JD Vance might be unstoppable in 2028



Conventional wisdom suggests that the 2028 Republican primary is shaping up to be a chaotic affair. Supposedly, it’s anyone’s game, as Vice President JD Vance is weaker than he appears, while potential adversaries, including Marco Rubio, are gaining an advantage.

This view is untethered from reality. The fact is that the 2028 Republican nomination is Vance’s to lose. The faulty prevailing opinion has calcified for two reasons: a poor reading of history and a deficient understanding of the political landscape.

JD Vance has had one of the fastest rises to the executive branch in modern American political history.

“George H.W. Bush is the only sitting vice president in the last 190 years (since 1836) to be elected president,” an MS Now analyst recently wrote. He is not alone: the “190 years” number has been trotted out by those who contend that Vance stands little chance of winning the presidency in 2028.

On its face, this line of argument should be ignored because comparing the politics of 1840s America to the present is a fool’s errand: The country has changed significantly in that time, as has the party system.

Looking to history

But even if one disregards this, another historical fact emerges: For much of American history, the vice presidency wasn’t “worth a bucket of warm piss,” to borrow an infamous line from Vice President John Nance Garner. It was mostly used to balance a presidential ticket geographically and had little power on its own, as the office was typically a capstone to one’s career rather than a stepping stone to the presidency.

Particularly ambitious politicians instead sought the position of secretary of state, which often acted as the president’s chief adviser. Every commander in chief from Thomas Jefferson through John Quincy Adams served as secretary of state, as did Martin Van Buren, James Buchanan, and a host of individuals who lost the presidency.

Andrew Jackson broke this mold by picking Van Buren, his ideological successor, to be his vice president, as Jackson was specifically seeking to undertake a long-term political revolution. He was the only president to select his second-in-command for such a purpose — that is, until Donald Trump picked JD Vance.

Since Van Buren won the presidency in 1836, only three incumbent vice presidents sought to succeed a two-term president of their own party: Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Al Gore. Nixon and Gore lost razor-close contests. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and would likely have been president had the infamous butterfly ballot not confused a few thousand voters in liberal Palm Beach County into voting for arch-conservative Pat Buchanan.

Out of the remaining incumbent vice presidents who ran, two did so after one-term presidents suddenly dropped out — Hubert Humphrey after Lyndon Johnson and Kamala Harris after Joe Biden — and were therefore forced to run abbreviated campaigns. The third, John Breckinridge, ran in the four-way 1860 election in which his party was split in two, a situation that’s not analogous to today. The final incumbent vice president, John Adams, ran after George Washington and won, but he did so under an entirely different electoral system.

The tally of incumbent vice presidents running after a two-termer of their same party is two large wins (Van Buren and Bush) and two incredibly narrow losses (Nixon and Gore). The wins tally jumps to three if Adams is included.

This is hardly a reason for Vance to be concerned with history being a hindrance to his hopes of winning the White House. Plus, neither Nixon nor Gore was running as specific ideological inheritors of their respective presidents’ legacies. Gore arguably ran away from Bill Clinton, while Van Buren and Bush were successors — and they both won.

RELATED: The Trump administration is cracking down on fraud

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Ahead of the pack

“It’s anybody’s to win” is a second piece of conventional wisdom stated without evidence. Polling on the GOP 2028 nomination so far reveals an indisputable picture: Vance is dominating his competition. The RealClearPolitics average has him at around 40% — which is 20% ahead of his nearest competitor. A recent Echelon poll had Vance similarly ahead, as have a bevy of others.

Only a recent Atlas poll shows Marco Rubio leading Vance. But there are numerous reasons to question that poll, from the sudden massive swing to Rubio to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez leading the pack among Democrats.

In the Trump era, political analysts have grown accustomed to one man dominating the Republican Party’s primary contests. But Vance’s dominance two years out is also historically stronger than most previous nominees not named Trump.

In 1986, although George H.W. Bush was leading, he was stuck at 29%, in front of Senator Howard Baker by only 13%. In 1998, his son George W. Bush led with 30%, only 16% ahead of Elizabeth Dole, who had not yet been elected senator. Other than Trump, no Republican has so clearly led the field in the history of modern presidential primary elections — and Vance has done this without a definitive Trump endorsement, which would likely send his numbers even higher.

Then there are Vance’s prospective challengers. Though Secretary of State Marco Rubio often places second, the secretary has repeatedly ruled out running against Vance, saying at one point, “If JD Vance runs for president, he’s going to be our nominee, and I’ll be one of the first people to support him.” The specificity of Rubio’s statements, seen with his and Vance’s repeated expressions of praise for each other, would make any Rubio candidacy extraordinarily difficult.

Running now would destroy Rubio’s relationship with Vance and his wing of the party, and arguably with some in the administration. Rubio would need to explain why he changed his mind on Vance, and he would also likely have to resign from office a year and a half early to campaign. Many outside observers insist that a race between the two is on, but that seems based on a desperation for clicks — or a desperation to stop Vance — rather than on real evidence.

The secretary of state is an extremely effective politician, is careful with his words, and is incredibly experienced. He will make a phenomenal president. But if he wanted to run in 2028, he would not have said what he said.

What about the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.? He also polls rather well, usually placing third but sometimes second. The younger Trump, like Rubio, has been at the center of endless presidential chatter for months. In the past few weeks alone, multiple articles from outlets as diverse as the Los Angeles Times and the American Conservative have talked up a Trump Jr. candidacy.

But there is one person not talking up a Trump Jr. presidential run: Trump Jr. Like Rubio, he has explicitly and repeatedly made clear he will not run against Vance. He has expressed frustration at the constant speculation, at one point angrily castigating a Mediaite article, and following it up with another condemnation of the idea on X.

Other candidates known to voters, such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, are unlikely to catch fire. If Americans wanted to support them, they would already be polling well.

RELATED: Spencer Pratt is showing conservatives how it’s done

Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images

Staying the course

Of course, there is the possibility that Vance may not run. Those who are desperate for him to stay away from the White House have seized on reporting that Vance would wait to decide to run until after the summer, when his fourth child is born. His desire to wait to make a decision is eminently reasonable; any parent can attest to the change a new child brings, particularly if it is one’s fourth.

But Vance’s statement was also entirely standard. He will be going on a book tour this summer, a perfect soft launch for an unofficial candidacy — unofficial because he would never announce his run before the midterm elections, and there are still two and a half years left in his term.

Until he formally announces, which will likely happen next year, Vance will continue doing what he’s been doing: supporting the president and the administration, fundraising for Republican candidates, and dominating the polls.

It is easy to forget that JD Vance has had one of the fastest rises to the executive branch in modern American political history. Even Barack Obama, who seemed to ascend quickly to the presidency, followed a relatively traditional political path: state senator to senator to president over the course of 12 years. Vance, by contrast, won a U.S. Senate race in 2022 and then the vice presidency only two years later. Now he is the obvious ideological successor to two-termer Donald Trump.

The future is never certain. But in our era of shocking twists, too many have been primed to expect the unexpected. Sometimes reality is obvious: JD Vance is the clear front-runner for the 2028 Republican nomination.

Editor’s note: This article appeared originally in The American Mind.

Trump Needs To Emulate One Of His Favorite Presidents To Crush The Blatant Insurrection In Minnesota

Trump has a momentous choice ahead of him: stand firm against chaos or allow the situation to spiral out of control.

Andrew Jackson Comes to Davos

President Donald Trump, who keeps a portrait of Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office, brought a heaping dose of his predecessor's energy with him when he alighted in Switzerland on Wednesday.

The post Andrew Jackson Comes to Davos appeared first on .

Minnesota Democrats Are Creating A Nullification Crisis Over Immigration

States are not allowed simply to thwart or undermine federal laws they don’t like. It’s treasonous, and should be treated as such.

Tehran Awakens a Jacksonian Giant

Summer is just around the corner, and it’s already heating up in the Middle East. Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency revealed Iran had hidden evidence of some tests related to building nuclear weapons and had enriched enough uranium to make nine nuclear bombs on short notice. Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei then rejected the most recent American proposal in the nuclear negotiations and denounced “the rude, insolent U.S. leaders.” Donald Trump fired back: “Time is running out on Iran's decision pertaining to nuclear weapons, which must be made quickly!”

The post Tehran Awakens a Jacksonian Giant appeared first on .

Trump must defy rogue judges or risk a failed presidency



If a federal judge told President Trump to deliver a specifically curated speech and then pull down his pants on live television, should he comply? If he refused, would that trigger a “constitutional crisis”? If you pay attention to the left, the answer might very well be “yes”!

The only “constitutional crisis” we face is the erroneous idea that the judiciary is atop the food chain rather than on equal footing with the other two branches of government. If Trump hopes to succeed this time around, he had better remind the judiciary of its impotence to enforce unconstitutional edicts.

Granting courts ultimate veto power over public policy creates a judicial supremacy the Founders never intended.

Federal judges have repeatedly attempted to restrict Trump’s presidential authority with overreaching demands. They have ordered the administration to fund private foreign aid organizations, reinstate specific personnel, and publish designated information on government websites. In one case, a judge even directed the secretary of defense to retract a statement on the Pentagon’s policy regarding transgender troops. And over the weekend, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg attempted to block the deportation of violent gang members under the Alien Enemies Act.

What’s next? Will they order Trump to stop threatening Hamas or remove the bust of Andrew Jackson from the Oval Office?

Judges have forgotten who they are: unelected shields against government overreach, not legislative swords that can impose policies. Perhaps Trump needs to examine that bust of “Old Hickory” Andrew Jackson in the Oval Office and recall his (likely apocryphal) response to Chief Justice John Marshall’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”

What judges are not

Imagine if the president imposed the same restrictions on the judiciary that federal judges are placing on Trump. What if he dictated how judges managed their websites, controlled which clerks they could hire, or ordered them to rule a certain way? The overreach would be obvious.

Unlike judges, Congress has the authority to regulate every aspect of judicial proceedings, hiring, budget, and conduct. Judges, however, cannot impose similar policies on the other branches — a fact that frustrates judicial supremacists. This limitation exists for a reason: Federal judges are unelected. If they were meant to wield supreme — or even equal — power over public policy, they would be subject to re-election, as many state judges are.

If judicial power has clear limits, then what is its actual role, distinct from the executive and legislative branches?

In a letter to William Torrance dated June 11, 1815, Thomas Jefferson explained who decides constitutional questions.

Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given [judges] that power [authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law] more than to the executive or legislative branches. Questions of property, of character, and of crime being ascribed to the judges, through a definite course of legal proceeding, laws involving such questions belong of course to them; and as they decide on them ultimately and without appeal, they of course decide, for themselves, the constitutional validity of the law.

Bankruptcy cases and criminal charges illustrate the proper scope of judicial authority. Judges can uphold or overturn criminal convictions and resolve disputes over property or bankruptcy. However, when conflicts arise over laws or the Constitution involving the other branches, the judiciary was never meant to have the final say.

Granting courts ultimate veto power over public policy creates a judicial supremacy the Founders never intended. Each branch has a duty to interpret and apply the law within its own constitutional authority. Jefferson reiterated this principle in the same letter.

On laws again prescribing executive action, and to be administered by that branch ultimately and without appeal, the executive must decide for themselves also, whether, under the constitution, they are valid or not. So also as to laws governing the proceedings of the legislature, that body must judge for itself the constitutionality of the law, and equally without appeal or control from its coordinate branches. And, in general, that branch which is to act ultimately, and without appeal, on any law, is the rightful expositor of the validity of the law, uncontrolled by the opinions of the other coordinate authorities.

Treating the courts as the final authority on public policy grants them more power than even James Madison’s rejected Council of Revision proposal at the Constitutional Convention. Under Madison’s “Virginia Plan,” Congress would have been a dominant, unicameral body with the ability to veto state laws. To keep it in check, he suggested that the president and Supreme Court jointly review laws before enactment, giving the judiciary a role in the legislative veto. Even in that system, however, the judiciary would not have acted alone — it would have shared power with an elected executive.

The system the Framers ultimately adopted works differently. Two legislative chambers check each other, and the president holds veto power. Are we now supposed to believe that the Supreme Court — or even a single district judge — has more authority than the elected House, Senate, president, and state governments combined? Should an unelected judge wield a stronger veto than the one the Framers deliberately withheld from an entire elected Congress?

No such judicial veto exists.

Resolving disputes among branches

What happens when branches of government disagree and exercise their powers in conflicting ways? Is that a constitutional crisis? Jefferson, again, provides wisdom here.

It may be said that contradictory decisions may arise in such case, and produce inconvenience. This is possible, and is a necessary failing in all human proceedings. Yet the prudence of the public functionaries, and authority of public opinion will generally produce accommodation.

Ultimately, the public will decide who is right. Our system isn’t perfect, but it is far better than allowing unelected judges to impose on the people what hundreds of elected legislators could not.

The Administrative State Is So Corrupt It Makes The 19th Century’s Patronage System Look Good

The president should have the power to staff the executive branch with people he knows will not actively work against his policies.

The Curious Case of Martin Van Buren

Martin Van Buren should never have been president. That’s not an insult.

America’s eighth chief executive belongs to a distinct phylum of presidents: those who possessed skills both extraordinary enough to elevate them to the White House and yet not quite aligned with what the nation actually needs from a commander in chief.

The post The Curious Case of Martin Van Buren appeared first on .

What To Make Of The Dual Legacies Of The Dueling Andrew Jackson

He remains a complex figure in American history — a war hero, a president, a man of the people to some, and a villain to others.

What Would America’s Five General-Presidents Say About The Ukraine War?

The Ukraine war is dragging on with no strategy to end it in sight — it's exactly the kind of conflict American leaders who have fought and won wars would disapprove of.