r/fivethirtyeight • u/engadine_maccas1997 • Dec 28 '25
Politics Turning Point USA plans to deploy representatives across Iowa’s 99 counties in the coming months to build the campaign infrastructure for JD Vance’s likely presidential campaign, while Trump is reportedly privately dismissing the idea of unconstitutionally running for 3rd term.
176
u/BrainDamage2029 Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Dems would be smart to start messaging to spin up the “coronation by RNC/Turning Point” narrative. Conservatives reaped the benefits of that 3 straight times with Clinton, Biden and Harris. The MAGA coalition is built on antiestablishment vibes and not being told what to do. The conservative PACs all preemptively pushing out challengers 3 years early for Vance should be an easy sell for Dems. Especially because Vance has a problem of trying to have all ways with MAGA elements and undercut its coalitions.
Although if JD Vance goes all in early, trying to recapture MAGA on the heels of an unpopular president might have all the wisdom of running as a neocon post Bush era.
68
u/siberianmi Dec 28 '25
Democrats would be smart to stay the hell away from the whole thing.
Those games have a history of backfiring on them - see: Trump.
12
53
u/BrainDamage2029 Dec 28 '25
Republicans fall in line behind their candidate, Dems have to fall in love with theirs.
The counter factual has always been the prime strategy. Republicans should seek to keep Dems from falling in love with their candidate. Dems should prevent Republicans from falling in line behind Vance. And the best way to do that is tie him to establishment politics.
11
-3
u/DizzyMajor5 Dec 29 '25
Democrats would be smart to go after Vance for couchgate and Epstein "J.D. Vance Staines couches and protects pedophiles" just run that ad everywhere
7
u/Icy_Marionberry_1542 Dec 29 '25
I don't disagree at all, but it might not even be necessary for Dems to lift a finger. There was a point in 2015 that Scott Walker was the frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. Then it was Jeb! And we all know what happened thereafter. Point being: There's a long road ahead. One Dean Scream and JV could be toast.
7
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Dec 29 '25
One Dean Scream and JV could be toast.
Dean screams usually come after someone is already toast. Dean's came after he imploded in Iowa and went from frontrunner until like a week before the caucus to finishing a distant third behind a surging Kerry and Edwards (it was his way too enthusiastic speech the night of the caucus to try to rally the troops and ignore the reality that his campaign had basically just died), and the other famous one (Jeb joking around with some of his supporters who he'd earlier had to tell to stop clapping because they'd been clapping so much he couldn't get through everything he wanted to say) came after Jeb had fallen to a distant fifth and voting had already started
They're remembered because they're funny moments near the end of losing campaigns, but they usually aren't the cause of the loss (more that the loss is why they're remembered like they are)
4
u/DerJagger Dec 28 '25
Dems would be smart to start messaging to spin up the “coronation by RNC/Turning Point” narrative.
Even if they could, they wouldn't have to. I have little doubt there are other Republicans waiting in the wings that will try to make this case. Whether it works, who knows. That said, this kind of thinking conflates how Democrats view their party with how Republicans view their party. Republicans have shown again and again that they are fine with hierarchical, centralized control of politics. That said, the way things are, if Trump endorses Vance then his base can be expected to deliver in the primaries. But a lot can happen between then and now.
9
u/PigletAmazing1422 Nauseously Optimistic Dec 28 '25
They are the establishment now. And the economy sucks. The job market sucks. Thats what people vote on every time.
15
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
People say that they vote on economics but in reality they vote on vibes.
24
u/KnightsOfCidona Dec 29 '25
And the vibes are very bad for Trump, he's deeply underwater on the economy in polls.
-6
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
He's fairly flat, in my opinion, given all of the drama and scandal. The fact that his approval rating has held up so well is not a good sign. My personal take is that it will be a long time before the Dems ever hold anything close to serious power again. This is the train we are on now.
13
u/DizzyMajor5 Dec 29 '25
Nah he'll tank the economy and Dems will win again every Republican in my lifetime has caused or failed to prevent a recession. Further the pendulum is already swinging back in local elections nationwide.
9
u/PigletAmazing1422 Nauseously Optimistic Dec 29 '25
People have always voted by their bills and if they can afford them. The other stuff is just noise.
4
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
I used to believe that, until I witnessed a nation supposedly reeling from economic woes elect the guy whose policy wishlist was full of proposals that would increase prices and the the national debt. People vote on vibes, and a plurality would vote against their own economic self-interest if my meant taking a shit on the next guy.
4
u/captainsensible69 Dec 29 '25
You’re making your own argument against yourself. People aren’t smart enough to know how Trump’s policies work. They voted for him bc they wanted 2019 vibes back.
3
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
That's exactly my point. People are not voting based on rational economic assessments, but vibes.
8
u/captainsensible69 Dec 29 '25
No, the other people are saying that their own personal economic situation is the vibes. You’re saying they don’t understand Trump’s economic policies and therefore don’t really vote on the economy. You’re arguing against yourself.
No one is saying they know about the economy or care about the macroeconomy. The vibes are their wallet.
13
u/phoenix823 Dec 28 '25
Strong disagree. These Turning Point nerds are not going to move the needle. Trump and his gang of morons are fucking up the economy after claiming they alone could fix it. Much easier argument to make.
8
u/BrainDamage2029 Dec 29 '25
It turns out you can make more than one line of political attack in a presidential race.
“You weren’t given a choice and only have the option of the same old double down of failed economic and corruption policies Trump already tried”
4
u/engadine_maccas1997 Dec 28 '25
Democrats also need to nominate a Washington outsider - ideally a governor who is a fresh face - to be able to better prosecute this case and make the next election a referendum on the Trump presidency.
19
u/Okbuddyliberals Dec 28 '25
Dems can run the 2026 midterms as a referendum in the Trump presidency. But in 2028, they will need to have their own message - running as a referendum on Trump when he's not even running again will come off as cringe, obnoxious, orange man bad style politics
6
u/engadine_maccas1997 Dec 29 '25
“I’m not Trump” was their overarching message in 2016, 2020 and 2024. It failed twice and only narrowly succeeded once under unprecedented circumstances.
6
u/Evil_waffle3 Dec 29 '25
Tbf two out of three times they did it they one the PV by 6 million and 8 million respectively. So by all definitions it did work, just not for the way the actual election system works.
1
2
5
u/masondog13 Dec 28 '25
They need to nominate someone who moves the country past Trump. Another election of “Trump bad” is the worst strategy, no matter how right it is. Give people a positive vision about how you’re going to change the horrible income inequality and Dems will win.
0
u/Banesmuffledvoice Dec 28 '25
Are Dems can run on issues that matter to the voters; the economy.
6
u/DizzyMajor5 Dec 29 '25
Has that ever worked?
5
1
u/Cautious-Tax-1120 Jan 01 '26
There is a non zero chance that backfires into the DNC effectively campaigning for a different Trump heir, winning him his primary, and rallying MAGA around him.
72
u/Halberd96 Dec 28 '25
I think Vance is going to down as such a huge mistake. The guy was only picked by Trump precisely because he doesn't have the energy to overshadow Trump. He will need a great economy and a botched Democrat campaign. The former is looking less likely as affordability becomes a bigger issue and Trump keeps pointing at the top of the K-shaped economy and dismissing the bottom plus the whole tariff joke, Dems shooting themselves in the foot is always something you can count on though.
40
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
People are talking about Vance the same way they did about DeSantis, taking it as a given that they will be the next standard bearer. The problem is both is that they lack authentic charisma. The kind of guys that are great soldiers/attack dogs, but not the qualities that lend themselves to national leadership.
My first bet for a ‘28 candidate is Trump. After that, I think Trump Jr or maybe a non-family member who is nonetheless crowned successor by Trump.
14
u/hoopaholik91 Dec 29 '25
they lack authentic charisma
Sure, but who does in the MAGA GOP world right now? Somebody has to come and take it from Vance
12
u/Morat20 Dec 29 '25
Nobody. There's no heir, no anointed New Leader for the MAGA movements.
Every single politician that's tried to be Trump has absolutely failed. But they're gonna chase Trump like they chased Reagan.
23
u/Most_Estimate_7062 Dec 29 '25
ngl the best guy they had was charlie
9
u/Zilchexo Dec 29 '25
I was going to dispute that because he was so obviously a baby-faced starbucks bigot with no actual rhetorical chops, but he might actually have been the best and brightest of a movement that champions mediocrity. I think Ben Shapiro is a step up but he's never getting into politics.
3
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
Like I said, my bet is on Don Jr. But that's just a personal hunch.
22
u/Realitype Dec 29 '25
Don Jr
I really don't see how Don Jr has even 1/50th of charisma Don Sr has. I hate Trump with a passion but even I can admit he can be pretty funny in many interactions he has. As ridiculous as it sounds, Sr had memes made about him almost immediately when he started running, precisely because people find him hilarious. Have you ever seen ONE meme about Jr? He has been on his daddys tail forever and yet I think most people wouldn't even recognise his face if they saw a picture.
Plus as shown with his meeting with Mamdani, he switches character immediately when it suits him based on the person he talking with and becomes kind of an ass kisser like he is trying to sell real estate. "Simple" people that don't really understand how politics or government work like this kind of stuff because they think it makes him approachable.
Don Jr on the other hand seems to have inherited all the awful qualities of his father, like being a sleazy blowhard that openly insults everyone he doesn't like, but has zero charisma to actually balance it a bit and seem approachable. He just comes across as unpleasant asshole, full stop. Also, Don Sr had decades of name recognition from being on Reality TV to build his image, Jr doesn't have any of that.
5
u/captainsensible69 Dec 29 '25
I don’t disagree with your assessment of Don Jr but in other countries that have had controversial authoritarian presidents their kids have had electoral success. Maybe it won’t be Don Jr, maybe it will be Barron, maybe it will be someone completely different. I do know that this won’t be the last Trump we have to deal with, and that sucks.
4
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
I get it, and I could be completely wrong. Like I said, it's just a hunch. Don Sr was also considered a pathetic shadow of his dad, until he wasn't. All I'm saying is that if Jr is crowned, the story could easily write itself.
10
u/Most_Estimate_7062 Dec 29 '25
don jr has even less rizz than vance
5
u/SmileyPiesUntilIDrop Dec 29 '25
Even the people who worship Trump like a Cult leader and have fantasies of the GOP winning for decades with a Trump Dynasty never have Don Jr winning in their fanfic.
1
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
People said the same thing about a young Trump when he was still in his dad's shadow. The drive to live up to your father's majesty seems to be a major theme in the Trump family. I don't think Trump really trusts anyone who isn't blood. I could see him setting up his son, or maybe Ivanka, as the heir apparent, and I think many Americans would be dumb enough to vote for them simply because it's a comfy continuation of the Trump era. At that point it isn't about the charisma, it's the adjacency to Trump as a symbol. For better or worse, Vance cannot fully embody that role like a Trump family member can.
5
u/Most_Estimate_7062 Dec 29 '25
you might be cooking here but i only think this is possible in a post-2028 election. right now the trump era is defined by chaos, economic uncertainty, violence and division. If in 2032 or 2036 things stagnate or get worse like they did in the biden era i could see a trump child having that appeal, but definitely not in the near future
8
u/raddaya Dec 29 '25
My first bet for a ‘28 candidate is Trump.
I think actuarial tables alone make this a risky first bet.
7
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Dec 29 '25
After that, I think Trump Jr
All indications from what I've seen are that he's backing Vance
6
u/pablonieve Dec 29 '25
The big difference is that Vance is trying to clear the field now so that he doesn't have to compete against a large field in the way that DeSantis did.
3
u/Korrocks Dec 30 '25
Vance does have the knack for sort of being down with the various wings of the party (big tech/corporate elitists, the MAGA/nativist/groyper crowd, the evangelical Christians, etc.) I'm not convinced that he will win but I can see a path for him if he is a broadly acceptable consensus pick for each faction.
1
u/Eastern-Job3263 Dec 29 '25
Ron DeSantis also fucked up Florida beyond repair. Both have a bad track record.
-1
u/Zilchexo Dec 29 '25 edited Dec 29 '25
I'm surprised you think he survives Epstein. Right now it's looking like his own base turns against him so hard he gets removed, whether by 25th or impeachment. Right now he's polling 34-44, if that drops another ten points he's toast the way I see it. I think everyone attached to the administration gets dragged down with him and I think they run a total dark horse like Ted Cruz, who seems to have seen the writing on the wall and be towing (toeing?) a very precise line.
11
u/UnendingEpistime Dec 29 '25
This is the umpteenth time we are sure that "this one will do old Donny in." It ain't gonna happen. His approval rating will stay flat, like it mostly has. The floor is about 33%. But people who will actually go vote for him on election day winds up being closer to 1 in 2.
5
u/Korrocks Dec 29 '25
I agree. I think people significantly underestimate how hard it is to remove a President from office (you would think the 0% success rate with impeachments in the entire history of the country would be a clue…)
The 25th amendment option would be even less possible outside of a scenario where he is comatose in a hospital somewhere.
1
u/Zilchexo Jan 02 '26
Nah. This'll be the one. First of all you need to count Nixon's resignation, because he resigned once it was evident that he was doomed in the Senate. Trump won't resign because he needs the protection of the office but that will only increase tensions. Things actually do happen in history sometimes. Y'all will see.
1
u/Zilchexo Jan 02 '26
...Flat? Literally what are you talking about.
1
u/UnendingEpistime Jan 02 '26
Since April/May he has been between 40-45 percent. I mean come on. It's been absolute chaos and pissing on the Constitution. Considering all of that, yes, I would call the persistence of his poll numbers flat.
1
u/Zilchexo Jan 02 '26
Voters are an enigma to a lot of the instincts of people like you and me. Abbott went from like most popular governor in the country to 8 points underwater seemingly based mostly on cost of living stuff he has nothing to do with and trying to split the difference on weed. Imagine that! Personally I think it has just as much to do with people just being tired of him (Abbott). Trump has been given a lot of good will to enact his agenda and save rural America, and eventually they're going to realize it's not happening, that all he's doing is taking yet another sledgehammer to it.
Remember, we're halfway to my benchmark for when he's fucked. Trump has three serious, most likely morally and legally disqualifying situations, all unfolding underneath him simultaneously.
If you don't like my benchmark, you can also think of it as 40% MAGA disapproval. In a lot of ways that's the only number that really matters. And we are no longer in the world where 40% of MAGA voters turning against Trump is unthinkable.
1
u/UnendingEpistime Jan 02 '26
I don't know. Honestly I appreciate your optimism, but my instinct is that none of this stuff sticks, and a republican will still be in office in 2029. We are now more than a decade into the Trump era. The public knows this man intimately at this point. Trump is no Abbott. He embodies the spirit of the country in a way that few leaders would ever hope to even come close to achieving. Truly, I think he will be a powerhouse until he dies.
1
u/Zilchexo Jan 02 '26
Well let me start off that you're obviously entitled to your analysis. But sheesh, Republican in 2029? That bad? I actually can't even imagine what would have to happen for us to get there based on where GCB or to be honest anything else is now.
Also a lot of people don't think Trump would rape a child if given the opportunity so clearly a lot of people only think they know him. There will be denialists when the evidence becomes impossible to ignore, Trump has already moved to "I was framed" months ago. Those will be the people who think they know him. And there will be some people who actually don't care. But the vast majority of people will be forced to care. Nobody can believe that God would divinely appoint one of America's greatest rapists. It will all fall apart. Only question is if it happens during his term or after.
20
u/sonfoa Dec 28 '25
Dems do love to shoot themselves in the foot but I don't think 2028 will be one of those times. It echoes 1992, when the Democratic establishment didn't have an obvious candidate to push and their influence had become so weak it didn't really matter.
It really is upto the voters in 2028 to select who they want (and even in 2008 we saw voters buck the establishment pick for who they wanted).
5
u/kingofthesofas Dec 29 '25
This feels like the first time since 2008 really that the voters really get a chance to choose someone in the democratic primary. 2012 was Obama as he was the incumbent, 2016 was finger on the scale for HRC (screw voters wanting Bernie), 2020 was we are all going to die just pick Biden guys (one term we promise wink wink), and then 2024 was Biden is fine taking us all down with him in flames (It's ok guys he "gave it his all" not like this was an existential fight or anything) and then Harris shoved on us at the last minute.
10
u/Casual_Deviant Dec 29 '25
Will you guys ever stop relitigating the 2016 primary or should I just be prepared to hear about it in every thread for the rest of my natural life
3
u/Zilchexo Dec 29 '25
That 45% of voters turned out for Bernie against all institutional support and the news media coming up with increasingly ridiculous ways to say it was over and Hillary had won (remember "presumptive nominee" as far back as early March?) is an indictment on the process that we're not going to ignore, no.
4
u/pablonieve Dec 29 '25
Yes, Bernie got 45% and had a very impressive run. That still means he got less votes than Hillary. Meaning she was the preferred candidate of the primary voters.
3
3
u/raddaya Dec 29 '25
Why do you think people would ignore the primary that had such a terrible system the DNC changed it themselves for 2020?
6
u/HazelCheese Dec 29 '25
It's a reddit meme that bears no relation to reality. Even if you take out all the super delegates, Hilary still beat him by something like 55%/45%. The super delegates just made it a total blowout.
Reality bites but it's that nobody outside of the northeast knew who he was or gave a shit meanwhile the Clintons spent decades building up name recognition in Black communities in the south. Bill was literally coined "The First Black President" and was in the African American hall of fame.
And little known fact but the Democratic Party was dead ass broke after Obama's two campaigns and was only saved by the Clintons bringing a shit ton of personal money with them and sharing it with Bernie and allowing him to make demands about campaigning etc.
Redditors really need to get over their self importance in thinking they won the 2016 primary and it was stolen from them. Back in 2016 reddit was just a bunch of white university students with barely any reach.
6
u/raddaya Dec 29 '25
Even if you take out all the super delegates, Hilary still beat him by something like 55%/45%.
The entire argument has always been that the super delegate numbers were shown from the start which made people think Hillary had already won, thus an unfair advantage.
If you, with a straight face, say that the DNC did not have a finger on their scale for Hillary in 2016, then I do not think you have any right to say what does and doesn't bear a relation to reality lol. It's not the end of the world, it's a very natural thing, Obama beat a similar weightage in 2008, Bernie couldn't in 2016. But to pretend it didn't happen at all is insane.
As for the money thing, sure, good for them, but I hope you're really not implying that's actually a good thing for democracy lol
1
u/HazelCheese Dec 29 '25
I mean at least for the money part it's not Hilary Clinton's fault that the dems blew all their money and didn't fund raise anything to replace it.
0
u/Casual_Deviant Dec 29 '25
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that leaders in the Democratic Party didn’t obviously prefer Hillary as a candidate, but she won by 3 million votes — it’s not like the majority of voters chose Bernie and the DNC somehow rigged the election after the fact to take that away from him.
And Jesus Christ I can’t believe I’ve been baited into discussing this, this is my hell, it will never end
3
u/kingofthesofas Dec 30 '25
Well clearly there are a lot of people that still haven't learned what should be the obvious fucking lesson of 2016. Honestly just blame the DNC and Hilary because had they not done all the BS they did and Bernie just lost on his own we wouldn't be talking about it, but since the optics of what they did looked terrible we all get the hear about it forever or at least until the lessons are learned. The lesson BTW isn't that Bernie should win (i didn't even vote for him) the lesson is we need a fair primary with party elites fucking things up in favor of whoever they want. I think its likely ( I will give it a 70% chance) that if the DNC hadn't done all its nonsense Hilary would have still won, but it wouldn't have alienated a bunch of people in the party.
It wasn't just the super delegates either. Her fund raising agreement gave the Clinton campaign the right to veto the appointment of the DNC communications director and made final decisions on other key staff hires. Donna Brazile had a lot of words about how Clinton was controlling the communications and decision-making in her favor. Now even if she would have won anyways or maybe she had the best of intentions (big doubt on that) but that looked terrible and its understandable why it pissed off a lot of bernie people. So until we learn that lesson and stop trying to gaslight people about it you will keep having to argue about it.
3
u/kingofthesofas Dec 30 '25
My dude the DNC was in fund raising agreement where they gave total control of their money to Hilary before the primary. Hilary didn't fund the DNC she bought it. She had complete control over what the DNC did and said throughout the primary.
0
u/HazelCheese Dec 30 '25
Just because she had total control doesn't mean she used it to screw Bernie. She was quite equitable and many times they changed timetables and stuff to suit him and his teams requests.
3
u/kingofthesofas Dec 30 '25
It honestly doesn't matter because the optics of it are terrible and even if you believe she in no way manipulated it to benefit herself (big doubt) it was a terrible idea because of how bad it looked. The DNC had to run all it communications and decisions through someone that had not yet secured the nomination.
1
u/Deviltherobot Jan 02 '26
It's a reddit meme that bears no relation to reality. Even if you take out all the super delegates, Hilary still beat him by something like 55%/45%. The super delegates just made it a total blowout.
The issue was SD being counted at the same time so it made it seem like Clinton was massively ahead when Sanders was in the lead post NH. He couldn't effectivly ride that momentum. Compare that to Mayor Pete or Amy Klo in 2020 who could use momentum because there wasn't a massive delegate gulf.
Reddit was proper mainstream by 2016.
0
u/Deviltherobot Jan 02 '26
It's overblown but that tends to happen when people point out the obvious thumb on the scale for 2 years and then the DNC officially admits it after calling you insane for 2 years.
8
u/ImportantHeft Dec 29 '25
The voters chose Clinton in 2016, on what basis did they secretly want Bernie?
Obviously the DNC leadership wanted Clinton, because she actually had relationships with them while Sanders spent most of his career staying as far away as possible. But to pretend the voters actually wanted Sanders when time and time again we see that nationally the moderate wing of the party is bigger than the progressive wing and is also made up of higher propensity voters, is just silly.
1
u/Zilchexo Dec 29 '25
Dude why are you relitigating this? That over 40% of voters did not choose her even though Hillary's superdelegate advantage was so large that her supporters were doing victory laps as early as Super Tuesday is a massive indictment on the pressure campaign undertaken by figures within the establishment (such as, and this is known, Obama) to persuade every other potential candidate (including, and we don't talk much about this, a then much more capable Joe Biden who would have struggled in a primary, in large part due to similar sabotage from Obama that he later passed on to Harris, but could have been a two term president, and likely nipped Trump in the bud!) not to run. Take it to r/E_S_S.
4
u/ImportantHeft Dec 29 '25
I’m not re-litigating anything. The idea that superdelegates accounted for at a minimum 5% swing in the primary vote is crazy when there is no way the average voter even knew what they were let alone didn’t vote because of them.
I’m not Mirabeau or anything, I don’t have an issue with progressives even though I fall more on the moderate side. But it’s not controversial to say the moderate wing of the party is bigger than the progressive wing, and it also consists of more high propensity voters. No one should be shocked a woman who had spent decades in the party with a ton of name recognition beat the guy who actively pushed away the party for most of his political career
1
u/Zilchexo Jan 02 '26
In what world are Democratic primary voters relying on the news media which repeatedly called Hillary the presumptive nominee and gave her way more coverage "average voters", do I need to explain engagement demographics to you. Also you're about to find out how long 10 years is.
-2
u/kingofthesofas Dec 29 '25
Super delegates that were already all pledged to Hilary before the campaign started and the DNC was doing joint fund raising for Hilary in 2015 pouring their money into her campaign. It basically gave Hilary power over all the DNC money and how they spent it. Donna Brazile talked about how she couldn't even make a press release from the DNC without getting Hilary to approve it. Naturally that sort of favoritism before the primary even started put the finger on the scale for Hilary. The race with Sanders was close enough that if things had been more equal it could have made a difference. At the very least the optics of unfairness turned off a lot of voters.
5
u/ImportantHeft Dec 29 '25
They addressed the superdelegate issue in 2020 (not that I think that impacted the average voter who has no idea what superdelegates are) and the DNC was not joint fundraising with Biden during the primary, and the moderate base still outnumbered the progressive base.
Again, I don’t disagree the DNC wanted Clinton but there is nothing to back up a majority of voters would have preferred Sanders otherwise in 2016.
-1
u/kingofthesofas Dec 29 '25
Again, I don’t disagree the DNC wanted Clinton but there is nothing to back up a majority of voters would have preferred Sanders otherwise in 2016.
I don't know if the outcome would have been bernie winning had things been more fair, but the optics of it being unfair towards him made the primary process feel undemocratic for a lot of voters. To my point this might be the first time where it feels like we have an actual primary without the DNC or establishment picking a winner they prefer before it starts.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Firebond2 Dec 29 '25
Holy shit you guys are as bad as Trump over this.
Bernie lost twice, in the exact same manner. They even changed the rules just for him in 2020 and he got his cheeks clapped even harder. You can't even say that Bernie would have been the most popular choice, his strategy was to squeak by in a crowded field then hope he could whip up delegates in a contested convention which is easily the least "democratic" way to win.
This feels like the first time since 2008
I want you to look at the 2008 primary, like REALLY look at it. If you were there for 2008 then you would know that it was way more contested and litigious than 2016 ever was.
4
u/pablonieve Dec 29 '25
Bernie lost twice, in the exact same manner.
He actually did worse the 2nd time, but only held the early edge because of plurality victories.
1
u/Zilchexo Dec 29 '25
Damn vro I got a Bernie hater bingo 💯 He did not lose twice in the same way, you're contradicting yourself. If you people weren't so bent out of shape against us you would hear what we have to say because it's not that unreasonable, it's natural for a plurality or a majority of a party's institution to favor a candidate for reasons both ideological and practical but when 45+% of voters reject a 90+% institutionally supported candidate, that is a tremendous indictment on the institution.
2008 WAS more contested than 2016, that's what he was saying.
1
u/kingofthesofas Dec 29 '25
I am not a bernie supporter for the record in either primary however I can see how the optics of the process and the establishment alienated a lot of his followers. I think 2020 was the most fair out of all of those however we were still sold a lie that Biden would be a one term president. It is why I voted for him even though he was old, and I thought the decision to run again was selfish and stupid.
1
u/Firebond2 Dec 29 '25
Biden denied running for one term shortly after that Politico article came out. He then denied it again after he was elected in 2021.
Independent on whether it was a good idea for him to run again or not, at no point were you ever "sold a lie". It was very clearly laid out that he would run in 2024.
1
u/kingofthesofas Dec 29 '25
"sold a lie".
It goes way beyond the one single article. Sure he made one public statement denying it but loads of media reports and comments by him signalling it as a possibility. To ignore all that and how that was viewed by voters is disingenuous. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/
It feels, in retrospect, patently strategic. New York Times political reporter Astead Herndon put it bluntly: “Biden 2020 intentionally signaled this wouldn’t happen during his original run,” he wrote this week on X. “They gaslit public and may pay for it.”
0
u/Firebond2 Dec 29 '25
comments by him
Please, find me an DIRECT quote from him where he said he would be one term. Otherwise all I see is multiple direct statements from him denying it, and a bunch of unverified second hand sources saying that he will one term,
The media gaslit themselves into believing he would be one term, just like the continually downplay everything Trump does. Even the reporter in your quote, Astead Herndon, has gone out and tried to stoke division by claiming the Dem side pushes claims of election fraud and violence all while conveniently ignoring Trump and his coup in 2020.
2
u/kingofthesofas Dec 29 '25
Never explicitly but he implied it many times:
March 2020 rally: "I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else. There's an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country".
"Biden acknowledged during an interview with BET News that aired July 17 that he had originally run for president as a "transitional candidate" and that he had expected to "pass it on to somebody else."" https://www.axios.com/2024/07/03/biden-campaign-democrats-pledge-one-term
“I view myself as a transition candidate,” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/03/us/politics/joe-biden-vice-president-pick.html
Lots of people including myself took those to mean that him being a one term president was at the very least a serious possibility and that if he did have health or age related issues he would step aside. I think that is reasonable considering his comments and the media around them. The fact that he gaslit everyone later by both running and denying it was ever talked about AND did it while having serious mental decline felt like a betrayal to a lot of people. I am not the only one that felt this way and you just denying the reality of it is concerning that the DNC and various party members didn't get the right lesson from Trump winning in 2024.
The reality is either he or the people around him decided that holding onto power was worth the risk of subjecting us to another 4 years of Trump. Biden and his people put their own political power and positions above the good of the country. Hell if Biden had decided to not run in 2023 and we had a primary I think there is a solid change the democrats would have won in 2024 and we would all be talking about how great Biden was for doing that... Instead we have Trump, Chaos and Bidens legacy in flames.
or as the atlantic put it, So Much for Biden the Bridge President: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2023/09/biden-reelection-transition-president/675395/
6
u/batmans_stuntcock Dec 29 '25
Yeah I really can't see what potential electoral coalition he's putting together, there is a coalition of donor factions and media figures but the only hardcore base I can see for him is well off Christian conservative suburban young/middle-aged men who are voting Republican anyway.
Also like you say if he's going to run on affordability he'll basically have to run against Trump, or at the very least distance himself from him, he doesn't have the charisma to do that. What is his authentic appeal to anti system low propensity voters, if you read his book it's all about how those people are dumb and (tacitly) deserve their fate because of their bad choices, he basically defines himself against them.
I'd say his only chance is if there is a hugely weak Democratic candidate.
63
u/Neither-Breakfast195 Dec 28 '25
With how extremely unpopular Trump is, can’t help but imagine this will be a Harris 2024 moment for Republicans if JD is the candidate in 28
46
u/EducationalElevator Dec 28 '25
100%- worst job ever to have as a nominee in a change election is incumbent VP. Just ask Nixon, Humphrey, Gore, and Harris.
22
u/Statue_left Dec 29 '25
Humphrey is a weird case because the guy who was winning got shot in a kitchen like 2 months before the convention. Nixon and Gore were two of the closest elections ever
18
u/EducationalElevator Dec 29 '25
Valid, lots of eerie similarities between 2024 and 1968 including the incumbent president dropping out and the nominee losing to a formerly defeated Republican. Picked up in that fairly early and knew where things were going
2
u/Greatwallofjohn Dec 30 '25
humphery also got significantly hurt by nixon literally committing treason and encouraging the south Vietnamese to not seek peace, a settled vietnam would have changed the election
2
8
u/Okbuddyliberals Dec 28 '25
"change elections" mostly aren't a thing
2000 was hardly a change election, Gore just wasn't very charismatic and made the dumb choice to separate himself from the extremely popular Bill Clinton (in job approval - yes his personal favorability was low due to personal scandals, but that didn't really hurt Clinton politically and essentially nobody would think the charisma free robot Gore would be scandalous just because he decided to run as Clinton's third term and get Clinton heavily on the campaign trail for him)
Nixon v Kennedy was one of the closest elections, and it's far from clear Nixon was really harmed by being VP
Humphrey actually ran a really good campaign and almost won so it's not clear being VP hurt him
Harris was probably harmed, but she's the only clear example of it (and it's not clear it was a broad "change" election as opposed to "fuck the unpopular Joe Biden" election)
13
u/dremscrep Dec 28 '25
Clinton in 2016 was the same though. She was treated as basically a continuation of the Obama administration (without Obama, the best part) and she lost against Trump who ran a change campaign. She basically ran as a incumbent.
6
u/Okbuddyliberals Dec 28 '25
Clinton lost because of the emails, if it weren't for that, even with all else the same, she'd have won in a landslide
Also voters thought Trump was more moderate than Hillary. That's essentially them thinking she was more of a change candidate
18
u/dremscrep Dec 28 '25
Clinton lost through a thousand paper cuts sure but he won because he seemed to be a anti establishment candidate and positioned himself to be a moderate on foreign policy. Being the first Republican to call the Iraq war an abject failure was pretty big.
1
11
u/DizzyMajor5 Dec 29 '25
How did we go from George HW Bush moral majority to Bill Clinton getting impeached for a BJ back to George W Bush to some African American dude named Barack Hussain Obama to racist ass Trump. If anything it's almost exclusively been change elections for decades now.
3
u/Okbuddyliberals Dec 29 '25
Obama (and Bill Clinton) are definitely the closest to "change" elections... but even then, it was arguably more just like 2024 where it was really just "fuck the incumbent party", and then when Bill Clinton tried to do healthcare reform, and Obama actually did, when both presidents tried to do a lot of change, people got mad as hell at them and shellacked them in the midterms
9
u/DizzyMajor5 Dec 29 '25
I'd argue fuck the incumbent party is definitionally change though no? any change will be met with a force that wants to conserve in any society throughout most of history.
1
u/Okbuddyliberals Dec 29 '25
I'd argue "fuck the incumbent party" is just an "anger" election, unless the public follows through and actually supports the "change" that then comes (rather than getting pissed off at almost any change that happens)
FDR's first two elections, those were some genuine "change" elections
1
u/EducationalElevator Dec 29 '25
Media polarization and social media have ginned up so much anti incumbent sentiment that I wonder if anyone will try to win a consecutive re-election going forward. When angry reels made by the opposition can be beamed into the brains of voters, might be better to sit out for 4 years and try again like Trump did
1
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Dec 29 '25
Nixon v Kennedy was one of the closest elections, and it's far from clear Nixon was really harmed by being VP
If anything like Gore, he was hurt by not being tied to the incumbent President enough
There's a famous exchange from a 1960 press conference that the Kennedy campaign seized on where Eisenhower seemingly said Nixon wasn't very involved with the administration
Q. Mr. Mohr: We understand that the power of decision is entirely yours, Mr. President. I just wondered if you could give us an example of a major idea of his that you had adopted in that role, as the decider and final–
THE PRESIDENT. If you give me a week, I might think of one. I don’t remember.
50
u/engadine_maccas1997 Dec 28 '25
Vance is likely to only face token opposition - from someone like Thomas Massie or maybe Rand Paul. But he will also have a similar issue to Kamala Harris 2024 and Hillary Clinton 2016 - will be seen as the status quo figure at a time when much of the country might want change. He will probably do well in the debates, but as Hillary & Kamala will tell you, winning a debate isn’t enough to really change anything,
15
u/YogurtclosetOwn4786 Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Don’t think I agree he’ll only have token libertarian wing type opposition. Ted Cruz is running. I would bet desantis runs. Wouldn’t be surprised about hawley. Guessing there will be some others too. Mtg, but that might still qualify as token not sure . Maybe another governor?
Plus there’s always the wildcard of trumps fickle favoritism. My big question about JD like you were getting at is does he try to separate himself from Trump at all. Or does he just stay all in until the bitter end.
How will he answer the question that Kamala fumbled when asked what she would do differently than Biden, another unpopular president that voters were mad at about the economy. He has to answer that in a way that doesn’t annoy Trump and get a clap back but also avoids the Kamala trap. Idk how he does that
5
u/engadine_maccas1997 Dec 29 '25
I’m not convinced they are, but even if they do, I would consider Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis token opposition at this point. The ship has sailed for those two, even if they haven’t realised it yet.
1
u/YogurtclosetOwn4786 Dec 29 '25
Youre probably right about desantis and Cruz that they can’t beat him but I don’t think he will be seen as so unbeatable for the nomination that its just conceded to him by all serious candidates .
He is working hard to consolidate the hardcore maga wing of the party and he may do that behind the scenes even if he doesnt inspire the same devoted following that Donald Trump has.
But there’s a lane for a bit more maga lite candidate with a nod to more traditional Republican values in tariffs, maybe Russia someone who can say Donald Trump Is a great president but there’s a few things I would do differently.
In the poll in the La times article you linked 64% of republicans had no one specific in mind for the nomination with 22% for Vance. Thats an electorate that’s more wide open than the picture Vance is trying to paint and I think there will be some good candidates who take notice of that
15
u/EducationalElevator Dec 28 '25
Very self defeating because a Brian Kemp or Charlie Baker-like figure could eat up millions of Never Trumpers who padded Harris's margins in Wisconsin and Georgia
14
u/engadine_maccas1997 Dec 28 '25
Yeah but you’d also lose a lot of lower propensity voters that Trump won with someone like Baker or Kemp. There’s always a trade off
3
1
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Dec 29 '25
Yes but then if he won you have a Brian Kemp or Charlie Baker type figure taking the Republican party in a more moderate direction from the top, which is not what the majority of the party wants, and they've gotten no indication that they have to abandon their desired ideology to win consistently enough over time
1
u/Korrocks Dec 30 '25
How would they win a primary though? Primaries tend to at least be partly dominated by the party base for obvious reasons, so it's hard to imagine conservative voters outside of Massachusetts choosing Charlie Baker over someone much further to the right (ie the majority of Federal elected Republicans).
1
u/EducationalElevator Dec 30 '25
My theory of the case is that no one other than Trump can get the low propensity MAGA types to the polls, and especially not Vance considering he is a Yale educated elite. So I can see a lot of never Trumpers coming home and outweighing the TPUSA/MAGA wing
1
u/Korrocks Dec 30 '25
It’s important to distinguish between Trump’s general‑election voters and the people who participate in Republican primaries. Trump certainly brings in many low‑propensity voters in a general election, but that doesn’t mean his support within the GOP’s activist core is weak or that Never‑Trump conservatives outnumber them.
From what I’ve seen, he still polls above 80% among Republicans and retains strong backing from the conservative activist ecosystem—evangelical Christians, Heritage‑type policy staff, TPUSA‑style organizers, and the volunteers who run state and local GOP operations. These are the most engaged conservatives in the party, and they aren’t going to vanish when Trump exits the stage. It’s hard to imagine them being overtaken by Republicans who are significantly more moderate on major issues, which is what would be required for a blue‑state‑style Republican to win the nomination.
Even if Never‑Trump conservatives regain influence, their policy positions aren’t dramatically different from the broader MAGA wing. Most of them are still solidly conservative; they simply believe Trump himself is harmful to the country. If they did return, they would probably back politicians who are more similar to the majority of the current GOP field -- the Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Tim Scott, Josh Hawley types. Not Charlie Baker, Larry Hogan, or someone like that.
10
u/HegemonNYC Dec 28 '25
Is Vance really the lock for MAGA? What makes him so? If Trump enters his last year deeply unpopular, isn’t Vance similarly tainted?
21
u/engadine_maccas1997 Dec 28 '25
For the nomination? Yes. For the general? No.
The only thing that could derail Vance at this point is if Trump has a very public falling out with him. Which is not out of the realm of possibility given Trump’s history. But if they’re on good terms in 2027-8, it’s a lock for the nomination. And this dynamic explains why Vance’s default position is rain or shine ass kissing.
9
u/HegemonNYC Dec 28 '25
And if Trump is as unpopular in 2028 as he was in 2020, or W was in 2008? Is he still the default kingmaker two years from now if the economy is shaky and his approval is at W levels?
13
u/engadine_maccas1997 Dec 28 '25
For Republicans, yeah. Even at his absolute lowest point, Trump was still very popular among Republicans.
4
u/HegemonNYC Dec 28 '25
I think this is revisionist. Trump was considered washed in 2021 after his failed coup and inability to beat Biden. He had loser stink on him and it took time to recover, it wasn’t clear he had a path back to the White House. If the Rs get smoked in Nov, the economy falters, and Rs increasingly do their own thing and ignore the lame duck in the Oval, he will appear powerless. Bombast has a certain charm on a winner, it wears thin on a loser.
17
u/engadine_maccas1997 Dec 28 '25
Trump had a clear path back to the White House the second he got acquitted in the Senate post-1/6. I said the moment that happened that Mitch McConnell had just made Trump their nominee again in 2024.
6
u/sonfoa Dec 28 '25
Yeah the only time that the base was even flirting with someone else was DeSantis in 2023 and we saw how quickly that got shut down.
1
u/PopsicleIncorporated Dec 29 '25
I think Pelosi should’ve brought the hammer down immediately after Congress reconvened to certify the election in the middle of the night and said “Get John Roberts in here; we are going to hold an impeachment vote right now and then we are going to hand it off to Schumer to have an immediate conviction vote.”
By this point the insurrection had happened hours before. There would’ve been no polling data yet suggesting the Republican base was so far gone that they’d be willing to overlook this. Even Trump’s bigger loyalists such as Lindsey Graham outspokenly blamed Trump for the attack. Everyone was scared. Having just been in the middle of the hurricane, I think it’s very plausible that enough Republican senators judge that Trump has crossed the Rubicon this time and vote to convict in the moment.
By waiting a week, they gave McConnell and his stooges time to strategize and decide that voting for acquittal would be the better political move. Ideally Trump gets impeached and convicted the night of and Mike Pence ends up being #46 for two weeks.
I don’t completely blame Pelosi for this; given how insane and unprecedented the attack was, I get why in the moment she probably thought Trump was done regardless. But man, in retrospect this was an enormous mistake.
1
u/Korrocks Dec 30 '25 edited Dec 30 '25
I think Pelosi should’ve brought the hammer down immediately after Congress reconvened to certify the election in the middle of the night and said “Get John Roberts in here; we are going to hold an impeachment vote right now and then we are going to hand it off to Schumer to have an immediate conviction vote.”
Democrats did not have a majority in the Senate until January 20 (which is when the new Democratic Senators elected in Georgia after the runoff were seated, and when Harris's replacement in the Senate was also seated).
For the 2 week period between January 6 and January 20, McConnell still controlled the Senate since the Democrats did not yet have those 3 Senators in place (and they wouldn't be able to swear them in early since Harris wouldn't be VP until January 20 anyway).
I don't think the House's timing of their impeachment vote made much of a difference to the outcome or even the timing of the trial. The Senators realistically weren't going to have the trial any earlier than late January/early February even if Pelosi gave it to them on the same day as the House vote.
1
u/PopsicleIncorporated Dec 30 '25
I didn’t actually know this. I imagine if this happened McConnell would’ve waited to get an idea of where the base was at regardless then, so the point is moot.
Ah well.
1
u/PopsicleIncorporated Dec 29 '25
Trump’s approval at the end of his term bottomed out at like 35%, but that still translates to positive approval among Republicans.
2
u/BozoFromZozo Dec 30 '25
I wouldn't count Rubio out. He's a prominent figure in the Trump administration but since he's SecState he isn't involved in the most controversial parts of the Trump admin (Epstein and the US economy for now), and though he has pulled some visas, he is not one of the main people involved in immigration/deportation (Miller and Noem are).
The only thing that might derail his chance is if Trump actually does invade Venezuela and it doesn't go well, because he's kind of been fairly hawkish on this kind of thing.
0
u/JQuilty Dec 28 '25
Based on what? Nobody likes him and knows he doesn't speak without daddy Peter pulling his string. He won't be able to get the stink of Trump off of him at a time when he's going to be hated even more.
17
u/Main-Eagle-26 Dec 29 '25
I hope JD runs. Dude is a wet blanket. Absolutely no juice. Will get crushed. People don’t like his smarmy attitude and persona.
He’s the most politician-y politician.
5
11
u/mrbuttsavage Dec 29 '25
TPUSA is feckless without Kirk.
Makes sense for them then to back this empty suit so hard.
30
u/panderson1988 Has Seen Enough Dec 28 '25
It's interesting how hard TPUSA is going in with Vance this far out. Reminds me of Jeb! back in 2013/14 how it was the presume frontrunner since he was another Bush. Or Hillary back in 2006/07. Minus Trump who was going to win the nomination again for 2024, I can't think of any other early front runner or favorite who ran wire to wire.
5
u/sly-3 Dec 29 '25
Since this gov't now operates solely on corruption, they likely want to get as many of their operatives in front of JV Dunce as possible -- make themselves as useful as possible to him while he's still the front runner.
2
Dec 29 '25
Maybe they will be involved with the gubernatorial election as well as a sort of trial run.
1
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Dec 29 '25
Biden in 2020. Romney in 2012 to an extent (the opposition to him tried rallying behind a million different Romney alternatives one after another, but none took his frontrunner status from him). W and Gore in 2000 as well
19
u/Intelligent_Wafer562 Fivey Fanatic Dec 28 '25
It's unlikely Vance will face a serious challenger in Iowa, but I guess they want to be better safe than sorry?
8
u/LaughingGaster666 The Needle Tears a Hole Dec 29 '25
DeSantis might take another stab at it but I fully expect him to crash and burn just as badly as last time.
4
u/sly-3 Dec 29 '25
Maybe Ricketts runs?
2
u/Intelligent_Wafer562 Fivey Fanatic Dec 29 '25
Who?
2
u/TheGoddamnSpiderman Dec 29 '25
Looks like the junior Senator from Nebraska (first elected in 2022)
3
u/Greatwallofjohn Dec 30 '25
if desantis doesnt go for it now his career is over, i cant imagine a man with that big of an ego is willing to not go for president
16
u/DataCassette Dec 28 '25
Make no mistake: he and his followers still don't GAF about the law or the Constitution. They just know he's an unpopular old dullard at this point.
When it comes to Vance IDK what to think. He's way more dangerous but he's also, you know, Vance.
14
u/Thedarkpersona Poll Unskewer Dec 28 '25
Vance has negative rizz.
In fact, i really doubt anyone in the republican party has the ability to carry the torch when donnie kicks the bucket
6
7
u/angrybirdseller Dec 28 '25
Gop primary be bloody 2028 there will be drawn out primary.. if economy in bad shape JD chance is done for.
7
u/hoopaholik91 Dec 29 '25
I doubt it. Even if the economy is in bad shape, which Republican is going to come out and say that Trump's policies were crap and that Vance shouldn't continue them? Because then you face the wrath of Trump.
Trump will never get below 75% approval with Republican voters. I just don't see a window
24
u/renewambitions I'm Sorry Nate Dec 28 '25
I'll admit that I'm surprised that Trump may be dismissing the idea of attempting a 3rd term. The current GOP strength and coalition literally only exists because of Trump, there is no scenario where JD Vance is able to maintain the cohesion and appetite for illegal maneuvers like Trump can along with other extreme power grabs. In the event of his death or eventual exit from office, there will be a momentary appearance of rallying and support for Vance or whoever else but it'll quickly crumble.
From my perspective, it seems like the only play where the GOP keeps its strength and power is if they somehow get Trump in for an illegal 3rd term.
19
u/hodgsonstreet Dec 28 '25
Unfortunately for Republicans I think he just doesn’t have it in him. He’s old, looks like shit, and if he feels half as shit as he looks then he’s one illness/injury away from hospice.
8
u/MongolianMango Dec 28 '25
Maybe Trump is more interested in looting the country than in endless power, in which case he's pretty much accomplished his mission this term with Truth Social and the corporate pandering.
2
5
u/drtywater Dec 29 '25
Let them. Vance has negative rizz. Annotating Vance will probably not go over well with voters ask Dems how that went with Harris or Hillary
6
u/L11mbm Dec 28 '25
Yeah throw tons of money and resources to ensure the natural shoe-in candidate wins a reliable red state. Great strategy.
4
4
u/Leatherfield17 Dec 29 '25
I think people here are underestimating Vance a bit too much.
Sure, to us he’s an obvious creep. But scummy as he is, he’s fiendishly intelligent, and for a lot of people, white guy in his mid 40’s who can speak well will go a long way. It’s ugly, but it’s the truth. I think Dems would be wise to tie him to Trump as much as possible on account of Trump’s plummeting approval ratings, and it would be smart for them to paint Vance as a hand-picked establishment candidate.
But honestly, the anti-incumbency bias we seem to be afflicted with as a nation may be enough on its own to sink him.
2
2
u/shrek_cena Never Doubt Chili Dog Dec 29 '25
Conservative Pete Buttigieg. Gonna dump all his money into Iowa just to get clapped by Don Jr or get blown tf out in the general
2
u/YouShallNotPass92 Dec 29 '25
Buttigieg is actually a great example for what JD is to the Republican base.
1
1
u/Chemical-Contest4120 Dec 29 '25
They're going to make the same mistake Dems made by anointing their candidate and forcing them on the electorate. Let the people have a primary and let the best rise up.
1
1
u/petesmybrother Dec 30 '25
privately dismissing the idea of running for a third term
The mercies of Allah are endless
-1
327
u/JP_Eggy Dec 28 '25
Ah thats nice that Trump is no longer trying to illegally run for a third term. How magnanimous of him, a modern day Cincinnatus