The direction of the Republican Party if Romney loses

[Phony Moderate]

Will it cause the GOP to go further to the right ("Romney lost because he's a RINO!")? Or will it become more moderate?

[Stranger in a strange land]

Will it cause the GOP to go further to the right ("Romney lost because he's a RINO!")? Or will it become more moderate?

Obviously the former, since that's what ALWAYS happens when Republicans lose.

[Zioneer]

Yeah, they'll likely go even more conservative, with the caveat that, depending on if Hispanics are a factor in them losing, they may relax and liberalize their immigration policies.

[Yelnoc]

I think the Libertarian and Conservative factions will continue to snipe at each other while the more "moderate" types continue to flee the party.  2016 will likely see a very contentious primary season and then horrific loss in the general election.

Why?

Because demographics are against the Republican Party.  They seem to be actively attempting to purge everyone from the party that isn't a white christian, and with demographic trends being what they are, that is a recipe for disaster.  "Small town America" has been paved over by suburban housing developers and populated with emigrants from around the country.  The Atlantic coast is trending D, potentially leaving the Republicans with only the sparse electoral votes of Appalachia and the Plains states.

If the Republicans want to avoid decades of "Wilderness Years" where they can hold onto Congress by mobilizing "the base" but can never come close to winning the White House when the rest of America turns out to vote, they will need to reinvent themselves.  As annoying as the Paulites, they are a young voter base, unlike the Social Conservatives, most of whom will be in their graves by the 2020s.  They need liberalize on social issues so much that they wrap around the political spectrum to steal the votes of "Safe D" college kids.

More likely though, they will nominate a "true conservative" like Santorum.  Hell, Santorum is the "next in line", isn't he?  He'll go down in flames against whoever the Democrats put up.  If they run a guy like Schweitzer, that will cut directly into Santorum's base of support.  Perhaps that would send the message that going Conservative is a loosing strategy and the libertarians take over in 2020.  Of course I can't see them being much more successful unless they win back the "RINO vote" (read: original republicans).

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Libertarian faction is not nearly as big or powerful as the social conservative faction.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party, should Romney lose (and at this point, that's quite the possibility ) will continue to go down the path of political absurdity, leaving America with no viable opposition party. Such things happen when a fanatically absolutist ideological movement takes over a party.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I disagree entirely...I believe we will recognize Romney is a terrible candidate. A former one-term Governor who has flip flopped on nearly every major issue- who avoided service when his country needed him- who ran the most tepid campaign in modern times- and who cannot seem genuine no matter what he does

We will look for some one more worthy of the efforts and money of millions across the country to present us a true contrast... we may go more moderate or more conservative, but what is for sure is we will no longer follow what the establishment dictates.

[BaldEagle1991]

The Republicans are going to stay where they are no matter what after Romney loses.

But further along time, they are probably going to be a more moderate party with a libertarian character. Especially if they are trying to capture younger voters and Hispanics.

[sg0508]

Until the Republicans can find someone to unite people, and that involves winning back suburban America while appealing to minority voters, it's going to be tough to win.

[Vosem]

Because demographics are against the Republican Party.  They seem to be actively attempting to purge everyone from the party that isn't a white christian, and with demographic trends being what they are, that is a recipe for disaster.  "Small town America" has been paved over by suburban housing developers and populated with emigrants from around the country.  The Atlantic coast is trending D, potentially leaving the Republicans with only the sparse electoral votes of Appalachia and the Plains states.

A lot of Democrats take the 'demographics will kill the GOP' line as an article of faith, but it's really not born out by the numbers. First off, Republicans only win slightly more than 60% of the white vote -- there's plenty of opportunity for expansion there. Second off, generally moderately well-off Hispanics are no less or more likely to vote Republican than their white counterparts (African-Americans vote more unanimously Democratic) -- the reason they seem to vote disproportionately Democratic is that many of them are urban poor, who obviously vote Democratic. Even now, Hispanics are underrated as a swing demographic; Bill Clinton in 1996 broke 70%, Obama was somewhere in the 60s with Hispanics, but Bush in 2004 lost  in the high single-digits -- and while it's still a loss, there's a big difference between more than 70% and high single-digits.

Also, growth in the Hispanic community is slowing -- as of a few years ago, movement from the US to Mexico and from Mexico to the US cancels each other out. Asians are now the fastest-growing immigrant group, and they're even more politically diverse than Hispanics -- Bob Dole won Asians in 1996.

There's no demographic miracle coming to save the Democrats. It seems like a persuasive argument on the face of it, but it's not golden, just gilded. (I remember posters saying as of 2008 the demographic miracle had come and the only way Republicans would become competitive again was by moving left over the course of, at minimum, a decade or so -- and instead, they moved sharp right and took back a House of Congress in 2 years).

That said, the reaction to the Romney victory: in the short-term, yes, Republicans say they weren't conservative enough. Maybe Santorum even gets nominated in 2016 (he would probably lose, though it depends on the circumstances; Santorum is a bad candidate but in the USA he isn't totally unelectable), though I doubt it, especially if 2016 looks set to be a good year folks like Christie or Thune or Paul will run and they will overshadow Santorum. 'Tea Party' groups become more powerful. Over the long term, the Republican Party is becoming more libertarian; they will accept gay marriage, the party will lose some of its religious character, but fiscally, unless UHC suddenly becomes radically popular, which some Democrats are saying will happen in 2014 but which I find severely doubtful, things like opposition to UHC will remain. This is the wrong way to appeal to Hispanics, many of whom are fiscally left-wing but socially right-wing (ie, populist, not libertarian), but it will give them appeal to groups like Asians and Midwestern/Northeastern whites. Democrats don't seem to be moving anywhere at all, so the question remains on whether the Democrats will move to appeal more to Southern whites (who are, like Hispanics, very populist) in reaction to the Republicans, moving to absorb the socially conservative, or whether things like gay rights will stop being significant issues (ie, the Democrats stay the way they are). The latter is, I think, more likely.

[Sbane]

Trying to get Asian votes with opposition to UHC is the wrong move imo. They are moderates and are in favor of UHC generally speaking. You can get them to oppose a specific program like Obamacare (which I don't think they are opposed to currently but I haven't seen any polling) but they will demand a different UHC replacement. This is why I don't think the repeal of Obamacare is going far. Obamacare I would think is far more palatable to Republicans than other options when it comes to implementing UHC. Opposition to UHC is a very American thing...perhaps having something to do with the racial history of America..... but whatever it may be, people outside America don't understand why the government would not provide medical care for people who need it in a rich nation.

The way to get Asian votes would be to focus on the deficit and unnecessary spending. Reforming public employee pensions and wages could be a successful issue. Reforming, as opposed to getting rid of, entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid could work as well. But most of all Republicans need to exude moderation and ally themselves less with the white, christian nationalist wing of the party.

[phk]

Because demographics are against the Republican Party.  They seem to be actively attempting to purge everyone from the party that isn't a white christian, and with demographic trends being what they are, that is a recipe for disaster.  "Small town America" has been paved over by suburban housing developers and populated with emigrants from around the country.  The Atlantic coast is trending D, potentially leaving the Republicans with only the sparse electoral votes of Appalachia and the Plains states.

Exit polling overestimates minority turnout and than to compensate they overestimate minority Republican support.

Bush did not win 44% of the Hispanic vote, he won much less.

IMO, the only way to swing Asians is if affirmative action and racial quotas become a topic once again.

[5280]

The Republicans are going to stay where they are no matter what after Romney loses.

But further along time, they are probably going to be a more moderate party with a libertarian character. Especially if they are trying to capture younger voters and Hispanics.

This I agree with 100%

[memphis]

They'll obviously dig in their heels and use the filibuster and the gerrymander and every other tool in their arsenal to govern more effectively in the minority than the Democrats ever govern in the majority. And with two senators per state, they can ride this minority thing out indefinately. They've already succeeded beyond anybody's wildest dreams at pushing more and more national income to the very richest. Which is far more important to them than any electoral majority. But, of course, the party line will be that Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. You can take that to the bank.

[California8429]

Neither, we'll just have a good primary in 2016. We'll have candidates in the center and on the right to choose from, the party won't change, it will just become more energized.

Christie, Martinez, Bush, Huntsman, Brown from the center

McDonnell, Rubio, Jindal, Pence, Fallin, Walker from the right

Paul from the Paul section

[Orion0]

I have to agree with the above comment, it will do nothing but energize the debate and ensure a strong primary season. Personally I would like to see the GOP take a little hint from their conservative bretheren north of the border and drop the hard-line stance on contentious social issues. Making a hoopla over abortion and gay marriage failed the reform party in Canada, and seems equally capable of keeping the GOP from control in Nov. Only when the Conservative Party of Canada dropped those issues from their platform were they able to solidly shift centrist voters to the CPC permanently.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I have to agree with the above comment, it will do nothing but energize the debate and ensure a strong primary season. Personally I would like to see the GOP take a little hint from their conservative bretheren north of the border and drop the hard-line stance on contentious social issues. Making a hoopla over abortion and gay marriage failed the reform party in Canada, and seems equally capable of keeping the GOP from control in Nov. Only when the Conservative Party of Canada dropped those issues from their platform were they able to solidly shift centrist voters to the CPC permanently.

For many conservatives however, that would mean dropping some very important issues. Especially in regards to abortion.

[NY Jew]

Because demographics are against the Republican Party.  They seem to be actively attempting to purge everyone from the party that isn't a white christian, and with demographic trends being what they are, that is a recipe for disaster.  "Small town America" has been paved over by suburban housing developers and populated with emigrants from around the country.  The Atlantic coast is trending D, potentially leaving the Republicans with only the sparse electoral votes of Appalachia and the Plains states.

A lot of Democrats take the 'demographics will kill the GOP' line as an article of faith, but it's really not born out by the numbers. First off, Republicans only win slightly more than 60% of the white vote -- there's plenty of opportunity for expansion there. Second off, generally moderately well-off Hispanics are no less or more likely to vote Republican than their white counterparts (African-Americans vote more unanimously Democratic) -- the reason they seem to vote disproportionately Democratic is that many of them are urban poor, who obviously vote Democratic. Even now, Hispanics are underrated as a swing demographic; Bill Clinton in 1996 broke 70%, Obama was somewhere in the 60s with Hispanics, but Bush in 2004 lost  in the high single-digits -- and while it's still a loss, there's a big difference between more than 70% and high single-digits.

Also, growth in the Hispanic community is slowing -- as of a few years ago, movement from the US to Mexico and from Mexico to the US cancels each other out. Asians are now the fastest-growing immigrant group, and they're even more politically diverse than Hispanics -- Bob Dole won Asians in 1996.

There's no demographic miracle coming to save the Democrats. It seems like a persuasive argument on the face of it, but it's not golden, just gilded. (I remember posters saying as of 2008 the demographic miracle had come and the only way Republicans would become competitive again was by moving left over the course of, at minimum, a decade or so -- and instead, they moved sharp right and took back a House of Congress in 2 years).

That said, the reaction to the Romney victory: in the short-term, yes, Republicans say they weren't conservative enough. Maybe Santorum even gets nominated in 2016 (he would probably lose, though it depends on the circumstances; Santorum is a bad candidate but in the USA he isn't totally unelectable), though I doubt it, especially if 2016 looks set to be a good year folks like Christie or Thune or Paul will run and they will overshadow Santorum. 'Tea Party' groups become more powerful. Over the long term, the Republican Party is becoming more libertarian; they will accept gay marriage, the party will lose some of its religious character, but fiscally, unless UHC suddenly becomes radically popular, which some Democrats are saying will happen in 2014 but which I find severely doubtful, things like opposition to UHC will remain. This is the wrong way to appeal to Hispanics, many of whom are fiscally left-wing but socially right-wing (ie, populist, not libertarian), but it will give them appeal to groups like Asians and Midwestern/Northeastern whites. Democrats don't seem to be moving anywhere at all, so the question remains on whether the Democrats will move to appeal more to Southern whites (who are, like Hispanics, very populist) in reaction to the Republicans, moving to absorb the socially conservative, or whether things like gay rights will stop being significant issues (ie, the Democrats stay the way they are). The latter is, I think, more likely.

social conservatism is the only way the Republican party will ever be viable

their loosing minority voters (gays are not a minority) over immigration and other non social issues only a idiot will honestly think differently.

I find it interesting that it's only liberals who say social conservatism is the reason that republican can't win the republican vote.  clearly their trying to sabotage the party.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

NY Jew, you're aware that immigrant groups, while generally 'socially conservative' (which, as I'm sure you know, means very different things in different places), aren't nearly as much or as stridently so as conventional wisdom dictates, right?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Yes, NY Jew, many Indian and Chinese immigrants are socially conservative. At the same time, they aren't Christian, aren't anti-intellectual and don't posses stereotypical "American" values that are the embodiment of the shift of the GOP to appeal to "hard hats".

The GOP doesn't need to drop its relative social conservatism, it needs to slowly shift wedge issues away from immigration, gay marriage and abortion and towards a new set of cultural differences that could win over second generation newcomers. I'd suggest drug use and liberal arts education as scapegoats.

[Orion0]

The GOP doesn't need to drop its relative social conservatism, it needs to slowly shift wedge issues away from immigration, gay marriage and abortion and towards a new set of cultural differences that could win over second generation newcomers. I'd suggest drug use and liberal arts education as scapegoats.

This. Plus I think the shift needs to include religious liberty, which means making some outreach to immigrants who may not be evangelical, or even Christian. The role of religion in both the home and workplace is demonized by the left, which is not a comfortable idea to many immigrants, and the GOP does little to capitalize on this. Most immigrants to Canada vote conservative (barring a few majority-minority ridings where all parties pander to immigrants) & I fail to see why the same couldn't be accomplished in the US.

Also interesting (at least to me) is that the Conservative Party of Canada maintains a pro-life and anti-gay marriage platform. However, they promised to not legislate on these issues. The GOP could do the same, and leave the nitty gritty to each state to decide which is the right legislation for their constituents.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

The GOP doesn't need to drop its relative social conservatism, it needs to slowly shift wedge issues away from immigration, gay marriage and abortion and towards a new set of cultural differences that could win over second generation newcomers. I'd suggest drug use and liberal arts education as scapegoats.

This. Plus I think the shift needs to include religious liberty, which means making some outreach to immigrants who may not be evangelical, or even Christian. The role of religion in both the home and workplace is demonized by the left, which is not a comfortable idea to many immigrants, and the GOP does little to capitalize on this. Most immigrants to Canada vote conservative (barring a few majority-minority ridings where all parties pander to immigrants) & I fail to see why the same couldn't be accomplished in the US.

Also interesting (at least to me) is that the Conservative Party of Canada maintains a pro-life and anti-gay marriage platform. However, they promised to not legislate on these issues. The GOP could do the same, and leave the nitty gritty to each state to decide which is the right legislation for their constituents.

The key immigrant groups that the Republican Party needs to win over don't believe in the "our religious beliefs are under attack" meme though.

[Orion0]

The key immigrant groups that the Republican Party needs to win over don't believe in the "our religious beliefs are under attack" meme though.

Quite simply put though, they are under attack. Therefore I can only see improvement in this area should the GOP commit some resources to educating the public about this. If the GOP championed liberties for all  instead of created wedges it would be a lot easier to woo these immigrants who quite frankly remain in the dark about the long and contentious public debate on abortion, gay marriage, and so on.

[greenforest32]

They'll obviously dig in their heels and use the filibuster and the gerrymander and every other tool in their arsenal to govern more effectively in the minority than the Democrats ever govern in the majority. And with two senators per state, they can ride this minority thing out indefinately. They've already succeeded beyond anybody's wildest dreams at pushing more and more national income to the very richest. Which is far more important to them than any electoral majority. But, of course, the party line will be that Romney lost because he wasn't conservative enough. You can take that to the bank.

Yeah pretty much this. 2009-2010 was good for Republicans and 2011-2012 will be the new norm at least in the short-term (5-8 years) because of 2010 redistricting and the filibuster. If we're going to see any shift, it will be ten years out. They don't have any reason to moderate right now I don't think.

Even the realistic best case scenario for Obama (reelection + D-Senate), the most it looks like he'll get is an immigration deal (DREAM act?) or a center-right fiscal grand-bargain: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/18/120618fa_fact_lizza

Nothing to be proud about compared to the vision and potential of 2008 but that's what happens when you squander and continuously cede ground.

[mondale84]

LOL at people who think this would make the GOP any less extreme.

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

The key immigrant groups that the Republican Party needs to win over don't believe in the "our religious beliefs are under attack" meme though.

Quite simply put though, they are under attack. Therefore I can only see improvement in this area should the GOP commit some resources to educating the public about this. If the GOP championed liberties for all  instead of created wedges it would be a lot easier to woo these immigrants who quite frankly remain in the dark about the long and contentious public debate on abortion, gay marriage, and so on.

But in Canada, ironically enough, things have been steadily swinging to the right on social issues since the 1980s or so. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if bringing back the death penalty and banning abortion became viable political moves in ten or twenty years.

The difference, though, is that there is a sizable portion of the GOP electorate that basically votes on the religious issues that they need to hold on (especially in the south and midwest), whereas in Canada such voters are basically marginal and only exist in safe Reform/Conservative areas like Alberta and the interior of BC.

Opposition to UHC in the US has a pretty long history, though. IIRC Truman tried to get something along those lines passed in the 1950s, but at there were various factors that made it very unpopular; people had already overwhelmingly voted against the government control of the war years (ending rationing and so on), and at the time American healthcare was quite affordable and of very high quality to boot.

News of the GOP's demise, however, is greatly exaggerated. Yes, immigration means that the "old white male" demographic they have locked up won't be enough to help them in the future, but (A) Hispanics aren't really out of their reach and (B) the Rust Belt has been swinging in their direction enough to mean they can practically just expand their share of the lower-middle class white vote to make up for future problems. In the long term their views will change by political necessity and I suspect will be radically different by 2020, but they are hardly endangered right now.

Anyway, the GOP wouldn't really benefit from dropping the social issues altogether since such a huge portion of their electorate relies on those. However, they would stand to benefit by not making otherwise irrelevant issues like gay marriage hills to die on since they'll probably lose fights like that in the long run. Abortion is something they might have a bit of a better chance on, seeing as how public opinion has been going in the pro-life direction for a while.

Honestly, I see the "successful" GOP of 2020 being somewhat socially conservative if less so than presently with a libertarian bent. Dropping the drug war would probably let them appeal to the urban poor and Hispanics a bit better, and I'd say their present pro-war/interventionism stance isn't going to last either.