While most everyone focuses on November’s looming midterms, where the early voting wave has already begun, quiet but serious preparations are also underway for the Big One, the far more important 2028 presidential election in just 25 months.
Democrats are more excited for that because they think it will bring an end to their interminable Donald Trump nightmare. They have tried so very hard in so very many ways, many of them underhanded, to terminate the GOP’s ruler’s political and business careers.
All of those efforts so far have failed as badly as Hillary Clinton’s political ambitions, as have not one, not two, but three assassination attempts.
To demonstrate their burning frustrations, Democrats, still stricken by their disastrous choice of Joe Biden's remains in 2020, have vowed even more fruitless impeachment efforts should media’s gleeful predictions of a House takeover come true on Nov. 3.
Trump’s steel will, uncanny skills, luck, and short sleep cycles have brought Republicans so much success since 2015. The unique politician’s administrations, tactics, successes, and gaffes will be studied for years.
So, who might Democrats offer Americans to take Trump’s place on Jan. 20, 2029? They won’t have the savvy billionaire to kick around anymore to mask their dim-witted, idea-free leadership, their total lack of any fresh or viable plans, and no target to blame for what goes wrong.
After two-term presidents, U.S. voters historically have tended to go for something different: A young Sen. John F. Kennedy over the vice president of Dwight Eisenhower, the elderly veteran of two world wars. Richard Nixon over Hubert Humphrey, the vice president of Lyndon Johnson, who pursued the Vietnam War so tragically.
I would argue that Pres. George H.W. Bush was, in effect, a third Ronald Reagan term. In 1992, voters opted instead for a little-known Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. In 2000, they passed over his vice president, Al Gore, for another governor, George W. Bush.
And in 2016, voters collectively discarded Mrs. Clinton for the Fifth Avenue penthouse dweller who, of all people, was the first to listen, hear, and then speak to and act on the frustrations and anger of the Heartland with the Swamp establishments of both parties.
We’ll have ample time in the coming months to detail the 2028 competition within the deep Republican field of possible heirs.
At the moment, it would seem to be either Vice President JD Vance or political veteran Marco Rubio, Trump’s national security advisor and bilingual Secretary of State. He has proven to be remarkably effective, well-versed and spoken, and wisely maintains he would not run if Vance does.
Vance was a late convert to MAGA and, like Obama, sat in the Senate only briefly. He's drawn some domestic political assignments and is running critical finances for the Republican National Committee, which has given him access to the top donors.
Vance's challenge will be creating a separate, seemingly independent public persona without appearing to criticize Trump, the same political predicament Kamala Harris failed to handle in 2024.
This is the time in each presidential cycle when anything seems possible, and ambitions sprout like late-season dandelions. So, some possible challengers like Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Rick Scott of Florida may soon detect an opening that others don’t see.
The fact is an entire generation of Democrat farm-team members outside Washington was wiped out in the 2010 midterm bloodbath that ousted 63 of the party's House members, seven senators, and nearly 1,000 state and local officials.
The GOP took over six more governor's offices and 20 new state legislative chambers to largely control that year's national redistricting. A useful reminder for any lazy conservatives who disregard the importance of midterms because their president's name is on no ballot.
Today, among Democrats, numerous survivors see an opportunity in 2028. It’s like opening the barn door on the first warm day of spring, and the whole herd bursts out.
Each of them thinks they’d be perfect for the Oval Office. Fortunately, they don’t get to make the choice.
Think a minute on Democrats you’ve seen performing their stunts in recent times. Fortunately, we did unburden ourselves from what could have been with Kamala Harris two years ago.
But setting ideology aside for an instant, has anyone in that crowd prompted you to imagine them as an effective commander in chief and leader of the free world? (The Comments are open below.)
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, at 36, the youngest bartender ever elected to Congress, is a progressive darling of media and a renewed card-carrying member of Democratic Socialists of America. She has been touted as a potential primary challenger to fellow New Yorker Sen. Chuck Schumer in 2028. But that would take patience and smarts.
Given her party’s mounting fatigue with its ineffective, elderly leadership and the growing surge of socialist support among uneducated younger Democrats frustrated with defeat, AOC’s eyes seem to be focusing on something higher in 2028 despite her lack of experience and intelligence.
She recently told the N.Y. Times: "Life doesn’t wait for you to be ready for things. Sometimes life just makes things ready for you."
She has also promised us that if she seeks another office and loses, that would be the end of her political career.
Midterm campaigns are always a useful time for wannabe presidential nominees to earn future political chits by helping their party's candidates in key states, test-driving campaign themes and speeches, and meeting potential donors.
Believe it or not, Kamala Harris is trying that game. The queen of speech salads, who lost every single swing state in 2024 and has never earned a single primary vote, maintains that she has not made up her mind about 2028.
I maintain that Americans have made up their mind about her. And her possible 2028 campaign teases are merely a ploy to keep speaking fees elevated in the meantime.
Two governors – Gavin Newsom of California and JB Pritzker of Illinois – see themselves as presidential nominees. Newsom’s giveaway was publishing a book. Pritzker’s was losing 80 pounds.
Anyone examining their records, especially the fiscal one, would not be impressed. Both men have forever festering urban sores in their states – Los Angeles and Chicago – that they’ve done nothing to address.
Pritzker, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff can’t really talk about seeking a self-promotion until they earn reelection to their existing position. Voters might keep that bait-and-switch trick in mind.
Kentucky’s Gov. Andy Beshear has not declared he is running. But he just published a book (“Go and Do Likewise”), which means he is.
His theme, that faith based on compassion and kindness can heal the country’s divisions, appears to run counter to his party’s persistent rage and take-to-the-streets rhetoric.
A shocking recent poll by the Center for Strategic Politics found that 59 percent of Democrats would support a military coup to overthrow President Trump. That's how strong their belief in democracy is.
At some point you’d think (or hope) that Democrats would come to their senses. That sure won’t happen if lazy Republicans neglect to vote in November and Dems experience a blue wave, taking control of the House and possibly even the Senate.
Whatever those results, they will set the tone for the 2028 lead-up and encourage candidates to match the party’s prevailing mood of anger, socialism, and even more revenge.
They have vowed to go after Trump supporters and additional show-trial impeachment attempts when they control the House, which will draw endless positive media and mask the absence of real ideas. That should make voters who believe in a responsible two-party system think twice. (Hey, we can hope, can't we?)
Gallup this month found that two-thirds of Democrats now have a positive view of socialism; among Republicans, it’s 14 percent.
That presages radical changes in policies should Democrats take political control in Washington this year or in 2028.
To my eyes, one ominous, dark-horse Democrat possibility is Rahm Emanuel. I’ve written here about this wily Chicago pol who’s built the most impressive resume of any current Democrat: senior Bill Clinton aide, three-term representative and architect of Democrats’ 2006 House takeover, Obama White House chief of staff, two-term Chicago mayor, ambassador to Japan.
He’s been quietly coaching candidates, writing, and appearing everywhere from the Wall Street Journal to Bill Maher while arguing to ditch identity politics and focus on more voter-pragmatic concerns.
Among today's Democrats, he sounds dangerously sensible. “We lost our way,” he says of his party, and need to focus less on getting boys into girls’ locker rooms and more on getting public school students to read.
Emanuel would make a good ideological balance to a progressive ticket if they could stomach him.
As the perpetual party of big government, Democrats often turn to the Senate for top-of-the-ticket candidates: Kennedy, Johnson, McGovern, Mondale, Obama, Kerry, Edwards, Clinton.
Current Senate possibles mentioned are New Jersey’s Cory Booker, Arizona’s Mark Kelly, Connecticut’s Chris Murphy, Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, and last and least, Pete Buttigieg. He’s never been a senator, but he was a mayor once.
Keep in mind, it’s to media’s advantage to create a long list of names to stir up maximum chatter and online traffic. And it’s to the advantage of public figures to be seen at that level. That doesn't mean any of the chatter is real.
For example, Don Lemon has expressed interest in running to become commander in chief. “People keep asking me if I’m running,” Lemon claims without providing names. “I could do a better job than Trump.”
You may remember him from his long but lightly-viewed run on CNN. Lemon was terminated in 2023 for saying that former Trump Cabinet member and South Carolina governor Nikki Haley was past her prime.
Turns out, so was he.
