Who Will Inhabit the White House After Trump?

What Are the Trends and Scenarios for the 2026 Congressional Elections and the 2028 Presidential Race?

In politics, names matter less than the historical forces that push them to the top. Yet history never moves on its own; it needs faces, biographies, egos, wounds, and personal dreams. Between 2026 and 2028, Americans will enter a critical phase in which the country will not only ask what kind of nation it wants to be, but who will be the men and women entrusted with steering that transition.

While Donald Trump serves his second term with J.D. Vance as vice president —a defining element of the current political board— the system is already looking toward 2028. And what is emerging is not a simple generational turnover, but a battle between models of nationhood, embodied in leaders who represent radically different identities within each party.In the Republican field, that struggle can be distilled into a simple equation: “Vance vs. Rubio,” and eventually, “Rubio + Vance.” In the Democratic field, the tension surfaces in the contrast between Whitmer and Newsom, with other figures orbiting around them.Let us map the psychological and political landscape of the potential presidential and vice-presidential contenders.

The 2026 Scenario: Who Will Control Congress?

The November 2026 midterms stand as a decisive moment for the political balance of the United States. Although the president’s party historically loses seats in the House of Representatives —the well-known “iron law” of the midterms— the structural and emotional realities of 2026 suggest that several factors may converge to produce a surprise.

Key Factors at Play

The party holding the presidency —currently the Republican Party under President Donald Trump— faces the historical tendency to lose seats during midterms. A statistical model by the London School of Economics estimates that Republicans could lose around 28 seats in the House if historical patterns repeat.

Meanwhile, geography, redistricting, and district competitiveness play a decisive role. Recent analyses show that geographic polarization and the shrinking number of competitive districts tend to favor the party in power, while simultaneously making rapid reversals more difficult.

On the emotional front, voter enthusiasm tilts the landscape. A Reuters/Ipsos poll from November 2025 shows that Democrats are significantly more energized for 2026 than Republicans: 44% versus 26% among those who describe themselves as “very enthusiastic.”

Another key factor: Republicans are playing offense, identifying 26 districts as top targets for 2026. This signals that they are preparing not only to defend territory, but to expand into it.

How a Shift in Congress Is Taking Shape

On the 2026 House map, projections show that Democrats need only a handful of seats to retake the majority. The site Race to the WH estimates that Democrats must flip just three seats to gain control. But winning a majority requires more than mathematical precision: it demands that the president’s party lose ground —which is likely— and that the opposition channel public dissatisfaction, mobilize its base, and present competitive candidates in the pivotal swing districts.

From my perspective, it is moderately likely that Democrats will recapture the House in 2026. The reasons are clear: widespread frustration with the economy, persistent inflation, the near impossibility of securing affordable housing or a stable, well-paid job, the comparatively low enthusiasm among Republicans, the historic advantage enjoyed by the opposition during midterms, and the tactical errors Republicans could commit along the way.

The Senate majority, however, appears far less likely to flip in 2026, because the map structurally favors the president’s party. Still, several risk factors could shift the outcome. If the economy enters a genuine boom and the president’s approval rebounds just before the midterms, the traditional pattern of midterm losses could weaken. If Republicans manage to energize young voters, Hispanics, and African Americans, they could mitigate —or even erase— the expected losses. This will be especially difficult with Hispanic voters given the climate of fear affecting relatives, friends, and compatriots. On the other side, if Democrats fail to articulate a coherent, forward-looking alternative beyond rejecting the president, their emotional advantage could evaporate. Meanwhile, recent changes to district maps in several states could benefit Republicans, but only if they manage to capitalize on them in time.

In sum, the House presents a genuine opportunity for Democrats in 2026. For Republicans, the midterms will be a test of resilience more than expansion. If Democrats convert their enthusiasm into actual turnout, they are positioned to reclaim the majority. The Senate, however, is much less likely to flip, which would create a divided Congress, opening the door to legislative paralysis and intense political conflict through 2028. Winning Congress will be the first essential step in the political cycle that culminates in the 2028 presidential election. And as psychologists know, a wave of change in the House often precedes a broader political tsunami two years later.

Republican: Inheriting Trump Without Ceasing to Be Trumpist

The starting point is simple: Trump remains at the center of the stage. As long as he occupies the White House, any discussion about future Republican contenders inevitably runs through him. He is the “grand elector” of the movement: he controls the base, shapes the party’s internal dynamics, and defines the limits of what is acceptable within the conservative ecosystem.

J.D. Vance, now vice president, is far more than a running mate; he is the most visible ideological heir to the Trump movement. His trajectory —from loud critic of Trump to articulate defender of his project— and his intellectual-populist profile have positioned him as one of the leading contenders in the Republican succession. But he is not alone.

Three Types of Heirs Within the Republican Field

From a psychological and political standpoint, three categories of possible successors can be identified: The “Crowned Ones”, these are the figures Trump could mention, elevate, or bless as potential heirs. Their power derives not from institutional standing but from Trump’s endorsement, which remains the most valuable currency inside the party. The “Natural Continuators”, these are leaders who, without being organically part of the Trump inner circle, represent a compatible conservatism, figures who can maintain ideological continuity without relying entirely on Trump’s personal machinery. And the “Rebel Appropriators”, this group includes leaders who can speak directly to the Trump base and potentially appropriate the populist narrative, even if they are not direct products of Trumpism. The clearest example is Texas Senator Ted Cruz: the formidable rival who challenged Trump fiercely in 2016 and, despite the years, still retains a deeply committed ideological base and a level of national recognition unmatched by any other Republican senator. Psychologically, Cruz operates as a leader driven by doctrinal conviction: principled, cerebral, combative, with a self-image as a “constitutional guardian.” He positions himself as the defender of classical conservatism against both establishment excesses and populist distortions. His discourse does not emerge from resentment nor from media theatrics, but from an internal ideological architecture he views as morally non-negotiable. Then does he have a real chance to resurface?Yes, but in a specific scenario: if the Republican field fragments, if Rubio and Vance neutralize one another, or if a segment of conservative voters begins yearning for a more doctrinal rather than emotional leader. Cruz is not the mainstream of post-Trumpism, but he remains a latent actor, ready to occupy any vacuum in a right wing that, sooner or later, will need to reconcile its ideological roots with its new populist identity.

In reality, the names that matter today are the ones Trump himself has floated and there are two: Marco Rubio, the Florida senator, once a rival of Trump in 2016 and later an ally, now carrying a sharply defined geopolitical profile; and J.D. Vance, the sitting vice president, the emblem of the “populist revolution” from the right.

Beyond them, several figures have been mentioned publicly or off the record. Elise Stefanik represents unwavering loyalty to the MAGA narrative and could be seen as the symbolic female heir of the movement. Kristi Noem, deeply rooted in rural and traditional conservative voters, remains in a constant state of campaigning. Both women are loyal standard-bearers of Trumpism, each with the potential to embody a female continuation of the movement.

Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State, stands as the representative of the hardline foreign-policy wing. Greg Abbott, the governor of Texas, is defined by his intense focus on immigration and security. And then there are Tucker Carlson and Vivek Ramaswamy, the insurgent, media-driven voices connected to anti-elite resentment, figures who electrify the populist imagination from outside the traditional political structure.

In the landscape heading into 2028, many analysts agree that Ron DeSantis faces a difficult path to reposition himself nationally, not due to a lack of political structure, but because within the Republican Party the decisive force continues to be Donald Trump, whose endorsement —or refusal to give it— still shapes the future of the conservative movement. In that context, and without suggesting that any decision has been made, some observers note that one cannot fully dismiss a scenario in which Donald Trump Jr., rises in prominence, even as a potential vice-presidential contender, particularly if the former president seeks to keep the next generation of Republican leadership firmly within his orbit. This is not a prediction, but rather an acknowledgment that succession within Trumpism remains a central factor in understanding how the party’s future configurations may unfold.

Rubio vs. Vance

Even though anything can happen over the next three years, I believe that, given their current positions and the strategic weight behind them, two poles stand out as clearly oriented toward the White House: Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance, the latter with a structural advantage due to his position as vice president.

Marco Rubio: The Institutional Conservative

Rubio represents continuity within the Republican Party. His biography —the son of Cuban immigrants, a lawyer, senator, former 2016 presidential candidate, and now a leading figure in President Trump’s cabinet, with Trump’s explicit backing— places him as the embodiment of a second-generation conservatism rooted in the belief that America remains a land of opportunity if certain traditional values are preserved.

Psychologically, Rubio is strategic in his thinking, disciplined, and not inclined toward impulsive improvisation. He is religious, guided by a strong sense of duty, and deeply attuned to institutional order and the international image of the United States. In foreign policy, he projects himself as a classic hawk: tough on China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran; generally aligned with NATO; and an advocate of an active and assertive U.S. presence in global affairs.

Rubio is, in essence, the candidate for a nation seeking order, tradition, and stability rather than transformation, much less revolution.

J.D. Vance: The Intellectual Insurgent

Vance comes from a very different world: the white working class of the Midwest, shaped by industrial decline, economic precarity, and family fragmentation. His book Hillbilly Elegy turned him into the chronicler of that wounded America, and his political rise positioned him as the intellectual voice of the populist right.

Psychologically, Vance is deeply narrative-driven: he turns his biography into political manifesto. He distrusts financial, technological, and academic elites. He favors a more protectionist economic nationalism and is skeptical of far-reaching military commitments abroad. Whereas Rubio views the world through the lens of American global leadership, Vance sees it through the perspective of a nation that must first shield its people from globalization, deindustrialization, and distant wars.

If Rubio embodies institutional viability, Vance embodies the emotional identity of Trumpism.

Rivals or a Joint Ticket? The Rubio–Vance Scenario

The most compelling hypothesis is not merely that Rubio and Vance might compete against each other, but that they could ultimately compete together on a Rubio–Vance or Vance–Rubio ticket. In terms of political psychology, such an alliance carries a powerful internal logic: Rubio brings institutional credibility, the Latino vote, and support from moderates and suburban voters. Vance brings the populist base, the white working class, rural America, and the anti-elite electorate.

If both were to announce before the primaries a public agreement that whoever wins the nomination will choose the other as vice president, the message to the base would be unmistakable: unity of the movement, avoidance of internal conflict, and a shared commitment to strategic continuity beyond personal egos. A pact of this kind would almost certainly be accepted by Trump, who has already suggested they could run together: “We have JD (Vance), obviously the vice president is great. Marco (Rubio) too. I’m not sure anyone could stand against those two. I think if they formed a team, they’d be unstoppable.”

Such a ticket would not be presented as a division of power, but as a moral agreement of conservative unity. In structural and psychological terms, the alliance between the sitting vice president and the secretary of state embodies the balance the future Republican Party seeks: institutionalism vs. permanent transformation.

One caveat could further unify this scenario: if, for health reasons, Donald Trump were to step down from the presidency before the 2028 election, J.D. Vance would assume the presidency. In that case, the electoral logic would overwhelmingly favor Vance seeking re-election as the incumbent, most likely with Rubio as his vice-presidential nominee. This remains a hypothetical scenario, but one with a clear internal logic.

The Democratic Mirror: The Battle for the Party’s Soul

Just as Republicans seem to oscillate between Rubio and Vance, Democrats are beginning to reflect a parallel tension in the potential matchup between Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom, while figures like Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez still orbit the field.

Gretchen Whitmer: The Midwestern Pragmatist

Gretchen Whitmer, governor of Michigan since 2019, has consolidated herself as one of the most relevant Democratic figures in the industrial North. She presents herself as socially progressive but with a strong emphasis on jobs, industry, and the middle class. She has sought a discourse of pragmatic cooperation, even in response to Trump’s economic measures, softening her criticism of tariffs when they resonate with the working-class sentiment of her state.

On several occasions, she has suggested she prefers a role focused on support and consensus-building rather than a personal bid for power, and she has stated she will not run for president in 2028, though her name repeatedly appears on lists of Democratic contenders for that year. Psychologically, Whitmer embodies high emotional regulation, practicality, crisis containment, and a form of mature leadership that prioritizes solutions over sweeping ideological rhetoric.

Gavin Newsom: Technocratic and Media-Driven Progressivism

Gavin Newsom, governor of California, has already positioned himself openly as a potential 2028 candidate, signaling that he will evaluate a presidential campaign after the midterms. His profile combines strong charisma, a powerful public image, and significant national media presence. He promotes a progressive agenda on civil rights and the environment, though with nuance on sensitive cultural issues —such as his recent stance on transgender participation in women’s sports— which has set him apart from the farther-left wing of his party.

He has become increasingly visible as a critic of Trump’s governing style, especially concerning what he perceives as risks to democracy and institutional balance. Psychologically, Newsom projects high self-confidence, strong functional presence geared toward 2028, a future-oriented vision shaped by technology and climate change, and a narrative of “civilizational advance versus regression.”

Other Names in the Democratic Bench

A recent Washington Post analysis of potential Democratic contenders for 2028 includes, beyond Whitmer and Newsom, figures such as Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Jared Polis, and —on the party’s progressive flank— the ever-influential Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Kamala Harris, as a former vice president, carries institutional and symbolic weight, though her public image has suffered considerable erosion. Pete Buttigieg, a young technocrat with a moderate profile and strong preparation, may be positioning himself more toward 2028 than t intermediate offices. Ocasio-Cortez, while not confirming any immediate presidential ambitions, continues to exert enormous influence on the left-wing agenda, particularly among younger voters.

Taken together, the Democratic Party appears divided between pragmatic progressive centrism (Whitmer, Buttigieg), charismatic technocratic progressivism (Newsom), and a transformational, generational left represented by Ocasio-Cortez and her allies.

Whitmer vs. Newsom as the Mirror of Rubio vs. Vance

If we reduce the Republican–Democratic landscape to the four names that best capture the internal tensions of each party, a kind of symbolic quartet emerges. On the Republican side, we have Marco Rubio —institutional conservatism with geopolitical awareness— and J.D. Vance, the emotional and nationalist populist.On the Democratic side, Gretchen Whitmer represents pragmatic progressivism focused on the middle class and social cohesion, while Gavin Newsom embodies technocratic, media-driven progressivism with national leadership aspirations.

Rubio and Whitmer represent, each within their party, the bet on order, moderation, and governability.Vance and Newsom represent, each within their organization, the bet on strong identity, transformational narrative, and structural change, although in opposite ideological directions.

Psychologically, we could say: Rubio and Whitmer speak to the desire for stability, while Vance and Newsom speak to the desire for transformation.

Scenarios for Presidential and Vice-Presidential Tickets

From these profiles, several hypothetical presidential and vice-presidential ticket scenarios can be imagined.

In the Republican field, two clear possibilities emerge depending on who ends up as the presidential nominee and who becomes vice president.

A Rubio–Vance ticket would offer a balance between institutional conservatism and populism, sealed by a public unity pact. A Vance–Rubio ticket would embody ideological continuity with Trumpism, moderated by a vice president with more institutional grounding.

Both represent different paths: a return to Republican institutionalism with Rubio, or a deepening of Trumpism with Vance. Each direction signals not only political but psychological choices within the conservative electorate.

In the Democratic field, a Whitmer–Buttigieg ticket would represent centrist technocratic progressivism, with an emphasis on rebuilding the country and governing efficiently.A Newsom–Whitmer ticket would combine strong media presence with balanced economic and social tendencies.

A more left-leaning ticket could emerge if the party interprets the moment as one of crisis requiring structural change, with Ocasio-Cortez at the helm. The viability of each formula will depend on factors beyond individual psychology: economic performance, crisis management (domestic or international), perceptions of security, and especially the degree of polarization and accumulated social fatigue.

Maria Mercedes, my wife, insists on a point worth noting that in every plausible scenario, 2028 seems poised to mark a return to normalcy in American electoral politics.

Four Personalities for a Nation Searching for Itself

As an American and as a psychologist, I believe Rubio, Vance, Whitmer, and Newsom are not merely names; they are existential options for the United States. Because the American electorate today does not vote only for programs. It votes for personalities whose behavioral patterns embody its fears, values, wounds, and hopes.

This is a country where the psychology of the leader weighs as heavily as the platform, and where the choice of the face matters more than the choice of the party. Barack Obama and Donald Trump understood this, and that is precisely why both won the White House twice.

The recent New York City mayoral election made this reality even more explicit: people chose the candidate they felt best represented their identity, despite being labeled —by opponents and even by President Trump— as a communist or a Muslim. That victory confirmed that American politics today is, above all, a battle of temperaments rather than ideologies. Voters seek someone they can believe in, and concrete proposals that speak directly to the problems of families and daily life.

This is why the debate over who will be the presidential and vice-presidential candidates in the post-Trump era is really a debate about what face Americans want to see when they look at themselves as a nation.

And so, as the country approaches the threshold of 2028, Americans will not simply be choosing a president or a vice president. They will be deciding which face carries their anxiety, which voice interprets their fatigue, and which character sustains their hope. Because a nation is not redeemed by speeches, but by leaders who embody its conscience.

In that upcoming choice —between order, revenge, serenity, or reinvention— Americans will search for themselves, like someone seeking a light in the middle of a storm. And only then, upon recognizing in a name the possibility of renewal, will we know where to walk. Because in the end, politics is the art of choosing the human being who will accompany a nation when it finally dares to believe in itself again… If you wish to share your thoughts or contact us, you may write to: psicologosgessen@hotmail.com... May the Eternal Universal Providence accompany us all.

Vladimir Gessen — Psychologist

You may publish this article or excerpts from it, provided that you cite the author and include the corresponding link. © Photos and Images Gessen&Gessen