In Focus delivers deeper reporting on the political, cultural, and ideological issues shaping America. Published daily by senior writers and experts, these in-depth pieces go beyond the headlines to give readers the full picture. You can find our full list of In Focus pieces here.
This week, I traveled to Simi Valley, California, for a speaking event at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, and we got to the interactive Q&A portion of the evening.
First question: Who will be on the Republican ticket in 2028?
My instinct was to throw caution to the wind because every time a pundit tries to answer this question in an open election after a president has been term-limited, the answers are almost always wrong.
Take the 2008 election: The early matchup that appeared to be a foregone conclusion was then-New York Sen. Hillary Clinton versus former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Clinton was being groomed for this the moment she won reelection in New York, while Giuliani was named the Time Person of the Year in 2001 and called “a tower of strength” on the same cover.
Among registered GOP voters in September 2007, Giuliani led easily with 32% support in a Pew Research poll, followed by the senator and former actor Fred Thompson at 16%. Thompson’s name was also bandied about as a strong contender, with some seeing him as the next coming of another Hollywood star-turned-president in the mold of Reagan.
As it turns out, Giuliani flamed out quickly. Thompson also failed to gain traction and never could catch that Reagan magic, leaving John McCain battling Mitt Romney for the nomination, with McCain coming out on top.
On the Democratic side, Clinton was leading a relatively unknown Barack Obama by 17 points in the same Pew poll in September 2007, 42%-25%. “Hillary the Inevitable!” was the headline from Politico at the time, with poll after poll showing her ahead.
But the more Obama spoke, the more the 40-something newcomer was seen, the more voters liked him. He had the energy, he connected especially with younger voters, and the guy really knew how to nail a speech. Clinton, in contrast, appeared annoyed that her coronation had become a competition.
To quote Apollo Creed’s trainer in the original Rocky, after Creed was getting much more than he could handle in the early rounds, “He doesn’t know it’s a damn show. He thinks it’s a damn fight!”
Obama, of course, would go on to capture the nomination and the presidency by easily defeating McCain.
So that’s just one lesson in not trying to predict nominees and horse races too soon. The other most obvious example is the 2016 race, with then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign.
“This is not a real political candidate, not a real political figure, this is a sideshow,” declared the Atlantic’s McKay Coppins on CNN’s Reliable Sources in 2014.
Trump would go on to win the presidency after bulldozing 16 GOP candidates in the primary before shocking Clinton in the general, while Reliable Sources would go on to be canceled.
“I came to Manchester [New Hampshire] for the purpose of pressing him on why he is so intent on continuing this charade,” Coppins wrote before his CNN appearance, which likely led to him being booked for the sole purpose of dunking on Trump. “But what I found was a man startled by his suddenly fading relevance — and consumed by a desperate need to get it back.”
That aged well, didn’t it?
Bottom line: It’s usually a fool’s errand to make these kinds of political predictions early. But in the case of 2028, it’s hard to envision any scenario that doesn’t have Vice President JD Vance at the top of the ticket and Secretary of State Marco Rubio as his No. 2.
For Rubio, it’s been a case study in growing confidence since he first ran for president 10 years ago. Rubio, after finishing a strong third in 2016 in Iowa, where he nearly topped second-place Trump (Ted Cruz won), was seen as a possible nominee at just age 44. But his nervous, rehearsed debate performance in the primaries showed he wasn’t ready for the big stage yet.
Politico, February 2016: “Rubio awkwardly pivoted four times to a well-rehearsed line that President Barack Obama ‘knows exactly what he’s doing’ as he tried to drill home the idea that he’s the inevitable general election candidate — an unforced error that his rivals pounced on and that quickly went viral.”
Then-New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was seemingly in the race solely to take out Rubio, mocked him for being too scripted.
“There it is. There it is. The memorized 25-second speech. There it is, everybody!” Christie charged.
“I think the case for Marco being ready to be commander in chief took a hit tonight,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said at the time.
Rubio dropped out not long after.
Since then, however, Rubio is no longer dependent on canned lines and talking points. As secretary of state in the Trump administration, he is often sent to hostile media territory to carry the administration’s message on foreign policy.
Exhibit A was last Sunday when Rubio appeared on the hopelessly biased Face the Nation, anchored by Margaret Brennan on CBS.
“You know, there is concern from the Europeans that President Zelensky is going to be bullied into signing something away. That’s why you have these European leaders coming as backup tomorrow,” Brennan asserted to Rubio without offering evidence to support such a claim.
“That is not true,” Rubio protested. “But that’s not true, they’re not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelensky from being bullied.”
“We had one meeting with Putin and like a dozen meetings with Zelensky. … They’re not coming here tomorrow to keep Zelensky from being bullied. They are coming here because we’ve been working with the Europeans. We talked to them last week. … The president talked to these leaders as early as Thursday. … This is such a stupid media narrative,” a flabbergasted Rubio added.
And that’s how you do it: Don’t accept an anchor like Brennan’s opinion but challenge said anchor with facts.
Vance famously did the same to Brennan and CBS’s Norah O’Donnell during the 2024 election in the first and only vice presidential debate against goofy Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN). At one point in the 90-minute showdown, Vance broached Springfield, Ohio, and the influx of Haitian immigrants there who were not legal citizens of the United States.
“Look, in Springfield, Ohio, and in communities all across this country, you’ve got schools that are overwhelmed, you’ve got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes. The people that I’m most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harris’s open border,” Vance explained.
“To clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status. Temporary protected status,” Brennan shot back as if she were debating Vance.
“Well, Margaret, I think it’s important because,” Vance tried to respond before being cut off.
Brennan (piously): “Thank you, Senator. We have so much to get to.”
Vance: “Margaret. The rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check, and since you’re fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on. So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum, or apply for parole, and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand. That is not a person coming in, applying for a green card, and waiting for 10 years.
Brennan: “Thank you, Senator.”
Vance: “That is the facilitation of illegal immigration, Margaret, by our own leadership. And Kamala Harris opened up that pathway.”
Brennan (even more piously): “Thank you, Senator, for describing the legal process. We have so much to get to.”
Vance’s fact check of the fact check was absolutely correct. But as he tried to finish, Brennan jumped in again.
Brennan (with oozing disdain and sarcasm): “Gentlemen, the audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut. We have so much we want to get to. Thank you for explaining the legal process. Norah?”
Yep. Vance was winning the argument, and Brennan had been thoroughly embarrassed, so they cut his audio.
The Republican would go on to win the debate easily, according to every postdebate poll. By doing so and by taking on the moderators, Vance was fully embraced by MAGA, which isn’t exactly an easy task (just ask Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)).
And that’s the thing: It’s hard to see how anyone outside of Trump’s current inner circle is getting the nod from the MAGA base, which is the most dominant base of any political party by a country mile.
Nikki Haley? DeSantis? Ted Cruz? Rand Paul? Tim Scott? Glenn Youngkin? Solid candidates with solid resumes, for sure, but without Trump’s endorsement, and that surely will eventually go to his vice president, the nomination will be impossible to capture.
Vance-Rubio 2028.
TEXAS REDISTRICTING IS ‘WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE’
That’s one tough ticket consisting of two men who know how to handle the media and rarely make unforced errors.
It may be early, but what better option can anyone think of right now?