The Presidency Timeline – Part 1

first appeared in “From David’s Desk” on June 13th, 2025

The most enduring and interesting game in Washington is always predicting who the next president of the US is going to be. That game has already started for 2028 — three and a half years before the inauguration, which will occur on January 20, 2029.

President Trump’s supporters are already producing “Trump 2028” hats, although President Trump has recently poured cold water on this nascent draft by indicating he expects to retire when his term is completed in 2029. If that view holds, and President Trump does indeed retire at the end of his current term, he will not lack for those interested in succeeding him. From the president’s party, Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are almost certain to be quite interested. And Donald Trump, Jr. may also be if his recent statements in Qatar are to be taken at face value. But these individuals may just be the tip of the iceberg for the Republican nomination for 2028.

On the Democratic side, Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, and J.B. Pritzker, Governor of Illinois, already seem to be gearing up for a campaign that will not likely start in earnest until the 2026 midterm elections are finished. And a number of other Democratic governors, members of Congress, and former cabinet members may not be far behind.

What happened to playing possum about one’s political ambition, or at least foregoing a public lack of interest until after the midterm elections are well behind us? In the old days, even ambitious candidates did not announce their presidential campaigns until shortly before the first-in-the-nation New Hampshire primary. Indeed, John F. Kennedy announced on January 2, 1960, just two months before that primary (though he had really been campaigning a bit earlier). The world has clearly changed. President Trump announced his 2024 campaign on November 15, 2022—over a year before the New Hampshire primary. Similarly, early announcements can be expected in the coming presidential election cycle.

The early announcements (and pre-announcement campaigning) are now widely expected — some would say required — given the increased competition as everyone seems to feel they can pull off a Carter or Obama or Trump victory if they start early. Also, candidates now face essentially unlimited money-raising needs, large campaign staff requirements, and constant press and social media demands.

In Washington, it is sport — and also really business — to figure out who is going to run, who has some chance to get a party nomination, who will get the nomination, and, of greatest importance, who will actually get elected. Careers and livelihoods in Washington can depend on answering these questions correctly.

The truth, though, is that those who live in Washington and who traffic in the political world and are constantly assessing candidates’ prospects, are honestly not all that much better than the non-experts in answering these questions. And certainly not any better almost three and a half years in advance.

The difficulty of accurately predicting the next president this early is evident by predictions made early in previous presidential elections. To illustrate, if one looks at what was expected by the “experts” to occur roughly three-plus years ahead of recent presidential elections, it is clear that what was expected almost never occurred.

1957 – Adlai Stevenson had lost both the 1952 and 1956 elections against Dwight D. Eisenhower. By mid-1957, John Kennedy was a 40-year-old senator who was not highly regarded by his colleagues and who had tried but failed to get the vice-presidential nomination on Stevenson’s ticket in 1956. Then the conventional wisdom in Washington was that the 1952 and 1956 nominee, Adlai Stevenson, might well be the nominee again. If not, a more senior and respected senator, such as Stuart Symington (MO), was likely to be the most serious contender for the nomination against the all-powerful Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson, who was also very interested in being the nominee. Kennedy easily won the early primaries (with his most visible opponent being Minnesota Senator Hubert Humphrey). And Kennedy, of course, ultimately became president, though the Republican candidate, Vice President Nixon, was thought to be more experienced and slightly more likely to win as the country had never elected a Catholic — Kennedy’s religion — and Nixon led in several polls during the campaign.

1961 – By mid-1961, John Kennedy was, of course, widely expected to be the Democratic nominee in 1964, and thought highly likely to beat Barry Goldwater the probable Republican nominee. But, of course, because of Kennedy’s assassination, Goldwater’s, later victorious opponent turned out to be the incumbent President, Lyndon Johnson.

1965 – Lyndon Johnson was widely expected, after his landslide 1964 victory, to be the next Democratic nominee and likely general election victor, as Vietnam was not yet seen as a major political problem. Richard Nixon, having lost the 1960 presidential election and the 1962 California gubernatorial election, was not considered to be viable for the 1968 Republican nomination, let alone the next president. But that is what happened, and his opponent was Vice President Humphrey and not Johnson, who withdrew in March of 1968. None of this was foreseen in June of 1965.

1973 – After Richard Nixon’s landslide victory in 1972, the conventional wisdom was that the Republicans would win many successive presidential elections. And Nixon wanted his one-time Secretary of the Treasury, John Connally, as his successor. Jimmy Carter was never mentioned by the major figures in the Democratic party in June of 1973 as a potential president, let alone as even a semi-serious candidate for the Democratic nomination. But Carter ultimately won his longshot bid for the nomination and presidency. Carter beat Gerald Ford, who, in June of 1973, was still a member of Congress, and was absolutely on no one’s radar screen then as a potential incumbent president in 1976.

1977 – Carter did not have an overwhelming mandate when elected, but he had high approval ratings early in his administration (and was presumed to be a strong candidate for re-nomination and re-election). In the end, Carter had a tough primary challenge against Senator Ted Kennedy. And Ronald Reagan, having failed to get the Republican nomination in 1976, was initially seen in 1977 as maybe too conservative and potentially too old (he would be 69 at the inauguration) to get the nomination or to win a general election against an incumbent president. Of course, Reagan won in a landslide against Carter.

1981 – Reagan was a new president, recovering from an assassination attempt and thought – at the age of 70 – to be uncertain about running again, due to potential health or age reasons. Mondale was considered the likely Democratic nominee – a well-respected Democrat without Carter’s political weaknesses, but Mondale struggled to get the Democratic nomination, narrowly beating Senator Gary Hart. And Reagan, who readily chose to run again, won in a 49-state carrying landslide.

1985 – After Reagan’s 1984 landslide, many conservatives in the party thought another true Reagan conservative – not the more moderate Vice President George H.W. Bush – would be a stronger candidate to hold the White House. Thus, Bush had to fight hard to get the nomination and did not have a completely unified Republican party. He ultimately faced the popular Democratic Governor of Massachusetts, Michael Dukakis, who united his party (despite not having been anywhere close to an early favorite for the nomination). And Dukakis actually led the polls for much of the campaign. But Bush won the election – not something thought particularly likely in June of 1985. (In the 20th Century, no vice president had succeeded a two-term president in the next election).

1989 – After Bush's win over Dukakis and the successful defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War in 1991, a year before the election, Bush had stratospheric poll ratings and seemed like a lock for re-election. Many leading Democratic prospects, like Governor Mario Cuomo, chose not to even run at a time when Bush was seen as a likely winner. Bill Clinton, two or three years before the election, was regarded as a small Southern state governor with modest appeal to many of the core Northern, Democratic constituencies. He was viewed as a candidate seeking credibility and experience — he was only 43 in 1989 — in preparation for a future presidential run. And, of course, several years before this election, Texas businessman H. Ross Perot was not seen as a likely independent candidate (who ultimately would get 19% of the popular vote). In the end, Clinton handily won a three-candidate election.

1993 – After Clinton's defeat of Bush in 1992, Clinton began his administration with many controversial measures, like the “don't ask, don't tell” policy for gay/lesbian military service members, and having Hillary Clinton take the lead in developing a large health care initiative. The ultimate result was a loss of 52 House seats in the 1994 midterm elections. At that point, Clinton's re-election chances were seen as rather difficult. But in the end, Clinton ultimately won the 1996 election easily against a not-that-competitive Republican candidate, the very partisan Senator Robert Dole (Kansas), who, in 1993, was not seen as a sufficiently charismatic and telegenic candidate even to be his party’s nominee.

1997 – After Clinton's re-election, Al Gore was well positioned to succeed him. He was the early favorite to be his party’s nominee, and in a strong position to become president. But the subsequent Clinton impeachment problems clearly hurt Gore's chances of getting elected. Early in the process, Senator John McCain (AZ) was then slightly considered the likeliest Republican nominee (he was far more experienced in national and international affairs than George W. Bush, who was seen as relying on his father’s name.) And, of course, three and half years before the 2000 election, no one could have predicted that the US Supreme Court would effectively decide that election, or that Bush would become president in that manner.

2001 – In early 2001, George W. Bush was not thought to have much of a mandate (given how he was elected), and re-election was not thought heartily to be a possibility. But that changed after 9/11. Bush’s popularity soared, and one year after his inauguration, re-election seemed inevitable. However, Bush’s post-9/11 popularity receded, and he did not win in a landslide. But he did beat John Kerry, who early in the process was not even considered the likely Democratic nominee.

2005 – After Bush’s re-election, and three and a half years before the 2008 election, virtually no one in the political world thought that an African American freshman Senator from Illinois, with the middle name Hussein, would be the next president of the United States. No one. He was not even considered a potential Democratic nominee — the leading candidate then was thought to be Hillary Clinton. Yet, Obama pulled off a political upset that no one would have thought realistic in 2005.

2009 – At the beginning of the Obama Administration, it was not clear if the Obama win had been a bit of a fluke. The incumbent Bush Administration had been suffering from the Iraq-Afghanistan wars and the beginnings of the Great Recession, and Senator John McCain had been a surprisingly ineffective opponent (given his war hero and Senate credentials). In the early part of the Obama Administration, the economy was still weak; Obama was seen as the sponsor of the, then unpopular-in-many circles, Obamacare; he was inexperienced in international affairs; and viewed as more progressive than many in his own party. So, while Obama was re-elected, it was far from obvious that would occur in early 2009. (In the 2010 midterm elections, the Democrats lost a record 63 seats — a “shellacking,” as the president called it).

2013 – In the early days of the second Obama term, if there was any conventional wisdom, it was probably that Vice President Joe Biden would succeed his boss. But of course, with a bit of a push from Obama (and later the death of Biden’s oldest son), the vice president opted not to run. Hillary Clinton became the odds-on favorite to be the Democratic nominee; but she had a tougher time than had been initially expected beating Senator Bernie Sanders for the nomination. On the Republican side, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie were seen early as the odds-on favorites to get the nomination in a field of fifteen other candidates. The idea that Donald Trump, a New York real-estate developer and reality show host, would handily beat Bush and other Republican candidates was honestly not on anyone’s radar as a real possibility. Even more unlikely was the chance that he would also become president — the first person with absolutely no government or military experience to do so.

2017 – Early in the first Trump term, the chaotic early months did not produce a conventional wisdom that he would be easily re-elected, even though the likely Democratic nominee was not clear then. However, it was widely thought, within the Democratic world, that Joe Biden was probably too old (he turned 75 in 2017), and unlikely to excite the Democratic base to be able to get the nomination and also get elected. There were plenty of other younger, seemingly more exciting Democratic candidates likely to run. But Biden got the Democratic nomination with relative ease after he won the South Carolina primary. And he went on to beat the incumbent president.

2021 – Early in Biden's term, many saw him as a transitional president, and unlikely to seek another term as president, given his age (he would have been 82 at his second inauguration). But he did run (at least initially). And early in Biden's term, Trump was widely thought—by even many of his first term supporters—to have too much legal and political baggage to again be the Republican nominee, let alone president again. But he was reelected against an opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, who certainly was not seen as her party’s most likely nominee in early 2021.

So, in sum, three and a half years before the next presidential election, it is essentially impossible to predict with accuracy — if history is a guide — who will likely be elected next. But it is a game that everyone in Washington seems eager to play¹.

But while the actual person sworn in on January 20, 2029, may not be readily identifiable now, it does at least seem safe to predict the qualities the next president is likely to possess. In brief, these are the attributes — for better or worse — a successful person needs to get a party nomination and later win an election:

1. Do thousands of speeches and interviews, with the ability to pleasantly say the same things via simple sound bites, over and over again a dozen times a day without appearing bored or tired doing so.

2. Ask friends, acquaintances, and complete strangers in person and in writing for political donations (from small sizes to millions of dollars) on a nearly daily basis to fund their campaign and ask friends and also strangers to host (with no cost reimbursement) events at their homes for the same purpose.

3. Ignore jetlag, forgo time normally reserved for sleeping in a comfortable bed and subsist on food that is often only available at odd hours, providing high calories and an abundance of cholesterol.

4. Forgo any pretense of time for regular exercise to stay in reasonable shape for one's age.

5. Forgo spending quality, or even non-quality, time with spouses, partners, children, grandchildren, or friends not working on the campaign.

6. Sign thousands of campaign thank you letters, and make daily thank you calls to your friends and strangers who have helped the campaign.

7. Expose every aspect of their personal, political, social media, financial and medical lives — from high school forward — to relentless scrutiny by the media and opponents seeking mistakes, flaws or indiscretions even if they were not such at the time committed.

8. Control their temper in public regardless of the continuing ferocity or the unfairness of the criticism or attacks.

9. Be able to articulate, in a memorable and appealing way, a few simple ideas about what would be done in a forthcoming presidency, whether realistic or not.

10. Spend time attracting staff members who believe in the candidate with such commitment that they are willing to forgo several years of traditional private sector compensation and reasonable work hours; willing to arbitrate the inevitable fights these staff members will have; and be able to fire good friends from time to time.

11. Essentially forgo all other existing career responsibilities, obligations, and commitments, including those with lucrative compensation.

12. And constantly, most importantly, convey, and actually have a passion to be president that defies normal levels of homo sapien ambition and ego, and be able to convince yourself (and others) that Western civilization as we know it depends on your election.

Whoever has all of the above qualities, to the highest degree, will almost certainly be the next president.

¹ The next edition of this newsletter will be Part II of this piece, in which I’ll discuss the current conventional wisdom about the likeliest presidential candidates in Washington (even though history shows that it is too early to likely be anywhere close to accurate).