Democratic 2028 hopefuls should start campaigning now instead of waiting
We have seen a remarkable amount of inaction from the Democratic leadership in Washington. The hours-long speeches that really don't do anything, TikTok dances and endless fundraising without anything to show for it has left the Democrats polling worse than President Trump. And Trump is not polling well at all.
The Democratic establishment has continually projected a weak and ineffective aura, and voters have noticed. Even with the unpopularity of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill, ' anger over his immigration actions, and uncertainty over tariffs and Russia, the Democrats are not guaranteed to have a big swing in the midterms.
We have seen some Democrats play at taking the fight to Trump but still waffle when it comes to directly challenging him. And that is a problem. This is a new age in American politics when old conventions have flown out the window. There is no need to wait and see. There is no need to have exploratory committees and visit primary states just to hang out. And there is no need to not speak up if you truly think you can do better.
Trump announced his 2024 campaign two years before the actual election, but let's be honest — he was running back in 2021. He held rallies, raised money, traveled all over the country, engaged with foreign leaders, and most importantly campaigned in real time that he was a better alternative to the sitting president. Trump led all anti-President Joe Biden talking points on everything from Ukraine, immigration, energy, inflation and the budget.
Let's focus on Ukraine. Trump did a great job of convincing the American people that the war would never have happened on his watch, that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not to be trusted, that the U.S. was just handing over billions of dollars and that he would be the better leader in this situation. It worked. The U.S. was extremely partisan when it came to Russian aggression, with some Republicans parroting Kremlin talking points — not because they like Vladimir Putin, but to stay in Trump's good favor.
America now waits to see the fallout from Trump's meetings with Putin and Zelensky. But what they won't get is a Democrat telling the world what he or she would do differently in real time. Yes, we will get plenty of 'Donald Trump Bad' takes from plenty of Democratic politicians. But what we need is specific individuals who would tell us what they would do differently if they were president. Americans don't need to know Trump is bad. They either know he is, or think he isn't. They want someone who is willing to say, 'This is what I would do differently and better and that is why I am running.'
Showing yourself as an alternative to Trump isn't the only benefit to announcing early. It also gives you a chance to set the Democratic agenda which, quite frankly, is nonexistent. A major problem with Democrats is that they really don't have a set position other than that Trump is bad. There are plenty of Democrats with great ideas who have been frustrated by the lack of clarity from party leadership.
So there is no need to wait for their approval. We have already seen the party establishment take shots at Zohran Mamdani, the left-learning Democratic nominee for mayor of New York. Mamdani is still polling well. Why? Because people know what he stands for. Declaring oneself as a candidate now allows any contender not just to weather the attacks from Republicans but also to present their personal idea for a nationwide liberal platform.
Why wait for a Democratic convention in which a party will try to represent themselves as the party for everyone while representing no one fully? People are looking for people to fight not just against Trump but for the soul of the Democratic Party.
There is no doubt there are cracks in Democratic unity. We are not unified on Gaza, immigration reform, balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, or a myriad of other issues. And those cracks need to be addressed now, before midterms. I guarantee that House and Senate leadership won't even broach issues in a meaningful manner.
But individuals like Govs. Gavin Newsom of California, Wes Moore of Maryland, Andy Brashear of Kentucky, Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania can. We can hear what former Vice President Kamala Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker will bring to the table as candidates.
We can also learn what New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, California Rep. Ro Khanna, and New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would do differently if they were in charge. They can also get in front of donors. No, not just the big time, fancy meal in mansion donors. But the millions of donors who are eager to back a winner.
Trump fund raised non-stop for four years after losing in 2020. He built up a massive war chest and donor base that allowed him to steamroll any pretenders in the primaries. Every other Republican who wanted to challenge him waited until 2023 before they announced. It was over before it started. Nikki Haley, who sought to reclaim the Republican Party, was behind before she even had a chance to gain any ground with donors and voters.
For 2028, we have no idea if Trump will attempt to circumvent the Constitution and run again. We have no idea if Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio or Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis or any other pretender will run. They are all at the mercy of Trump.
Choosing to announce now instead of in 2027, will allow any Democrats to weather the attacks from Trump and his base. Trump won't wait to try to bring someone down and that will allow any contender time to absorb and recover from his attacks. This is something that Kamala Harris was not able to do with her 100-day campaign. Any Democrats announcing their run sooner can also drive a massive wedge into the Republican Party by calling out those who want to run in 2028.
If Newsom, Harris, or Brashear started attacking Vance as a presumptive nominee, you can bet that Trump will take that personally and start cutting the wings off any Republican rivals before they can fly.
Democrats are tired of waiting to see what happens. They are looking for someone to follow, rally around, fight for, donate to, and feel seen by. They need fighters now. And they want someone brave enough to put the target on their back officially and be willing to weather the storm for the next three years. They want someone to fight for democracy now, which is why any hopefuls should start announcing sooner rather than when it's already too late.
Jos Joseph is a published writer and is a graduate of the Harvard Extension School and Ohio State University. He is a Marine veteran who served in Iraq. He currently lives in Anaheim, Calif.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
"South Park" Somehow Went Even Harder In On Trump, And This Time It's Raunchier
South Park returned on Wednesday to hit President Donald Trump below the belt with multiple depictions of his 'teeny tiny' penis. Warning: Spoilers below. The episode also skewered tech CEOs and government leaders for bribing Trump with golden 'gifts,' again depicted Trump's bedroom lover as none other than Satan himself, and reduced Vice President JD Vance to a miniature sidekick who offers to bring his boss a 'cumrag.' Related: That 'cumrag,' tragically, turns out to be longtime South Park fan-favorite character Towelie. Much of the episode focuses not on Trump, but on Randy Marsh ― Stan's dad ― and his marijuana farm, which struggles after his workers are hauled off in a federal raid. He sends Towelie to D.C. to lobby Trump for marijuana reclassification. Towelie finds the city overrun with military troops, as Trump has called in the National Guard, just as he has done in real life in a move critics have dismissed as a 'stunt.' Related: Towelie also finds a statue of Thomas Jefferson in the Capitol is now a statue of Trump, with a very small penis. Likewise, the statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial is also a statue of Trump, again with a tiny penis. When Towelie reaches the White House to meet Trump, an aide warns visitors to 'avoid staring directly into his penis.' There, Towelie joins a line of CEOs and officials who offer Trump 'gifts' and assure him that his penis isn't small. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, brings the president a gold-plated VR headset. Related: Trump dismisses him as 'a little bitch.' Apple CEO Tim Cook shows up to give Trump a small sculpture ― something he did for real earlier this month. Trump takes the gift and goes to his bedroom, where he promptly tears off all his clothes and hops into bed with Satan. 'Hey Satan! Look at what some dipshit tech CEO gave me,' he tells Satan. 'I was thinking maybe we could try to shove it up your ass.' Towelie is there to lobby Trump to reclassify marijuana, but ends up as a gift to Trump instead. By the end of the episode, Satan finds Towelie in a White House bathroom, covered in white stains, begging for help. 'Please,' Towelie pleads with Satan. 'I wanna get out of here.' 'So do I,' Satan replies. 'But there is no escape from this place.' Related: South Park has so far been biweekly since returning last month, and that pattern will continue ― at least for now ― as the next episode is set to air Sept. 3 on Comedy Central. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Axios
4 minutes ago
- Axios
What historians say is at risk if Trump expands his culture war beyond Smithsonian
Politics & Policy A White House official told Axios that President Trump intends to expand his review of American museums for "woke" ideology beyond the Smithsonian Institution. Why it matters: The size and scope of Trump's inquiries represents an unprecedented level of museum oversight in the nearly 250 years of American democracy, historians say. It also represents an escalation of the president's attack on cultural institutions. Here's what historians and curators fear could happen if Trump reframes museums through his perspective. What exactly does the president have in mind? Trump said that the "Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL" on Truth Social earlier this week. He then directed his attorneys to conduct a comprehensive review of the museum system, similar to the process officials have conducted at colleges and universities. What they're saying:"President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable," a White House official told Axios. "He will start with the Smithsonian and then go from there," they continued. Reality check: The Smithsonian is not a federal agency under control of the president, according to the institution. It's an independent institution, governed by a Board of Regents, which is composed of seventeen members, including the Vice President. Trump has no authority over private museums. Yes, but: The president could freeze the federal funding that some private museums receive, the way he has for schools that don't align with his anti-diversity views on education. What does Trump's perception of American history look like? Trump claims that there has been a "widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history" over the past decade. He insists that these efforts "undermine" America's achievements by casting its founding principles as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed." Historians say the administration's singular, sanitized approach to the past, focusing solely on America's positive moments misses out on the nuance of American history and excludes the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, Latino, and LGBTQ+ people. Friction point:"That is anti-democratic," Beth English, executive director of the Organization of American Historians told Axios, referring to the administration's push to stifle and sanitize information, debate and historical facts. "It's not education, right?" English questioned. "It begins to kind of veer into the space of indoctrination, selecting, sort of a selective memory of what is and isn't going to be part of our national story." Why is Trump's push to install political appointees to review museums problematic? Curators said distilling history into accurate, engaging examples that the public can understand requires a level of expertise that an untrained political appointee likely lacks. The majority of curators at national museums have PhDs, or have been trained in museum studies through rigorous degree programs and research. "It's not like people are creating exhibitions to tell a story, to win a political agenda," Omar Eaton-Martinez, former board president of the Association of African American Museums said. "People are actually curating exhibitions based on scholarship that is supported by evidence," he continued. Don't museums reframe and reevaluate history all the time? Historians say museums expanding their collections isn't evidence of nefarious behavior, but rather, it's simply how the static nature of history grows. Zoom out: Collections have increasingly included the perspectives of sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists over the past few decades, in addition to more thorough reviews of census records, genealogy, oral histories, archeology, objects, and images. "We're constantly building on prior scholarship to help ask more nuanced questions about a topic," Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association said. "We're always peeling back the layers of the onion, so to speak." Black, Indigenous and Latin scholars have been digging into their respective histories for centuries, and those experiences have been recognized and incorporated into museums in recent decades. That includes history that was once ignored, such as the burning of records in thriving Black neighborhoods such as the massacres in Tulsa, Oklahoma or Rosewood, Florida; the forced removal of Indigenous nations from one part of America to another during the " trail of tears"; and urban renewal projects to upgrade cities that ultimately gentrify communities of color. What funding and programs has Trump already taken aim at? The Trump administration has taken aggressive action to reduce the staffing and funding available for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS,) the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Stunning stat: IMLS's acting director testified in court that the administration cancelled roughly 92% of the agency's Grants to States. Only 100 grants remain out of the original 1,200 managed by the institute prior to Trump's executive order. The president also attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, earlier this year due to her support of diversity initiatives, despite not having the authority to do so. The Smithsonian has legal authority over personnel decisions, but Sajet eventually decided to step down in the weeks following Trump's announcement. What other times has an American museum pivoted after political influence? An exorbitant amount of debate goes into exhibit decision-making, so museums have already determined the best way to display potential controversies. When museums modify exhibits, it's typically due to public pressure, and has never been under significant force from the president. Case in point: The Smithsonian's 90s exhibit on Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb, sparked opposition from veterans and members of Congress on how to interpret the bomb's dropping and America's role in World War II. The bottom line:"These kinds of controversies exist frequently, and that's a good thing, because public debate about the nation's past is healthy," James Grossman, former executive director of the American Historical Association told Axios. "But the President of the United States has no business telling museums what to exhibit, telling teachers what to teach, and has no business telling Americans what to think," Grossman continued.
Boston Globe
4 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Thank you, Massachusetts millionaires!
It's time to thank the people involved in the millionaires tax — including the millionaires — without whom Massachusetts would not continue to be among the 'Our state thrives on eds and meds, and those are things particularly under the axe,' said Phineas Baxandall, research director at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. 'It's fortuitous that some counterbalance from the Fair Share income has been there.' For the second year in a row, revenues from the surtax have Advertisement The Fair Share Amendment specifies that revenues collected on taxable income — not assets — above $1 million be spent only on education and transportation. In the fiscal year just ended, revenues from the surtax Now other high-income states — which tend to be blue states — are A cautionary note: Proponents of the Fair Share Amendment intended that its benefits be used to enhance programs in education and transportation, not substitute for shortfalls. 'These investments have been life-changing for individuals and communities,' said Max Page, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, a central player in the Raise Up coalition that fought for the surtax. 'That's why I am concerned that it not become simply a way to backfill cuts by Trump.' Advertisement The idea, he said, 'was not just to prevent cuts; it was always to build a better society.' After voters in Massachusetts passed a hefty cigarette tax in 1992, legislators It's difficult to know whether the surtax is driving rich people from the state. But A state that invests in its future is a state that believes in itself. Despite serious headwinds from Trump's baneful policies, Massachusetts is working to stay a healthy, brainy, welcoming place, a place that values innovation, a clean environment, and world-class health care and education. A place where everybody — from multimillionaires on down – wants to live. Renée Loth's column appears regularly in the Globe.
