Jonathan Martin of Politico wrote a long piece on Kamala Harris’ book tour, now having lasted than her actual presidential campaign, 166 days to 107. Martin takes a generally skeptical look at the “Harris 2028” buzz, concluding, “it’s easy to see a scenario in which Harris, after the midterms, finally considers a campaign, picks up the phone to call party leaders and is met with the same response I received in Charleston when I forced her name into the conversation: friendly, not at all antagonistic and not at all encouraging.”
Whether you’re looking at Race to the White House or RealClearPolitics aggregations of national polls, Harris is still technically the frontrunner in the early polling for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, but there’s a widespread sense that her status is mostly driven by name recognition. (Running a surprisingly close second at this point is her fellow San Francisco progressive, California governor Gavin Newsom. He has an indefensible record on the cost of living in his state, but as Vogue and Katie Couric have said, Newsom is “embarrassingly handsome” and “ridiculously good-looking.” )
Put me down as contending that Harris’ frontrunner status will prove as durable as a sandcastle once 2027 begins. There’s just going to be too widespread a sense of “been there, done that,” with Harris, and too many more appealing and seemingly more electable new options. Democrats have already seen what Harris can do, without having to have a primary fight, with nearly $2 billion in campaign resources, up against what Democrats thought was a deeply flawed GOP rival. Newcomers like Newsom, Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, Kentucky governor Andy Beshear, Arizona senator Mark Kelly, Illinois governor JB Pritzker, Maryland governor Wes Moore and others are at least a new and different option, with likely better odds than re-running the same candidate and hoping for better results.