logo
Democrats, addicted to nominating senators, prepare for a 2028 pileup

Democrats, addicted to nominating senators, prepare for a 2028 pileup

Yahoo19-05-2025

Democrats look like they're headed to another presidential primary dogpile in 2028, whether they want it or not.
'I feel it in the air,' said Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., who joined the 2020 primary — as a governor — and wants it 'official' that he's not running this time.
He hopes, in fact, that the party can winnow down its field to six to eight candidates over the next two-and-a-half years. That would avoid a replay of what he called the 'ridiculous adventure' of 2020, when more than two dozen Democrats ended up seeking the nomination.
But even as Democrats prepare for next year's midterms, the already-crowded stage looks set for a 2020 replay. Some contenders are playing coy about it. Few are ruling it out.
And a party that's plainly addicted to nominating senators and ex-senators — 1940 was the last year Democrats ran a ticket without at least a running mate of senatorial heritage — may end up doing the same in 2028.
At least a half-dozen senators are now viewed as potential 2028 candidates by their colleagues and top Democrats on Capitol Hill, a mix of new faces and familiar ones.
'How many presidential candidates can you fit in one caucus room? I don't know,' Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., told Semafor.
He's acknowledged considering the idea, but he said the ultimate number of Senate Democratic presidential aspirants is 'entirely dependent on where the country is, and who has a chance to win. You'll probably have to ask me in about a year and half.'
Other Democratic senators seen as potential presidential candidates include Mark Kelly of Arizona, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Raphael Warnock of Georgia. If Jon Ossoff wins reelection next year, don't be surprised if he gets some buzz, too.
There's also a host of other big names on the gubernatorial side: Wes Moore of Maryland, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Gavin Newsom of California, JB Pritzker of Illinois, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, and 2024 vice presidential nominee Tim Walz in Minnesota.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris, also a former senator, may run for governor of California — but she could also take another shot at the presidential race.
Don't forget the House, with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as well as people who aren't on anyone's radar yet.
But replicating 2020 presents its fair share of risks for a party that's still grappling with the fallout from the reelection decision by the winner of that primary, former President Joe Biden.
Democrats are sorting through a lot right now: their handling of Biden's disastrous 2024 campaign, how to resist President Donald Trump's agenda, and whether to compromise with Republicans on anything at all.
And for any party trying to emerge from the wilderness, there's a debate about electability.
It's enough to guarantee the struggles for airtime and effectiveness that tend to come with a big primary field.
In 2020, seven senators joined a heap of governors, mayors and House members, most of whom faded fast. Worries about Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' electability and Biden's age enticed last-minute entries from two billionaires, Tom Steyer and Mike Bloomberg, who broke spending records to win almost nothing.
Republicans had their own electability debate after Trump lost in 2020, only to end back up where they started in 2024 — and then win. Democrats are thinking harder about what sorts of candidates voters will respond to, though Hickenlooper deadpanned: 'Who the hell knows what they want?'
Sen. Peter Welch, D-Vt., has an idea of what voters will respond to: 'It's the year of the governor,' he said.
'There's a lot of people who could legitimately run, including several senators … gut sense is somebody out of Washington, somebody with different experience has a better lead on the runway,' Welch added.
Democratic governors have notched more wins against Trump than their counterparts on the Hill. They have also dominated the early conversation in states that expect to hold the first primaries and can attack a 'broken Washington' with aplomb.
One governor who's already hit an early state, Pritzker, declined to favor any particular background in a nominee during a recent interview with Semafor, citing 'empathy, kindness, toughness' as top attributes for a nominee.
He added: 'I think having executive experience seems like it would be very important.'
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., would only allow that governors are 'just as well-positioned as members of Congress.'
'There's talented women and men in the Senate that should be considered,' Durbin said. 'I think it's healthy [to have lots of candidates]. I wouldn't go overboard.'
Democrats who tell you it's too early for them to think about 2028 are being cagey. It's on many of their minds, even though only a few will admit it.
That's in part because many in the party are kicking themselves for the two elections Trump won. Democrats regretted their decision to rally early around Hillary Clinton in 2016; now they regret that Biden sought reelection last year with no serious primary challenger.
We're not sure whether the senator vs. governor argument will play out that directly. But if we had to guess, you're going to end up with at least one senator on the ticket of a party that likes to put TWO of them on (Obama and Biden, John Kerry and John Edwards).
There have been surges of interest around Booker after he broke the Senate record for longest speech; around AOC as she and Sanders held the year's largest rallies; and around Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, for commanding news cycles with quips.
But there is no frontrunner, and not even real clarity on which state will hold the first primary.
Pritzker's recent New Hampshire trip and Pete Buttigieg's town hall in Iowa suggested that the DNC might push South Carolina back down the calendar, after it was scheduled first to help Biden ward off a challenger. Yet Walz and Moore will both speak at the South Carolina Democratic Party's convention and fundraisers at the end of this month.
As for Gallego's visit to Pennsylvania? One Democratic senator, when we asked why the party can't stop nominating senators and ex-senators, replied: 'We tend to view members of Congress more favorably than Republicans.'
That same senator told us you might as well consider the Keystone State the new Iowa. If candidates don't hit in Pennsylvania, they might as well not run.
Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minn., said that most of her colleagues are being careful not to overtly position themselves for a presidential run and that their sole focus is — and should be — the midterms.
'We're, what, 120 days into this terrible administration? I think people are showing good judgment,' she said.
Kelly agreed: 'I'm not spending a ton of time thinking about who our nominee is going to be in 2028,' he said. 'We've got bigger problems right now.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Looking ahead to Missouri special session, Show Me Sports Investment Act
Looking ahead to Missouri special session, Show Me Sports Investment Act

Yahoo

time22 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Looking ahead to Missouri special session, Show Me Sports Investment Act

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Missouri General Assembly's special session reconvenes Monday, and it's the House side of the rotunda's turn in Jefferson City. The state Senate passed a trio of bills last week, one providing a plan to fund up to half of stadium projects for the Chiefs or Royals or Cardinals in St. Louis. The Missouri State House will consider the Show Me Sports Investment Act. The stadium funding bill sets the framework for the Royals and the Chiefs to pay back some of the costs for new and renovated venues. Construction bonds would be paid back using tax money generated at the stadiums and would cover up to 50% of the cost to build it. The teams would have to qualify to have access to that money. The stadiums would need to be built for football or baseball, have more than 30,000 seats, and cost at least half a billion dollars. On Sunday, Rudi Keller, the deputy editor of the Missouri Independent, discussed what could happen as the special session continues this week. Kansas City superheroes assemble behind local child battling cancer 'A member of the House budget Committee who will consider the spending bill on Tuesday said there is an assumption the House will pass this, and that's correct. I also talked to the Chair of the House Budget Committee earlier today, and it turns out he's not going to be demanding anything new. So as long as there aren't serious demands that endanger the bill from the House, much as the way demands from Senators resulted in a change to the call, I'm anticipating this will go relatively smoothly this week,' Keller said on 4 The People. The stadium funding bill does not have the words 'Royals' or 'Chiefs' in it, but a big reason for the calling of this special session was to find a way to keep both teams in the state and counter the plans of Kansas lawmakers. Nearly a year ago, the Kansas legislature approved a bill to utilize STAR bonds to cover stadium construction costs. The deadline for that bill is coming up at the end of June. 'If Kansas believes that we could really be in the conversation, you could see some limited extension,' said Kansas Senate President Ty Masterson. 'The way the law is written, it could be extended for up to a year. I don't see that happening.' You can watch the full conversation with Masterson and Keller here. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests
What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

Yahoo

time27 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What to know about Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests

President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. It's not the first time Trump has activated the National Guard to quell protests. In 2020, he asked governors of several states to send troops to Washington, D.C., to respond to demonstrations that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors he asked agreed, sending troops to the federal district. The governors that refused the request were allowed to do so, keeping their troops on home soil. This time, however, Trump is acting in opposition to Newsom, who under normal circumstances would retain control and command of California's National Guard. While Trump said that federalizing the troops was necessary to 'address the lawlessness' in California, the Democratic governor said the move was 'purposely inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.' Here are some things to know about when and how the president can deploy troops on U.S. soil. The laws are a bit vague Generally, federal military forces are not allowed to carry out civilian law enforcement duties against U.S. citizens except in times of emergency. An 18th-century wartime law called the Insurrection Act is the main legal mechanism that a president can use to activate the military or National Guard during times of rebellion or unrest. But Trump didn't invoke the Insurrection Act on Saturday. Instead, he relied on a similar federal law that allows the president to federalize National Guard troops under certain circumstances. He federalized part of California's National Guard under what is known as Title 10 authority, which places him, not the governor, atop the chain of command, according to Newsom's office. The National Guard is a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Often it operates under state command and control, using state funding. Sometimes National Guard troops will be assigned by their state to serve federal missions, remaining under state command but using federal funding. The law cited by Trump's proclamation places National Guard troops under federal command. The law says that can be done under three circumstances: When the U.S. is invaded or in danger of invasion; when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the U.S. government, or when the President is unable to 'execute the laws of the United States,' with regular forces. But the law also says that orders for those purposes 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.' It's not immediately clear if the president can activate National Guard troops without the order of that state's governor. The role of the National Guard troops will be limited Notably, Trump's proclamation says the National Guard troops will play a supporting role by protecting ICE officers as they enforce the law, rather than having the troops perform law enforcement work. Steve Vladeck, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in military justice and national security law, says that's because the National Guard troops can't legally engage in ordinary law enforcement activities unless Trump first invokes the Insurrection Act. Vladeck said the move raises the risk that the troops could end up using force while filling that 'protection' role. The move could also be a precursor to other, more aggressive troop deployments down the road, he wrote on his website. 'There's nothing these troops will be allowed to do that, for example, the ICE officers against whom these protests have been directed could not do themselves,' Vladeck wrote. Troops have been mobilized before The Insurrection Act and related laws were used during the Civil Rights era to protect activists and students desegregating schools. President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state's governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out. George H.W. Bush used the Insurrection Act to respond to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of white police officers who were videotaped beating Black motorist Rodney King. National Guard troops have been deployed for a variety of emergencies, including the COVID pandemic, hurricanes and other natural disasters. But generally, those deployments are carried out with the agreements of the governors of the responding states. Trump is willing to use the military on home soil On Sunday, Trump was asked if he plans to send U.S. troops to Los Angeles and he said, 'We're gonna have troops everywhere. We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden.' Trump didn't elaborate. In 2020, Trump asked governors of several states to deploy their National Guard troops to Washington, D.C. to quell protests that arose after George Floyd was killed by Minneapolis police officers. Many of the governors agreed, sending troops to the federal district. At the time, Trump also threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act for protests following Floyd's death in Minneapolis – an intervention rarely seen in modern American history. But then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper pushed back, saying the law should be invoked 'only in the most urgent and dire of situations.' Trump never did invoke the Insurrection Act during his first term. But while campaigning for his second term, he suggested that would change. Trump told an audience in Iowa in 2023 that he was prevented from using the military to suppress violence in cities and states during his first term, and said if the issue came up again in his next term, 'I'm not waiting.' Trump also promised to deploy the National Guard to help carry out his immigration enforcement goals, and his top adviser Stephen Miller explained how that would be carried out: Troops under sympathetic Republican governors would send troops to nearby states that refuse to participate, Miller said on 'The Charlie Kirk Show,' in 2023. After Trump announced he was federalizing the National Guard troops on Saturday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said other measures could follow. Hegseth wrote on the social media platform X that active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton were on high alert and would also be mobilized 'if violence continues.'

‘Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar
‘Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar

Yahoo

time31 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

‘Arrest Me, Let's Go': Newsom Punches Back At Trump Border Czar

California Gov. Gavin Newsom hit back at Trump border czar Tom Homan on Sunday, slamming threats the White House official previously made about arresting him and other Democratic leaders in the state. 'Come after me, arrest me, let's just get it over with tough guy,' Newsom said in an interview with MSNBC. 'I don't give a damn. But …I care about this community, the hell are they doing. These guys need to grow up, they need to stop and we need to push back.' Those statements come as Trump has made the rare move of sending National Guard troops in to quell immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles without Newsom's approval. During an interview this weekend, Homan suggested that Democratic officials – like Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass – who interfere with ICE raids, could face arrest. 'I'll say that about anybody,' Homan told NBC News. 'You cross that line. It's a felony to knowingly harbor and conceal an illegal alien. It's a felony to impede law enforcement from doing their job.' Federal authorities have already penalized Democratic lawmakers including Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, who was arrested for allegedly trespassing at a detention facility in New Jersey, though that case has since been dropped. Alina Habba, the interim US attorney for New Jersey, has also charged Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-NJ) with assault for an incident at that same location. And Homan has previously targeted Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well, suggesting that she could be 'in trouble' for hosting a webinar on immigrants' rights. Newsom made clear that he wouldn't be cowed by Homan's threats. 'That kind of bloviating is exhausting,' he said. 'So, Tom, arrest me. Let's go.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store