Although pre-election forecasts predicted the 2024 election would be mathematically closer than a coin flip, everything seemed to go perfectly for former President Donald Trump on Election Day. By receiving 2.5 million more votes than he did in the 2020 presidential election and flipping six of the seven swing states which voted for Biden in 2020, Trump became the first Republican to win the popular vote since George W. Bush in 2004. While a fractured Democratic Party continues to scramble for fresh leadership following such a spectacular and unexpected loss, the Republican Party seems elated. Many Republicans have slated the incumbent vice president, JD Vance, to be the Republican’s 2028 presidential nominee, as Trump is constitutionally barred from a third term.
However, nominating Vance as the Republican nominee would put the Republicans in a tricky position. Trump is a candidate of personality, not policy: this is evidenced by MAGA Republicans’s staunch support of Trump despite his sometimes contradictory policy positions, such as his hawkishness in Greenland but isolationism in Ukraine, or his flip-flopping opinion on banning TikTok; further, Trump voters seem content with him missing many key campaign promises in 2016, such as his promise to construct a wall on the Southern border. Unlike the Democrats, who are in the process of renewing their image and nominating new blood following the election of an establishment Democrat like Biden, Trump maintains a strong grip on the Republican party and its policies.
Despite the prominence of the vice presidency and Vance’s attempts to parrot Trump’s talking points, he does not wield Trump’s cult of personality and would be an unwise choice for the Republican nomination. Unless they act soon, the Republicans will face the same leadership crisis in 2028 as the Democrats face now, as it will prove incredibly difficult for the Republicans to move away from Trump’s stout influence on the party.
The incumbent vice president’s path to the Oval Office has always been tumultuous, as vice presidents have limited constitutional mandate over hot-button issues besides casting a rare tie-breaking vote in the Senate. As such, the vice presidency is considered to be more of a ceremonial role than an administrative one; John Adams, the first vice president, privately bemoaned the vice presidency as “the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” The Constitution provided little way for Kamala Harris to have lowered inflation, stifled illegal immigration, ensured access to an abortion, or tempered Israel’s hostility in Gaza, which arguably led to her loss.
Because the Constitution provides little agency to the vice president, the vice president’s day-to-day duties have largely been determined by whatever the president delegates to them. Again, it proves difficult for the sitting vice president to take credit for these delegations. If the vice president is successful, ill-informed voters can erroneously credit such successes to the president; if the vice president is unsuccessful, critics will accurately hold the vice president accountable. This arguably contributed to Harris’s loss. Biden delegated the daunting task of stifling illegal immigration to Harris in March 2021, only to have illegal immigration become one of the most hot-button issues amidst an unprecedented surge of illegal migration.
Voters recognized this, viewing Harris as too intertwined with an unsuccessful administration that oversaw the outbreak of two major regional wars, high grocery prices, and a surge of border crossings. Harris’s fate will await Vance in 2028: if the second Trump administration is by-and-large unsuccessful, Vance will be tied to the failures of an administration of which he had little constitutional mandate to control. If the second Trump administration is by-and-large successful, Vance will need to convince Trump’s loyal supporters that he contributed to such successes.
Even if Vance does win the nomination and the presidency, he will most likely be a one-term president. Sitting vice presidents who win the presidency tend to not live up to the greatness of their predecessors and are voted out in the next election cycle. It is no surprise that of the four sitting vice presidents who won the presidency—John Adams in 1796, Thomas Jefferson in 1800, Martin Van Buren in 1836, and George H.W. Bush in 1988—only one, Jefferson, was lucky enough to win a second term.
The successes of a hypothetical Vance administration would also not necessarily guarantee him a second term. Ronald Reagan’s former vice president H.W. Bush was unable to clinch a second term despite numerous successes while president, such as aiding the peaceful reunification of Germany and signing the Americans With Disabilities Act. This is in part because he was comparatively meek and uninspiring compared to the popular and charismatic Reagan (H.W. Bush himself noted that he was “lost between the glory of Reagan…”). By banking on Vance, the Republicans are banking on a candidate who will always be overshadowed by his predecessor; this will not serve the Republicans well in 2032.
As such, the Republicans have three choices for their nominee in 2028. If Vance adequately embraces Trump’s policies and persona, he may have a chance to flip the enthusiasm of pro-Trump Republicans to himself. Alternatively, the Republicans could nominate a candidate with similar rhetoric, policy positions, and persona as Trump, such as Vivek Ramaswamy. Both of these scenarios are daunting. As evidenced by the January 6th insurrection, Trump is not willing to cede power to a successor even when he is constitutionally mandated to do so; further, Trump’s tumultuous relationship with his first-term cabinet shows Trump’s unwillingness to work with subordinates that could become nominees. Convincing Trump to support the candidacy of a subordinate could be a challenge.
The Republicans’s other choice would be more ambitious. If Vance or a Trump-esque candidate does not generate the same excitement as Trump did—or if the Republicans seek to redefine their party after two tumultuous administrations—Republicans could gamble on a dark horse candidate disconnected from the inner workings of Washington. This is how the Democrats defeated incumbent Republican president Gerald Ford in 1976 by nominating Jimmy Carter, the scantly known and uncontroversial governor of Georgia who appealed to upset voters after the Watergate Scandal and Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. Regardless of what path the Republicans take, it would be advantageous for Republican leadership to begin choosing now, rather than erroneously assuming Vance to be a convincing nominee. Much as the Democrats are now, the Republicans must search for fresh leadership after their current president leaves.
