
<p>Every presidential cycle produces its share of early front runners—names that dominate headlines, lead in the first polls, and inspire confident predictions from pundits who should know better by now.  ; ;History may be a more reliable predictor than polling.</p>



<p>History shows that early dominance in the polls is often a mirage. The list of candidates who looked inevitable years before the primaries but ultimately fell short is long, With that history in mind, the current chatter around California Governor Gavin Newsom and Vice President J.D. Vance as early favorites for their parties’ 2028 nominations deserves a healthy dose of skepticism.</p>



<p><strong>The Graveyard of Early Front runners</strong></p>



<p>The modern era of presidential politics is filled with examples of candidates who led early and convincingly, but never secured their party’s presidential nomination.</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list">
<li><strong>Lyndon Johnson (1960)</strong> Johnson was the Senate Majority Leader when he sought the 1960 Democrat presidential nomination. Polling showed him to be the likely winner. That ambition was crushed by a young senator from Massachusetts named Jack Kennedy.</li>



<li><strong>Eugene McCarthy (1964) </strong>In the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination – and the withdrawal of President Johnson – Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy was the leading contender in virtually all the polls. That was until New York Senator Robert Kennedy entered the race.</li>



<li><strong>Edmund Muskie (1972)</strong> Muskie entered the 1972 cycle as the towering Democratic front runner, widely expected to cruise to the nomination. But a combination of campaign missteps, the infamous “Canuck letter,” and the rise of George McGovern derailed his candidacy. Muskie’s collapse remains one of the most dramatic in primary history.</li>



<li><strong>Ted Kennedy (1980)</strong> For years, Kennedy was considered the Democratic Party’s heir apparent — a towering figure with unmatched name recognition and fundraising power. Early polling suggested he could mount a formidable challenge to President Jimmy Carter – leading the incumbent President in many early polls. But once he entered the race, his campaign faltered, and Carter ultimately secured the nomination despite deep vulnerabilities.</li>



<li><strong>Howard Baker (1980)</strong> Baker, the Senate Minority Leader, was widely viewed as the establishment Republican favorite heading into the 1980 cycle. Many early polls placed him at the top of the field. But Ronald Reagan’s dominance and Baker’s own lack of momentum quickly pushed him out of contention.</li>



<li><strong>John Glenn (1984)</strong> The astronautâsenator entered the 1984 Democratic race with enormous public goodwill and a strong lead in early polling. But his campaign never caught fire, and Walter Mondale ultimately secured the nomination</li>



<li><strong>Jack Kemp (1988)</strong> Kemp was widely viewed as the intellectual leader of the GOP’s supply side wing and a favorite of conservative activists. In the midâ1980s, he was frequently mentioned as a likely successor to Ronald Reagan and often appeared at or near the top of early Republican preference polls. He struggled to maintain the lead against both George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole.</li>



<li><strong>Gary Hart (1988)</strong> After nearly defeating Walter Mondale in 1984, Hart entered the 1988 race as the clear front runner. His campaign imploded almost instantly amid scandal, clearing the way for Michael Dukakis.</li>



<li><strong>Phil Gramm (1996)</strong> Gramm was considered a major Republican contender in the midâ1990s, boasting a massive fundraising operation and early polling leads. His campaign collapsed and Bob Dole cruised to the GOP nomination.</li>



<li><strong>Wesley Clark (2004)</strong> When the retired general entered the 2004 Democratic race, he surged to the top of early national polls and was treated as a potential unifying figure. But his late start and uneven campaign left him unable to compete with John Kerry.</li>



<li><strong>Rudy Giuliani (2008)</strong> Giuliani dominated early Republican polls in 2007, often leading by double digits. His national profile after 9/11 made him appear formidable. But his unconventional strategy of skipping early states backfired, and he never came close to winning the nomination.</li>



<li><strong>Hillary Clinton (2008)</strong> Clinton began the 2008 cycle with overwhelming name recognition, institutional support, and a commanding lead in early polling. Yet Barack Obama’s insurgent campaign overtook her, proving that even the most formidable early favorite can be outmaneuvered by a candidate who captures the moment.</li>



<li><strong>Jeb Bush (2016)</strong> Bush entered the 2016 Republican race with unmatched fundraising, establishment backing, a famous political name and a comfortable lead in the early polls. But none of that translated into voter enthusiasm. His early front runner status evaporated almost immediately once the primaries began – and businessman Donald Trump won the nomination.</li>



<li><strong>Bernie Sanders (2020) </strong>Democrat voters were “feeling the bern” in 2020. Sanders led in many early polls – occasionally sharing the lead with South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. They essentially tied for first place in the Iowa caucuses. At the time, Vice President Joe Biden was in fourth place – but pulled ahead to become only the third Vice President to win the party nomination <strong>and</strong> presidency in modern times.</li>
</ul>



<p>These examples—and many others—illustrate a consistent pattern. ; Being an early front runner is not an advantage, but a liability. ; Early front runners tend to fade, while candidates who initially appear marginal or unlikely can surge when voters begin paying attention.  ; ;It is noteworthy that many of these early front runners not only fail to secure their party’s nomination but slip into the shadows of political relevance. ; Gary Hart who?</p>



<p>Some political analysts attribute the “vice presidential curse” to overexposure and voter weariness. Even the media gets weary of reporting on the same candidate with the same ideas expressed in the same speeches. ; Front runners also endure constant attacks from every other contender and potential contender. ; Candidates like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – who were hardly on the radar in the early days &#8212; represent a fresh face and fresh policies.</p>



<p><strong>The Vice Presidential Problem</strong></p>



<p>If early polling leads are unreliable, the historical record for sitting vice presidents seeking the presidency is even more sobering. The vice presidency may be the second-highest office in the land, but it has rarely served as a direct springboard to the Oval Office – not since the era of Founders-as-presidents.</p>



<p>George H. W. Bush was the first sitting vice president since Millard Fillmore to become President without the President dying in office. Richard Nixon eventually won the presidency, but only after losing in 1960 and spending eight years out of office. The pattern is unmistakable: vice presidents almost never ascend to the presidency directly through the electoral process. ;</p>



<p>The office of Vice President does not produce many elected presidents. ; If anything, it often saddles its occupant with the political liabilities of the previous administration without granting the freedom to define an independent identity. ; There is no reason to assume 2028 will be an exception. ; That does not bode well for Vance or Harris.</p>



<p><strong>Why Newsom and Vance Shouldn’t Be Treated as Inevitable</strong></p>



<p>Given these historical patterns, the current fixation on Gavin Newsom and J.D. Vance as the early front runners for 2028 is premature and foolish. Polls taken years before the first primary votes are cast measure name recognition more than genuine voter preference. They reflect media attention, not political durability.</p>



<p>Newsom may be a prominent national figure, but prominence is not destiny. Many governors before him—Mario Cuomo, Rick Perry, Scott Walker—were once treated as inevitable nominees, only to discover that national campaigns are unforgiving arenas.</p>



<p>Vance, meanwhile, faces the additional burden of the vice presidential curse. The historical record suggests that voters rarely reward sitting vice presidents with the presidency unless tragedy intervenes</p>



<p><strong>The Only Safe Prediction: Uncertainty</strong></p>



<p>If history teaches anything, it is that early front runners are often placeholders—names that dominate the conversation until the real race begins. The candidates who ultimately win nominations tend to be those who peak at the right moment, not those who lead years in advance.</p>



<p>For that reason, it would be unwise to place bets on Newsom or Vance this early. The political landscape will shift, new contenders will emerge, and unforeseen events will reshape the race. The only certainty in presidential politics is that early certainty is usually wrong.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Are Early Presidential Front Runners cursed
