By John Q. Hosedrinker 
When questioned about a potential endorsement in the 2028 presidential primary, President Donald Trump expressed an inclination to support a candidate but stated he had not yet decided. He acknowledged that Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio would form a formidable ticket, though he declined to specify who he preferred to lead. Trump also alluded to not ruling out remaining in office beyond his current term.
Read the original article here
The idea of Donald Trump backing anyone as a successor, especially someone like J.D. Vance, seems to be a notion that clashes fundamentally with his political persona and long-held strategies. It’s almost as if the very concept of a successor implies a surrender of the spotlight, a relinquishing of control that he appears incapable of doing.
One can’t help but get the impression that Trump sees himself as the ultimate figure, the sole architect of his movement. The thought of him willingly coronating someone else, thereby admitting his own potential departure from the political stage, feels like anathema to his core. It’s as if he’d rather the entire party crumble or suffer without him than see someone else rise to prominence on the foundation he built.
There’s a prevailing sentiment that Trump isn’t driven by a desire to leave a lasting legacy for the country or even the party after he’s gone. Instead, the narrative suggests a more self-serving motivation: he wants the party and its followers to experience hardship and disarray as a stark reminder of his unique indispensability. The future Republican primaries, particularly in 2027 and 2028, are envisioned as an intensely personal and chaotic “Apprentice” season, with the ultimate prize being his endorsement, doled out strategically just before crucial early contests.
The notion of a successor is further complicated by Trump’s own public pronouncements and apparent mindset. There are those who recall his past flirtations with the idea of extended terms and his apparent reluctance to cede power. This ingrained desire to remain at the center of attention seems to preclude any genuine intention of grooming another to take his place.
Moreover, it’s argued that Trump’s initial move to position J.D. Vance as a potential VP might have been less about genuine succession planning and more about selecting someone he perceived as a reflection of himself, perhaps someone equally adept at navigating the political landscape in a similar vein. The underlying belief is that Trump will never willingly hand over the reins, preferring instead to continue to push himself forward.
If he does eventually entertain the idea of a successor, the speculation leans towards him pushing one of his children into the political arena. This would serve a dual purpose: ostensibly continuing the family legacy while, more importantly, keeping himself perpetually involved and in the public eye, even if indirectly.
For Vance, this perceived sidelining from Trump is seen by some as a deserved outcome. There’s a perspective that Vance compromised his principles for political gain, and this potential fallout is simply the consequence of that decision. The idea that he “sold his soul” and, in doing so, may have harmed his fellow Americans, leads to a lack of sympathy for his current predicament.
The suggestion that Trump might not name a successor, and instead intends to run again until he can no longer do so physically, is a recurring theme. His past statements and actions are interpreted as clear indicators that he does not want to leave the presidency. The possibility of him attempting to cling to power indefinitely is presented not as a shocking revelation, but as a consistent pattern of behavior.
There’s a stark comparison drawn to historical figures who sought absolute control. The idea of Trump wanting to be president for life is frequently mentioned, with some observing his physical condition and wondering if he might, in fact, achieve his wish through sheer longevity in office.
The concept of him building something significant for a successor feels out of character. Instead, the imagery conjured is that of a constant occupant, never willing to share the space, implying he intends to occupy the presidential role until his very end.
If Trump were to name a successor, what would be his advantage? The prevailing view is that there is none. His strategy appears to be to remain president until he can no longer do so, and if that’s not possible, he likely anticipates unfavorable consequences for himself. The cynical prediction is that his only true successor will be his own eventual demise.
The narcissistic tendency to believe one will live forever is seen as a key driver behind Trump’s apparent lack of succession planning. The assertion is that he will run again if he is alive and not incarcerated, his ego being too fragile to allow anyone else to step into the void.
Looking beyond Trump himself, there’s a grim fascination with the potential aftermath of his departure. The idea of a splintering of the MAGA movement, a “cult war” upon his death, is a grim prediction. This fragmentation is seen as inevitable, as the movement is perceived as a personality cult fundamentally tied to Trump himself.
The “GOP” base is expected to disintegrate into dust, leaving no cohesive entity for a successor to inherit. Trump’s legacy, in this view, is to burn everything down, leaving behind chaos and destruction. The comparison to the dramatic narrative of Caesar and his legion in the “Fallout” series is invoked, suggesting a similar, perhaps even more chaotic, end to his political influence.
It’s crucial to remember, however, that the American system doesn’t typically function by a president unilaterally choosing their successor, either as president or as a party figurehead. Americans elect their representatives. The focus on Trump’s potential designation of a successor sometimes overlooks the democratic processes involved, framing the situation as if he has absolute dictatorial power over the nation’s leadership.
The conclusion drawn is that once Trump retires, the MAGA movement will indeed end, leaving behind a vacuum of self-destruction. The argument that Vance might be “even worse” is dismissed by the idea that Trump intends to remain in power indefinitely. The nation is urged to prepare for his actions aimed at never leaving office.
There are whispers of other potential favored individuals, like Stephen Miller, being subtly promoted through proxies, suggesting a continued behind-the-scenes maneuvering. The sentiment of “Après moi, le déluge” – after me, the flood – perfectly encapsulates the perceived Trumpian philosophy of leaving behind destruction rather than building up a stable succession.
The idea of Trump waiting for a higher bidder for his endorsement, rather than simply backing Vance, adds another layer of transactional politics to the narrative. The ultimate declaration, “I AM TRUMP, I AM MAGA, MAGA ENDS WITH ME!” encapsulates the personal identification he has with the movement, suggesting it’s intrinsically tied to his own existence.
The very concept of a designated successor is inherently at odds with how autocrats typically operate; it implies empowering someone outside their immediate control, which is precisely what figures like Xi Jinping or Putin seem to avoid. Vance’s potential future in this dynamic appears to be one of being cast aside, a casualty of Trump’s insatiable need for the spotlight.
Trump’s ego simply wouldn’t allow him to stand the idea of someone like Vance being his successor, especially if he perceived Vance as lacking a certain strength or respectability. The comparison to Putin, who seems to have a more controlled approach to succession, highlights the chaotic nature of Trump’s alleged plans.
Ultimately, the scenario painted is one where the focus remains on Trump’s personal grip on power, his refusal to cede the stage, and his apparent willingness to leave behind a legacy of disarray. The idea of a smooth succession appears to be a distant, almost impossible, prospect given the deeply ingrained nature of his personality and political tactics.