What Next for the GOP?

[AlexanderSextus]

to reiterate, they have to be like ron paul. I would vote GOP if Ron Paul won the candidacy in '12

[Kagemusha]

My humble Euro weenie opinion is that the GOP needs to distance itself from the religious extremist nutjobs and warmonger neocons and become the voice of the deep ranks of conservative citizenry, instead of representing the extremist loonies. There are lot good things in conservative values, but these things can be found mostly in moderate conservatism. Extremism, let it be conservative, liberal, religious or any other extremism, hardly ever creates anything good.

[CountArach]

I hate to say it - Ron Paul would never win an election. Ever.

[LittleGrizzly]

I think if he won the republican nomination after the democrats having 8 years like the republicans just did, unfortunatly its winning the republican nomination which is the impossible bit...

For all the republicans fault i think alot of the blame has to goto Obama, though im sure the complete lack of fiscal sense, imperial war mongering and degradation of civil liberties didn't help...

If the Republicans operated on something like the platform most republicans on this board want they would be a half decent party

I think the main problem with this is

But I think the panic you'd get... and it's not without reason I'm sure, is that it's hard to reconcile intellectualism with the pandering to just the opposite that a significant third or more of the GOP base requires in order to hit the polls. That whole crowd Sarah Palin hugely energized-- how do you get them with some soft spoken, intellectual Constitutional law scholar? And having to tell them, like spoiled children, no, you can't use law like just a bludgeon to legalize what you like and criminalize what you don't like, that that's not what conservative principles are about?

There seems to be a huge base essential to conservative electoral success which almost seems anti-intellectual, i thought it was intresting that college educated males went mainly to obama, of the different groups they discussed only white males without a college education went more for mccain than obama (the groups were blacks, hispanics, college education and not college educated)

[Koga No Goshi]

There seems to be a huge base essential to conservative electoral success which almost seems anti-intellectual, i thought it was intresting that college educated males went mainly to obama,

There's nothing "almost" anti-intellectual about it. The history of anti-intellectualism in America is long and well documented both by Americans and third party social observers and writers.

of the different groups they discussed only white males without a college education went more for mccain than obama (the groups were blacks, hispanics, college education and not college educated)

This is precisely what was pandered to, along with the religious right and the economic elite/corporate constituencies, by the McCain campaign. But when I mentioned that in the election thread a lot of people got personally offended and said Obama's campaign targetting was no higher. The results, of course, don't bear that out at all.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Your possible 2012 GOP primary.

According to the blog post, we're looking at candidates from four establishments of the GOP: The Populist (either Huck or Palin), the Establishment Conservative (the author suggests Jeb Bush, but that'll never happen in a million years, so it's Romney), the Full-Spectrum Conservative (Jindal), and the National Security Candidate (Gen. Petraeus). Admittedly, I can't see Petraeus or Jeb running, and the author makes a good point about Jindal's waiting a while before he tries for the Presidency.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As promised, here's my initial thoughts on what the Republican field will look like in four years. Obviously, there are many variables along the way, ranging from how beatable Obama looks to the 2010 midterms; I'm just forecasting with the known knowns we have today. As usual there will probably be 10 or so candidates, but from where we sit today there look to be four slots from which to put together a credible primary campaign:

(1) The Populist Candidate: With its Washington leadership beheaded, the GOP is likely to become more of a populist and culturally conservative party in the next four years. Mike Huckabee showed this year the power and the limitations of a pure populist campaign, far exceeding expectations with nearly no resources or name recognition (although Huck was out of step with the populists on one of the major causes of grassroots frustration with DC, immigration). Against the backdrop of a tax-spend-regulate Obama Administration, a crucial challenge will be squaring populism with the GOP's need to appeal to economic and fiscal conservatives to expand out of the Huck-size niche. Realistically, the populist candidate is likely to end up as the most moderate serious candidate in the field.

As things stand today, Sarah Palin is the obvious populist candidate and, for now, the very-very-early frontrunner for the 2012 nomination, given her now-massive name recognition (the woman's every TV appearance is a ratings bonanza), amazing talents as a retail politician, appeal to the base, and the GOP tendency towards nominating the next in line. Granted, only two candidates in the part century (Bob Dole and Franklin D. Roosevelt) have won a major party nomination after being the VP nominee for a losing ticket (not counting Mondale, who'd already been VP), those two waited 12 and 20 years before doing so, respectively, and recent history has been unkind to those who tried (Edwards 2008, Lieberman 2004 - see also Quayle 2000).

I'll expand another day on the challenges facing Gov. Palin - the short answer is that inexperience is the easiest thing in the world to fix, but she'll have to face tougher budgetary times in Alaska in light of falling oil revenues, she'll have to withstand what is likely to be an ongoing national campaign by the Democrats to take her down or hobble her re-election efforts to cut off the likeliest threat to Obama, and she'll have to develop and sell her own, independent agenda and demonstrate a greater breadth and depth of knowledge on national politics than are required from the running mate slot. Upside in the primaries: the socially conservative, moose-hunting hockey mom could potentially be well-suited to the early GOP primary/caucus electorates in Iowa, New Hampshire and Michigan.

(2) The Establishment Candidate: The GOP by tradition tends to fall in behind whoever is the candidate of the establishment - of country clubs and boardrooms and Beltway insiders. Part of being a Republican, of course, is having the maturity to understand that being the establishment candidate is not a bad thing. But an angry grassroots is going to take some serious persuading to pick another establishment figure.

The best establishment candidate should be Jeb Bush, for a variety of reasons, but four years won't be enough - if any length of time is - to rebuild the Bush brand within the GOP, let alone the general electorate. That leaves Mitt Romney as the logical next step; Mitt is currently out of office and thus less equipped to get more experience, but he'll have the money and energy to spend four years staking himself out as a consistent conservative voice and putting the distance of time between 2012 and the flip-flop charges of 2008. South Dakota Senator John Thune is also sometimes mentioned, but after 1964, 1996 and now 2008, the GOP has hopefully learned its lesson about nominating legislators for President, especially sitting Senators. Newly re-elected Indiana Governor and former Bush budget director Mitch Daniels (see here and here) will have his name come up but more likely as a VP nominee.

(3) The Full-Spectrum Conservative: The Fred Thompson role from 2008 but one that will pack a lot more potential appeal in 2012. Bobby Jindal is the best of the lot, but while he's already got an impressive resume, Jindal's so young (he's 37, which makes him the age Romney was in 1985), so he can afford to wait out several more election cycles; he's up for re-election in 2011, which makes running in 2012 very problematic; and he really and genuinely wants to stay in Louisiana long enough to make real changes in his beloved home state's legendarily corrupt and dysfunctional political culture. The other main contender for this slot is South Carolina's Governor Mark Sanford, now in his second term as Governor after 3 in Congress. SC is the most favorable turf for a candidate of this type among the early primary states, so with Sanford running as a favorite son he could basically block out any other challengers, and if he doesn't run for re-election in 2010 (offhand I don't know whether he's term-limited), he'd have a logistical advantage over Palin, who will presumably still be in office as governor of a geographically remote state.

(4) The National Security Candidate: After four years of Obama, there's also likely to be strong sentiment for adult leadership on national security. Traditionally, the GOP has tended to prioritize this issue (in 2008, both McCain and Giuliani ran primarily as national security candidates). But especially with Senators in disfavor, the supply of candidates with more national security credentials than a typical Governor is short - most of the Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld types in the party will be past their prime by 2012, and I continue to doubt that Condi Rice could be a viable candidate for a multitude of reasons. The name you're likely to hear is CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, but Gen. Petraeus - who I assume will remain on active duty for another year or two, at least, and who President Obama dare not fire - has no political experience and no known domestic-policy profile (we don't even know if he's a Republican). My guess is that if we nominate a governor in 2012, Gen. Petraeus will be much in demand as a running mate. After that, I'm not sure who will even try to fill this slot in the primaries.

Sorry, but that's the list; the no-more-McCains sentiment among the base will make it impossible for someone like Tim Pawlenty to mount a credible campaign as a moderate, nobody will bother trying to re-create the crippling damage inflicted on Rudy Giuliani from running with a record as a social liberal, and no Ron Paul type candidate (especially Ron Paul) is ever going to make a serious dent. It's those four slots or bust.

And I, for one, am definitely not committing yet to who I'll support as between Palin or a Sanford or Jindal run or maybe somebody else (obviously I'm not a Mitt fan). There's two long years ahead of us before that choice begins to arise.

[Koga No Goshi]

.......

If that author thinks running Jeb Bush or Mitt or Sarah Palin in '12 is sufficient reform away from what just got totally backhand-smacked last night, I hope he doesn't represent the brainpower of the GOP.

[Spino]

I hate to say it - Ron Paul would never win an election. Ever.

Well... not one held in the last 50+ years, that's for sure. Paul's philosophy & political temperment is better suited for an America long forgotten or one that exists in the far flung future.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I chose the fallback, re-think and return to conservative basics for a reason: Time.

Obama is as close to a lock for two terms as we've had since FDR -- maybe since GW. It is utterly irrelevant who the GOP nominates in 2012 except to that person (whose hope of the presidency terminates with that loss -- my bet is that Romney will pass Palin and take it on the chin for the GOP). Short of video featuring President Obama and Usama in flagrante delicto, Obama is a lock. The Dems may lose some ground if their "attack dog wing" goes on a big vengeance spree, but if they follow the more disciplined pace of their President (and I think they will as he's "the one") they will pick up further seats in 2010 and will secure the "one-party cloture" lock on the Senate. It is from that point that the GOP will move forward -- or fade into obscurity.

The GOP needs to dial WAY back, accept minority status as the norm for 8-10 years (which means filibustering and the like on CRUCIAL issues only, and not as an ongoing jab at the eyes of the Dems; it means NOT doing deals with them but suggesting good legislation and valuable ammendments and making them vote it down), and go back to its roots to rebuild. Smaller government, government at the local level must not remain slogans, but must be basic litmus tests for would-be GOP leaders. Tax cuts must be ignored in favor of dialing down the size, scope, role, and spending of the Federal Government. THEN, once the debt starts to shrink, then and only then can we think about tax cuts for anyone -- and those tax cuts should be a fundamental alteration of the tax system, not just a new rate for the big earners.

This is not, in other words, a project of any brevity. The first years will be bleak and then gains measured slowly for some time. We are likely talking about aiming for 2020 or even 2024 -- and we need to be OUT of the executive for that stretch, not climbing on top of it and trying to claim credit for it with an "Eisenhower" adminstration. That's JAG's answer, and it would benefit party first and ideas last. We must eschew that route and effect real change.

[Pannonian]

My humble Euro weenie opinion is that the GOP needs to distance itself from the religious extremist nutjobs and warmonger neocons and become the voice of the deep ranks of conservative citizenry, instead of representing the extremist loonies. There are lot good things in conservative values, but these things can be found mostly in moderate conservatism. Extremism, let it be conservative, liberal, religious or any other extremism, hardly ever creates anything good.

They should revive the Tory party. A mixture of old-school Toryism and economic liberalism would probably be quite popular on both sides of the water.

[TinCow]

Can't answer because my answer isn't up there. It depends on what the Obama Administration does. If it turns out to be a true bipartisan group that really does try to represent the entire country, not just the 52% that elected them, then the Republicans will have to go back to conservative basics because there will be nothing else for them to run on. If Obama turns out to be a typical partisan politician, they can continue as they have been and will win or lose based on Obama's performance.

[GeneralHankerchief]

What the Republicans need to do, first and foremost, is assure that November 4th, 2008, is the high-water mark for the Democrat Party.

Obama may have a very long honeymoon with the public after winning a victory that was refreshingly easy after the past two razor-close elections. However, Obama will not be up for re-election in 2010. The heavily Democratic Congress will. From experience, Pelosi and Reid will probably be eager to flex their new muscles for two years and ram through a bunch of legislation. The Republicans, having dodged a bullet in the Senate by making sure the Dems didn't get 60, will be able to block the worst bits of legislation but won't have anything remotely resembling a mandate to do so, meaning they are still essentially at the mercy of the Dems.

Mainly, the Republicans need to not lose any more seats in 2010, either holding steady or (preferably) gain a couple. Nothing large, just setting up for later years. They cannot afford to come any closer to Magic 60.

In 2012 (and starting years before), they need to really work hard to mount a serious challenge for the Presidency. By that time, the honeymoon for Obama will almost certainly have waned and the Republicans would do well to mount a legitimate threat. I think the best option for this would be Bobby Jindal, currently the Governor of Louisiana. Jindal, an Indian-American, will blow the "Republicans are only the party of older white men" stereotype out of the water. He has a proven track record as Governor, competantly preparing Louisiana for Hurricane Gustav, which, as you may have noticed, did not catastrophically impact the state. I think Jindal, with a Biden-like figure as his running mate, say George Voinovich, could really make some inroads. Even if Jindal loses, the Republicans need to make a serious dent in the Democratic majority in Congress in 2012.

We're looking at 2014 for the year that Congress is reclaimed. If the Republicans get Jindal in, keep preaching the needs of fiscal conservatism (which will ring true under four years of Obama, Reid, and Pelosi), the best-case scenario is the Republicans knocking Obama out of office in four years for a competant, nontraditional (for them) candidate and then taking Congress in 2014.

That is the path they need to follow. But I think we'll see very early on, maybe within a few months, if this is where they'll head or not.

[drone]

How the GOP does in the future depends mainly on how the Dems handle their newly acquired power. If they overreach, 2010 will swing more seats to the GOP. Pelosi will probably be the GOP's best friend. If the Dems act responsibly over the next two years, the GOP will have a hard time regaining ground.

[Hooahguy]

to quote Neal Boortz from here.

WHERE DO REPUBLICANS GO FROM HERE

What is clear is that the Republican Party has failed on so many levels. I'm not talking about John McCain, I'm talking about the Republican Party. A party that was supposed to reflect the Conservative values of limited government, fiscal restraint, among others, got completely drunk with power. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

Republicans also failed to communicate a message that people could understand. Only in the last days, when Joe the Plumber arrived, did a light bulb flicker. But it shouldn't have taken one man in Ohio to do it. John McCain should have spent months hammering Obama's Marxist tendencies -- his 95% tax cut lies -- his cutting capital gains for small businesses. As a party Republicans failed to rally a base that reflected its core values. Maybe that is because those core values no longer exist for the Republicans in power. Just take a look at the past eight years. But somehow, before the next election, they must figure out which direction they want to take their party, and they must believe it, market it, and most importantly – live up to it.

If the Republicans don't learn from this, that is their own fault. They created Barack Obama. They created a Congressional Democrat majority. But they also have the power to re-create their party. Some pundits are worried that this "new direction" will be more socially Conservative. Perhaps that's exactly what we need! My preference would be to see a move back to basic principles of individualism, freedom, economic liberty, self sufficiency and pride in our Country ... with a highlight on individualism. Barack Obama is merely a continuation of the leftist war against the concept of the individual. Democrats look at us as tools ... tools to be used to create some sort of an egalitarian society. Can the Republicans make this point to the voters? Hint: Republicans need to look to the Libertarian Party for some ideas on how to promote the idea of individualism and fight the concept of the individual as government property.

[Lemur]

Wow, Republicans created Barack Obama. Who knew? And why should I pay to a "writer" who is incapable of using the word "Democratic" correctly? Last I checked, only the most nose-thumbing partisan hacks were still on that linguistic kick.

If writers like this are going to provide the blueprint, I expect to see the Republicans in the wilderness for a long, long time.

[KarlXII]

to quote Neal Boortz from here.

Lol @ Obama's Marxist tendencies.