Horserace thread. Who might run for the Republican nomination for the 2028 Presidential Race?

 

Vice President JD Vance. Official Portrait. 

With the 2026 midterms already in the books, it's probably time to stop analyzing the past and start looking at the future. Obviously, the midterms were not good for the ruling Republican Party and a lot of soul searching is going on to figure out what happened. But instead of obsessing over what happened, it might be useful to think about what is next. 

I do view the 2028 election as one that is winnable. It will require a course correction from both the Republican Party and the Trump Administration. This was an anger election and the conditions that launched it were temporary. Folks are angry about the Iran war and I doubt that will be a concern two years from now. 

Of course, the critical question is who do the Republicans put up as a candidate. Donald Trump, who has dominated Republican politics for more than a decade, will no longer be able to run. Who picks up that mantle? Will it be another MAGA candidate? Will it be a milquetoast moderate? Someone not connected to the administration? Someone opposed to the administration? 

JD Vance:

JD Vance is the obvious potential candidate. He's relatively popular and many of the MAGA faithful love him. Critically, he was an internal vote of opposition to the Iran conflict and can be counted on to support MAGA tentpole issues like immigration. He's also young enough that he might appeal to young voters. 

But he has some obvious downsides. First of all, he might not want to run. He's got a very young family and might not want spend his kids childhoods working the most stressful job in the world. He's also got some major liability with who he choses to associate with, Vivek Ramaswamy is a close personal friend and that does not reflect well on Vance. Plus, at a time when immigrants from India is one of the most hot button issues in all of North America, he's married to one and his best friend is one. This is probably a bigger deal than anyone is willing to admit. 

Marco Rubio:

Rubio is one of the harder working members of the Trump administration and his foreign policy credentials can't be denied. He's well liked among MAGA and the fact that he is Hispanic might bring back some Hispanic and Latino voters that turned left this year. 

Rubio has some issues as well, and I think he's actually a better VP candidate than Presidential one. Rubio is a foreign policy wonk at a time where Americans aren't in favor of GOP foreign policy, to say the least. He has some of the taint of the Iran conflict on him. 

But the real problem? Rubio is bad at debates. Trump wiped the floor with him in 2016, but that's because he's a good debater. But losing to Chris Christie? I said after that debate that Rubio's presidential ambitions were done at that point, and I don't think I am wrong. It's possible he's advanced since then, but I don't see it. 

Ron DeSantis:

DeSantis has been a credible presidential candidate for a couple cycles now and nobody can deny he's done an extremely good job in Florida. Indeed, he's got a lot to do with Florida being a swing state, to being one of the most solid red states in the country. He's extremely competent and low drama for the most point and has been free of scandals. There's a very good argument for voting for someone who can get things done, and it's very clear that DeSantis has got a ton of things done in Florida. 

But will voters forgive him for not supporting President Trump as much as he could? Possibly, but he was also everyone's 2nd choice in 2024 and 2020. The other problem is that he doesn't have any foreign policy experience and I have little knowledge if he would be good in a debate. 

Ted Cruz:

Cruz is a popular Senator and made a deep run in 2016. He's well known and fairly smart. He's good in a debate and eventually showed a lot of loyalty to President Trump. 

But I don't see him as a serious candidate. Yes, he's well known, but a lot of people on both sides dislike him. Trump joked that he could nominate him for SCOTUS and he would pass because both parties would vote for him just to get rid of him because they all hate him, and that's probably accurate. Some folks won't forgive him for not dropping out in 2016 when it was clear that Donald Trump was going to be the candidate. And he's just an unlikable person, a President is someone you want to have a beer with (which is also why Kamala Harris lost), but would you really want to have a beer with Ted Cruz?

Rand Paul:

Rand Paul is popular among the libertarian wing of the Republican Party and he's at least has some credibility as a candidate. But I don't really view him as a credible candidate. The best I could see from him is an "also ran" candidacy that doesn't accomplish much. 

Thomas Massie:

I have no idea why his name is even being floated given that he's out of congress in disgrace following a brutal primary race. I guess he appeals to the contrarian right that cares more about hating other Republicans than actually fighting Democrats or getting anything done, but I think it's pretty clear that he won't win. I think folks want someone more willing to work with people and Massie has always been the guy that makes perfect the enemy of good. Republican voters have already rejected him. 

Glenn Youngkin:

This is the neocon "let's go back to before 2016" wing of the party candidate and I don't see him being successful. Youngkin was a good Governor of a swing state, but that was awhile ago, and you can't ignore the fact that he screwed up the election after he ended his term. There's an argument for running a boring candidate, but I think it's a bad one in this case. The Republicans don't need to go back to being the Washington Generals of elections, and I think going for Youngkin is a great way to do so. 

Chris Christie:

No. He's not going to be the candidate. He's the RINO of all RINO's and the former governor of a blue state and has those same blue state values. He's a good debater, to be sure, but that's about it. Vivek Ramaswamy (who nobody is mentioning as a candidate this time around) has a better chance than Christie. 

So who is it going to be? My guess is probably Ron DeSantis. Vance might not run and he might not win if he does. Rubio might decide that a 2032 or 2036 run would be a better idea. But DeSantis is far enough away from Trump that the Trump haters will vote for him, but close enough to him that MAGA voters will go for him too. It could easily be Vance or Rubio, but that's going to depend on how well things go in the 2nd half of Trump's 2nd term. If it goes well, they could be well positioned, but if it doesn't, DeSantis is a shoe-in. 

The rest of the candidates? I don't really see any of them being credible candidates and if they do run, I doubt any of them break 10%. There is a possibility that some other darkhorse candidate could pop up, but who? I just don't see who else it could be besides one of the main three, Vance, Rubio and DeSantis. 

Outgoing California Governor Gavin Newsom has commuted the sentence of all prisoners on death row.

 

California Governor Gavin Newsom. Fox News/Reuters. 

Outgoing California Governor Gavin Newsom has commuted the sentence of all 548 prisoners on death row. Fox News. The commutation will spare the lives of every prisoner on death row but will not remove the death penalty from the state. Newsom had put a moratorium on executions since taking office in 2019 and the state has not executed anyone since 2006. Newsom said that the death penalty was fundamentally flawed and did not align with the values of his state. However, families of the victims of the prisoners on death row condemned the move. California voters have supported the death penalty, voting down proposition 62 which would have ended it in 2016 and in the same year supporting proposition 66, which narrows the appeals process. 

My Comment:

This is mostly meaningless in actual results. California wasn't going to execute anyone any time soon. California's governor elect, Xavier Becerra, said he was going to extend the moratorium once he got into office next year and that means nothing would change until 2030 at the earliest. And because California is basically a one-party state, it would be unlikely that he or the Democrats would lose power. I guess there is a chance that a pro-death penalty Democrat could be elected someday, or the GOP could win the office (after what we saw with Texas, it's possible), but it's unlikely. 

Still, I do feel it's a slap in the face for anyone that was a victim of these killers and their families. Refusing to enforce the law because you disagree with it is one thing. Ending the death penalty is a thing to. But commuting the sentence though? I find it disgusting. 

All of these people on death row are convicted of murdering someone. All of them were sentenced to death. And all of their victims will now be denied the punishment the killers earned. 

Do I think there are problems with the death penalty? Sure. It's not acceptable to execute someone where there is doubt. And our current execution methods are pretty messed up (I'm not a fan of lethal injection, we should use hanging or firing squads). But I find most of the objections to it to be nonsense, most notably the idea that it's racist somehow. 

As for Newsom, I do think he is genuinely opposed to the death penalty. I don't think this is some kind of cynical attempt to shore up a his Presidential ambitions. Indeed, that would be a dumb idea, as the death penalty is still fairly popular. It's not a 80-20 issue, but it is a 60-40 one, and drawing attention to this might lose Newsom a few votes. 

2026 midterms post-mortem. The men aren't all right.

 

Screengrab from Falling Down. 

As you are certainly aware, the midterm elections happened yesterday and it was an actual blue wave. As I noted before the election, it's pretty rare for a party in power to not take major losses during the midterms, and this time the Republicans lost both the Senate and the House. 

Thousands of words have already been written about this and why it happened. The general conclusion, also backed by President Trump and Vice President Vance themselves is that this was due to the Iran War. It's hard to argue that is wrong, President Trump would not be the first GOP president to lose in the midterms due to an unpopular war of choice in the Middle East, the whole situation reminds me of George Bush. 

However, the war itself isn't really enough to explain why things got so bad for Republicans to the point where they lost even in deep red states like Iowa and Texas. More tuned in people know that it was the gas prices that the war caused rather than the war itself that did the damage. Though some felt the Iran conflict was a betrayal, Trump ran on a "no new wars" platform and went back on it, it was the fuel prices that absolutely did the damage. 

But again, that doesn't tell the whole story. Paying $1 a gallon more for gas isn't a great explanation for the level of anger for the Republicans we saw on Tuesday. The problem is that folks are not doing well in this economy, and it's young men, especially White men that are doing worst of all. 

Indeed, I understand this pretty well. I am, after all, a 43 year old man with a college degree working a job that didn't require one. I'm unmarried, have no kids and can't even afford a home, despite saving for it for years. A few weeks ago I was unhappy with something that happened at my job but I realized very quickly that I would just have to deal with it because I didn't think there is any chance of me getting a new job. 

And you know what? There are a lot of men younger than me that would kill for the level of success I have. I have a job, I don't really worry about money too much, I've actually kissed a girl or two. So many young men now just don't have any of those things and have no hope of getting those things. And, at least in my case, I can say that I had opportunities do get all the things I wanted, I just made mistakes and choices. Can young men say the same thing? 

Just like D Fens up there, for young men, you can do everything right now and still fail miserably. I have heard so many stories of young men sending out hundreds of resumes and never getting an interview, let alone a job. Hunting for a job now is just as humiliating at going on the dating apps, and has the same likelihood of success. In both cases, you are no longer competing with just the folks in you town for a job/girlfriend, you are doing it with basically everyone in the country, and now, frequently, everyone on earth. 

The two AI's, Artificial Intelligence and Actually Indians, are making this problem even worse. Both are eliminating the chances of young men getting a high paying job in the IT field and others. Indeed, tech workers are one of the worst groups for this given how many jobs have been eliminated or taken by H1B visas that what was a hot career for smart young men is now a deadly trap. 

 

https://t.co/crfNSktNcc

— Mediocre Chuch (@Mediocre_Chuch_) November 4, 2026

And young men, White men especially but not limited to them, are demonized basically everywhere. Men are the reason why everything bad happens, according to the media. They are blamed for women making bad decisions and can even be thrown in prison for it. #MeToo really did a number on young men, being blamed for the actions of a small minority of men, and having totally normal behavior demonized as practically rape. 

Indeed, this is a major reason why I think young men turned on the Republicans this year. Nowhere was the flip to the Democrats more dramatic than Zoomer men. Young men flipped more than any other group. And when you think about it it's very obvious why they did. 

The Republicans did not do much since taking power in 2025 to solve any of these issues. Deportations did help, but the numbers weren't big enough to affect anything other than the margins. Trump ended some of the discrimination against White males in colleges. And there were other small things, like ending fake CDL mills. 

But much worse than that, it seemed that nobody in the Trump Administration or Republican Party even realized a problem. When Trump was informed that almost all of the jobs created over the summer went to women and not men, Trump made a joke about how women liked him. He didn't seem to understand that the economy wasn't working for men.

Much worse were the folks like Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Ashely Hinson that were putting out ads and making statements saying that young men were lazy and were leeching off the government and playing video games in their parents basement. This kind of thing might have played well for baby boomers, but it infuriated young men, and even folks like me. It's little wonder that Hinson lost on Tuesday.

 

 

Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson says young men playing video games in their parents’ basements should not be “mooching off the federal government.” Follow: @AFpost https://t.co/UqCWnB2MD9

— AF Post (@AFpost) November 3, 2026

It's also little wonder why young men turned on the GOP if that was the strategy. Instead of offering a vision that would improve the lives of young men, the party was instead was insulting the same voters. Trump himself got distracted with the Iran war and things only he really cared about, like renaming everything or the White House Ballroom. 

Of course it doesn't make a lot of sense for young men to punish the Republicans by voting for the Democrats. The Democrats also bear a lot of responsibility for how things are for young men. And I would say that the Democrats entire platform has been hating young men, White men especially. It's why I expect this won't be a permanent situation, just a midterms one-off, White men aren't going to stay with the "we hate White men" party. 

But I will say that in the past when large groups of young men can no longer get the things in life they want and need, like jobs and wives, things tend to get bad. In the past, the situation led to men either overthrowing their leadership or making war on their neighbors so they could take what they need. Such things are a lot less easy to do now, so an alternative must be found. 

And I think this Tuesday was that alternative. Young men know that the Democrats hate them, but is there really much of a difference between being hated and ignored? If the Republicans won't even attempt to listen to them on these economic issues, why even try? Young men sent a message to the GOP on Tuesday and that message was "fix things or we burn the whole country down." And that should have been obvious what was happening because so many folks were saying before the election, pretty explicitly. And it wasn't just accelerationists like Nicholas Fuentes saying it, it was normal young men that had given up hope on thing getting better. 

Was that message received? I don't know. I know that I personally heard the message loud and clear. I had discounted how angry young men were. I obviously thought that the economy didn't matter too much because the boomers were happy, and I think that's how the Republicans felt too. I dismissed the folks saying they were staying home or even voting for Democrats as malcontents, groypers and shills making perfect the enemy of good. But I was absolutely wrong.   

But for the Republicans? I don't know. Both Trump and Vance seem to understand that they screwed up in Iran but do they get it was the economic effects of the war and not the war itself? I am not sure. Once again though, I feel the loss of Charlie Kirk. Kirk had the apparently unique ability on the GOP side to actually listen to young people and translate that to President Trump. Is there someone in the current administration that can do the same?

This isn't the only reason the Republicans got beaten on Tuesday. There were other valid reasons that angered other parts of the 2024 coalition. The anti-war types were angry about the Iran war, the MAHA folks were angry that they didn't get much attention, the immigration folks were mad that more folks weren't deported and so on. And I could write an entire article about candidate quality, and indeed, I did write a whole article about how Vivek Ramaswamy was terrible. 

And it's absolutely not just young men that are suffering from this economy too. Yes, the stock market is doing well and inflation has been slowed, but unless you are a boomer with a large stock portfolio, who cares? I'm 43 and even I am feeling ignored on economic issues by the Republicans. Indeed, boomers were the only generation that broke for Republicans in this election, so it's clearly not just young men affected by a K-shaped economy that is being held up by AI. 

Clearly a lot needs to be cleaned up if the Republicans want to have a chance at the White House in 2028. There is the thought they could do nothing, as I have little doubt that the Democrats will screw everything up, as they always do. But it would be a lot better for the Republicans if they focus on the young men that have been abandoned by everyone. I think if Republicans figure out that young men are a key to winning elections, they will do so and if they don't, they will be stuck in the same pattern where they get wiped out by, and wipe out in turn, the Democratic party. 

 

Shocking last minute endorsement as Michigan Democrat Haley Stevens endorses Republican Mike Rodgers over Abdul el-Sayed

 

Michigan Representative Haley Stevens with GOP Senate candidate Mike Rodgers at a church in Detroit. CBS News/AP.

In a shocking last minute endorsement, Democratic Representative Haley Stevens has endorsed the GOP Senate candidate for Michigan, Mike Rodgers, over the Democrat's candidate, Abdul el-Sayed. CBS News. Stevens narrowly lost to Sayed in the primary race, and had previous endorsed him. The breaking point appears to be due to an independent ad made by Cenk Uygur, which blamed Israel for high grocery prices in the United States and was widely viewed as anti-Semitic. Stevens also citied Sayed's links to Uygur's notorious nephew, Hasan Piker, as a reason for her endorsement of Rodgers. The Democrats are apoplectic about the endorsement, with several staffers for Stevens quitting. 

I am endorsing Mike Rogers for the United States Senate today. https://t.co/pQgfSBuhOJ

— Haley Stevens (@HaleyforMI) November 1, 2026

My Comment:

This seems like an example of a person doing the right thing too late to matter. A lot of the people that may have been persuaded by this may have already voted, especially given how often Democrats vote early compared to Republicans. Some will still vote on election day and may actually change their votes because of Stevens making a stand here, but there are going to be people that regret their vote now that it's to late to change it. 

And I agree that she's right to do this. El-Sayed is almost certainly antisemitic. His entire campaign appears to be about Israel and it seems clear to me that he doesn't like Jews as a people. And his friends Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker? There is zero doubt in my mind that both men hate Jews even outside of Israel. And, as the old saying goes, if you lay down with dogs, you end up with fleas. That's exactly what Sayed is doing by not denouncing both men. 

It comes at a time where the soul of the Democratic Party is up for grabs. The party has to decide if they want to be the old party that at least pretended to care about old Americans, or a third world party that doesn't care about anything else but wokeness and Israel. Right now it sure looks like the party is going with the 2nd option and it's going to push out comparatively moderate people like Haley Stevens out of the party. 

It's telling that Stevens is now persona non-grata for the Democrats. She has little choice now but to be a de facto Republican, even if she doesn't agree with Republicans on any other issues. Indeed, that's the biggest criticism of the current Democratic Party. There is a lot less political diversity on the Democratic side and it's very clear that the party is not a "big tent". 

I do think that some of this is personal too. I get the feeling that Stevens and Sayed despise each other and there is a lot of hurt feelings from a very close primary race. I think both sides think the other's views on Israel are evil. 

Regardless though, this endorsement came too late to affect the race that much. Unless the margin is razor thin, this came to late to actually change anything. Like I said, voting has been underway for weeks now and even the people that could have been persuaded by this have already voted. 

I do think it's possible, probable even, that el-Sayed is going to lose to Mike Rodgers. He's a political extremist and, as I have mentioned several times, I don't trust the polling whatsoever. He could still win, and that would be a shame, but I think whatever the case, the die was cast long before this endorsement from Haley Stevens. 

President Trump and Senator Lisa Murkowski condemn Democrat involvement in the two Dan Sullivan scheme.

 

Mary Peltola. Politico/AFP.

President Trump and Senator Lisa Murkowski have condemned a new report that accuses Senate Candidate Mary Peltola of involvement in the false Dan Sullivan scheme. Politico. Incumbent Republican Senate Candidate Dan Sullivan is facing another candidate with the same name and the new report says that Peltola's campaign was behind the search for the 2nd Dan Sullivan. Alaska uses a ranked choice voting system and having two candidates on the ballot with the same name may confuse voters. Peltola's former campaign manager, Elisa Rios, made the accusations that Peltola was absolutely aware of the scheme, and there was other evidence that confirmed her account, despite the fact that she tried to retract it. The Trump administration has already filed suit that will challenge the result of the election if the true Dan Sullivan does not win and the margin is small enough that the 2nd Dan Sullivan votes could change the outcome. 

My Comment:

The two Dan Sullivans scheme is one of the most cynical things I have ever seen the Democrats do and it's a very strong argument against ranked choice voting. This story is a scandal and it's one that I hope costs Mary Peltola's chances to win next week. 

Everyone already knew that the Democrats were behind this scheme. The only problem, and the reason why this story blew up so much to the point even President Trump is talking about it, is there was no proof until now. It was an open secret but now there is actual proof. Rios made the statement, retracted it, but that's not the only evidence provided. I think it's essentially confirmed to the point if a crime was committed here, a case could be made. 

This could cause quite a bit of damage to the Mary Peltola campaign. Voters don't like efforts to actively trick them and it could anger enough moderates, or even some Democrats, that they could vote for the real Sullivan instead. I know in my case, if the parties were reversed, I'd be rather disgusted that my side was doing something like this. It's just such a scummy thing to do and proves that the Democrats only care about winning. 

It also has the benefit of publicizing efforts to make sure folks vote for the right Dan Sullivan. To recap, the real Dan Sullivan has an S. middle initial, is marked as the Incumbent and has Republican on the ballot, while Dan J. Sullivan does not have the incumbency or GOP label. Having this scandal break a week before the election will hopefully educate anyone who would have otherwise been confused by this scheme. 

It could also help efforts to end ranked choice voting, which is also on the ballot this year. Indeed, as I said before, this is a very good argument as to why ranked choice voting is a joke. I think people in Alaska will realize how bad this is and finally get rid of it. It was almost revoked in the last election and only failed by a few hundred votes, and given the news now, maybe this time it will succeed. 

I think this is a good example of cheating while you were ahead. I think Peltola's chances of beating Sullivan are worse now with this scheme than it would have been if she had just run legit. I don't think she was really going to win regardless, but if she pulls it off now I would be very surprised. It's another reason I am pretty bullish on the Republicans keeping the Senate, I don't really think Alaska is in play anymore. 

If she does win though, can anything be done? It really depends. If it's an extremely narrow victory and the results could have been different without the fake Dan Sullivan on the ballot? Then the lawsuit deployed by the DOJ will go through. Will it overturn the election results? I doubt it. The judge that did so would be painting a target on his back, and not just metaphorically. Especially if the result causes control of the Senate to change hands...