The biggest problem is that much of the American public, the part that should be opposing Donald Trump, is simply focused on the President's possible defeat in the upcoming midterm elections. It's a bit like playing with horoscopes, when in fact, just two years into the race for the White House, Democrats desperately need clear ideas and figures capable of restoring enthusiasm to a country ravaged by divisions and mounting economic problems.
Of course, 2028 presidential election is still apparently away, but none of the prospective Democratic candidates has formally entered the race. Yet the preliminary campaign has clearly begun. Governors are visiting early-primary states, political action committees are accumulating money, former candidates are returning to television studios and would-be contenders are testing messages about affordability, democracy, Gaza, immigration and the future of the Democratic Party.
The field is unusually open. There is no obvious successor to Joe Biden, no universally accepted leader of the opposition and no agreement about why Democrats lost in 2024. One side believes the party must recover working-class voters through economic populism. Another argues for moderate candidates who have already won in Republican territory. A third wants a younger, more confrontational progressive movement capable of generating enthusiasm rather than simply opposing Donald Trump.
Early polling should be treated cautiously. In a May 2026 Emerson survey, Pete Buttigieg received 18 percent, Gavin Newsom 16 percent and Kamala Harris 10 percent. These numbers primarily measure name recognition, not settled support. The primary itself will not begin for well over a year, although the positioning is already unmistakable. Reuters describes an emerging field with no clear standard-bearer, while The Washington Post calls it “wide open and unsettled”.
Let’s take a closer look the the most prominent runners.
Gavin Newsom
Gavin Newsom will leave the California governorship in early 2027 after eight years in office. He has spent much of his second term building a national presence, confronting the Trump administration and presenting California as the institutional centre of resistance to the White House.
Newsom’s principal strength is that he looks and behaves like a candidate prepared for a national campaign. He is an energetic television performer, a prolific fundraiser and an aggressive partisan combatant. He does not hesitate to enter conservative media spaces or defend Democratic policies in hostile interviews.
His greatest weakness is also California. Republicans would make the state’s cost of living, homelessness, taxation and regulatory problems central to the campaign. Newsom must persuade voters in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin that he understands their lives rather than merely offering them the California model. His polished style can also appear overly calculated, particularly in a party searching for authenticity.
Kamala Harris
As the 2024 Democratic nominee, former vice-president Kamala Harris begins with advantages nobody else possesses: almost universal name recognition, a national donor network and support among important sections of the party’s Black, female and professional-class electorate. She has confirmed that she is considering another campaign. Reuters reported in April that Harris had not ruled out running in 2028.
Her argument would be straightforward. She inherited an exceptionally difficult campaign in 2024, had only a short period in which to establish herself as the nominee and remains one of the party’s most experienced national figures.
The counterargument is equally clear. Democratic primary voters may not want to repeat an election they have already lost. Harris would need to explain what she had learned from 2024 and offer a more distinctive economic and political programme. Without that reinvention, she risks being viewed as the candidate of restoration when many Democrats want a new beginning.
Pete Buttigieg
Pete Buttigieg has already demonstrated that he can turn limited experience and a small political base into a serious presidential campaign. The former mayor of South Bend and former transportation secretary is one of the party’s most fluent communicators. He is particularly effective at translating Democratic positions into the language of freedom, security and practical government.
Buttigieg’s strongest asset may be his willingness to appear before audiences that do not naturally agree with him. He is comfortable on Fox News, in town halls and in long-form interviews. His strong showing in very early surveys suggests that he has retained much of the support he built in 2020. An Emerson poll published in May placed him first at 18 percent.
His weakness remains the coalition. In 2020 he struggled badly with Black voters, an essential Democratic constituency and one likely to be especially influential now that South Carolina is scheduled to open the 2028 primary calendar. He also lacks the executive record of a governor or the electoral experience of someone who has won a major swing state.
Josh Shapiro
Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro represents the electability wing of the field. He won the governorship of one of America’s most important swing states by nearly 15 percentage points in 2022 and has cultivated the image of a pragmatic executive focused on competent government.
His obvious strength is geography. Any Democrat trying to rebuild the party’s “blue wall” must compete effectively in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Shapiro can argue that he already understands the voters and political terrain that will probably decide the general election.
However, a successful state record does not automatically produce a national constituency. Shapiro’s support for Israel and his handling of protests connected to Gaza could create friction with younger and progressive voters. He would also face pressure to define a larger political vision. Competence is a valuable quality, but presidential primaries generally require a candidate to offer something more emotionally compelling.
Andy Beshear
Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear has perhaps the field’s cleanest argument about electability. He has twice won statewide in a deeply Republican state that Donald Trump carried comfortably. His political style is moderate, calm and closely connected to local concerns rather than national ideological battles.
Beshear’s strength is his ability to talk about public schools, health care, jobs and disaster recovery without sounding as though every issue originated in Washington. As chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, he also has an opportunity to build relationships and national fundraising capacity. He has already travelled to South Carolina, New Hampshire and Iowa.
The difficulty is that winning Kentucky is not the same as leading a national Democratic coalition. Beshear has relatively little foreign-policy experience, limited name recognition and no obvious base among the party’s progressive activists. His understated personality may work in a state election but could struggle for attention in a crowded primary.
JB Pritzker
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker has become one of the party’s most forceful opponents of Trump. A billionaire heir to the Hyatt fortune, he can finance a substantial campaign while presenting himself as a defender of abortion rights, labour protections and Democratic institutions.
Pritzker’s strengths are organisational capacity and combativeness. He governs a large state, has experience dealing with legislatures and crises, and can argue that Democrats need to confront Republican power directly rather than constantly searching for compromise.
His wealth is also an obvious vulnerability. At a moment when progressives are campaigning against oligarchy and economic concentration, the party may hesitate to nominate a billionaire. Republicans would also portray Illinois—and especially Chicago—as evidence of Democratic failures on crime, taxation and public finance. Pritzker would need an economic message that sounded convincing coming from someone of immense personal wealth.
Wes Moore
Maryland Governor Wes Moore is younger than most of the field and possesses an unusually compelling biography: Army veteran, Rhodes Scholar, author, nonprofit executive and the first Black governor of Maryland.
Moore’s strongest quality is his ability to connect personal narrative with political optimism. He could offer Democrats a generational transition without presenting himself as an ideological revolutionary. His military service and executive experience might also help him reach voters who are wary of conventional progressive profiles.
The weakness is timing. Moore has been governor only since 2023, and Maryland is a strongly Democratic state that does not provide a demanding test of general-election appeal. He is admired inside the party but remains unfamiliar to much of the national electorate. A 2028 campaign could make him a major figure even if it proves too early for him to win.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the most recognisable figure on the Democratic left and probably the candidate best placed to inherit part of Bernie Sanders’s movement. She combines an enormous social-media audience with national fundraising power and an ability to communicate complicated economic arguments in direct language.
Her strengths are enthusiasm and ideological clarity. AOC could mobilise younger voters around housing, health care, union rights, climate policy and opposition to concentrated corporate power. She would enter the race with a clearly defined identity rather than having to invent one. The Democratic Socialists of America would be highly likely to support her if she ran, although she has made no decision. TIME’s reporting describes her as the movement’s natural national standard-bearer.
Her weaknesses are equally substantial. Republicans have spent years defining her as the face of the “radical left,” and many moderate Democrats fear that her positions would be difficult to sell in swing states. She has also never run a statewide campaign or managed an executive branch.
Ruben Gallego
Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego offers a different version of Democratic populism. A Marine Corps veteran raised in difficult economic circumstances, he won a Senate seat in a battleground state and has increasingly emphasised the party’s problems with working-class and Latino men.
His strength is credibility. Gallego can talk about military service, economic insecurity, immigration and social mobility through personal experience. As he told KTAR, very few potential Democratic candidates have both won a Republican-leaning state and demonstrated an ability to speak to working-class Latino voters.
His principal weakness is his relatively limited national profile. He entered the Senate only in 2025 and would have less experience, money and organisation than several governors. He must also balance two potentially conflicting identities: the progressive congressman he once was and the more pragmatic statewide politician he has become.
Ro Khanna
California Congressman Ro Khanna would occupy the intersection between economic populism, technological policy and the anti-war left. He represents Silicon Valley but speaks frequently about rebuilding American manufacturing, limiting corporate power and directing technological investment towards communities left behind by globalisation.
Khanna’s willingness to criticise Israel’s conduct in Gaza has won him progressive attention. His work seeking disclosure of the Jeffrey Epstein files and his regular Fox News appearances reinforce his image as someone prepared to challenge both political establishments.
His weakness is that he remains unknown to most voters and has never won statewide office. His Silicon Valley connections may also sit uneasily beside his populist message. Like Newsom, he would have to overcome the assumption that another California Democrat cannot easily understand or represent the industrial Midwest.
Rahm Emanuel
Rahm Emanuel is the field’s unapologetic institutionalist. He has served as a member of Congress, Barack Obama’s chief of staff, mayor of Chicago and ambassador to Japan. Few potential candidates have comparable knowledge of government, party organisation and foreign policy.
Emanuel’s strength is experience combined with a growing catalogue of concrete proposals, including a retirement age for senior federal officeholders, stronger school accountability and restrictions on children’s use of social media. He presents himself as part of a Democratic “renewal” wing interested in governing rather than symbolic politics.
But Emanuel carries considerable political baggage. His abrasive reputation, conflicts with teachers’ unions and controversial record as Chicago mayor would invite opposition from progressives and Black activists. He may be better equipped to shape the party’s debate than to assemble a winning primary coalition.
The Genuine Dark Horses
United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain would offer Democrats something the field otherwise lacks: a national labour leader with an authentic working-class base. His confrontation with the automobile industry made him a hero to sections of the left, but he has never held public office and has given no clear indication that he is preparing a campaign.
Television commentator Stephen A. Smith has also discussed running as a centrist outsider. His communication skills and celebrity would attract attention, but attention is not organisation, policy experience or a primary coalition. For now, both names belong in the category of intriguing possibilities rather than probable nominees.
The eventual candidate may not be the person leading the earliest polls. Figures such as Gretchen Whitmer, Mark Kelly, Cory Booker and Jon Ossoff remain plausible, while the 2026 midterms could promote an entirely new Democratic personality. What is already clear is the choice facing the party: experience or generational change, moderation or mobilisation, resistance to Trump or a broader economic project. The candidate who can convincingly combine those competing demands will have the strongest claim on 2028.
