The direction of the Republican Party if Romney loses

[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.