It may not matter who they run, anyone NOT TRUMP is better to these people.

But in reality, which Dem is actually a viable Candidate to top the D ticket in 2028?

Lots of names being tossed around but seriously...

Below is a list of current "contenders"


Gavin Newsom
Josh Shapiro
Gretchen Whitmer
Pete Buttigieg
JB Pritzker
Andy Beshear
Wes Moore
Raphael Warnock

Booker?
The whore?
AOC?

That is a murders row of nobody...... and an ultimate list of team over country. If any of these people (any of them) take over and also have a Dem majority in the house and Senate... we are in deep shitte.

Is there a sane one on the bunch.... is there anyone else that might emerge from nowhere to stabilize this?

Democrats found a lot of answers in 2026. So we’ll see.

So far, so good.

Well, if people actually did what Trump said, and pretended that he was on the ballot, he got his ass thoroughly stomped.

I thought Wes Moore could have been a solid candidate — until he fumbled on the question regarding, hypothetically, allowing his minor son to transition genders. Though he clarified, his initial answer was lame.

Might be moot, as Moore says he won't run. But the man has an impressive resume. He still might be a decent candidate if he runs.

No

My top choices are:

Pete Buttigieg
Jon Ossoff
Josh Shapiro
Mark Kelly
Gavin Newsom

I don't think Whitmer is planning on running. Likely more of a VP choice. I still think we're a couple cycles from electing a woman. And I hope Harris doesn't run.

And I'm pretty sure another under the radar candidate may emerge as well.

(Yesterday 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  My top choices are:

Pete Buttigieg
Jon Ossoff
Josh Shapiro
Mark Kelly
Gavin Newsom

I don't think Whitmer is planning on running. Likely more of a VP choice. I still think we're a couple cycles from electing a woman. And I hope Harris doesn't run.

And I'm pretty sure another under the radar candidate may emerge as well.

So No

(Yesterday 10:31 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Is there a sane one on the bunch.... is there anyone else that might emerge from nowhere to stabilize this?

Democrats will never nominate a Jew, so little to fear on this front, but Rahm Emanuel would be very hard to beat.

(Yesterday 01:26 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(Yesterday 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  My top choices are:

Pete Buttigieg
Jon Ossoff
Josh Shapiro
Mark Kelly
Gavin Newsom

I don't think Whitmer is planning on running. Likely more of a VP choice. I still think we're a couple cycles from electing a woman. And I hope Harris doesn't run.

And I'm pretty sure another under the radar candidate may emerge as well.

So No

All of them are miles ahead of JD Vance. Rubio would give them the most difficulty.

As has been mentioned in a couple other threads...if the dems can keep the momentum going in places like Texas, the GOP is in real trouble.

(Yesterday 01:22 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  My top choices are:

Pete Buttigieg
Jon Ossoff
Josh Shapiro
Mark Kelly
Gavin Newsom

I don't think Whitmer is planning on running. Likely more of a VP choice. I still think we're a couple cycles from electing a woman. And I hope Harris doesn't run.

And I'm pretty sure another under the radar candidate may emerge as well.

I respect Mark Kelly in many ways. But, man, he is so negative toward the Republicans. Mayor Pete is diplomatic and likable.

(Yesterday 01:37 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(Yesterday 10:31 AM)Eldonabe Wrote:  Is there a sane one on the bunch.... is there anyone else that might emerge from nowhere to stabilize this?

Democrats will never nominate a Jew, so little to fear on this front, but Rahm Emanuel would be very hard to beat.

Interesting observation. I tend to agree, AM.

I predict it will not be AOC. She's just to rile up the pawns. She's the new Bernie. The Establishment won't hand her the keys.

It'll be the most charismatic of the bunch. Who speaks the best. I don't know on these lists who that is.

Not Gavin, please. And Kamala needs to sit this one (and all future ones) out. California is not the answer to keep Tuesdays majority making voters on board.

(Yesterday 06:55 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Not Gavin, please. And Kamala needs to sit this one (and all future ones) out. California is not the answer to keep Tuesdays majority making voters on board.

Agreed!

My top 3 would be Ossoff, Beshear & Moore.

(Yesterday 07:31 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(Yesterday 06:55 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Not Gavin, please. And Kamala needs to sit this one (and all future ones) out. California is not the answer to keep Tuesdays majority making voters on board.

Agreed!

My top 3 would be Ossoff, Beshear & Moore.

Beshear and Ossoff my favorites, like Mark Kelly a lot too.

(Yesterday 07:31 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(Yesterday 06:55 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  Not Gavin, please. And Kamala needs to sit this one (and all future ones) out. California is not the answer to keep Tuesdays majority making voters on board.

Agreed!

Deep down, almost all Democrats know that Harris and Newsom are losers in a presidential election. But so far, few (if any) of them have been willing to say that out loud. Their reticence was understandable while the midterm elections were still pending. But very soon, people are going to have to begin speaking up and making it clear that those 2 are simply unacceptable for ’28. Some others are unacceptable, too, but Harris/Newsom in particular.

Quote:My top 3 would be Ossoff, Beshear & Moore.

Ossoff is viable for VP, but both too young for the #1 slot plus he said over and over again that he wouldn’t do it in ’28. Warnock wants to, I have a feeling Ossoff will defer to him.

Beshear is fool’s gold. He does not add 1 electoral vote to the Dems’ coalition. Not ready for the big leagues.

Moore might be the real deal. Keep an eye on him.

Its Ossoff. Its not even a question. Trump calling him Pee Wee is recognition. He can deliver a speech and drive home a message. His media team is on point. Georgia used to be red, what he win by?

(Today 12:35 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  Its Ossoff. Its not even a question. Trump calling him Pee Wee is recognition. He can deliver a speech and drive home a message. His media team is on point. Georgia used to be red, what he win by?

59-41

The Dems’ nominee in 2028 will not be running against Mike Collins, LOL. I swear the GOP could’ve picked any of about 500 current/former local elected officials and activists who would’ve run a stronger campaign. Good on Ossoff for taking advantage but he is unlikely to be given a similar free pass in ’28.

He would be youngest nominee since William Jennings Bryan (who was 36) and youngest President ever (41). True, not everyone will care. But many will be concerned about the lack of experience. I’ll say again he is ready for VP.

They don't need one. They will just cook the books again, because the right is too chicken to do anything about it.

(Today 01:19 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(Today 12:35 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  Its Ossoff. Its not even a question. Trump calling him Pee Wee is recognition. He can deliver a speech and drive home a message. His media team is on point. Georgia used to be red, what he win by?

59-41

The Dems’ nominee in 2028 will not be running against Mike Collins, LOL. I swear the GOP could’ve picked any of about 500 current/former local elected officials and activists who would’ve run a stronger campaign. Good on Ossoff for taking advantage but he is unlikely to be given a similar free pass in ’28.

He would be youngest nominee since William Jennings Bryan (who was 36) and youngest President ever (41). True, not everyone will care. But many will be concerned about the lack of experience. I’ll say again he is ready for VP.

William Jennings Bryan was never elected president. Teddy Roosevelt's the youngest president ever. He was inaugurated at 42. (JFK's the youngest ever elected at 43.)