Were she to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, Kamala Harris would enter the race with formidable advantages. Thanks to four years as vice president and two presidential bids, her name identification is universal, and she has demonstrated the ability to raise mounds of money. But she would not clear the field. 

The list of possible contenders for the Democratic nomination is a mile long and includes governors (California’s Gavin Newsom, Kentucky’s Andy Beshear, Maryland’s Wes Moore, Pennsylvania’s Josh Shapiro and Illinois’ J.B. Pritzker), lawmakers (Arizona Sens. Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and California Rep. Ro Khanna), former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, to name a few. In an Emerson College poll released July 23, Harris came in fifth with 8%, trailing Buttigieg (19%), Newsom (17%), Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff (13%) and Ocasio-Cortez (13%). 

But as she weighs a third presidential bid, Harris stands to face a bigger and more formidable opponent: herself.

Harris was done dirty by the Biden White House. It was nothing short of political malpractice to handicap and undercut a loyal veep who, according to actuarial tables, could have easily been elevated to the Oval Office in the event of the aging president’s death. (Considering Joe Biden’s post-presidency diagnosis of aggressive metastatic cancer, his staff’s treatment of Harris looks even more outrageous in hindsight.) This was particularly true because, after enduring brutal press cycles in her first two years as vice president, Harris ended up becoming a secret weapon of sorts for Biden, passionate and nimble on the stump in defending reproductive rights in the wake of the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, and making skillful strides on the world stage.

But if she was not set up for success by the administration while in office, Harris now appears to be falling into a trap of her own making, even as she is “holding lengthy, closed-door meetings” with progressive activists and groups.

In a recent New York magazine feature, a supporter of the vice president — identified as someone “who had recently spoken with her and came away convinced [she] is running in 2028” — inadvertently revealed what, if accurate, looks likely to be her Achilles’ heel. “She is looking for where the wave is going and is determined to ride it,” they said.

Left unsaid was that this is what Harris has long been accused of doing — again and again. 

There’s a balance every politician must strike: retaining one’s authenticity while remaining open to recalibrating policy positions in response to new evidence or simply evolving, or to match shifts in the public mood. Some, like Biden, are particularly skilled at this. But charges of flip-flopping cling to other politicians like barnacles on a sailboat, becoming a drag on their campaigns and threatening long-term structural damage to their brand.

This is where Harris is at right now. Despite her national profile, there remains a nagging suspicion that she lacks an internal compass and the courage of her convictions. Since she was first elected to public office as San Francisco district attorney in 2003, she has sometimes shifted positions according to which rung of the political ladder she was climbing. 

As the junior senator from California, a progressive state, Harris was vocal in her support for Medicare for All. Famously, in a June 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, she raised her hand when the moderator asked candidates if they would support eliminating private insurance. Her campaign quickly attempted to walk back her response, and she began softening her position by releasing a plan that called for expanding access to Medicare while maintaining private insurance options. As Biden’s running mate, she supported his position of expanding the Affordable Care Act. 

Harris’ shifts on healthcare, while anathema to some progressives, are easier to justify: Her core value of wanting universal healthcare didn’t change, she might explain, only her approach did. But her shift on fracking is much harder to square.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

During her 2020 presidential bid, Harris expressed support for an outright ban on fracking, and she brought along a record as California attorney general of investigating oil companies for environmental abuses. But in the face of heat from Donald Trump and Republicans, and needing to put Pennsylvania in the Democratic column on election night, Harris clumsily reversed her position while claiming her “values have not changed” and that she was “seeking consensus.” The explanation didn’t seem to ring true for many voters, and she lost Pennsylvania to Trump by 1.7%.

There have been other policy reversals as well, ranging from the death penalty and cash bail to marijuana and immigration, which have left her vulnerable to Republican attacks and made some Democrats wary. 

The New York magazine story indicated that Harris was blaming political consultants for her loss in 2024. “Her mindset is that I should have won,” a supporter told the outlet, “and I am going to do it my way because my way would have won, and it was all these consultants that were telling me to take this position or that position, and it was their fault.”

The problem is that this mindset further adds to the perception of Harris as a political opportunist, and should she eventually enter the primary, it will raise questions about her judgment and management that she will have to confront.

The Democratic Party has changed in the two years since her presidential campaign. The ideological fissures are more apparent, with democratic socialist candidates winning primaries — and elections, in the case of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whom Harris notably called in June — and nearly two years into the Trump’s second term, the party has become much more restive and angry.

For 2028, Democrats aren’t wanting someone who is searching for a wave to ride to victory. They want someone to instead be that wave.

The post Kamala Harris’ biggest opponent in 2028? Herself appeared first on Salon.com.

When you’re allegedly throwing phones at the desks of junior aides, there’s a problem that goes deeper than unmanaged anger. 

According to a damning story published in Sunday’s New York Times, embattled Democratic National Committee chair Ken Martin has descended into rage, fear, isolation and — according to his own supporters — ”a growing sense of paranoia” about his tenure atop the party. 

Elected by DNC membership in February 2025 after a fractious race, Martin nonetheless took office with high expectations, seen as someone in the mold of former chair Howard Dean who would rebuild the party and devise a strategy to, if not win back rural voters, then at least mitigate Democratic losses. Instead, Martin’s tenure has been an ongoing series of fumbles, including a high-profile feud with party activist David Hogg and the bungled handling of the DNC’s 2024 election autopsy.  

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Now, with the midterms now only 100 days away, the RNC has banked a war chest of $128.5 million, and the DNC is reportedly $2 million in debt. According to NOTUS, in 2025 the DNC used its headquarters in Southeast Washington as collateral for a $15 million line of credit used to bolster its investments in off-year elections. As the Times story and a recent report in the Wall Street Journal make clear, Martin is also hemorrhaging the party’s confidence and loyalty.

The implications for Democrats in the midterms are potentially serious. But part of Martin’s remit is to pave the way for a Democratic win in the 2028 presidential election, when the DNC’s role becomes even more powerful and critical. So far, he has shown few signs of being able to do so, leaving the party at a disadvantage in a political environment that should favor them. When everything else is stripped away, that alone typifies Martin’s failure of leadership.

The post DNC chair Ken Martin is under fire and melting down appeared first on Salon.com.

A few days ago I wrote about popular constitutionalism and Slate’s new podcast series on that topic. This is a critical civic topic because it is probably the only and certainly the proper path back from systemic corruption of the current Supreme Court and the broader problem of judicial supremacy. (If this is fuzzy or if it’s unclear what I’m talking about see that earlier post.) But what that Slate discussion quickly arrived at is that to have that kind of popular constitutionalism, the ability of the people to make decisions about what the U.S. Constitution requires or forbids, you need robust and functioning political parties. And one of the key features of American politics over the last 50 years is that parties really don’t exist anymore in the sense they did for upwards of a century and a half in American politics.

In Maine, sexual assault allegations against former Senate nominee Graham Platner prompted his abrupt exit from the race against Sen. Susan Collins. His departure has kicked off an impromptu race for the Democratic Senate nomination that could well be resolved before the convention even takes place, as campaigns make last-minute pushes to elect their preferred slate of delegates at the county level — and progressives believe they have the advantage.

In the primary election, Platner won 71% of the vote running on a progressive platform, including campaign finance reform, universal healthcare, ending mass deportations and ending billionaire welfare, among a broad slate of other policies. He also enjoyed the endorsement of prominent party leaders like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. However, his campaign was dogged by scandal, most notably including the revelation that he had a Totenkopf tattoo and allegations of “unsettling” behavior from past girlfriends. Platner also faced questions from fellow progressives regarding the time he spent employed as a security contractor associated with the mercenary force Blackwater.

Last week, Platner announced his withdrawal from the race, following an allegation of rape from a former girlfriend, Jenny Racicot. His exit from the race has, in turn, set off a flurry of political organizing from Democrats. The new nominating process will see the 16 county parties elect slates of delegates, 601 in total, who will in turn vote to select the new nominee at a July 25 convention in Bangor.

Ahead of this new process, a handful of candidates have gained the most traction, including Troy Jackson, the former president of the Maine Senate; Nirav Shah, the former principal director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Shenna Bellows, Maine’s Secretary of State. Significant attention has been paid to Jordan Wood, former chief of staff to former Rep. Katie Porter, D-Ca., brewery owner Dan Kleban and environmental policy consultant David Costello.

However, the upcoming convention will look more like the sort of nominating conventions that dominated party politics prior to the widespread adoption of the primary election nominating process. The organizing around the convention process looks different, too.

Whereas canvassing, mailers, rallies and TV advertising might rule in typical primaries, the short race ahead of the convention is currently focused on getting supporters to show up at the county-level delegate elections slated for July 18 and 19. To do this, campaigns have leaned on both digital ads and phonebanking, as well as pre-existing political relationships.

For example, the Shah campaign has been attempting to recruit former Platner supporters behind the scenes, while making clear publicly that they have a place in this campaign, according to Politico. Similarly, the group Our Revolution, which was founded as a way to carry forward the grassroots organizing behind Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, has thrown its organizing capacity behind Jackson’s candidacy.

The name of the game for the moment is for a candidate to get as many of their supporters at their respective county delegate elections as possible in order to elect the friendliest slate of delegates for their candidacy. The Jackson campaign, for example, has rolled out slates of delegates who promise to vote for Jackson at the convention in all of Maine’s counties.

One of the delegate candidates in Androscoggin County, Kiernan Majerus-Collins, who is also running for a state house seat, told Salon that he believes the current process benefits the four candidates — Jackson, Shah, Bellows and Wood — who already had campaigns in 2026, as well as those who already have connections in Maine politics. Considering Jackson and Bellows have the most experience in Maine politics, it likely means they’ll have a leg up, according to Majerus-Collins.

“Troy and Jenna have decades of relationships with those people that Dr. Shah, Wood and Kleban just don’t have,” Majerus-Collins said. “And it’s not to say that the political newcomers can’t make their case and don’t have a chance to win. They absolutely do, but it absolutely is going to be helpful to the candidates who are more familiar to the 600 most politically connected Democrats in the state.”

Majerus-Collins added, however, that there are some complicating factors in the race as well. For example, while Jackson’s campaign is rolling out slates of delegate candidates, not every campaign is. And, though many delegate candidates are explicitly running on the basis of supporting a specific Senate candidate, others are running on a promise to use their best judgment at the convention, or on pre-existing political relationships with their communities. The races are also crowded. In Androscoggin County, 188 candidates put their names forward for just 31 county delegate roles.

“A lot of the delegate candidate statements are something like, ‘Susan Collins is terrible, and it’s very important to defeat Susan Collins,’ which, from just a perspective of someone voting, is not that useful,” Majerus-Collins said.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

John “Jak” Raymond, a delegate candidate in Hancock County, also underlined how the county delegate electorate differs from the primary electorate. Maine runs what are called semi-open primaries, in which unaffiliated voters can choose to vote in either major party’s primary. This nominating process, however, will include only Democrats who were registered with the party as of June 9.

“He found a way to pull those woods hippies out of the woods, and if we can keep them moving out of the woods, then that’s what’s needed, because we’re a purple state and it’s only becoming more purple every year,” Raymond said in an interview with Salon.

Jackson, in Raymond’s view, stands the best chance of keeping the coalition that supported Platner in the primary together, mostly because his platform has the most in common with what Platner ran on.

“Troy, I think, is the strongest. He’s got six years as president of the Maine Senate and another four years serving before that, so he has the tools and he knows the system,” Raymond said. “But he’s also a progressive with a platform that pretty much mirrors Platner’s, and Platner grew the grassroots.”

The post Maine progressives hold edge in race to replace Graham Platner appeared first on Salon.com.

American voters desperately want relief from rising prices — especially the increasingly unaffordable cost of healthcare. Democrats have a plan for that.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren recently introduced the Break Up Big Medicine Act with Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., a bill that would split up the huge conglomerates that have made the current healthcare system so expensive and frustrating to navigate. Businessman Mark Cuban recently quipped that breaking up these near-monopolies could bring costs down by 40%.

If Democrats run on this healthcare affordability agenda, we stand a good chance of flipping not just the House, but the Senate too.

Insurers like UnitedHealth or Cigna don’t just sell coverage. They’ve consolidated power over virtually every part of our healthcare system, operating hospitals, clinics and pharmacy networks. And they use that control to generate billions in profits — by pushing patients toward care at the facilities they control.

UnitedHealth Group, for example, generates about 40% of its revenue — about $180 billion — from transactions between its thousands of subsidiaries. Its insurance branch steers patients to its roughly 90,000 affiliated doctors, and pressures those physicians to refer patients to its affiliated hospitals and clinics rather than lower-cost independent providers. And that’s not all. The company’s pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) arm pushes patients to affiliated pharmacies. Those pharmacies frequently upcharge patients for medicines, sometimes by 10 times the acquisition cost.

UnitedHealth Group is the largest of these conglomerates, but it’s hardly the only firm that operates this way. CVS Health owns Aetna, one of the nation’s largest insurers, in addition to the more than 9,000 CVS pharmacies it’s best known for. It also owns CVS Caremark, one of the nation’s largest PBM.

In theory, PBMs exist to save employers money by overseeing all the drug-related details of health insurance plans, and using their bulk-buying power to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for big discounts and rebates. PBMs often tell employers that they pass along all the discounts and rebates they receive to the employer, minus a small fee for their services.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.
Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

What they typically don’t mention is that many PBMs are affiliated with foreign-based entities called “group purchasing organizations.” In 2025, the House Oversight Committee launched an investigation into whether PBMs are using these overseas entities to skirt government oversight. Lawmakers have raised concerns that these arrangements allow PBMs to retain rebate-related revenue and fees within opaque corporate structures, rather than transparently passing those savings on to employers and patients.

Meanwhile, insurers continually deny coverage for treatments and procedures that patients need. They often force doctors to get insurer approval — known as prior authorization — before prescribing, or they force patients onto less effective drugs. That places an immense administrative burden on physicians, who can spend an average of 12 hours per week completing prior authorizations, time that they’d certainly rather spend with patients.

Prior authorization can have dire consequences for patients. More than eight in 10 patients that face prior authorization simply give up on treatment. About a quarter of doctors say that prior authorization delays have led to a serious adverse event for a patient in their care — whether that’s hospitalization, permanent damage or death.

Breaking up the healthcare conglomerates that have enriched themselves by immiserating patients and cheating employers is good policy.

Polls show that voters overwhelmingly support bold healthcare reform. According to a recent poll, nearly seven in ten insured Americans identified either lowering out-of-pocket costs or nixing prior authorization as the single most important change they want from their health insurance. It would be a mistake for Democrats to content themselves with merely tweaking the Inflation Reduction Act, the party’s last major healthcare reform, which primarily focused on reducing the federal government’s pharmaceutical spending.

That kind of incrementalism won’t work — Democrats cannot win by being Republican-lite. We need to target the insurer and PBM practices that directly drive up Americans’ out-of-pocket costs and force too many people to choose between filling their prescriptions and filling their gas tanks.

If Democrats are looking for a 50-state strategy for the midterms — something I insisted on as chair of the Democratic National Committee during the 2006 blue wave — Sen. Warren’s bill offers a great place to start.

The post Democrats’ key to winning the midterms appeared first on Salon.com.