Democrats Need a Swing-State Nominee for President

The question is whether their progressive base understands as much.

Amid America’s winter of discontent, Democrats and their allies have allowed themselves a moment of schadenfreude. For the first time in a long time, the Trump White House has lost control of the political narrative and suffered several consecutive defeats in the realm of public opinion. The blowback stemming from ICE’s abuses, the Epstein files, extraordinary conflicts of interest, the recent betrayal of the GOP’s tenuous “Make America Healthy Again” bloc, and Trump’s unilateral tariffs, which the Supreme Court dramatically ruled against on Friday, has revealed the frailty of Trump’s unique 2024 coalition and even shaken the confidence of loyal Republicans.

This has given the political opposition a sense that the final chapters of the Trump era may not be defined by general indifference and submission. Not only has no major action of this presidency enjoyed any sustained popularity, Trump, the gold- and glitz-obsessed real estate tycoon, appears to be afflicted lately by a reverse Midas touch: the issues that propelled his almost unfathomable return to power may soon contribute to his and his party’s undoing. Under the circumstances, it is not so fanciful for Democrats to anticipate a blue wave this November and perhaps even a favorable forecast in the 2028 Electoral College, regardless of who their presidential nominee is.

Yet just because reality is presently clobbering the GOP doesn’t mean Democrats have come to grips with their own delusions. A scan of polls concerning Democrats’ most known figures and potential presidential candidates is a distressing reminder that the party has made very limited progress toward diffusing power beyond coastal metros and elevating battleground voices. That spells trouble, given that Democrats would have much better odds nominating someone who has a proven track record of winning over independents and other Americans who are otherwise skeptical of the Democratic brand. Indeed, to win decisively in 2028, it is paramount that Democrats rally to a leader who can compete convincingly in the Sun Belt and Rust Belt states that will in all likelihood determine the winner.

---

The unhelpful bias in favor of blue-state Democrats is reflected in the probable roster of contenders. Its tiers can be reasonably divided between the party’s quasi-celebrities and other vocal liberals vying to claim the “Resistance” mantle, who typically indulge questionnaire-bearing interest groups, and pragmatic (and sometimes less charismatic) coalition-builders who, to varying degrees, have appealed to conservative-leaning constituencies. (Granted, a few of the following mooted contenders overlap these categories.)

In most surveys, former Vice President Kamala Harris still leads the pack, followed by California Governor Gavin Newsom, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who forged his brand as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, and resides in Michigan but has long been a favorite of MSNBC/MS NOW viewers. Other possible contenders include Representative Ro Khanna of California; Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro; Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer; Illinois Governor JB Pritzker; Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego; Arizona Senator Mark Kelly; Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff; Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy; New Jersey Senator Cory Booker; Maryland Governor Wes Moore; and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear. With the exception of Khanna, Pritzker, Murphy, Booker, and Moore, this latter pool has had to navigate more Trump-friendly electorates, yet all trail the current frontrunners.

Despite (or perhaps because of) the party’s evident regional weaknesses, it’s not surprising that blue-state leaders are early favorites. Harris, Newsom, AOC, and Buttigieg are strong, distinctive personalities whose pronouncements and media appearances have a disproportionate impact on the opinions of stalwart Democratic voters. Even with viral media clips, rising stars from purple states have to work overtime to command similar levels of attention. But they may yet raise expectations. Notwithstanding the present enthusiasm gap, it is encouraging that a few swing-state Democrats are regarded as viable candidates for president. There is, after all, plenty of time to generate excitement over their hypothetical candidacies, and their standing in the horse race could rapidly improve if they start driving the national conversation and project strengths that outshine the current frontrunners.

It could also be the case, however, that the early polls reflect Democratic voters’ hardened ideological and stylistic preferences. Identity-driven elements of the Democratic base are in an uncompromising mood and suspicious of elected officials who have made playing to the “center” a big part of their political biography. (Consider the criticisms Newsom faced for pausing state Medicaid enrollment for undocumented immigrants and wobbling on trans issues before he redoubled his scornful attacks on Trump and his cabinet.) Notably, the measured, pastor-like Beshear is the sole red-state option for Democrats hoping to court “Obama-Trump” and “middle-of-the-road” voters. Although Beshear’s record is surprisingly liberal—he has proudly broadcast his symbolic vetoes of conservative bills targeting trans youth and DEI at public colleges (both were overridden by state Republican legislators)—his Bidenesque “unity” message may not resonate strongly with a rank-and-file hungry for uninhibited fighters, as Beshear himself recently acknowledged. Unfortunately, that reinforces the theory that partisan Democrats want, above all, a “Resistance liberal” straight from central casting.

Of course, two rules of thumb apply at this preliminary stage. Unless they have been absolutely routed à la George McGovern or Walter Mondale, the previous standard-bearer is usually going to claim some baked-in support. And Harris, though tarnished by her failure to prevent Trump’s comeback, lost an extremely unusual, truncated race by a fairly narrow margin, both in the popular vote and three of the seven key toss-up states. If Newsom, after several months of trolling and suing the Trump administration, strikes many as the Democrats’ de facto leader, his fellow Californian nevertheless maintains considerable political leverage and financial connections, as well as a strong following among liberal, college-educated women. Even if her support wanes as other Democrats grab the spotlight, a decision by Harris to run again would immediately affect the calculations of her chief rivals and underdog campaigns.

There is also the simple matter of name recognition. Besides Harris, nearly every potential blue-state candidate already enjoys some prominence on the national stage, and several have attempted to use social media to engender support beyond their respective home turfs, as AOC and Newsom have adroitly done. Absent any major stumbles, that media presence reinforces the idea that these candidates are the best that the party has to offer, which leaves the base hesitant to entertain dark horse contenders and other outsiders who might mount an anti-establishment insurgency against the party’s kingmakers and gatekeepers.

Assumptions about which Democrats are strong enough to take on Trump’s eventual heir are further shaped by the ecosystem of progressive podcasters, influencers, advocacy groups, and publications. These platforms buttress the pecking order by rewarding those who relish “standing up” to Trump and affirm blue-state values and blue-state accomplishments. The primary electorate is conditioned, in turn, to link being a blue-state warrior with effective defiance of the Trump agenda, and thus erroneously equate this visibility with popularity on a national scale, when it is anything but.

Another flaw in this logic is that, by definition, blue-state politicians like Newsom and Pritzker have only “resisted” the Trump administration from a place of relative comfort and convenience. In contrast to Shapiro, Whitmer, and the senators from Arizona and Georgia, respectively, they have not had to court Trump voters and independents who might like some of the Trump agenda. In fact, Democrats from safe seats have felt little pressure to confront the progressive left’s cultural baggage or engage voters who looked askance at the national Democratic Party during the years of “peak woke.”

So far, this lack of bridge-building with voters who don’t identify as liberal or progressive doesn’t seem to weigh much on the Democratic base. The outlook of party activists and donors may shift, however, as campaigns formally launch, field operations enter full swing, and candidates are forced to interact more with uncommitted voters. Although the order of early primary and caucus states has yet to be determined, serious candidates will inevitably have to court some portion of the estimated 12 million Biden voters who sat out 2024 and, in the case of open primaries, independents and disillusioned Republicans interested in crossing over. All else being equal, that mix of voters will be more ideologically diverse than what staunch progressives and self-anointed MAGA antagonists are accustomed to and may create a lane for candidates with a more “heterodox” pitch.

That doesn’t mean less-ideological, pragmatic contenders will have a straightforward foil to employ. Parts of the primary electorate will be more isolationist or left-wing on foreign policy, especially regarding U.S. affairs in the Middle East and Latin America, while others will have concerns over Democrats’ record on border enforcement, public safety, and gender identity activism. Threading those factions won’t be easy; at present, no single rumored candidate combines a critical stance on U.S. foreign policy with a willingness to depart from the Brahmin left’s orthodoxies. Nevertheless, we should expect to see a couple swing-state Democrats gain momentum, provided they exude a determination, like Barack Obama in the 2008 primary, to mobilize first-time voters, irregular Democrats, and independents hungry for alternatives to the status quo.

---

Who might fit the bill and shake up the primary electorate is less predictable. Senators Gallego and Ossoff have garnered a lot of attention in recent weeks, and either one might reinvigorate, through their evolving strand of Sun Belt populism, the coalition of urban progressives, labor activists, economically anxious suburbanites, blue-collar immigrants, college students, and rural anti-monopolists that Democrats have failed to sustain and expand in the Trump era. Shapiro and Whitmer (yes, even after that infamous White House photo) might similarly energize a broad range of voters, despite having irked progressive activists on occasion. Any of these Democrats, moreover, would have a very decent chance of delivering their own swing state on November 7, 2028, and be equipped to build a fierce ground game in competitive states with similar demographic profiles.

Then again, these purple-state Democrats may prove reluctant to take stands that challenge entrenched advocacy groups, whose endorsements and donor networks exert enormous influence over base Democrats trained to follow purity tests. The primary electorate may also simply sway toward the most impassioned darlings of the Resistance. Under the most likely scenario, that would narrow the contest to Newsom and AOC, whose respective talents, while potent and enviable, are undercut by liabilities that working-class swing voters are certain to scrutinize. By Super Tuesday 2028, Democrats hoping to restore the Obama coalition may find themselves right back where they started: led by coastal Democrats who perennially underestimate just how bankrupt the Democrats’ reputation is in hundreds of rural and Rust Belt counties.

Could anyone else convert an underdog bid for the nomination into a full-blown campaign to remake the party? Khanna, who co-chaired Bernie Sanders’s 2020 campaign, has fashioned himself as a populist maverick by teaming up with Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) to release the Epstein files and check Trump’s military adventurism. Alarmed by the ramifications of the “K-shaped” economy and the economic displacement many expect AI to precipitate, Khanna has also demanded a “new tech social contract.” Yet he represents the wealthiest district in both California and the nation, which obviously does nothing to alleviate Democrats’ deep-seated regional problems.

Democrats, unfortunately, are short of other options to turn things around on that front before 2028. Other emerging figures who might, in time, be better suited to that task, such as Iowa state auditor and gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand, an evangelist for clean and accountable government in an age of bald cronyism, still need to notch electoral and policy victories that raise their national profile. This disjuncture between what urgently needs to be accomplished in the heartland and the terribly small pool of politicians capable of doing it now illustrates one of the main tragedies of Democrats’ strategic and generational blunders. Over the last fifteen years, Democrats did not make the requisite investments in young aspiring public servants who could conceivably replace aging red-state Democrats who either lost their seats or retired from politics, leaving a stark and unacceptable gap in regional representation. While Sand and other insurgents are fighting valiantly to gain a foothold in Trump country, they are, through no fault of their own, a few election cycles behind where national Democrats need to be to transform the balance of sectional power in the party system.

Democrats fixated on countering Trump in the daily arena—on landing blows that conceivably demoralize MAGA—may not have much bandwidth to contemplate a grand strategy. But as Democrats size up the expected 2028 field, it would behoove them to think unsparingly in terms of political geography. Most regard the next presidential election as the party’s best chance to roll back the “MAGA realignment” and vanquish Trump’s heir, whoever he (or she) may be. But any victory in 2028—even one that surpasses expectations—will be but the first step toward building a durable majority coalition. And until Democrats have a proven strategy to match what Obama, for a brief but exhilarating moment, achieved a generation ago, the troubles that have vexed them since may long outlive Trump’s final exit from the stage.