Skip to main content

View Diary: Paul Krugman asks if the election will be honored (266 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think his question is better directed rightward (10+ / 0-)

    Will the Republicans honor the result if they lose at the polls?

    Making this about what will Dems do if they win is the weaker tea. And the far less dangerous one.

    •  Republicans can't do dick (11+ / 0-)

      ...without Democratic concurrence.

      America, we can do better than this...

      by Randomfactor on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 07:58:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama can tell us now (8+ / 0-)

      whether he supports raising the retirement age for SS.  He's not been clear on that issue.

      "Mitt Romney is Dick Cheney with more charisma"

      by Betty Pinson on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 07:58:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I assumed that was the point from the Title (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cskendrick, George Hier

      It really should be directed rightward as in

      Will the Right Wing (Confederacy) Honor this election?

    •  GOP doesn't believe in Democracy (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cskendrick, rhauenstein, mightymouse

      They try to suppress the vote.  If they could write the laws without Democratic Party interference, there would be restrictions on voting according to income and wealth.  GOP is not in favor of popular vote.  Look at all of the efforts to suppress the vote.

      Whatever the GOP can do to diminish the influence of the popular vote they will.  We must always remember that if they can steal an election, they already have, and they will again.

      Dick Cheney said, "Pi$$ on 'em!" And, Ronald Reagan replied, "That's a Great Idea. Let's Call it 'Trickle Down Economics!"

      by NM Ray on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 09:32:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It is but it is also (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Calamity Jean, KJG52, maryabein, Sunspots

      directed at the President.

      ... and it looks as if Mr. Obama will emerge with a clear mandate for preserving and extending that system. It would be a terrible mistake, both politically and for the nation’s future, for him to let himself be talked into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

      "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

      by newfie on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 09:39:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Congress up for grabs, too (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        newfie, Calamity Jean

        If House stays GOP, not a thing has changed.

        If GOP squeaks by and gains Senate, it changes for worse.

        The latter scenario is unlikely. The former is.

        I hear what Krugman is saying but I don't see big changes coming no matter what... unless GOP gains and THOSE changes are for the worse (see: Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Ohio....)

        •  Absolutely. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          greenbell

          But our best case scenario likely leads to compromises that will hurt the country in the long run.  The other scenarios will hurt the country sooner.

          I hope that I am terribly wrong.  I hope that Obama takes a re-election and pushes to do great things for the country.  Or at least pushes to do so in an attempt to show how bad the GOP is and how far they will go to hurt the American people.  IF he tries to make a clear distinction between what they want to do and what he wants to do he may be able to get the House turned over in 2014.  But I really think that he will try his level best to meet them half way (or maybe a little more than half way) because that is what he has done up until now.  

          And I think people view that as him not truly believing in the platform.  He makes little to no case for his/the Democratic Party view.  He immediately begins to compromise.  So if he doesn't believe in his position why would anyone else?  That is why I think many people do not see the GOP obstruction which we see as obvious.  And why many people blame both parties.  And why many people don't think The President has done much in the way of "reaching across the aisle".  Because he hasn't really made much of a case for what he stands for.

          "You have attributed conditions to villainy that simply result from stupidity"

          by newfie on Sun Sep 30, 2012 at 10:01:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lincoln, too, in every particular (0+ / 0-)

            Sought to avoid war and partisan strife and yet received it.

            He should to avoid radical departure from convention, even at cost of respect from his own supporters. Yet the times compelled him, not in all ways but to make stands that matter.

            My point is that none of us get to define greatness ahead of time. It must be made from scratch, every time.

            •  That statement is simply not true (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Illinibeatle

              Lincoln rejected certain entreaties from southern leaders/compromisers in the period between election and taking office.

              Lincoln didn't AVOID the war. He did make sure when it happened he was on sound legal ground and that the South were the aggressors.

              An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

              by mightymouse on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 07:44:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Rejected certain entreaties... (0+ / 0-)

                I gather his inauguration address is of no account?

                It was a Dear South Please Don't Go Open Letter


                "We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
                But maybe so-called Honest Abe was just a big fat liar when he said that.
    •  short answer; No (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cskendrick, Illinibeatle

      they refused to accept that the 2006 and 2008 elections had consequences. They simply ignored them. The 2010 election had consequences, alright, though.
      Republicans are a full blown insurgency now, and being squeezed out of House leadership will definitely make them double down (everything always does, success or defeat).
      They will be worse than before, whether they are cast into the wilderness or not. It's just a matter of tactics.

      R-Money/R-Ayn, the ENRON Ticket, is not a campaign; it's a hostile takeover bid.

      by kamarvt on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 05:20:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  In earnest I do not get the 'they're all the same' (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kamarvt, orlbucfan

        meme, not after the dozen or so state-level Tea Party disasters AND last summers flirt with sovereign default.

        Only one thing is 'the same' in national politics: Republicans see ALL Democrats as the exact same threat: people who are in the way of their predator gods, the rich, getting their rightful prey (everyone else, including themselves).

        Whatever disputes Democrats have amongst themselves are mooted by the minor issue that quarrels of process and priorities pale in comparison to the existential threat to democracy itself represented by the authoritarian bent of the modern American right.

        They want us all equally gone from power, absolutely, to the last dog catcher.

        And if they have to overturn the Republic, they'll do that too.

        Which is why the big question of accepting the result of the election is not if Obama will accept a mandate.

        It will be if a rich, resourceful, well-coordinated right wing chooses to tolerate any threat to its actual power that derives from its merely losing an election.

        We have seen this in other countries where wealth disparities have climbed to lower points than what currently exists here in the USA. Such countries
        They have constitutional crises. Most do not stay democracies for long, and languish in some type of national-security regime hell for decades.

        Ask anyone you know from South America for starters. The continent is a good database from which to build a model of what might happen here.

        And South America's also a good resource for what returning to democracy looks like.

        (This is it what democracy looks like... yeah, I'm thinking it too.)

        •  it's an easy answer (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sunspots

          though not an accurate one.
          Both parties are driven by money.
          therefore it's an easy out to say money drives them both equally, and that both sides exist merely to keep getting re-elected and enriching themselves.
          Many observers see little to nothing being done for the good of the American people, but plenty being done for the power players like big banks. We recently had a fully democratically controlled federal govt, and that didn't change much in their daily lives. Therefore, it is easy to assume that all politicians are merely concerned with maintaining the status quo, a slowly decaying nation.

          IOW, a lot of people see a few symptoms and make snap diagnoses. Part of our job is to force an examination of all the symptoms. This leads not only to better voting practices, but more informed voting practices.

          R-Money/R-Ayn, the ENRON Ticket, is not a campaign; it's a hostile takeover bid.

          by kamarvt on Mon Oct 01, 2012 at 06:37:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I do think a political duopoly exists (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kamarvt

            Neither party can long survive the absence of the other. It would fission in two quickly if we remained with the same Constitution... or that lone party would quickly shove the Constitution out the door to lock itself into a monopoly on power.

            I see Democrats in that scenario as more likely to calve into two or more successor parties. (then back to two).

            I see Republicans more likely to go the single-party route. Everything in their rhetoric, agenda, processes, approach to elections and governance, etc. suggests a much higher comfort zone with authoritarianism.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site