Democrats abandon tradition as 2028 presidential hopefuls openly declare White House ambitions
Back in the day, potential candidates would deny even thinking about it.
I remember interviewing Marco Rubio in a Senate hallway about whether he might run in 2016. He denied even contemplating it. I knew it was bull. He knew it was bull. And, of course, he ran–and lost to Donald Trump.
It's like when candidates or officeholders say they never look at polls, or offer some bromide on how the only poll that counts is Election Day. Hogwash. They all look at polls, erratic as they may be, or talk to consultants who look at the surveys for them.
But now a new dynamic is taking hold, one that might be summarized as: Hell yeah, I'm running!
I mean, there are obligatory nods to focusing on next year's midterms. But there is no longer the Kabuki dance of pretending a lack of interest.
The New York Times has a nice piece on this. Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear is telling reporters he "would consider" a White House run. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz says if he's "asked to serve" – by whom? – he will do "whatever it takes" to run. Excuse me, how does Walz's big flop as Kamala's running mate qualify him for the top spot?
Arizona's Ruben Gallego, who's been a senator for about 12 minutes, said he's awaiting the birth of his third child but added: "Babies get older."
Many of these White House wannabes have little name recognition, which means they have nothing to lose by running, which can at least lead to a cable news contract.
Pete Buttigieg, having been bitten once by the bug, is obviously running again, but the former Transportation secretary is playing coy–"Right now I'm not running for anything" – right – but it's nice to hear from people who backed him.
My favorite quote is from Gallego, who told NBC: "Has it ever crossed my mind? Of course," adding an expletive. "I'm an elected official. It crosses my mind."
The prognosticators have counted at least 19 potential contenders. Many of them won't make it to Iowa. Or won't make it to the debate stage because their polls are too low. Or are forced out of the race when their fundraising dries up.
The Great Mentioner was openly replaced by the media, which in turn yielded to social media and podcasters. But the good old legacy media – now deemed a grievous insult – still have the chance to do the most original reporting.
It's expensive to cover campaigns. Media organizations are charged for riding on Air Force One or private charters. Their bosses must pay for their food and lodging for days on end. Some expense account dinners are legendary.
But it's fun, largely a young person's game. They're not sitting in some air-conditioned studio. Which is why you're reading about this now, over 3½ years before the next presidential election.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
6 minutes ago
A look at Texas' redistricting walkout and California's response, by the numbers
A walkout by Democratic legislators in Texas has ended and Republicans arranged to push a plan for redrawing the state's congressional districts through the GOP-controlled Legislature and give President Donald Trump a better political landscape. Democrats' boycott of daily sessions kept the House from passing a new map because the state constitution requires 100 of the chamber's 150 members to be present to do business. Democrats hold 62 seats. A national, partisan brawl over redistricting has now started to shift to California, where Democrats are hoping to impose a new map that offsets any advantage Trump and his fellow Republicans might gain in Texas. Here's a breakdown by the numbers. Texas is the nation's second most-populous state and has 38 congressional seats. Republicans hold 25 of them but are hoping to boost that number to 30. Their goal is to make it easier for the GOP to hold on to its slim U.S. House majority in the 2026 midterm elections, so that Democrats have little ability to thwart Trump's agenda and can't initiate investigations of his administration. Democrats hold 43 of 52 congressional seats in California, the nation's most populous state. At Gov. Gavin Newsom's urging, they've drafted a proposal to increase the number to 48. However, the current map was drawn by an independent commission created though a voter-approved ballot initiative in 2008. To avoid legal challenges, Democrats want to put their proposal on the ballot in a special election in November. Redistricting usually happens after the once-a-decade population count by the U.S. Census Bureau and sometimes in response to a court ruling. Changes are required to keep a state's congressional districts equal in population after people move into or out of an area. Trump is pushing for a rare mid-decade redistricting in Texas, and Republicans are also considering it in other states including Missouri, Florida and Indiana. Republicans currently hold 219 seats in the U.S. House, seven more than the 212 held by Democrats. Four of the chamber's 435 seats are vacant, three of them previously held by Democrats. Midterm elections most often go against the president's party. In 2018, during Trump's first term, Democrats had a net gain of 41 seats to capture the House majority. Most House Democrats left Texas on Aug. 3 and stayed outside the state for 15 days. They fled to blue states like Illinois, California and Massachusetts to stay out of the reach of the Texas law enforcement officers trying to bring them back. Many of the same lawmakers also walked out in 2021 for 38 days to protest GOP proposals for new voting restrictions. Once they returned, Republicans passed them into law. The Democrats who bolted for other states and returned now have an around-the-clock escort from Texas Department of Public Safety officers to make sure they return to the Capitol, House Speaker Dustin Burrows' office said. Burrows' office did not provide more details, calling it an ongoing law enforcement operation. Plainclothes officers escorted them from the chamber after Monday's session.
6 minutes ago
Maryland tax on digital ads violated Big Tech's free speech, judges say
ANNAPOLIS, Md. -- Maryland's first-in-the-nation tax on digital advertising violated the Constitution, a federal appeals court says, because blocking Big Tech from telling customers about the tax violates the companies' right to free speech. Supporters say Maryland needed to overhaul its tax methods in response to significant changes in how businesses advertise. The tax focuses on large companies that make money advertising on the internet such as Meta, Google and Amazon, who say they're being unfairly targeted. The ongoing legal fight is being watched by other states that are considering taxes for online ads. Maryland estimated the tax could raise about $250 million a year to help pay for a sweeping K-12 education measure. Maryland's law says the companies must not only pay the tax, but avoid telling customers how it affects pricing, with no line items, surcharges or fees, said the appeals court Friday in siding with trade associations fighting the tax. Judge Julius Richardson cited the Colonial-era Stamp Act, which helped spark the Revolutionary War, and wrote that 'criticizing the government — for taxes or anything else — is important discourse in a democratic society.' The plaintiffs contended Maryland lawmakers were trying to insulate themselves from criticism and political accountability by forbidding companies from explaining the tax to their customers. 'A state cannot duck criticism by silencing those affected by its tax,' the judge wrote. The unanimous ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a decision by U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby and sends the case back to her with instructions to consider an appropriate remedy in light of the panel's decision. Trade groups praised the decision. 'Maryland tried to prevent criticism of its tax scheme, and the Fourth Circuit recognized that tactic for what it was: censorship,' said Paul Taske, co-director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, said in a statement. Maryland Comptroller Brooke Lierman, who is the defendant in the case, and the Maryland attorney general's office, who is representing the state, declined to comment Monday. The law has been challenged in multiple legal venues, including Maryland Tax Court, where the case is ongoing. The law imposes a tax based on global annual gross revenues for companies that make more than $100 million globally. Under the law, the tax rate is 2.5% for businesses making more than $100 million in global gross annual revenue; 5% for companies making $1 billion or more; 7.5% for companies making $5 billion or more and 10% for companies making $15 billion or more. The Maryland General Assembly, which is controlled by Democrats, overrode a veto of the legislation in 2021 by then-Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican.
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Minnesota election official weighs in on Trump's vow to end mail-in voting
The Brief President Donald Trump said he plans to issue an executive order to ban mail-in ballots and voting machines before the 2026 midterm elections. Trump has claimed there was fraud in the 2020 presidential election, election officials say there has been no evidence of this. Experts said only Congress could change federal election law. (FOX 9) - President Donald Trump vowed Monday to lead what he calls "a movement" to eliminate mail-in voting. Trump said he is working with attorneys on drafting an executive order towards his goal ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Election law experts and Minnesota election officials point to the U.S. Constitution and say a president is not given the authority to change election law. The backstory Trump posted a similar message earlier on Monday on social media and said his reason for this pledge is a matter of election integrity. "We're going to start with an executive order that's being written right now by the best lawyers in the country to end mail-in ballots because they're corrupt," said Trump. How can this be achieved? Fact check An election law expert said only Congress can change how federal elections are run. "States basically operate both the state and federal, but the U.S. government under the Constitution has some authority to be able to regulate the time, place, and manner of federal elections," said David Schultz, political science professor at Hamline University and law professor at University of St. Thomas. "Could Congress pass a law that basically bans mail-in voting for federal elections. The answer is yes. But notice what I said, is that Congress would have to a law to be able to do that. The president can't issue an executive order. Could Congress pass a law that prevents states from using mail-in ballots in their own elections, the answer is no." Local perspective Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon addressed some of Trump's remarks in a statement sent to FOX 9. "The U.S. Constitution gives states full control of the time, place, and manner of elections – subject only to action by Congress. A President has no power to grab election authority from states. "America's elections are run largely by local communities. This choice is intentional to ensure that towns, cities, and counties have full control over who represents them. The people who do the work of administering elections are our neighbors and friends, each of whom takes an oath to follow the law, prevent fraud, and conduct their work in a fair and impartial manner. These local election administrators register voters, create ballots, count ballots, and so much more. Once their work is complete on election night, they report the results to our office. Our office never touches a ballot during an election." Simon also responded to Trump's mention of voter fraud. "Every election cycle, everywhere, Minnesota included, you're going to have a very few bad apples who do the wrong thing and engage in some sort of misconduct, but man it is a microscopic level. We know that because we get all the reports, by law, from all of the prosecutors," said Simon. Simon addressed Trump's statement about the prevalence of mail-in voting. "Just about the only country in the world that uses it," said Trump. "There are dozens of countries around the world from Japan, Australia, New Zealand, most of Western Europe that use and have the option of mail in balloting," said Simon. Secretary Simon also responded to Trump's concerns about voting machines. Simon said electronic tabulating equipment gets certified by both state and federal authorities and is more accurate than hand counting. Plus, in Minnesota, paper ballots are used to check the accuracy of machine results, and paper ballots are kept for two years after every election. What they're saying Donna Bergstrom, Deputy Chair of the Republican Party of Minnesota sent FOX 9 this statement. "President Trump is right to shine a spotlight on the flaws and vulnerabilities of mail-in voting. Election integrity is the foundation of our representative democracy, and Minnesotans deserve to know that their vote is secure and accurately counted. Even Democrats like Amy Klobuchar and Angie Craig have admitted Minnesota's mail system is unreliable—you can't even depend on getting your electric bill on time, so why would we turn the integrity of our elections over to that same broken system? "At the same time, we recognize that in a few remote areas of Minnesota, mail-in ballots are the only option because of the distance from polling places, and as a retired United States Marine, I know that our military members deserve access to voting and sometimes this is their only option. But those are specialized exceptions." The Source Minnesota Secretary of State, Political Science and Law professor, President Donald Trump, Republican Party of Minnesota, FOX News, and the Associated Press.
