Is it too early to start talking about 2028 and who will be the frontrunner?

On the Republican side, Rubio seems to pulling ahead of Vance. Something about the office of the vice-president seems to generate underwhelming presidential candidates. Biden was a VP and he wasn't exactly Mr. Excitement in the Oval Office. Last sitting VP to be elected was George H.W. Bush. Vance also has baggage with the Tucker Carlson controversy. He's positioning himself in the isolationist wing which may or may pan out by 2028 - a lot can change in two years. But he hasn't had any noteworthy accomplishments in the real world, other than education and a book. Strikes me as being a bit staged personality at the moment. Rubio, on the other hand comes off as an affable guy. His background as a Cuban earns him points with the anti-Communist core of the party. But more importantly, his Latin background, combined with everything else, gives him a big leg up on Vance. Right now, this seems like Rubio's nomination to lose.

On the Democratic side, this seems wide open. We're seeing a lot of names being tossed around. From where I'm sitting, the Dems need a fresh face. And if they want a chance in November, demographically, a white male in his 40's or 50's. Somebody closer to the center of the party ala Bill Clinton. I don't see that happening right now. Right now, it's a crapshoot for the Dems.

And as Bill Clinton said during the 1992 race, it's the economy stupid. 2028 will likely be decided by the state of the economy. If times are good in 2028, it's the Republican race to lose, and as things stand right now, Rubio is the lead horse. But a lot can change over the course of 2 years, especially when you have war and international turmoil. If everything goes to hell economically, Dems win 2028 by a landslide.

Several current topics you could post in, but those are all going horribly for you, so cling to 2028 as long as you can.

2 hours ago, Procus said:

this seems like Rubio's nomination to lose.

Procus' got jokes today

3 hours ago, Procus said:

this seems like Rubio's nomination to lose.

3 hours ago, Procus said:

Is it too early to start talking about 2028 and who will be the frontrunner?

On the Republican side, Rubio seems to pulling ahead of Vance. Something about the office of the vice-president seems to generate underwhelming presidential candidates. Biden was a VP and he wasn't exactly Mr. Excitement in the Oval Office. Last sitting VP to be elected was George H.W. Bush. Vance also has baggage with the Tucker Carlson controversy. He's positioning himself in the isolationist wing which may or may pan out by 2028 - a lot can change in two years. But he hasn't had any noteworthy accomplishments in the real world, other than education and a book. Strikes me as being a bit staged personality at the moment. Rubio, on the other hand comes off as an affable guy. His background as a Cuban earns him points with the anti-Communist core of the party. But more importantly, his Latin background, combined with everything else, gives him a big leg up on Vance. Right now, this seems like Rubio's nomination to lose.

On the Democratic side, this seems wide open. We're seeing a lot of names being tossed around. From where I'm sitting, the Dems need a fresh face. And if they want a chance in November, demographically, a white male in his 40's or 50's. Somebody closer to the center of the party ala Bill Clinton. I don't see that happening right now. Right now, it's a crapshoot for the Dems.

And as Bill Clinton said during the 1992 race, it's the economy stupid. 2028 will likely be decided by the state of the economy. If times are good in 2028, it's the Republican race to lose, and as things stand right now, Rubio is the lead horse. But a lot can change over the course of 2 years, especially when you have war and international turmoil. If everything goes to hell economically, Dems win 2028 by a landslide.

Rubio is way too smart and way too brown. Ask yourself when the last time the republicans elected an intellectual? You have to go back to 1988. They will need someone really white and really stupid. The MMA fighter who wanted duels to the death on the floor of the senate who is now the DHS secretary seems perfect.

For the democrats, it would be really nice to have someone who refuses to take money from AIPAC and gets us away from an "Israel first" foreign policy.

3 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Rubio is way too smart and way too brown. Ask yourself when the last time the republicans elected an intellectual? You have to go back to 1988. They will need someone really white and really stupid. The MMA fighter who wanted duels to the death on the floor of the senate who is now the DHS secretary seems perfect.

For the democrats, it would be really nice to have someone who refuses to take money from AIPAC and gets us away from an "Israel first" foreign policy.

It'll be Tucker Carlson. I'd be surprised if Republicans pick anyone outside of a media personality ever again. Trump fully cemented the fact that they're all messaging, no substance, so they need someone who can sell it, doesn't matter if they have experience or not. Plus, the base worships their media figures. Only question is whether the personalities want to give up their cushy lives to take a job where they'll be fully exposed and under attack. Anyone who does though basically has a red carpet to the nomination.

18 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

It'll be Tucker Carlson. I'd be surprised if Republicans pick anyone outside of a media personality ever again. Trump fully cemented the fact that they're all messaging, no substance, so they need someone who can sell it, doesn't matter if they have experience or not. Plus, the base worships their media figures. Only question is whether the personalities want to give up their cushy lives to take a job where they'll be fully exposed and under attack. Anyone who does though basically has a red carpet to the nomination.

Carlson has been excommunicated from MAGA. He's gone full anti Trump because he's against the war in Iran. He's also very anti Israel. The religious kook wing of the party, which seems to be the majority would never go for an anti war anti Israel candidate.

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Carlson has been excommunicated from MAGA. He's gone full anti Trump because he's against the war in Iran. He's also very anti Israel. The religious kook wing of the party, which seems to be the majority would never go for an anti war anti Israel candidate.

I'm not so sure. He's posturing himself as the most America First guy, which is where the core party is. Most still haven't broken with Trump, but if you asked them what they believe in the first thing out of their mouth would be American First. Israel support, even among Republicans, is dropping rapidly. To me, he's setting himself up pretty well for a post-Trump Republican Party, when they look around and realize they've got nothing except this sort of broad protectionism that Trump failed to deliver on. I just don't see anyone that hasn't broken from Trump legitimately speaking to that.

Seth Moulton. That's my guy for 2028. Been high on him for like 8 years and his star just keeps steadily rising.

49 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Seth Moulton. That's my guy for 2028. Been high on him for like 8 years and his star just keeps steadily rising.

I'm biased but I think Ossoff's the best positioned, has the best line of attack, has the looks and commands the stage.

35 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I'm biased but I think Ossoff's the best positioned, has the best line of attack, has the looks and commands the stage.

Excellent candidate and carrying Georgia is huge. But i do think Dumbo is going to hand over a very dangerous world full of sharks circling America's demise. Moulton's foreign policy and military chops are going to shine methinks.

3 hours ago, dawkins4prez said:

Seth Moulton. That's my guy for 2028. Been high on him for like 8 years and his star just keeps steadily rising.

36 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said:

Excellent candidate and carrying Georgia is huge. But i do think Dumbo is going to hand over a very dangerous world full of sharks circling America's demise. Moulton's foreign policy and military chops are going to shine methinks.

Yeah, I like military chops too, but it hasn't exactly been an asset over the last 30 years or so, especially since Republicans seethe when they see a Dem candidate with a military record and attack their service with everything they've got. They see a military background as a Republican branding philosophy, not as an actual service to their country, so they get really pissed when a Democrat serves.

4 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

I'm biased but I think Ossoff's the best positioned, has the best line of attack, has the looks and commands the stage.

Can't be the nominee for the same reason Shapiro can't. Far left will revolt.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Can't be the nominee for the same reason Shapiro can't. Far left will revolt.

There's a pretty massive gap between Shapiro and Ossoff. I know you're getting at the Jewish thing, but their approach and positions on Israel have been completely different. Shapiro volunteered for the IDF for Christ's sake. Ossoff's gone after the Israeli government pretty hard, took no AIPAC money and has even had attacks levied against him by AIPAC. Sure, there's a contingent of just rank antisemites on the far left, but they're way smaller than the one's on the right and they don't have near the power. The greater Israeli issue is way different than the antisemite conversation. The protestors of 2024 were proven right for the most part, rhetoric aside in some case. Israel had taken things too far, they had overstepped from avenging an attack into genocide. And now that's a much more widely held belief. And Ossoff voted to block weapons sales in 2024, before the worm turned on this. I think he's postured himself pretty well there, him being Jewish aside.

17 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

There's a pretty massive gap between Shapiro and Ossoff. I know you're getting at the Jewish thing, but their approach and positions on Israel have been completely different. Shapiro volunteered for the IDF for Christ's sake. Ossoff's gone after the Israeli government pretty hard, took no AIPAC money and has even had attacks levied against him by AIPAC. Sure, there's a contingent of just rank antisemites on the far left, but they're way smaller than the one's on the right and they don't have near the power. The greater Israeli issue is way different than the antisemite conversation. The protestors of 2024 were proven right for the most part, rhetoric aside in some case. Israel had taken things too far, they had overstepped from avenging an attack into genocide. And now that's a much more widely held belief. And Ossoff voted to block weapons sales in 2024, before the worm turned on this. I think he's postured himself pretty well there, him being Jewish aside.

The left has plenty of jews (bernie Sanders) but hates Israel. The right hates jews but loves Israel.

5 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

Smartest thing they could have done. Ensures a normie dem starts off ahead.

On 4/12/2026 at 8:20 PM, VanHammersly said:

I'm not so sure. He's posturing himself as the most America First guy, which is where the core party is. Most still haven't broken with Trump, but if you asked them what they believe in the first thing out of their mouth would be American First. Israel support, even among Republicans, is dropping rapidly. To me, he's setting himself up pretty well for a post-Trump Republican Party, when they look around and realize they've got nothing except this sort of broad protectionism that Trump failed to deliver on. I just don't see anyone that hasn't broken from Trump legitimately speaking to that.

At this point I think Tucker is in a great position. Long long time to go though.

Well, looks like the DSA nutter Hong lost in Wisconsin. thank gawd. Losing the Govship in Wisconsin is not what you'd like heading into '28.