Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 28, 2015, 11:23:51 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2012 Elections (Moderators: Mr. Morden, Bacon King, Sheriff Buford TX Justice)
| | |-+  Republican "next-in-line" mentality
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Republican "next-in-line" mentality  (Read 728 times)
Clegg got clegged
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39489


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

© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36622
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: 24966
Pakistan


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

© tweed
Miamiu1027
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36622
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: 24966
Pakistan


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

Vosem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6347
United States


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

They should ban Russians from driving. Russians all drive like deranged lunatics who belong in a mental asylum to begin with.
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9028
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: 6984
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: 4.52

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

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return."
Clegg got clegged
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 39489


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

Іbn Rushd
AverroŽs Nix
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10901


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

Sanchez Stands With Rand!
ChairmanSanchez
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18353
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.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz stole my car, embezzled my life savings, killed my parents, and raped my dog. Lois Frankel was the getaway driver.

The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14906


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

Snowstalker   mikado is content with only questions
23:03   Snowstalker   questions never helped anyone
23:03   Snowstalker   only answers
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: 13845
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

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31603
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

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines