Who should Democrats nominate in 2028?
Published 11:04 a.m. yesterday
The Democratic Party’s strong record in the popular vote over the last thirty years has masked a deeper inadequacy. While most Democratic candidates have won the popular vote, only three of them managed to triumph in the Electoral College and win the White House. Republicans, in turn, performed respectably in presidential elections. After Donald Trump’s jarring victory in 2024, Democrats need to reconsider the model that has brought them mixed results since 1992.
Democrats nominated elite lawyers for president in most elections throughout the Clinton-to-Biden era. Barack Obama, John Kerry, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton himself all held degrees from elite law schools. Al Gore was not a lawyer, but he had taken coursework at Vanderbilt University School of Law. These people all were qualified to serve as president, and their academic credentials served as evidence of their intellectual agility. But the formula—an elite attorney running on a moderate platform—really only worked for the uncommonly talented politicians Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The other blue-chip attorneys lost. And Joe Biden, the other Democrat to win the presidency during this period, won in large part because he was conspicuously non-“elite.”
We have now entered into an era in which an elite professional background is clearly a detriment to most presidential candidates. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris lost, despite Harris’s solid campaign. And the moderates’ disappointing record has not been limited to the political left. Republican candidates like Jeb Bush and Nikki Haley also lost badly to Donald Trump. Trump, in fact, is the hulking gorilla prowling this jungle: America has proven it has no interest in another establishment-aligned centrist by electing the grotesque opposite of what the professional class has to offer.
This is an existential challenge. Democrats need to accommodate the electorate’s new desires. Rather than attempting to find another political centrist with the charisma to recapture the Obama-Clinton magic, the party should adjust to our new era in which parties aligned with the national establishment almost always lose. The Democrats’ single greatest liability is that they are the preferred party of the American elite. Their candidates have tended to reflect, professionally and ideologically, the preferences of elite actors in politics and academia who despise populists and wish to reassert control of the political system by credentialed administrators. This political identity is repugnant to millions of disaffected voters, and the Democratic Party should move away from it by choosing a nominee in 2028 who departs sharply from the profile that has forged this image.
The New York Times columnist David Brooks has an apt phrase to describe the profile that such a candidate would boast. He calls them a “disruptor.” The party needs someone who will dramatically reshape the party’s image and profile to make it more appealing to voters who no longer trust the political elite or the professional class. Like Brooks, I believe Senator John Fetterman represents the best prospect to fill this role. Fetterman excels at rebuffing left-wing orthodoxy and seems to have formed a bond with populist voters in his state and other admirers across the country. I believe that Fetterman would carry North Carolina by attracting populist-minded, semi-rural voters in counties like Johnston, Gaston, and Cabarrus. Finally carrying this state after four decades of disappointment would be well worth leaving the centrist formula behind.
Democrats nominated elite lawyers for president in most elections throughout the Clinton-to-Biden era. Barack Obama, John Kerry, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton himself all held degrees from elite law schools. Al Gore was not a lawyer, but he had taken coursework at Vanderbilt University School of Law. These people all were qualified to serve as president, and their academic credentials served as evidence of their intellectual agility. But the formula—an elite attorney running on a moderate platform—really only worked for the uncommonly talented politicians Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The other blue-chip attorneys lost. And Joe Biden, the other Democrat to win the presidency during this period, won in large part because he was conspicuously non-“elite.”
We have now entered into an era in which an elite professional background is clearly a detriment to most presidential candidates. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris lost, despite Harris’s solid campaign. And the moderates’ disappointing record has not been limited to the political left. Republican candidates like Jeb Bush and Nikki Haley also lost badly to Donald Trump. Trump, in fact, is the hulking gorilla prowling this jungle: America has proven it has no interest in another establishment-aligned centrist by electing the grotesque opposite of what the professional class has to offer.
This is an existential challenge. Democrats need to accommodate the electorate’s new desires. Rather than attempting to find another political centrist with the charisma to recapture the Obama-Clinton magic, the party should adjust to our new era in which parties aligned with the national establishment almost always lose. The Democrats’ single greatest liability is that they are the preferred party of the American elite. Their candidates have tended to reflect, professionally and ideologically, the preferences of elite actors in politics and academia who despise populists and wish to reassert control of the political system by credentialed administrators. This political identity is repugnant to millions of disaffected voters, and the Democratic Party should move away from it by choosing a nominee in 2028 who departs sharply from the profile that has forged this image.
The New York Times columnist David Brooks has an apt phrase to describe the profile that such a candidate would boast. He calls them a “disruptor.” The party needs someone who will dramatically reshape the party’s image and profile to make it more appealing to voters who no longer trust the political elite or the professional class. Like Brooks, I believe Senator John Fetterman represents the best prospect to fill this role. Fetterman excels at rebuffing left-wing orthodoxy and seems to have formed a bond with populist voters in his state and other admirers across the country. I believe that Fetterman would carry North Carolina by attracting populist-minded, semi-rural voters in counties like Johnston, Gaston, and Cabarrus. Finally carrying this state after four decades of disappointment would be well worth leaving the centrist formula behind.
Alexander H. Jones is a Policy Analyst with Carolina Forward. He lives in Carrboro. Have feedback? Reach him at alex@carolinaforward.org.
