This is a lightly edited transcript of the February 6 edition of Right Now With Perry Bacon. You can watch the video here or by following this show on YouTube or Substack.
Meredith Conroy: First, great to get the gang back together. I’m a professor of political science at the California State University, San Bernardino.
Nathaniel Rakich: I am the managing editor at Votebeat, which is a nonprofit news site that covers election administration and voting access. So I think the last two weeks in particular have been very busy, between the FBI raid in Fulton County, Georgia, and Trump’s comments that he wants to “nationalize” the election. So if you’re interested in that kind of stuff, head on over to votebeat.org.
Bacon: Good. And so with that, we’re going to do an exercise. We used to do at FiveThirtyEight and it’s just goofy, but I think it’s helpful. We’re going to call it a “draft” of the 2028 Democratic presidential candidates. So by that, we mean we’re going to pick—we’re going to go around for three rounds and pick.
We’re not picking who our favorite ideologically or substantively might be—even though I hope we’ll get into that a little bit as well—but the idea is to pick who we think, at this point, is most likely to win the nomination. And I understand that it’s three years away and “no one had heard of Barack”—I get all that stuff.
Rakich: But people had heard of Barack Obama, importantly. He gave a very high-profile speech in 2004 that everybody was like, “Oh my goodness.”
Bacon: I heard. But anyway, I think the idea is that often this—we are in the process where people are early. People are going to Iowa. They’re hiring staff. They are thinking about this. And so the field is not set, but I think we have some sense of that. And I think planning it out early gives you a sense of what might change and who might drop out.
I think in this time—in 2006, to date myself—we all thought Mark Warner was going to run for president and maybe win, and that Obama would maybe run, what, four years later in 2012. And so that’s how things change. So with that over, we’re going to start the draft. Meredith will go first, and what we’ll do is we’ll each name—we’ll go one to three, and then we’ll discuss the one to three and then go from there. So, Meredith, you’re up.
Conroy: I am up. And when we were at FiveThirtyEight, I always wanted to get the first draft pick and never did. And I actually I don’t thank you, because I don’t want it today…
Rakich: Do you want it? Because I want it.
Conroy: I think, then, my pick is going to probably allow you to have the one that you wanted to go first anyway, since Nathaniel is second. But I know how to read; I know how to read polls. I know how to read ambition. I know what’s happening in this particular moment, and I know that I should be picking Governor of California Gavin Newsom, but I’m not going to. I’ll let someone else make the arguments for Newsom.
I think that the backlash against the Trump administration’s agenda—especially on immigration and reproductive rights—is going to be pretty significant by the time the primaries come around. And the Democratic Party will need someone who can carry that mantle credibly. And so, for me, my first draft pick: I’m going to go with the New York representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Rakich: Our former colleagues Galen Druke and Nate Silver did a draft as well, and they also both picked—they both had AOC first on their boards. It ended up making an article in the New York Post that was like, “Data Guru Nate Silver Thinks AOC Is the First.” So I wonder if we’ll get the same treatment. Something tells me they won’t, but...
Meredith Conroy: There’s a California Post now. And actually, I was driving on the freeway the other day and I saw a billboard that said, “Heir to the Throne.” It was Gavin Newsom’s hair.
Rakich: That’s funny.
Conroy: So they, yeah, so they might think it is him. So maybe the California Post to kick their coverage off, they will cover us, but I picked her for that reason. I also don’t know if she will actually run, because I think she does have presidential ambitions, and I don’t know if 2028 is the moment for that. And I don’t think she needs to run as a “trial balloon.” She doesn’t need name recognition; she doesn’t need a run in the primaries to help people know who she is.
So I think the biggest knock on my pick would be that she doesn’t run. And then, of course, we have the issue of “strategic discrimination,” which academics refer to as a term that helps us explain why Democratic primary voters don’t take their first pick when they are a woman or a woman of color or a person of color. So it is the idea that you think other people are prejudiced, so you are not going to pick your first-choice candidate.
In 2020, there was this survey done by Data for Progress called the “Magic Wand,” where if you were given a magic wand and you could put your person in the office right now—you would have to go back and look at the timing of all of this; Biden hadn’t officially entered—but anyway, most people put Elizabeth Warren in the White House. But then when they asked who you are going to vote for, she didn’t have the most votes.
So I think that kind of strategic discrimination in a Democratic primary would absolutely impact Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. And also, she is very young and she has become the symbol of everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party on Fox News and social media—her and Nancy Pelosi. I think if you did an analysis of whose faces are most commonly used in attack segments of Democrats, it would be theirs. There is gender and race embroiled in all that. So those are the knocks on her.
But I still think that the “left lane” is clear with Bernie Sanders not running, and she is the likely person to fill that lane. And I do think there will be a high demand for a progressive candidate—not to say that there aren’t plenty of other progressives. So there you go. There is my argument.
Bacon: So then you give yours and I’ll give mine, and then we’ll discuss all three of them. So give yours quickly.
Conroy: Oh, geez. Sorry.
Bacon: No, that’s fine.
Rakich: Okay. Meredith is correct. I appreciate being able to take Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, who I think this exercise is really difficult in general because…
Bacon: I want to discuss all three, I’m going to give Pete, but sorry. And mine is Pete Buttigieg, so there, okay. Alright. So let’s discuss those three then. Now go ahead, Nathaniel.
Rakich: Okay. I just think this exercise is very difficult because I think this is truly like an wide-open race. When I was preparing for this, I went through the list of kind of the top contenders and I came up with a lot more reasons why I thought they all wouldn’t get the nomination, not that they would. And I think there are some times when, obviously like in 2024 with Trump and I think in 2020 with Biden as well, there is a pretty clear front-runner and something would have to happen to topple them from their perch.
And here I think it is pretty wide-open. Like, I picked Newsom because I do think that of all of the different people in the field, he is the strongest. He is the governor of the biggest state and the bluest state. He is leading in the polls. I know it is very early and things can absolutely change, but it is still better to be ahead in the polls than to be at two percent in the polls, which is where most other people are. So I just think that if you had to—I don’t think any one person has more than a 20 or 25 percent chance of winning, but if I had to pick one, I would go with Newsom.
Bacon: Let me follow up on a couple of things. Okay. First of all, the exercise, Meredith, is to pick the person most likely to win the Democratic nomination. Yeah. And you, having watched the last two primaries where the left person there was the organizer—that person exactly did not win.
Rakich: Exactly.
Bacon: There were comments about their “electability,” which became a word attached to them every day. You think a Congresswoman from New York, who is a Latino young woman who is on Fox News every day, is the most—I would love to be in a country where AOC was the most likely presidential candidate. I don’t think I live in a current country like that. And you read all the same things I do about racism and sexism, so I want to make sure: Do you really think that?
Conroy: If knew how to play the game? Yeah.
Bacon: Yes. Do you really think that?
Conroy: I do. I do. I think there is going to be a backlash against what is happening, and that right now, she is the progressive to fill it. I had other ideas that I’ll talk about, but I think that you need someone, I hate this phrase—”authenticity.” You need someone who is authentic.
I have great arguments for why Pete Buttigieg would be a great pick. I think he would. He is the debater that JD Vance thinks he is. And if JD Vance is the candidate, I actually think Pete Buttigieg would be an excellent nominee.
But like Pete Buttigieg can’t credibly pick up the mantle for what I think the backlash is going to require. And so, of the list of people who are credible and have viability—electability, viability, right? All these words are very loaded—I do think that it could be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Rakich: Look, I think we do know that there is a fair amount of anger now among the Democratic base with kind of the Democratic Party establishment. And historically, the Democratic Party has been a lot more pro-establishment than the Republican Party. Obviously, they—Republicans—nominated Trump. They have a long history of the Tea Party and stuff like that.
I think that, obviously, there is like a bit of a discourse about whether there is a “Democratic Tea Party” brewing. I personally would tap the brake pedal on that, I should say—but sure, I can’t deny that there is a dissatisfaction as well. I’m just not sure that it is, like, numerically a majority.
I think I agree that, like, AOC is going to be a strong candidate and going to have her passionate followers, but I’m not sure that Democrats are ready to throw over the chessboard the way that Republicans did by nominating Trump.
Yeah. And I think, to Perry’s point, Bernie Sanders, for a brief moment in 2020, was the front-runner, and the Democratic Party establishment—they acted; they were very swift to be like, “Nope, we are not allowing this.” And I think they would do the same with AOC.
Conroy: They’re not going to do that for Gavin Newsom. I teach in California. Californians have an interesting take on Gavin Newsom. I think a lot of the reasons I went with this pick is because the obvious pick, Gavin Newsom, isn’t obvious to me, but it hasn’t been for a while. At FiveThirtyEight, we used to have these conversations years ago, even about Gavin Newsom, and as the resident—other people worked at and lived in California, were from California at FiveThirtyEight—but I was like, “I just don’t think it’s going to happen.” But he does.
Rakich: Sorry, I think that he is not inherently the most likable guy, but he has done a good job. He has proven, kind of, me wrong in terms of how he has developed this national profile, especially by standing up to Republicans on, like, the gerrymandering thing. He—like, the base wants a fighter, and he has been a fighter. He has got all these kind of posts on Twitter that are mocking Trump’s style and everything like that. I think that’s more emblematic. I don’t think he’s literally winning votes that way.
But yeah, like, I think that he has gotten to a point, again, where if you look at the very early polling, he and, like, Kamala Harris are basically the two who are in the lead with—again, it’s like 25 percent or 30 percent of the vote, which is not overwhelming by any standard, but he’s gotten there and there’s probably still some room to grow.
Bacon: Let me go to my pick. I would’ve ranked Buttigieg first. And the reason I think, actually, that the “California knock” on California is weird, and he has fancy hair and whatever, and he doesn’t seem Midwestern enough either. I think that would be a real barrier to him in a longer primary versus Buttigieg, I know we’ve never had a gay president, or a short one for that matter, I don’t think.
But I think in some ways he seems like someone who would appeal to people in the Midwest, and he presents himself that way. He talks about it that way. He ran for president already. He’s very beloved among—not just—I consider him more centrist or something like that, but a lot of people who are pretty liberal like him. He ran before us; we know he’s good at running [and] related to the base. He has a fundraising base. So I would’ve actually picked him first. Where would you have ranked him in your top three, either one of you?
Conroy: No, you would not.
Rakich: I keep coming up with reasons—like, every time I look down this list and I’m like: “Nope, nope, nope.” And to me, like, Buttigieg has one big problem, which is that, like, to win the Democratic primary, you need Black support. And I have seen no evidence that Pete Buttigieg can get Black support. Maybe he can get it—and if he does, then I will start paying attention in a hurry. But this was his big problem in 2020: He could not break in with that community. You need that.
Biden had a long relationship [with Black voters]. And I think, obviously, there are multiple Black people who have been mentioned for the nomination: Wes Moore, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris. And I think there is a potential to split that field, but I still think you need some boxes. I don’t think you can get through without any—exactly.
Conroy: I did; I went back and forth on Buttigieg or AOC as my first pick. I don’t think it is going to be Gavin. I am probably very wrong, but the reason I don’t have him strong—one of the reasons was that, yeah, he struggled in 2020 with the Black vote in the primaries. I don’t know if that would be the case in 2028 with Biden cleared. But you just made a great point that there are plenty of other people that Black voters might prefer.
But I do think, for the reasons you said, Perry, that he is a great fit. Even—I’m going to use the word again—”authentic.” He is pretty authentic to who he is and doesn’t shy away from who he is. And he goes straight into the fire, appearing on Fox News. I am from Idaho, and I have conservative family members who in 2020 were like, “Y’all should have nominated Pete Buttigieg.” They like him for being who he is and not being a “slick,” which I think Gavin Newsom will have to struggle with—those conversations about being a “flip-flopper” or being an opportunist, essentially, on some of the positions he has taken. Pete Buttigieg, I don’t think, would struggle with [that].
Perry, the reason I didn’t go with Pete Buttigieg as my first pick is because you shared an article about “reactionary centrism.” He may not be able to fill the progressive lane because he could be labeled as a “reactionary centrist” or an “abundance slipper”—like, all these terms that are still really squishy to me. So it is your fault that I didn’t pick him, and now you can have him.
Bacon: I do think he dabbles in some of that, which I, as a pretty left person, don’t like. But I don’t think he codes that way. Josh Shapiro seems to be auditioning for that a little, and that is why—if I were Josh Shapiro, I would rein a little bit of that in. You don’t need to go on TV and trash Kamala Harris. That is not going to be helpful to you, is what I would say.
But yeah, I guess, so just finish on these three. I did not have AOC in my top nine even. Did you? I literally don’t think she is going to run, and I don’t see her winning—I would love to see her winning—but I would not have put her in the nine even.
Rakich: Yeah, I think there is a top five that you have to start with, and I won’t reveal who the other two are.
So I would probably put her in the top five, because I think, like, she’s more likely than, like, a random senator from—like Chris Van Hollen or something like that. But yeah, for the reasons I mentioned, I think she would have a really hard time.
Conroy: Okay. So if I’m right, I’m, like, really right.
Bacon: You’re really right.
Rakich: You can absolutely lord this over us if she ends up being the nominee. And I think she is very talented; I think she has, yeah, the ability to impress. But yeah, like I said, the coordination against her is going to be rough.
Bacon: Alright, so this round is Perry, Nathaniel, Meredith. So we’re going to—let’s give our picks, and then we’ll discuss. Okay. So I’m going to say Governor Pritzker.
Rakich: Oh, interesting. Wow. Alright, you guys are just going to keep giving me the good picks. I’m going to say Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania.
Bacon: Okay.
Conroy: And I’m going to go Mark Kelly, senator from Arizona.
Perry Bacon: Okay. Does anyone want to discuss? Shapiro—I was deciding between Shapiro and Pritzker, and that was a hard one for me. It feels to me like Pritzker has not done a particularly good job signaling. He’s from Chicago. He is pretty liberal. I don’t know what his sort of “electability” case is, and I think that would be an interesting question.
He’s done a good job in the last year appealing to the base. He’s been the most outspoken, next to AOC, obviously, of the sort of male candidates, I’ll say. I think he’s done a good job.
Rakich: I think Gavin Newsom has been resistant, too—
Bacon: Yeah. Oh, no—Gavin Newsom. Yeah, sorry. Gavin Newsom, yes. Gavin Newsom’s... I would’ve picked Gavin Newsom ahead of him. Gavin Newsom was secondary. But yeah, Chris [Murphy] has done a good job in that lane, I would say.
I tend to think Shapiro has been—is moving to the point where he’s going to be—the progressive is going to try to make sure he doesn’t win. Yeah. And therefore, they’ll be for Newsom or anything. I think he’s got to—he’s in the Rahm Emanuel “zone,” where it’s “anybody but him.” That’s my—that’s why. But I think he’s close, and I think he toggles—he’s very—he’s going to win Pennsylvania by a thousand points, and he’ll be able to say: “Look how electable I am.”
Rakich: Astronauts are really good candidates. Like, the best position to have—the best job to have—as a politician is an astronaut. Some crazy number of astronauts have been elected to Congress.
Conroy: I do think Pritzker is a great pick. Name recognition? He doesn’t have it. But in being in Illinois with ICE raids, he has rhetoric. His rhetoric on Trump has been as—not as theatric as Newsom’s, but striking a similar tone. I know people—like, I’m in California—people have been talking about Pritzker in my circles, so I do think that was a good pick. I would’ve had him in my top four for sure. Okay, but Mark Kelly...
Bacon: You would’ve had him ahead of Kelly, if you had to pick yourself?
Conroy: Yes.
Bacon: Okay, alright.
Conroy: Yeah, I got the sixth pick. I went with Kelly. Harris probably would’ve been smarter given polling, but okay. Yeah, I do think Mark Kelly could make a run for it. Apparently, it has the “astronaut bump.” And also, he has had a target on his back. Trump, Vice President Vance, and Hegseth have gone after him.
And if you go to the White House website—which I do occasionally—they have a website of the “Enemy of the Day,” and he’s been there a lot. I do think that it’s interesting that they’re elevating him in that way. And I think that he would—why not use that political capital to launch a campaign? Do I think he’ll be the nominee? No, but I do think he could make a run for it if he decides to run.
Bacon: Kelly would not have been in my top nine. So, Nathaniel, how do you feel about Kelly?
Rakich: He’s interesting. I think, obviously, yeah, the astronaut thing is big. Kelly’s interesting because he has a pretty good profile nationally. So, according to the DDHQ polling average, he is at an average of 32 percent favorable and 21 percent unfavorable. So it’s rare to be in that much net-positive territory.
Obviously, that leaves like 50 percent of people not knowing who he is. So that’s good. But also, at the same time, if you have—that’s 50 percent name recognition, which is, like, pretty decent. And he is really only registering at three percent in the polls that include him in Democratic primary polling. And if you’re that well-known, you should be polling higher.
Okay, so I think that’s the issue. I think Pritzker is more compelling because his name recognition is currently lower. I just had that up, but I got rid of it because [I wanted] to search for Kelly, but I can pull that back up. So, Pritzker is at 20 percent unfavorable, 14 percent favorable. But that means that two-thirds of Americans don’t know who he is. Yes, which is room to grow. And crucially, he’s rich. Like, he can spend a lot of money to improve that name recognition. And I think—that’s something that, probably, like, Mark Kelly can’t do, at least not to the same extent. So I think...
Conroy: And he’s a more compelling speaker, then.
Rakich: Yeah. So I think that both of these are fine “value picks” later in the draft. But at this point, we are talking about people who are not really registering in the polls and are probably, I think, clearly second- or third-tier candidates.
To the Shapiro pick: I think that he is someone who is very good on the stump. I think, Perry, your point is correct that there’s going to be a lot of resistance to him from progressives. But again, I don’t think progressives are the ones who decide Democratic primaries. He has a great “electability” argument, and he is polling pretty [well]—he’s at eight to 10 percent in polls, which is pretty good for somebody with his profile. He also has roughly 50 percent name recognition nationwide. And to be at eight to 10 percent with 50 percent name recognition is pretty good, and suggests that once he gets his name out there, he has room to grow in a way that someone like Gavin Newsom or certainly Kamala Harris doesn’t.
Bacon: So would you have ranked Shapiro ahead of Buttigieg, or the same?
Rakich: Yes, I would have him ahead of Pete. I think that he has the potential, because of the electability argument, to win over Black voters. I suppose Buttigieg, again, theoretically has that ability, but he ran in 2020—he ran for president already—and failed at that. So, yeah, I was probably going to have Shapiro second or third overall.
Bacon: So I think we can move to round three. It’s Nathaniel, Meredith, and Perry. Nathaniel, let’s just name our people—this is getting hard now—and then we’ll discuss them.
Rakich: I feel like I’ve got a pretty good one—again, there is an obvious choice that is left.
Conroy: Don’t take it. Give it to me.
Bacon: Sorry. It’s your choice.
Rakich: Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris, baby.
Bacon: Okay. Meredith?
Conroy: Yeah. Shoot. I’m going to—oh, I’m going to steal who I think Perry may have said, given his regional bias. I’m going to go with Andy Beshear.
Bacon: Okay, or Wes Moore. Okay, so now I’ve got the last one. And this is going to be hard, because it’s going to be bad if we didn’t name the right person with nine people.
Conroy: It’s my fault.
Rakich: No, but that’s the point—is that it’s such an open race. I—we wouldn’t be surprised if it ends up being somebody we don’t [expect].
Bacon: So, I’m struggling. I, again, the names I have written down are just—I’ll be very candid here. The names I have written down are... I have a lot better, actually. [I will] not preview all of them, but the ones I’m really thinking about are Ruben Gallego, John Ossoff, Wes Moore, and Cory Booker. Okay. If Raphael Warnock wanted to run—
Rakich: Yeah, I was going to say, you got the wrong Georgia senator there. I don’t think Warnock wants to run, so I think I’m going to go with Ossoff then, I think.
Bacon: Okay. So let me—so I’m going to go with Ossoff. Wow. So we did Beshear, Ossoff, and Kamala. I would not have put Kamala in my first nine because I think she just isn’t going to run. And because she already lost, and I think she is—because, really, if she ran, I think she would be the leading candidate among Black voters.
Rakich: Exactly. She’d have a good fundraising base. Yeah.
Bacon: So is she actually running?
Rakich: The week after the 2024 election, I would’ve said, “Oh yeah, she’s not going to run.” But it seems now like she is making those moves. Like she did that “What did she do yesterday?” thing the other day. Two days ago, she launched her—was it her Instagram or her Twitter account? Exactly. For Gen Z. Yeah. So it seems she’s definitely keeping her name in the conversation.
I think she wants to keep her options open. I agree that she’s definitely not a slam dunk to run the way that Gavin Newsom is. But yeah, as I mentioned, the two leading candidates in the polls right now are Harris and Newsom, and I think the big red flag for Harris is that she has virtually 100 percent name recognition and she’s still only at 25 to 30 percent. And that’s not good.
But I still, again, think that you would rather start with more support than to be one of these candidates polling down at three percent, like we discussed last round. And like you mentioned, Perry, I believe strongly that the Black vote is what determines these things in Democratic primaries. And I think the default is that most Black voters would start with her. It’s not to say that they couldn’t move, but I think they start there.
Bacon: Meredith, go ahead. So you included Harris for the same reasons, probably?
Conroy: Yeah. Polling and these moves she’s making suggests that she is now going to run. But I think that Democrats are a fear-based party, and the concern about 2024 and this “overcorrection” that they tend to do, to me, says that the primary may not be the place where she succeeds. But yeah, if she runs, I do think that she will absolutely—like Nathaniel said—rise to the top pretty quickly.
Bacon: So, defend your Beshear pick, as opposed to the others—because there were, like, 20 people you could have named. So both—I’d be curious, Nathaniel, who was your next person? Because Kamala was obvious.
So, Meredith, defend Beshear in the sea of others—defend Beshear as a choice. And then Nathaniel, who would have been your choice in the sea of others?
Conroy: I’ll quickly say: In the world I’m seeing when the primaries happen again—I had suggested I think there is going to be a big backlash against the Trump administration. They’re going to need a certain type of candidate in a world where the backlash happens too early, and then, by the time we get to the primary season, we are back to: “We need an electable White guy.” A White guy who can win conservative voters. That’s why I went with Beshear.
Rakich: He’s not conservative, though.
Conroy: He’s liberal. He won a conservative state, notably. I think he could be seen as carrying the progressive mantle, absolutely. But yeah, he’s able to qualify himself by pointing out that he’s the one who won two terms in Kentucky. And yeah, there is a demand for “normalcy,” Andy Beshear is. That’s my argument. Good slogan.
Bacon: Who would you have put on this if you had another choice, Nathaniel?
Rakich: I would probably have gone with Ruben Gallego. I’m tempted by Warnock, because like you, I think he is an incredibly strong candidate, as he’s shown in Georgia twice. But I agree that he may be too smart to run for president.
Perry Bacon Jr.: He doesn’t want to run.
Rakich: Right. But Ruben Gallego, I think, is acting like he does want to run. And he strikes the profile to me of—he used to be more progressive, and now he’s moved toward the center. I think you could argue that progressives are going to view him more suspiciously because of that, because they’re like, “Oh, you betrayed us,” or whatever.
But I think he can speak both languages. I could see him doing the thing that, like, Buttigieg did in 2020, or like Amy Klobuchar, right? Where he’s really impressive in small settings, and he’s a veteran and cuts an impressive profile, and people come out of the town halls being like, “Oh, like that young man—he’s really going places.” Again, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar did not win that 2020 nomination. But like, maybe Ruben Gallego finishes second in New Hampshire? I could see that. But again, I don’t think any of these people are, like, particularly likely to win. But I think Gallego kind of fits the mold of people who have surprised in the past.
Bacon.: So I chose Ossoff because I think he’s going to win this Georgia Senate race. I think he’s going to win pretty easily—[well], not easily, but he’s going to win by three or four points in a tough state. He’ll have won twice there. He’s very [visible]; he’s on MSNBC; he’s doing Crooked Media.
You can’t go to Iowa if you’re running for reelection in Georgia, because that would hurt you. But he’s doing everything you would do to run for president and prepare for that if you’re in a swing state and you can’t do the full “audition.” So I think he’s very ambitious. I think he’s done well electorally. I think he’s pretty charismatic. He’s young. He’s got the bio—he worked for John Lewis; he’s in Georgia.
So if you succeed [with] the profile of a White guy who could win the Black vote—who, [that is a] true unknown, I think—he did something like that. He has a lot of cultural references, a lot of biographical appeal. I think that would help.
I guess I can say this: I don’t know that people see Wes Moore the same way.
Conroy: He was same on my list.
Bacon: What is that? Wes Moore is not Obama, but [we] already had him or something? I don’t know the right way to say that—and you guys shouldn’t say that—but I think there’s something about him that... I think Booker ran last time. The “charismatic Black guy”—we think that’s a great lane because Obama won. But I don’t know that Wes Moore is really anchored in the—he doesn’t have the electoral credentials, because he’s in Maryland. I don’t think he’s going to win the Black vote overwhelmingly, because I have no evidence of that.
So I was thinking about him, but I didn’t really end up landing with him. Gallego, I think, is interesting—and yes, he’s Latino; he’s a veteran; he’s in a swing state. Yeah, Arizona. ICE. He’s been both progressive and—even though he’s moved more moderate—he’s been very strong on ICE recently. He knows where the wind is blowing and is able to hit that pretty well. So I think he’s serious as well. And yeah.
Conroy: It’s a young bunch. It’s a youthful field.
Bacon: I think—not coincidentally.
Rakich: Yeah, not coincidentally. I think if you’re over 70, you don’t get a chance to run anymore.
Conroy: Yeah. I was thinking about choosing Wes Moore, but he said explicitly, right? He’s not going to run.
Bacon: Who said that?
Conroy: Wes Moore frequently has.
Bacon: No, I think Wes Moore is going to run. I think Warnock’s not going to run.
Conroy: Wes Moore said he’s not going to run.
Rakich: I don’t think any of that matters.
Conroy: He’s from Maryland. Okay. They lie. Just kidding.
Rakich: My position on this—and this is because Hillary Clinton said she wasn’t going to run, basically, up until—basically, like, the 2016 cycle. People—basically, I don’t think any statements are operative until after the midterms. Like, after the midterms is when the “starting gun” [goes off] on this race.
If after that you say you’re out, then people—obviously, also, people can not be in and then jump in, like Mike Bloomberg did. Yeah, there’s nothing stopping you from doing that. But I think that, yeah, the starting gun starts at the midterms, and if you don’t start running at that point, then you are going to be behind.
Bacon: Let me ask a couple of questions. Let me think as we go through here. I guess the first would be: We named AOC, but otherwise, we didn’t name anyone who I would say is clearly in the “progressive lane” in the Bernie mold. Is that because there’s nobody there who we think is strong? Or do we think that particular bloc of the party isn’t strong?
I guess I would say, like—I know Ro Khanna is somebody who is clearly running for president and is in that “progressive box.” But I would say, I think, both [reasons]: He is not well-known and famous, but I also just think—I just have a hard time seeing the progressive winning the nomination.
So that’s why I went with people who—Beshear or Pritzker or Newsom—they can win some progressive votes, but I’m not sure the nominee will be anchored among progressives. So maybe I’m wrong about that. That’s where I would start from. Do you agree with that?
Rakich: Yeah, I think that’s right. And I think it’s a reflection of both: the fact that the establishment is really going to work hard against a progressive candidate, but also the fact that AOC is so dominant in that lane, right?
If she doesn’t run, then maybe you see some names like that—like Ro Khanna, right? It seems like the one person who is going to run regardless. But like we’ve been through—like in 2020, we had 10 random House members run for president, and we saw how that went. Seth Moulton, Eric Swalwell. Like all these people. You can’t run as just, like, a random “one of 435” and be a serious contender. It hasn’t happened since, like, what? James Garfield?
Bacon: I don’t think I know the answer to that question.
Conroy: Oh. I think the progressive lane is just different today than it was.
Bacon: But if AOC didn’t run, would you have somebody else in that?
Conroy: There probably is something—yeah, there probably is a lane to fill. But no, I think that the party itself is just more progressive and also the progressives are more pragmatic, so I just think it’s blurrier. But yeah, there would probably be someone to get the single digits in these states.
I think that AOC is—yes, she fills that lane, but she has—she’s more meaningful beyond just the progressive lane to a lot of Democratic voters. I think she could fit other lanes.
Rakich: If and when progressives eventually break through, they have to do it by building a coalition with another part of the party. Progressives are a, I think, meaningful bloc within the party, but they’re not a majority. And so you need to reach out to Black voters, or like Latino voters, or the kind of like college-educated, wonky White voters or whatever.
And like, I do actually think that in a world in which we could remove all the kind of like “electability” stuff, that somebody like AOC or like Ayanna Pressley, because of their ties to the Black and Latino communities, could actually do that.. But I think the “electability” thing is a non-starter.
Bacon: One of my colleagues I think about brought it up—I guess at the time it was right after Colbert was getting—was announced he was getting pushed out of CBS. But Colbert and Jon Stewart—do you see either of them, or in general, somebody who’s not in office?
Let’s name those two for now, but somebody who’s not... and I think the case for that, in this case, might be [that] there is a lane for somebody who doesn’t “code” moderate and maybe could win progressive and leftist votes, but who is just a famous person. Like—and I think that Colbert—I don’t know what his views... he isn’t Shapiro. His views on Israel are not what Shapiro’s are. So he’s not going to, like, annoy anyone based on that. No one knows what he thinks, but he [thinks], so I would assume Colbert and Stewart can kind of make up whatever positions they want. And they’re famous, they have money, they can raise money. And they are very resistance-y. And my guess is, if you had an Indivisible rally tomorrow, people would know who they are. They don’t know who the hell Mark Kelly is. And I wonder if those people are more viable than usual.
So Meredith, I’ll start with you.
Conroy: I think there will be a “Draft Stewart” movement, for sure.
Bacon: Stewart more than Colbert? Because they’re both going to be open, I think, to other things.
Meredith Conroy: I think Stewart more than Colbert.
Bacon: Why?
Conroy: From what I’ve seen online. He joined Instagram recently, and his messages are flooded with “Run, please.” I’m sure Nathaniel said he wasn’t on Instagram before the last election.
Rakich: He wasn’t
Conroy: Someone should fact-check me. I think he did something where he joined something recently and the response was massive. I just don’t think he has the—he didn’t have the energy in him to keep the show up, and now he’s doing the podcast. So, just practically, I don’t think he would want to run for president. I think he will do his damnedest to get out the vote and to increase Democratic turnout to win.
But I don’t think he’s going to run. And I just don’t think there’s this appeal for a celebrity in the Democratic Party like there is [in] the Republican Party—which is so funny, right? Because the Republican Party is, “We hate Hollywood.” But no, I don’t think there’s [that]. The only other person I can think of would be Michelle Obama.
Rakich: The “White Whale.” Yeah. No, I see a commenter also suggesting Stephen A. Smith, the ESPN commentator. But no—Stephen A. Smith? We had a little moment, and then people tested him in polling. It was like two percent. And that’s an extremely famous person—although he does have a generic name, so people might not have known who he was.
But no, look: We go through this every cycle. There’s always, like, the “fun pick.” And it’s like Tucker Carlson on the right and it’s Jon Stewart on the left. And look, never say never—Donald Trump is the president—but it is quite unlikely. And it’s always just, like, fantasy. And then the field ends up just being the kind of “random-ass assortment” of governors and senators that it always is. I am personally betting against the celebrity.
Bacon: Go ahead.
Meredith Conroy: A smart Cuban comment. I think he is an interesting person—Mark Cuban, a Bloomberg-esque billionaire figure that a certain type of person loves.
Rakich: Democrats don’t like billionaires, though—which, actually, by the way, I think might be an issue for J.B. Pritzker, since he’s running in this sort of “lefty lane.”
Conroy: Another question is: But he uses those billions for good? I don’t think people know he’s a billionaire yet, but obviously that will be a common attack. Okay, sorry—go ahead, Perry.
Bacon: Gretchen Whitmer would’ve been on a lot of lists a couple [of] years ago. Thinking about future candidates, when the rumors in 2024 were that Biden might not run, she was definitely high. And I’m going to add in Elissa Slotkin—who I think has gone to New Hampshire and done some hinting—[the] senator from Michigan. And Governor Spanberger, who won Virginia, of course.
In Virginia, you only have one term. And she’s in a swing state; she’s ambitious. In other words, these three are what I would call... we’ve picked mostly “electable” swing-state males. I don’t think Harris’s or AOC’s calling card is “electability,” necessarily. So why did we not pick—and what do we think about—the sort of women who’ve won in tough areas? Why do we think they are not viable, or do we think they are viable?
Conroy: I’ll just say, a quick one is that they aren’t suggesting that they want to run would be, I think, the number one reason—not necessarily sexism, but that’s there. Nathaniel, what were you going to say?
Rakich: Yeah, no—Whitmer definitely seemed to be more on the national stage four years ago, and she’s really retreated from that, it seems.
Conroy: It’s like that Homer meme—like she went back into the bush. She’s gone.
Rakich: Yeah. She seems to be signaling that she is not interested anymore. And I think that—we’re also talking about, “Oh, who’s going to run?” or whatever. Let’s be real: You have to be running silently. They call it the “invisible primary.” Throughout this period, even if you are not literally filed with the FEC, right, you are going to the clambakes in New Hampshire and stuff like that, and churches in South Carolina, and writing books and everything.
Perry had a really good piece that I think about often at FiveThirtyEight about, basically, here are the eight signs that somebody’s running for president. And it was like: visiting early states, writing a memoir..
And so, like, you have to be running without running. And Whitmer hasn’t been doing that. I do think that, if she had stayed in the conversation, she would’ve been higher up on my list. I think of her as a Shapiro-type. And I think she’s quite good on the stump and stuff. But yeah, I think being a White woman is—I think—not insurmountable, but it is going to be a detriment.
Bacon: Spanberger is what you mean, Nathaniel, right?
Rakich: Yeah, exactly. But a Spanberger, like, just got elected. I don’t think she has any interest. She wants to be the governor of Virginia. And then, yeah, Slotkin is interesting. She has no name recognition at all. And she does—I guess, maybe—seem like, of the three, she’s the most likely to run.
But, yeah, I mean, she’s just starting that “invisible primary” phase now. And somebody like Ruben Gallego, or certainly Gavin Newsom, has been doing it for a long time and built up that name recognition and donor base already.
Conroy: Yeah, no, I think Whitmer would’ve been my top choice if she hadn’t yet slid away. Also, why did she slide away? I’m sure there are personal reasons, given some of the things that she’s experienced. But remember when she was in the White House, and then the attacks again with Trump—and the response was, like, “traitor,” and just a huge backlash. He’ll turn on this person that the party loved.
And I do think there are some elements of gender wrapped up in that—where women are given less leverage to, or less room to, make mistakes or to be imperfect. I don’t know if that also contributed to one of the reasons why she was like, “This isn’t something I want for myself, my life.” If she stayed on engaging in invisible primary activities, like writing a book. I would’ve probably put her in.
Bacon: I’m saying that the party might unfortunately, conclude: two women have run; two women have lost.
Conroy: Do it again with—pick a man.
Bacon: We can make a Black man who might consider, a Latino man... best be men. And I think that’s unfortunate, because I think Harris and Clinton had different circumstances [for] why they lost, but I just worry we’re back in the “it has to be a man” phase. And that’s why I said it that way. I agree, Slotkin is not perfect, but yeah.
I’ll conclude with the “Chrises”: Chris Murphy and Chris Van Hollen. Chris Murphy, I think, is doing some maneuvering, and Chris Van Hollen has become this liberal hero—progressive hero—because he has been very strong on immigration and things like that.
Rakich: Yeah—among the, like, five percent of people who have heard of him.
Bacon: No, that’s all I admit. He’s not Bernie Sanders. For those following the news. Not just Bluesky, but elements of Bluesky hero. Anything on the “Chrises” you don’t—no chance?
Conroy: Murphy, I think he is—his social media approach is reaching people. I think it goes viral on Instagram, like, clips of it. I still don’t think people register who he is or that he’s running for president, but I think he has become a good spokesperson and he is very effective. So, maybe the next one.
Rakich: I just don’t think they’re much—they’re, like, only one notch above the random House members that I was mentioning. I don’t think they have done a good enough job in the invisible primary to be discussed the way that a Gallego, again, or a Newsom or whatever have been. And so, I think they’re starting from behind. Sure, they have the “fighter” mentality. But yeah, I just think that they’re too generic and haven’t differentiated themselves from the pack enough.
Bacon: So let’s finish by—give me the five. Now, this conversation has helped me think about this a little bit. So give me your top five. You don’t have to “draft” anymore, but I’ll give mine—I guess I’d always, if I had to do five I would say Buttigieg, Newsom, Shapiro. I think I’ve been convinced—I’m probably already thinking about Shapiro. Pritzker, and I guess AOC.
I just think that Harris is the “non-starter,” for sure. So I guess I’ll go with those five. Nathaniel?
Rakich: It would be similar for me. I’m just—I’m thinking about, like, the five people who, if you were having a debate, would make the debate stage right now. I think that’s Newsom, Harris, Buttigieg, AOC, and Shapiro. And I think everybody below that is just, like, one of a million people who is at like three percent in the polls and could have a “moment”—like somebody like Gallego—but is not guaranteed to.
I also don’t want to say that—I think there are people in those top five who are polling decently right now, but who have ceilings. And so, I don’t think that would be my order if I’m talking about, like, “odds of winning the nomination.” But when, in 20 years, we look back—and right now we think about the two—back in 2004, it was John Kerry, and it was John Edwards, and it was Howard Dean. I think those five will be, like, the story of the primary, if that makes sense.
Conroy: Interesting. I think my five would be the exact same as Nathaniel’s. I’m struggling with if I had to swap Pritzker for Shapiro. But logic tells me, if the stage had five people, it would be Shapiro. So yeah, the same list as Nathaniel, which was AOC, Buttigieg, Newsom, and Harris.
Bacon: There were three dudes so, Buttigieg, Shapiro, Newsom—
Conroy: Can you imagine a Democratic primary stage with no women on it? That’d be wild. It’s been a while. It would be “wild” for the Republicans, but that would be wild for the left.
Rakich: Yeah. We are—like, in the last... I don’t know, I think back to, again, 2004, which is when I was starting to become, like, politically aware and stuff. And, like, we’ve come a long way where... yeah, Carol Moseley Braun... I was going to say, she ran in that year, but she was not—everybody was like, “Oh, like, she was a senator.” She was a sitting senator, I know, and like, she was off to the side. People were not taking her seriously.
And I do think, like, those days are over, and that’s remarkable. But at the same time, I think that the “electability backlash” is going to make it, probably, a less diverse stage than certainly than it was in 2020.
Bacon: This was fun. I learned a lot. I’m thinking about this more. Any other final thoughts before I let you guys go?
Conroy: No, but that checklist—make sure you give a link to your old FiveThirtyEight checklist.
Bacon: Yes, I haven’t thought about that in a while. So the piece basically argued that there are, I think, seven signs when [someone is running for] president. Have you gone to Iowa? Have you gone to New Hampshire? Have you gone to South Carolina? Have you written a book? It’s your fault that I looked up all these!
Rakich: Hang on, I’m looking this [up]—I’m [working] with the others now. They were obvious. I’m pulling it up right now. Let’s see. It is: Visited Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina; wrote a book; included in polls; helped campaign for others. Making at least one campaign appearance outside of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina for their party’s candidates for governor or Senate. And then a “magazine profile” is the last one.
Bacon: That one probably doesn’t [hold up]. You used to do a profile with Time Magazine if you were running, or the New York Times Magazine. I think that one—I think, now, that’s interesting. If I did this one today, it would be, like—I actually mentioned it: Have you been on Pod Save America?
Rakich: Yeah.
Bacon: Ossoff was on Pod Save America. That was my clue. And he did a long sit-down with them—which doesn’t help you win Georgia, but maybe it does. But I think that’s more about national than Georgia.
Conroy: You should also add something about using social media to [counter] the Trump administration or something. There’s, yeah, you need to update that list. There’s lots of indicators.
Rakich: Yeah. I’ll help. I’ll put it in the chat here. Hang on.
Bacon: What would be the other one? Okay, so what is the other [one] in this conversation? There’s something about social media, but I can’t land on what that is right now.
Conroy: Just saying, I think there’s something that you have to be doing on social media in 2028. And yeah, we haven’t nailed it down, but give us some time.
Rakich: Yeah.
Bacon: Alright, thanks. This was longer than usual, so good. Thanks for joining me. Thanks to the audience, the people who tuned in. Good to see you guys.
Conroy: Thanks for having me.
Rakich: Bye.
