Republican "next-in-line" mentality

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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

[© tweed]

this is well documented, the question becomes a bit murky in 2016 if it's an open contest.

[Modernity has failed us]

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.

[© tweed]

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.

[Modernity has failed us]

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.

[Vosem]

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.

[Phony Moderate]

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.

[RI]

I think Romney's VP selection may have more of a chance at being next-in-line than Santorum, honestly.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

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.

[Averroës Nix]

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.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

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.

[The Mikado]

Either way, it doesn't hold up for 2012 because Huckabee, the 2008 runner up, stayed out of the race.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

The "next guy in line" for 2016 will be Santorum, or Mittens's VP choice.

[bgwah]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.