Ken Gardner from Facebook:

1. We must continue to oppose bad policy while offering conservative, free market, individual liberty solutions and a better vision. Obama has no mandate. We don’t have to act as if he does. …

4. As conservatives, we need to be discussing and debating ideas, not who is or isn’t “the establishment” or a “true” conservative.

5. As conservatives and GOPers, we need to be doing MUCH better with Hispanic voters. If we don’t, Darwinian selection will take over and we will become extinct. We have lost CA and NM, CO and NV are slipping away, FLA may be slipping away, AZ will soon be slipping away, and even TX might someday start slipping away (although not anytime soon). …

7. This one is going to upset the most of you, but I have to say it: the GOP needs to cut a grand bargain on the immigration issue and do it fast. Dems are using it to HAMMER GOPers and win Hispanic votes. We aren’t going to deport 12 million people back to Mexico. That’s a pipe dream. Even talking about it is political suicide for the GOP. Meanwhile, millions of Hispanics fear and distrust the GOP because of this issue — many of who would be far less Democratic but for this issue. I don’t care what you call it, we need to get the millions of people who are here illegal on a path to legal residence or citizenship or whatever you want to call it. We need to stop being the nail to the Dems’ hammer on this issue. If we don’t, see Paragraph 5 above.

8. Likewise, this one may upset some of you: the GOP needs to stop relying on the evangelical vote. It has been a declining force in American politics since 2004. It failed to come through for McCain or Romney in key battleground states such as FLA, OH, VA, even NC. America is becoming a more secular country and the GOP must incorporate that fact into its politics, especially at the national level.

9. The GOP needs to return to the ORIGINAL principles of the 2009 tea party movement, before it was hijacked by social conservatives and other movement conservatives: limited government at all levels, personal and fiscal responsibility, returning the federal government to its original constitutionally limited powers and responsibilities, free market principles. More Atlas Shrugged than the Bible.

I am eager to see how the Nov. 6 winners are going to deal with what Megan McArdle identifies:

… I’m not sure how enduring this “Emerging Democratic Majority” will prove to be.  Some reasons for my skepticism …

2. Ethnic coalitions are inherently unstable.  It used to be a sort of natural law that urban Catholics voted Democratic.  Then Reagan won them in huge numbers.  And–contra those who are saying that the GOP now has to move left–they didn’t win by getting more liberal.  Rather, the Democrats got more liberal, on crime and bussing, and the white ethnics who felt victimized by these policies fled.  The more ethnic groups you have, the more likely it is that you will eventually find the goals of those ethnic groups in direct conflict.  And the Democrats sure do have a lot of groups.

3.  We are heading for a showdown between public sector unions and taxpayers.  That’s going to put Democrats in a very tough spot.  Those unions are the backbone of the Democratic political operation.   But their pensions are, in many places, simply not payable.  Thanks in part to the late 1990s stock market boom, and in part to really scandalously bad accounting standards, politicians made a lot of promises they didn’t pay for.  Those promises now can’t be shed in bankruptcy, and all of the possible deals–which including hiking taxes to “tax revolt” levels, or shafting all the younger public sector workers–are bad for Democrats.

4.  We’re heading for a showdown between the recipients of old-age benefits, and recipients of all the other kinds of benefits.  Even after we hike taxes, something has to be cut.  I’m betting on the oldsters to win this fight.  They’re motivated, and they have a lot of time on their hands.  And their middle-aged, middle class children will also freak out if you cut their benefits.  They will not be nearly as upset if you slash Head Start.  But those kinds of decisions are going to set off a sort of Hobbesian war of all-against-all within the Democratic coalition.  And the aging of our population is an even more dramatic shift than its increasingly tan hue.

5.  On social issues, Democrats are badly positioned for the future.  Hold your fire–I mean politically, not morally.  Gay marriage is going away as an issue, because the advocates have won.  (And in the legislature, not in the courts, as they should).  Not all the dominos have fallen yet, but they’re lined up the right way; it’s just a matter of time. Young evangelicals either don’t get energized about the issue, or are actively pro.  The GOP knows they’re eventually going to moderate, which is why you see these fumbling, ham-fisted attempts to reach out to GOProud and the Log Cabin Republicans.    On the other hand, they aren’t reaching out to Republicans for Choice, and for good reason.  Evangelicals care just as much about abortion as ever, and the national trends are running towards more support for abortion restrictions, and greater identification as “Pro-Life”.  Sonograms are undermining the Democratic position.  So are demographics: the only group that majority-identifies as “Pro Choice” is women of childbearing age.  Meanwhile, our fastest-growing demographic is retirees.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Corporate America never was among those chanting “four more years.”

For businesses, President Barack Obama’s victory means above all an end to hopes for what might have been—a more sympathetic ear in the White House, a lighter touch with regulation, business-friendly changes to the tax code, an attenuation of the health-care overhaul.

Instead, CEOs are simultaneously hoping for a softening of the perceived standoff that characterized the president’s first term in office while bracing for more of the same.

The energy sector, for example, worries Mr. Obama will feel obliged to reward crucial support from environmentalists by continuing to crack down on energy exploration and drilling practices that have been criticized. The telecom sector is shelving plans for big acquisitions that might have been more feasible under a Mitt Romney administration. And companies are preparing for provisions of the health-care overhaul that will soon come into effect.

On top of all that are wild cards like the debate over the half a trillion dollars in spending cuts and tax increases known as the fiscal cliff, and potentially expensive policy issues like climate change. Concerns about such issues were front and center in the stock market on Wednesday, when the Dow Jones Industrial Average shed about 275 points.

Great start to that second term, Obama voters: A 313-point drop in the stock market. Worst stock day of the year. Money votes too.

Add to that this: “House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) on Wednesday said he is ready to negotiate a budget deal with President Barack Obama to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff that includes new tax revenues, as long as Democrats agree to cuts and changes to federal entitlement programs.”

So the House GOP is surrendering already. Any reader who believes Democrats will not raise taxes on the “middle class” as part of a “so-called fiscal cliff” deal is deluding yourself. (Of course, I would favor a tax increase on Democrats at a level high enough to make them suffer. I am unwilling to waste more of my tax dollars on government than I already do.)

The Washington Post reports that (senile) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid “said he spoke to Boehner and that they agreed not to “draw lines in the sand” on taxes.” Which is Washingtonspeak for “we’re raising your taxes, ha ha ha!”

Of course, business knows that taxes aren’t the only tax on business, as the U.S. Small Business Administration even admits (via the Western Center for Journalism):

A study done by the Small Business Administration (SBA) said that in 2010, the annual cost of Federal regulations was $1.75 trillion. Our national debt is over $15 trillion, which amounts to about 11.5% of GDP. That’s a lot of money. Think of the impact on our struggling economy if we were able to cut those costs in half.

Why do regulations have a cost?

When government creates a rule (regulation), they often have to hire more public sector workers to enforce it. This expands government and pulls more people out of the private sector where goods and services are produced.

The other major cost is that businesses are forced to comply in order to avoid breaking the law. Often, the new rule means a business has to hire new staff members to make sure the business is following the rules. The business has to redirect money it was planning to spend on creating goods and services for its customers towards people who make sure they follow rules. …

Think of it. Who is in a better position to absorb the cost of massive regulation—large business or small business? Of course, the answer is large business because they have more money, scale, and staff to deal with these issues.

So what ends up happening?

The regulatory cost acts as a barrier on small business. As a result, small businesses suffer and aren’t as competitive as large businesses. In many cases, the small business either goes out of business, goes bankrupt, or the large business acquires the struggling small business. Therefore, increased regulations guarantee more large business! …

Small business makes up 99.7% of all employer firms and creates more than half of GDP growth. When government over-regulates, American small business suffers. Because small business is the backbone of this country, when American small business suffers, our whole economy suffers.

Business has every reason to be upset and angry with the election results. Business’ employees will feel the brunt when the economy slides back into recession and today’s unemployment/underemployment rate looks like good times. (Which is already starting.) One would think that business is the solution to improving the unemployment/underemployment rate, but the Democratic Party thinks otherwise.

A friend reminded me of Ronald Reagan’s observation that there are no smart people in politics because smart people are in business because the money’s better. To paraphrase William F. Buckley Jr., I’d rather be governed by the membership of any chamber of commerce than the members of any legislative body. Business people have to earn their money.