Some leading Democrats, still reeling from repeated electoral defeats, are now quietly arguing that their partys best hope in 2028 may be to nominate a straight, white, Christian man for president.
According to The Post Millennial, party insiders are increasingly worried that the electorate is too skeptical of female or otherwise diverse candidates, despite President Barack Obamas two successful presidential campaigns. Democrats have reportedly become more pessimistic about who voters will accept, with Axios quoting one Democratic strategist as saying, "There is a fear and I actually don't think this is just a grass-tops fear, I think you'd hear it from voters, too that a woman has now lost twice," before adding, "So not discounting the hundreds of other times men have lost but is it the right thing to nominate a woman?"
These conversations are said to be taking place largely behind closed doors, yet some prominent Democrats have begun airing their concerns in public. In November, former first lady Michelle Obama lamented that the United States has "got a lot of growing up to do, and there's still, sadly, a lot of men who do not feel like they can be led by a woman."
South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn agreed that Obama was "absolutely correct," while still insisting that a woman should run for the presidency regardless of those cultural headwinds. Former President Joe Biden, appearing on The View last year, blamed Kamala Harris defeat on sexism, suggesting that bias rather than policy or performance explained her failure to connect with voters.
Polling data, however, paint a sobering picture for the partys most famous female standard-bearers. The latest YouGov numbers show Hillary Clinton with a popularity rating of roughly 35 percent, while Kamala Harris stands at about 47.9 percent, even though critics have long argued that both women were among the least likable candidates in their respective cycles.
Harris herself has acknowledged the political constraints she believed she faced as a diversity candidate in a country she portrays as resistant to her identity. In her campaign memoir "107 Days," she wrote that she felt compelled to choose a straight man over Pete Buttigieg as her running mate, saying he would have been "an ideal partner if I were a straight, white man."
Harris further explained the calculation behind that decision, underscoring how much identity politics shaped her campaign strategy. "But we were already asking a lot of America: to accept a woman, a Black woman, a Black woman married to a Jewish man," she wrote, adding, "Part of me wanted to say, 'Screw it, let's just do it.' But knowing what was at stake, it was too big of a risk."
Not all Democrats accept the narrative that America will not elect a woman or a non-white, non-Christian candidate, and some are openly challenging the defeatism. Rep. Ro Khanna dismissed the hand-wringing, saying, "They have no idea what they are talking about.The data says otherwise."
Khanna argued that Harris coalition problems lay not with white voters broadly, but with key minority and youth blocs that Democrats have long taken for granted. Harris "got the same white votes as Barack Obama," he said, adding, "What she lost in white men, she made up in white women. But we didn't win as many Latino Americans, Asian Americans, black men or young voters."
As President Trumps second administration continues to reshape the political landscape, Democrats appear torn between doubling down on identity politics and retreating to a more traditional profile they once derided as emblematic of privilege. Their internal debate over whether only a straight, white, Christian male can win in 2028 exposes a party struggling to reconcile its ideological rhetoric with electoral reality, even as it risks alienating both its activist base and the working- and middle-class voters it needs to regain power.
Login