Previewing the 2028 race for the Democratic nomination

Introducing The Top Ten!

Is it too early to start thinking about the 2028 race for the Democratic presidential nomination? Yes — it is still three years away after all — and No — the race has already started. Even now there are handicappers galore out there; The Last Mugwump is poised to join in.

For starters, here are the key things to think about as the race gets underway:

1. The nature of the party’s coalition

2. The dynamics of the race — the so-called “Invisible Primary” and the order of primary states

First and foremost: understanding the Democratic coalition
The most useful breakdown of the party’s coalition has been provided by the Pew Charitable Trusts in their exhaustive surveys five years ago and more recently in April 2024. It is also useful to look at this post-election analysis put together by Larry Sabato’s “Crystal Ball” drawing in part from Pew.

The estimated percentage support for each group listed below is extrapolated from the hard numbers in the 2021 report and the evolution of the coalition suggested by subsequent studies. The coalition is made up of:

1. Progressive Left (approaching 20% of total) — educated, younger, whiter, activist, supporters of Bernie Sanders (and to a lesser degree Elizabeth Warren in ‘20) in 2016 and 2020

2. Outside left (approaching 20% of total) — younger, not so active, racially diverse, very liberal or progressive but generally dissatisfied with politics

3. Establishment liberals (25-30% of total) — educated, diverse, middle on age range, active, strongly liberal but not “progressive,” supportive of mainstream liberal Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Biden

4. Democratic mainstays (25-30% of total) — more moderate politically especially on social issues, more racially diverse, older, not as well-educated as #1 and #3, like #3 generally supportive of mainstream liberal Democrats

5. Stressed sideliners (>10% in primaries) — financially strapped, nebulous views but more liberal on economics, not reliable voters and open to either party

1 and 2 comprise the Progressive Wing of the party, strongly supportive of immigrants, advocates for racial and gender equality/expression, and proponents of aggressive efforts to correct economic inequality through government programs and taxing wealth.

The Establishment Wing is represented by categories 3 and 4. Broadly speaking, while there are important differences between those two groupings, these Democrats support racial and gender equality, reforming immigration, and government action on inequality albeit in a more incremental way than those in the progressive wing.

The last group, the stressed sideliners, is less important in the primary campaign given that its participation rate is the lowest and its support is not as predictable.

The important thing when looking at 2028 is that no Democrat from the progressive wing of the party has been nominated since 1972, which is unsurprising given that the coalition’s breakdown favors the establishment wing. Case in point is Bernie Sanders who, despite winning nearly two dozen primary contests in 2016, was decisively beaten in the popular vote and in delegates by establishment candidate Hillary Clinton. Sanders’s support was mostly in overwhelmingly white states away from the the centers of Democratic power on the east coast and in California. Clinton, on the other hand, won in the power centers and in most of the states with diverse and less-educated Democratic electorates.

It’s interesting to note that Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign began by appealing largely to the progressive wing. He became viable for the nomination only when he broke into Clinton’s early dominance in the establishment wing as the primary season approached — the decisive factor being his strength among black voters. As it was, he barely outpolled Clinton in the race given her overall strength among establishment Democrats.

The lesson from the Obama experience is that some level of crossover appeal is ideal. But, failing that, the establishment candidate invariably takes down the progressive. It’s just a matter of numbers.

The Invisible Primary
Arthur Hadley published a book in 1975 called The Invisible Primary. Actual primaries had just become dominant in the nomination race that decade; Hadley’s insight was that, in order to compete in primary elections over the course of several months, candidates for the 1976 nomination would need to set themselves up for success in the year or so prior to voting.

He broke down the key factors that would determine viability — 1) raising money, 2) hiring the best consultants, 3) showing favorably in the media, 4) having a plausible strategy for winning enough delegates, 5) generating support at the activist grassroots level (including “influencers” if we’re to update Hadley’s formulation), and 6) having sufficient drive and single-mindedness to handle the rigors of the campaign.

Hadley’s goal was to anticipate who of the dozen or so candidates for the Democratic nomination had done well enough in this unofficial primary to have a real shot. By using his system, he, unlike any other observer at the time, put the unknown long shot Jimmy Carter in the top tier.

The Invisible Primary, he maintained, effectively served the function of winnowing out candidates who didn’t have what it takes. And we have seen in the decades since that many throw in the towel before a single vote is cast. The Invisible Primary is a tough test.

The order of primary states
Although the importance of the Invisible Primary is widely acknowledged, it is probably true that far more ink is spilled on the order of the primary calendar. Traditionally Iowa and New Hampshire have kicked off the process, but beginning in the run-up to 2024 Democrats began tinkering by pushing Iowa’s precinct caucuses later in the calendar and devaluing New Hampshire by disallowing delegate selection before the South Carolina primary.

As for 2028, it’s not clear which state will lead off; the jockeying is moving forward at full speed. Should they stick with South Carolina to reward the heavily black electorate there — an electorate that is the party’s most loyal? Or go with a purple state — Michigan, Nevada, or Pennsylvania — to put an accent mark on the importance of general election viability? TBD.

We can say two things for sure about the serialized primary process that stretches from winter into spring in the presidential election year:

1. The process is grueling and incredibly expensive, thus giving early states the power to ruthlessly winnow the field of candidates who have survived the Invisible Primary; and

2. it is decidedly not the case that losing early primaries dooms a candidate. On the Democratic side both Bill Clinton in 1992 and Biden in 2020 had a tough go of it in the first states before rising up in later bigger states. And on the Republican side John McCain’s early struggles in 2008 didn’t stop him from eventually persevering and winning the nomination.

Handicapping — Introducing the Top Ten
Now that we’ve established the analytical tools to assess what goes on in the presidential nomination process, let’s get to the fun part. Who among the Democrats (we’ll look at the GOP in a later post) is positioning him/herself best as the Invisible Primary kicks off?

After scanning various media outlets, we identified 22 candidates who get repeated mentions, although some are obviously long shots. We’ll use this footnote¹ as our archive of those candidates — the too-early master list of October 2025.

Our view is that 10 from that list are showing the best in the Invisible Primary, having the strongest arguments for viability at this point. Here are those candidates in alphabetical — not rank — order with a brief commentary on why they made the cut and their broader appeal and prospects.

1. Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg

   Buttigieg scores highest marks in the Invisible Primary for his strong showing in the media, his potential for generating grassroots and social media support, and his ability to attract funding and talented staff. Whether there is a plausible path to the nomination is up for debate — his electoral history is thin, and his appeal is largely to the whiter, better educated portion of the establishment and may not translate to the broader establishment wing. His ability to generate crossover appeal to progressives is also questionable. But no one doubts his discipline, drive, and single-mindedness.

2. Former Representative Rahm Emanuel

   Like Buttigieg, Emanuel has made a strong showing in the race for media attention. Furthermore, given his role in congressional leadership and as COS to President Obama, he has the connections to raise money and hire strong consultants. And no one can question his discipline and single-mindedness. Emanuel’s potential drawback is that his centrist positioning may leave him without a sufficient voting base in the primaries, even among establishment Democrats.

3. Senator Ruben Gallego

   Gallego is an interesting case given that his earlier political career as a House member was as a stalwart among the progressives. He pivoted — quite smoothly — in his 2024 Senate campaign to a candidacy with a style that could appeal much more broadly. He is showing up well in the media, could attract money and consultants, and could generate enthusiasm among influencers and activists. His potential appeal to both major wings of the party makes him a viable contender even given his relative inexperience, assuming he can stand up to the rigors of the years-long race.

4. Representative Ro Khanna

   Khanna is an interesting case — he has become a media darling with his relentless efforts on issues and on behalf of Democrats of all stripes. No question he has the discipline, and he likely could generate enthusiasm among influencers and activists. Not only that, while he is firmly in the progressive camp, he is doing what he can to reach out beyond that. He bears watching if only because someone will rise to the top in the progressive lane, and he has at least a decent chance to be the one.

5. Governor Wes Moore

   Moore has become a media darling of sorts, and certainly will show up as competitive for the best consultants if he moves forward with a campaign. (He has said in his gubernatorial reelection campaign that he won’t run for president.) Moore carries the potential for Obama-style crossover appeal to the progressive and establishment wings. Does he have the drive and single-mindedness? Only time will tell.

6. Governor Gavin Newsom

   Many observers have Newsom as an — if not “the” — early frontrunner, with good reason. He has gained attention that no one else can match in his challenges to President Trump, and he is demonstrating a dedication to the presidential race that is similarly hard to equal. He has a history of success in the biggest state, which equals fundraising and staffing prowess, and he could lead the charge for the progressive wing of the party even as he has taken some positions that don’t fit neatly with the orthodoxy. Would that give him sufficient appeal to the establishment wing? That is the $64,000 question.

7. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

   Ocasio-Cortez is unmatched in her appeal to the grassroots/activist community on the left, and has a high profile, often in a positive light, in the media. If she were to run she’d have the potential to replicate Sanders’s impressive showing in 2016. But … but … it’s still not clear someone whose appeal is limited to the progressive wing has a real shot. Now if she can broaden that appeal, she’d be a very strong contender.

8. Governor JB Pritzker

   Pritzer = money, so there is no doubt that he’d be able to raise sufficient funds and hire the right people. But can a man this wealthy possibly have appeal to the common person? Oh, wait, there’s Trump. In his way, then, maybe Pritzker is the Democrats’ answer to the president? (He does exude an “every man” vibe.) Pritzker’s support would mainly come from the establishment wing, which can be enough as history has shown. The question that is hard to answer is whether he has it in him to compete for the long haul.

9. Governor Josh Shapiro

   Shapiro is firmly lodged in the establishment wing of the party, and he is the darling there in some quarters. As a result, he can attract the resources and staffing he would need. And no one should doubt his discipline and single-mindedness. If there’s an Achilles heel, it might be his ability to inspire grassroots/activist support.

10. Senator Raphael Warnock

    Warnock is another potential competitor for the establishment mantle. He would have tremendous appeal in the minority communities and would be competitive for support across the establishment wing. Not so much on the progressive side given his middle of the road politics, but the winner, as we have seen, will likely be from the establishment. Warnock attracted incredible sums of money for his high profile Senate race, so he should be competitive for resources. The big question: does he have it in him to do what it takes over the next few years?

    Harris, Walz, and a few other thoughts

    You may wonder why Kamala Harris and Tim Walz didn’t make the top tier. The fact is Democrats, unlike Republicans, have shown little or no proclivity to turn to people who have lost previous elections. And even if they did, neither Harris nor Walz has done anything to distinguish her/himself in the last year or so — in Harris’s case just the opposite.

    Before we go let’s talk about Abigail Spanberger. If she easily dispatches her hapless GOP opponent in the Virginia gubernatorial race this November as expected, the presidential buzz will start on approximately November 5.

    The good news! We’ll revisit this list periodically in the months and years ahead.

1. Governors: Gavin Newsom, Wes Moore, JB Pritzker, Gretchen Whitmer, Josh Shapiro, Andy Beshear, Tim Walz, and Jared Polis

Senators: Chris Murphy, Ruben Gallego, Chris Van Hollen, Amy Klobuchar, Mark Kelly, Raphael Warnock, and Cory Booker

Representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna

Formers plus one wild card: Former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, Sportscaster Stephen Smith, Former Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, Former Rep. Rahm Emanuel, and Former VP Kamala Harris