Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocrats

AOC generates huge 2028 buzz

by Christian Heinze
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the Fighting Oligarchy Tour in Missoula, Montana

Last week might be considered the week that catapulted Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez permanently to the top tier of Democratic candidates for 2028 as AOC continues her “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Bernie Sanders.

Until now, she’s been lurking as a kind of “maybe, possibly AOC?” in some corners of the internet, but this is the week she broke out in the mainstream media – and much deserved, as I’ve been writing about since before Trump was even reelected in 2024.

Here’s a brief look at her big week.

a) AOC revealed that she raised $9.6 million from January through March of the year. What’s most impressive and revealing about her haul is that the average campaign donation was just $21 and 64% came from first-time donors. That’s evidence of broad support among common folks — something that reflects genuine enthusiasm among the Democratic electorate and not institutional donors (institutional $ doesn’t always translate to votes).

Remember, Obama was generating this kind of small-dollar appeal in 2008 while Hillary was, instead, getting the institutional support. We know how that turned out.

Beyond the fundraising and her continuing mega tour with Bernie Sanders (which is drawing impressive crowds in red parts of the country, and according to The New York Times, surprised Sanders himself) the talking head buzz really got going when…

b) Nate Silver and and political podcaster Galen Druke called AOC the early front-runner for the 2028 Dem presidential primary in a “way too early presidential draft.” Silver and Druke noted two things a) her media savvy/charisma and b) broader appeal among the Democratic primary electorate than often assumed. Silver noted the recent poll where she would best Chuck Schumer in a Senate primary and accurately noted “New York Democrats are actually a pretty moderate lot.”

Druke talks about it all on MSNBC, where he notably mentions that AOC has, indeed, pivoted towards economic issues, while going quiet on things like abolishing ICE and other, less popular progressive positions she was famous for when she rose to prominence (think Green New Deal, among others).

I’d note something else, regarding the 2028 primary: Imagine all the ’28 candidates, crowded in the early states, in those numerous townhalls that are so clutch in determining the buzz and energy of a candidate.

Now think of candidates like Gretchen Whitmer, Kamala Harris, or Gavin Newsom’s holding their town halls right across the street from AOC’s. On a cold, windy day, who’s going to draw the crowd?

That’s not to say townhalls mean everything (Joe Biden didn’t exactly generate much in that regard in 2020), but it does speak to a candidate’s charisma, ability to attract media attention, and generate enthusiasm. That often turns to votes.

c) Kevin McCarthy also called AOC the future of the Democratic party during an interview on Fox News, but said it’s ultimately going to come down to an intraparty fight between the “AOC and Bernie Sanders” wing vs. the “Joe Biden/Kamala Harris/Nancy Pelosi/Schumer and Hakeem [Jeffries]” wing.

The winner of that tussle, McCarthy predicted, will become the “leader of the Democratic party.”

Now listen to this next bit, which is going to be the big knock on AOC from Republicans and, perhaps, concerned Democrats who don’t want to be seen as too far left in a 2028 general election.

McCarthy:

“Remember, AOC and Bernie Sanders are socialists. They literally registered as socialists. AOC came into the party campaigning for Bernie Sanders… this is how far the party has moved. And it shows – they are more at home going to a Latin American country than fighting for a hard-working American.”

If AOC is the nominee, expect Republicans to go hard at the fact that AOC did, in fact, form a close association with Democratic Socialists of America, worked to gain their endorsement, and, in 2021, was referred to by the organization as “DSA’s foremost socialist superstar.” She catalogues her own history with the movement here and it’s well worth the read.

This is going to be something she’ll have to deal with in a country where “socialist” can be electoral kryptonite in a general election. Or… even a Democratic primary (as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way).

What is AOC going to say about all this? How will she address it? Will she lean into it or shy away from it?

d) On his Real Time show this week, Bill Maher shot back at the idea of AOC as the Dem’s 2028 nominee: “It shouldn’t be her. It shouldn’t be her.”

e) A Yale Poll of national Democrats showed AOC running a very close second to Kamala Harris in the 2028 Democratic primary. Harris clocked in at 27.5%, Ocasio-Cortez 21.3%, and Mayor Pete 14%. Gavin Newsom drew 6.4% and Josh Shapiro 4.6%.

Most of these early surveys are Name ID checks, and so it’s understandable that Harris would rank first. What’s concerning for Kamala is just how tenuous that first place hold is, with AOC just a few percentage points behind.

f) MUST-READ: Axios’ Alex Thompson breaks down everything you need to know about AOC’s buzz in his piece “AOC seizes the moment as Dems seek a new identity.”

Money quote from AOC, while attending a rally in Folsom, California, which is represented by Republicans in the state house (although Biden squeaked out a narrow win in 2024):

“I don’t think this is Trump country — I think this is our country.”

Expect to hear that line a lot more from AOC.

Finally…. here’s full video of Sanders and AOC’s rally from Missoula, Montana.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocratsRo Khanna

Ro Khanna praises Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s mass market appeal

by Christian Heinze

In the midst of her wildly popular “Fighting Oligarchy” tour with Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is drawing praises from a potential 2028 rival, Rep. Ro Khanna.

Khanna tells Michelle Cottle of the New York Times:

“She connects with her life experiences in a way with young people and people who don’t follow all the details of politics by drawing them in.”

Further, in a remarkable display of the humility he’s known for projecting, Khanna talks about how he stacks up next to AOC when it comes to the X factor.

Representative Ro Khanna of California recalled to me that, at a recent town hall, people kept asking him, “What are you going to do to stop this?” None of his answers about what was possible in legislative terms ever “fully landed,” he said. “And then I would just say, ‘Look, it’s going to take all of us. It’s going to take a movement.’ And that’s what Bernie and A.O.C. are doing. They get it — that it’s not just in Washington that this is going to be stopped. It’s going to take everyone

For her part, AOC tells Cottle that the party needs to stop dividing itself into labels like “progressives” or “moderates” and needs to unite under a message of “economic populism.”

Maybe.

But I’d suggest that’s a really hard thing to do when the fact is that — just as there was an establishment, conservative wing of the GOP and a populist wing — there remains a progressive and moderate division in the Democratic party.

The GOP had a long, open fight over which side would win.

How often did we hear Trump rail in the 2016 primary (and ever since) against the “establishment” or “RINOs” or “Bush Republicans”? In fact, that explained some of his success. He was the most charismatic figure from the burgeoning populist wing to emerge and, ultimately, he won the battle and today’s GOP is MAGA, with only a few remaining holdouts (some elected representatives and the roughly 20% of Republicans who consistently voted for Nikki Haley in GOP primaries).

So I don’t think Democrats can avoid an inevitable showdown between the moderate wing and the progressive wing. Not in this moment, and not in the context of today’s increasingly partisan primaries.

It takes a rare candidate to unite both wings in a primary (even Barack Obama had difficulty reeling in the establishment from its allegiance to Hillary Clinton) and the divisions within the party have only intensified since then.

Nevertheless, at this moment, Democrats seem eager to embrace a more combative approach and candidate.

Look no further than the early April poll of a potential face-off between Chuck Schumer and AOC, where the latter led the powerful Senate Minority leader and most iconic figure in New York Democratic politics 55-36% among likely primary voters in that state.

Finally, AOC herself kind of makes the case for herself in the i/view with The New York Times, and it’s the one many make when they talk of her appeal for a 2028 presidential bid.

AOC:

“I think that people need to see some of us who’ve actually made it from really tough backgrounds and have really seen some things in their lives and not just heard about things in their lives. Because it’s visceral. To actually know what it’s like to come home to an apartment and the lights are off, to actually know what it’s like to not be able to afford a prescription, is something that can be really felt.”

I’ve written about her ability to connect with the working class because, she actually does come from the working class. And it shows up in things as simple as the fact she heads out to jump start her chief of staff’s car — a picture that went viral — as if it’s just a part of a daily life.

Plenty of politicians can try to feign that working class, relatable persona. Very few can pull it off.

Let’s circle back to Khanna, who offered the self-effacing praise of a potential future presidential primary opponent in AOC.

His pragmatism seemed particularly relevant to the party in the wake of Donald Trump’s broad 2024 victory when it was widely acknowledged the Democratic party had moved too far to the Left.

However, a lot can change in a few months.

Just look at these numbers for Trump with indies, via the AP and NORC from March 20-24, PRE-TARIFF and market volatility.

So the wind seems to have changed drastically in Democrats’ favor if they choose to focus on the issues that are currently moving independents.

Final note:

It’ll be fascinating to see what the 2026 Democratic primary produces.

Does the party try to moderate itself, which seemed to be the way it was trending in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump’s victory, or will it lean into a more progressive, fighter mode that the party seems to want now?

Currently, Democrats seem to have landed on a message that resonates with folks: Trump 2.0 is more about billionaires in the White House and less about working class men and women, who will see prices rise with tariffs.

That’s a winning message.

And it could be the uniting message in a party that was splintering and falling apart as it grappled with how to address politically losing messages that were out of step with most Americans’ concerns in the 2024 election.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsRo Khanna

Ro Khanna’s tussle with JD Vance elevates 2028 profile

by Christian Heinze

Over the past week, California Congressman Ro Khanna (D) has engaged in a Twitter feud with Vice President JD Vance that has generated significant buzz surrounding the Democratic darkhorse who has been generally consigned to tier three among the potential 2028 Democratic nominees for president.

It all began when The Wall Street Journal reported that a DOGE staffer, Marko Elez, who famously gained access to the Treasury Department’s central payments system, had posted to a social media account that “Just for the record, I was racist before it was cool,” “Normalize Indian hate,” and “You could not pay me to marry outside of my ethnicity.”

Elez wasn’t just some random guy within the DOGE operation. There were only two members of DOGE allowed access to the Treasury Department, and Elez was one. That proximity raised considerable alarm.

He promptly resigned.

But then something happened. JD Vance stood up for Elez, and promptly got 66.8 million views on X for doing so.

Vance posted on X that, while he disagreed with some of Elez’s posts, “I don’t think stupid social media activity should ruin a kid’s life.”

Then he called on Elez to come back to DOGE.

Considering the fact that JD Vance’s own wife is Indian, the comments were particularly surprising.

When asked about the controversy, President Donald Trump deferred to Vance, saying, “I’m with the vice president.”

Enter Ro Khanna, who is Indian himself and was obviously one of the scores of folks who were incensed by both Vance’s defense of Elez and call to rehire him.

Khanna, who hasn’t yet generated the kind of top tier buzz of other potential 2028 Democratic candidates, generated 18 million views on X when he called out Vance’s position on Elez and referred to the latter’s “Normalize Indian hate” post, which you’d think might resonate more acutely with Vance, considering the vice president’s own wife is Indian.

Vance responded on X that his kids weren’t threatened by Elez’s racist comments on Indians, and then claimed that the only threatening thing to his kids was “a culture that encourages congressmen to act like whiny children.”

Khanna then took umbrage at the “whiny” comment and appealed to a higher-minded kind of debate (Lincoln/Douglas), but not without taking a shot at Vance’s history of flip-flopping on Trump.

It’s at that point that the X feud over Elez ended.

But it scored Khanna an appearance on CNN, in which he noted that he knew Vance and respected his wife but went on to further criticize Elez and Vance’s call for him to be rehired (and, incidentally, raised Khanna’s own national profile).

“If you have someone who’s 25 years old, who’s made deeply offensive comments…. is he going to apologize? Is he going to have any accountability?

No one is saying cancel him, but you can’t just rehire him and say ‘Okay, everything is fine, and he’s going to represent the United States government’.”

Khanna then questioned the ferocity of Vance’s response to the idea that Elez should be removed and what Vance failed to do.

“Here’s what I didn’t understand. He [Vance] was so emotional about this and such an outburst. I’m not saying that he is not condemning the racism, but why can’t he just say, ‘Yes, the person should apologize before being reconsidered. What is the hesitancy?”

Okay, so a few things to note here.

First, regarding Vance:

Regardless of your feelings on Vance’s response, his decision to continue the feud demonstrated two things.

First, by engaging in the lengthy X feud, the sitting vice president raised Khanna’s profile, as the California congressman’s ethnic heritage proved him the ideal messenger to protest the phrase, “Normalize Indian hate.” (More on that later).

Second, it demonstrated a weakness I’ve chronicled in Vance’s own political development.

His boss, Donald Trump, has turned brawling into something of a political positive. Trump’s political rise coincided with his elevation of the birther movement, and he became a famous master of the political troll to the point that it’s one of the reasons he defied the odds to become the GOP nominee in 2016.

But Trump-apers like Ron DeSantis and others never quite managed to turn the politics of insult into a net positive the way Donald did, and while Vance certainly seems to have tried (most famously, by promoting the Haitian immigrant conspiracy in the 2024 election), it doesn’t appear to have worked, as Vance has consistently garnered lower favorability ratings than his boss (take a look at Vance’s, over time, via 538 and Trump’s).

No one can Trump Insult like Trump, and if Vance wants to succeed by becoming a brawler in the fashion of Donald Trump, he’d do well to look at the numerous Trump copycats who simply couldn’t pull off the art of the insult like Trump (Ron DeSantis, being the most prominent example).

As far as Khanna goes, the X feud did nothing but help him for a potential 2028 primary.

First, coming into it, he was generally seen as having presidential ambition, but as a fairly recently elected member of the House (2016) had yet to make much of a national impression beyond serving as a case point among Washington pundits on how the Democratic party could be progressive but in a pragmatic way.

In fact, at this stage of the cycle (very early primary jockeying), playing the role of outrage is the more reliable way to garner national exposure and earn a following.

Khanna’s calm demeanor and political pragmatism don’t lend itself to making a name, at this point.

Yet in taking on Vance over a controversial program (DOGE) and indefensible racist comments about, among others, Indians, Khanna picked his battle wisely, generated national buzz, vaulted himself into tier two in the 2028 sweepstakes and enabled him to now settle back into his preferred role of pragmatist who doesn’t seem interested in perpetuating the outrage cycle for immediate political gain.

In other words, he chose his battle wisely.

And not just that battle, but his escalating feud with another less popular figure associated with Donald Trump: Elon Musk.

[Photo: Ro Khanna, Public Domain]

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
J.D. VanceRepublicans

JD Vance’s stock for 2028 tanks after Trump Fox comments

by Christian Heinze

Over Super Bowl weekend, Donald Trump shocked political observers and possibly JD Vance himself when he explicitly denied in a Fox News interview that he viewed the vice president as his natural heir.

Here’s the transcript.

BAIER: Do you view Vice President JD Vance as your successor – the Republican nominee in 2028.

TRUMP: No, but he’s very capable. I mean, I don’t think – I think you have a lot of very capable people. It’s too early. We’re just starting.

BAIER: But by the time we get to the midterms [2026], he’s gonna be looking for an endorsement.

TRUMP: A lot of people have said this has been the greatest opening – almost three weeks – in the history of the presidency.

Trump then pivoted to his own current presidency and Baier didn’t follow up on the pretty stunning comments regarding Vance.

Here’s the video below, and some observations.

Take-aways:

First, Trump just opened the 2028 race wide open.

Every vice president since Dick Cheney has eventually run for president, and Cheney was considered a brief exception to the rule that veeps are generally going to run once their bosses are done.

In fact, that’s the main reason why you take the gig, which, devoid of context, is a thankless job and comes with huge downside risk but upside reward for your future aspirations. It’s mostly just a positioning step for the presidency.

The consensus was that, in choosing Vance, Trump was picking the natural successor to MAGA.

Vance was young, parroted Trump on pretty much everything ideologically, and aped the president’s style nearly to the extent of obsequiousness (the Haiti thing in the 2024 election was particularly audacious).

Further, Vance’s path forward in 2028 only seemed obstructed by the possibility of a politically dismal second Trump term.

Otherwise, he had already united the incredibly rich tech world that leaned Republican (one of the things Trump admired when he picked him) and managed to maintain to his credibility and appeal with populists. That’s not easy.

Further, as of last week, he seemed to be making gains on one of his weaker points – forming relationships with more traditional Republicans in the dying “establishment” wing of the party (which can hardly be credibly viewed as the GOP establishment, but is still deemed with that term).

In a GOP primary, those Never Trump In The Primary but Okay, Fine Trump voters in the general election matter.

Haley only got as far as she did because she ran up the score with Never Trump voters in the primary. So, depending on the state and available candidates, in 2024, it yielded slightly north of 20%.

But in the Fox interview, Trump completely nixed the prevailing narrative of Vance as successor that had JD’s stock way ahead of everyone else in a 2028 nomination race.

Look at this sentence from Trump: “I think you have a lot of very capable people.”

That basically says, “Let the best candidate win in 2028! It’s an open nomination!”

He then says it’s too early to talk 2028. Baier very credibly pushes back that in just two years, Vance will certainly be looking for an endorsement.

That observation gives Trump a chance to amend his response, but instead he affirms it by simply changing the subject and letting his “it’s too early” and “I think you have a lot of very capable people” political bombshell stand.

We know Trump talks off-the-cuff a lot, but the fact he so explicitly deflected and didn’t want to talk (he always wants to talk) about the Vance 2028 thing other than to throw the race open — well, that’s pretty intentional.

If there was a JD Vance stock, it just fell 20% overnight and one potential candidate soared (more on that later).

Further, if Trump’s shocking demurral weren’t as consequential and humiliating enough on its own, Vance has had to endure pretty rough headlines from the exchange.

Fox itself titled its post: “Trump reveals whether he sees JD Vance as his successor.”

The ostensibly neutral but come-on-they’re-actually-conservative-now Daily Mail: “Trump gives stunning response when asked if he views JD Vance as his political successor.“

Bloomberg: “Trump says ‘No’ When Asked If Ready to Name Vance as Successor.”

Newsweek: “Donald Trump declines to endorse JD Vance as 2028 Republican Successor.“

The conservative New York Post: “Trump reveals he doesn’t yet view JD Vance as his successor in 2028: ‘No, but he’s very capable’.”

The liberal New Republic’s take: “Trump just utterly humiliated JD Vance.”

The Independent: “Trump gives withering response to whether JD Vance is his successor.”

The Economic Times: “Donald Trump snubs JD Vance as 2028 Presidential successor.”

In other words, the consequence of what Trump did is widely acknowledged, and hence why JD Vance’s stock has fallen, and the 2028 Republican nomination is now scrambled.

Second, there’s already chatter about one of the most curious and under-chatted phenomenon of 2024.

When Trump picked the very young Vance as his natural heir, the assumption was that Trump’s own very aspirational, political, and influential son Donald Trump Jr would pass on 2028.

After all, Trump Jr. lobbied hard for his dad to pick Vance, and why would Trump Sr. put a young Vance in pole position for 2028 and heir to the Trump legacy if Trump Jr. had intentions on being the 2028 guy and heir?

So Trump’s selection of Vance quieted chatter about Trump Jr. carrying on his dad’s legacy in the Oval Office (for the time being).

But now?

Well, why else would Trump open up the 2028 race?

It doesn’t make sense that he’d open it up for Ron DeSantis or Vivek or any other MAGA rival he faced in 2024 and ultimately defeated. Certainly not Nikki Haley who remains blacklisted.

Vance didn’t even run against Trump in 2024. He was loyal.

It simply makes no sense that Trump would give any candidate other than Vance the benefit of the doubt. Unless…. that candidate was Trump’s own son, Donald Trump Jr.

Who better to carry on the Trump legacy than an actual Trump?

Vance will never be named JD Trump, no matter how hard he tries to ape his boss.

So ask yourself: Would Trump rather see his legacy extended by his son — someone with the literal name of Trump — or by a guy who once loathed Trump but then came around and loyally supported him. There are plenty of people in the latter category. None in the former category.

This development squarely puts Donald Trump Jr. in the 2028 conversation.

It doesn’t mean he’ll run. He and Vance are very close.

But brotherly love rarely matters when two ambitious people can see “Most Powerful Person in the World” within their realistic grasp.

Third, while the above is the most probable explanation of Trump’s demurral, maybe it’s as simple as Trump simply hating all this talk of a successor, because it reminds him that he can’t run again himself.

In fact, as the New York Times Maggie Haberman noted yesterday, he’s ramped up his ostensible jokes that he’d like a third term in 2028 and if his approval stays decent, you never know what fights are in store on that front, and by naming a successor or even talking about it now, he’s removing himself from the equation of… being his own successor.

No matter what, JD Vance’s stock just fell in a big way. It’s hard to imagine Vance being any more loyal to Trump than he’s been. This absolutely ensures it. Any kind of fracture is too dangerous for Vance, who now knows he’s on much thinner ice than he probably ever thought possible.

[Photo: JD Vance taking the oath of office, Public Domain]

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsPete Buttigieg

Will Pete Buttigieg run for president in 2028 if he becomes a Michigan Senator?

by Christian Heinze

Last week, Melissa Nann Burke of the Detroit News reported that potential 2028 candidate, Pete Butttigieg, has ruled out a run for governor of Michigan and “is very seriously focused” on a potential run for Senate in 2026 to replace retiring Democratic Senator Gary Peters. So does that mean he won’t run for president in 2028? Not necessarily, says Politico.

However, it does make it seem less likely for a number of reasons, although a win would put him in great shape for a 2032 presidential run (more on that later).

But first, he’s got to actually win the Senate seat.

Semafor has a fantastic deep-dive into any such nascent Democratic primary campaign in Michigan if Pete were to run.

The crux: With his high name ID and favorability in the state, along with his natural political skill and impressive fundraising, he’d instantly be among the top two in a primary campaign. He also brings in

In fact, a polling memo this week shows Mayor Pete dominating the field, winning 40% of the vote, while the second closest challenger, Dana Nessel, clocks in at just 16% (a host of other names get single digit numbers).

However, I’d add a few more things.

Look deeper into the poll, and you’ll see Mayor Pete carrying a familiar strength and weakness: Namely, he dominates among whites, white liberals, and those with a college degree. Which was his coalition in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.

But among demographic groups where he struggled in ’20 (blacks and lower income voters), Pete continues to underperform in this very small, initial Michigan survey.

He actually comes in third place among blacks, and although he leads among those without a college degree, it’s a smaller advantage than he’s got among those with a college degree edge.

One of the common interpretations of his dismal showing among blacks in ’20 is his sexual orientation (gay). Blacks are more religious than whites, more likely than others to read the Bible regularly, viewing it as God’s word, and are more likely to be associated with denominations that consider homosexuality a sin.

There’s no polling on why exactly Pete absolutely tanked among blacks in the South Carolina primary (he earned less than 2% of the black vote and finished 4th overall, after finishing a strong 2nd, overall, in both Iowa and New Hampshire, where blacks made up a much smaller share of voters.

It could be that Mayor Pete was perceived as too liberal and South Carolina blacks picked the most moderate candidate, Joe Biden.

Maybe.

But that conclusion doesn’t explain why Bernie Sanders (far more liberal) performed much better than Pete, pulling in 17% of blacks vs. 2% for Pete.

And anecdotally, hop onto even liberal message boards and there’s an acknowledgement among his backers that his sexual orientation probably still makes him a tough sell in a party where blacks form a decisive part of the primary coalition.

Now here’s the interesting thing for the Michigan primary.

His most formidable opponent, Dana Nessel, is openly lesbian and well-known in the state.

However, blacks still prefer her to Mayor Pete.

It could be name ID or familiarity, but my hunch is that Mayor Pete also struggles connecting with lower income voters – even setting aside sexual orientation – as a general rule of thumb.

2028 TAKEAWAY:

Politico notes this doesn’t mean he’s ruling out a 2028 presidential bid, but I think it’s less likely that, after living in Michigan for just two years (making him vulnerable to the attack he’s a carpetbagger), he would jump ship on the electorate that just voted for him and say, “Bye, I’m running for president.”

However, there is significant advantage for Mayor Pete in 2032 at the presidential level if he wins a Senate seat in Michigan.

Here’s why.

First, if he proves himself popular in a blue wall state as a guy currently tagged with “the rich eloquent liberal” thing, it helps him, well, shake that tag.

As a Michigan Senator, he can focus on learning to connect a little better with minorities and those without a college degree.

Second, even though “Mayor Pete” was an endearing moniker that certainly had/has a nice ring, it did/does carry the ring of “That’s all you’ve done?” when it comes to the presidential level. Blessing and curse kind of thing (Of course, he had his stint in the Biden Administration, but Transportation Secretary isn’t exactly the kind of experience for shedding the “Mayor Pete” label).

So if he can add “Senator Pete from a hugely important state”, that’s a big upgrade for his national resume.

But a win would still seem to make him less likely to run for president in 2028, even though he’ll likely be significant voice within the party in the next presidential cycle.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsWes Moore

PROFILE: Wes Moore for president in 2028?

by Christian Heinze

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) is expected to be one of the leading Democratic candidates for president in the upcoming 2028 election. Here’s a look at everything you need to know about the first term governor, who was elected as Maryland’s governor in 2022.

Life Background: Moore was born in Tacoma Park, Maryland, which is a planned commuter suburb in Montgomery County, but he spent his first few years in a low-income family in West Baltimore.

His father was a radio and TV journalist who tragically passed away from acute epiglottis when Moore was only 3 years old.

That left Moore’s family in a difficult situation, and his mother decided to move her three children to New York City to live with the three children’s grandparents in the Bronx.

In his New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestselling book, One Name, Two Fates, Moore said he “struggled” to stay on a positive course in life until he enrolled in Valley Forge Military School for high school and junior college, which he credits for help instilling a sense of discipline and purpose. He thrived and graduated Phi Theta Kappa, soon becoming a second lieutenant of Military Intelligence in the Army Reserve.

While serving in the Amy Reserve’s military intelligence unit, he attended Johns Hopkins University where he played wide receiver for the football team (don’t sleep on that for electability, because his familiarity and comfort with football culture and a diverse set of fans is something that the Democratic party could use, electorally).

While at Hopkins, he also served an internship at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Tom Ridge during George W. Bush’s administration, ultimately graduating Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in international relations and economics.

University Upshot: Moore graduated from a world-class institution with a 3.8 GPA or higher, an academic degree in fairly brainy coursework, and was selected for a prestigious extracurricular activity as an intern under the purview of a Republican presidential administration.

Oh, and played football. Of course Hopkins’ football program isn’t in the SEC, but if you’re a sports fan and curious, he averaged 25.2 yards per catch with two touchdowns as a senior and would have played for the Hopkins basketball program, as well, if not for an injury before he joined the football team.

He told PressBox that he learned a lot of lessons from his wide receiver’s coach, who was also a trader for Deutsche Bank (keep that in mind for later), and told him that, despite Moore’s relative lack of football experience, Moore could “spend more time in the film room… and just outwork” everyone else.

Why do I mention the thing about football?

Well, the Democratic party is increasingly seen as culturally elitist (read Andrew Marantz on this in The New Yorker), and even though football is ubiquitous in America, it’s hard to imagine too many elite Democratic contenders who can talk about film rooms, running slants, and the finer things of football culture that are electorally useful when you’re trying to appeal to a broad coalition of voters.

Plenty of candidates have elite resumes, but it’s important to highlight the more unique things that can shape them into a political force.

After college, Moore was selected to be a Rhodes Scholar at Wolfson College, a constituent college of the University of Oxford — notable for its accomplished alumni which include Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn, and a number of accomplished physicists and mathematicians.

His thesis was Rise and Ramifications of Radical Islam in the Western Hemisphere.

It’s not a fait accompli that graduate theses would become a campaign issue, but in this day and age, quite possibly. Describing a certain strain of Islam as “radical” might be used against Moore by a more leftist opponent in a Democratic primary, but it’s hard to see the Democratic party shifting farther to the left in the event of Kamala Harris’ loss — in part, from her difficulty backpedaling her more progressive positions in the 2020 campaign for president.

Back to Moore’s bio.

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, he was activated and deployed to Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division, which specializes in parachute assault into hostile areas. The 82nd has a storied history, and famously participated in Operation Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge, and Operation Overlord in World War 2.

Moore became a captain while serving with the division, and spearheaded the American strategic support plan for the Afghan Reconciliation Program which aimed to unite former insurgents with the new government.

Two years later, he once again served in George W. Bush’s administration – this time as White House Fellow and Special Assistant of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, while just 27 years old, where he focused on structuring and procuring complex transactions in emerging markets across the globe. During this time, he also worked as an investment banker with Deutsche Bank’s Global Markets Division in New York.

In a 2006 interview with CSPAN, Moore said he used his knowledge from his time at Oxford to help Tom Ridge and the then-named Office of Homeland Security, researching Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda.

In the same interview, he gave a hint as to his earliest political views, via a quote from The Baltimore Sun, in which Moore said, “I have a little bit of Democrat in me, I have a little bit of Republican in me, but fundamentally I’m me.”

Moore expanded further in his interview with CSPAN, explaining, “I’ve never liked being put in a box…I’ve been able to walk many different paths and see life through many different lenses…. I’m a social moderate, I’m a strong fiscal conservative, I’m a military officer, I’m an investment banker, and I just happen to also be a registered Democrat.” (The 6:30 mark).

He then talked about how the United States needed to get rid of the “partisan divide” in the country, and pointed to Colin Powell as one of his heroes, and the one who encouraged him to seek a life in public service and not just investment banking.

After leaving his fellowship at the White House, he worked as an investment banker for Deutsche Bank, then at Citibank, and started picking up recognition in regional and national papers as someone to watch, making Crain’s New York Business’ “40 under 40 Rising Stars.”

But it was the aforementioned best-selling book, The Other Wes Moore, that really put him on the national map, and he started showing up everywhere, with appearances on “Meet the Press,” “Oprah,” “Tavis Smiley,” “The View,” etc.,

Moore then branched out into other initiatives, including founding a company providing services to support students as they transitioned to college, producing documentaries, and spending four years as CEO of the Robin Hood Foundation, which raised over $650 million to help fight poverty in New York City and elsewhere through food pantries, disaster relief, schools, and other things.

And long before his personal political career began, he gave a speech at Barack Obama’s 2008 DNC convention, which didn’t lead to an immediate foray into politics, but served as an example of just how much attention his story and work was getting.

Here’s video of the speech. Notice that he was introduced as “Captain Wes Moore,” and spoke of his grandparents giving him a Bible. Keep both things in mind as you think about his 2028 general election prospects and how he might be positioned to help Democrats in desperate need of stopping the bleed with young men, minorities, and the working class.

But 2008 still didn’t represent Moore’s personal entry into politics; instead, he focused on business and charitable endeavors, while keeping an eye on a potential future in politics.

His pseudo-foray into the political realm came in 2020 when Baltimore’s incoming mayor tapped him to serve on his transition team, and he soon began consulting with elected political figures on various issues.

His formal foray came in 2021 when he decided to run for governor of Maryland as a Democrat, after popular two-term Republican Larry Hogan was termed out.

If that seems like a rather big jump (private industry to governor), well, it was and it wasn’t.

Moore already had national exposure, thanks to his book. And he was a significant figure in the Maryland scene, both through his work in business and various apolitical causes.

Thus, he entered as one of the three leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, as facing off against the much more politically-polished Tom Perez, who had long-time national political presence. Perez began his career with Sen. Teddy Kennedy, then served as a member of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama’s administrations. In other words, he was no pushover.

Moore also faced long-time state of Maryland political heavy, Peter Franchot, who was actually the favorite, coming in.

In other words, this wasn’t a gimme primary.

Perez won the endorsements of numerous labor groups in Maryland, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and finally, the biggest of them all — Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, while Franchot picked up scores of endorsements from political groups and Maryland congressional members.

For his part, Moore ran as a relative political outsider, on the slogan, “Leave no one behind,” and picked up a few high-profile endorsements of his own with Oprah Winfrey and two-time national Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, supporting his bid.

During the hotly contested race, he was described as “center-left” by the Washington Post.

The Democratic primary was the closest since 1966 (you can see the New York Times county-by-county breakdown here), and Moore squeaked out a narrow 2% margin over Perez and 11% margin over Peter Franchot.

Perez did well in the DC suburb of Montgomery County (biggest county in MD), but Moore’s strength in the Baltimore-area counties, along with running up a big margin in Prince George County (which borders the eastern area of DC) was enough to give him the win.

With the Democratic nomination in-hand, Moore wrested control of the governor’s mansion back for the Democrats by defeating Donald Trump-endorsed Dan Cox in the general election 64%-32%, which was the biggest landslide in a Maryland gubernatorial election in 36 years.

Moore did it by flipping six Hogan counties from red to blue, and improving on Democratic margins by a significant amount in the largest counties.

TERM AS GOVERNOR: I wish I could be more in-depth here (that will come as his term progresses, as well as his possible national campaign), but if you stop by Moore’s Wikipedia page, it’ll give you a good sense of his record on the biggies: crime, policing, development, education, the environment, guns, health care, immigration, social issues and local concerns over transportation.

However, I’ll give you a brief look at some notable things that will inevitably crop up in a national electoral race.

First, as far as I’m aware, he wasn’t part of the “defund the police” movement, and in fact, worked on aggressively hiring policing officers, while at the same time recognizing the need for a more balanced, community approach to policing. A complementary thing.

In a 2024 voter’s guide, he also voiced support for giving convicted felons the right to vote, implementing “restorative justice programs as an alternative to incarceration,” and opposing private companies running prisons and qualified immunity for police officers.

He has also supported longer sentences for repeat violent offenders, and if I could reductively describe his policy on crime it would be centrist with some left thrown in there.

As for education, he has supported universal pre-K, opposed the expansion of charter schools, the national rightwing effort to ban books, and the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to reverse affirmative action.

Along with some of those more hot-topic issues, he’s introduced and signed into law a number of efforts to encourage educational opportunities of all kinds in the state including a “service year option” in school.

His record on the environment is liberal – at least in theory – but as recently as July 2024, progressives in the state were complaining that he hadn’t followed through sufficiently on his agenda, and it’s also worth noting that while he doesn’t have the kind of national, newsy soundbites on fracking that plagued Kamala Harris in 2024, Maryland’s Republican governor Larry Hogan said in 2017 that he would support a ban on fracking in Maryland. So it’s quite possible something of the kind exists for Moore.

Having said that, in a national primary campaign, he’ll certainly be given the opportunity to answer the question head-on, and it will be revealing to see what he says, especially in light of Democrats’ need to retake the Blue Wall.

His record on gun policy is liberal and he notably supported a bill seeking to ban the sale and possession of privately made firearms in the state. In 2023, he signed a slew of gun control measures.

In a 2023 interview with Johns Hopkins Magazine, Moore pushed for a moderate approach to the issue of immigration, saying, “Yes, you have to secure the borders, and at the same time, you’ve got to make sure you’re creating pathways for individuals who are here,” lamenting the “binary” that national politics has often devolved into.

Put it this way, there’s not much (yet) in his record or rhetoric that either the left could complain about in a primary election or Republicans in a general election.

But a national campaign would offer some of the binary moments that’s often demanded of candidates.

His record on the Middle East has also struck a fairly moderate tone, having voiced support for a two-state solution in 2022 and making it clear, following the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks, that he stands with Israel, its right to exist, to defend itself, while “unequivocally” condemning Hamas.

At the same time, he later supported a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas, but continued striking his centrist tone by condemning a “vigil for Gaza” event on October 7, 2024, noting that it was an “inappropriate date.”

Moore noted:

“Terrorists target civilians, and that’s what Hamas did a year ago on Oct. 7. And that’s what that day should be remembered as — a heinous terrorist attack on Israel that took innocent lives.”

As on other issues, Moore has avoided taking a position that might make him a tough swallow in a presidential general election, while also opening the door to potential criticism by the most left-wing factions of the Democratic party.

Again, that’s the interesting trade-off and question for Democrats in the 2028 presidential primary.

To that score, he’s taken a number of positions on social issues that are pleasing to the Democratic base but something he’ll be further quizzed on in a national Democratic primary: his support for the Trans Health Equality Act, which would require state Medicaid to cover sex-change operations, hormone therapy, and a number of other gender-affirming measures. The law passed in 2024, and was signed by Moore.

He’s also supported a number of measures to protect the right to abortion in Maryland, particularly following Dobbs.

On fiscal matters, he’s had to confront a Maryland economy which is slow-growth and high deficit. In a 2023 interview with the Washington Post, he called his state’s economy “lazy” and that, “our commitment to being bold and our commitment to being fiscally responsible do not have to be at odds with one another.”

To that end, he’s called task forces to address the state’s stagnant growth, but if he’s going to run for president on something other than his personality, background, and position on social issues, it would seem he’s got to deliver some kind of record of strong economic growth.

After all, that’s the talking point a governor can bring that a member of Congress can’t. The opportunity and burden is on Moore.

As for taxes, he opposed hikes during his first year as governor, and has stated that, “any conversation about taxes, for me, is going to have a very high bar” and emphasized the need for “fiscal discipline.”

A recent move, however, suggested he’s moved to the Left on tax policy, and even drew national attention from a Wall Street Journal op-ed in 2025, titled “The Californication of Maryland.”

Moore’s tax plan would raise capital gains taxes, and others taxes, on wealthy residents, and there’s legitimate worry that some of Maryland’s highest income residents might flee the state for more tax-friendly havens.

It’s risky because headlines about residents leaving blue states for red states don’t help win general elections. It’s something that other top Democratic contenders like CA Gov. Gavin Newsom and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker are going to have to contend with.

Further, according to the conservative Cato Institute, there’s a risk that small businesses in Maryland will be penalized, and it’s more difficult to explain away a withering of small businesses than it is some wealthy residents jumping state lines.

Of course, the proposal isn’t law yet, and who knows whether it will prove effective or not in resolving the budget deficit, but again, a governor’s record is absolutely vital once he or she steps onto the national stage.

If you’ve overseen job growth, you’ve got a talking point. No matter how you got there, ideologically. If you’ve overseen a falling economy, you’ve got a headache.

So Moore has to be careful there.

ELECTABILITY:

This is where Moore really enters the top tier. Watch the BET video below and you can see the charisma, likability, sense of optimism, and energy he brings to the table.

Democrats’ 2024 “joy” campaign seemed somewhat manufactured as the ticket front-runner Kamala Harris struggled to express much joy in interviews and townhalls.

But Moore exudes joy and optimism.

Never underestimate likability. No matter record.

Further, Moore has a dream background for Democrats trying to be competitive again in key groups. He has an illustrious military career, success in the private sector, and a tough childhood that certainly helps his ability to connect with the working class.

And don’t underestimate the football experience. Seriously. That kind of common touch is exactly what the Democratic party needs right now, and it’s what gives Moore and AOC such potential.

Nevertheless, Moore remains a 2028 darkhorse. He won’t be the first name on the mind of Democratic donors and activists.

But if he runs, he’s got a shot to be a candidate who can win back the working class, stop the bleed with minority voters, and reel in business-minded Democrats like hedge fund titan Bill Ackman who fled the party in 2024.

As of now, Wes Moore might be on tier two of 2028 presidential lists. But it’s easy to see how he could wind up being in a tier of his own, atop a Democratic ticket.

Again, watch the video below.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
J.D. VanceRepublicans

JD Vance: Senate Whisperer

by Christian Heinze

According to Olivia Rinaldi and Caitlin Huey-Burns’ reporting, Vice President JD Vance has proven something of a Senate Whisperer in persuading a handful of reluctant Republicans to cast votes in favor of Donald Trump’s most controversial nominees for his cabinet.

The CBS reporters highlight Vance’s role in helping swing Republican Senators Bill Cassidy, Todd Young, and Susan Collins in favorable directions for some of the president’s nominees.

Of the three senators mentioned, Collins’ comments below are the most interesting, considering she’s from a blue state and the Republican with the most political and ideological leeway to defect.

Collins told CBS:

“I think all of us who have served with JD have had conversations with him,” she said. “I’ve talked to him, for example, about the difference between our relationships with Canada, which is very important in my state, versus our relationship with Mexico and China.”

Vance only served two years in the Senate and, consequently, didn’t have time to build the deep relationships that form among long-serving senators.

Nevertheless, on the face of it, his personal touch seems to be resonating.

However, it’s crucial to include the disclaimer “on the face of it” because — the senators’ comments aside — it’s hard to figure out how much of Vance’s success has to do with the reported personal touch, or instead Donald Trump’s immense influence and the genuinely risky decision to oppose his nominees.

Tell JD “no”, and you’re telling Trump “no”. And maybe telling your prospects in an upcoming GOP primary “no”, as well.

When Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst seemed to be leaning against supporting Trump’s Defense Secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s allies within Iowa and, nationwide, applied enormous pressure to sway her.

Bob Vander Plaats, a legendary conservative activist in the Iowa GOP, told KCCI in Iowa, “The American people spoke,” and equally influential Iowa conservative talk show host, Steve Deace, said on his radio show that he’d consider running against Ernst in a primary, if she didn’t back Hegseth.

Those are two powerful voices in the insular circle of Iowa Republican politics, and while Ernst probably wouldn’t have a problem winning a general election, a primary threat would be legitimate.

Soon after express skepticism, Ernst met with Hegseth and ultimately proved a key vote in favor of him, advancing him to a full floor vote.

But it wasn’t just Ernst who faced MAGA wrath for potentially opposing one of the president’s nominees.

Indiana Sen. Todd Young (R) also faced considerable pressure from Elon Musk and his massive following when he voiced doubts about Tulsi Gabbard.

After the pressure campaign, Young ultimately voted to advance Gabbard to a full Senate vote after a phone call with Musk.

Thus, it’s difficult to tease out how much of came from JD Vance’s powers of persuasion vs. a fear of retribution in a party dominated by Trump.

So the question is pending: Is he a true Senate Whisperer or just an extension of Donald Trump’s influence. Of course, it could be a bit of both.

2028 TAKEAWAY:

Vance is already in great shape with the MAGA movement. He’s also famously cozy with tech titans.

His one area of weakness comes among establishment Republicans, who are wary of his protectionist and isolationist instincts.

Of course, “establishment Republicans” hold less influence in the party than ever — both as primary voters and elected officials. And their numbers are diminishing to the point of becoming an endangered species in elected politics. Mitt Romney and Rob Portman retired, and Mitch McConnell is on his way out.

But however cozy Wall Street has become with Trump, most think it’s a marriage of convenience and that old guard Republicans would prefer someone more reflective of Ronald Reagan’s ideology than Vance.

Nevertheless, if Vance is able to prove himself palatable to establishment Republicans, he’ll have managed to inch closer to uniting the key factions of the party ahead of a ’28 bid — MAGA populists, tech titans, and the establishment.

That would be tough to beat.

But as always, his prospects remain more dependent on the success of Trump’s first term than anything else.

[Photo: Public Domain/JD Vance vice-presidential photo]

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
DemocratsRo Khanna

Ro Khanna blasts Trump’s “morally bankrupt” Gaza threat

by Christian Heinze

House Rep. Ro Khanna has issued a scathing rebuke on X of Donald Trump’s two-pronged idea that would that see the United States assuming control of the Gaza strip, as well as shipping its entire population to other countries in the Middle East.

“This is the most shameful denial of Palestinian self-determination like any American president in our history. It’s not only morally bankrupt, but it’s totally out of touch. The Palestinians have said they’re not moving and Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have said that they’re not going to take in the Palestinian people.

The only solution which the world knows, which the Arab countries know is just is for Palestinian self-determination and a Palestinian state alongside Israel.”

The immediate reaction to Trump’s proposals have been internationally negative, with Britain and France, like Khanna, calling instead for a two-state solution, and Arab countries “deeply alarmed,” according to Axios.

While the Axios report suggested Trump’s alarm at the devastation in Gaza, his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s comments last year about the potential value of the “waterfront property” in the area is sure to resurface and add to questions over Trump’s motives.

As for Khanna, he’s considered a centrist voice within the Democratic party and a potential centrist 2028 candidate, and his reaction indicates the broad consensus of opposition to the idea within the party.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocrats

AOC on Jon Stewart podcast

by Christian Heinze

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) sat down with Jon Stewart on his podcast recently, and touched on a broad range of topics, including the defining challenge for Democrats going forward: figuring out the party’s identity and messaging.

After all, the obligatory “Losing Party in Disarray” post-mortem following an election result is still in full bloom and absolutely relevant for the Democratic party.

Not only was Donald Trump the first Republican to win the popular vote in 20 years, but Gallup also recently noted that Republican party identification exceeded Democratic party identification for its third straight year in 2024.

More concerning for Democrats is that Gallup reported more Hispanics, lower income Americans, and black Americans shifting to Republican party affiliation, which mirrored Trump’s electoral gains in each of those demographics last year.

Those groups have been core to the Democratic base and the bleeding risks suffering a mortal wound. This ain’t paper cut stuff.

Of course, the media has been buzzing about reasons.

Some call the Democratic party increasingly “out of touch” (that’s a mild paraphrase), while even the most charitable readings is that the party has a messaging problem.

Stewart and AOC addressed exactly that issue in the interview, and AOC responded by urging that Democrats needed to position themselves as “a party of brawlers for the working class.”

Great slogan.

AOC:

“We need to be a party of brawlers for the working class, and we have turned into a party that caters…. to almost people who call themselves upper middle class but they’re actually kind of wealthy…. it’s this suburban kind of thing, and we’ve been chasing this affluent group and making all these little concessions and hoping working people don’t notice.”

Jon Stewart then asks for examples of those concessions, and while AOC actually put her thumb on the problem, as borne out by polling, her answer shows something to be desired: “I think the most famous one that comes to mind is Kyrsten Sinema doing the little curtsy when she voted down the $15 minimum wage, but it wasn’t just her. That was the most public expression of it, but there were a bunch of Democrats in the Senate behind her that also voted it down.

People are struggling so much right now. $15/hr is nothing. This was the demand 10 years ago…. what people hear when there are all these excuses about it like, ‘Oh, how’s it going to impact business’? – first of all, there are already dozens of compromises before it even gets to the floor’.”

She sort of drifts after that, and in doing so misses a prime opportunity to address the electoral problem (this isn’t an ideologically partisan site or take).

So let’s talk about what AOC actually did say and didn’t say it.

First, I don’t think anyone except political junkies (and Democratic junkies, in particular) remember Sinema’s move, and she’s disappeared from politics anyway. It’s not the best anecdote and it’s an old one, to boot.

But she’s absolutely right that Democrats are increasingly on the losing end of the battle for the working class and becoming the party of a wealthier demographic. Presumably, because Democrats are speaking to those voters, and not to working class voters.

For example, in the 2024 election, Kamala Harris lost among voters making less than $100,000/year, but won among those making more than $100,000.

Trump’s strongest socioeconomic group was those making $50,000-$100,000/year which spells “working class.”

The question is why?

Polling data suggests that it’s not because of the minimum wage issue, but instead, it’s because Democrats have been increasingly focused — optically and ideologically — on issues that appeal to wealthier, more liberal demographics and neglecting focusing on things that appeal to working class voters.

Penn State labor and employment professor Paul Clark had a great chat with NPR about the phenomenon recently.

Clark said Trump had “touched on some changes in terms of working-class voters prioritizing social and cultural issues — DEI and racial issues, the number of immigrants coming into working-class communities, transgenderism, guns, abortion. Trump has really become a part of working-class culture in this country.”

In other words, Democrats are losing the working class battle on issues where AOC and the party’s left wing is at odds with the working class: DEI, immigration, LBTQ+ issues, guns.

That’s a tough pill for Democrats to swallow. Many of those issues are non-negotiable and to abandon the fight over them would signify something close to surrender and deep moral crises of conscience.

There’s another issue Clark didn’t mention that I think plays a role, as well: Climate change.

For example, AOC’s high-profile effort behind the Green New Deal reflected the Democratic party’s focus on climate change. That particular issue doesn’t resonate with the working class, which “overwhelmingly prioritizes manufacturing over climate change.”

It’s not hard to see why.

Going green has meant “going jobless” for many working class voters in the midwest and felt like “going broke” for working class voters across the country who are ill-equipped to afford the significant up-front costs associated with the transition to a more sustainably clean energy policy.

So to tie this with AOC’s comment on the minimum wage — how many people making minimum wage really want to sacrifice more of their flimsy paycheck to help the save the environment?

The fact is that most environmental regulations designed to make things more sustainable carry financial burdens that the working class simply can’t handle.

If Democrats want to become the party of brawlers for the working class, they’ve got to figure out how to square that with their climate objectives.

The environmental issue is one of just many.

Most working class folks are far less concerned or even ideologically opposed to other key Democratic talking points like rights for transgender folks or consternation over what might be happening in Gaza.

In fact, relative apathy to those issues remains a broad phenomenon, as well.

In the 2024 election, only 7% of voters ranked climate change as the most important issue facing the country, and Harris won the group by 80%.

The harsh reality for Democrats is that climate change was the issue they did best on, while Trump won by 24% on the top issue among Americans – the economy and jobs, and by 77% on the second most important issue to Americans — immigration.

In other words, on the issues that resonate most with Americans, Trump and Republicans dominated Democrats.

Meanwhile, Democrats scored best on the 3 of the 4 issues that were least important to Americans — Gun policy, racism, and climate change.

Rating importance of an issue doesn’t necessarily mean that Democrats were on the wrong side of the ledger, electorally.

It just meant that most Americans were in line with Republican views on the most important issues to voters.

That leads to an uncomfortable truth for Democrats.

The more Democrats talk about climate, identity, and foreign policy, the less time they have to talk about popular issues that work in their favor like health care (where Democrats had a 57% advantage).

There’s an opportunity cost here.

For every minute spent Dems spend brawling with the rightwing online over climate, pronouns, and Gaza, they’re missing the chance to brawl over issues that favor them with working class voters.

It’s not smart electoral politics.

AOC didn’t address this phenomenon, and a lot of folks on the left have been quiet on it, as well. They acknowledge their shortcomings with the working class, but struggle to identify the reason behind it.

Dems have to understand how difficult it will be to win back the working class unless they become a less ideologically pure party. They don’t necessarily have to abandon their ideology, they just have to emphasize more popular elements of the party’s platform.

Republicans caught onto their own problem with this.

Donald Trump recognized the bad politics of abortion for him and most of the party adjusted towards the center, stripping the party of its strenuously pro-life language in its official platform in 2024 and remaining quiet about abortion in the 2024 election.

That was a massive political concession and calculation.

The vast majority of Republican activists still maintained pro-life views, but were willing to downplay an electorally losing issue for success.

Can Democrats do the same? Or would it be too great a betrayal to their conscience?

Democrats should recognize that emphasizing issues that don’t resonate with Americans means more losing elections ahead.

AOC could be one of those leading the charge here, thanks to her influence and working class background.

2028 TAKE-AWAY: As noted here before, AOC has unbelievable political potential at the national level, thanks to the power of her personality, her common touch, her ability to personally connect with voters, biography, and the online influence that the convergence of all those things have brought.

That makes her one of the party’s most exciting rising stars.

And even though she’s young, she’s only two years younger than JD Vance, and suggestions that 2028 can’t be her time based on youth sound familiar to the criticism that Barack Obama was too young for 2008.

Nevertheless, Obama was agile enough politically to emphasize the economy in 2008 and downplay issues that wealthier Democrats cared about. Much like Bill Clinton.

Can AOC do the same?

Regardless, whether AOC listens to what working class voters said in 2024 (and have said for quite some time), she’s going to be a huge player in a presidential primary. Either as someone who endorses or someone who runs.

If she runs, the massive question is whether she’d be politically savvy enough to govern a primary campaign that ideologically gives her the flexibility to credibly move to the center in a general election.

Based on her answer to the “brawling working class” question, it’s unclear she’s at that point.

[Photo: Ocasio-Cortez on the Daily Show Podcast].

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Alexandria Ocasio-CortezDemocrats

Ocasio-Cortez: House Oversight Committee bid was “existential” threat to Dem party

by Christian Heinze

Just over a month after losing her bid to be the top member of the powerful House Oversight Committee, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez let loose on Jon Stewart’s podcast over the weekend about the “existential” threat she represented to the Democratic party’s power structure if she’d won the post, and why the current system is politically “dangerous” for Democrats.

Ocasio-Cortez to Stewart:

“There are rules and structures and orders in the Democratic party. One that we know very well is seniority. It’s a seniority-rule type of system, and it is true my run…. was a challenging of an entire system.

“It wasn’t just about me. I think Gerry’s great. But it wasn’t about just two individuals. It was about challenging a system and a way of making decisions in the party, and the problem with that is that when you asked Democrats sometimes to challenge the way that they’ve been operating for decades, it’s existential, in some ways.”

AOC then warned about its results, explaining why the seniority-is-everything system is “dangerous”:

“It makes the Democratic party highly predictable in the decisions it’s going to make, in the people that we’re going to select…. when we are highly predictable to the opposition, they [Republicans] will be one, two, four steps ahead. They know what Democrats are going to do.”

For example, she noted there was “never any question” about which Democrats would “show up to the inauguration or how they would be received.” (AOC famously didn’t go, but I’ll note that neither did Connelly).

That Democratic predictability meant, “Trump is able to run roughshod through these things, because he has a lot of the party’s numbers in terms of how they’re going to operate, and I think that sometimes making certain calculated, but unpredictable choices is a way that we can give ourselves an upper hand.”

To refresh: AOC lost to 77 year old Rep. Gerry Connelly of Virginia, a Democratic establishment figure, who voted with former President Biden 100% of the time, and was hardly the change agent Democrats were expected to be looking for in the aftermath of their 2024 election losses.

A reflective Democratic party was thought to be looking to freshen its image and Ocasio-Cortez had impressed insiders with a recent willingness to play the inside game and not just be a “Squad” member on the periphery, known for outspoken views.

In addition, AOC carries a massive online presence (e.g. 12.7 million followers on X, compared with Connelly’s 82,600 followers) and an instant ability to generate headlines and create buzz.

At the time of last year’s vote, the conventional wisdom was that she’d suddenly make a stodgy and old Democratic party more relevant and fresh after the Democrats drubbing in 2024, partly because the establishment had carried the weight of Joe Biden’s age far too long, with disastrous effects.

Even though AOC was the front-runner for the bid, Nancy Pelosi worked overtime to try to stop Ocasio-Cortez and sure enough, Cortez lost her bid in a 131-84 closed door Democratic caucus meeting, which rankled progressives and those yearning for new blood.

After losing the bid, Ocasio-Cortez was far more diplomatic in a brief Bluesky post, where she said: “Tried my best. Sorry I couldn’t pull it through everyone – we live to fight another day <3”

Tried my best. Sorry I couldn’t pull it through everyone – we live to fight another day. ♥️

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@aoc.bsky.social) December 17, 2024 at 9:56 AM

2028 TAKE-AWAY: I still consider Ocasio-Cortez a darkhorse entry for the Dem race in 2028, even though she’s young*, and lost a position that would have given her more heft in the Democratic party’s inner piping.

That being said, if she’d won her bid, maybe she would have stopped being the free-wheeling, passionate opposition voice that generates so much buzz and so many followers. Or at least tempered that side of her. But that side of her is a huge part of her appeal as a potential 2028 candidate.

In the pre-Trump days, being a bit more politic about things was the politically smart thing to do, but the “old days” is, partially, what got Democrats into the mess they ran into in 2024 as they rallied around Joe Biden.

And how much does being a “top House Democrat” really matter anymore? How much did all the pedigree in 2016 stack up to when guys like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio squared off against Trump?

If the Democratic party wants to fall in love, and not in line again, AOC’s failure to win the House post doesn’t really matter for her presidential prospects.

Those Jon Stewart podcasts, millions of Twitter followers, and outsider, down-to-earth persona matter a lot more.

[Screencap: Ocasio-Cortez on Stewart’s podcast]

*JD Vance is only two years older than Ocasio-Cortez, so in a 2028 battle between them, age is sort of a moot point, although Vance, as Veep, would carry a lot more heft on his resume. Good or bad thing, depending on how Trump’s second term goes.

0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Load More Posts
-
00:00
00:00

Queue

Update Required Flash plugin
-
00:00
00:00