The direction of the Republican Party if TRUMP loses

[Phony Moderate]

Seems like a good time for this traditional thread.

There would undoubtably be many who would, as in 2008 and 2012, blame it on not being sufficiently right-wing.

[RINO Tom]

Seems like a good time for this traditional thread.

There would undoubtably be many who would, as in 2008 and 2012, blame it on not being sufficiently right-wing.

Doubt it ... that crowd seems to be more hung up on social issues/tribalism defining what is sufficiently "conservative," and Trump hasn't let them down in that regard.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Seems like a good time for this traditional thread.

There would undoubtably be many who would, as in 2008 and 2012, blame it on not being sufficiently right-wing.

Doubt it ... that crowd seems to be more hung up on social issues/tribalism defining what is sufficiently "conservative," and Trump hasn't let them down in that regard.

Trump hasn't let us down on social issues?  You mean the man who wants to change the GOP platform to allow some abortions and who wants to allow men to use the ladies' room??

[Intell]

Seems like a good time for this traditional thread.

There would undoubtably be many who would, as in 2008 and 2012, blame it on not being sufficiently right-wing.

Doubt it ... that crowd seems to be more hung up on social issues/tribalism defining what is sufficiently "conservative," and Trump hasn't let them down in that regard.

who wants to allow men to use the ladies' room??

Jesus F*k this shi*t again.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Explaining this to social liberals is like teaching a monkey how to paint.

[RINO Tom]

Seems like a good time for this traditional thread.

There would undoubtably be many who would, as in 2008 and 2012, blame it on not being sufficiently right-wing.

Doubt it ... that crowd seems to be more hung up on social issues/tribalism defining what is sufficiently "conservative," and Trump hasn't let them down in that regard.

Trump hasn't let us down on social issues?  You mean the man who wants to change the GOP platform to allow some abortions and who wants to allow men to use the ladies' room??

Your username is extremely appropriate.  You're insane.

[Kevin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Explaining this to social liberals is like teaching a monkey how to paint.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Honestly, I think a Trump defeat (which is much more likely than a Trump victory) could help save the GOP.  It would help to destroy the notion that Republicans lose by nominating "moderates" and show the party that its current direction is leading them nowhere good.

After 1988, Democrats were in exactly the same situation that the GOP will be in after Hillary clobbers Trump.  Prior to that time, Democrats had lost five out of the previous six presidential elections, and lost three straight by decisive margins.  When Bill Clinton came along, everything changed.  He campaigned as a moderate "New Democrat" who won over suburban women, wealthy voters, and the like.  Clinton not only won the election, but he ushered in a realignment that gave us the current Clinton/Obama party system.  Since it's rare for either party to lose more than two straight presidential contests, Republicans will have some serious soul-searching to do after this election.  They will recognize their need to drastically improve their outreach to minorities and women, and to ignore or downplay social issues for the most part.  And if all goes well, they could easily see their own Bill Clinton arrive in 2020 and bring about a new realignment.  I sure hope that is the case.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Honestly, I think a Trump defeat (which is much more likely than a Trump victory) could help save the GOP.  It would help to destroy the notion that Republicans lose by nominating "moderates" and show the party that its current direction is leading them nowhere good.

After 1988, Democrats were in exactly the same situation that the GOP will be in after Hillary clobbers Trump.  Prior to that time, Democrats had lost five out of the previous six presidential elections, and lost three straight by decisive margins.  When Bill Clinton came along, everything changed.  He campaigned as a moderate "New Democrat" who won over suburban women, wealthy voters, and the like.  Clinton not only won the election, but he ushered in a realignment that gave us the current Clinton/Obama party system.  Since it's rare for either party to lose more than two straight presidential contests, Republicans will have some serious soul-searching to do after this election.  They will recognize their need to drastically improve their outreach to minorities and women, and to ignore or downplay social issues for the most part.  And if all goes well, they could easily see their own Bill Clinton arrive in 2020 and bring about a new realignment.  I sure hope that is the case.

You don't seem to understand that people like me couldn't vote for a Republican Party that didn't care about values issues.  If anything, a focus on social issues and family values is how we should reach out to Hispanics.

[smoltchanov]

Seems like a good time for this traditional thread.

There would undoubtably be many who would, as in 2008 and 2012, blame it on not being sufficiently right-wing.

Doubt it ... that crowd seems to be more hung up on social issues/tribalism defining what is sufficiently "conservative," and Trump hasn't let them down in that regard.

Trump hasn't let us down on social issues?  You mean the man who wants to change the GOP platform to allow some abortions and who wants to allow men to use the ladies' room??

Your username is extremely appropriate.  You're insane.

And not only him. Ben Kenobi is a good example too....

[smoltchanov]

Honestly, I think a Trump defeat (which is much more likely than a Trump victory) could help save the GOP.  It would help to destroy the notion that Republicans lose by nominating "moderates" and show the party that its current direction is leading them nowhere good.

After 1988, Democrats were in exactly the same situation that the GOP will be in after Hillary clobbers Trump.  Prior to that time, Democrats had lost five out of the previous six presidential elections, and lost three straight by decisive margins.  When Bill Clinton came along, everything changed.  He campaigned as a moderate "New Democrat" who won over suburban women, wealthy voters, and the like.  Clinton not only won the election, but he ushered in a realignment that gave us the current Clinton/Obama party system.  Since it's rare for either party to lose more than two straight presidential contests, Republicans will have some serious soul-searching to do after this election.  They will recognize their need to drastically improve their outreach to minorities and women, and to ignore or downplay social issues for the most part.  And if all goes well, they could easily see their own Bill Clinton arrive in 2020 and bring about a new realignment.  I sure hope that is the case.

You don't seem to understand that people like me couldn't vote for a Republican Party that didn't care about values issues.  If anything, a focus on social issues and family values is how we should reach out to Hispanics.

Are you so sure that there are more people like you then people like me, who will NOT vote for Republican party until it changes it policy on social issues (the people like Charles Mathias and Chafee Sr., while being business-friendly, were absolutely fine to me in 80th - 90th, even Bob Dold now is, but 99% of candidates - no way, and that 1% runs, usually, in hopelessly Democratic district (like CA-20 this year))? And, BTW,  very liberal policy of Democratic party on social issues doesn't prevent 2/3 of Hispanics from voting for it (this year i expect about 70-75%), because Republican party has nothing to offer them, only extreme conservatism BOTH on economy AND social issues. The Republican party more and more became a clique of reactionary white men (fanatics), who (mostly) will die out rather soon (historically), if not adapted.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Honestly, I think a Trump defeat (which is much more likely than a Trump victory) could help save the GOP.  It would help to destroy the notion that Republicans lose by nominating "moderates" and show the party that its current direction is leading them nowhere good.

After 1988, Democrats were in exactly the same situation that the GOP will be in after Hillary clobbers Trump.  Prior to that time, Democrats had lost five out of the previous six presidential elections, and lost three straight by decisive margins.  When Bill Clinton came along, everything changed.  He campaigned as a moderate "New Democrat" who won over suburban women, wealthy voters, and the like.  Clinton not only won the election, but he ushered in a realignment that gave us the current Clinton/Obama party system.  Since it's rare for either party to lose more than two straight presidential contests, Republicans will have some serious soul-searching to do after this election.  They will recognize their need to drastically improve their outreach to minorities and women, and to ignore or downplay social issues for the most part.  And if all goes well, they could easily see their own Bill Clinton arrive in 2020 and bring about a new realignment.  I sure hope that is the case.

You don't seem to understand that people like me couldn't vote for a Republican Party that didn't care about values issues.  If anything, a focus on social issues and family values is how we should reach out to Hispanics.

I agree with you that we should emphasize family values as a way to improve black and Hispanic outreach.  But they shouldn't be a litmus test for our candidates, and when we're running in a liberal state, we should downplay them as much as possible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The GOP is not like the Democrats. Hoping for a Bill Clinton to just come along and essentially goven as a Republican would have thirty years prior is not going to happen. No Republican is going to come along and govern like Bill Clinton and win the nomination.

The GOP is only going further down the rabit hole of nationalism because that is its only hope of moderating on economics, and moderating on economics is the only way to win elections.

People will default to voting their economic interest unless you give them a valid social issue to override the default response. In 1992, the Republicans lost among secular, upper middle class surburban dwellers because 1) The economy went bad and for the first time they got hit hard and 2) the social issues the GOP used to keep others in line, did nothing to keep them in line and actually made worse the situation. Taxes had been brought way down and that was their override switch prior. The GOP was victim of their own success. 

All you really need to do on the main social issues is not go extreme like Todd Akin/Ted Cruz. Take the Reagan approach of pro-life with exceptions and that leaves open up to a 15% win in place like MO and IN and single digit wins in the rest of the midwest. It does not however win you those people, it merely opens the door.

The way you win them is on the economy, jobs, infrastructure and education and Trumpism is the first time that I have seen, that the GOP has moved towards less hard-line economic libertarianism instead of more in favor of it.

Besides what really matters when it comes to family values. It is going as far as possible on the few hot button social issues to lay down a marker or do family and community represent an all encompassing view and approach to society and economic policy. In which case, it is hard to reconcile that desire for stable families/communities with the constant disruption of libertarian economic policies, especially free trade and massive immigration. It is easy to decouple the two and put social conservative and economic libertarianism in these two seperate boxes and insist they exist in a vacuum,  if you are an upper middle class political science student isolated from reality and sheltered from other viewpoints, but for those who live in the real world it is not hard to see.

[Heisenberg]

Honestly, I think a Trump defeat (which is much more likely than a Trump victory) could help save the GOP.  It would help to destroy the notion that Republicans lose by nominating "moderates" and show the party that its current direction is leading them nowhere good.

After 1988, Democrats were in exactly the same situation that the GOP will be in after Hillary clobbers Trump.  Prior to that time, Democrats had lost five out of the previous six presidential elections, and lost three straight by decisive margins.  When Bill Clinton came along, everything changed.  He campaigned as a moderate "New Democrat" who won over suburban women, wealthy voters, and the like.  Clinton not only won the election, but he ushered in a realignment that gave us the current Clinton/Obama party system.  Since it's rare for either party to lose more than two straight presidential contests, Republicans will have some serious soul-searching to do after this election.  They will recognize their need to drastically improve their outreach to minorities and women, and to ignore or downplay social issues for the most part.  And if all goes well, they could easily see their own Bill Clinton arrive in 2020 and bring about a new realignment.  I sure hope that is the case.

You don't seem to understand that people like me couldn't vote for a Republican Party that didn't care about values issues.  If anything, a focus on social issues and family values is how we should reach out to Hispanics.

I agree with you that we should emphasize family values as a way to improve black and Hispanic outreach.  But they shouldn't be a litmus test for our candidates, and when we're running in a liberal state, we should downplay them as much as possible.

Right, we need to be able to have a strong coalition as large and diverse as possible.  Social issues should still work in states like MS, AL, SC, but in those like MN, CO, VA, etc., we should downplay or ignore them.  I do believe is traditional family values, but we should accept that many young people are more liberal on those issues, and we should try to attract them to fiscal conservative, and not alienate young voters with social issues.  Economic issues will always be the main issues for most voters.

[hopper]

Seems like a good time for this traditional thread.

There would undoubtably be many who would, as in 2008 and 2012, blame it on not being sufficiently right-wing.

Doubt it ... that crowd seems to be more hung up on social issues/tribalism defining what is sufficiently "conservative," and Trump hasn't let them down in that regard.

Trump is a conservative? I don't think he is really that conservative.

[Kingpoleon]

Assuming the loss looks something like this:

368: Clinton/Shuler(54.3%)
170: Trump/Daniels(41.4%)
Others: 4.4%

I honestly think they begin heading towards Cory Gardner, Lindsey Graham, Brian Sandoval, Jon Huntsman, Charlie Dent, and so on and so forth. Maybe people like Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, and Scott Brown experience a resurgence for a bit.