Where now for the GOP?

[Smash255]

We didn't lose this election because of the Religious Right or our social conservative roots. It's seems like I'll be arguing against the idea that that cost us the election for awhile now but oh well.

I think we need a clean sweep when it comes to the "leadership" in Congress. We need fresh faces, not a mad dash to the left.

We lost because of the economic crisis. There was little we can do to stop it so let's stop thinking that we have to dump what we believe in (especially on social issues) because of a bad loss.

All that being said, I'm still sticking with the idea of taking a serious chill pill for awhile. Obviously, the leadership elections in Congress can't just be put on hold but everything else should wait a few months.

The problem for the GOP is widespread right now.  The hard line social conservatism has turned off so many moderate Republicans and Republican leaning Independents from the ranks (especially among suburban voters).  No question the economic crisis hurt McCain and the Republicans big time, but I think the current crisis was the tipping point for many of these voters who were already unhappy with the direction of the party, and already moving away from the party. 

[Brandon H]

First, the party needs to dump its national leadership as well as most state leadership. While the economy certainly didn't help matters, Republican support for the war is hurting the party. Ditch the neoconservative foreign policy. (Is this the first time neoconservative has appeared in this thread? That's a surprise if it is.) Ditch the neoconservatives altogether since most of them are not socially or economically conservative. While I don't like using our soldiers for political tools, if Republicans want to have a shot in 2010, they better hope Obama fails to get the troops out of Iraq and then run on a platform of getting out. And don't run the recently defeated incumbents. Run new candidates that have never served in congress before. Criticize the bailout that both McCain and Obama supported. Forget about not wanting to say bad things about Bush. Do it. Criticize him for expanding the government more than the Democrats. Criticize him for not being a conservative. I know they won't get to Constitution or (pre-Bob Barr) Libertarian Party levels of limited government, but they need to at least move towards that direction.

While I was probably going to vote for a non-Republicrat anyway, McCain (or Obama for that matter) did not try to get my vote. Obama reached out to the supporters of the other candidates. Kerry did the same in 2004. But as a Paul supporter, McCain, by his actions, said he did not want my vote. He let a non-conservative speak at the convention and he let a non-Republican speak at the Republican convention. But he would not let the Republican I supported speak and required him to be escorted at all times. Not that Obama deserved to win, but neither did McCain.

The big issue for social conservatives has been dependent on the Supreme Court. Many single issue voters vote Republican for that one reason. And by supporting an unpopular war, the party many have depended on to election constitutional judges to overturn the relevant Supreme Court decision (besides the fact the candidate they nominated was less than reliable on the issue) may have set the movement back 5 or 10 or more years.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We lost because of the economic crisis.

true, but McCain probably only stood about 20-25% chance of winning even without the meltdown.  It is extremely hard for one party to maintain the whitehouse for 3 consecutive terms

Federalists 1789-1801
Democratic-Republicans 1801-1825
Democrats 1829-1841
Republicans 1861-1885
Republicans 1896-1913
Republicans 1921-1933
Democrats 1933-1953
Republicans 1981-1993

Lose after exactly 2:
1860, 1920, 1960, 1968, 1976, 2000, 2008

Yeah, pretty much half of the time they win a 3rd term.

[cannonia]

I like the Democratic principle of big government, but I can't stand Social Liberalism. I am not sure where to venture, And I don't wanna be under Obama's banner either.

I feel for you.  The Democratic Party, which used to occupy that ground, moved out from under you.  Since there are only 2 viable parties, I guess the primaries become more important for you.  Do like the Ron Paul supporters and try to take over a party?

[cannonia]

We didn't lose this election because of the Religious Right or our social conservative roots. It's seems like I'll be arguing against the idea that that cost us the election for awhile now but oh well.

I think we need a clean sweep when it comes to the "leadership" in Congress. We need fresh faces, not a mad dash to the left.

We lost because of the economic crisis. There was little we can do to stop it so let's stop thinking that we have to dump what we believe in (especially on social issues) because of a bad loss.

All that being said, I'm still sticking with the idea of taking a serious chill pill for awhile. Obviously, the leadership elections in Congress can't just be put on hold but everything else should wait a few months.

The problem for the GOP is widespread right now.  The hard line social conservatism has turned off so many moderate Republicans and Republican leaning Independents from the ranks (especially among suburban voters).  No question the economic crisis hurt McCain and the Republicans big time, but I think the current crisis was the tipping point for many of these voters who were already unhappy with the direction of the party, and already moving away from the party. 

I disagree with your premise.  GOP candidates are a good fit for most of their districts on the social side, and a lot of Dems are actually way out in left field compared to their constituents.  "The hard line social conservatism" is largely a caricature, and the GOP would lose rather than gain voters (yes, also in the suburbs) by sidelining social conservatives.  The GOP absolutely loses in framing the debate.

[Third Party]

Currently, it looks like the GOP is seeking to turn itself into a small, hard line, Evangelical fundamentalist party. Why don't the "moderate" Republicans create a third party? They can take the DLC/"Blue Dogs" with them too, BTW. Then the Democrats could also join the Socialist International and we'd have a more 'normal' political system compared to other Western countries.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

New Leaders, new message.

Mainly it's time to drop the practice of trying to "ban" things, we can do better. We can do the job by leaving the big social issues to the states, and stop trying to amend the US constitution to our social tastes. We need to stand for strong economic strategy and more personal freedom. We need to defend the 2nd amendment w/o going nutter about guns. We need to emphasize conservation over environmentalism, and most of all promote FAMILY values, not radical right social polices.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

We need to get back to our roots. I am afraid of the populist, social conservative wing of the party. If we go down the road of big government, we are finished as a party. We need to go back to small government, low taxes, individual freedoms, and less emphasis on social issues. It's fine to remain pro-life and anti-gay marriage, but pushing for an amendment to ban such things will alienate moderate, which have all but left the party.  In fact, both parties are losing moderates.

If the GOP becomes that, I'll turn my avatar blue.

[J. J.]

New Leaders, new message.

Mainly it's time to drop the practice of trying to "ban" things, we can do better. We can do the job by leaving the big social issues to the states, and stop trying to amend the US constitution to our social tastes. We need to stand for strong economic strategy and more personal freedom. We need to defend the 2nd amendment w/o going nutter about guns. We need to emphasize conservation over environmentalism, and most of all promote FAMILY values, not radical right social polices.

True. 

One thing that I should point out is that two candidates in PA, Barletta (R, PA-11) and Morganelli (D, PA-AG) had, as a signature issue, an anti-immigration stance.  Both lost.

[Lunar]

Here's what the GOP should do:
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=87895.0

(warning: good read)

[prometheus]

In summary, the GOP should change its beliefs so that they match mine.

It's remarkable how everyone seems to agree on that.

[The Ex-Factor]

I think the GOP should hold onto most of its core philosophies, but change its image.  I could write up a longer analysis of this eventually, but I think some of the key things to do should include:

Aggressive minority recruitment, especially Hispanics and Asians.  The latter is oftentimes traditionalist, religious, and economically climbing - Asian-Americans would be a natural addition to a GOP coalition.  The reason why they haven't been thus far is probably because the GOP is perceived to be the xenophobic, White Southern party, most self-selecting Asian-American politicians are lawyers and thus consistently Democratic, and the GOP has not made the effort.

Hispanics  are a tougher nut to crack.  It's ironic that Bush and McCain butted heads with their own party over immigration but did nothing to change the GOP's image as the party of the giant wall.  This group is also economically climbing and traditionalist.  Perhaps one of my few platform suggestions for the GOP would be to give up on the wall.

In general the GOP should be a big tent.  Run secular mavericks in the West and Baptist ministers in the South.  Discourage the primary-ing of moderates.

Anyway, you can't win by being the all-white party.  AA's are probably lost to the GOP for a decade thanks to Obama's victory, but why not go for the two fastest growing minority populations?  The GOP will probably not be able to win a national election until they can stop Hispanics from breaking 2:1 against them, but maybe they can find a way.

The problem with this is that right now young Hispanics and Asians overwhelmingly support the Democratic Party, much more than their elders. Most are also more socially liberal than their parents, which means that the Republicans can't rely on many of their current conservative family values for much longer. However, I agree that many wealthy and affluent Asian Americans can be coerced back to the GOP - shouldn't be too difficult for obvious reasons.

The GOP is really screwed with Hispanics though. As we saw with McCain this year they can't both appeal to the base and win Hispanics any longer. With their current coalition, the only way they can win Hispanic votes is to find non-Mexicans who don't really care about immigration. They're not a monolithic block of single-issue immigration voters as they're simplified to be.

[A18]

They should push for the prompt restoration of the Articles of Confederation.

[12th Doctor]

Right now, the GOP has been pretty effectively anathemized outside the dry states and the South (not even including Appalachia, since they vote GOP only in national elections). The party -- has made no attempt to address that, considering it's in practice defunct -- but among the living, we have two options, already offered here on this forum:

1. Keep the South within the coalition, and try to retain what is left of the marginalized rump existing outside it.
2. Junk the South, and hope beyond reason that the New Yorkers and Californians notice that and have an electoral change of heart.

Minority recruitment would be a failure -- I've had discussion with dazzleman about this, and have come to the conclusion that the fear of minorities being labelled sellouts within their ethnic community will block all attempt at GOP outreach. Not that the GOP should stop, but they should always expect disappointing results.

I'm going to say more about this later.  But while the problem is geographic, we are looking at the wrong geography.

We are losing because we are being locked out of both urban and suburban areas.  In order for us to make a comeback, we have to reach out to those people, and that means we are going to have to change to do that.

If we are relying on rural whites to carry us, all you have to do is look at the data and see that that is a losing strategy, because America is going on the opposite direction.  If we open our tent back up to people outside of so-called "real America" then we can start bringing states back in.  Will it net us fundamentally liberal states, no, but it will help us get back states like North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Florida Indiana, Wisconsin, PA, and allow Republican candidates to be competitive in even more states.

We took our most inclusive candidate, and through out the course of the election, found ways to make him unappealing to people who weren't in the loop with "The Base".

[Mr.Phips]

You will be seeing a re-alignment.  What that will look like is still too early.

Yesterday looked a lot like 1976.

Except Barack Obama won his election by a much larger margin than Carter did.

Are you going to continue repeating this garbage for the next 4 years?

And dont forget that Carter also picked up no seats in the House or Senate for Democrats in 1976, although they already started with big majorities. 

[Storebought]

Right now, the GOP has been pretty effectively anathematized outside the dry states and the South (not even including Appalachia, since they vote GOP only in national elections). The party -- has made no attempt to address that, considering it's in practice defunct -- but among the living, we have two options, already offered here on this forum:

1. Keep the South within the coalition, and try to retain what is left of the marginalized rump existing outside it.
2. Junk the South, and hope beyond reason that the New Yorkers and Californians notice that and have an electoral change of heart.

Minority recruitment would be a failure -- I've had discussion with dazzleman about this, and have come to the conclusion that the fear of minorities being labelled sellouts within their ethnic community will block all attempt at GOP outreach. Not that the GOP should stop, but they should always expect disappointing results.

I'm going to say more about this later.  But while the problem is geographic, we are looking at the wrong geography.

We are losing because we are being locked out of both urban and suburban areas.  In order for us to make a comeback, we have to reach out to those people, and that means we are going to have to change to do that.

If we are relying on rural whites to carry us, all you have to do is look at the data and see that that is a losing strategy, because America is going on the opposite direction.  If we open our tent back up to people outside of so-called "real America" then we can start bringing states back in.  Will it net us fundamentally liberal states, no, but it will help us get back states like North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, Ohio, Florida Indiana, Wisconsin, PA, and allow Republican candidates to be competitive in even more states.

We took our most inclusive candidate, and through out the course of the election, found ways to make him unappealing to people who weren't in the loop with "The Base".

That's the rub: "The Base" have indubitably made themselves obnoxious, but on suppressing them, or even just reminding them that they stand as one part of a coalition, would anyone  even notice, let alone use that as sufficient justification to vote for a "De-Based" GOP?

The more I consider it, it's not entirely the fault of "The Base" that the GOP's fortunes have ground down. Just look at the motley crew that makes up the Democrats -- members of the Democratic coalition barely acknowledge each other socially, but they all still vote Democrat. It's the fact that the GOP stands for nothing at all that is killing them -- it's too bound to Wall Street to make a case for ameliorating the effects of free trade on the middle class, too bound to lobbyists (who vote Democrat!) to make a case against pork-barrel politics, and too scummy to defend marriage and traditional values (it's necessary to make the case for squareness, even in 2008). What that leaves the Republicans is just inanity and Congressional show-outrage.

[bgwah]

I honestly have no idea what the GOP should do. I'm sure there will be a correction election relatively soon, but I think the Democrats will have the long-term advantage in foreseeable future regardless.

[Frodo]

Attracting socially conservative, upwardly mobile ethnic and racial minorities (with the notable exception of African Americans -they are lost for good to the GOP to all intents and purposes) is the only way the Republican Party can survive in the 21st century as a viable political party.  Which must make their recent xenophobia towards Hispanics all the more heart-wrenching for any in the GOP interested in reviving Karl Rove's dream of creating a 'permanent Republican majority'. 

[2952-0-0]

The best thing they should do is eject all the dogmatic religious fundamentalists/social conservatives and reinvent themselves as being for pragmatic and conservative (small c) solutions to problems in order to attract those who have been turned off by Rovian tactics.

But in all likelihood the opposite will happen.

[afleitch]

They should trend towards European style Conservatism. They will of course not do that.

[phk]

The culture wars should be left in 2004, where they belong and move on.

[afleitch]

The culture wars should be left in 2004, where they belong and move on.

But the culture wars is what the base want to fight again and again. Now the base is all the GOP have they will make pretty sure it stays on the agenda.

[Storebought]

They should trend towards European style Conservatism. They will of course not do that.

Why should they? European "conservatism" is not conservative at all, from a US standpoint. They fully accept the social democratic concept of the state, which alone rules out a place for that in the US.

Now, a turn to Stephen Harper Conservatism is altogether far more acceptable, if it weren't for the fact that the GOP's Harperites like Jim Talent and John Sununu were already voted out.