Changes to GOP litmus tests for 2016?

[Likely Voter]

A poll is hard to do for the GOP and maybe it is better to ask: what will be different in 2016 vs. 2012.

I think the fiscal perennials will stay the same, to win you must be for...
- cutting regulations
- Cutting fed income taxes/no new revenue in any circumstance
- balanced budget
- increasing defense spending
- 'reforming' (cutting) entitlements (but not for today's olds)
...and of course no history of ever raising taxes

Abortion litmus test is same: Pro Federal ban on abortion, but exceptions OK

I think there is a softening on three issues
Gay Marriage
Old litmus test: For Federal ban
New litmus test: Against SSM but OK with leaving it up to states

Immigration
Old litmus test: Against path to any legal status, against any benefits even to kids
New litmus test: path to legal status ok (even citizenship) with penalties/border security + DREAM OK

Guns
Old litmus test: no new federal regulation
New litmus test: Univ. Background checks acceptable/no AWB or anything else


Agreed?

Any other new litmus tests or changes?

[Blue3]

Sounds about right... or at least that's what common sense says, but the GOP base could surprise by remaining as or becoming more conservative.


What about Foreign Policy?

And any litmus tests on infrastructure, or healthcare reform, or non-marriage gay equality (like stances on DOMA/ENDA)?

Could civil liberties or drug legalization be issues in the GOP primary? Or universal pre-K?

[TNF]

There is only one GOP litmus test: tax cuts.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

The OP is more or less right.

[Donerail]

I think we could see increasing defense spending dropping off the list, softened to holding it at current levels. Abortion is more overturning Roe than anything specific.

[bedstuy]

I don't think it will be possible to oppose a constitutional amendment on gay marriage and win the Republican primary.  The religious right still holds a lot of sway and it probably won't help the GOP candidate to seem pro-gay rights or hold a wishy-washy position.

[Likely Voter]

One litmus test I am unsure of is Obamacare. In 2012 the litmus test was being for full repeal. But by 2016 Obamacare will be fully in place. And we are already seeing some GOP governors accept the expansion of medicare and/or exchanges, including Christie. So being for full repeal really wont make sense. I imagine the new line will have to be something along the line of changing it, removing the mandatory penalty maybe.

Another hard to predict litmus test is Climate Change but I think the bottom line is no carbon tax or cap a trade but it is acceptable to beleive in climate change and maybe even believe that at least some of it is manmade. I think the new GOP line is essentially "sure it's happening but doing anything about it is pointless and too expensive and the Chinese wont do it so why should we?"

Regarding Defense spending, I could see how 'holding the line' vs more cuts could be acceptable. It depends on where Obama and congress go with spending I guess. Whatever happens it will be more than Obama is proposing and mroe than the Dem 2016ers are proposing.

As for civil liberties, drones, patriot act. I don't think there is any movement here. Only the libertarian wing cares about that stuff. Any softening can be seen as being 'weak' and that is a no no when running for GOP nomination. Same with war on drugs.

[Vosem]

I'm unsure as to the very last one, otherwise, as they say in Venezuela, sí.

[5280]

So, the GOP is going back to it's old roots post Lincoln era, or become the new Democrat-lite party?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So, the GOP is going back to it's old roots post Lincoln era, or become the new Democrat-lite party?

Well, Bush did affirm in the 2004 debate that he was against the Dred Scott decision. Quite a courageous position there, 147 years later.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Return to the paleo view on foreign policy.

Otherwise no changes need to be made.

[King]

From what I hear at CPAC...

no changes need to be made.

Is what they are going with.