Will Kamala Harris again be the Democratic nominee in 2028 or be forced into permanent political retirement?

P

resident Kamala Harris?

No, that’s not a typo; it’s what I’ve heard whispered among Democratic insiders. They’re split between worry and excitement over the prospect of the failed 2024 Democratic nominee reemerging as a viable front-runner in 2028. Harris recently embarked on a book tour, media appearances, and collecting strategic endorsements.

This year will be make-or-break for Harris: It will determine whether she will again be the Democratic nominee in 2028 or be forced into permanent political retirement.

Why does she think she has a chance?

Harris has 74 million reasons to believe she can win the nomination — about the number of votes she received in 2024. She was also elected vice president in 2020 with 81.3 million votes. That gives her instant name recognition, a potent weapon in politics.

I can prove it to you through this exercise you can play with your family. Ask them if they can name their city council member, their state representative, and their congressperson. Odds are they can’t name all three. But then ask for whom they voted for president and they will tell you immediately. This is political name recognition. Harris has it 155 million times over.

Contrast this with her top competitor Gavin Newsom, who last won re-election as California’s governor with about 6 million votes. Newsom was the most prominent Democratic voice in 2025, but Harris continues to lead him in most national polls. People know who she is. Harris understands this, and her strategy now is to simply keep her name atop the radar of public opinion.

Harris’s book, artfully titled 107 Days, shifted the blame for her failed campaign to the short timeframe she was given and to Biden’s ineptitude. The tour for her book kept her name in the press. In a year when the Democratic Party will notch big wins, it will be easy for Harris to pick rallies and endorsements for “sure thing” candidates that make her look like the party leader.

This strategy of not going away keeps Harris relevant and her name atop the polls. This is her strategy and she’s banking on victories in 2026 to continue to propel her onward.

But an old political story from long, long ago shows why this strategy is flawed.

Too Soon

Once upon a time, there was a 47-year-old man, also from California, who had just lost a presidential election. Like Harris, he too had been vice president and had served in the US Senate. Once he lost his big race, he dived right back into politics and ran for California governor. And he lost.

After his loss, he addressed reporters at a famous press conference: “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”

Richard Nixon made a colossal error by jumping too quickly back into day-to-day politics. He should have allowed the public memory of his 1960 loss to John F. Kennedy to fade. That would have given his next candidacy to be given a fresh look. Instead, he ran for California governor in 1962 and suffered an abysmal defeat, which forced him to retire.

Nixon ultimately learned his lesson; he skipped the 1964 campaign altogether and instead ran for president in 1968.

Why I’m betting against a Harris comeback

John Kerry knows this story. Hillary Clinton knows this story. Now you know this story. And it makes sense.

Did you know that the last time the Democratic Party nominated a back-to-back loser was way back in 1956, with Adlai Stevenson? Do you even know who that is?

Americans don’t like to back losing candidates, and that’s how Harris is currently perceived. I think the book tour may have kept her name in the headlines, but it also reminded Americans of her failure. Yes, you only got 107 days — but you still lost. Politics is always about the future, not the past. Harris isn’t convincingly charting out a way forward, but instead reminding us of her big failure.

I am very skeptical that 2026 will offer enough time for Harris to separate her from the 2024 loss. Not enough time has passed, and Democratic voters won’t be fooled into thinking that their imminent successes in what will likely be a blue wave will have anything to do with her.

If I were advising Harris, I would tell her to reread the Nixon story and consider her options in 2032.

38

That’s how many states have already passed laws regulating AI (artificial intelligence), according to the National Conference of State Legislators. The rest have drafted legislation waiting in the wings. This is a mind-boggling considering how slow-moving government usually is. It seems AI will continue to be in the middle of a national policy conversation this coming year.

Imagine scenarios in which AI fakes content, fakes polls, fakes voters excited about candidates or complaining about candidates. We are 11 months away from a big election that will have massive implications, and AI may be at the center of all of it. Can we sit by idly and watch AI play such a disruptive role in American democracy?

Here’s something to consider, though: It’s easy to pass sweeping bills when there is a crisis, and AI feels like a crisis. But what are the enforcement mechanisms? Are the platforms and companies self-regulating? Are there now AI police? This feels eerily similar to government’s attempt to regulate social media, which we are still sorting out.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1094)