The Republican Party, or more accurately, the MAGA movement that has increasingly come to define it, has just received a rather uncomfortable political wake-up call. The Democrats have swept back into control of both chambers of Congress, and the so-called blue wave has reached places Republicans once considered their own political territory.
Perhaps most remarkably, Texas, a state Republicans have treated as their political fortress for decades, has elected a Democratic senator and governor, while Democrats have also reclaimed control of the Texas House for the first time in more than two decades. The political map is beginning to look rather different.
Let’s be honest. Much of what the Trump administration promised two years ago appears to have gone out the window.
No more wars? Apparently not. Let’s bomb Iran.
America First? Not quite when ordinary Americans are struggling with the cost of living while billions continue to be committed to overseas military assistance, including Israel.
The promise of putting American interests first seems to have developed a rather flexible definition.
Put simply, if you don’t govern well, fail to deliver on your promises and leave voters questioning what exactly they voted for in the first place, you shouldn’t expect to remain in power indefinitely. The midterms have provided a rather emphatic reminder of that.
But this article isn’t really about Trump or the Republicans. Their political problems are fairly self-explanatory.
The more interesting question is what happens next for the Democrats.
The blue wave has given the party considerable momentum heading into the next presidential election. But who will actually get the nomination in 2028? And, perhaps more importantly, will the Democrats finally allow their own supporters to decide who leads them?
Because, despite their recent success, the party has a rather uncomfortable history when it comes to choosing presidential candidates.
In 2016, Bernie Sanders built an enormous grassroots movement and attracted considerable support, particularly among younger voters. Yet Hillary Clinton emerged as the nominee, with the Democratic establishment firmly behind her. The controversy surrounding the party’s nomination process and the perception that the establishment had its preferred candidate left many Sanders supporters questioning just how democratic the process really was.
Four years later, Sanders again mounted a serious challenge, only to eventually lose the nomination to Joe Biden.
Then came 2024. Following Biden’s disastrous debate performance and eventual withdrawal, the Democrats effectively bypassed another competitive nationwide primary and rallied behind Kamala Harris.
So much for giving voters a fresh choice.
Perhaps the party should consider that repeatedly relying on establishment favourites isn’t necessarily the best way to inspire confidence among an electorate increasingly disillusioned with conventional politics.
The three gates of political approval
Around a year ago, there was considerable discussion among political commentators, journalists and podcasters about who might emerge as the Democratic nominee in 2028.
One recurring theory was that the next candidate might be someone relatively unknown to the wider American public. Following the defeats of Clinton in 2016 and Harris in 2024, perhaps the party would look beyond its familiar faces and introduce someone new.
But there was another, rather more cynical theory doing the rounds.
According to some commentators, any prospective Democratic presidential candidate would need to satisfy three particularly influential interests: the national security establishment, pro-Israel interests and Wall Street.
The first is what is commonly referred to as the ‘deep state’ – a loose description encompassing elements of the intelligence community, the Pentagon, federal agencies and the wider national security establishment.
The second is Israel and, more specifically, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying network in Washington. Organisations such as AIPAC have demonstrated considerable influence through lobbying, campaign spending and political endorsements.
The third is Wall Street, whose financial influence over American politics is hardly a secret. Major financial institutions, wealthy donors and corporate interests have long played an important role in shaping the political landscape.
Of course, the suggestion that these three interests collectively select or approve presidential nominees is a theory, not an established fact. There is no evidence of a secret selection committee sitting around a table deciding who gets the keys to the White House.
Nevertheless, the underlying question is worth asking: how much freedom does a presidential candidate really have to challenge powerful political and financial interests while simultaneously relying on their support to get elected?
And that brings us to the potential candidates.
The familiar faces
One thing that seems increasingly apparent is that the Democrats need to think carefully about what sort of candidate they want to put forward.
There is already speculation that the party might be reluctant to nominate another woman following the defeats of Clinton and Harris. Whether that’s justified is another matter, but the suggestion is certainly circulating.
Harris, despite retaining a degree of support within the party, faces the obvious problem of having already lost a presidential election. Her performance in the lead-up to the 2024 election also left plenty of voters unconvinced that she was the candidate capable of delivering a decisive break from the Biden administration.
Then there’s Gavin Newsom.
The California governor is an accomplished political communicator and has made little secret of his national ambitions. He can certainly point to California’s enormous economy, but that doesn’t necessarily make him an attractive proposition for voters elsewhere.
Homelessness, housing affordability and the broader cost of living remain significant problems in California. Republicans would undoubtedly have a field day reminding voters of them.
Perhaps the Democrats should consider whether exporting California’s political brand to the rest of America is really the winning strategy.
Keep California out of the White House? It might not be the worst campaign slogan.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is another interesting possibility. She has considerable grassroots appeal, communicates effectively and represents a younger generation of Democratic politics. She could potentially become a formidable candidate, although whether she can attract enough moderate and independent voters to win a general election remains an open question.
But what if the next nominee isn’t one of these familiar faces?
Enter Jon Ossoff
One name that has increasingly attracted attention is Georgia senator Jon Ossoff.
At first glance, he might tick quite a few boxes.
Born in 1987, Ossoff is relatively young, articulate and an accomplished communicator. His performances during heated Senate committee hearings have demonstrated an ability to remain composed under pressure, something that can’t always be said of American politicians.
There is also something quite interesting about his geographical background.
Unlike Newsom or Harris, Ossoff comes from Georgia, in the American South. He represents a state that has become increasingly competitive politically and has demonstrated that Democrats can win outside their traditional strongholds.
That could prove particularly valuable when appealing to voters in the South and Midwest. Rather than presenting another candidate from California or the established political corridors of Washington, Ossoff could offer a different political identity.
And he has already demonstrated that he can win.
His 2026 Senate re-election campaign has further strengthened his position, with his victory over Republican Mike Collins giving him a second Senate term. His ability to attract support in a state that Trump carried in 2024 is particularly noteworthy.
Then there’s his political positioning.
Ossoff is Jewish and has maintained support for the US-Israel relationship, while also becoming increasingly critical of certain Israeli military actions. In July 2025, he supported blocking a rifle sale to Israel but opposed a separate resolution seeking to block air-to-ground munitions, arguing that Israel needed the capacity to defend itself.
That could place him in an interesting position within a Democratic Party increasingly divided over its approach to Israel and the Middle East.
He’s not necessarily a conventional progressive, nor does he fit neatly into the traditional establishment mould.
And perhaps that’s part of his appeal.
Early 2028 Democratic nomination polling has already placed Ossoff among the leading potential contenders, alongside Harris, Newsom, Pete Buttigieg and AOC. He’s not the frontrunner, but he’s certainly no longer an obscure name in the conversation.
The Democrats’ next big decision
Of course, there is a considerable difference between being an appealing potential candidate and actually winning a presidential nomination.
Ossoff would need to build a national profile, demonstrate that his appeal extends beyond Georgia and convince voters that he has the experience and political substance to occupy the Oval Office.
But perhaps the Democrats should be looking for precisely this type of candidate.
Someone who can communicate without sounding like they’re reading from a carefully rehearsed corporate presentation. Someone who can challenge political orthodoxy without alienating half the electorate. And someone who understands that winning an election is rather pointless if you subsequently forget the promises that got you there.
The Democrats have just been handed a significant political opportunity. But a successful midterm election doesn’t automatically translate into a successful presidential campaign.
They have two years to decide whether they want to return to the familiar politics of establishment endorsements, wealthy donors and carefully manufactured candidates, or genuinely allow their supporters to determine the party’s direction.
After the last three presidential elections, you’d think they’d have learned something.
Perhaps the mystery candidate isn’t so mysterious after all.
