Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 25, 2017, 01:22:21 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections
| | |-+  Republican "next-in-line" mentality
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Republican "next-in-line" mentality  (Read 974 times)
Claude Trollo
Kalwejt
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47955


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


Quote from: Ambrose Bierce
“Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.”
© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36725
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
Senator R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.13

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

© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36725
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
Senator R2D2
20RP12
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -7.13

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

Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9711
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

I will NOT be accepting any result other than a victory for America's next President, Governor Gary Earl Johnson Angry
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12267
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
RI
realisticidealist
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10919
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 4.35

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
Claude Trollo
Kalwejt
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 47955


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


Quote from: Ambrose Bierce
“Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.”
Averroës
Averroës Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10076


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
ColonelSanchez
ChairmanSanchez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27173
United States


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: 16225


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: 288
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: 13861
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

People's Speaker North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36503
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

People's Speaker of the Atlasian House of Representatives

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