I may have already posted this but in case I haven't, I wanted to share my prediction well before 2016.
There's a pattern I've noticed in the Republican Party: When there's not a sitting GOP president running for re-election, the runner up in the last primary is the nominee in this one. That's been the pattern in every primary held within my lifetime.
1976: Reagan in the runner up, losing to Ford. He's the nominee in 1980.
1980: HW Bush is the runner up, losing to Reagan. He's the nominee in 1988.
1984: Reagan is the sitting president running for re-election.
1988: Dole is the runner up, losing to HW Bush. He's the nominee in 1996.
1992: HW Bush is the sitting president running for re-election.
1996: Buchanan is the runner up, losing to Dole.
OK, we seemed to have a break in this pattern at this point but it doesn't entirely count because Buchanan was the nominee in 2000 ...for the Reform Party. This was Buchanan's choice, as he renounced the GOP and switched parties. Would he have been the GOP nominee if he'd chosen to stay in the fold?
2000: McCain is the runner up, losing to W Bush. He's the nominee in 2008.
2004: W Bush is the sitting president running for re-election.
2008: Romney is the runner up, losing to McCain. He's the nominee in 2012.
2012: Rick Santorum is the runner up, losing to Romney...
Will the pattern hold?
There's a pattern I've noticed in the Republican Party: When there's not a sitting GOP president running for re-election, the runner up in the last primary is the nominee in this one. That's been the pattern in every primary held within my lifetime.
1976: Reagan in the runner up, losing to Ford. He's the nominee in 1980.
1980: HW Bush is the runner up, losing to Reagan. He's the nominee in 1988.
1984: Reagan is the sitting president running for re-election.
1988: Dole is the runner up, losing to HW Bush. He's the nominee in 1996.
1992: HW Bush is the sitting president running for re-election.
1996: Buchanan is the runner up, losing to Dole.
OK, we seemed to have a break in this pattern at this point but it doesn't entirely count because Buchanan was the nominee in 2000 ...for the Reform Party. This was Buchanan's choice, as he renounced the GOP and switched parties. Would he have been the GOP nominee if he'd chosen to stay in the fold?
2000: McCain is the runner up, losing to W Bush. He's the nominee in 2008.
2004: W Bush is the sitting president running for re-election.
2008: Romney is the runner up, losing to McCain. He's the nominee in 2012.
2012: Rick Santorum is the runner up, losing to Romney...
Will the pattern hold?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
