45 thoughts on “Are you ready for the 2012 elections?”
According to the Rasmussen Poll they are tied at 45% each, and in a match-up with Sarah Palin, however, Obama leads 48% to 42%.
The last election soured my taste for politics. I don’t want to even think about 2012 until 2012!
Brian, I don’t disagree. This falls under the category of, “the only people who could possibly care are complete political junkies.” Sadly, I am a political junkie.
Having said that, there are some more normal people who will say to themselves, “hmm, I wonder how Obama would poll against Romney or that wacky Sarah Palin?” Now, they have their answers.
I am so ready. Last year was lots of fun. It helps that my side crushed the other side. I think that an Obama v. Romney contest is looking likely, though I think that it is way too early to tell what the issues will be.
That it is 45 to 45 is not surprising. That other 10 percent is always the big question.
It’s way, way, WAAAY early, but one of the interesting points is that Romney leads Obama among unaffiliated voters 48 to 41 percent. These were the people who abandoned McCain in 2008.
As Chris says, no matter what Obama does in the next three years, he has 45 percent of the electorate pretty much locked up. The key issue is what happens to those unaffiliated voters and the others who make up the 10 percent.
The GOP, if they want to climb back into the game, needs to appeal to suburban voters. Romney has the potential to do that. He needs to be careful not to swing too far right on social issues. I think that he really can sell himself as a thoughtful moderate conservative. Of course, I am not wanting him to win, but I think that the demise of the GOP is sort of sad and I wish them luck.
The real question is: Will I (or you) be running for something in 2012? Both parties are always in need of good candidates.
Chris H, I agree with your comment, except to say that I was just thinking about an e-mail I sent to a friend after the 2004 election. He is a liberal, and he was deeply depressed after 2004, he didn’t see any hope for the Dems anytime soon. Remember that in 2004 the Repubs also did well in Congress. Well, that all changed in 2006, and then obviously in 2008, and now it looks like the positions are reversed, the Republicans are on the ropes. Now, the Republicans never had the majority that the Dems have now, and they completely blew their time in power, but my point is that things can change very quickly. If the economy doesn’t turn around soon, 2010 could be a disastrous election for the Dems, and then you won’t be wishing the Republicans luck at all.
Chris H, I’ve toyed with the idea of running for school board or town council in my tiny little town at some point. Probably want to wait a few years if I do it. The problem with that is that I am not a very political person in the sense that I’m something of an introvert — definitely not the type of person to go out there and shake hands and remember names and all the things you need to do to run for office. I’d rather be up in the mountains hiking or running or biking or skiing. But on the other hand, you are correct that there is a great need for good people in the political process, which is why the Church encourages us to be involved.
Geoff, The GOP never had this big of a lead in Congress and both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were very tight. Democrats like to beat themselves up. The best thing the Dems have going for them is that the GOP is not looking like a much better alternative.
The demographics game is also not looking good for the GOP.
No worries, I always wish my opponents luck whether they need it or not. Trust me, the GOP is going to need it for a while.
Are you sure that you were missing me around here?
At this point, I think looking ahead to the 2012 elections is a bit premature. The 2010 elections will bring plenty of excitement – think 1994, or perhaps something much closer to an endorsement of doubling the size of the federal government and running trillion dollar deficits every year…
Mark,
Premature? Well, duh.
1994? Keep on dreaming. It is healthy.
Chris H., I think we can safely say that the probability of the Democrats gaining seats in Congress in the 2010 election is essentially zero. The President’s party nearly always loses seats in mid term elections. See here.
If the Democrats retain the current number of seats in Congress, it will be an electoral endorsement of historic magnitude. I don’t think a bad economy and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see are a promising sign for that. The rosy scenario for Democrats is 1934. Might happen. I doubt it.
In 1994 the GOP took control of Congress. The Dems might not gain in 2010, I am not disagreeing with you on that. However, the sorry state of the GOP cannot be underestimated. They are struggling to get solid candidates in a number of the races where they should be competitive.
I think there is a malaise with both parties. Approval numbers for Congress in general are at all time lows!!
I think at some point in the near future we will see a strong third or fourth party emerge.
Btw, for the record, I missed you, Chris! Always good to have an opposing viewpoint. 😉
Brian Duffin : @Chris H. I think at some point in the near future we will see a strong third or fourth party emerge.
I would LOVE to see another party (or two) come to power in America. It’s hard to have much diversity with the either/or, us vs. them split between Republicans and Democrats.
We will likely always have two party system, unless there are major changes in our political structure. So the question then becomes: Will a new party arise that replaces the Republicans or Democrats? I doubt it, both parties have shown (historically) that they are good as adapting. This does not make everyone happy or satisfied. Of course the parties have changed a lot over time. Who would have guessed that the GOP would become the party of the deep South? So it is not a matter of whether the GOP will die (or the Dems for that matter), but a matter of what will they look like ten, twenty years from now.
I predict — mark it, Elder Rigdon! — that Mitt will run, but that he will hit the anti-Mormon wall in the South again. If he gets the nomination, look for a split vote in the Republican Party, with white Southern Christians going for a third party in sufficient numbers to cost Romney the White House.
I think this poll tells us more about name recognition than anything. That said Romney might do much better this time around. The big issue is of course Evangelical voters in the South and Ohio. I actually really like Huntsman as well but he’ll be an even bigger problem for many Evangelicals than Romney is. The social conservatives aren’t sympathetic to the more libertarian inclined.
Romney’s best hope is if he can get a combination of Jindal, Palin, Huckabee, Perry, etc. to split the evangelical/right-wing vote while Romney can run slightly towards the middle.
Also of interest is how the electoral college will be affected by the upcoming census. 2008 Red States are projected to gain a net of 7 votes, while 2008 Blue States will likely lose a net of 7. That’s quite a large swing.
Chris H., I wouldn’t give the GOP more than one chance in three of regaining the House in 2010 at this point.
I would like to see more than two parties as well, however without something like preference voting, a third party is unlikely to ever make headway. Mitt Romney wouldn’t be my first choice in a GOP primary, but I would gladly rank him as 2 or 3, so that I don’t “throw my vote away” if somebody I prefer more (last time it was Thompson) isn’t as popular as he is.
Clark: Huntsman doesn’t strike me as much of a libertarian. More of a “third way” Republican, much like John McCain. Ron Paul is a prototypical libertarian, and somehow I don’t see he and Hunstman seeing eye to eye on too many things.
I think Obama successfully destroyed the Huntsman threat in 2012 by sending him to China. I agree with Mark D that Huntsman will remind Republicans of McCain more than anything else. The response from the Republican rank-and-file to a Huntsman candidacy: yawn. We’ll have to wait and see if they can get excited about Romney.
Huntsman is far more articulate and intelligent than McCain.
I seriously doubt that Huntsman could have ever competed for the 2012 repub nomination. He got to moderate at the end. I think he might have lost in the repub primary even.
I see the pendulum swinging back politically as it always does. I predict a 3-20 House pick-up for the Repubs and a 1-3 pickup in the senate because of that pendulum swing.
Here is a fact that all people interested in this issue have to deal with: Sarah Palin excites the Republican basis. She does. I live in Republican base territory in northern Colorado. When Sarah Palin came to town in 2008, she filled a 30,000-seat stadium with two days’ notice (there were another 5000 in an overflow room). When McCain came alone, there were half that number.
So, the challenge for the Republicans is: how do you capture that excitement and mobilize it without actually having Palin as a candidate, because we are talking Barry Goldwater II if Palin is our candidate in 2012. The challenge for Dems is: recognize that the Palin phenomenon is real and stop making fun of the people who support her because some of them are people who ended up either not going to the polls in 2008 or even voted for Obama because he promised they wouldn’t raise their taxes.
The secret to Bush’s 2004 victory was that he mobilized just enough of the Palin base to win. The Republicans in 2012 have to find a way to do that again, or it’s Obama for another four years (with a renewed mandate, etc).
I was referring to Huntsman losing in the Utah repub primary for Governer up above.
“recognize that the Palin phenomenon is real and stop making fun of the people who support her”
I do not make fun of people who support her, just her.
Anyways, this phenomenon works both ways. My mother voted for the Democrat for the first time sine becoming a citizen in the early 1980s because she was so turned off by Palin.
You have to admit, if Bush’s 2004 strategy is the only way the GOP can win (and I think you are very right on that), the GOP is hurting badly in the demographic battle.
I think that is where Mitt, and any number of the other major names in the GOP right now, are going to struggle. They are going to struggle to get the popular excitement that Obama did, or even Palin in your Colorado example.
I do not think McCain’s problem was so much his policy positions, but his horrible campaigning style (plus add the economy and Pres. Bush into the mix). He came across as so old (and appealling the the 1980s did not help. Mitt’s challenge is this: can he rally the right when he is not the alternative to the hated McCain. The South will fall in line. The GOP has been jerking them around for a while, where else are they gonna go.
bbell,
What would have happened would be that Huntsman (who I do not think would have run for a third term anyways) would have been threatened in the GOP convention by the right, forcing a primary. Then in the primary, the good people of Utah would have reject the crazies in the Eagle Forum, and strongly backed Huntsman (This happen to Leavitt and couple of time). I like that about Utah.
Chris H, there are three problems with the “Dem victory is nearly inevitable because of demographics” meme. The first is that the census will give more votes to Republican-leaning states. The second is that as Latins spend more time in the U.S. they inevitably start moving against bloc voting. The GOP has an opportunity (demonstrated by Bush in 2004) of capturing a greater number of minority votes. The third is that if the economy continues on its current path, Obama faces a major hurdle. Take from an amateur economist: the economy may recover slightly in 2010, but the recovery will be shallow and won’t last long. The only thing that will get the economy moving again is either A)big-time spending cuts or B)income tax cuts and corporate tax cuts or C)a combination of the two. Obama has not shown an inclination to take any of these measures, and you can take it to the bank that we will still be facing 9 percent-plus unemployment in early 2012 if we continue on our current course.
Chris,
What do you think of my theory that the pendulum will swing against the Dems in 2010? Not enough to take back one of the chambers but enough to make a decent dent in the majorities.
bbell, the pendulum will swing back, it is part of our party system/structure. However given the current situation of the GOP, I cannot imagine that it will be soon. This is early 1960’s territory. It is going to be a long journey in the desert.
One reason why I do not see a change in favor of the GOP is that they are having a difficult time recruiting strong candidates in states where they might have a shot. This details matter.
Geoff,
“The second is that as Latins spend more time in the U.S. they inevitably start moving against bloc voting.”
You are talking about a decades long process. Luckily for the Dems, the right is doing a great jobs of encouraging Latins to stay and make themselves comfortable in the Democratic Party.
Take it from a professional political scienctist: This is not a brief detour for the GOP, it is deep crisis. I appreciate your hope and optimism. Dream on.
In that case (having looked it up), it is not meme, but my observation based on my knowledge of political behavior research. Do not mess with me. I will have to send nasty messages to you on Facebook. 🙂
Chris H, a key number to follow: unemployment among Hispanics, which is currently above 12 percent.
Utah is probably the most Republican state in the country. However, it is true that the majority of those Republicans aren’t exactly movement conservatives. Stick-in-the-mud conservatives more like. Straight down the middle split-the-baby make-everyone-happy establishment politicians have no trouble getting elected here, at least at the state level. Herbert will probably be the first “normal” conservative to be governor here in half a century. Of course that remains to be seen.
The GOP may indeed be in deep trouble at the national level, but all I can say is that the Democrats are doing their very best to make sure that state of affairs doesn’t last very long. If they governed as left of center moderates, with a bit of fiscal discipline and a robust national security policy, they could probably run Washington for the next twenty years. As it is, I give them less than 10% chance of winning the presidency in 2012.
Of course, that may be part of the strategic plan – spend several trillion dollars and make the conservatives pay for it. My preference would be for a balanced budget amendment with a 2/3 majority required to override and a requirement that exceptions be paid in full within ten years.
Mark, for all the time you drive my crazy, there are comment like #36 that just make me chuckle. I am just glad that your “preference” will have no political power any time soon.
Huntsman and Leavitt are great man. So they were not right wing enough for you.
“men” that is.
Blogging and watching LOTR is not working out well. That last sentence in 37 should read:
Huntsman and Leavitt are great men. Sorry they were not right wing enough for you.
The legistatures of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming all petitioned for a constitutional convention to consider a balanced budget amendment. All of those petititions except three are still standing. A handful of additional states, and there would be one. Ohio was apparently considering it just last year.
Constitutions in thirty-two states require that their budgets be balanced, and virtually all the rest have statutes to that effect.
That states are required to have balanced budgets is why it is so important for the national government to be able to run deficits in time of crisis. The idea that a balanced budget is a high end principle is one i will never understand (and one you and I will never agree on).
I also do not think it is an issue that resonates politically. It made mcCain look pretty out of touch.
Also, I would need to see citation for your list of states.
As far as the numbers go, see Russell L. Caplan, Constitutional Brinkmanship: Amending the Constitution by National Convention, pg 83. Most sources count thirty two states, with two more required for a constitutional convention on the subject.
A handful of states have rescinded their balanced budget amendment petitions, however it is unclear if that has any effect on when a convention must be called.
Correction: Those are references to entries in the Congressional Record. I intended to close the link after the word “here” as well.
I don’t think we need a balanced budget amendment, but I do think we need, as a general policy position, to agree that the budget should never go higher than XX percent of GDP and that there be a plan to bring the budget back in balance within four years when deficit spending is temporarily needed. The course we are on right now is not sustainable.
According to the Rasmussen Poll they are tied at 45% each, and in a match-up with Sarah Palin, however, Obama leads 48% to 42%.
The last election soured my taste for politics. I don’t want to even think about 2012 until 2012!
Brian, I don’t disagree. This falls under the category of, “the only people who could possibly care are complete political junkies.” Sadly, I am a political junkie.
Having said that, there are some more normal people who will say to themselves, “hmm, I wonder how Obama would poll against Romney or that wacky Sarah Palin?” Now, they have their answers.
I am so ready. Last year was lots of fun. It helps that my side crushed the other side. I think that an Obama v. Romney contest is looking likely, though I think that it is way too early to tell what the issues will be.
That it is 45 to 45 is not surprising. That other 10 percent is always the big question.
It’s way, way, WAAAY early, but one of the interesting points is that Romney leads Obama among unaffiliated voters 48 to 41 percent. These were the people who abandoned McCain in 2008.
As Chris says, no matter what Obama does in the next three years, he has 45 percent of the electorate pretty much locked up. The key issue is what happens to those unaffiliated voters and the others who make up the 10 percent.
The GOP, if they want to climb back into the game, needs to appeal to suburban voters. Romney has the potential to do that. He needs to be careful not to swing too far right on social issues. I think that he really can sell himself as a thoughtful moderate conservative. Of course, I am not wanting him to win, but I think that the demise of the GOP is sort of sad and I wish them luck.
The real question is: Will I (or you) be running for something in 2012? Both parties are always in need of good candidates.
Chris H, I agree with your comment, except to say that I was just thinking about an e-mail I sent to a friend after the 2004 election. He is a liberal, and he was deeply depressed after 2004, he didn’t see any hope for the Dems anytime soon. Remember that in 2004 the Repubs also did well in Congress. Well, that all changed in 2006, and then obviously in 2008, and now it looks like the positions are reversed, the Republicans are on the ropes. Now, the Republicans never had the majority that the Dems have now, and they completely blew their time in power, but my point is that things can change very quickly. If the economy doesn’t turn around soon, 2010 could be a disastrous election for the Dems, and then you won’t be wishing the Republicans luck at all.
Chris H, I’ve toyed with the idea of running for school board or town council in my tiny little town at some point. Probably want to wait a few years if I do it. The problem with that is that I am not a very political person in the sense that I’m something of an introvert — definitely not the type of person to go out there and shake hands and remember names and all the things you need to do to run for office. I’d rather be up in the mountains hiking or running or biking or skiing. But on the other hand, you are correct that there is a great need for good people in the political process, which is why the Church encourages us to be involved.
Geoff, The GOP never had this big of a lead in Congress and both the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were very tight. Democrats like to beat themselves up. The best thing the Dems have going for them is that the GOP is not looking like a much better alternative.
The demographics game is also not looking good for the GOP.
No worries, I always wish my opponents luck whether they need it or not. Trust me, the GOP is going to need it for a while.
Are you sure that you were missing me around here?
At this point, I think looking ahead to the 2012 elections is a bit premature. The 2010 elections will bring plenty of excitement – think 1994, or perhaps something much closer to an endorsement of doubling the size of the federal government and running trillion dollar deficits every year…
Mark,
Premature? Well, duh.
1994? Keep on dreaming. It is healthy.
Chris H., I think we can safely say that the probability of the Democrats gaining seats in Congress in the 2010 election is essentially zero. The President’s party nearly always loses seats in mid term elections. See here.
If the Democrats retain the current number of seats in Congress, it will be an electoral endorsement of historic magnitude. I don’t think a bad economy and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see are a promising sign for that. The rosy scenario for Democrats is 1934. Might happen. I doubt it.
In 1994 the GOP took control of Congress. The Dems might not gain in 2010, I am not disagreeing with you on that. However, the sorry state of the GOP cannot be underestimated. They are struggling to get solid candidates in a number of the races where they should be competitive.
Maybe we should make a wager?
@Chris H.
I think there is a malaise with both parties. Approval numbers for Congress in general are at all time lows!!
I think at some point in the near future we will see a strong third or fourth party emerge.
Btw, for the record, I missed you, Chris! Always good to have an opposing viewpoint. 😉
I would LOVE to see another party (or two) come to power in America. It’s hard to have much diversity with the either/or, us vs. them split between Republicans and Democrats.
We will likely always have two party system, unless there are major changes in our political structure. So the question then becomes: Will a new party arise that replaces the Republicans or Democrats? I doubt it, both parties have shown (historically) that they are good as adapting. This does not make everyone happy or satisfied. Of course the parties have changed a lot over time. Who would have guessed that the GOP would become the party of the deep South? So it is not a matter of whether the GOP will die (or the Dems for that matter), but a matter of what will they look like ten, twenty years from now.
I predict — mark it, Elder Rigdon! — that Mitt will run, but that he will hit the anti-Mormon wall in the South again. If he gets the nomination, look for a split vote in the Republican Party, with white Southern Christians going for a third party in sufficient numbers to cost Romney the White House.
I think this poll tells us more about name recognition than anything. That said Romney might do much better this time around. The big issue is of course Evangelical voters in the South and Ohio. I actually really like Huntsman as well but he’ll be an even bigger problem for many Evangelicals than Romney is. The social conservatives aren’t sympathetic to the more libertarian inclined.
Romney’s best hope is if he can get a combination of Jindal, Palin, Huckabee, Perry, etc. to split the evangelical/right-wing vote while Romney can run slightly towards the middle.
Also of interest is how the electoral college will be affected by the upcoming census. 2008 Red States are projected to gain a net of 7 votes, while 2008 Blue States will likely lose a net of 7. That’s quite a large swing.
Chris H., I wouldn’t give the GOP more than one chance in three of regaining the House in 2010 at this point.
I would like to see more than two parties as well, however without something like preference voting, a third party is unlikely to ever make headway. Mitt Romney wouldn’t be my first choice in a GOP primary, but I would gladly rank him as 2 or 3, so that I don’t “throw my vote away” if somebody I prefer more (last time it was Thompson) isn’t as popular as he is.
Clark: Huntsman doesn’t strike me as much of a libertarian. More of a “third way” Republican, much like John McCain. Ron Paul is a prototypical libertarian, and somehow I don’t see he and Hunstman seeing eye to eye on too many things.
I think Obama successfully destroyed the Huntsman threat in 2012 by sending him to China. I agree with Mark D that Huntsman will remind Republicans of McCain more than anything else. The response from the Republican rank-and-file to a Huntsman candidacy: yawn. We’ll have to wait and see if they can get excited about Romney.
Huntsman is far more articulate and intelligent than McCain.
I seriously doubt that Huntsman could have ever competed for the 2012 repub nomination. He got to moderate at the end. I think he might have lost in the repub primary even.
I see the pendulum swinging back politically as it always does. I predict a 3-20 House pick-up for the Repubs and a 1-3 pickup in the senate because of that pendulum swing.
Here is a fact that all people interested in this issue have to deal with: Sarah Palin excites the Republican basis. She does. I live in Republican base territory in northern Colorado. When Sarah Palin came to town in 2008, she filled a 30,000-seat stadium with two days’ notice (there were another 5000 in an overflow room). When McCain came alone, there were half that number.
So, the challenge for the Republicans is: how do you capture that excitement and mobilize it without actually having Palin as a candidate, because we are talking Barry Goldwater II if Palin is our candidate in 2012. The challenge for Dems is: recognize that the Palin phenomenon is real and stop making fun of the people who support her because some of them are people who ended up either not going to the polls in 2008 or even voted for Obama because he promised they wouldn’t raise their taxes.
The secret to Bush’s 2004 victory was that he mobilized just enough of the Palin base to win. The Republicans in 2012 have to find a way to do that again, or it’s Obama for another four years (with a renewed mandate, etc).
I was referring to Huntsman losing in the Utah repub primary for Governer up above.
“recognize that the Palin phenomenon is real and stop making fun of the people who support her”
I do not make fun of people who support her, just her.
Anyways, this phenomenon works both ways. My mother voted for the Democrat for the first time sine becoming a citizen in the early 1980s because she was so turned off by Palin.
You have to admit, if Bush’s 2004 strategy is the only way the GOP can win (and I think you are very right on that), the GOP is hurting badly in the demographic battle.
I think that is where Mitt, and any number of the other major names in the GOP right now, are going to struggle. They are going to struggle to get the popular excitement that Obama did, or even Palin in your Colorado example.
I do not think McCain’s problem was so much his policy positions, but his horrible campaigning style (plus add the economy and Pres. Bush into the mix). He came across as so old (and appealling the the 1980s did not help. Mitt’s challenge is this: can he rally the right when he is not the alternative to the hated McCain. The South will fall in line. The GOP has been jerking them around for a while, where else are they gonna go.
bbell,
What would have happened would be that Huntsman (who I do not think would have run for a third term anyways) would have been threatened in the GOP convention by the right, forcing a primary. Then in the primary, the good people of Utah would have reject the crazies in the Eagle Forum, and strongly backed Huntsman (This happen to Leavitt and couple of time). I like that about Utah.
Chris H, there are three problems with the “Dem victory is nearly inevitable because of demographics” meme. The first is that the census will give more votes to Republican-leaning states. The second is that as Latins spend more time in the U.S. they inevitably start moving against bloc voting. The GOP has an opportunity (demonstrated by Bush in 2004) of capturing a greater number of minority votes. The third is that if the economy continues on its current path, Obama faces a major hurdle. Take from an amateur economist: the economy may recover slightly in 2010, but the recovery will be shallow and won’t last long. The only thing that will get the economy moving again is either A)big-time spending cuts or B)income tax cuts and corporate tax cuts or C)a combination of the two. Obama has not shown an inclination to take any of these measures, and you can take it to the bank that we will still be facing 9 percent-plus unemployment in early 2012 if we continue on our current course.
Chris,
What do you think of my theory that the pendulum will swing against the Dems in 2010? Not enough to take back one of the chambers but enough to make a decent dent in the majorities.
What is a “meme”?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meme
bbell, the pendulum will swing back, it is part of our party system/structure. However given the current situation of the GOP, I cannot imagine that it will be soon. This is early 1960’s territory. It is going to be a long journey in the desert.
One reason why I do not see a change in favor of the GOP is that they are having a difficult time recruiting strong candidates in states where they might have a shot. This details matter.
Geoff,
“The second is that as Latins spend more time in the U.S. they inevitably start moving against bloc voting.”
You are talking about a decades long process. Luckily for the Dems, the right is doing a great jobs of encouraging Latins to stay and make themselves comfortable in the Democratic Party.
Take it from a professional political scienctist: This is not a brief detour for the GOP, it is deep crisis. I appreciate your hope and optimism. Dream on.
In that case (having looked it up), it is not meme, but my observation based on my knowledge of political behavior research. Do not mess with me. I will have to send nasty messages to you on Facebook. 🙂
Chris H, a key number to follow: unemployment among Hispanics, which is currently above 12 percent.
http://thehispanicinstitute.net/node/1638
Utah is probably the most Republican state in the country. However, it is true that the majority of those Republicans aren’t exactly movement conservatives. Stick-in-the-mud conservatives more like. Straight down the middle split-the-baby make-everyone-happy establishment politicians have no trouble getting elected here, at least at the state level. Herbert will probably be the first “normal” conservative to be governor here in half a century. Of course that remains to be seen.
The GOP may indeed be in deep trouble at the national level, but all I can say is that the Democrats are doing their very best to make sure that state of affairs doesn’t last very long. If they governed as left of center moderates, with a bit of fiscal discipline and a robust national security policy, they could probably run Washington for the next twenty years. As it is, I give them less than 10% chance of winning the presidency in 2012.
Of course, that may be part of the strategic plan – spend several trillion dollars and make the conservatives pay for it. My preference would be for a balanced budget amendment with a 2/3 majority required to override and a requirement that exceptions be paid in full within ten years.
Mark, for all the time you drive my crazy, there are comment like #36 that just make me chuckle. I am just glad that your “preference” will have no political power any time soon.
Huntsman and Leavitt are great man. So they were not right wing enough for you.
“men” that is.
Blogging and watching LOTR is not working out well. That last sentence in 37 should read:
Huntsman and Leavitt are great men. Sorry they were not right wing enough for you.
The legistatures of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming all petitioned for a constitutional convention to consider a balanced budget amendment. All of those petititions except three are still standing. A handful of additional states, and there would be one. Ohio was apparently considering it just last year.
Constitutions in thirty-two states require that their budgets be balanced, and virtually all the rest have statutes to that effect.
That states are required to have balanced budgets is why it is so important for the national government to be able to run deficits in time of crisis. The idea that a balanced budget is a high end principle is one i will never understand (and one you and I will never agree on).
I also do not think it is an issue that resonates politically. It made mcCain look pretty out of touch.
Also, I would need to see citation for your list of states.
As far as the numbers go, see Russell L. Caplan, Constitutional Brinkmanship: Amending the Constitution by National Convention, pg 83. Most sources count thirty two states, with two more required for a constitutional convention on the subject.
As far as a list goes, the best source I can find is here. Petition dates for 37 states are listed. If you scroll up, the specific state legislative resolutions for each petition can be found.
A handful of states have rescinded their balanced budget amendment petitions, however it is unclear if that has any effect on when a convention must be called.
Correction: Those are references to entries in the Congressional Record. I intended to close the link after the word “here” as well.
I don’t think we need a balanced budget amendment, but I do think we need, as a general policy position, to agree that the budget should never go higher than XX percent of GDP and that there be a plan to bring the budget back in balance within four years when deficit spending is temporarily needed. The course we are on right now is not sustainable.