The direction of the Republican Party if Romney loses

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Orion0]

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.

I thank you for the reply, great points. However this statement had me confused. The death penalty remains at its historical % of about 2/3 support of the public (as it has been for decades), but when asked if the death penalty should be reinstated in Canada support falls well below half, with many preferring alternatives like life without parole. Abortion is also politically dead in Canada, with an outright majority self-identifying as pro-choice ( as of 2011). An all-out ban on abortion is only viable for 5 % of the public, while restrictions on abortion only net about 20-30% support. Throw in the large scale (and growing) public support for gay marriage and legalization of marijuana and any argument that Canada is moving right on social issues falls flat.

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.

An excellent point. At least change the focus of the drug war, American jails aren't exactly known to reform the first time offender, maybe shift from imprisonment to education? As for interventionism, I can't exactly see this changing significantly in the future. The world would be a radically different place without a militarized USA, and I just cannot see any change to that balance of power being taken by those in either party.

The argument will be made that Romney lost because he's a RINO, but I don't think it'll be a major factor on the Presidential primary. That's going to come down to the political abilities of the candidates more than anything else. I don't think it's going to come down to whether Marco Rubio is more of a conservative than Chris Christie or Rand Paul, but who's the most effective at debates and speeches.

I would argue that after 4 more years of O it would make a huge difference which candidate is more fiscally conservative. The coming years of the USA will be decided based on controlling spending and paying down debt. An uncompromising fiscal conservative that can actually speak well? You've got a future winner.