The direction of the Republican Party if McCain loses

[Kevin]

I've noticed that among many moderates of this forum that there is concern that the GOP will take a much more rightward direction if McCain loses, however when speaking with the average and even very, very conservative GOP voter about the prospect of McCain losing in November and the future of the Republican Party is that most believe such a loss will be attributed to the fact that many view McCain as "too old" and "too out of touch" rather then "not conservative enough" as other voiced on this forum. Going with this what path could we predict the Republicans will take in terms of their party in the next Presidential Election?

I'm thinking that the Republicans will aim for a younger candidate perhaps Bobby Jindal or Sarah Palin or Jon Huntsman?           

[ChrisFromNJ]

Can the party go any more right than it already has?

[Person Man]

Can the party go any more right than it already has?

I wonder how that would manifest.

[J. J.]

I think both the GOP and the country can swing much more to the right, well beyond the point where I would support the GOP.

[nclib]

I've noticed that among many moderates of this forum that there is concern that the GOP will take a much more rightward direction if McCain loses, however when speaking with the average and even very, very conservative GOP voter about the prospect of McCain losing in November and the future of the Republican Party is that most believe such a loss will be attributed to the fact that many view McCain as "too old" and "too out of touch" rather then "not conservative enough" as other voiced on this forum. Going with this what path could we predict the Republicans will take in terms of their party in the next Presidential Election?

McCain's main liability is voter dissatisfaction with the Bush administration and the Republican party. While this certainly win-or-lose will be an obstacle for McCain, it would be an even bigger obstacle for the GOP if they nominated a far-right candidate.

[Person Man]

I think both the GOP and the country can swing much more to the right, well beyond the point where I would support the GOP.

Explain.

[J. J.]

I think both the GOP and the country can swing much more to the right, well beyond the point where I would support the GOP.

Explain.

I think that there are several currents.  A traditional conservative view on social issues coupled with a willingness to uses the forces of big government to enforce those views.

[Person Man]

I think both the GOP and the country can swing much more to the right, well beyond the point where I would support the GOP.

Explain.

I think that there are several currents.  A traditional conservative view on social issues coupled with a willingness to uses the forces of big government to enforce those views.

Could you be more specific? I mean, are we talking about state-sponsered religion?

[J. J.]

I think both the GOP and the country can swing much more to the right, well beyond the point where I would support the GOP.

Explain.

I think that there are several currents.  A traditional conservative view on social issues coupled with a willingness to uses the forces of big government to enforce those views.

Could you be more specific? I mean, are we talking about state-sponsered religion?

No, but I am talking about a greater influence (or should I say interference) in the lives of individuals.

I said this on another thread.  I think we could see much limited personal rights, a willingness of the federal government to enter into Terri Schiavo type situations, greater police powers.  It isn't fascism, because we would have pluralism, but I wouldn't be too overjoyed about it either.

We could see something along the lines of genetic screening used in employment and criminal classification.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Don't forget a populist/protectionist/nativist economic agenda.

[J. J.]

Don't forget a populist/protectionist/nativist economic agenda.

That isn't part of it.

[Albus Dumbledore]

GOP is increasingly playing the populist card so yes it is part of it.

[J. J.]

GOP is increasingly playing the populist card so yes it is part of it.

It depends what you mean by "populist."  The economics are actually drifting away from that in both parties.

[Albus Dumbledore]

Uh huh. Disagree. We're seeing the start of a backlash against washington consensus economics. For the dems it was evident with the ohio campaign and for the GOP the fact that vthey've focused more on social and not economic issues.

[go85bucks10]

The GOP isn't anywhere near populist or protectionist. Complaining about 13-30 million illegal Americans (and don't reply saying the number is wrong because thats not the point) like the right has is not protectionist or populist economically. The only populist/protectionist sentiment exists within the democratic party (and really only half of the party supports this). I have never heard once a republican (that I know of) talk badly about free trade.

[Albus Dumbledore]

LMAO. Apparently the fundie wing and paleocons both don't exist in your universe.

[J. J.]

Uh huh. Disagree. We're seeing the start of a backlash against washington consensus economics. For the dems it was evident with the ohio campaign and for the GOP the fact that vthey've focused more on social and not economic issues.

LMAO. Apparently the fundie wing and paleocons both don't exist in your universe.

I think it McCain loses, there may be a successful resurgence of the "fundie wing."

[Albus Dumbledore]

Fundies focus more on social issues than economics and tend to be more populist on econ. So your scenario ties into mine.

[Person Man]

Uh huh. Disagree. We're seeing the start of a backlash against washington consensus economics. For the dems it was evident with the ohio campaign and for the GOP the fact that vthey've focused more on social and not economic issues.

LMAO. Apparently the fundie wing and paleocons both don't exist in your universe.

I think it McCain loses, there may be a successful resurgence of the "fundie wing."

Then again, let's see who votes for McCain in 2008. McCain seems to have consolodated his supported among fundamentalists. If he loses the election, yet still wins 75% of the Fundie vote, which sent out the same 30 million voters it did last time, he may have to tell them that a Fundie-pandering GOP simply doesn't have enough votes. I guess the same would go for Obama if we see 15% black turnout at 91-92% and he still loses Ohio and Colorado.

Then again, I think a lot will depend on the map in 2008. It will depend on who had the votes, who didn't have the votes, who remembered to vote and who actually won.

Another thing to realize is that if the Dems cannot win in their best year since Watergate or even Black October, they are no longer a viable national party, barring the near-destruction of the country due to the Republican's negligence. If the Republicans cannot carry all of the Northern Planes or all of the states below Mason-Dixon, they no longer have a reliable base, much like the democrats between 1978 and 1996.   

[Applezz]

Well, if Obama is elected President and does an awful job then that will obviously regain the Republican party. Although, I would guess by then most people will be fed up with both parties and finally just vote for the better candidate. After all, isn't that why Obama is winning in the polls guys? McCain is the more experienced and has better economic plans and yet Obama is winning because people think that McCain is the same as Bush when the 2 of them differ on some major issues and that McCain brings military experience. McCain is infavor of offshore drilling and nuclear powerplants, which Bush is against.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I could see them moving more Libertarian trying to provide a real option to the big government Democrats.

[auburntiger]

I think the GOP might continue the trend populist, having government involved TOO much, both in social and economic areas. If that becomes the case, a 50/50 election COULD look like this:

Of course the numbers will change, but this is a 269-269 tie.

[Reaganfan]

Anything can happen.

Scenario 1: McCain loses massively, President Obama is an extremely popular President and the 2010 midterms are similar to the 1998 midterms and aren't too significant. The Republicans nominate a solid conservative and they lose to Obama in a 1996-type election.

Scenario 2: McCain loses narrowly, President Obama begins to sag under continued public disapproval of all types of Government, and has an approval rating of 40%. 2010 is a disaster for the miffed Democrats and the revitalized Republicans make gains. A conservative Republican, possibly the 2008 VP candidate, defeats President Obama in 2012.

[NDN]

Scenario 2: McCain loses narrowly, President Obama begins to sag under continued public disapproval of all types of Government, and has an approval rating of 40%. 2010 is a disaster for the miffed Democrats and the revitalized Republicans make gains. A conservative Republican, possibly the 2008 VP candidate, defeats President Obama in 2012.

Option 2 seems far more likely, which is part of the reason I'm starting to dread an Obama victory now.

[opebo]

No change - they'll stick to nationalism and hate.