Is the "next in line"... Huckabee?

[retromike22]

We all know that "next in line mentality" that seems to be a tradition in the GOP nominating process. I guess in 2016, it was assumed that there really wasn't a "next in line" candidate since Gingrich is likely to be out, and Santorum has such little support. So going back further to 2008, is the ideal "next in line"candidate Mike Huckabee? We just saw the first polls that included him, and he's leading in Iowa and SC. I realize that "next in line" is more of a figurative term, but I liken it to: "The most recent top losing primary candidate who has had the most staying power since that election."

2012:
Gingrich: Currently working at CNN, also old.
Santorum: Basically was the last alternative standing against Romney in a weak field. Has had little support in polls since 2012, even in Iowa.

2008:
Romney: Ran in 2012, got the nomination then.
Huckabee: Placed 1st in the first poll to include him for 2016 in both Iowa and SC.

2000:
McCain: Ran in 2008, got the nomination then.

1996:
Pat Buchanan: lol
Steve Forbes: who?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The next in line has held for every election but one with the modern primary system.

The incumbent President has always been renominated.

1980: Reagan was a close 2nd in 1976
1988: George HW Bush was 2nd place in 1980
1996: Dole was 2nd place in 1988
2000: Son of President trumps Buchanan's 2nd place
2008: McCain was 2nd place in 2000
2012: Romney was 2nd place in 2008

Santorum should get it in 2016, unless there's another exception.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

The next in line has held for every election but one with the modern primary system.

The incumbent President has always been renominated.

1980: Reagan was a close 2nd in 1976
1988: George HW Bush was 2nd place in 1980
1996: Dole was 2nd place in 1988
2000: Son of President trumps Buchanan's 2nd place
2008: McCain was 2nd place in 2000
2012: Romney was 2nd place in 2008

Santorum should get it in 2016, unless there's another exception.

The "next in line" rule can count Bush as one of its beneficiaries, when you think about it. In 1988, Bush Sr. was nominated for being the sitting VP as well as the 1980 runner up, and his sons were being groomed for politics, so I can see the Reagan-VP Bush-VP Bush’s son line, with McCain resuming the runner up in the primaries tradition in 2008 and Romney continuing it in 2012.

As it stands today, Huckabee or Ryan are the ones best fit for this position.

[Mister Mets]

I think the next in line is a guy with institutional advantages that come with an earlier run/ campaign structure.

Huckabee could make an argument that in 2008 there was a tie for runner-up, and he sat out the underwhelming field in 2012 to resolve the tie in Romney's favor.

Paul Ryan also made a lot of friends as Romney's running mate.

Santorum was the literal second, but he's not going to be the nominee.

Rand Paul essentially has his dad's network.

Jeb Bush has all the Bush connections just like his brother did. There was an argument that the Republicans are like a business. The next in line gets to be in charge, except for that one time a previous CEO's son was selected.

If any of the above ends up being the nominee, the "next in line" argument will change in a way that can include the new guy.

[RosettaStoned]

 Mike Huckabee will run in 2016 and will, IMO, win the nomination. As for the general election, that all depends on who the Democrats nominate and what the issues are.

[henster]

Mike Huckabee will run in 2016 and will, IMO, win the nomination. As for the general election, that all depends on who the Democrats nominate and what the issues are.

If Huckabee is the nominee the race wouldn't be close at all remember how he defended Akin that alone disqualifies him from winning.

[BaconBacon96]

Huckabee is in a way the "next in line" although he would have to compete for that title with Santorum and Ryan.

[SPC]

Mike Huckabee will run in 2016 and will, IMO, win the nomination. As for the general election, that all depends on who the Democrats nominate and what the issues are.

If Huckabee is the nominee the race wouldn't be close at all remember how he defended Akin that alone disqualifies him from winning.

Given how ephemeral the average voter's memory is, I suspect Akin would be as much of an issue in 2016 as Ayers was in 2008.

[henster]

Mike Huckabee will run in 2016 and will, IMO, win the nomination. As for the general election, that all depends on who the Democrats nominate and what the issues are.

If Huckabee is the nominee the race wouldn't be close at all remember how he defended Akin that alone disqualifies him from winning.

Given how ephemeral the average voter's memory is, I suspect Akin would be as much of an issue in 2016 as Ayers was in 2008.

The ads would remind voters. Nothing like that is ever forgotten and that's only one out of many reasons Huckabee would be destroyed in the general election.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The guy who's been the GOP "next in line" has either been (A) a guy with serious experience, almost always at the national level, or at an executive level in a MAJOR state (Dewey, Nixon, Bush 41, Dole, McCain, Romney) or the clear leader of the conservative faction of the GOP (Robert Taft, Goldwater, Reagan).  There have only been two (2) GOP candidates that have cut in front of the next-in-line guy to be nominated.  One of them was Eisenhower, whose credentials were off the charts, but who many Republicans weren't sure of actually being a Republican until late in the game.  The other was Bush 43, who was a notable legacy who was, at least, the Governor of the second largest state in the nation.

Huckabee has none of this.  He was a Governor, but a Governor of an insular state (Arkansas) which is small, solidly GOP, and from a solidly GOP region.  He's a celebrity, but he's not a leader of the conservative faction of the GOP as, say, Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater were.  Huckabee's very much a REGIONAL figure; he's popular in the South and Border States, but he's not a NATIONAL leader, as Reagan was.  In addition, he's become fat again, and he's done this AFTER writing a book about his own weight loss.  And he's a former Southern Baptist Pastor, which further regionalizes him. 

To see what a joke Huckabee would be, compare his potential candidacy to, say, Haley Barbour's or Bobby Jindal's.  Both of those guys are national figures in ways Huckabee can never hope to be.  Both of those guys have done politics on the national stage, and GOP primary voters tend to value that experience; they are less likely to pick a newcomer than the Democrats.  I doubt Huckabee will run; there won't even be a serious exploratory committee.  But because he's a less nauseating human being then, say, Sarah Palin, he'll be able to keep his current gig on FOX and keep employed at a high level.

[Mr. Morden]

"Next in line" for the GOP is always an establishment candidate, who's usually able to soak up all the big money donors, and drive many of his potential rivals out of the race.  (Granted, McCain wasn't someone who you would have predicted would become an establishment back in 2000, but by 2004 he was angling to become one.)

That's not Huckabee, unless he really revamps his identity in a way we're not expecting.  Huckabee is closer to the Buchanan style of runner up…someone who's unlikely to make peace with the party establishment.

[Mister Mets]

Mike Huckabee will run in 2016 and will, IMO, win the nomination. As for the general election, that all depends on who the Democrats nominate and what the issues are.

If Huckabee is the nominee the race wouldn't be close at all remember how he defended Akin that alone disqualifies him from winning.

Given how ephemeral the average voter's memory is, I suspect Akin would be as much of an issue in 2016 as Ayers was in 2008.

The ads would remind voters. Nothing like that is ever forgotten and that's only one out of many reasons Huckabee would be destroyed in the general election.

The voters who are up for grabs didn't pay attention to it in the first place, aside from maybe those from Missouri.

It's a soundbite from somebody who was not Mike Huckabee. So it's not the most effective thirty-second ad.

In Indiana, Mitt Romney cut an ad from Richard Mourdoch, the other guy who made dumb comments are rape and abortion. Mourdoch lost by four points, and Romney still won the state by ten.

With Huckabee, there's a risk that he'll say something new and stupid. His last general election campaign was in 2002, and he's spent the last decade primarily in front of friendly crowds. So something he says on a sensitive topic can used for a soundbite ad. His aggressive support for Akin could then be used to establish a pattern. But it's not effective without that.

[Rocky Rockefeller]

no

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

If Republicans want to lose, yes.

[MATTROSE94]

I honestly doubt Mike Huckabee would seek the Republican nomination in 2016.

[Mr. Illini]

As for the general election, that all depends on who the Democrats nominate and what the issues are.

I don't think it will. The GOP is at a tough spot at this point to begin with electorally. In order to win, they will need to put up a real crowd-pleaser (someone like Christie who is moderate enough to attract but bold enough to excite). Huckabee appeals to a very specific type of Republican, most of whom live in the states that the GOP already has wrapped up. Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Ohio, etc, will take a pass on a candidate who is so socially conservative and they cannot identify with.

That said, I could see him making a run for the 2016 nomination. I don't think he would get the nomination, but I could see his southern base propelling him to the forefront, ultimately losing to someone more moderate. The debates would certainly be interesting, as it would add a traditional GWB conservative to the current mix of Tea Party vs. moderate infighting.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Santorum isn't next because Ron Paul actually finished second. So if anybody has dibs it's Rand taking up where his dad left off.

[BlueSwan]

I don't believe that there is a "next-in-line" mentality as such. It's just that a candidate needs national exposure and establishment support to win, that that is often easiest to obtain by running a nearly succesful primary bid. Couple that with the fact that everybody loves a humble loser who supports the guy who won, then you have set yourself up nicely for a future run.

There's no "next-in-line" for 2016 since the 2012 field was terrible and didn't help the secondary candidates much. Ron Paul and Rich Santorum are both niche candidates, each in their own way and the latters support can largely be explained by the "everybody-but-Romney" movement.

Now, you might argue that the "next-in-line" phenomenon is mostly seen at the Republican side. Honestly, I think this is mostly due to stastistical error (EXTREMELY small sample), secondarily it might be explained by the GOP establishment being more conservative than the democratic establishment and hence the former being more likely to support candidates that have some sort of proven national platform obtained via earlier runs.

[Inmate Trump]

The GOP won't win with another old, white male.