At present, the race between Vance and Rubio for succession has shifted from being nearly settled to a tightly contested showdown between two top contenders, with no clear-cut answer. Who is more suitable ultimately depends on which path Trump and the Republican Party choose in the end. Recent polling shows that Vance’s once-significant lead has dramatically narrowed, and Rubio is now closing the gap.
Vance is the inheritor of the “MAGA base.” He represents a more inward-looking “America First” stance, opposing excessive overseas intervention. He was personally endorsed by Trump and enjoys staunch support from hardcore MAGA followers—the base remains large and resilient. However, his fatal flaw lies in his relatively moderate position on Iran, where negotiations have failed, leaving him caught between pro-war and anti-war factions, resulting in a sharp decline in polling numbers.
Rubio represents the “establishment and hawkish faction,” and is thus the choice of that political force. He is a more traditionally hardline Republican, supporting military action against Iran and taking a tough stance toward China. As Secretary of State, he has high visibility and is more popular among traditional donors and moderate Republicans, with his poll numbers rapidly catching up to Vance’s. A potential risk is whether he can fully win the trust of Trump’s inner circle, and his foreign policy statements have also sparked controversy in the past.
It is still too early to determine who will succeed; both candidates remain highly uncertain, primarily due to significant variables at play.
Trump’s influence cannot be ignored—it essentially amounts to an endorsement if he leans toward someone. But currently, his stance is ambiguous: he has not expressed preference for either candidate, and instead has hinted at “keep going as-is.”
The trajectory of the Iran conflict will significantly impact the election. If stalemate or failure occurs, Vance’s anti-war stance may appear prescient; if the U.S. achieves a major victory, Rubio’s hardline approach would be vindicated. In this regard, Vance has a greater chance of success, since a complete U.S. victory over Iran is unlikely.
The outcome of the 2026 midterm elections could decisively shape the selection of the 2028 presidential candidate. A Republican landslide would naturally favor Vance; a loss would increase Rubio’s chances.
In short, Vance is a safe bet to preserve the “Trump base,” while Rubio represents an attempt to expand the campaign front and return to traditional Republican principles.
Which of these two do you prefer?
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1872091054048266/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.