Did the GOP slide begin in the 1990s?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

[Scam of God]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

[Vepres]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

[Mr.Phips]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

This will also probably lose Republicans Appalachia and parts of the rural south. 

[??????????]

Do you all need some napkins or tissue?

[Mint]

Do you all need some napkins or tissue?

The wankery is getting disgusting. Yes the GOP lost some seats, but that was due to a lot of factors like the backlash against the shutdown, Clinton's handling of welfare and entitlements, the Lewinsky affair, etc. And even then the country was about 50/50 and Bush barely lost the popular vote in 2000. The decline of the Republicans didn't begin until well after 2004 and under the right circumstances is definitely reversible.

[Vepres]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

This will also probably lose Republicans Appalachia and parts of the rural south. 

They could sweep the west, including the Pacific states (California is a stretch, but OR and WA aren't), and win in parts of New England and New Jersey as well as the upper Midwest.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

Essentially I think we will see a slow an steady losening up on Gay Rights coming first in the form of endorsing Civil Unions like Jon Huntsmen did, don't expect them to endorse Gay Marriage as it is still not supported by more then a 1/3 of the electorate. You will also see the rhetoric shift on Abortion a little bit but I don't see us as a whole abondoning the Pro-life plank or position. If anything Abortion is not one of there problems with younger voters. The Republicans will become defined by there opposition to Obama's spending to the point that it is one of the main points of agreement among something like 90% of the coalition. Making a dive towards big Gov't populism impossible.

As for Hispanics and African Americans, the Republicans should use a lot of Populist pro-labor type rhetoric to peel of those who oppose the wage Depression cause by Illegal Immigration, but it won't go beyond that. Indeed this will separate Hispanics into two groups(those motivated by self interests, and those lemmings for the special interests) and you will see a trend form where the ones here the longest are the most Republican. If Republicans can attain, in the next decade, 45% of Hispanics and 25% of African Americans I think they will have done quite well, and this is certainly possible with the strategy I just laid out. Republicans are definately going to moderate in several areas some Libertarian some more populist, but I think if one will be larger it will be the Libertarian side based of being defined by a moderating stance on gays and a firmly entrenched opposition to Gov't spending thanks to Obama. Are numbers in the rural south will go down but our continued Pro-life position, pro-gun, strong Defense and tough on Crime positions will keep most of them in the party. You won't suddenly see AL become a Dem state again. If anything the recovery among the suburbs and the growth in African American support would reinforce several Southern States after the loss of several populist blue dogs back to the Dems.

We might also see a moderation in the form of Republicans coming up with working solutions on Health Care and Education. The opportunity, should Obama fail on either of these, is too great to pass up and thus the possibililty of stealing one or two of the Dems usually strong issues.

[Vepres]

Here's what the party strengths could be with a purely moderate libertarian GOP. Yes, their base vote goes down, but they have many more opportunities to win, which would help in the congress.

Though the south would be stronger Democrat in NCYank's scenario, with Alabama and Kentucky in the GOP column at least.

Edit: Just noticed, it looks a lot like Ford vs. Carter. Interesting.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Here's what the party strengths could be with a purely moderate libertarian GOP. Yes, their base vote goes down, but they have many more opportunities to win, which would help in the congress.

Though the south would be stronger Democrat in NCYank's scenario, with Alabama and Kentucky in the GOP column at least.

Edit: Just noticed, it looks a lot like Ford vs. Carter. Interesting.

I think you missinterepreted what I said. The gains in the growing southern suburbs, Hispanics and as for African Americans and gains among them will be primarily in the South. So the GOP would still have a firm hold on the GOP solid south with suburban whites,Hispanics and Blacks securing base big states like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas. Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. The comment about Alabama also applies to other states in the South that are similar like SC, MS, LA, TN, KY, Ark and WV(though not as much GOP as today for the last two).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This is a 50/50 election 5 to 7 years after my strategy has been adopted. The GOP solid South begins to weaken and retreat to the margins due to Dems gains of the populist Bubba voters. Republicans counteract this with gains among the Hispanics and since the gains among blacks will be primarily in the South this secures and prevents the Dems from taking the smaller less urbanized southern states while those demographic gains plus recoveries in the suburbs secures  Texas, GA, and FL some of there largest states  which all go GOP by at least 55% or more and gives them a small 5 point marginal advantage in NC.

[Scam of God]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

To the contrary: The GOP is becoming progressively less libertarian. Mike Huckabee won the youth vote in the Republican primaries, after all.

The more you ally yourself with the right-wing the more you sell libertarianism short. Heed that.

[Scam of God]

Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. .

These positions are fundamentally incompatible with any form of libertarianism. Continue to keep them and, ipso facto, the Republicans are not the party of 'moderate libertarianism'.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

yep. The only reason bush won is because he cheated.

[??????????]

Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. .

These positions are fundamentally incompatible with any form of libertarianism. Continue to keep them and, ipso facto, the Republicans are not the party of 'moderate libertarianism'.

Libertarianism isn't pro gun? Sure, ok, yeah.

[Mechaman]

Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. .

These positions are fundamentally incompatible with any form of libertarianism. Continue to keep them and, ipso facto, the Republicans are not the party of 'moderate libertarianism'.

Libertarianism isn't pro gun? Sure, ok, yeah.

Yeah yeah, I think you made a general overview type of mistake. How are gun rights incompatible with libertarianism, especially since it takes the power of force away from the government and gives it to the people?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. .

These positions are fundamentally incompatible with any form of libertarianism. Continue to keep them and, ipso facto, the Republicans are not the party of 'moderate libertarianism'.

Libertarianism isn't pro gun? Sure, ok, yeah.

Yeah yeah, I think you made a general overview type of mistake. How are gun rights incompatible with libertarianism, especially since it takes the power of force away from the government and gives it to the people?

Gun rights is one of the few things that social Conservatives agree with Libertarians on. As for Einzige, the whole idea behind moderate Libertarianism is that you accept some of the philosophy without taking all of it. If you think the GOP is going to become carbon copy's of the Libertarian party your nuts you nuts. Even so such a GOP I am describing would be far closer both socially, and definately economically to the Libertarians then the Dems are or ever will be. Of course you will probably respond with in insult and quickly divert from the topic in typical Einzige fashion. You will never break the Dems of the unions and the welfare queens. If the power of the unions are broken it will be infavor of the Enviromentalist, which are hardly libertarian.

[Mechaman]

Plus the continued Pro-life position, Pro gun, tough on crime and strong military would keep LA, MS, and TN as strongly Republicans and Ark and WV would be swing states that lean GOP. .

These positions are fundamentally incompatible with any form of libertarianism. Continue to keep them and, ipso facto, the Republicans are not the party of 'moderate libertarianism'.

Libertarianism isn't pro gun? Sure, ok, yeah.

Yeah yeah, I think you made a general overview type of mistake. How are gun rights incompatible with libertarianism, especially since it takes the power of force away from the government and gives it to the people?

Gun rights is one of the few things that social Conservatives agree with Libertarians on. As for Einzige, the whole idea behind moderate Libertarianism is that you accept some of the philosophy without taking all of it. If you think the GOP is going to become carbon copy's of the Libertarian party your nuts you nuts. Even so such a GOP I am describing would be far closer both socially, and definately economically to the Libertarians then the Dems are or ever will be. Of course you will probably respond with in insult and quickly divert from the topic in typical Einzige fashion. You will never break the Dems of the unions and the welfare queens. If the power of the unions are broken it will be infavor of the Enviromentalist, which are hardly libertarian.

The model I prescribe to is Obama becoming very unpopular within his very own party and propelling the rise of the libertarian wing of the Democratic party. It would take actions like continuing to disregard constitutional precedent on issues of privacy, gun rights, due process, etc. It would also require a few other things like heavy support for the war on drugs, the death penalty, an interventionist foreign policy, etc. that would cause many progressives and libertarians within the Democratic party to voice adamant opposition to. If Obama becomes known as a president who screwed things up (which I think is possible) it would only add fuel to the fire of the Democratic Freedom Caucus and greatly weaken the Progressive Caucus of the Democratic Party.
In the meantime, I guess I'm 50/50 on the whole Republicans becoming populists idea. I can see how Huckabee capturing the youth vote may work that way, but there is still potential for the Republicans to recapture their libertarian base. I think what would help the GOP in the long run is to tone down about Reagan and focus on what they can accomplish in the future. You can succeed with old policies but you need to sell them as new ideas.

[Vepres]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

To the contrary: The GOP is becoming progressively less libertarian. Mike Huckabee won the youth vote in the Republican primaries, after all.

The more you ally yourself with the right-wing the more you sell libertarianism short. Heed that.

Don't look just at the Republican primaries, look at the rhetoric in congress. Anti-spending, anti-big government, pro-free market, and they have softened their tone on foreign policy (though they could do better), and social issues are taking a back seat, these all indicate they're moving in a libertarian direction.

[??????????]

Verpres, his version of libertarianism borders on anarchy. He has openly stated he believes the weak should be "culled".

[Vepres]

Verpres, his version of libertarianism borders on anarchy. He has openly stated he believes the weak should be "culled".

Wow...

[??????????]

Verpres, his version of libertarianism borders on anarchy. He has openly stated he believes the weak should be "culled".

Wow...

Yeah, he said that the police shouldn't exist and that if innocents are killed by thugs it was because they were weak and needed to be culled.

[Mechaman]

Verpres, his version of libertarianism borders on anarchy. He has openly stated he believes the weak should be "culled".

Wow...

Yeah, he said that the police shouldn't exist and that if innocents are killed by thugs it was because they were weak and needed to be culled.

Survival of the fittest. Very nice.

[Scam of God]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

To the contrary: The GOP is becoming progressively less libertarian. Mike Huckabee won the youth vote in the Republican primaries, after all.

The more you ally yourself with the right-wing the more you sell libertarianism short. Heed that.

Don't look just at the Republican primaries, look at the rhetoric in congress. Anti-spending, anti-big government, pro-free market, and they have softened their tone on foreign policy (though they could do better), and social issues are taking a back seat, these all indicate they're moving in a libertarian direction.

Why? I don't give a damn what a political base says; I care about what they do. And Huckabee roundly won the "up-and-coming" Millennial Republican generation. The temporary rhetoric of job-seekers left over from the '94 Revolution is less-than-meaningless when trying to analyze medium-long term trends. 

[Vepres]

You're interpreted the realignment I speak of totally wrong. The Republican Party won't abandon fiscal conservatism for short-term gain; rather, it will be a long-term, structural reshaping of the Party, designed to shore themselves up in the rural south while attempting to make an in-road in the urban North -- as much as I disagree with it, populism is the only foreseeable way for them to begin to re-entrench themselves as an electoral coalition, the old Reaganist one having frayed irreparably earlier this decade.

Mike Huckabee is the future of your Party, your God help us all. In him and others like him will the Republicans find a coalition that can win more often than not, though at the expense of the nation. 

That's the problem with most people who analyze political trends, they only see the short term. People all too often forget that just a hundred years ago the Democrats were the conservative populists and the Repubicans were the classically liberal leaning progressive party.

I wasn't talking about what will happen in the future. I was talking about what the GOP actually did do from 1999-2009.

As for the future trends you are talking about I disagree with your analysis. The road to future success lie not in rural populism but Moderate Conservativism whose primary focus is on the suburbs. The Republicans are not going to make enough gains in urban areas to account for the massive losses in the Suburbs that would ensue with a populist party. So the idea they will achieve success more often then not with that strategy is absurd, though I don't doubt that these populists will attempt such a strategy.

You assume that the Reaganist coalition is going to have a longer shelf-life than the New Deal (~three and a half decades). I see no reason to believe why that should be so.

The future of the party is moderate libertarianism, as even young Republicans are socially moderate-liberal. This will win them back the suburbs, and make them competitive with Hispanics (assuming the anti-immigrant rhetoric leaves with the social conservatism).

To the contrary: The GOP is becoming progressively less libertarian. Mike Huckabee won the youth vote in the Republican primaries, after all.

The more you ally yourself with the right-wing the more you sell libertarianism short. Heed that.

Don't look just at the Republican primaries, look at the rhetoric in congress. Anti-spending, anti-big government, pro-free market, and they have softened their tone on foreign policy (though they could do better), and social issues are taking a back seat, these all indicate they're moving in a libertarian direction.

Why? I don't give a damn what a political base says; I care about what they do. And Huckabee roundly won the "up-and-coming" Millennial Republican generation. The temporary rhetoric of job-seekers left over from the '94 Revolution is less-than-meaningless when trying to analyze medium-long term trends. 

Exit polls of youth vote from early primaries (top three candidates shown):

Iowa
Huckabee: 40%
Romney: 22%
Paul: 21%

Wyoming
No exit polls

New Hampshire
McCain: 27%
Paul: 19%
Romney: 17%

Nevada
Romney: 50%
Paul: 19%
McCain: 13%

South Carolina
Huckabee: 35%
McCain: 28%
Thompson: 15%

Florida
McCain: 30%
Romney: 23%
Giuliani: 19%

Notice that Huckabee only performs well with the youth in the south, but is slaughtered everywhere else. In the west, Florida, and Northeast, Romney and McCain are preferred by significant margins. This is consistent with the voting patterns of the overall results.