First, Romney gets lambasted as a lackluster, wishy-washy candidate
Second, the Far Right and Religious Right blame his loss on a Romney's lack of ideological purity. (NOTE TO SELF --- Romney steered hard right through the primaries and pre-primaries)
Third, The RNC looks for some silver lining (you know, Obama is a lame duck)
Fourth, the think tanks will begin the process of introspection.
In 1989, I worked on Capitol Hill and we held a series of brown bag lunches to discuss how we had had our asses kicked for the third time in a row and the Democrats had won only 1 of 6 elections for the White House since 1968.
I don't remember who, but a congressional staffer offered us some interesting thoughts.
In 1988, we were within 5% of winning 7 states worth 125 electoral votes and within 6% of two others worth 11 more. A decent swing of votes (GOTV advocates take note) would have netted us 247 electoral votes....not exactly a drubbing.
Here's what the GOP should worry about
They have not won California since 1988 and have not won New York since 1984. Those two states comprise 30% (84) of the electoral votes needed to win the White House.
Since 1992, the GOP has only taken 1 state in New England 1 time (NH in 2000). New England used to be the land of Yankee Republicans. The cost of losing New England is 33 Electoral College votes.
Of the States won by Dukakis in 1988, Iowa went to the GOP only once (2004) and West Virginia went to the GOP in 2000, 2004 and 2008. The others besides NY have given the Democrats 61 Electoral College votes.
The GOP should be concerned that as is stands (should Romney fall), that in 2016, the Democrats have 163 dependable Electoral College votes.
Throw in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and the Democratic leaning states where the Latino vote is likely to slant the vote in the Democrats favor (Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico) and the GOP loses another 80 Electoral College votes. Of those 80, the GOP last took Illinois, Pennsylvania and Maryland in 1988 --- thats 50 votes right there. The GOP took New Mexico in 2004 but lost it every election since 1988. Thats 5 more.
Right now, the Democratic Candidate has a lock and or a very good shot at 218 Electoral votes.
In 1989, we believed we needed to be more conservative to win.....Clinton was derided as a liberal both in and out of Arkansas in 1992. (In fact, the Senators from Arkansas are pretty progressive considering their location and the bizarre notion that Southern means Conservative). The reality is Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Obama were are fairly progressive candidates and Clinton and Obama have both pushed the GOP's buttons often enough to lead me to believe they are neither conservative or centrists.
The GOP might reject the move to the left (center actually) philosophy in 2013 just as liberals rejected the notion we should move to the right in 1989.
Conservatism as it is being defined since 2009 is such a narrow base that the GOP is unlikely to survive. And billionaires and Corporations aside, economic conservatism really only works when the economy is good and you can focus on problems that aren't really problems like the National Debt and the federal deficit (the terrible twosome of the GOP economy wing unless they are to blame for it and then not a big deal) and economic conservatism is the only arguably rational part of their current base's philosophy.