I was going to start twin threads on this, but my someone else already started the Dem thread.
The pubs had a big win, but there are still a lot of questions to be asked.
Who will the standard-bearer be for the future?
Bush has no obvious successor: Cheney and Powell will be too old, Condi has no elective experience. Dark horse: Mel Martinez
I expect Arnold to be a very powerful force in the party; almost a kingmaker. But he can’t run, and that amendment ain’t getting passed just for him. McCain will be too old in 2008. I expect Guliani to join the administration, but is he to liberal for the base?
Which is the next question:
Will there be a split in the party?
It’s pretty generally recognized that there are Libertarian and Social Conservative blocs within the GOP; will they go to war?
My own guess is not, but I’ll give my reasoning and I’d like to hear any disagreements.
I don’t have a cite for the assertion, but despite the insistience of the hard left, I feel pretty strongly that the religious right is waning in influence. They’ll always be there, but I think they’re a locked-in constituency, much like blacks and labor unions are for democrats. So long as the GOP candidate convincingly makes the right noises about believing in God (no theological specifics necessary), says he’s pro-life (no need to actually do anything about it), and remains faithful to his wife, they aren’t going anywhere. And if you doubt that, consider that I just described Reagan.
Gay marriage is a good wedge issue for the GOP right now. I don’t think it will be in 2008. The dems need to set their sights lower, disavow the “M” word and start by seeking insurance benefits and the like for “long-term partnerships.” The bottom line is that the demographics on this issue are all on the side of the Liberals – young people overwhelmingly support recognition of civil unions. The libertarian wing of the party knows that, and will align themselves accordingly; I see the Cheney “let states decide” position becoming the official platform.
Embracing state’s rights as a major party distinctive will allow libertarian GOP types like Guliani to be centrists on social issues – making them stronger in the battleground states – without alienating the rural base. And that’s the direction I think they go.
What say ye?