No, J.D. Vance Is Not Toast

Politics If anything, the midterm results strengthen his hand. (Caylo Seals/Getty Images) Over at the New York Times last week, the conservative commentator and editor of Compact Matthew Schmitz pronounced Vice President J.D. Vance the “biggest loser” of the midterm elections. Despite the popular endorsement of Vance’s own view of the war—viz., that it was an egregious mistake that should be corrected posthaste—Schmitz found in the blue tsunami only downside for the vice president. “J.D. Vance Is Probably Toast,” ran the headline. The basic argument is that Vance, by virtue of both his position and the peculiar enthusiasm with which he has pitched MAGA to the public, is so thoroughly tarred by this administration’s failures as to be unable to win a presidential election. Voters decisively rejected President Donald Trump, Schmitz contends, and “to a far greater extent than, say, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Mr. Vance is Mr. Trump’s man.” Others have apparently come to similar conclusions. A story in the Wall Street Journal Saturday claimed that some GOP insiders, spooked by last Tuesday’s bloodbath, are looking elsewhere for their 2028 standard-bearer. Per the Journal: Within 24 hours of the election, one veteran New York fundraiser began fielding calls from deep-pocketed donors voicing the same complaint: we can’t back Vance in 2028. Those donors instead floated Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and others as alternatives. They fear that a candidate from inside the administration might be too tied to Trump and too battered by the midterms, said the fundraiser, who was frustrated that Vance couldn’t help the GOP keep his home state of Ohio. Other donors privately expressed similar concerns. But reports of Vance’s political demise are greatly exaggerated. In fact, the further we get from the initial shock and hysteria of the midterm massacre, the better his prospects look. Consider first what the election turned on. As this magazine foresaw (and shouted about until we were all blue in the face), it really was the war. The American public understood the connection between this illegal, unwinnable conflict and higher prices across the board. Almost three out of four voters cited the Iran War as a crucial or major issue in their vote, and they administered to the party responsible a thorough and well-deserved shellacking. Even if things wrap up well before 2028 (an outcome that seems unlikely to me, given the impossibility of victory and the president’s psychological investment in avoiding an open retreat), the voting public’s feelings won’t change. A credible ability to disavow the war will therefore be a major asset to any Republican; indeed, it may even be the sina qua non for winning in the general. And here the vice president stands alone. Whatever he has said in public, it is well-known that he opposed the war at its outset and has striven mightily to bring it to a close. It was Vance who made the Islamabad MOU possible; if we do get to a lasting ceasefire, it will almost certainly be a result of his efforts. One can take issue with the decision not to break openly with Trump on this, obviously; there are those who think Vance should have resigned, or—given that the vice president is unfireable—just started speaking his mind at every occasion. But both critics and supporters agree he sincerely believes attacking Iran was a mistake; few would deny that, if given the chance, he would conduct a significantly different foreign policy from the one his chief has pursued. And as his post-midterm post-mortem on X last week showed, Vance is increasingly willing to speak the truth about the war and its rotten fruits. None of his potential rivals within the administration can say the same. Rubio’s longstanding hawkishness—in the Middle East and everywhere else—is a matter of public record, and has not abated since he took the reins at Foggy Bottom. Oddly for our top diplomat, he appears to have kept his distance from the negotiating table, and speaks of the Iranians in notably and consistently bellicose tones. Indeed, in the days following the midterms Rubio made a point of defending the conflict; at a CPAC retreat on Friday, he said Tehran sought to “destroy our way of life” and thanked Trump, on behalf of “our children and children not yet born,” for getting America into yet another Mideast war. (Laying it on a bit thick, even for him.) And Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth—who, ludicrous as it may seem, is talked about by some as a ’28 contender—is war itself, a grinning death’s head glorying in havoc and destruction. Republicans who are not in the administration are obviously better positioned to disavow the debacle, if they choose. In recent days, this has emerged as the strategy of DeSantis, who has lambasted Iran as a failure that doomed Republicans at the polls. The Florida governor has suggested that it was a regime change war pushed by Israel; he has even unfavorably compared the conflict to the Iraq War. Yet as TAC contributor Scott Greer elucidated in these pages a few days back, this turn represents a dramatic departure from DeSantis’s previous commitments on foreign policy, one that likely owes more to political convenience than sincere conversion. Given the Florida governor’s clear, years-long record of interventionism, particularly when it comes to the Middle East, I wouldn’t bet on voters finding this convincing. (Nor are they likely to go for another ’28 hopeful’s vastly less compelling attempts to scamper off the pro-war ship.) Longer-shot bids by more authentically dovish conservatives, though, are possible; one can imagine outgoing Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), for example, making a run for the GOP nomination (if he doesn’t opt to head the Libertarian ticket). But for all that I admire the Kentucky congressman’s indomitable political courage and unshakeable commitment to principle, it’s extremely hard to see him taking enough of the base to win the primary—let alone the electorate as a whole. The America First vote is still Vance’s for the taking. The midterms also create another kind of opportunity for the vice president. The White House will now have a solidly Democratic Congress to contend with. And although there will certainly be combativeness from the administration—witness the selection of Stephen Miller as White House chief of staff—Trump himself has also sounded conciliatory notes. For their part, at least some incoming Dems are talking a good game about eschewing vengeance in favor of partnership where possible. Arch-leftist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) even sounds optimistic: “Trump is a funny guy,” he told CNN last week, “I don’t think he’s all that ideological… and I’m not sure he will react all that negatively to a progressive agenda, believe it or not.” Subscribe Today Get daily emails in your inbox We may see, then, some degree of comity between executive and legislature. And if so, Vance will be well positioned to capitalize on this dynamic. He has Senate experience, obviously, and as vice president plays an important constitutional role in the proceedings of that body. More to the point, he is quite comfortable working across the aisle on kitchen table issues; his rejection of Paul Ryan Thought in favor of common good conservatism makes him a plausible partner for Democrats. He could move the ball on some widely popular ideas—legislation to expand healthcare coverage, for example, or actually bring housing prices down. Success in advancing bipartisan, populist reforms would be a major asset heading into 2028. Finally, Vance has the future of the party on his side. Rubio or DeSantis or even the dread Ted Cruz, the GOP senator from Texas, may have more support among the donor class. But ask any Republican under the age of 45 who he would like to see at the top of the ticket, and odds are very good the answer will come back: J.D. The midterm results will only strengthen this enthusiasm, showing as they do the essential bankruptcy of the party’s senescent pro-war establishment. Just yesterday, a new, Vance-friendly organization called American Ascent was launched to push the party in a more genuinely populist, America First direction. (“Old ideas are for old people,” the group’s vice president told POLITICO.) Expect to see more such efforts over the next two years. None of this is to deny that Vance faces headwinds. But those are common to nearly the entire Republican party. The vice president’s advantages, on the other hand, are both considerable and unique to him. Of course, they will avail him nothing unless pressed.