’s hardline pro-Israel position would disqualify him with Democratic voters, but he could also notch a big re-election win in a crucial swing State this fall.
Roy Cooper will be a baby senator, but I would not be surprised by a 2028 run by him. He is a popular southern governor with a good head on his shoulders and no emergent scandals from his eight years in office.
She will be good when she gets more experience.
Needs more experience, and the USA needs to move a little to the left- which it seems to be doing. Maybe he should run for Governor or Senator, then 2032?
I agree some experience is necessary, but both of these have enough. More valuable is judgment, ethics, intelligence, and world view. Obama is my cite.
The Democrats have nominated experience before and still got beat by the reality TV candidate who openly endorses sexual assault. I’m not entirely convinced of the value of experience. In fact, if Trump is our guide (assuming a double standard doesn’t apply), experience is not only unnecessary but is also a significant drawback to those voters who only want the candidate who is perceived as an outsider. Does an AOC who can point to a longer resume have a real advantage versus an AOC who can fire off zingers and do the best trash talking about the opposition? (For what it is worth, I think you need both experience and… personality but I feel like voters lean one way in particular and that’s not going to change absent another badly-managed pandemic.)
A mayor of a medium sized city and a few years as a second line cabinet member? Never a national or statewide election?
Sure, so should we run a TV star of our own? No.
Sure. He’d be great. He’s smart, compassionate, articulate, and would find experienced advisors to assist him. It really isn’t rocket science, but you need to be a good person, relatively intelligent, and with a good moral compass.
Not at all (although I do think a candidate needs to be able to successfully sell the message of “things suck and only I can fix them”). I’m just trying to find that tipping point where more experience becomes the winning formula. Hillary Clinton had lots of experience and she lost. Joe Biden had experience and he won. Kamala Harris had experience and she lost. So experience is 1 for 3 against Trump but Biden got additional points from a global pandemic that Trump handled ineptly (along with some other debatable advantages Joe might have had that I won’t get into because it’s off topic; he certainly won’t be the nominee in 2028 anyhow).
To bring it back to the topic, for our fantasy Democrat for 2028, what kind of experience do they need? And are they in any kind of position to get that experience between now and then? What puts it over the line? The MAGA crowd is going to be hurling out “everything is bad because woke transgender liberal communist etc. etc. etc.” We need a candidate as charismatic if not more so than AOC except with more experience at what specifically? This will be on the test.
It is an interesting question. Candidates with no relevant experience do tend to fair worse. However, it is unclear how much of that is that they tend to be bad poorly vetted candidates, or the experience itself is the problem. On the other hand Congress is really unpopular, so if a candidate has been in congress long enough to be associated with it, that is a negative. And voters also prefer younger candidates. I don’t think any of these relationships are linear though and are really more yes/no’s I don’t think people care that much say if a candidate is 48 or 58 but 68 is dicey and 78 is a real problem. You can quibble with the numbers, but I imagine if you have some political experience (governor, congressman, cabinet member), haven’t been in Washington for over a decade, and are under 65, most voters will be fine with your candidacy.
And to some degree, define experience. Obama had been a state senator but only a federal senator for two years. JFK was a Senator and so were LBJ and Truman, though of course the latter two succeeded into the position. Clinton and Carter and FDR were governors. So were Bush and Reagan and Nixon. The elder Bush had been director of the CIA among other things before being VP. Eisenhower of course was a five star general.
Go back nearly a hundred years now and historically what wins is some sort of executive position, generally governor. Sitting VPs have almost never won. Senators are rare and with JFK and Obama both young and charismatic. You ideally need a reasonably young (mid 50s at the oldest), reasonably charismatic governor. Ideally from a swing state or even a generally Republican one. At least that’s what I’d be looking for.
I would make a distinction between experience campaigning for office and experience holding office. There is overlap, but one doesn’t guarantee the other.
To run for president you need a rolodex of proven advisors, the ability to vet new ones and fire old friends, and good instincts on when to go along with advice and when to ignore it. I have the sense that John McCain and Hillary Clinton didn’t have this; maybe their previous elections weren’t challenging enough.
You also need to be adept at quickly building and ramping up a nimble campaign organization. Then you have to do all of these things effectively when your completely exhausted, burnt out, and sometimes even ill. Maybe you can offload some of this to key staff, but that goes back to finding and managing the key staff.
There is a ton of luck involved as well so the best candidates do not always get the nomination or win the election, but I think to campaign for president effectively is a type of rocket science.
I was curious about this quote, so I asked ChatGPT. So the answer may or may not be correct.
Sitting VPs have run for President 10 times. They have lost six times and won four times. The last winner was Bush 41 in 1988. Before that, the last winner was in 1836. The last loser was of course Harris in 2024. Before that, the last loser was Gore in 2000. And before that, Humphrey in 1968.
(Note: ChatGPT did not originally include Harris in the losing list, until I asked about her. First, they answered that Harris had never run for president. Then I asked who the Dem candidate was in 2024. Only then did they say that Harris should have been on the losing list.)
/end hijack
Carry on.