Where to for the GOP after this election?

[Eddie Dane]

Romney is a terrible candidate IMHO, the current GOP platform isn't very convincing (not out of Romney's mouth anyway), so for the sake of argument, I'll assume that Obama wins.

The party seems terribly split, and the fractions strongly ideological and unwilling to compromise.

Will they be able to pull the party more to the middle and regain the swing voters? Or will such an attempt cause the party to actually split?

Is there a conservative waiting in the wings with enough charisma to keep the party together and lead it back to success?

 

[Baylor]

As I've said before, the U.S. is leaning to the left, and the Presidential election is set up to favor the Democratic party. The U.S. really hasn't bought the Republican talking points since 1988. So they're going to have to come up with something (and someone) new.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

As I've said before, the U.S. is leaning to the left, and the Presidential election is set up to favor the Democratic party. The U.S. really hasn't bought the Republican talking points since 1988. So they're going to have to come up with something (and someone) new.

 

[AlBell]

I'm hoping TeaParty candidates 2014 and 2016.

I find Romney/Ryan horrible too.

 

[Baylor]

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Insofar as Mr. Obama will likely face another opposition (obstructionist) party, I expect they will run on a platform of: See? Another four years of a Democrat getting nothing done! Vote us!

In other words, they won't be venturing out very far from the comfort and safety of base camp.

 

[Sticky Fingers]

Since FDR there has been only one instance (Reagan, Bush) where a political party has held the White House
for more then 8 years so I would imagine they could pick a name out of a hat and still have a good shot at winning.

 

[Tricky]

(Split from another thread. Follow the first link if you want to get the backstory.)

His probable defeat should re-energize TeaParty 2014 & 2016 is an upside for me.

It's an upside for the Democrats too. Further splintering of the GOP can only help the Democratic Party. Formation of an actual third party would pretty much guarantee Democratic rule for some years to come.

Allowing eastern establishment republicans the next pick of nominee would likely achieve the same end. I don't foresee that splintering, rather a takeover.

What you have is a sharp divide between economic conservatives and social conservatives, with some degree of overlap. If either viewpoint executes a "takeover" you are likely to see a mass exodus by the losers. Lots of Republicans, including a few here, as I see it, will not defend the Tea Party and honestly wish they'd go away. The whole idea of ideological purity tests (such as signing pledges for this and that) is not an idea which many rational people will abide for long. If half of the current Republican Party says "My way or the highway", expect a lot of highway traffic.

 

[DavidJames]

If the Republicans run a Tea Party candidate (at least as we know the Tea Party today) in 2016, with continued changing demographics, the Democrats could mail it in. The Dems will win in a landslide.

 

[Magyar]

(Split from another thread. Follow the first link if you want to get the backstory.)


What you have is a sharp divide between economic conservatives and social conservatives, with some degree of overlap. .

Come on! I don't think that there is anactual economic conservative left alive, much less in the current Republican party!

 

[BenBurch]

If the Republicans run a Tea Party candidate (at least as we know the Tea Party today) in 2016, with continued changing demographics, the Democrats could mail it in. The Dems will win in a landslide.

 

[Cain]

As I've said before, the U.S. is leaning to the left, and the Presidential election is set up to favor the Democratic party. The U.S. really hasn't bought the Republican talking points since 1988. So they're going to have to come up with something (and someone) new.

Add in the obstructionist legislature that requires a super-majority vote to get anything done, and this means America is turning into California. Yay.

 

[angrysoba]

Since FDR there has been only one instance (Reagan, Bush) where a political party has held the White House
for more then 8 years so I would imagine they could pick a name out of a hat and still have a good shot at winning.

I think you mean "since Truman" and I don't think the other parties win without trying.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, either they could sit down, take a realistic look at themselves and at the population and consider what's really important, what people actually want, and think of ways to craft policies that work rather than make up the catchiest thought-terminating cliche slogans, and really try to work hard to better the nation.....or they could just stuff in twice as much Jesus and ten times as much anti-tax rhetoric and hope for a win next time. Anyone want to bet which route they go?

 

[Sticky Fingers]

I think you mean "since Truman" and I don't think the other parties win without trying.

I probably could have phrased it better but I meant since after he died.

Anyway, no, you can't win without effort, but it does show the American electorate does not like to keep one party in the White House indefinitely.

There are always people looking for a change and thinking that times could be better and party x has had 4 or 8 years to solve every problem......

To me the one biggest wildcard is the rapidly changing demographics and the growth of the hispanic population.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I'm hoping TeaParty candidates 2014 and 2016.

I find Romney/Ryan horrible too.

How about a Ryan ticket? He is a tea party queen.

 

[casebro]

Looks to me that all the answers are predicated on the Reps losing in Nov. Isn't the OP based on that too?

But what if they wn? Will they reformulate?

 

[zeggman]

I'm hoping TeaParty candidates 2014 and 2016.

I hope you get your wish. I hope you nominate Santorum.

 

[Tricky]

Looks to me that all the answers are predicated on the Reps losing in Nov. Isn't the OP based on that too?

But what if they wn? Will they reformulate?

That's an interesting scenario. If they win, the Tea Party will try to take the credit. They'll clamor for more power. Will the GOP give it to them, or will they try to sideline them and continue trying to walk the middle path? With Romney, I'd bet on the latter. As every Tea Partier knows, Romney is not a true Right-winger.

This will only exacerbate the split in the party and may even lead to outright intra-party warfare, pretty much guaranteeing a one-term Romney presidency.

Anyway, that's the most likely scenario I see. Of course, what really happens depends on the economy, something that is only minimally affected by what US party is in power. If it improves greatly during the Romney presidency, something I find unlikely regardless of who wins, all rifts will be forgiven, at least temporarily. But if balancing the budget is to occur, then some hard choices are going to be made, and I do not expect the Tea Party to be rational about this. They do not have a history of being rational.

 

[Puppycow]

The Tea Party has the Republican party caught between a rock and a hard place.

Right now, Republican congresscritters are scared to death of the Tea Party, because the Tea Party has made examples of any Republican incumbent that is insufficiently conservative for their tastes, like Dick Lugar, Bob Bennett, etc. So they are more concerned about losing a primary in most cases than losing the general election.

So they effectively can't tack back to the center, even if they wanted to. If they do, they will get primaried and replaced with someone more conservative and less willing to compromise. This will only change if it becomes obvious that the Tea Party favorites can't win the general election.