With 2026 upon us and the off-year elections behind us, I’ve been wanting to look ahead, mostly to forget “the horrors” but also because the 2028 Democratic Presidential Primary is important enough to be worth paying attention to early. So let’s take a look at the 2028 Primary as a whole and the speculated candidates at this stage.

While personally I’m a leftist, I think, or at least hope, that there is an understanding across a large portion of the Democratic party that we must avoid another Joe Biden at all costs. That is to say: we must ensure that the fascists gleefully looting our country and committing war crimes face real justice, that we see serious domestic reforms, and an end to the outdated, illegal, and campist foreign policy regime that has led to the bipartisan support of a genocide, not to mention the lukewarm support of Ukraine in the face of Russia’s full-scale invasion. The stakes are impossibly high, and we need a leader who, to be blunt, doesn’t suck ass like the current crop of party leadership.

Even this far out, it’s a big field. Twenty-nine major candidates ran in 2020, and there’s reason expect the field will be at least as competitive in 2028. These candidates will each build a support lane from the diverse voting blocs of the Democratic Party, though, of course, in the end there will ultimately be a top two: a “progressive” and a “moderate.” But who they are and which, if any, “liberals” (i.e. the mainstream Democratic base) vote with the left will decide what sort of presidential candidate we get.

While the primary calendar hasn’t been set yet (and likely won’t be for a while), we don’t know what the state of democracy in the US will be, and there might be a dramatic change to the primary with the implementation of ranked-choice voting (which I consider unlikely, but worth mentioning), we do at least have an idea of what competitive primary dynamics would look like, assuming the old rules stay in place and states are in roughly the same order as 2024.

I like to think of the primary in five stages:

1. The debates. This stage weeds out the weak also-rans by forcing them to burn through their cash just to keep their polling number above the debate threshold. Candidates must quickly establish their lane of support, maintain it, and expand into other candidates’ lanes, keeping up narrative momentum while weathering all the opposition research and bad narratives that are going to be flung their way.

2. The first (5) states. Now that the field whittled down to only a handful of strong(er) candidates, this is the chance for those candidates to prove they can turn those polling numbers into actual votes and make their final pitch as to why they’re either the progressive, moderate/conservative, or consensus candidate. The question is: who decides it’s worth continuing into Super Tuesday

3. Super Tuesday. This is when the primary will (functionally) be decided. If more conservative, moderate, and liberal candidates/votes can consolidate they could create a consensus candidate who comes out of Super Tuesday with a strong lead (as happened in 2020), but if the moderates are too weak and/or have multiple competing candidates going in, there’s a good chance they let a more progressive candidate surge into a commanding lead.

4. The rest of the states. While it’s possible, even likely, that we know the eventual candidate after Super Tuesday, there are other factors which could keep the primary competitive. First, a candidate’s “fear factor,” or how scared the rest of the party/voters are that they’ll lose in the General. In addition, if the strongest moderate comes out behind on Super Tuesday, we will certainly see donations from large donors continue to flow in, as we saw with Andrew Cuomo’s campaign. And while I believe there will be fewer “electability” voters than in 2020, they will not be anywhere near gone, and even if the moderate ends up looking like a sore loser, it remains plausible for a them to stay in and earn enough delegates to lead us to…

5. A contested convention. Yeah, yeah, I know, the right-wing media’s wet dream. But with a field this wide open, it’s a possibility we can’t rule out at this stage. A contested convention has three outcomes: the party coalesces behind whoever won the plurality, a consensus candidate is chosen from among the also-rans, or the party overrules the plurality and installs the hypothetical second-place moderate as the candidate, almost certainly ending the party’s chances of reconstituting as a functional entity.

Finally, I also want to note that Obama’s path to victory in 2008, Clinton’s in 2016, and Biden’s in 2020 all went straight through the South. In the primary, the South has an outsize importance. Unlike the rest of the country, the South tends to vote overwhelmingly for one candidate, meaning that even in smaller states, a landslide victory in a Southern state looks more like 80-20 than 60-40, which means they have a larger relative impact on delegate counts. In addition, Southern states tend to be clustered near the beginning of the primary, helping to set the narrative, and near the end, securing a close victory or at least allowing a catch-up. The South is also seen by many as a proxy for the black vote, which carries a lot of weight, being one of the most critical and core Democratic constituencies.

And with my lengthy preamble completed, it is time for the part you’ve been waiting for: my read on the potential candidates, sorted by how deep I think they’ll make it—if they even run.

At least to Super Tuesday:

Gavin Newsom: The obvious frontrunner for now—he’ll be free for all of 2027 to campaign since he’s term limited as governor, and he's got a reputation for fighting Trump on social media...which of course falls apart under scrutiny, but hey, the average voter doesn’t usually scrutinize. However, he’s also no consensus pick. He is truly hated by progressives (myself included) in a way that Biden wasn't in 2020. He isn't coming out of the debates without a bruising, and there's plenty of ammo to attack him with: his treatment of the homeless will turn off anyone with a soul and the fact that up to a third of the party might straight up not turn out to vote for him hurts his electability argument. In addition, California's “liberal” reputation could even hurt him with the more conservative voting blocs he’s trying to appeal to. That said, he'll also have a fuckton of money to sustain his campaign, a strong head start, charisma, and a very effective social media team, so he could easily weather the storm and come out as the strongest moderate.

Kamala Harris: Let me paint a picture for you: the previous Democratic Vice President, who ran for president multiple times before, steps into the Presidential race to become the consensus candidate against Donald Trump. No, it’s not Joe Biden in 2020.

Harris has proven twice now that she doesn't know how to run a campaign, but even if she ditches the consultants and suddenly lets loose the charisma that she had in those old Senate hearings, she's still a hard sell. As I implied, she's basically going to have to pull off a Biden 2020 2.0 by becoming the consensus candidate, but she has some extra baggage. First: where has she been for three years other than a book tour? Trump 2 has been substantially worse than Trump 1, and she isn't fighting fascism on the front lines—and that's going to hurt with liberals and leftists of all stripes. Second, she's a black woman—that’s going to hurt her with the “electability” dead-enders. And finally, and most importantly, she already lost to Trump and Vance! Could she pull off what Biden did in 2020? Yeah, probably. But it's a hard road and she has a lot of strong competition, particularly from her right, something Biden didn’t have to deal with.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: She rocks, but honestly, I think there is no way in hell she actually runs for President. Despite her reputation as a radical, she's proven herself a very cautious politician (she was one of the last people to leave the Biden train in 2024), and given the choice between a 100% guaranteed Senate seat and a brutal Presidential Primary that she's unlikely to win anyway...yeah she's almost certainly running for Senate.

All that being said, should she defy expectations and run for President, she’d have the funding and a lot of enthusiastic support from the left and left-liberals, easily squeezing out most left-of-center competition, but she would still struggle to convince many liberals that she can overcome said radical reputation in the general. In addition, an underrated part of her appeal as a candidate, not just in the primary but in the general as well, is that, in an election where the abuses of ICE are going to be a front and center issue, AOC is Hispanic, speaks fluent Spanish, and is savvy enough to actually run a competent Spanish-language campaign, a strength few other Democrats considering a run have. If she’s contrasted by a particularly vile candidate like Newsom, an exciting, youthful, and less problematic campaign might end up making skeptical liberals consider her the less risky candidate in the long run, so I would still consider her a very strong contender, again, if she runs.

Mark Kelly: He has a stellar resume and background, but he's also a Senator at a time where the Senate’s institutionalism and buddy-buddy atmosphere is reviled by the Democratic base. However, his name recognition and his credibility as a fighter against Trump have increased after he was singled out as a target by Hegseth and Trump, probably allowing him to overcome this weakness in a way other Senators will struggle with. That said, he’s still a swing-state Senator, which creates a risk many Democratic voters may not be willing to countenance. His record as a conservative, pro-Israel, pro-oil, anti-immigration, and anti-union Democrat who voted for the Lakan Riley Act, empowering ICE, adds even more baggage to the pile and makes him toxic to the left, which isn’t necessarily a death sentence since he doesn’t have Newsom’s more visceral record, but could also seriously hurt him with mainstream liberals who are increasingly progressive, pro-Palestine, pro-union, and anti-ICE. He’s a strong contender, but he may struggle to broaden his appeal enough to become the consensus pick.

J.B. Pritzker: Too liberal for the moderate/electability types, and his mixed record (siccing his goons on peaceful anti-ICE protestors, opposing the head tax, his generally pro-business attitude) is going to hurt him with progressives. He's got charisma and can self-fund, but I struggle to see what his primary constituencies are unless he ends up the most progressive guy in the running, which I doubt. He has the money to run a serious campaign, but in such a crowded field, how does he cement himself in the minds of voters outside the Midwest?

Pete Buttigieg: He's got charisma and a strong campaign team. However, like in 2020, he's DoA in the South, which is basically a death-knell to a moderate’s primary campaign, and he’s certainly not running as a progressive. He's beloved by #Resist libs, but electability voters are going to hate him, and many of those same #Resist libs who powered his campaign in 2020 are going to be more than a little tempted by Newsom’s savvy social media approach and/or Kelly’s resume and status as a prominent Trump target. Aside from his charisma, the only other thing Buttigieg's got going for him over the other moderates in the running is his relatively clean background (including his more moderate position on Palestine). That said, I think it’s still more than likely he ends up getting squeezed out in exchange for a juicy job offer, just like in 2020 (though he'll probably do a bit better delegate-wise, especially since his home state of Michigan was pre-Super Tuesday in 2024). He could be a frontrunner in the VP race for a moderate looking to pick a partner who looks slightly more progressive without alienating wealthy donors. That leaves us with the question: does he drop out before Super Tuesday, or after? If he’s doing well enough to consider a Super Tuesday run, he could bleed voters from both the moderate and left-liberal candidates, which would certainly give him some leverage at the convention, something an ambitious politician like him might find valuable.

Andy Beshear: He's perfect. On paper. Everybody likes him, but few love him. Could it make him a great consensus pick? Sure, but he needs to survive that long and at least make himself stand out a little bit (Biden was the previous Dem VP and a frontrunner through the entire race). Kentucky is also generally late in the primary, so he's got no easy early wins to establish some consensus cred after the debates, as Biden did with South Carolina. His lack of charisma will make standing out difficult, but I think he'll have at least some notable role to play in the primary and/or the general, even though he’s unlikely to win. He’ll be a top tier VP pick for a progressive candidate, but also, should he run a campaign that doesn’t completely sputter out before Super Tuesday, might find himself an uncontroversial pick in a contested convention scenario to avoid party-implosion.

Josh Shapiro: That Obama impression is never going to work. He's got almost as much baggage as Newsom and Kelly without the donors to back it up. He'll be trying to fit into a conservadem lane they fit into much better, which only leaves him the "Extreme Zionist" lane, which looks pathetically weak at the outset of 2026, let alone in 2028. I guess he won in a critical swing state, which counts for something, but an anti-union democrat probably isn’t going to stand out in the primary. That said, he might still have the legs to make it deep enough to have a say in who the consensus moderate is with his endorsement, which makes him worth keeping an eye on.

Mark Cuban: While he's more unlikely to enter while Newsom and/or Kelly are in the race (he'll almost certainly back one of them), if they’re forced out early or end up too weak for whatever reason, Cuban would be the clear conservadem replacement. He's a strong candidate who will have gargantuan financial backing to an end of permanently transitioning the US into an oligarchy. However, he'll struggle to build a grassroots movement in the short amount of time he'll inevitably have (see: Micheal Bloomberg). That said, as stupid as it is, “run the country like a business,” is an extremely popular sentiment, and his on-screen media experience will still make him much more of a threat than Bloomberg was in 2020, if he chooses to throw his hat in the ring.

At least to the end of the debates:

Chris Van Hollen: One of the best positioned Senators to take up the progressive mantle, which isn’t saying much. He can campaign on his consistent and admirable pro-Palestine, pro-international law stance, which isn’t nothing, but, being a Senator, he has little else to sell himself on—especially given his record, which includes a yea vote on the Lakan Riley Act and his support of Schumer’s leadership. Single-issue pro-Palestine voters will love him for his tireless work on the issue, but I’m not confident he’ll be able to expand much beyond that.

Chris Murphy: The other senator clearly setting himself up to be the Bernie Sanders of the race, but his inauthentic populist one liners aren’t going to endear him to many—I think people will see right through his bullshit, as they will with Corey Booker (we’ll get to him). Maybe he makes it through the debates if there isn't a clear progressive leader, but this seemingly inevitable campaign isn't going far.

Amy Klobuchar: She has some charisma, and that's about it. Nothing about her sticks out compared to the other moderates, and she’ll mostly be running on the relative success of her 2020 campaign, if she does indeed run, which won’t be enough in such a crowded field.

Ro Khanna: I'm sorry but the constituency for "Pro-Crypto NIMBY Progressive" does not exist outside of the San Fransisco Bay Area. He’ll probably have at least some money, and maybe he can keep his polling numbers above the debate threshold by appealing to like, the Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard crowds from 2020, but I don’t see him going anywhere fast.

Rahm Emmanuel: He'll probably get ripped apart by a mob if he so much as enters the city of Chicago, so uh, even with the frankly ridiculous amount of money and right-wing media support he’ll have behind him, I don't think he'll get very far.

Will drop out during the debates:

Ruben Gallego: He's kind of like Shapiro, but with the baggage of being a Senator and the charisma of wet cardboard. Not only did he vote for the Lakan Riley act, he was also one of the two Democratic co-sponsors, along with John Fetterman. Honestly if he stays in the presidential primary too long it would likely put him at a serious risk of a primary for his Senate seat, so I doubt he survives the debates.

Wes Moore: Does he have the charisma to make himself stand out in the debates? I don't think so. He's very clearly in the moderate lane, which, as we’ve seen, is stacked to hell and back with contenders, so what sets him apart? If he can’t find a way to stand out early, he’ll probably fizzle out in the background like the many moderate also-rans of 2020.

Corey Booker: Even the most libbed out #Resist libs see through his bullshit. He's even weaker than he was in 2020, in an even more crowded field. He’ll be popular with certain donors, but I’d be surprised if he gets any further than he did in 2020.

Gretchen Whitmer: She already torpedoed her political career posing with Trump and supporting his tariffs. She’s completely dead in the water at this point, with no anti-Trump credibility to speak of, and will be lucky to even be speculated as a VP contender.

Stephen A. Smith: Tulsi and Marianne couldn't pull off the crazy outsider shtick, and neither will Stephen.

The dingus brigade (Josh Green, Phil Murphy, Gina Raimondo): lmao

Other speculative candidates I’ve seen mentioned online:

Tim Walz: He's not running unless he’s forced to, and since Harris and a number of other competitive candidates will almost certainly be in the race, the pressure will not be there for him to feel the need to jump in.

Michelle Obama: She has charisma and would be extremely hard to run against. She’d immediately be the front runner if she jumped in. I just don’t think she has any interest. Her weakness is, like Harris and Buttigieg, “what the hell have you been doing the last three years” but that might not be enough to overcome her sheer name recognition, as she lacks the distinct baggage of Harris who would be attempting a similar run.

Jon Stewart: He’d squeeze out Buttigieg, being less toxic on the left and on the right. That said, he’d need to also either become the de-facto left or moderate candidate, and stronger, well-funded candidates on both sides of him will make this difficult. He could pull it off using his cred with #Resist libs, especially given his television background, but a skeptical South and a potentially hostile left could sink his campaign before the end of Super Tuesday.

The Castro brothers (Joaquin and Julian): I like them both, but I don't think their brand of wonky Warren-style politics are going to be well suited for 2028. However, if one of them decides to run, they could definitely be a dark horse on the left, should they find a way to cobble together the funding to make a serious go of it.

Bernie Sanders: If this ancient fossil is the best the left can do, we deserve to lose.

Elizabeth Warren: I was a 2020 Warren supporter. That was her peak, and she shouldn’t run again. As with the Castros, her wonky single-focus politics are a very poor fit for the current era. Her potential voter base doesn’t just care about corporate accountability, they want harsh political consequences, something a-then 79 year old Senator is unlikely to provide. That said, her endorsement will carry some weight as to who carries the left-liberal vote, as Bernie’s will to the left.

John Fetterman: HAHAHAHAHA. No.

Andrew Cuomo: Sexual harassment boy couldn’t even win a mayoral election in his own state when he had Republicans to come out and vote for him.

[Insert Swing State Senator Here] (Roy Cooper, Ossoff/Warnock, Elissa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, Ruben Gallego): Democratic voters will not tolerate sacrificing a swing senate seat, sorry.

[Insert 2026 Senate Contender Here] (Sherrod Brown, Mary Peltola, Zach Wahls, Sharice Davids, Amy McGrath, Graham Platner, Abdul El-Sayed, Mallory McMorrow, Dan Osborn, James Talarico, etc.): Again, nobody wants to sacrifice a swing senator, and jumping into a presidential race only a year after winning your senate seat is a surefire way to lose your next election. That said, for those that lose their race (or Colin Allred), they might have enough name recognition to launch a 2028 campaign, but it remains to be seen if they can put the funds and support together, or if any nasty baggage comes out (Platner). We’ll have a better picture of these candidates a year from now.

Hillary Clinton: who the fuck is saying this shit

Some Guy^tm: 80/20 this is another fucking Graham Platner or Andrew Yang or Kyrsten Sinema or Marianne Williamson situation. An unvetted candidate will almost certainly be a disaster, especially if they get enough traction before their inevitable scandal, they could also sour the taste for anti-establishment candidates as a whole, which would really suck for progressives and anyone who wants actual accountability.

Michelle Wu: Coming to the end of an almost-certainly successful second term as mayor, she's well liked by all wings of the party (especially progressives) and isn't on anyone's radar yet, giving her plenty of room to build a national profile herself in 2027 as an underdog, the way Buttigieg did in 2019. She's unthreatening in a way an AOC isn’t, which is huge (especially if she's matched up against Newsom), and could raise her floor in the critical South, and though she likely still wouldn’t do well there, it could let her build a real lead on Super Tuesday against a fractured moderate field. She's got serious policy bonafides, has a ton of charisma, and is one of the anointed few “genuinely exciting Democrats”, making her a much stronger goldilocks candidate than Beshear, with his only advantage being his red-state heritage (somewhat mitigated by him being a nepo-baby). If progressives want to score a win in this primary, Wu might be the best option. (Wu/Beshear would be a fucking bomb general election ticket too).

Conclusion

Overall, the field looks quite diverse, even this early. With AOC likely to stay away, there’s no clear progressive banner carrier as there was in Warren/Sanders in 2020 or Sanders in 2016, but also all of the potential moderates have substantial and exploitable weaknesses, putting them all in generally worse positions than Biden in 2020, not an enviable place to be. 2028 looks to be the best chance ever for progressives to take the reins, but it will almost certainly require the right candidate who can excite liberals without being too terrifying to moderates, while keeping the so-called moderate candidates toxic and divided by exposing their many, many flaws. Every vote to approve a Trump nominee, forward one of his agendas, or evade accountability is potential to pitch the party to not settle for a lesser candidate.And that’s a wrap on my first long form write up on here. I just have lots of thoughts™ that I wanted to put down somewhere—I’ll probably do more of these sorts of posts on other topics as I get inspired to write them, and I’ll for sure do a follow up on this in like 6 months or so, once we’ve got a better picture of what the 2026 midterms will look like. If you liked my ramblings, feel free to subscribe for more, and/or message me with comments/questions at https://bsky.app/profile/rainst0rm4759.bsky.social.