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.

[Mr. Morden]

Paul, Bush, Romney, Huckabee and maybe Carson.

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

[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.

[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.

[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.