Is it too early to talk about 2028? It depends. If you’re looking for a definitive answer to “who is going to be the next president” then it is too early, but if you want to know who might be running, who is building the right kind of coalition, and what the nominees will likely be dealing with, we might even be a bit late! As the frustration with Biden’s run and the vice presidential selection process last year indicated, jockeying for 2028 started in 2024, if not earlier. It’s clear who some of the candidates for the Democratic nomination are likely to be, if not who the frontrunners are, and – as the Democratic resistance begins to show signs of life – we are starting to see the first signs of which candidates may rise to meet that occasion.

For now, the right emphasis is probably on the Democratic primary, because that’s where we’ll see the biggest contest of ideals and ability to adapt. Being the out party lends itself towards creating a single focus (take back the White House) and crystalizes how prospective candidates generate buzz, momentum, and build their respective coalitions. In that vein, having recently written a bit about the problems with the modern Democratic brand, I want to continue the thought, and attempt to distill the characteristics the strongest 2028 Democratic nominee will have – a set of guideposts to keep you grounded as you brave the next three years of the shadow primary.

The aim here is to treat the 2028 Democratic jockeying as we do much of our content: unsensationalized, grounded in reality, and based on trends rather than spur-of-the-moment news. This baseline will drive our coverage and approach to the primary and 2028 election so that we don’t get sidelined by the errant celebrity candidate or three-year-out polling surge. That said, we will still name candidates to make this less nebulous and more relatable, so you may get a sense of who seems like they have a path anyway.

As I’ve begun my analysis, I’ve identified four characteristics the 2028 Democratic nominee needs to make it to the end: coalitional appeal, effectiveness, morality, and electability. Before previewing candidates who may meet all four, let’s summarize what these really entail and why they matter:

1. The ability to appeal across the Democratic coalition

Longtime Democratic primary watchers note this as perhaps the singular most important factor. Forget candidates having a moment, forget scandals or stories, forget policy issues or background – the ability to appeal broadly to the party’s coalition is a clear unifier among recent Democratic nominees.

The Democratic Party is (yes, still) broader, more diverse, and more disparate than the Republican coalition. The Democratic primary system is generally designed to accommodate this need such that the crowned Democratic nominee is broadly appealing in order to keep that coalition intact. Often, this means the nominee may feel underwhelming to a substantial part of that coalition, but all that matters is that a nominee is “good enough” for the broad coalition. Millennials, union members, Black Protestants, suburbanites, and establishment types all need to feel generally on board with the nominee, even if he or she isn’t their first choice. 

If you take away one point from this article, it should be this: a candidate who appeals only to progressives, only to Black voters, only to MSNBC viewers, or only to Millennials is not going to be the nominee. Before it died, FiveThirtyEight put together a helpful way to think about this for the 2020 election – trying to distinguish between the parts of the Democratic coalition and which candidates may do best across the bench. Though the coalition has shifted a bit since then (and now has more suburbanites and highly-educated voters), I do still find this to be a helpful framing device. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden appealed more broadly across all parts of the Democratic Party than Bernie Sanders, and that made a big difference at the end of the day.

Regardless of how you define the corners of the Democratic coalition, be mindful and wary of candidates with passionate appeal from just a portion of the party. Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders clearly have this problem, but Democrats like Cory Booker and Kamala Harris don’t to the same degree. Comparative strength across the coalition is the differentiator here!

2. The energy and credibility to be an effective communicator

What makes a candidate effective? The ability to communicate and land a message comes down to energy and credibility. Can a candidate get out there, fill a room, hold people’s attention, work the crowd – and is their message and background credible to achieving that aim?

Here, starting with Democrats who clearly meet this characteristic may be the most helpful. Very clearly, Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Tim Walz, Gavin Newsom, and Pete Buttigieg have this quality – they’re getting attention, they’re getting the crowds, and they’re meeting the moment with the energy it requires. They also have, whether you agree with them or not, the bona fides to back it up. Say what you will, but Sanders and AOC are credible advocates for their particular brand of left populism and there’s no doubt they mean what they say. Newsom and Walz have years in state politics to fall back on to assert their seriousness on the issues. Buttigieg is able to concisely, effectively, and astutely communicate across crowds with policy experience to back it up.

That’s why these two are joined into “effectiveness” here – you cannot be an effective communicator with platitudes alone, nor carry a message without a crowd. Colorado Governor Jared Polis and former Congressman Dean Phillips have credibility but not a crowd. Stephen A. Smith can probably draw a crowd but lacks credibility. The ideal candidate has both!

3. Moral character

You may scoff and roll your eyes about this one – surely, in the age of Trump, we don’t still care about the morality of our candidates. Well, I’d argue Democrats do. This isn’t so much about little dalliances, misstatements, or policy choices; rather, it’s about pervasive scandals or the air of immorality hanging over a candidate. If the first thing you think about when their name is mentioned is “that thing they did” or got in trouble for… they probably don’t get this characteristic.

To be a bit blunter: Andrew Cuomo is a no go. 

4. To be electable, you cannot be alienating!

Finally, let’s think about the general election. Democratic primary voters do tend to value electability – case in point is the 2020 election, where Democrats saw the moderate and more likable Biden as better suited to win a general election against Trump. This notion of electability is a hazy concept, and a somewhat uncomfortable one too (it’s criticized as promoting white men over other candidates) – after all, how can you really say who would be best suited to win a general election? But I think consideration of electability has more value in ascertaining who is not electable rather than who is. 

Put otherwise, the fact that Democrats in 2020 did not see candidates like Sanders as electable against Trump was more useful information than that they viewed candidates like Biden as electable. It hinted at concerns about running a campaign too far to the left, revealed apprehension regarding the Sanders campaign, and ultimately panned out to let Democrats run a campaign more geared towards the general electorate than the primary base.

In today’s terms, this means looking for candidates who are not alienating. Democrats who embrace messaging that judges or reprimands voters fall short, as do candidates who are too far to the left, or who embrace fringe positions that seem out-of-step with the country. When in doubt, think of this as a comparator – it’s probably true that AOC, Gavin Newsom, and Kamala Harris are simply more alienating to general election voters than Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, and Josh Shapiro. Some of those perceptions are fair and based on how a candidate has marketed themselves and the policy positions they’ve taken, while others are based on entrenched assumptions or expectations.

Either way, it is what it is: left-leaning candidates are seen as less electable because they do worse in elections. After four years on the outs, Democrats are not going to want to risk another four, and they will prize candidates they believe can win in 2028. Thinking otherwise just because it suits your preferred candidate is fine, but don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Okay, so who will the nominee be?

No one knows, but I do think these characteristics hint towards who should pique your interest and who, comparatively, should not. My semi-subjective assessment suggests something pretty close to this:

When in doubt, I tried to consider whether a candidate would be seen as comparatively “more” or “less” something than another. If there was a good faith reason to say no, I left that characteristic in play for them; otherwise, I took it off. This is not to say Newsom is an immoral person, but I do think he’s done things that would make any rational person say he is perceived as less upstanding than say, Shapiro, Phillips, or Murphy. 

Disagree as you will, but I think this broadly points to a few particularly strong candidates, all of whom have demonstrated electoral success across diverse coalitions, with clear and effective messaging, a background without any serious reputational problems, and an ability to appeal to general election voters. By my assessment, Cory Booker, Ruben Gallego, Wes Moore, Jon Ossoff, Raphael Warnock, and Gretchen Whitmer round out that group, and they’re who I’ll be watching bide their time as flavor-of-the-week candidates come and go over the next few years.