3 ms·

the party may still suffer long-term consequences Two party system, long term is only long enough for the other side to screw up, so 4 or 8 years tops.

EGreg 15y ago
That's what sucks. Everyone you pick from (except Ron Paul probably) doesn't really represent you. I think Obama had really good intentions, but then he ran up against reality aka Congress.
- nekojima 15y ago
  I can not imagine anyway in which Ron Paul could ever "represent" me.
  - cgag 15y ago
    I don't think he represents me, but I think he'd actually represent the values of the people who vote for him, which I think is more than I can say about any other candidates.
    - ars 15y ago
      No he wouldn't. He would represent his own values which differ greatly from the vast majority of citizens. And he would run into the exact same reality as Obama.
      - EGreg 15y ago
        I just think that when Americans' main hope to reform their system is a 76 year old guy running for president, there is a bigger problem. Granted, this guy is an ideologically pure multi term congressman loved by many people. But if Obama got gray hair from 4 years, I can only imagine what the congress is gonna do to this fiery fellow...
bad_user 15y ago
I wouldn't be so pessimistic about it and I'll tell you why. In democracy the mass-media has traditionally played the role of a fourth branch of government. However in recent times the traditional mass-media companies ended-up too controlled, either by owners that are also in politics, by legislation, or by the sheer pressure of catering to shareholders. But if you think about it, the social changes that the Internet has brought are only starting to emerge. So IMHO, meet the new fourth branch of government: the Internet. And surely Internet companies can still be controlled, but the Internet is much more ethereal than traditional mass-media ever was and now the whole world is watching. Hello from Romania ;)
- alexqgb 15y ago
  I think this is exactly right, @bad_user. The extent to which this is true blew up last Thursday, when Arthur Brisbane, the public editor of the New York Times, went to his readers with a question: "I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." As Clay Shirky observed, the response was "swift, voluminous, negative and incredulous." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/13/new-york-times-public-editor http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/... Within 24 Hours, Vanity Fair turned Brisbane from an object of outrage into one of sheer mockery. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/01/Should-emVanity-Fairem-Being-a-Spelling-Vigilante http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/01/Should-emVani... But the most damning remarks came from readers themselves. The comments on Brisbane's post, and the one from Executive Editor Jill Abramson that followed, were absolutely incandescent. So yes, the total implosion of the 4th Estate is coming into the open. And that's a very new development. That other big difference is that 10,000 calls to a Senator's office is a lot. So what happens if they ALL get 1,000,000? It's an absolutely off-the-charts response. You know there's opposition. You expect a few grenades to be tossed. Instead, a thermonuclear bomb detonates. It's entirely possible that the response to Wikipedia's move will be the single largest driver of negative traffic in the history of Washington DC. It's the kind of searing experience that tells previously complacent politicians that, suddenly, they've got a major electoral issue. And not just on this one bill, but on literally everything they do. I agree with folks who say this cannot end with the derailment of SOPA/PIPA. It has to continue until the flow of campaign cash from lobbyists ends, and the revolving door is welded shut.
awj 15y ago
The real long term consequence that they're afraid of is pissing off enough people that they go form another party. It's happened before.

EGreg 15y ago

That's what sucks. Everyone you pick from (except Ron Paul probably) doesn't really represent you. I think Obama had really good intentions, but then he ran up against reality aka Congress.

nekojima 15y ago
I can not imagine anyway in which Ron Paul could ever "represent" me.
- cgag 15y ago
  I don't think he represents me, but I think he'd actually represent the values of the people who vote for him, which I think is more than I can say about any other candidates.
  - ars 15y ago
    No he wouldn't. He would represent his own values which differ greatly from the vast majority of citizens. And he would run into the exact same reality as Obama.
    - EGreg 15y ago
      I just think that when Americans' main hope to reform their system is a 76 year old guy running for president, there is a bigger problem. Granted, this guy is an ideologically pure multi term congressman loved by many people. But if Obama got gray hair from 4 years, I can only imagine what the congress is gonna do to this fiery fellow...

bad_user 15y ago

I wouldn't be so pessimistic about it and I'll tell you why. In democracy the mass-media has traditionally played the role of a fourth branch of government. However in recent times the traditional mass-media companies ended-up too controlled, either by owners that are also in politics, by legislation, or by the sheer pressure of catering to shareholders. But if you think about it, the social changes that the Internet has brought are only starting to emerge. So IMHO, meet the new fourth branch of government: the Internet. And surely Internet companies can still be controlled, but the Internet is much more ethereal than traditional mass-media ever was and now the whole world is watching. Hello from Romania ;)

alexqgb 15y ago
I think this is exactly right, @bad_user. The extent to which this is true blew up last Thursday, when Arthur Brisbane, the public editor of the New York Times, went to his readers with a question: "I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." As Clay Shirky observed, the response was "swift, voluminous, negative and incredulous." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/13/new-york-times-public-editor http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/... Within 24 Hours, Vanity Fair turned Brisbane from an object of outrage into one of sheer mockery. http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/01/Should-emVanity-Fairem-Being-a-Spelling-Vigilante http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2012/01/Should-emVani... But the most damning remarks came from readers themselves. The comments on Brisbane's post, and the one from Executive Editor Jill Abramson that followed, were absolutely incandescent. So yes, the total implosion of the 4th Estate is coming into the open. And that's a very new development. That other big difference is that 10,000 calls to a Senator's office is a lot. So what happens if they ALL get 1,000,000? It's an absolutely off-the-charts response. You know there's opposition. You expect a few grenades to be tossed. Instead, a thermonuclear bomb detonates. It's entirely possible that the response to Wikipedia's move will be the single largest driver of negative traffic in the history of Washington DC. It's the kind of searing experience that tells previously complacent politicians that, suddenly, they've got a major electoral issue. And not just on this one bill, but on literally everything they do. I agree with folks who say this cannot end with the derailment of SOPA/PIPA. It has to continue until the flow of campaign cash from lobbyists ends, and the revolving door is welded shut.

awj 15y ago

The real long term consequence that they're afraid of is pissing off enough people that they go form another party. It's happened before.