Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 24, 2016, 09:07:36 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Cast your Ballot in the 2016 Mock Election

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections
| | |-+  Republican "next-in-line" mentality
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Republican "next-in-line" mentality  (Read 809 times)
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43817


View Profile
« on: February 12, 2012, 09:14:28 am »
Ignore

1980: Ronald Reagan, who was a runner-up in 1976, wins the nomination
1988: George H. W. Bush, who was a runner-up in 1980, wins the nomination (granted, he was incumbent Vice President, but still)
1996: Bob Dole, who was a runner-up in 1988, wins the nomination
2008: John McCain, who was a runner-up in 2000, wins the nomination
Logged


[they] believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. - Barney Frank
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36747
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 12, 2012, 09:15:17 am »
Ignore

this is well documented, the question becomes a bit murky in 2016 if it's an open contest.
Logged

I wanna contribute to the chaos
I don't wanna watch and then complain,
'cause I am through finding blame
that is the decision that I have made
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25127
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -7.83


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 12, 2012, 09:15:59 am »
Ignore

Well Romney likely won't run again if he loses the nomination (or in the general, for that matter) but I could see Santorum running again. No way Ron Paul or Gingrich runs again...so maybe this year will be an exception.
Logged


Inshallah, Shalom.
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36747
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 12, 2012, 09:17:21 am »
Ignore

still I don't think anyone is going to see Santorum as a metaphorical next-in-line/heir apparent.  his success this year is at best an accident of circumstance.
Logged

I wanna contribute to the chaos
I don't wanna watch and then complain,
'cause I am through finding blame
that is the decision that I have made
R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 25127
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.74, S: -7.83


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2012, 09:19:47 am »
Ignore

still I don't think anyone is going to see Santorum as a metaphorical next-in-line/heir apparent.  his success this year is at best an accident of circumstance.

Yep, this. If he does run again, he'll hover around the low single digits and drop out early.
Logged


Inshallah, Shalom.
Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8547
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.13, S: -6.26

P P

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2012, 10:35:46 am »
Ignore

In 2000, Pat Buchanan was the 'next-in-line', but still didn't get the nomination.

I think it's pretty much a given Santorum comes in second to Romney, but does that entail being next-in-line? I'm not so sure; Santorum is a rather weak candidate. But it's certainly possible.
Logged

Gary Johnson/William Weld '16. Ohioan Independent proud of FSU heritage masquerading as Illinoian Republican to avoid Trumpist deportation squads.
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11103
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2012, 10:37:19 am »
Ignore

In 2000, Pat Buchanan was the 'next-in-line', but still didn't get the nomination.

I guess that not enough people wrote him in.
Logged
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9695
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.39, S: 4.17

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2012, 02:52:10 pm »
Ignore

I think Romney's VP selection may have more of a chance at being next-in-line than Santorum, honestly.
Logged
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 43817


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2012, 03:08:27 pm »
Ignore

In 2000, Pat Buchanan was the 'next-in-line', but still didn't get the nomination.

First of all, he didn't run. Second of all, he was an insurgent in 1996, and I'm not talking about mere "insurgent campaign against the frontrunner" Dole waged in 1988 or McCain in 2000.
Logged


[they] believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth. - Barney Frank
AverroŽs
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8808



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2012, 03:12:45 pm »
Ignore

I think Romney's VP selection may have more of a chance at being next-in-line than Santorum, honestly.

I've assumed that Romney's VP will be the heir(ess) apparent since December, especially since he's bound to go low-risk and pick someone who is both an establishment figure and at least somewhat well-known nationally.

What I find interesting is that Santorum is looking like a more and more plausible VP pick for Romney. If that happens, I don't think that can we safely count him out in 2016.
Logged

ChairmanSanchez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23184
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04

P

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 12, 2012, 03:14:59 pm »
Ignore

In 2000, Pat Buchanan was the 'next-in-line', but still didn't get the nomination.

First of all, he didn't run. Second of all, he was an insurgent in 1996, and I'm not talking about mere "insurgent campaign against the frontrunner" Dole waged in 1988 or McCain in 2000.
If I am not mistaken, he started as a Republican and joined the Reform Party later on.
Logged

A Hybrid of Pat Buchanan and Bob Dylan.
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15717


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 12, 2012, 03:16:09 pm »
Ignore

Either way, it doesn't hold up for 2012 because Huckabee, the 2008 runner up, stayed out of the race.
Logged



The Handsome Monkey King Son Wukong weighs in on politics.
Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.
Crackers
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 289
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 12, 2012, 03:17:02 pm »
Ignore

The "next guy in line" for 2016 will be Santorum, or Mittens's VP choice.
Logged

lawlz
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13876
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 12, 2012, 03:18:06 pm »
Ignore

Either way, it doesn't hold up for 2012 because Huckabee, the 2008 runner up, stayed out of the race.

Romney just dropped out earlier... And even then, he still got more caucus votes, more primary votes, more states...

I think Romney's VP selection may have more of a chance at being next-in-line than Santorum, honestly.

Especially if his running mate is someone like Rubio.
Logged

Eternal Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 33766
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 12, 2012, 03:54:54 pm »
Ignore

Either way, it doesn't hold up for 2012 because Huckabee, the 2008 runner up, stayed out of the race.

Huckabee was not "the" runner up, he was "a" runner up. Romney came in second in both caucus and primary votes to John McCain. Romney came in third in delegates because a rule in the MI bylaws requires that it's delegates must be alligned with someone currently in the race, so when Mitten's dropped out the MI delegation immediately swung to McCain. If you include the MI delegation with Romney, I think he was either tied or ahead of Huck in delegates as well. When Romney dropped out, he had many more delegates then Huck. He lost the MI delegates instantly and Huck won KS, and some other states that I can't remember, in February.
Logged

Supreme, Almighty, All Knowing, All Seeing, Eternal Judicial Spirit Entity of the Glorious South Region.

Don't ever forget how easy it can all slip away: http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=208279.0

Daylight lift me into shape. I must have been asleep for months. I found myself alone, alone, alone above a raging sea...
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines