At the moment, I really think it could be Newsom, mostly for "who the hell else do we got?" reasons.
I admit, just for sheer entertainment value, I sneakily would like to see Kamala running again. Imagine trying to pick a VP this time round. Buttigieg? "After you said I was too gay in your book?" Shapiro? "After what you said about me, and if anyone wants to know they can read all about it in my revenge memoir in all good bookstores right now?" Any other human with a pulse on this planet? "Uh, after seeing what happened Tim Walz, so sorry, I'm washing my hair that night".
EDIT: I mean, the Pritzkers? Kinda tough to be running An Actual Billionaire From A Family of Billionaires and reconcile that with your "eat the rich, billionaires are the most evil people on the planet responsible for all your ills, take their money and redistribute it" messaging.
We don't really know who else we've got until anyone actually announces they're running. Gavin Newsom is the favourite largely just because he's the only one who is more likely than not to try running.
A smarmy mainstream democrat white guy, an airhead black career obsessed wife and their bratty fiery, adopted, Latinx-socialist daughter sounds like the woke casting of a family ties reboot.
Why would there be any clarity on the 2028 race in February of 2026? People should feel bad for reading these polls, let alone performing them. What is the point of this other than take-generation?
Like, we are seriously at the "the order you say the candidates in massively affects the response" stage, there is nothing worth polling. We are just addicted to this shit and it's sad.
This is not new at all. You can find polls from January 1969 as to who Democrats wanted to be the nominee in 1972. A polling company, by its very nature, conducts polls. Yes, this far out, they're usually not very indicative of who will win the nomination. (Ted Kennedy was generally the most popular choice from '69 to Dec '71, with Muskie being the other top choice).
I know it's not new but it's still incredibly stupid.
At least in 1969 they had the excuse of the upcoming primary being unprecedented and novel. And the two "frontrunners" were merely the two most famous people: the surviving Kennedy brother and Humphrey's running mate, which established early on that polls at this stage are meaningless. I wouldn't even say "approximately meaningless," just, full-on "meaningless."
Let's not forget Joe Biden's gift-wrapped candy box to Jim Clyburn - South Carolina will be the first primary in 2028. Anyone who was hoping for Pete Buttigieg 2 (The Buttining) has to remember that all their groundgame in Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't mean much next to a bucket of cold water from the opening contest.
Jokes aside, anyone who said anything on the "Biden is fine" Continuum AFTER the debate should step aside. All of them. Kamela, Buttigieg, probably Shapiro, I don't remember all their individual statements, but if it didn't lean towards, "old man needs to fuck off now" then your credibility is shot. I don't just mean for general election voters, I mean for me.
They could just do with Biden's re-election bid what Trump did with the Iraq War, and just brazenly lie and say they were acrually always against it the whole time. The most against it, nobody was ever so against it as them. In fact, it was actually the Republicans who were behind that whole Biden thing from the start.
Republicans being behind Biden has a superficial plausibility, lol.
Yes, i know, Etch-a Sketch time. But seriously, there was a moment of very public crisis, and they should have said. "Oh my god, I knew of course that the president was getting old, but his diminishment was way beyond what his family and closest advisors and of course he himself should have ever allowed. That is deeply dangerous and totally unacceptable and i will not support it." Who ever got the closest to this (Seth Moulton maybe) is way out ahead for me. A kinder, gentler, pussified version is fine, they are after all politicians. But if your personal fondness for a work friend is more important to you than your country you are demonstrably unqualified to be the President.
thin resume? i can see the issues with kamala and do not think she should run but her resume is fat as hell
-lawyer (knows law and it matters)
-DA
-AG
-Senate
she’s been a public servant for years and has a decent record, not stellar but not a nightmare. I call this a pretty good resume that reflects years of public service and familiarity with govt
That is not a good resume in running for president, your resume for running for president would be doing something noteworthy to get those jobs (like winning a contested election) or doing a good job in those jobs (which she did not do), being competent at failing upward in the progressive part of California is not a thick resume for a presidential run. Now, if this was for a more normal type of job, yes it would be a thick resume.
⬆️Grow up. There are not many people who are in noteworthy contested elections, and of those ppl, very few will move on to be electable nationally. We cannot expect a fucking superhero or storybook big winner story every time. The presidency has had many boring ppl as well whose achievements were far less than hers. Pick up a presidential trivia book for kids and you’ll see that many different situations produce presidents.
She has solid experience with statewide elections. Democtatic primaries in Cali are no walk in the park. There is no planet where an ex senator with a law degree and titles of AG and DA under her belt doesn’t have a strong resume. Objectively this is a good resume for US president. To say it isn’t is like saying Madonna doesn’t have a proper background to be a famous pop star because she never sang that well and marketed sexy books -it sounds so silly but i cannot find anything comparable. It’s ridiculous.
You do not have to want her to run. You do not have to cheerlead abilities you don’t think she has. But you don’t get to pretend that having all those positions isn’t a strong resume for the presidency
Grow Up? Really? A good resume to run for president is either showing you are good at running (i.e. winning a contested election or as a D in a red location), or that you would be good at being president (via actually doing a good job in things that may be applicable to the job of president, which means having good accomplishments in these jobs). Kamala has none of these, which is why she has a thin resume.
California is extremely progressive compared to the nationwide electorate, winning statewide has more to do with winning the D primary than winning a contested general election, which require. very different skills and attributes frequently. Kamala's resume is pretty good in running in highly progressive environments (her local stuff is all Bay Area, contesting with Portland and Seattle for the progressive capital of the US). Kamala has a strong resume for running for office in progressive heavy locations, but none of her resume gives any indication that she has the skills to run for president effectively as most of the country is not progressive and she has not done anything to show she has effective skills at running for general contested elections (her bombing out in the primary debates in 2020 shows that pretty strongly) and none of what she did in any of her jobs showcased good leadership or any other qualities that indicate she would do a good job if elected president. Good to know that you are a big believer in credentialism though, as you seem to think checking the right boxes is enough for a good resume, and not showcasing the right attributes or showing personal accomplishments that indicate the required skills for the job are present.
i think you don’t know what a resume is. You’re talking about her presidential campaigns. Her debates were not good and her public speaking skills are lacking.
A resume is basically a list of your work experience-offices and jobs you’ve held. That’s it. That’s all. Her resume says she has lots of experience as a
public servant. Her resume is not “bombing out” during a campaign. It is a list of offices she held and when and it begins with her graduating high school. Yes she does win elections, and in cali primaries are not easy. That being said her presidential campaigns were not great. It is unfortunate because her resume is strong.
Look up the word “resume”-in the sense that it is a document containing one’s work experience. Did you have one?
i think we’ve reached an unfortunate spot if we look at a person who has held a US senate office, office of AG, of DA, and has worked as a lawyer for years and say “that’s a thin resume.” That’s literally what you would want a public servant to have a background in.
I do know what a resume is, I also know that the president of the US's resume is a lot different than for a normal job, so what a presidential resume needs is not a list of jobs that the person has, but a list of accomplishments that make it look like the person is either a candidate with a high chance of winning or a candidate that would do a good job as president. Being a senator, and AG, or a DA is not enough, there are 100 senators at any moment and most don't become president, AG of a state is not a launching pad for president so is almost meaningless here unless she did something noteworthy as a AG, and DA does nothing for becoming a president (almost no DAs become president, so how does having it on her resume make her look better than any other DA trying to become president). That is why I am saying that the resume needs accomplishments, because all she has are a bunch of jobs that don't really do much (other than maybe the senator a little) for becoming president. Padding a resume with job experience that is irrelevant for the job the resume is applying to doesn't make the resume thicker. The president is not a public servant, it is the public leader, which is why accomplishments in Kamala's roles where she showed effective leadership are the things I was saying she would need for her resume, and she doesn't have those. If she was applying for a cabinet position in someone else's presidency, then depending on the position some of those may apply, but none of her past experience on it's own demonstrates anything that indicates she is a good fit for the job, hence she has a thin resume.
I would be interested to know whether you can identify a single accomplishment by Harris at any of positions, including VP. The only things I can recall are (1) she gave a lot of speeches criticizing the Dobbs decision, (2) she stated that we need to improve conditions in Latin American countries in order to remove the incentive to immigrate to the US.
? if you want to know her notable accomplishments in her offices do you know anyone else’s???? Fuck no you don’t. You don’t give a shit. Most public servants will take credit for something that they took part of. Many take decades to achieve one noteworthy accomplishment if that.
Pick up a presidential trivia book -even one for kids --and see if you could honestly say a lot of those presidents had glowing prior achievements. Hell sit your ass down and hit the google and try to look up every candidate and public servants and try to pinpoint what you think is a noteworthy.
Or how about grow up, and perhaps consider that this resume would have been rock star in some jazzier type that impresses you, and that you want a glowing movie mock up profile instead of a dedicated public servant who knows their office and knows the laws and the govt.
George Washington: held his country's army together during its war of independence for seven years, despite issues with being able to pay and feed his soldiers, and presided over the Constitutional convention
Thomas Jefferson: wrote the Declaration of Independence and served as Governor of Virginia and Secretary of State
James Madison: most influential person in the writing of the Constitution, served as Secretary of State
James Monroe: served as Secretary of State and oversaw the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812 better than we had any right to expect
John Quincy Adams: served as Secretary of State, helping negotiate several successful treaties with Britain and Spain
Andrew Jackson: led armies to victory against the Indians and British, and took Florida from Spain
William Henry Harrison: led armies to victory against the Indians and the British and negotiated multiple treaties with the former
Ulysses S. Grant: led Union armies to victory in the ACW
James Garfield: a genuine polymath
Theodore Roosevelt: made NYC politics less dirty and helped set us up well for the Spanish-American war
Herbert Hoover: led very successful refugee assistance and famine relief efforts in Belgium during WWI and Russia during the early 1920s
Harry Truman: helped save the equivalent of $260 billion in 2026 during WWII via his work investigating corruption and waste in the war effort
Dwight Eisenhower: oversaw the Allied war effort in Europe and managed to keep Churchill, de Gaulle, Montgomery, and Patton from murdering each other.
yeah just get the absolute fuck out of here. Not all presidents were the founding fathers esp back when a lot of ppl couldn’t fucking read, or Roosevelt from one of the richest families, or the truman era when large swaths of ppl had no electricity or running water
be serious
it is one thing to not want her ass as the candidate. That is a defensible position. Nobody acquits themselves of misogyny if they have to contort to ridiculous fucking positions like being a US senator along with AG of the largest state-like a country actually-and DA of its most populous county is a thin resume. It’s ridiculous. The majority of candidates are also much less qualified resume/accomplishments. Critique her on something reasonable. Show that you’re not a stupid asshole.
Remember the candidates she is running against. They all have similar accomplishments and many have even less experience as public servants. Show some common sense. Say she doesn’t campaign well. Give some meat to your criticism. You ppl look like assholes and it makes others resent you, and that’s part of why dems don’t get together well. You have to get ugly.
motherfuckers who liked ppl like ron desantis having the nerve. We were all retconned into thinking hillary was subpar too-dislike her campaigning but the credentials and accomplishments were clearly there
what about abe lincoln!!! lol his accomplishments were not exactly there and he’s a rockstar of american history. Be like “ i did not approve of harris as an AG bc she supported this bad thing etc” but no, we all have to sit and play stupid now.
I feel confident in ignoring the I&I/TIPP poll as folks just trolling. That is the only explanation for the idea that 3% of Democrats supposedly want Tim Walz to the party's nominee.
Who are these rubes that answer these polls, anyway? I’m interested in politics, but I have the same response to unsolicited calls from pollsters as I do when the IRS asks if I want to donate to the presidential campaign fund; “Hahaha, no thank you.”
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if you actually go through with answering once, your phone number is going to be passed along to other pollsters, and you suddenly will get more calls. The pollsters will prefer an unrepresentative sample that answers the phone to calling people who never answer.
Fine, but don’t forget the old saying, “As Moose Vagina, Michigan goes, so goes the nation.”
How about a governor that has had success in a red or purple state and doesn't have a ton of baggage?
Nah, let's go with Newsom or Harris. YOLO!
Yeah, take THAT people who answered the dumbest poll ever.
BTW, what are you planning on having for breakfast a week from next Friday?
Shredded wheat and blueberries, I need more fiber and antioxidants.
At the moment, I really think it could be Newsom, mostly for "who the hell else do we got?" reasons.
I admit, just for sheer entertainment value, I sneakily would like to see Kamala running again. Imagine trying to pick a VP this time round. Buttigieg? "After you said I was too gay in your book?" Shapiro? "After what you said about me, and if anyone wants to know they can read all about it in my revenge memoir in all good bookstores right now?" Any other human with a pulse on this planet? "Uh, after seeing what happened Tim Walz, so sorry, I'm washing my hair that night".
EDIT: I mean, the Pritzkers? Kinda tough to be running An Actual Billionaire From A Family of Billionaires and reconcile that with your "eat the rich, billionaires are the most evil people on the planet responsible for all your ills, take their money and redistribute it" messaging.
We don't really know who else we've got until anyone actually announces they're running. Gavin Newsom is the favourite largely just because he's the only one who is more likely than not to try running.
A smarmy mainstream democrat white guy, an airhead black career obsessed wife and their bratty fiery, adopted, Latinx-socialist daughter sounds like the woke casting of a family ties reboot.
Why would there be any clarity on the 2028 race in February of 2026? People should feel bad for reading these polls, let alone performing them. What is the point of this other than take-generation?
Like, we are seriously at the "the order you say the candidates in massively affects the response" stage, there is nothing worth polling. We are just addicted to this shit and it's sad.
This is not new at all. You can find polls from January 1969 as to who Democrats wanted to be the nominee in 1972. A polling company, by its very nature, conducts polls. Yes, this far out, they're usually not very indicative of who will win the nomination. (Ted Kennedy was generally the most popular choice from '69 to Dec '71, with Muskie being the other top choice).
I know it's not new but it's still incredibly stupid.
At least in 1969 they had the excuse of the upcoming primary being unprecedented and novel. And the two "frontrunners" were merely the two most famous people: the surviving Kennedy brother and Humphrey's running mate, which established early on that polls at this stage are meaningless. I wouldn't even say "approximately meaningless," just, full-on "meaningless."
Let's not forget Joe Biden's gift-wrapped candy box to Jim Clyburn - South Carolina will be the first primary in 2028. Anyone who was hoping for Pete Buttigieg 2 (The Buttining) has to remember that all their groundgame in Iowa and New Hampshire doesn't mean much next to a bucket of cold water from the opening contest.
Jokes aside, anyone who said anything on the "Biden is fine" Continuum AFTER the debate should step aside. All of them. Kamela, Buttigieg, probably Shapiro, I don't remember all their individual statements, but if it didn't lean towards, "old man needs to fuck off now" then your credibility is shot. I don't just mean for general election voters, I mean for me.
They could just do with Biden's re-election bid what Trump did with the Iraq War, and just brazenly lie and say they were acrually always against it the whole time. The most against it, nobody was ever so against it as them. In fact, it was actually the Republicans who were behind that whole Biden thing from the start.
Republicans being behind Biden has a superficial plausibility, lol.
Yes, i know, Etch-a Sketch time. But seriously, there was a moment of very public crisis, and they should have said. "Oh my god, I knew of course that the president was getting old, but his diminishment was way beyond what his family and closest advisors and of course he himself should have ever allowed. That is deeply dangerous and totally unacceptable and i will not support it." Who ever got the closest to this (Seth Moulton maybe) is way out ahead for me. A kinder, gentler, pussified version is fine, they are after all politicians. But if your personal fondness for a work friend is more important to you than your country you are demonstrably unqualified to be the President.
Also the 2032 winner for Best Actor. Just kidding, it'll all be digital cartoons.
I would like to start my comment by announcing the 2030 NFL MVP....
Who at the UNH polling team thought "yes, let's use pink for Buttigieg"?
thin resume? i can see the issues with kamala and do not think she should run but her resume is fat as hell
-lawyer (knows law and it matters)
-DA
-AG
-Senate
she’s been a public servant for years and has a decent record, not stellar but not a nightmare. I call this a pretty good resume that reflects years of public service and familiarity with govt
That is not a good resume in running for president, your resume for running for president would be doing something noteworthy to get those jobs (like winning a contested election) or doing a good job in those jobs (which she did not do), being competent at failing upward in the progressive part of California is not a thick resume for a presidential run. Now, if this was for a more normal type of job, yes it would be a thick resume.
⬆️Grow up. There are not many people who are in noteworthy contested elections, and of those ppl, very few will move on to be electable nationally. We cannot expect a fucking superhero or storybook big winner story every time. The presidency has had many boring ppl as well whose achievements were far less than hers. Pick up a presidential trivia book for kids and you’ll see that many different situations produce presidents.
She has solid experience with statewide elections. Democtatic primaries in Cali are no walk in the park. There is no planet where an ex senator with a law degree and titles of AG and DA under her belt doesn’t have a strong resume. Objectively this is a good resume for US president. To say it isn’t is like saying Madonna doesn’t have a proper background to be a famous pop star because she never sang that well and marketed sexy books -it sounds so silly but i cannot find anything comparable. It’s ridiculous.
You do not have to want her to run. You do not have to cheerlead abilities you don’t think she has. But you don’t get to pretend that having all those positions isn’t a strong resume for the presidency
Grow Up? Really? A good resume to run for president is either showing you are good at running (i.e. winning a contested election or as a D in a red location), or that you would be good at being president (via actually doing a good job in things that may be applicable to the job of president, which means having good accomplishments in these jobs). Kamala has none of these, which is why she has a thin resume.
California is extremely progressive compared to the nationwide electorate, winning statewide has more to do with winning the D primary than winning a contested general election, which require. very different skills and attributes frequently. Kamala's resume is pretty good in running in highly progressive environments (her local stuff is all Bay Area, contesting with Portland and Seattle for the progressive capital of the US). Kamala has a strong resume for running for office in progressive heavy locations, but none of her resume gives any indication that she has the skills to run for president effectively as most of the country is not progressive and she has not done anything to show she has effective skills at running for general contested elections (her bombing out in the primary debates in 2020 shows that pretty strongly) and none of what she did in any of her jobs showcased good leadership or any other qualities that indicate she would do a good job if elected president. Good to know that you are a big believer in credentialism though, as you seem to think checking the right boxes is enough for a good resume, and not showcasing the right attributes or showing personal accomplishments that indicate the required skills for the job are present.
i think you don’t know what a resume is. You’re talking about her presidential campaigns. Her debates were not good and her public speaking skills are lacking.
A resume is basically a list of your work experience-offices and jobs you’ve held. That’s it. That’s all. Her resume says she has lots of experience as a
public servant. Her resume is not “bombing out” during a campaign. It is a list of offices she held and when and it begins with her graduating high school. Yes she does win elections, and in cali primaries are not easy. That being said her presidential campaigns were not great. It is unfortunate because her resume is strong.
Look up the word “resume”-in the sense that it is a document containing one’s work experience. Did you have one?
i think we’ve reached an unfortunate spot if we look at a person who has held a US senate office, office of AG, of DA, and has worked as a lawyer for years and say “that’s a thin resume.” That’s literally what you would want a public servant to have a background in.
I do know what a resume is, I also know that the president of the US's resume is a lot different than for a normal job, so what a presidential resume needs is not a list of jobs that the person has, but a list of accomplishments that make it look like the person is either a candidate with a high chance of winning or a candidate that would do a good job as president. Being a senator, and AG, or a DA is not enough, there are 100 senators at any moment and most don't become president, AG of a state is not a launching pad for president so is almost meaningless here unless she did something noteworthy as a AG, and DA does nothing for becoming a president (almost no DAs become president, so how does having it on her resume make her look better than any other DA trying to become president). That is why I am saying that the resume needs accomplishments, because all she has are a bunch of jobs that don't really do much (other than maybe the senator a little) for becoming president. Padding a resume with job experience that is irrelevant for the job the resume is applying to doesn't make the resume thicker. The president is not a public servant, it is the public leader, which is why accomplishments in Kamala's roles where she showed effective leadership are the things I was saying she would need for her resume, and she doesn't have those. If she was applying for a cabinet position in someone else's presidency, then depending on the position some of those may apply, but none of her past experience on it's own demonstrates anything that indicates she is a good fit for the job, hence she has a thin resume.
I would be interested to know whether you can identify a single accomplishment by Harris at any of positions, including VP. The only things I can recall are (1) she gave a lot of speeches criticizing the Dobbs decision, (2) she stated that we need to improve conditions in Latin American countries in order to remove the incentive to immigrate to the US.
i get that you’re proud of this quibbling little post but man. Regardless check your restack
I guess you can't think of any either.
? if you want to know her notable accomplishments in her offices do you know anyone else’s???? Fuck no you don’t. You don’t give a shit. Most public servants will take credit for something that they took part of. Many take decades to achieve one noteworthy accomplishment if that.
Pick up a presidential trivia book -even one for kids --and see if you could honestly say a lot of those presidents had glowing prior achievements. Hell sit your ass down and hit the google and try to look up every candidate and public servants and try to pinpoint what you think is a noteworthy.
Or how about grow up, and perhaps consider that this resume would have been rock star in some jazzier type that impresses you, and that you want a glowing movie mock up profile instead of a dedicated public servant who knows their office and knows the laws and the govt.
George Washington: held his country's army together during its war of independence for seven years, despite issues with being able to pay and feed his soldiers, and presided over the Constitutional convention
Thomas Jefferson: wrote the Declaration of Independence and served as Governor of Virginia and Secretary of State
James Madison: most influential person in the writing of the Constitution, served as Secretary of State
James Monroe: served as Secretary of State and oversaw the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the War of 1812 better than we had any right to expect
John Quincy Adams: served as Secretary of State, helping negotiate several successful treaties with Britain and Spain
Andrew Jackson: led armies to victory against the Indians and British, and took Florida from Spain
William Henry Harrison: led armies to victory against the Indians and the British and negotiated multiple treaties with the former
Ulysses S. Grant: led Union armies to victory in the ACW
James Garfield: a genuine polymath
Theodore Roosevelt: made NYC politics less dirty and helped set us up well for the Spanish-American war
Herbert Hoover: led very successful refugee assistance and famine relief efforts in Belgium during WWI and Russia during the early 1920s
Harry Truman: helped save the equivalent of $260 billion in 2026 during WWII via his work investigating corruption and waste in the war effort
Dwight Eisenhower: oversaw the Allied war effort in Europe and managed to keep Churchill, de Gaulle, Montgomery, and Patton from murdering each other.
yeah just get the absolute fuck out of here. Not all presidents were the founding fathers esp back when a lot of ppl couldn’t fucking read, or Roosevelt from one of the richest families, or the truman era when large swaths of ppl had no electricity or running water
be serious
it is one thing to not want her ass as the candidate. That is a defensible position. Nobody acquits themselves of misogyny if they have to contort to ridiculous fucking positions like being a US senator along with AG of the largest state-like a country actually-and DA of its most populous county is a thin resume. It’s ridiculous. The majority of candidates are also much less qualified resume/accomplishments. Critique her on something reasonable. Show that you’re not a stupid asshole.
Remember the candidates she is running against. They all have similar accomplishments and many have even less experience as public servants. Show some common sense. Say she doesn’t campaign well. Give some meat to your criticism. You ppl look like assholes and it makes others resent you, and that’s part of why dems don’t get together well. You have to get ugly.
motherfuckers who liked ppl like ron desantis having the nerve. We were all retconned into thinking hillary was subpar too-dislike her campaigning but the credentials and accomplishments were clearly there
what about abe lincoln!!! lol his accomplishments were not exactly there and he’s a rockstar of american history. Be like “ i did not approve of harris as an AG bc she supported this bad thing etc” but no, we all have to sit and play stupid now.
It would be hilarious if after all this jockeying and prognosticating there was no election.
Good to finally see some sensible perspective on the unimportance of polls 2 years before the primaries, when no candidates have even declared yet.
I feel confident in ignoring the I&I/TIPP poll as folks just trolling. That is the only explanation for the idea that 3% of Democrats supposedly want Tim Walz to the party's nominee.
Who are these rubes that answer these polls, anyway? I’m interested in politics, but I have the same response to unsolicited calls from pollsters as I do when the IRS asks if I want to donate to the presidential campaign fund; “Hahaha, no thank you.”
And you can bet your bottom dollar that if you actually go through with answering once, your phone number is going to be passed along to other pollsters, and you suddenly will get more calls. The pollsters will prefer an unrepresentative sample that answers the phone to calling people who never answer.