I previously expressed my opinion that, if given a choice, I would rather vote for a stinking turd than for Donald Trump as president. Reflecting on that sentiment, I find myself even more convinced of its truthfulness. A stinking turd, for instance, would not have pardoned the January 6 rioters, nor would it have imposed universal tariffs. Furthermore, a stinking turd would not have made threats to take control of Canada or Greenland. It certainly would not have shared a video of itself adorned with a crown while piloting an aircraft and dropping… well, you get the idea.
Despite my humorous comparison, I find myself agreeing with the turd on three out of four issues, and on the fourth, it feels like a toss-up. In this scenario, I would choose the turd over Trump.
For those who might be unsettled by my stance, please understand that I do not actually advocate for putting stinking turds in the White House. I am firmly anti-Trump, but I also do not support the notion of a pro-turd candidate.
With that in mind, let me express my perspective: The Democrats’ next presidential nominee should ideally be a straight white male.
I want to clarify that I am not homophobic, femalephobic, or minorityphobic in any way.
My stance is solely anti-MAGA. I believe that the most effective strategy for the Democrats to counter the MAGA movement is to select a straight white male as their candidate. Choosing anyone outside of that demographic could potentially cost the Democrats crucial percentage points in the vote, which might jeopardize their chances of securing the presidency. Losing that opportunity would be catastrophic, so I advocate for a straight white male candidate.
My focus is specifically on swing voters residing in swing states. For example, considering Pennsylvania, which consists of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with West Virginia in between, I am particularly mindful of the voters from West Virginia. Could it be that a small percentage of these voters, consciously or subconsciously, would favor a straight white Republican man over a Democratic candidate who does not fit that description? I believe so, and thus, I advocate for caution.
Potential candidates like Cory Booker, Wes Moore, Pete Buttigieg, Abigail Spanberger, or Gretchen Whitmer could all serve as excellent contenders for the presidency. However, the current political landscape demands a different approach. Timing is everything, and now is not the time for experimentation.
Furthermore, I would also remove Gavin Newsom from consideration. While he possesses a polished and charismatic demeanor, the perception of California as the land of fruits and nuts could hinder his appeal. The state also grapples with significant issues like homelessness and the high cost of living, which could be weaponized against him in a national campaign. Sorry, Gavin. Perhaps you should take a cue from the Republicans and return to your roots.
Additionally, I would exclude Josh Shapiro from the candidate pool. Even though he serves as the governor of Pennsylvania and would likely secure that state in a presidential run, I worry that his religious beliefs may alienate voters in other critical swing states, such as Michigan or Georgia. I cannot afford to take that risk. For what it’s worth, I share Shapiro’s religion, and I would not nominate myself either. This is not an expression of antisemitism; rather, it is a matter of realism.
If given the opportunity, I would prefer to nominate a candidate from one of the swing states, ensuring that they can carry that state in the upcoming presidential election. Alternatively, I would consider a candidate from another state where a Democratic politician has demonstrated the ability to connect with independents in conservative areas.
As of now, I remain uncertain about the ideal choice for the Democratic nominee in 2028. However, I would prioritize selecting from among straight white males to increase the likelihood of success in an election that is largely influenced by, as Hillary Clinton termed them, the deplorables.
I understand that my views may provoke backlash from the progressive left. They might argue, “Herrmann, you fool! A straight white male won’t galvanize the base! Look at how Mamdani succeeded in New York! The key lies in motivating the left to vote.”
However, I respectfully disagree. The anti-MAGA forces do not need to focus on energizing the left. Regardless of who the Democrats nominate, the anti-MAGA sentiment will prevail in states like California and New York. We do not require larger margins in those regions.
It is essential for the Democrats to maintain control over the center in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, North Carolina, and Nevada. In my view, this necessitates a slightly left-of-center candidate who can appeal broadly without causing offense: A straight white male candidate fits this description.
Upon further consideration, it seems prudent to rule out a stinking turd as well.
Mark Herrmann spent 17 years as a partner at a leading international law firm and subsequently oversaw litigation, compliance, and employment matters at a large international company. He is the author of The Curmudgeon’s Guide to Practicing Law and Drug and Device Product Liability Litigation Strategy (affiliate links). You can reach him by email at inhouse@abovethelaw.com.
To stay updated on the latest developments in litigation, regulations, deals, and financial services trends, subscribe to Finance Docket, an initiative between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
