General Discussion

Polybius

(21,732 posts)

54. What Vance has going for him is that he's the sitting Vice President

Mon Feb 23, 2026, 08:30 PM

19 hrs ago

Sitting VP's don't lose their Party's nominations. Let's breakdown every single one who ran in modern times.

1960: Richard Nixon (won the nomination, lost the general election)
1968: Hubert Humphrey (won the nomination, lost the general election)
1988: George HW Bush (won the nomination and won the general election)
2000: Al Gore (won the nomination, lost the general election)
2024: Kamala Harris (ran unopposed and was given the nomination, lost the general election)

There were two other times where a President was in his final term, and his VP chose not to run. Such as:

2008: Dick Cheney
2016: Joe Biden

While Vance doesn't necessarily have to run, I'm almost certain that he will. He's in his early 40's, unlike the other two who chose not to run. Cheney was only 67 in 2008, but he was unhealthy.

There were also at least two cases where ex-VP's ran. Walter Mondale (won the nomination) and Dan Quayle (did not win the nomination) come to mind.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

60 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Head to head poll between JD Vance and Newsom for 2028 is encouraging! [View all] senseandsensibility Sunday OP

Wow. SunSeeker Sunday #1

Have to admit that I was surprised senseandsensibility Sunday #2

This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Sunday #31

I haven't seen enough of Moore to make a judgement on him, but I do believe Jack Valentino Sunday #36

Wow, wow .... I wonder. Did a COUCH vote for Vance!!!! Lol. Trueblue1968 18 hrs ago #57

That poll shows there's still something very wrong with this country. mdbl Sunday #3

Even as a stalking horse, Newsom can drive Vance's poll numbers down farther Brother Buzz Sunday #4

Newsom is a bit of lightning rod, so not surprising Wanderlust988 Sunday #5

What negative sh*t? Dave says Sunday #20

This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Sunday #26

Any politician with a record will have a lot of things vulnerable to attack-- I do worry that Jack Valentino Sunday #38

. Scrivener7 Sunday #32

Neither will be the 2028 nominee of their party. Nt Fiendish Thingy Sunday #6

So you won't be voting for Newsom in the Canadian primary? BannonsLiver Sunday #12

This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Sunday #27

HAHAHAHAHAHA! And VANCE will CERTAINLY LOSE the Canadian GOP primary--- Jack Valentino Sunday #39

You keep saying that Polybius Yesterday #48

I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if either become the nominee of their party Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #49

I think you're wrong about Vance for sure Polybius Yesterday #50

Clinton didn't even show up in the 1990 polls IIRC. Fiendish Thingy Yesterday #53

What Vance has going for him is that he's the sitting Vice President Polybius 19 hrs ago #54

If Bobby Kennedy hadn't been shot, Humphrey would have lost the primaries to him. Fiendish Thingy 18 hrs ago #55

Probably correct Polybius 16 hrs ago #58

JD Vance so oozes insincerity & unctuous "love" for all things Trump-MAGA (for the moment)... hlthe2b Sunday #7

Exactly! senseandsensibility Sunday #8

People do NOT like JD Vance pinkstarburst Sunday #9

Post removed Post removed Sunday #10

Newsom is not perfect but I'd vote for him over trump or jd senseandsensibility Sunday #11

Same Blue Full Moon Sunday #13

and twice on Tuesdays! Jack Valentino Sunday #40

so backing pritzker or the vanity candidate in CA is a no vote? nt msongs Sunday #15

Pritzker is for taxing billionaires. Blue Full Moon Sunday #17

Pritzker could be a good candidate, too Dave says Sunday #21

Who else do we have, really? Esp. since we evidently can't have a woman president.... CTyankee Sunday #14

Exactly pinkstarburst Sunday #16

Murphy is not flashy, didn't go to Yale, smart and knows what he's doing. I like him a LOT! CTyankee Sunday #19

He is very impressive and was out there almost immediately senseandsensibility Sunday #23

We still don't know if Trump is going to try to pull off running again. Or has he given that up? CTyankee Sunday #24

Who knows? senseandsensibility Sunday #30

especially with most other Democratic leaders Jack Valentino Sunday #42

Mark Kelly, Pritzger, Waltz, AOC Blue Full Moon Sunday #18

It's Prtizker and Walz. BannonsLiver Sunday #22

This message was self-deleted by its author WarGamer Sunday #25

Actually Harris is definitely in the hunt WarGamer Sunday #28

Love her, but I think that would be a mistake on our part. Scrivener7 Sunday #34

It would definitely be a mistake, if she continues to speak with the "caution" Jack Valentino Sunday #43

I just don't think she's right for this moment, even if she does what you say. Scrivener7 Yesterday #44

I don't disagree---- I only meant to express my opinion on the 'best case scenario' Jack Valentino 15 hrs ago #59

The two best candidates we've put up. Imagine where Scrivener7 8 hrs ago #60

I think that's a big risk pinkstarburst Yesterday #47

Murphy would be my first choice. He's one of the organizers of the People's State of the Union. Scrivener7 Sunday #33

It's my hope angrychair Sunday #29

"That poll shows there's still something very wrong with this country." J_William_Ryan Sunday #35

Except he won't do the thing that is needed. Always Blue Sunday #37

This message was self-deleted by its author PeaceWave Sunday #41

Well said. But my opinion is that, if taxing them means they'll move out of my state, we should tax them hard. Scrivener7 Yesterday #45

Didn't realize they had been nominated already. When did the 2028 primaries take place? Martin Eden Yesterday #46

By then Vance will be running as the incumbent Bluestocking Yesterday #51

More "encouraging" would've been 60-40 awesomerwb1 Yesterday #52

I don't understand how this sack of s*** has forty three percent Tribetime 18 hrs ago #56