Who is Next in Line?

[SPC]

Republicans have a long tradition of picking the silver medalist from the previous primary season as their nominee in the next election. However, 2016 seems to present a bit of a dynastic dispute. Does the title belong to Rick Santorum, by virtue of getting the second most votes in the primaries? Or does it belong to Rick Perry, who was the last credible opponent to Romney before he blundered on national television several times and yielded his position to various flavors of the month (Santorum included)? Or does it belong to Romney himself, via the 1968 precedent of the previous nominee in a close election seeking another chance? Can Bush invoke the 2000 precedent of literal dynastic succession from the previous Republican President, or can Rand Paul invoke similar reasoning as the spawn of the previous runner-up in delegate count? Can Paul Ryan lay claim as the most recent Vice-Presidential nominee? And do Kasich and Huckabee's relatively distant attempts at the nomination count for anything?

[tmthforu94]

The field was so weak after Romney that I think we will be breaking from the traditional pattern. I voted for Paul Ryan, as he was Romney's VP and would almost certainly have Romney's blessing in 2016, which will provide a nice boost.

[Vosem]

Santorum came in second place to Romney, so he's technically "next in line", but the next in line doesn't always get it -- otherwise Buchanan would've been the nominee in 2000. Voted Santorum though.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Literally all of them have some form establishment (Perry, Paul, Huckabee not so much) support at this point.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Santorum was the runner last time, and Bush is the son of a former President, and one of those two always has gotten it in the past.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Maybe Paul, by virtue of his father's efforts?  I mean the correct answer is no one for once.

[Cory]

Jeb Bush.

[Likely Voter]

2016 simply doesn't have anyone who fits the GOP mold. Bush may be the closest. A distinguishing characteristic of 'next in line' candidates is mainstream support, so Huckabee and Santorum are out. If Perry performs well, it is possible he can evolve into that position, especially if Bush doesn't run and/or Christie runs into trouble.

On a side note, I still believe that Rand Paul is positioning himself to be a future 'next in line' candidate (probably 2020), with 2016 being his silver medal run.

[Mister Mets]

I don't think there's a clear answer.

If anyone who is arguably the next in line wins the nomination, that'll become part of the general narrative.

SPC gave the arguments for Santorum, Perry, Jeb and Ryan.

Huckabee could also make an argument. He was essentially tied for second-place with Romney after the 2008 nomination (He had more votes at the end, and won one of the earliest primary states) so it could be said that he took a hit for the party by staying out in 2012, and now it's his turn.

Rand Paul inherited his father's network, and has arguably been the most prominent Senator.

[Frodo]

Either Scott Walker (not sure why his name isn't on the list) or Jeb Bush. 

[SPC]

Either Scott Walker (not sure why his name isn't on the list) or Jeb Bush. 

Because, while they may be viable candidates, there is no preexisting precedent for Walker, Christie, or any other potential nominee not on this list. Their success would be predicated on a scrapping of dynastic succession, rather than a novel interpretation of it.

[BaconBacon96]

Santorum will try to claim the mantle, however I doubt he'll get too far this time. Given the current dynamics, I think the person who can claim they are 'next in line' will be the person who can secure the endorsement of Mitt Romney. That person I think is Jeb Bush.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Time for the Hannoverian Succession.


John Kasich is George I.




Time to depose the Stu... err Bushes for good.

[ShadowRocket]

I would say Santorum or Jeb. Albeit neither one will win.

[New_Conservative]

Kasich

[Mister Mets]

By the old standards, it's Santorum.

If Paul Ryan, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul or Mitt Romney wins the nomination, the "next in line" narrative will be amended to include their wins.

The argument may shift to Republicans having a tendency to nominate well-known figures if Chris Christie wins.

[Lupo]

Odd cycle in that there is no typical GOP "next in line".  With that said, I voted for Ryan based on the fact that no one really views Santorum as viable.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

None of them

[IceSpear]

The ONLY person who can claim "next in line" is Santorum. People discussing other "next in line" possibilities are just trying to keep the "GOP always nominates the next in line" narrative alive when Santorum inevitably loses.

[New_Conservative]

People are sadly mistaken if they take Santorum will be the nominee.

Of course if Santorum is the nominee, I'll be aboard on the Hilary 2016 bandwagon, but I don't see him even competing, especially with Huckabee likely throwing his hat in the ring.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The ONLY person who can claim "next in line" is Santorum. People discussing other "next in line" possibilities are just trying to keep the "GOP always nominates the next in line" narrative alive when Santorum inevitably loses.

By those rules, the rule was dead and burried a long time ago.

I suppose it is like no Republican has ever won without OH, just like no Republican had ever won without Vermont until 2000, PA and ME until 1968.

Oh by the way, we should totally nominate Kasich because no Republican has ever won without OH and he has the best chance at flipping the state. Just kidding.

We should nominate Kasich though for several legitimate reasons.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Jeb, Rand Paul or Huckabee. But having maxed out gains in 2014, in the House and Senate, no nominee will have an easy time against standard barrier Hillary Clinton.

Clinton will have the young, the women and the Hispanics and can win with or without Ohio, but Kasich has flipped flopped on Obamacare many times like Romney and it will be replayed back in a video.

Supporting Medicaid expansion but repeal the law, which wont happen.

[Bull Moose Base]

We could easily see a Huckabee vs Romney contest, and if so you won't convince me Next-in-Line isn't a thing.

[Mister Mets]

Traditionally, Santorum is the next in line.

The concept of the next in line is a bit misunderstood. It's not that Republican primary voters back someone because that individual is the next in line, but that having run for President before comes with institutional advantages. It helps with name-recognition, fundraising ability, experience with the rigors of a presidential campaign and psychological edge. In earlier races, amplifying the consensus that one candidate is a frontrunner is one way to intimidate other potential candidates and their donors.

It's interesting that Democrats are overwhelmingly likely to pick the next in line, which happens far more rarely (Al Gore in 2000, perhaps Mondale in 1984) while Republicans might go with a relative newcomer.

[The_Doctor]

Nobody. Literally nobody emerged strong enough as an alternative to Romney to be a credible next in line figure in 2016. Everyone who was the anti-Romney essentially was just that, not a credible person to be the next in line.

Nobody from 2012 will probably be a serious contender in 2016. The simple reason is that the 2012 field was what it was because the GOP was decimated in 2006 and 2008, thus taking out top contenders who could have run in 2012.

I should note that the Democrats now have this problem.