If Obama and Trump went head-to-head in the 2028 election, here’s who would win
ABC News Stops Live Show, Breaks HUGE Trump News: 'We've Just Been Informed...See more
President Donald Trump’s federalization of Washington, D.C., on the heels of declaring a “crime emergency,” was met with mixed reactions, but it has also launched a conversation among residents and members of the media about a subject that, for years, has been hidden in plain view.
For instance, ABC News anchor Kyra Phillips mentioned on-air hours after Trump’s declaration that she was “jumped” just two blocks away from her Washington, D.C. studio, “within the last two years.”
Violent crime in the nation’s capital has reportedly dropped since 2023, according to data from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) cited by The Washington Post on Monday. Still, Phillips pointed out that multiple alleged incidents have taken place near ABC News’ Washington, D.C., bureau — including two network employees who were reportedly among the victims.
“We’ve been talking so much about the numbers and yeah, usually that’s how you play devil’s advocate, is you talk about, ‘Oh, well stats say crime is down.’ However, I can tell you firsthand here in downtown D.C. where we work right here around our bureau just in the past six months, you know, there were two people shot,” Phillips said. “One person died literally two blocks down here from the bureau.”
“It was within the last two years that I actually was jumped walking just two blocks down from here. And then just this morning one of my coworkers said her car was stolen a block away from the bureau,” she continued.
“So we can talk about the numbers going down, but crime is happening every single day because we’re all experiencing it firsthand while working and living down here,” Phillips continued.
While violent crime in Washington, D.C., is reportedly down 26% compared to 2024, the MPD’s crime tracker shows there have still been 99 homicides in the city so far in 2025.
Meanwhile, D.C. Police Commander Michael Pulliam is under investigation over allegations that he manipulated crime statistics, NBC4 Washington reported in July. The department suspended him, but Pulliam has denied any wrongdoing.
In the first week after the White House assumed control of Washington, D.C.’s police force and deployed federal agents and National Guard troops, the city recorded a modest drop in reported crime but a sharp increase in immigration-related arrests, according to a CNN analysis of government data.
For the week beginning August 12 — the first full week under federal control — property crimes fell by about 19 percent compared to the week prior, while violent crime dropped 17 percent, based on the most recent Metropolitan Police Department statistics.
The trends varied by category. Robberies and car break-ins fell by more than 40 percent, while thefts remained flat. Burglary cases rose 6 percent, and assaults with a dangerous weapon increased 14 percent. Two homicides occurred during the period, consistent with recent weeks, though none have been reported since August 13.
Federal agencies have embedded with local police, assisting in arrests, searches, and warrant executions while patrolling the city in unmarked vehicles, CNN noted further.
At the same time, immigration enforcement surged. Since August 7, federal officials have arrested about 300 individuals in the district without legal immigration status — more than ten times the typical weekly number of ICE arrests in the city, CNN found.
During the first six months of Trump’s current term, ICE averaged about 12 arrests per week in Washington, according to data from the Deportation Data Project at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.
Officials told CNN that ICE agents have been accompanying MPD officers and intervening when individuals stopped or questioned are found to be in the country unlawfully.
In response to CNN’s findings, White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that the media was attempting to dismiss the “exceptional results” of Trump’s efforts in Washington, D.C.
“The drops in crime are not ‘moderate,’ they are life-changing for the countless of DC residents and visitors who have not been murdered, robbed, carjacked, or victims of overall violent crime in the last week,” Jackson said. “The priority of this operation remains getting violent criminals off the streets — regardless of immigration status.”
Speculation over a potential matchup between Donald Trump and Barack Obama in a hypothetical 2028 presidential election has captured public attention, despite the constitutional impossibility under the 22nd Amendment, which limits presidents to two terms. Trump has occasionally hinted at the idea of a third term, suggesting there may be ways to pursue it, though he emphasized that he is focused on completing his current term. Obama, on the other hand, has remained largely silent on the subject, leaving the scenario entirely in the realm of speculation and political imagination.
Recent polling highlights public sentiment regarding the matchup. A survey by Daily Mail and J.L. Partners of 1,013 registered voters found that 52% would choose Obama, while 41% would support Trump. Among minority voters, support for Obama was particularly strong, with 73% of Hispanic voters and 68% of Black voters expressing preference for the former president. Obama was the only recent Democratic figure in these hypothetical polls to outperform Trump; when other Democrats like Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris were included, Trump generally led. These results underscore Obama’s continued popularity and the enduring political polarization surrounding Trump, reflecting the long shadow both figures cast over 21st-century American politics.
Despite the fascination, a Trump–Obama race remains constitutionally impossible without a major overhaul of the 22nd Amendment, which would require approval from two-thirds of Congress and ratification by at least 38 states—a highly improbable scenario. Trump has teased that “there are methods,” leaving the door open for speculation, but practical and legal realities make such a contest unrealistic. Nevertheless, the poll and public discussion illustrate the enduring cultural and political prominence of both leaders, highlighting the American public’s fascination with “what if” scenarios that stretch beyond conventional political boundaries, even if they remain entirely theoretical.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him.
"""My husband brought his mistress to our daughter’s wedding—and then asked me to give her my seat beside him. For a few seconds, I honestly thought I was looking at the wrong table, because my name card had vanished and Melissa’s was sitting exactly where mine had been on every seating chart. She wore a pale blue silk dress, lifted her champagne as if she belonged there, and avoided my eyes when I stopped beside the chair. David stood up, pointed to an empty seat at the next table, and quietly said, “For tonight, why don’t you sit over there?”
I had spent fourteen months helping our daughter, Emily, plan that wedding, from dress fittings and florist meetings to late-night calls over napkins and seating charts. That morning, while I fastened the pearl buttons on her gown, she made me promise I would enjoy the day and not let anything between her father and me touch it. I meant that promise, because whatever was left of my marriage, I would not make my daughter’s wedding the battlefield where it died. But David had apparently made a different plan, and he expected me to cooperate with it in silence.
When I asked what Melissa was doing there, David’s face showed guilt for only a second before he hid it behind irritation. He acted as though I were creating the problem simply by noticing that his mistress was seated at the family table in the place reserved for the bride’s mother. Then Melissa looked at me and said, “Honey, today really isn’t the day to make Emily uncomfortable.” I almost laughed, because the woman who had been sleeping with my husband for nearly a year was now warning me not to embarrass my own daughter.
I could feel people settling into nearby seats, laughing and talking, unaware that my marriage was being quietly rearranged in front of them. David kept his voice low and told me we should not “do this here,” as if the humiliation belonged to me because I refused to disappear politely. I looked at the empty chair he had chosen for me between a cousin and someone from the groom’s side, and I realized something colder than anger. This was not spontaneous; he had thought about where Melissa would sit, and he had assumed I would move.
For twenty-eight years, I had been the woman who adjusted, explained, forgave, and made excuses when David forgot anniversaries, missed dinners, or put work ahead of family. When he became distant, I learned to expect less instead of asking for more, and somewhere along the way he mistook that patience for permission. Even now, part of me considered taking the other chair, smiling for photographs, swallowing the humiliation, and telling myself it was all for Emily. I actually reached for the chair because protecting my daughter still mattered more to me than winning a public fight.
Then I heard one word behind me: “Mom?” Emily was walking toward us in her wedding dress, still glowing from the ceremony, and at first she looked confused rather than angry. Her eyes moved from me, to the empty chair, to Melissa, then back to the family table where she had personally placed me months ago. David quickly stepped in and announced that he had “rearranged a few things,” as if changing the bride’s seating chart without permission were no more serious than moving a centerpiece.
Emily asked why I was not sitting in my seat, and David casually pointed to the neighboring table and said I would be sitting “right there.” Her smile disappeared, and her eyes dropped to the place card in front of Melissa. I watched my daughter’s expression go completely still as she picked up that card and turned it over in her hand. In that instant, I understood the worst part: Emily had not approved this, and David had brought his mistress into our daughter’s wedding believing he could force everyone to accept what he wanted once it was already done.
What Emily did not know was that six months earlier, I had discovered David’s affair through a message that appeared on his phone while he was in the shower. Melissa had written, “I hate pretending I don’t miss you when she’s around,” followed by another message asking whether Friday was still theirs. When I confronted him, David spent eleven minutes calling me paranoid, insecure, dramatic, suspicious, and unfair before I repeated Melissa’s words exactly. The silence that followed ended our marriage long before either of us ever said the word divorce.
We had kept the details quiet because Emily was planning her wedding, and I refused to turn her happiest season into a crisis about us. David told me he was “confused,” that what he had with Melissa was “more complicated than an affair,” and that he needed time before making decisions. I agreed only that Emily’s wedding came first, so we slept in separate rooms, spoke carefully, and tried to appear functional while our marriage quietly collapsed. I believed David understood that one day required restraint, but he had apparently used that silence to prepare something else.
Three weeks before the wedding, he had casually asked whether Emily had finalized the family table and whether every seat had been assigned. At the time, I thought it was harmless conversation, but standing there with Melissa’s card in my daughter’s hand, I finally understood why he had asked. He had been checking whether there would be room, and when there was not, he simply removed me. Emily looked up at her father and asked, very quietly, “Where is Mom’s place card?”—and for the first time that night, David had no easy answer.
…FULL STORY IN THE COMMENT 👇👇👇"" "
