JD Vance has a lot of positional momentum, but he has no identifiable character, and is constantly engaged in attempting to create the appearance of whatever persona he believes will maximize his future success. There is nothing "in there" aside from sheer ambition. No one likes that sort of person. He is constantly bobbing and weaving and avoiding being pinned down because he doesn't actually stand for anything other than winning. He is the VP for a reason, and would clearly have followed the order that Mike Pence refused.
I agree Beshear is an interesting candidate! Not sure if he’ll have the communications ability and name ID to go up against other heavy hitters in the field -- and somewhat skeptical that his crossover appeal will translate in places where his family name won’t take him far -- but definitely expect him to make a run for it, and to be in the VP conversation if nothing else if he comes short.
Re: Vance vs Rubio, as a Russian, I think every American who follows the dynamic should take a look at the 2008 "election" in Russia: Putin was term-limited, and for a year before the nomination, there was the same discussion about who's going to get the blessing to run as Putin’s candidate: Dmitry Medvedev or Sergei Ivanov. For 12-18 months there was this duality "Medvedev or Ivanov, Ivanov or Medvedev", very similar to current "Rubio or Vance, Vance or Rubio", but in the long run, the duality resolved to "Putin and Putin".
Definitely agree Pritzker is someone that could have been mentioned here! My main skepticism about Pritzker is I’m not sure if there’s much he offers to primary voters that other blue state governors don’t also bring -- and he comes with a big vulnerability, which is his personal wealth. It does not seem to me like the Democratic Party is in a moment where it is about to nominate a billionaire -- though, of course, I’ve been wrong before and agree he’s another contender worth watching.
JD Vance is everywhere promoting his new book and the Iran ceasefire deal. Marco Rubio, conspicuously, is not.
Part of the Vice president's job is to travel the country represented the administration, but a Secretary of State must focus his/ her attention on a reality that most Americans care little about—the Great Abroad. Not exactly a launching pad for a presidential bid.
Always a pleasure to read an even handed analysis.
A couple of minor points and thoughts.
On the Republican side- everything can and will change if Trump dies in office. Remember there have been 3 attempts on his life. Kennedy, McKinley and Lincoln were assassinated-on the first attempt. Trump is a very lucky guy.
On the Dems- remember their greatest strength is Trump hatred across the spectrum of their varied candidates. After that it’s a scrum of disparate political ideologies with no real support for any of them by the independant voters .
The notion that Harris has any chance after her abortive attempts in both the ’20 Primary election and the ’24 Presidential election combined with her vacuous verbal blatherings will doom her. Remember Hillary had the same record of failure and was never a possible candidate in’24. Also to dismiss Newsome blithely makes no sense. He’s got Getty money , comes from a state that is the 4th largest economy in the world and is facing a group of no names. I’m not betting on him, but he’s got a bit more of a chance than you allow. Also where's Pritzker on the list?
Finally, the Dems have a major ideological internal riff, with the young socialist types likely to stand behind AOC , until further notice a performative candidate with no real wins under her belt and one old failed candidate in Bernie on her side. Do you really think either she or Harris will be our first female President? ( my money would be on Tulsi Gabbard in ’32. She actually has brass ovaries and an impeccable record as a citizen soldier and was strong with the Dems until she destroyed Harris in the ’20 Dem primary and was then labeled a Russian plant by Hillary , who still believes the Russians did her in).
I notice you skipped over Gavin Newsom. I agree with you re Harris. Too this-side-that-side lawyerly. It masks, I think, a real timidity about policy issues. Waffling on the Electoral College? That was an easy place to take a stand. She also missed her opportunity to run for governor of CA. She would have had a very good chance of winning, would have learned a lot and would have shown she was serious about public office. But back to Newsom…
Interesting analysis. Glad to know that positions on issues are irrelevant for 2028--it'll all be, apparently, about personality. I don't think that's a very good standard by which to judge candidates--after all, that's what's got us into this mess. I know personality is the major driver of voters' choices, but it's sad there's not even a nod here to issues. I can think of a few--how much of the federal government might be returned to its 2021 version? Will the Education Department come back, and with it student loans? What's the role of the DOJ? Will we have new and "better" tariffs, or will more money be put towards expanding vital national industries? Green energy or more coal? How big a defense department will we have? Are we going to go out of our way to make sure we're going to remain the world's reserve currency? Stay in NATO? Oh, and follow the rule of law? I am always hoping pundits will tackle these things, but maybe they're just too hard.
Vance, if nominated, will have to take a quick and decisive step away from Trump. Humphrey failed to do this in 1968 and Harris made the same error in 2024.
I was disappointed when “my generation” finally reached the WH. I hope this new generation does better.
I am a fan of Nikki Haley. Republicans should remembered a la Michael Jordan that women vote too. I wish Pence fortune in being an eminent gris. We all owe him gratitude.
Subscribed to your YT channel.. dumb question but unsure if this was a typo or a term I'm not familiar with (since I'm not much of a YT user other than music videos) - in your YT intro you wrote:
"Founded by Gabe Fleisher in 2011 with one subscriber (his mom), WUTP has grown into appointment reading for 60,000 daily readers across all 50 states."
Surprisingly to me, search engines had no answer for that phrase. But maybe it's sort of what I do by setting aside an hour or two every night to read Gabe and my other Substacks including Joyce Vance, Heather Cox Richardson, Robert Hubbell, Jessica Craven (CWCW), Judd Legum (PI) and then Eric Topol and Your Local Epidemiologist whenever there's an update.
Can’t imagine he’d have much of a base in either party. Don’t think Democrats are going to nominate a former Tea Party congressman, and I don’t think Republicans are going to nominate a Trump critic. Renders him fairly politically homeless.
JD Vance has a lot of positional momentum, but he has no identifiable character, and is constantly engaged in attempting to create the appearance of whatever persona he believes will maximize his future success. There is nothing "in there" aside from sheer ambition. No one likes that sort of person. He is constantly bobbing and weaving and avoiding being pinned down because he doesn't actually stand for anything other than winning. He is the VP for a reason, and would clearly have followed the order that Mike Pence refused.
I appreciate the analysis and am curious why you left out KY Gov Andy Basheer as a possible Dem nominee.
I agree Beshear is an interesting candidate! Not sure if he’ll have the communications ability and name ID to go up against other heavy hitters in the field -- and somewhat skeptical that his crossover appeal will translate in places where his family name won’t take him far -- but definitely expect him to make a run for it, and to be in the VP conversation if nothing else if he comes short.
The 2028 Democratic nomination will go through the DSA. That would make Basheer as much of an outlier as his fellow Kentuckian Rand Paul.
Re: Vance vs Rubio, as a Russian, I think every American who follows the dynamic should take a look at the 2008 "election" in Russia: Putin was term-limited, and for a year before the nomination, there was the same discussion about who's going to get the blessing to run as Putin’s candidate: Dmitry Medvedev or Sergei Ivanov. For 12-18 months there was this duality "Medvedev or Ivanov, Ivanov or Medvedev", very similar to current "Rubio or Vance, Vance or Rubio", but in the long run, the duality resolved to "Putin and Putin".
I’m not sure why you never include JD Pritzker in your predictions for possible democratic nominee. He’s popular in the Midwest. East coast bias?
Definitely agree Pritzker is someone that could have been mentioned here! My main skepticism about Pritzker is I’m not sure if there’s much he offers to primary voters that other blue state governors don’t also bring -- and he comes with a big vulnerability, which is his personal wealth. It does not seem to me like the Democratic Party is in a moment where it is about to nominate a billionaire -- though, of course, I’ve been wrong before and agree he’s another contender worth watching.
JD Vance is everywhere promoting his new book and the Iran ceasefire deal. Marco Rubio, conspicuously, is not.
Part of the Vice president's job is to travel the country represented the administration, but a Secretary of State must focus his/ her attention on a reality that most Americans care little about—the Great Abroad. Not exactly a launching pad for a presidential bid.
Always a pleasure to read an even handed analysis.
A couple of minor points and thoughts.
On the Republican side- everything can and will change if Trump dies in office. Remember there have been 3 attempts on his life. Kennedy, McKinley and Lincoln were assassinated-on the first attempt. Trump is a very lucky guy.
On the Dems- remember their greatest strength is Trump hatred across the spectrum of their varied candidates. After that it’s a scrum of disparate political ideologies with no real support for any of them by the independant voters .
The notion that Harris has any chance after her abortive attempts in both the ’20 Primary election and the ’24 Presidential election combined with her vacuous verbal blatherings will doom her. Remember Hillary had the same record of failure and was never a possible candidate in’24. Also to dismiss Newsome blithely makes no sense. He’s got Getty money , comes from a state that is the 4th largest economy in the world and is facing a group of no names. I’m not betting on him, but he’s got a bit more of a chance than you allow. Also where's Pritzker on the list?
Finally, the Dems have a major ideological internal riff, with the young socialist types likely to stand behind AOC , until further notice a performative candidate with no real wins under her belt and one old failed candidate in Bernie on her side. Do you really think either she or Harris will be our first female President? ( my money would be on Tulsi Gabbard in ’32. She actually has brass ovaries and an impeccable record as a citizen soldier and was strong with the Dems until she destroyed Harris in the ’20 Dem primary and was then labeled a Russian plant by Hillary , who still believes the Russians did her in).
Anyway-we do agree , it should be entertaining.
I notice you skipped over Gavin Newsom. I agree with you re Harris. Too this-side-that-side lawyerly. It masks, I think, a real timidity about policy issues. Waffling on the Electoral College? That was an easy place to take a stand. She also missed her opportunity to run for governor of CA. She would have had a very good chance of winning, would have learned a lot and would have shown she was serious about public office. But back to Newsom…
Interesting analysis. Glad to know that positions on issues are irrelevant for 2028--it'll all be, apparently, about personality. I don't think that's a very good standard by which to judge candidates--after all, that's what's got us into this mess. I know personality is the major driver of voters' choices, but it's sad there's not even a nod here to issues. I can think of a few--how much of the federal government might be returned to its 2021 version? Will the Education Department come back, and with it student loans? What's the role of the DOJ? Will we have new and "better" tariffs, or will more money be put towards expanding vital national industries? Green energy or more coal? How big a defense department will we have? Are we going to go out of our way to make sure we're going to remain the world's reserve currency? Stay in NATO? Oh, and follow the rule of law? I am always hoping pundits will tackle these things, but maybe they're just too hard.
Vance, if nominated, will have to take a quick and decisive step away from Trump. Humphrey failed to do this in 1968 and Harris made the same error in 2024.
I was disappointed when “my generation” finally reached the WH. I hope this new generation does better.
I am a fan of Nikki Haley. Republicans should remembered a la Michael Jordan that women vote too. I wish Pence fortune in being an eminent gris. We all owe him gratitude.
I’m hoping to see Nikki Haley’s name again too!
Subscribed to your YT channel.. dumb question but unsure if this was a typo or a term I'm not familiar with (since I'm not much of a YT user other than music videos) - in your YT intro you wrote:
"Founded by Gabe Fleisher in 2011 with one subscriber (his mom), WUTP has grown into appointment reading for 60,000 daily readers across all 50 states."
=========================
What is "appointment" reading? 🤔
Articles that you set aside time on your calendar to read, I'd imagine
Surprisingly to me, search engines had no answer for that phrase. But maybe it's sort of what I do by setting aside an hour or two every night to read Gabe and my other Substacks including Joyce Vance, Heather Cox Richardson, Robert Hubbell, Jessica Craven (CWCW), Judd Legum (PI) and then Eric Topol and Your Local Epidemiologist whenever there's an update.
AOC and Rahm Emmanuel both intrigue me as possible candidates.
What are your thoughts about Adam Kinzinger as a potential presidential candidate?
Can’t imagine he’d have much of a base in either party. Don’t think Democrats are going to nominate a former Tea Party congressman, and I don’t think Republicans are going to nominate a Trump critic. Renders him fairly politically homeless.
But look at what happened in Hungary.