The Shadow Primary

Like it or not, lots of candidates are already auditioning for the 2028 primaries.

32

Comments

Two weeks from the midterm elections, the 2028 presidential race is already underway, Evan Gorelick notes for the NYT (“The 2028 Presidential ‘Shadow Primary’ Descends on the Midterms“)

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California spent his Saturday weaving through New Hampshire, campaigning with midterm candidates as he faced questions about his presidential ambitions. Next weekend, former Vice President Kamala Harris, who is weighing another White House bid, plans to be in the state with the Democratic Senate nominee. And days after that, Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, who is also considering a run, will appear there, too.

In the final stage of this year’s midterms, prospective presidential candidates are parachuting into battleground states to rally support for candidates on the ballot this fall, road-test their stump speeches, and introduce themselves to voters and activists. The Democratic schedule is especially packed in New Hampshire, an early presidential nominating state where there is a competitive Senate race. While New Hampshire has lost its long vaunted first-in-the-nation Democratic primary status to South Carolina, it will go third in 2028.

[…]

Ambitious Republicans, too, are trying to leave lasting marks across the country in this year’s high-stakes elections. Vice President JD Vance and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas are hitting the road for midterm candidates, including in states expected to figure prominently in the next G.O.P. presidential race.

In both parties, the possible presidential candidates’ itineraries reflect their standings, showing where they are in demand and where they are not. At times, midterm candidates have subtly or loudly distanced themselves from some of them.

[…]

“I think of political campaigns like building a house. You have to build the foundation first before building the walls. That’s what these visits are,” said Jim Demers, a veteran New Hampshire Democratic strategist, who like other operatives refers to the current phase as the “shadow primary.”

Presumably, Harris and Vance, in particular, already have a foundation. Harris, after all, was her party’s presidential nominee two years ago and Vance is the sitting vice president. But campaigning for future Senators certainly builds goodwill and serves as practice for a future run.

While others similarly say they are solely focused on this year’s elections, Democratic and Republican strategists see multiple purposes in these visits.

“A campaign for president is like having an endoscopy and a colonoscopy at the same time,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist. “A lot of candidates are truly deciding whether they want to do this.”

Having had those procedures simultaneously earlier this year, I can attest that this analogy makes no sense whatsoever. For one thing, the patient is asleep the whole time. For another, it has nothing to do with making a decision; once you’ve shown up for the procedure, you’ve already done the hard part.

Midterm travel may be especially attractive to lesser-known politicians looking to raise their national profiles, and to those who don’t hold public office.

Mr. Buttigieg, who left his post in the Biden administration in early 2025, has endorsed more than 100 candidates this cycle and campaigned for them in more than 30 states. Gov. Andy Beshear of Kentucky has headlined Democratic Party dinners or conventions in nine states, including several that will hold early presidential primaries. Representative Ro Khanna of California has campaigned for more than 70 candidates.

While I have no idea who the Democratic nominee will be in 2028, I am exceedingly confident that it will not be Ro Khanna. I’m skeptical that four years as Transportation Secretary helped Buttigieg’s chances, but he did very well in the early going in 2020 as a complete unknown. Beshear has no national profile, is likely too conservative for the Democratic nominating electorate, but would be an intriguing choice.

Others have been more selective with their travels. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, recently campaigned in Michigan, another early-nominating state, with Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, the Democratic nominee for Senate. She plans to appear in Maine this week with Troy Jackson, the Democratic Senate nominee there.

The country faces a “pivotal and consequential moment,” Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said in Michigan on Friday. She brushed aside speculation about her 2028 plans, saying, “What matters right now is the next 19 days.”

While House backbencher has seldom been a successful launching pad for a presidential run, AOC’s star power in the party is undeniable. Still, she seems more likely to knock off Chuck Schumer for a Senate seat than to be our next President.

Ms. Harris also recently appeared with Dr. El-Sayed. She plans to visit Nevada, an early-nominating state, as well as Mississippi, Georgia and Wisconsin.

But Senate candidates in Alaska, Iowa and Kansas have publicly and pre-emptively uninvited Ms. Harris, whose ties to the Biden administration have made her unwelcome in some conservative-leaning states.

That doesn’t bode well for her.

Some potential presidential candidates have sought to balance their own re-elections: Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania are on the ballot in November. Mr. Shapiro recently started a federal political-action committee that enables him to give money to congressional candidates.

It’s always weird to be campaigning for one office with an eye towards another. But Barack Obama and George W. Bush both successfully secured their party’s presidential nominations before finishing out their terms in their previous offices. Like Bush, Pritzker and Shapiro are running for second terms.

On the Republican side, Mr. Vance has campaigned in Kansas, Michigan and other battlegrounds. In Michigan on Thursday, he called the Senate contest “the most important race in the United States of America,” as he stumped for Mike Rogers, the Republican nominee.

Mr. Trump’s sinking approval ratings have made the president and, by extension, Mr. Vance a liability for some battleground candidates, as they seek to energize the party’s base voters. When Mr. Vance held a rally in Iowa last month, Ashley Hinson, the Republican nominee for Senate, didn’t attend, citing scheduling conflicts.

Republican “candidates in swing seats want his voters, not necessarily his baggage,” said Matt Klink, a Republican strategist in California, speaking of Mr. Trump.

Given the trajectory of Trump’s approval ratings—and the fact that he’s likely to get even more petulant with a Democratic Congress—this is unlikely to get better. Still, he seems to be the odds-on favorite to represent the MAGA wing of the party.

Mr. Cruz, who has clashed publicly with Mr. Vance, has raised money and campaigned in his home state of Texas for Ken Paxton, the Republican Senate nominee in a tight contest, and visited Iowa, which has been an early Republican nominating state, among other places.

I can scarcely imagine a world in which the most despised man in the U.S. Senate wins the Republican nomination.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a frequent target in Democrats’ campaign attacks, has also campaigned for Republicans this cycle in Iowa and Kentucky, a departure from past Pentagon officials who have stayed out of politics.

Hegseth looks a lot like a President. (Whether Trump has assessed his backside is unknown at this juncture.) Losing a war tends not to be the route to the White House, though.

32 responses to “The Shadow Primary”

  1. Michael Reynolds Avatar
    Michael Reynolds

    Kamala Harris is a lousy campaigner and Democrats don’t like their losers. AOC I like a lot, but she reads as too young and of course, too female. Pritzker in theory, but he hasn’t registered yet. Love Mark Kelly, but he’s short and we tend to elect taller guys, and he looks goofy. Breshear would be great – if he can find common ground with DSA, and especially if he can bring Kentucky. Gavin has a serious map problem: where’s his early state win? Buttigieg is the MSNOW, NPR candidate with no traction among Black voters or working folks.

    Right now Ossoff looks like the quality of the field. I’ll toss in an out-of-the-box guy: Talarico if he loses in Texas. If he wins he’ll feel he has to do his time. But if he loses, especially in a nail biter?

    1. @Michael Reynolds I haven’t invested enough time to have a strong view, especially since almost all I know is from reading; I don’t know that I’ve even seen a single clip of Beshear or Ossoff. But I’d prefer someone who has demonstrated the ability to win, repeatedly, in a red state. You’re right that Kelly doesn’t “look like a President.” The astronaut thing might allow him to overcome it.

      Similarly, while I don’t think it will happen, I’d love the Republicans to nominate a Mitt Romney type: a blue state governor or senator. I had modest hopes for Glenn Youngkin , but he’s just too MAGA. A Charlie Baker or Phil Scott type. Maybe a Sununu?

      1
      1. @drjjoyner I have been very impressed with Ossof’s Senate campaign, and he might actually be in a position to bring GA in the EC. He does appear to be on course to fit your criterion of multiple wins in a red (purple) state.

        Still, it’s early.

        There is no way the GOP will nominate a non-MAGA candidate in 2028.

        1
      2. I don’t know that I’ve even seen a single clip of Beshear or Ossoff.

        Here’s a clip of Ossoff.

        https://m.youtube.com/shorts/E62r2kv-lwY

        I’m not sure America is ready for that type of simple, plain spoken discussion of what MAGA is.

        1. I like him.
          But then, American I ain’t. 😉

    2. Not in a million years will Beshear “bring Kentucky.” I don’t even hold that against him. He could help Dems in Pennsyltucky, though.

      1
    3. Kamala Harris is a lousy campaigner

      Fake news revisionist history.

      Kamala Harris’ Georgia Crowd Size Breaks Record. (Newsweek)

      Vice President Kamala Harris’ rally in Georgia on Thursday set a record for her campaign with reportedly more than 20,000 people in attendance, according to reports, while former President Donald Trump headlined rallies in Arizona and Nevada attended by smaller crowds the same day.

      Harris campaign: Draws enormous and energetic crowds in MI and WI (Wisconsin Politics)

      Harris campaign says 75,000 people at Ellipse speech – 22,000 more than Trump’s Jan 6 crowd at same spot (The Independent)

      Kamala Harris is showing that joy can be a strategy (The 19th)

      Harris and Walz reintroduce joy to Democrats their first week on the campaign trail (NPR)

      Kamala’s problem isn’t campaigning, it’s the same issue Vance will face if he runs and makes it through the GQP primary: they’re old news retreads too closely associated with Trump-Biden era, in a country that’s ready to turn the page and move on.

      I suspect Trump-Biden fatigue will also drag on the potential candidacies of prominent also-rans from the last few cycles, including Buttigieg, Cruz, DeSantis etc. — though it will be worse for the two VPs. Not fair, but oh well.

      3
      1. Michael Reynolds Avatar
        Michael Reynolds

        Harris ran in 2020 and got nowhere. She ran in 2024 and lost to a psychopath, insurrectionist, rapist and pathological liar. She never made a coherent case, and she failed to put Trump away in the debate because she has no instinct for the jugular.

        I’m surprised that you have a tendre for her. You used to accuse her of being a traitor for replacing Biden who you, inexplicably, thought could win.

        1. Mostly irrelevant. She was no less hard on Trump in the 2024 debates than Biden was in the 2020. The debates are not why Harris lost. Her loss had far more to do with the psychopathy of the American electorate (particularly among the white American men who gave Trump a supermajority of their votes, because his sociological psychosis and narcissism reflects their own and birds of a feather flock together) than with anything her campaign did or didn’t do.

          I have never once accused Harris of being a traitor, you’re confused. What I and most black Dems suggested in July 2024 was that the American electorate was unready to elect a black woman.

          Democrats like you — who were at the time running around yelling “Fuck Joe Biden” — said that we were wrong. You got your way. And Harris lost.

          What’s inexplicable is that your response to getting your way is to put all the blame on Harris and insist all this proved you right. But that’s not a surprise; see again what I wrote above about a certain psychotic American demographic’s now-undeniable political mental problems.

          A campaign that continually sets and breaks attendance records is empirically not “lousy.” Losses happen for many overdetermined reasons, not just because the campaign was “lousy.” It’s more than possible for good campaigns to lose, for other reasons.

          My ability to integrate this kind of nuance into my analysis is a just reflection of advanced, complex thought beyond the hamfisted simplistic language that probably works well for kidlit. It’s not a reflection of any soft spot for a candidate I didn’t support in 2020, didn’t want on the ballot in 2024, and think will suffer retread fatigue in 2028.

          1
    4. Democrats don’t like their losers? On the contrary, they love their losers. In 2016, they nominated for the presidency the woman who lost to the 2008 primary winner. And in 2020, they nominated the man who lost to them both!

      1
      1. @Ken_L But that’s a longstanding, bipartisan tradition in American politics.
        Reagan lost to Ford in 1976 and got the 1980 nomination. Bush Sr lost to Reagan in 1980 and got the 1988 nomination. Dole lost to Bush Sr in 1988 and got the 1996 nomination. McCain lost to Bush Jr in 2000 and got the 2008 nomination. Romney lost to McCain in 2008 and got the 2012 nomination.

        Humphrey lost to Stevenson in 1956 and Kennedy in 1960 before winning in 1968. Gore lost to Clinton in 1996 and got the 2000 nomination. Kerry lost to Gore in 2000 and got the 2004 nomination. And yes, Clinton, Biden, and Harris had all lost previous bids; I’m not sure Harris really counts, since she didn’t win a primary battle and was simply handed the nominatiion.

  2. “Shadow primary” is just another way of saying invisible primary, a term that’s been in regular use among pundits for decades. Using a new term doesn’t make it a new phenomenon.

    1. @Kylopod I don’t think anyone is arguing that it’s a new phenomenon.

      1. Giving it a new name is a way of pretending it’s a new phenomenon.

        1. A quick Google search shows a lot of different outlets using the term going back to at least 2008.

        2. The term existed, but “invisible primary” is overwhelmingly the more common and standard terminology.

    2. And the wild thing is, it isn’t even invisible (we can see it!) and it isn’t a primary!

      1
      1. I used to take “invisible primary” to mean the behind-the-green-curtain scramble for donors. Which I expect is well under way.

  3. I know that the current betting line has Gavin and Kamala at the top of the Democratic list, but I don’t see either getting there. Kamala is still perceived as part of the (failed) Biden incumbency, Gavin is perceived as overly slick and CA has been hammered as a misgoverned mismanaged state for his 2 terms at the top.

    Right now if I wanted to place a bet with somewhat long odds I’d take Jon Ossoff. If he wins, those odds will shorten up.

    Others I like are Shapiro and Pritzger but I wonder if the Party or the electorate in general could handle a Jewish politician at the top or even as a VP? I like Andy Beshear and Wes Moore too, but would Beshear get wide support in the Party?

    1. CA has been hammered as a misgoverned mismanaged state for his 2 terms at the top.

      Dem voters and politicians have to stop this uninspiring bad habit of running scared from Republican bad faith propaganda, and stop capitulating to Republican nonsense.

      ~9 of the 10 poorest states and ~95 of the 100 poorest counties are Republican, thanks to conservative misgovernance and mismanagement. Under Newsom, California’s economy grew to from the 5th largest on the planet to the 4th largest. California taxpayers get fewer tax dollars from the feds than they send, thus subsidizing trailer trash welfare queen red states.

      The right response to right-wingery is not to meekly accept their framing and repeat it, letting these pedovoting MAGA fascists control the debate — which has only resulted in liberals being seen as weak losers. The correct response is to refute the bs and defend our people.

      Newsom has no conviction and will sell us out if not watched like a hawk every minute. He should be opposed on those grounds. His management of California is okay.

      1
    2. From Wikipedia:

      His father, Richard Ossoff, who is of Russian Jewish and Lithuanian Jewish descent, is an attorney who owns Strafford Publications, a specialist publishing company, and who was active in the 1980s fight against the Presidential Parkway planned for Atlanta.[5][7] His mother is not Jewish and Ossoff did not formally convert to the religion until prior to his bar mitzvah.[8][9] His paternal ancestors fled pogroms in the early twentieth century, and he noted in an interview that he grew up among Holocaust survivor relatives and detailed how this strongly influenced him and his worldviews.[10]

  4. It would be nice if there were a solidly-blue progressive state on the early list.

    1. @Michael Cain: I think they purposefully designed the system to overweight swingier states and favor a more moderate candidate. To the extent Median Voter Theory is outmoded and energizing the base to turn out is the key, that may not be the right strategy.

      1. Turning out the base in swingy states is a viable option, even in primaries. (Probably especially in primaries)

        And, with a wide field, a progressive candidate could “win” an early primary with 30%, if the mediocrities split the vote. And there are usually a bunch of mediocrities running.

        I’m ok not having Massachusetts or Washington or whatever as an early state.

      2. Swingy? South Carolina has voted for the Democrat once since 1964, and that was probably a geographic fluke. New Hampshire hasn’t voted for the Republican since GWB in 2000. Iowa voted for Trump all three times by a larger margin each time. My recollection — possibly faulty — is Nevada got in because the DNC was embarrassed that there was no western state, nor state with a significant Latino population, and Harry Reid. All four deviate substantially from overall US demographics in one way or another.

      3. Given the electoral outcomes of a presidential election seem entirely to depend on the “swing states”, that depends on if the votes in the “swing states” are based on “swing voters” there or on relative turnout and “base mobilisation” in said states.
        Determining that might take a lot of psephological effort, and still fail on the day.
        My parochial advice might be: go for an obviously popular and competent candidate, and don’t expect the voters to love who you personally favour.
        The “base turnout” approach is always loved by activists, who often then subsequently spend a lot of time and effort explaining why their strategy would have, should have, could have, worked, if it wasn’t for those pesky whatever factors.
        Maybe the US is different.
        Or maybe not.

        MAGA may be able to win in some places by “revving up the base”.
        That does not necessarily mean their opponents can do the same by “mirror imaging” MAGA.

  5. I’ll throw in my own grossly uninformed opinion:

    Nominees who run and fail are done: That leaves out Harris

    Newsome is viewed as sleazy and slick.

    I saw a werewolf drinking a piña colada at Trader Vic’s
    And his hair was perfect

    I don’t mind Beshear or Shapiro. They’d be fine presidents. But can they be elected? Same with Pritzger

    Disagree with the negative comments about Kelly but that’s just me.

    Ossoff is currently buzzy. We’ll see. I don’t object.

    Buttigieg is my kind of soulless technocrat. I would vote for him but would anybody else?
    The ticket I could be behind would be Kelly-Buttigieg. Which means they’re doomed.

    1
  6. When people discuss Ossoff, one point that seems to get ignored is that, barring an upset in the gubernatorial race this year (not out of the question–Jackson leads by just 1.6 on RCP, and polling for the race has been sparse), it would lose Dems a crucial Senate seat.

    For what it’s worth, Ossoff has pledged to serve out his Senate term if reelected this year. Bill Clinton made a similar pledge in 1990 that he later broke, but that was when the presidential cycle started somewhat later than it does today (the first Democratic primary debate was in Dec. 1991). Obama made the pledge in 2004, but he had more than two years to change his mind.

  7. Politicians are going to politic. I’m less concerned with handicapping the specific politicians doing what right now — I think any of the folks out there could end up connecting and growing to become something of a national figure or even leader in the next two years.

    I think that’s going to be harder for the people who don’t have an office, so I doubt it will be Harris or Buttigieg, but not impossible.

    I would prefer a straight white man, since I don’t want to handicap our nominee with racism, sexism or homophobia. But, if someone can wil the nomination, they have a excellent chance to win the Presidency.

    I think Newsom is slimy as fuck (and don’t like that his ex-wife shakes up with DonJr… just seems incestuous and like there’s a ruling class). But, other than him, I’m ok with any of them.

    (Having flashbacks to previous cycles of people arguing over whose healthcare plan that would never get implemented as is was better… I could live without any white papers that are more than bullet points)

  8. My outsider tuppenyworth, if you should care for such insolent Brit but-innery.
    The Democrats have lots of impressive possible candidates that I would vote for.
    That is, though, almost any of them I can imagine.
    Please, dear Dems, just pick one who can kick J.D. Vance senseless and win the voters.
    Who that may be, damfino, but maximising the vote in swing states seems critical, rather than maximum appeal in Dem states seems the obvious play, given how the electoral college works.
    If I understand the voting patterns correctly.
    The question seems to be, who is that person?
    Kelly looks a reasonable bet, perhaps?
    (And 5′ 8″ is about the average rugby scrum-half, lol. Don’t pick on scrum-half if you value your teeth.)

    My personal preference would be for Hilary Clinton. But I think I’m doomed to disappointment in this.

    1. No more Boomers!

      I’m willing to accept someone on the GenX cusp (born in the mid-60’s) but otherwise Gen X or Early Millennial.

  9. Govs. JB Pritzker of Illinois and Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania are on the ballot in November.

    So is Maryland’s Wes Moore and there is a bunch of similar buzz about him running, helped along by his being unwilling to say that he would commit to serving the full term – a change from his unequivocal 2025 statements.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.