Yesterday, I tweeted that Mike Pence’s performance in the vice presidential debate, coupled with his general performance as Donald Trump’s running mate, effectively positions him as the leader of a future hybrid GOP that marries Trumpism and traditional conservatism. Not everyone agreed.

First, I agree that it’s worthwhile to question my premise. It’s possible that a Trump defeat will turn Trump into a “loser,” thus discrediting Trumpism. That sounds like wishful thinking to me, but it’s not unheard of for a party base to abandon a failed nominee.

But I tend to believe that we have, for better or worse (and I fear it’s the latter), come to the end of the Reagan era. The notion that things will just go back to the way they were before Trump seems unlikely. That means that if Trump loses, odds are that the future GOP—should it not be torn asunder—would incorporate the popular (and populist) aspects of Trumpism, while eschewing its more untenable and unseemly aspects.

Which leads me to my premise: If the goal is to create a kinder, gentler form of Trumpism—to smooth out its rough edges—who would be a better avatar to carry that banner than Mike Pence? Who would be better at blending Trumpism with traditional conservatism and expressing this philosophy in a rhetorical manner that is polished enough to win a General Election?

This would be an ironic turn of events for a man that many thought accepted this role because it was a foregone conclusion he would lose re-election in Indiana.

That’s not to say Pence has it in the bag. If Trump’s success hinged on a cult of personality, then his success within the GOP is non-transferable, and no amount of co-opting of his policies will matter. It’s possible that finding a more irenic and eloquent way of expressing Trumpism won’t work, simply because people were drawn to Trump’s in-your-face style. Trump’s policies were almost incidental, and he never communicated a coherent worldview.

What is more, even if Trump loses, there’s no guarantee that he won’t linger and possibly run again, thus benching Mike Pence the way the Bush family exiled poor Dan Quayle. And it seems likely that other Republicans like Senators Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, not to mention New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, might try to fill this niche.

I’m simply saying that I think Pence is the guy who can most effectively unite Trump supporters and NeverTrump supporters (not that being a consensus candidate is necessarily the key to winning a Republican nomination).

So, assuming that some hybrid ideology does emerge to cohere the Republican coalition, what might this brave new party look like? My guess is that it would be populist, which means free trade and entitlement reform would be tossed aside. It would also be a nationalistic law and order party that favors a border wall. (These are all things that I believe to be popular, if misguided.) But I think this new party would be more socially conservative and pro-Life than the party of Donald Trump. And, of course, since style always matters, this party would be less bombastic, braggadocios, and offensive—which won’t be hard to accomplish with Trump out of the picture.

This, of course, is dramatically different from the restructuring I called for in Too Dumb to Fail. And, although the GOP is in flux, and its very survival is tenuous, it seems to me that co-opting the good parts of Trumpism—and combining it with traditional conservatism—is an obvious move. This party mutation is, I think, where the smart money is.