# The consequences for the GOP of a Romney loss **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 1, 2012, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760 "2012-06-01T13:05:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/41 "2012-06-02T17:19:37Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree. > > Palin got plucked from obscurity in 2008 - she didn’t have some established base. She did take some steps to build a base up but if she was going to run 2012 was her year. By 2016, she’ll be further back in line behind all the runners-up from 2012. She’s like Dan Quayle - still out there but replaced by fresher faces. You’re right about Palin, I concede the point. > [@](#): > > Bachmann did make her move in this campaign. But all she did was show that she didn’t have what it takes. She now gets lumped in with Cain, Trump, Paul, Gingrich, Huntsman, and Perry (and that last one surprised me) - they put themselves out there and the voters gave them a clear no. Bachmann didn’t have a real surge in this election as the “Great Right Hope” like everybody else except Huntsman and Paul. Plus a few more years, mean more time for Congressional experience and building up more cred with the Tea Party. > [@](#): > > Santorum, on the other hand, did much better than expected so he “won” this campaign. He didn’t get the nomination but he showed he could win delegates all over the country. He moved up from the joke candidate crowd to the serious candidate crowd. In 2016, he’ll be able to start his campaign as a serious candidate. This means he will face the same scrutiny which Santorum somewhat averted this cycle by becoming prominent so late. A negative ad campaign by a well-funded candidate would be devestating (especially if the candidate doesn’t have flip-flopping of his own. > [@](#): > > And let’s face facts, Qin, your views on abortion aren’t the same as the general electorate’s. I won’t argue right or wrong but there is the issue of electability. Any candidate who took a pro-life position that you could fully support might as well save their filing fee. My pro-life position is basically the same as the mainstream GOP one (ie exceptions for the life/health of the mother and rape/incest) and my complaint isn’t so much that Santorum isn’t pro-life enough right now as that he flip-flopped which neither pro-life or pro-choice voters would like. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/42 "2012-06-02T17:22:42Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Bachmann didn’t have a real surge in this election as the “Great Right Hope” like everybody else except Huntsman and Paul. Plus a few more years, mean more time for Congressional experience and building up more cred with the Tea Party. Did you mean to say she did have a surge? [She led in Iowa and elsewhere](http://landmarkreport.com/andrew/2011/07/michele-bachmann-leading-iowa-gop-polls) for at least a few weeks; most of July and August 2011, as I recall. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/43 "2012-06-02T18:53:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > … Nikki Haley … Well, she’s cuter than she is hot, but at least [she puts out.](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/08/nikki-haley-affair-rumors_n_819824.html) :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Batfish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Batfish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Batfish)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/44 "2012-06-02T19:22:01Z")
Wouldn’t it be cool if this “left-leaning” board could discuss female politicians without bring looks or sex into it? ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/45 "2012-06-02T19:40:33Z")
Not as long as the right wants to be the family values party, throwing their hypocrisy in their face is never going to get old. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/46 "2012-06-02T20:25:33Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > Not as long as the right wants to be the family values party, throwing their hypocrisy in their face is never going to get old. What is the hypocrisy here? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/47 "2012-06-02T20:58:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What is the hypocrisy here? I’m guessing it’s a Clinton thing. Many Republicans made the argument that Clinton’s history of adultery made him unfit to be President. Having established that standard, Republicans can’t turn around and say that a history of adultery is off the table when the candidate is a Republican. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/48 "2012-06-02T21:18:23Z")
> [@Batfish](#): > > Wouldn’t it be cool if this “left-leaning” board could discuss female politicians without bring looks or sex into it? She brought sex into it when she, allegedly, dry humped a staffer who did not turn out to be a gentleman. As an elderly Southern lady said in Clinton’s defense when he was avoiding answering “Did you have sex with that woman,” “A gentleman does not talk about his ladies and a lady does not talk about her gentlemen.” I love and miss Southern manners from yestercentury. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/8baadc/32.png) [@Nicest\_of\_the\_Damned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nicest_of_the_Damned)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/49 "2012-06-02T21:29:34Z")
> [@Batfish](#): > > Wouldn’t it be cool if this “left-leaning” board could discuss female politicians without bring looks or sex into it? That would be awesome. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/50 "2012-06-02T21:30:43Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > She brought sex into it when she, allegedly, dry humped a staffer who did not turn out to be a gentleman.( So, if I claim that you’re a sheep fucker, can we say that you brought sheep fucking into the conversation because you allegedly fucked sheep? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/51 "2012-06-02T21:48:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > So, if I claim that you’re a sheep fucker, can we say that you brought sheep fucking into the conversation because you allegedly fucked sheep? I am tired of hiding in the closet and am ready to finally and proudly admit that I. . . No, I guess I’m not ready. ☹ (Baaaa) Bill Clinton brought his dalliances into public view, too, because of poor choices of partners. You have to think these things through or be ready to silence the blabbermouth before she talks, like JFK did with Marilyn and Hillary did with Vince Foster. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 2, 2012, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/52 "2012-06-02T22:26:22Z")
> [@Batfish](#): > > Wouldn’t it be cool if this “left-leaning” board could discuss female politicians without bring looks or sex into it? > [@DigitalC](#): > > Not as long as the right wants to be the family values party, throwing their hypocrisy in their face is never going to get old. As opposed to acid. I personally don’t comment on female politicians’ looks in general and think it should happen less. And I also dislike tu quoque arguments. But: – On one hand you have a side that likes to comment on female politicians’ looks. – On the other hand you have a side that likes to comment on female politicians’ looks. And **literally advocates throwing acid on their faces**. I am going to bring this up as often as possible. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/53 "2012-06-03T01:55:31Z")
What really matters is how successful Obama is in his second term. If he can turn the economy around after achieving successful conclusions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq it will not matter what the Republicans do. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 3, 2012, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/54 "2012-06-03T15:40:16Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > OTOH, if the Tea Party seizes control after a Romney defeat but than gets clobbered in 2014, there may be a complete decimation of both the Tea Party and chamelon-types allowing the consistent moderates like Huntsman, Kirk, or Rubio to take the helm. Huntsman, Kirk and Rubio are “moderates”? Shit, next thing you’ll be trying to tell me that Coburn is a moderate. Since when? They may the saners members of the far right wing but they’re not moderate. Kirk is the closest of the three. Huntsman only looks moderate relative the other nutjobs that were in the Republican primary and Rubio has been called the crown prince of the tea party movement. Most moderate Republicans have been primaried. > [@](#): > > Bloomberg might decide to run in 2016 although he’d be mocked for his neo-Prohibitionist policies. Huntsman even if the GOP goes too far to the right. Bloomberg’s not actually anything close to being a Republican at the national level. He’s barely a Republican at the NYC level. > [@](#): > > The Tea Party, despite its faults, are generally colour blind and gender blind when selecting their candidates of choice. I don’t know if racism is still a significant element of the tea party but it was when it first started. But hey, the Democratic party was once pretty racist too so I suppose you can change but a lot of these folks see minorities as so locked in to the Democratic party that they end up pursuing policies that are bad for minorities in the same way that they pursue policies that are bad for teachers. > [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > Currently the centrists either hide their nature (Romney) or remain nonviable (Huntsman). > > Is there a GOP renaissance (or day of reckoning) on the horizon to change that? Nope. Just losing at the polls isn’t enough. The reason they believe they lose is because they aren’t conservative enough. If Romney loses and their next candidate is Santorum, they will point to somethign that makes Santorum not a “true conservative” and say THATs why he failed. If only they had nominated a True conservative. > [@DigitalC](#): > > A close defeat in 2012, followed by doubling down on the crazy and getting crushed in 2016 might get things rolling. I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/55 "2012-06-04T12:25:53Z")
> [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](#): > > What really matters is how successful Obama is in his second term. If he can turn the economy around after achieving successful conclusions to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq it will not matter what the Republicans do. No one can bring Iraq and Afghanistan to a “successful conclusion”, given that we have no coherent idea about what we are trying to succeed at. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/56 "2012-06-04T19:41:42Z")
> [@Batfish](#): > > Wouldn’t it be cool if this “left-leaning” board could discuss female politicians without bring looks or sex into it? How about if 99% of liberal posters on the board don’t bring looks or sex into it? Is that good enough? If not, how do you suggest we attempt to remedy the situation? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [June 4, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/57 "2012-06-04T20:45:21Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No one can bring Iraq and Afghanistan to a “successful conclusion”, given that we have no coherent idea about what we are trying to succeed at. A successful conclusion does not need to be as obvious as the end of the Gulf War. All that would be necessary would be the end of American involvement and governments in Afghanistan and Iraq that are not overtly anti-American. ---
**Author:** ![bahia\_hombre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@bahia\_hombre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bahia_hombre)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2012, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760/58 "2012-06-05T03:48:15Z")
> [@Fiveyearlurker](#): > > A possible, or even likely, scenario (crosses fingers) is that Obama defeats Romney in November. Not to make poopie on your thread but after Friday’s jobs report, it’s not looking likely at all. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-consequences-for-the-gop-of-a-romney-loss/623760.md?page=2)