List every GOP candidate you think will win more than one primary/caucus in 2016

[Mr. Morden]

I say "more than one" because there have been a number of cases in recent decades where a weak candidate won his home state and nowhere else, which is kind of boring.  Also, by "win", let's limit it to the popular vote in the state, ignoring the fact that (especially with caucuses, though less so in 2016 because of the new RNC rules) you can sometimes have a popular vote winner who doesn't get the most delegates from the state.

So who's going to win more than one primary/caucus?

For historical perspective....

2012 GOP: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich
2008 Dems: Obama, Clinton
2008 GOP: McCain, Romney, Huckabee
2004 Dems: Kerry, Edwards
2000 Dems: Gore
2000 GOP: Bush, McCain
1996 GOP: Dole, Buchanan, Forbes
1992 Dems: Clinton, Tsongas, Brown
1988 Dems: Dukakis, Jackson, Gore, Gephardt
1988 GOP: Bush, Dole, Robertson

So we haven't had a race in which four candidates won multiple states since 1988, but you never know.

[PresidentTRUMP]

Bush
Romney
Paul
Rubio
Walker

Its gonna come down to the end and be extremely close, a lot of good candidates compared to '12

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'm sticking with my insane split of Walker, Paul, and Huckabee in the first three before Romney, Bush, and Christie exert their establishment credentials on the home turf.

[Mehmentum]

Romney, Paul, and Huckabee.

[MATTROSE94]

Probably Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. I think that Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Rand Paul will run as well, though they will probably just win their homestates and nothing else.

[IceSpear]

Probably Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. I think that Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Rand Paul will run as well, though they will probably just win their homestates and nothing else.

You have to consider the calendar though. For instance, isn't the Kentucky primary almost always held in May? I can't imagine Paul would stay in that long if he was shut out completely in the 40+ states that voted prior to it.

Anyway, I'm not going to guess this yet since there's way too many variables. But I think the maximum is probably 3 different people, due to the fact that it's difficult to stay viable without winning at least one of IA/NH/SC.

[BaconBacon96]

Paul, Bush, Romney, Huckabee and maybe Carson.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

You are aware in 2012 that Ron Paul won primaries too.

[Mr. Morden]

Paul, Bush, Romney, Huckabee and maybe Carson.

There aren't going to be five people winning multiple states.  Even four is unlikely.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney
Scott Walker
Ted Cruz
Rand Paul (although him not winning anything is equally possible)

Three, maybe four major candidates. Someone like Cruz or Paul is very unlikely to win, but will energize the base enough for their demands to be addressed at the Republican National Convention, and the GOP nominee (I'm guessing it'll be Bush or Romney, with Walker being less likely but not entirely implausible, IMO)  will likely need to pick a firebrand conservative like Cruz as their running mate.

[SPC]

Assuming this schedule is correct:

Iowa: Likely Huckabee. Paul would have a good chance if Huckabee were not a likely candidate.
New Hampshire: Likely Romney. Paul would have a good chance if Romney were not a likely candidate.
Colorado/Minnesota: Huckabee might be too Southern to pull off Santorum's magic here, Romney, Paul, or Cruz might win these.
New York: Likely Christie if he's still in, Romney or Bush otherwise.

So, it probably ends up coming down to Romney, Huckabee, and either Paul or Cruz. Much as I would like a split establishment vote, the schedule is on unfavorable turf for Bush (at least vis a vis Romney) until March, at which point he may cease to be relevant in the contest. Paul's chances are actually significantly diminished by the Huckabee and Romney candidacies, as their unique appeals essentially eliminate Paul's early state advantage.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You are aware in 2012 that Ron Paul won primaries too.

He won the most delegates in a few caucus states, but he only won the actual popular vote in one location: The Virgin Islands.

[Mr. Morden]

You are aware in 2012 that Ron Paul won primaries too.

He won the most delegates in a few caucus states, but he only won the actual popular vote in one location: The Virgin Islands.

He didn't even really "win the popular vote" in the Virgin Islands.  That was a territory where voters voted directly for delegates, and Paul simply had more candidates to be delegates (more than he needed, really) who had pledged themselves to him, who collectively attracted more votes.  But there was never any actual ballot there with the name "Ron Paul" on it, as it was a direction election of delegates.

[TomC]

Bush, Huckabee

[Mr. Morden]

Paul, Bush, Romney, Huckabee and maybe Carson.

There aren't going to be five people winning multiple states.  Even four is unlikely.

Four is likely due to the good number of candidates we have. It's not like 2012 where candidates struggled to have a base. In 2016, Bush, Romney, Paul, and Huckabee all have bases they can draw support from.

Well, I've heard that before, and it tends not to materialize.  Any candidate who doesn't win one of the first four or so primaries is really going to struggle to remain viable enough to win primaries down the line.  That's the way it's been for decades, and I don't expect this time to be different.

EDIT: In fact, heck, look at the polling right now.  Romney's leading nationally by something like 10-15 points or so, and would probably be ahead in the vast majority of state polls taken right now (outside of other candidates' home states).  Now, obviously that's not going to last, and some other candidate might be leading nationally a year from now, but it's hard for things to become so balanced nationally that you have more than three candidates leading in different parts of the country.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Romney
Paul

And that's it. I don't think Huckabee will run, and I don't think the remaining social conservatives are actually that formidable. Paul, on the other hand, has an interesting message, wide appeal, and the potential to do well in both Iowa and New Hampshire. I think he could become the candidate of the far right. As for the moderate establishment candidate, Bush is a paper tiger and all the other establishment  candidates are extremely weak. In other words, Romney can count on that part of the vote. I really think it will come down to Paul and Romney.

[BaconBacon96]

Paul, Bush, Romney, Huckabee and maybe Carson.

There aren't going to be five people winning multiple states.  Even four is unlikely.

I suppose. Whoever out of Romney/Bush wins early will probably lock the other out, unless they keep running out of spite or something. Carson was a wild guess because he might do well in Iowa, although now that I think about it he probably won't if Huckabee's in the race.

EDIT: Walker might do well if a gap opens up if one of them is absent from the field.

[Del Tachi]

Bush and Paul

Bush is no paper tiger, the narrative is obviously against Romney and Bush is loved by the Republican intelligentsia 

[TomC]

Paul's father was a lot more interesting. I just don't see Rand doing much better.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I suppose you're right, Aruca. I'm just hoping America will be able to see through Cruz's sh**t-eating grin.

[ElectionsGuy]

Bush
Paul
Walker
Romney
Huckabee

[#TheShadowyAbyss]

Bush
Huckabee
Paul
(MAYBE) Romney
Christie

I think it will be a tight race this go around, Paul will win his home state and some Western states, I can see Huckabee winning Arkansas and Iowa and a few southern and caucus states. I can see Romney winning New Hampshire and Mass and some northern states, Christie obviously New Jersey and maybe one or two other states

[Mr. Morden]

Again, if all the primaries were held today, then Romney would win basically everywhere (except for the other candidates' home states).  That's because he's leading nationally in the polls by something like 10-15 points.  A year from now, it might be someone else who's leading, but whoever it is has a decent chance of dominating most of the primaries, regardless of how "wide open" things look now.

The regional polarization just isn't extreme enough for five different candidates to be winning in different parts of the country.  We'll probably get ~3 candidates who win multiple primaries.  Might be only 2, and *might* be 4, though I wouldn't bet on that.  But 5 is not going to happen.  Real life is not going to turn into some kind of wacky gporter timeline. 

[MATTROSE94]

Probably Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney. I think that Scott Walker, Chris Christie and Rand Paul will run as well, though they will probably just win their homestates and nothing else.

You have to consider the calendar though. For instance, isn't the Kentucky primary almost always held in May? I can't imagine Paul would stay in that long if he was shut out completely in the 40+ states that voted prior to it.

Anyway, I'm not going to guess this yet since there's way too many variables. But I think the maximum is probably 3 different people, due to the fact that it's difficult to stay viable without winning at least one of IA/NH/SC.

That's actually a good point, but assuming that Rand Paul (and Chris Christie and Scott Walker for that matter as well) get second place in a bunch of primaries, wouldn't that encourage them to stay in the race for the Republican nomination?

[ShadowRocket]

Bush/Romney/Christie
Paul
Cruz
Huckabee/Santorum

I think the actual line-up will be a bit more concise with one of Romney, Bush, or Christie emerging as the sole carrier of the establishment flag. Likewise for Huckabee and Santorum for the Evangelicals. But I think all four wings will have a strong enough candidate to see at least some minimal success.