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.