What's Santorum Gonna Do?

Watching Santorum on Piers Morgan reminds me I've been wondering about Santorum's prospects for 2016 (or 2020). He seems an unlikely VP choice, since he can't guarantee PA and polarized lots of voters that Romney needs to charm. But, as I discussed, when Politico's Arena asked Rick Santorum: What Went Wrong the Republican party has a long history of choosing the next person in line.

My full answer is posted here:

Did anything really go wrong for Santorum? The Republican party has a strong tradition of nominating "the next person in line." Romney was runner-up to McCain in 2008 and will win the nomination in 2012.

McCain was runner-up to Bush in 2000 and was nominated in 2008. In 1988 Dole was the runner-up to Bush and was nominated in 1996. Bush of course had been the runner-up to Reagan in 1980 - who in turn had been the runner-up to Ford in 1976. Also, Romney did everything by the book, leaving the race in 2008 in time to show he was serious, but not so long that he seemed to hurt the party. Since then he has assembled a formidable team and raised enormous amounts of money. His approach to the nomination has been methodical and systematic.

Santorum's campaign was not always a model of order and Santorum himself had plenty of gaffes. But, considering the organizational barriers against Santorum, he probably did about as well as could be expected.

The intriguing question is this: if Romney loses, is Santorum now next in line for 2016?

On TV right now, Santorum is making all the right noises: "I will support the nominee, we need to defeat Obama blah, blah...

But somehow, Santorum does not seem to be plausible as the next guy in line. Is there a threshold to reach that point that somehow Santorum didn't cross? This could be a fine political science paper - for someone else.

Finally, is there a picture of Piers Morgan in the dictionary under unctuous?