Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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:

        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:

          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