Carville Tells Kamala Harris That Dems Want Nothing To Do With Her In 2028
Longtime Democratic strategist James Carville had blunt advice Thursday for former Vice President Kamala Harris and her political allies: the Democratic Party wants nothing to do with them in 2028.
Since the 2024 election, Democrats have had a strained relationship with both former President Joe Biden and Harris, who have remained in the public eye despite many in the party wishing they would quietly step aside.
Harris recently announced she would not run for California governor — a decision that has fueled speculation she is keeping her options open for another presidential run in 2028. But on his Politics War Room podcast, Carville dismissed any fears that Democrats would rally behind her again.
“Don’t be terrified,” Carville told one concerned listener. “She wisely chose not to run for governor of California.”
Carville said flatly that Harris will not be the Democratic Party nominee in 2028.
“Anybody that had anything to do with 2024, the party wants to move on from that,” he said. “This isn’t anybody’s fault.”
“This goes to Walz, too. I wouldn’t run again,” Carville said. “If I were your friend, if I were your chief advisor, I’m doing this not from a personal standpoint, but because this is not going to be the environment where Democrats look to anybody connected to the 2024 campaign.”
Carville’s co-host, Al Hunt, aimed his own parting shot at Biden: “Joe Biden, would you please go take the restful retirement you so richly deserve?”
Several top Democrats, such as Harris, former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, and California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, are all expected to run for president in 2028.
But one young, up-and-coming figure says he is not planning to jump into the race, CNN noted.
Maryland Democratic Gov. Wes Moore says he will not run for president in 2028, despite being frequently touted among Democrats as a prospective presidential contender.
That hasn’t prevented continuous speculation about his future political aspirations, especially since he continues to make engagements outside of Maryland, which boost his national image. On Friday, he will fly to South Carolina, an early presidential primary state, to speak at the Blue Palmetto Dinner.
When questioned about 2028, the governor was straightforward.
“I’m not running,” Moore told The Associated Press in an interview. He also said, when asked, that he isn’t trying to get his name in the conversation for a potential vice presidential candidacy, either.
Moore downplayed his high-profile trips to battleground states, including a recent trip to South Carolina.
“And people should get very used to me going all over the country bringing business back to Maryland, because that’s exactly what I plan on doing as long as I’m the governor of the state,” Moore said after a dedication in Annapolis for a memorial to former Rep. Parren Mitchell.
Moore, who is in the third year of his first term, expects to compete for reelection in predominantly Democratic Maryland next year. He said becoming the state’s governor during a difficult period requires his whole attention.
Another name continues to be floated as making early moves before 2028: Pete Buttigieg.
Buttigieg continues to force his way into the digital media sphere, defying traditional Democratic standards as talk of a presidential run grows.
Buttigieg spoke with the Washington Examiner about his views on new media, how to engage people who do not identify with established parties, the current political landscape, and what he is doing to assure the success of his party after leaving the Biden administration.
“I’m using my voice best I can in traditional media and new media, and I’m going to continue having conversations with neighbors, with voters, talking about how we could have a better way,” Buttigieg told the Washington Examiner. “I don’t know what that means for me, politically or professionally, a long way from making any decisions about that, but I know that’s what I need to be doing right now.”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
