‘Who's got next?' Democrats already lining up for 2028 presidential race in early voting states
Nearly a half dozen others have made recent pilgrimages to South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa — states that traditionally host the nation's opening presidential nomination contests. Still other ambitious Democrats are having private conversations with officials on the ground there.
The voters in these states are used to seeing presidential contenders months or even years before most of the country, but the political jockeying in 2025 for the 2028 presidential contest appears to be playing out earlier, with more frequency and with less pretense than ever before.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom was referred to as a presidential candidate at one stop in his two-day South Carolina tour last week. Voters shouted '2028!' after he insisted he was there simply to strengthen the party ahead of the 2026 midterms. South Carolina has virtually no competitive midterm contests.
Term-limited Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, who acknowledges he's considering a 2028 bid, will spend two days touring South Carolina this week. He will focus on the state's Black community while drawing an implicit contrast with Newsom on cultural issues, according to excerpts of his planned remarks obtained by The Associated Press.
California Congressman Ro Khanna, a progressive aligned with the Bernie Sanders ' wing of the Democratic Party, will target union members and Black voters when he's in the state a few days later with the son of a civil rights leader.
And former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is having private conversations with key South Carolina Democrats, including presidential primary kingmaker Rep. Jim Clyburn, in which Emanuel indicated strong interest in a presidential run. That's according to Clyburn himself, who said he's also had direct contact with Beshear and Khanna after appearing alongside Newsom last week and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore in May.
'That's what candidates have to do: position themselves and be ready when lightning strikes,' Clyburn said.
Democrats look to turn the page from 2024
The unusually early jockeying is playing out as the Democratic Party struggles to repair its brand, rebuild its message and fill a leadership vacuum after losing the White House and both chambers of Congress in 2024.
Democrats are decidedly more optimistic about 2028.
Republicans will not have the advantage of incumbency in the next presidential contest; the Constitution bars President Donald Trump from seeking a third term. And the race for the Democratic nomination appears to be wide open, even as 2024 nominee Kamala Harris and running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, have left open the possibility of running again.
With no clear front-runner, some Democratic operatives believe upwards of 30 high-profile Democrats could ultimately enter the 2028 primary — more than the party's overpacked 2020 field.
And as Democrats struggle to stop Trump's power grabs in Washington, some report a real sense of urgency to get the 2028 process started.
Texas Rep. Jasmine Crockett, a rising Democratic star, told the AP earlier this year that presidential prospects 'need to be more visible earlier' as party officials look to take cues from a new generation of leaders.
'What freaks most Democrats out is not really understanding who's up next. Like, who's got next?' she said. 'And I think that that is really what people want most; they want their presidential nominee now.'
A Kentucky Democrat steps into the conversationBeshear, Kentucky's 47-year-old two-term governor, is scheduled to make his first visit to South Carolina on political grounds on Wednesday and Thursday.
He will promote his appeal among red-state moderates and Black voters in a Thursday speech hosted by the Georgetown County Democrats in a region that voted three times for Trump and has a large Black population.
'Democrats have a huge opportunity to seize the middle and win back the voters who have been increasingly skeptical of the Democratic brand. But it's going to take focus and discipline,' Beshear is expected to say, according to speech excerpts obtained by the AP.
There are no direct jabs at Newsom in the excerpts, but Beshear is expected to continue drawing contrasts with the California governor, who earlier this year suggested his party went too far in embracing 'woke' priorities. In his prepared remarks, Beshear doesn't shy away from such progressive cultural issues.
He will note he made Juneteenth an executive branch holiday for the first time in Kentucky, signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination against state workers for how they wear their hair and ordered the removal of a statue of Jefferson Davis, who served as the president of the Confederacy during the Civil War.
'The current federal administration wants to make diversity a dirty word,' Beshear plans to say. 'They want people to believe that equity means everyone isn't worthy of opportunities.'
Who else is stepping up?
Already this year, Walz of Minnesota and Moore of Maryland have addressed South Carolina Democrats.
Biden Cabinet member Pete Buttigieg, a 2020 presidential candidate, hosted a town hall in Iowa in May. The month before, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker headlined a Democratic fundraiser in New Hampshire.
Others are moving more cautiously.
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has avoided any early state travel this year, focusing instead on his 2026 reelection. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has also focused largely on her day job. Both would be top-tier presidential candidates should they decide to run.
Khanna has been working to build his national profile since before the last election with frequent trips to New Hampshire, among other early voting states.
The California congressman is scheduled to host two town-hall style meetings in South Carolina this weekend with Illinois Rep. Jonathan Jackson, the son of civil rights leader the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Khanna casts his lower profile — at least compared to potential competitors like Newsom and Shapiro — as an asset when asked about his party's early 2028 field.
'I think it's very different than in the past when you've had clear defined leaders of the party. I think that's healthy. There is no status quo person,' Khanna said. 'My guess is the last thing the party is going to want is more of the same.'
Newsom's South Carolina dance
Newsom spent much of last year denying interest in a presidential run. But with his final term as governor set to expire at the end of next year, his 2028 ambitions are starting to emerge more publicly.
During his recent South Carolina tour, Newsom only smiled when voters shouted '2028!' after he referenced his focus on the 2026 midterms.
Clyburn said openly what the California governor would not. Appearing with Newsom, Clyburn encouraged local Democrats to be energized by the visits of 'presidential candidates' coming early and often to their state.
Newsom looked around, seemingly seeking the object of Clyburn's remark, as the crowd laughed.
In an interview afterward, Clyburn said he doesn't have an early favorite in the 2028 Democratic nomination contest.
New Hampshire remains a player
Pritzker headlined a key state fundraiser in New Hampshire in May. And state Democratic leaders are privately encouraging other 2028 prospects to visit the state.
Unlike South Carolina, New Hampshire features two competitive House races and a top-tier Senate election next year.
Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a 2020 Democratic presidential candidate, campaigned Friday in the state with Rep. Chris Pappas, who is expected to represent Democrats on the Senate ballot next fall.
In a brief interview, she insisted her only purpose was backing Pappas' campaign.
'I am here to help my friend,' she said. 'I know a lot of people here and I want to put it to use in a good way.'
What do the voters say?
It may be early, but some Democratic voters and local officials say they're ready to get the cycle started.
Jody Gaulin, the Democratic chair of a deep-red South Carolina county, is hoping the energy that comes along with potential candidates could boost her party's ranks.
'This is exactly what we've been waiting for,' Gaulin said.
It's much the same in New Hampshire.
Democrat Jane Lescynski, who works at the manufacturing facility Klobuchar toured Friday, had a quick answer when asked her thoughts about the 2028 presidential election.
'I can't wait,' she said.
___
Peoples reported from New York. Ramer reported from Gilsum, New Hampshire.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump administration turns hostile on Aspen Security Forum
The Trump administration's last-minute snub of the Aspen Security Forum this week betrays a growing animosity between the U.S. government and wider national security community. The Pentagon on Monday pulled senior Defense Department officials from the annual event —only a day before the start of the four-day summit in Colorado — claiming the bipartisan gathering 'promotes the evil of globalism, disdain for our great country, and hatred for the President of the United States.' The strong wording has alarmed some experts and former government officials, who see a growing tendency for the administration to cut off anyone who criticizes or so much as offers an alternative view to that of the current U.S. government — putting up a barrier between them and the decision makers. 'The Trump administration doesn't like dissent, I think that's pretty clear. And they don't like dissenting views at conferences,' a Republican political strategist and frequent forum attendee told The Hill. 'Causing a stir about perceived criticism of the Trump administration makes people afraid to cross them and lose access to the administration. They might be cut off from people who are implementing policies.' But the shunning of events on the national security and foreign policy circuit does no favors for the administration's national security goals, experts say, as they lend a platform to potentially different viewpoints that could be useful for Washington. Case in point, those that gathered at the mountain retreat were described as 'bewildered' by the decision due to the forum's well-known bipartisan agenda, with several former Trump administration officials slated to speak, according to the political strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. 'It was a surprise because most of us were traveling to the conference when the announcement occurred,' they said. 'I think most people who attend the event frequently never viewed it as being partisan or anti-Trump. So it was bewildering and I think a little bit concerning.' The Aspen Security Forum, described as the 'premier national security and foreign policy conference,' is among the most high-profile such events and for years has attracted Republican and Democratic administration officials, business leaders, and analysts. During Trump's first term, several top officials including then-CIA chief and later Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the forum. This year's lineup included Mark Esper, an acting defense secretary in Trump's first term, Condoleezza Rice, a former national security advisor and secretary of state under President George W. Bush, and David Petraeus, the short-lived CIA director under President Obama. Speakers covered a range of issues that included the U.S. strategy on Taiwan, Russia's war in Ukraine, NATO, and how Trump's tariffs will affect Washington's alliances. More than a dozen pulled administration officials were set to appear on several panels, including Navy Secretary John Phelan. But the Pentagon suddenly declared they would not attend and would not do so moving forward as 'their values do not align with the values of the DoD,' according to spokesperson Sean Parnell. Only one administration official ended up attending the conference and they were not associated with the Pentagon: Adam Boehler, Trump's special envoy for hostage release. Even without the defense officials in attendance, panelists praised a number of Trump's recent moves, including his decision to offer lethal aid for Ukraine, the U.S. airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities and prompting NATO countries to foot more of the bill when it comes to defense spending. National security elites also appeared resigned that the norms and conventions that sprang up following World War II — which have dictated U.S. use of military force and how Washington addresses long-held partners and alliances — are now upended thanks to Trump. 'We have to recognize that we're probably not going back to exactly that system,' Rice, a co-chair of the Aspen Strategy Group, said at the closing panel of the summit. Michael O'Hanlon, a senior fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said he wasn't doing any hand-wringing over Trump's 11th hour snub, and was viewing the official pullout as just the new norm for at least the next three years. 'If they want to have a little bit of a culture war over this particular forum, I'm just going to view it as a reminder of how they view the world, as opposed to a major problem,' O'Hanlon said, referring to the administration's isolationist tendencies. 'They'll be willing to just hold a grudge if they decide you've slighted them or you're not of their worldview. And that's just the way it's going to be,' he added. O'Hanlon noted that as long as administration officials appear at some similar forums and are willing to engage, he doesn't see an issue. But should they stop attending any such events moving forward, that's a cause for concern. 'If they just occasionally feel a slight from somebody and pull out of this or that, that's one thing. If they stop being willing to engage in any kind of forum, unless you somehow prove that you're a complete MAGA Republican, that would be much more concerning.' Aspen organizers, meanwhile, have made clear their invitation to the Trump officials remains open. The political strategists said the organizers were more concerned about ensuring that there's a presence of government officials going forward at the event. 'This is a major security forum, it's an open exchange of ideas, and they made it very clear throughout the event that the officials are invited back anytime in the future,' they said. 'I think there's a hope that that they will come back next year.'
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
Here's where Democrats stand in polls at Trump's six-month mark
Recent polling is painting a mixed picture for Democrats as they look to chart a path forward in the wake of their loss to President Trump in November. Trump's approval rating remains comfortably underwater as he reaches the six-month mark back in office on Sunday. But while Democrats have scored some notable victories in high-profile elections since then, they've been unable to pull away from the GOP as the party hopes to regroup for the midterms next year. Data experts said Democrats' position has improved since Trump started his second term, but they still have a lot of work to do to win back trust from the American people and be poised to take back control of the House. 'You can't just be on the attack. You can't beat something with nothing,' said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. 'We have to show and tell what we would do, but I think that we're on the precipice of a big opportunity, and I hope we take advantage of it.' Months after Democrats suffered a major blow with Trump sweeping all seven battleground states and the GOP winning control of both houses of Congress, the party is still seeking to put the pieces back together. Halfway through the first year of Trump's term, many data points on where the party stands don't appear bright. Views of the Democratic Party have been at historic lows for a couple months. The percentage of registered voters who view the party favorably reached some of its lowest levels since at least the start of Trump's first term in office in YouGov's average, more than 20 points underwater as of late May. A CNN poll released Thursday found only 28 percent of Americans view the party favorably, a record low in the history of the outlet's polling dating back to 1992. Views of the Republican Party also aren't strong but haven't been quite as poor. A poll conducted by the Democratic super PAC Unite the Country found recently that voters perceive the party as 'out of touch,' 'woke' and 'weak.' An AP-NORC poll found just over a third of Democrats are optimistic about the party's future, compared to 57 percent last July. Surveys have also shown widespread frustration with Democratic leaders and a feeling that Democrats aren't fighting hard enough against the Trump administration and for their voters. This has been particularly pointed against Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), whose favorability rating has been stuck in the mid-to-upper 20s throughout Trump's second term, according to the Decision Desk HQ polling average, though his net favorability has improved somewhat more recently. Scott Tranter, the director of data science for DDHQ, said Democrats are still trying to form a coherent message but don't have a clear 'rallying cry,' though some of them have received attention as they've been arrested during faceoffs with Trump administration officials or visited detention centers like 'Alligator Alcatraz' in Florida. 'It's pretty clear that Schumer is not the guy, just based on his approval rating,' Tranter said. 'And one can make the argument that [former House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi's approval rating was underwater as well, but… Schumer doesn't seem to have that kind of gravitas that she did.' One other common trend in polling over these months is a lack of agreement over who the leader of the Democratic Party is after 2024. A CNN poll found in March that 30 percent of Democrats didn't give a name to respond to a question about which leader best reflects the party's core values. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) had the most support but with only 10 percent, while former Vice President Harris had 9 percent and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) had 8 percent. An Emerson College Poll found Democrats widely split among the field of potential 2028 presidential contenders, with the leading candidate only with 16 percent. Tranter said this dynamic is somewhat to be expected following a party's loss in the presidential election, pointing to the first months of 2005 for Democrats after John Kerry's loss and of 2013 for Republicans after Mitt Romney's loss. 'Coming out of Kerry, the Democrats were also in the wilderness,' he said. 'And so I think that the takeaway is that every time something like this happens, each party goes through its transformation. I think we're still pretty early on it.' But the data does show some reasons to be optimistic for Democrats. Trump's approval rating and favorability have consistently been underwater, not abnormal for him even as he won the November election, but still presenting Democrats with an opportunity. Democrats have mostly kept a lead in DDHQ's average of the generic congressional ballot since early March, albeit a small one of a couple points at most. They led on that question by 1 point as of Monday. The same CNN poll showing disapproval of the Democratic Party found Democrats are more motivated to vote in next year's midterms. A poll from Republican pollster Fabrizio Ward found Republicans trailing the generic ballot in 28 battleground House districts. Democrats also expressed hope that the passage of Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' extending Trump's tax cuts and increasing border security funding but also cutting Medicaid spending, could give them the opportunity they've been looking for. Multiple polls have shown at least a plurality of registered voters or adults oppose it, though many also say they don't know enough. 'Trump and the Republicans are certainly focused on incredibly unpopular policies that are likely to benefit the Democrats that they deserve leading into the midterms,' said Ryan O'Donnell, the interim executive director of the progressive polling firm Data for Progress. 'But Democrats also have to show that they're hearing people's concerns and actively offering solutions to those concerns to make their lives better and more affordable.' Lake said the lack of a clear leader has a positive side, as the 2028 Democratic field will likely feature many showing what the Democratic alternative is to Trump. But she said the process of a leader or a few leaders emerging has been slower than in the past, and she expects that is unlikely to be 'fixed' before the 2026 midterms. That will require having a unified message if no unified leader, she said. 'They need to have a unified voice and a unified plan, and that plan has to include a proactive, populist economic message about what we're going to do and who we're going to fight for,' Lake said. Lake's polling firm and the Democratic donor network Way to Win partnered to conduct a poll released Thursday evaluating those who voted for President Biden in 2020 but didn't vote in 2024. The poll, conducted from late April to early June, found many of those voters didn't like either candidate and didn't feel that Harris had a strong enough economic message to convince them she would lower costs. Pollsters also found most of those voters lean toward voting for a Democrat if the midterms were held today. Jenifer Fernandez Ancona, the co-founder and vice president of Way to Win, said the feelings of regret that respondents indicated they felt about not voting, particularly as relates to the Medicaid cuts and the cost of living not dropping, give the party an opening. She said the poll, showing the most anguish about cuts to programs that help children and Medicaid, was taken before the law's passage, but those concerns are coming to fruition now. 'I think you can use that, right? You could leverage that to say, 'The thing you care about the most is the thing that is actually happening. And so you need to come and be a part of [the] opposition to this,'' Fernandez Ancona said. And the firm's poll, along with other polling, has shown Democrats want their party to go on offense. 'The table has been set,' she said. 'So the question is, will we be able to take advantage of it? Will we really lean in? Will we not shy away from actually going on offense about this bill? It's all about, can we seize the opportunity?'
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Sues Fox News For Defamation, Seeking $787 Million In Damages
UPDATED, with Fox News response: California Gov. Gavin Newsom filed a $787 million lawsuit against Fox News on Friday, seeking $787 million in damages and citing, among other things, host Jesse Watters' claim that he lied about a phone call the governor made with Donald Trump. 'No more lies,' Newsom wrote on X, announcing the lawsuit. More from Deadline Mediator In Trump's CBS Lawsuit Proposes $20 Million Settlement – Report Inside Gavin Newsom & Alex Padilla's Media Blitz Of Trump & JD Vance: 'Is He Confused Again?' Governor Mocks POTUS Sean "Diddy" Combs' Defense Insists It's All About The Benjamins In Sex-Trafficking Trial Closing Argument: "We're Here Because Of Money" The damages figure is, at the very least, symbolic. That is about the same amount that the network settled Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit two years ago. The election systems company had sued for defamation over the network's amplification of false claims it rigged 2020 election results. Read Gavin Newsom's lawsuit against Fox News. In the lawsuit, Newsom's legal team wrote that the litigation 'concerns Fox's willingness to protect President Trump from his own false statements by smearing his political opponent Governor Newsom in a dispute over when the two last spoke during a period of national strife.' RELATED: The lawsuit concerns a call that Newsom had with Trump late on June 6, the day before the president federalized the National Guard to respond to protests following ICE raids in the Los Angeles region. Newsom opposed that move, and said that the president didn't raise the issue of the demonstrations or the National Guard in their phone call. Days later, on June 10, Trump claimed to reporters that he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about the demonstrations in Los Angeles, the lawsuit noted. But Newsom quickly challenged that claim, writing in a post on X, 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to.' Per the lawsuit, Trump then reached out to Fox News anchor John Roberts with a screenshot of his call log, showing a 16-minute call on June 6/7. Roberts then wrote on X, 'President Trump just contacted me from Air Force 1 to say this: 'First call was not picked up. Second call, Gavin Picked up, we spoke for 16 minutes. I told him to, essentially, 'get his ass in gear,' and stop the Riots, which were out of control. More than anything else, this shows what a liar he is — said I never called. Here is the evidence.' RELATED: Newsom's legal team wrote that Roberts' post 'did not provide the critical fact that on June 10, President Trump had stated that he had spoken to Governor Newsom 'a day ago.' Nor did Mr. Roberts note that on June 6 — or June 7 at 1:23 am — is not 'a day ago' when one is speaking on June 10.' Roberts then went on air and 'intentionally altered how he presented President Trump's comment, stating that President Trump had said that he had called Governor Newsom 'yesterday or the other day,'' Newsom's lawsuit stated. 'Mr. Roberts chose to present a factually incorrect picture to Fox viewers to obscure President Trump's false statement of fact,' Newsom's legal team argued. On June 10, Watters played a clip of Trump's statement about the call, but removed the president saying that the call occurred 'a day ago,' per the lawsuit. RELATED: Watters told viewers, 'Newsom responded, and he said there wasn't a phone call. He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump's call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' As Watters spoke, the Fox News chyron read, 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' 'Recognizing that President Trump was not correct, yet wanting to curry favor with the President, Fox News willfully distorted the facts,' the lawsuit claimed. 'Instead of accurately presenting President Trump's words—that he had spoken to Governor Newsom 'a day ago' —Mr. Roberts told viewers that President Trump had said that he spoke to Governor Newsom 'yesterday or the other day.' On his nightly program, Mr. Watters also purposefully presented a false picture of President Trump's statement.' RELATED: The lawsuit was filed in Delaware Superior Court, but was accompanied by a legal demand letter from Newsom's lawyers to Fox News' general counsel. They wrote that the lawsuit would be withdrawn if the network retracts the claim and issues an apology from Watters and the network. A Fox News said in response to the lawsuit, 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed.' The network noted that Roberts made it clear that the call was from June 6-7. Roberts said, 'Now, granted, this was on Saturday. But look, there is one twenty two o'clock in the morning, which would have been ten o'clock at night, ten twenty two at night, California time. There was an outgoing call for four seconds and then there was an outgoing call for 16 minutes.' Newsom's legal team noted that the report has been 'amplified by far-right activists on social media,' and claimed that the network 'advanced this lie about Governor Newsom out of a desire to harm him politically.' 'The issue is about more than just President Trump misremembering a day or two about routine phone calls,' according to the lawsuit. 'The period of June 6 to June 10, 2025 in California was unprecedented—with the President of the United States illegally commandeering the California National Guard and deploying uniformed military onto the streets of Los Angeles over the objections of the state's governor. Every hour, every Truth Social post, and every presidential utterance mattered. History was happening in real time. It is the exact reason why reporters asked President Trump when he had last spoken to Governor Newsom. In response, he lied. And when his own 'receipts' showed that, Fox, true to form, carried his water and sought to cover up his lies by defaming Governor Newsom.' The lawsuit claimed defamation per se, and California's unfair competition law, typically used in false advertising claims. The latter claim has similarities to Trump's lawsuit against CBS over the way that 60 Minutes edited an interview with Kamala Harris, claiming that they edited the interview to make her answers sound better just weeks before the election. While a number of legal experts have called Trump's lawsuit meritless, given First Amendment protections for newsgathering, Newsom's lawsuit appeared to be a way of using Fox News commentator's words against them. The lawsuit stated, 'As Mr. Watters has himself said, when a news organization falsely presents an elected official's words to make them appear in a better light, it constitutes 'an extraordinary breach of journalistic ethics…Someone has to be fired.' The bar for Newsom's defamation claim is high: As a public figure, he must prove that the network didn't just falsely report on the call, but did so with malice toward him. Best of Deadline 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025 TV Cancellations: Photo Gallery 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Tonys, Emmys, Oscars & More
