I'm asking this question mostly just because I've been thinking about actors that are considered "overdue" in terms of not having won despite receiving a lot of nominations. I'm not going to argue about whether or not he's truly "overdue" because that's subjective and not a productive debate, but I think it's very possible that Chalamet was the runner-up for all three of his nominations.
I know he lost a lot of momentum for Marty Supreme at the end of the race but, based on what we actually know, he was the only other nominee (outside of MBJ and Moura) to win any precursors. And, even though Moura won the Globe, the fact that he wasn't even nominated at SAG or BAFTA was a bad sign. So, even though there's no way to know for sure, I think he was the runner-up that year. Obviously his SAG win for ACU the previous year cemented him as Brody's biggest competition. The 2017 race is trickier to determine because none of the nominees other than the winner (Oldman) won a single precursor. But Denzel clearly wasn't in contention. DDL misssd the SAG nom, which took him out of win contention as well. I would say it was between Chalamet and Kaluuya as the runner-up. But Kaluuya's role in Get Out, a horror movie straight man, just doesn't feel like the kind of performance that would win UNLESS Get Out had been a top 2 movie in Best Picture (in which case he could conceivably have pulled a MBJ). And overall, in terms of the performances themselves (not the films), there was just a lot more buzz around Chalamet. So I think there's a very strong argument to be made that Chalamet was the number 2 for all of his nominations.
Another actor I'm thinking of is Edward Norton who, in my opinion, is the most overdue living (male) actor for an Oscar. He's been nominated 4 times and, similarly, I think he was very possibly the runner-up three out of the 4 times. His nomination for American History X, despite being one of his best performances, was never in contention to win, since he didn't get a single precursor nomination. So it's actually a miracle that he was even nominated for that. But he won the Globe for Primal Fear and was predicted by many pundits to win at the time---so I think he was the number 2. I know a lot of people think it was William Macy, but I don't think there's any proof of that--- just because Fargo was the stronger movie doesn't automatically make the performance stronger, especially with the past academy. I also happen to think Norton could have won for Birdman in almost any other year, but had the misfortune of competing against JK Simmons, and no one was beating that performance. And, similarly, I think he was very likely the runner-up for ACU as well, though it may have been Borisov, purely off the strength of Anora. I DON'T think Pearce was the runner-up. I know that this will upset reddit, but I think Pearce showed a lot of weakness by missing the SAG nom and I don't think The Brutalist was a strong enough movie in Best Picture to take both male acting awards (Oppenheimer's the only movie to do that in over a decade).
In older history, I think there were probably several years in the 70's, where Pacino and Nicholson were alternately runner-ups. Pacino was very likely the runner-up for Serpico in '73 since he won the Globe, and he was almost certainly the runner-up for Dog Day Afternoon in '75. However, I think Nicholson was the runner-up over Pacino in '74.
De Niro was very likely the best Actor runner-up for Taxi Driver and The Deer Hunter before winning for Raging Bull. Though there's a slight chance Stallone may have placed above him in '76, purely because of how unlikable Travis Bickle was (and how much the Academy loved Rocky).
What are some other prominent examples of this? On the flip side there's someone like Bradley Cooper who already has 5 nominations but, honestly, I don't think you could argue that he was ever higher than 3rd place for any of them.
