This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Well, Texas rep Lloyd Doggett just became the first Democratic politician to call for Biden to step down. Call me crazy, but I honestly have a sneaking suspicion that this was all planned out ahead of time. Biden looked awful during the debate. But at the after party he seemed fine, and he was beck to his old self the next day in North Carolina. I think Biden always intended to be a one-term president but that's not the kind of thing you can pull off these days barring death or permanent disability. He would have had to announce he wasn't seeking the nomination some time around last summer, at which point he would have immediately become a lame duck where he lost whatever pull he had with congress and saw half of his administration overshadowed by the other Democrats jockeying for position. There was also the traditional incumbent's advantage to consider. And there was no guarantee that whoever the Democrats ended up nominating would be better than Biden. He had to run again.
At this point, the entire Republican apparatus has had a year to prepare a campaign against Joe Biden. The attacks are pretty standard at this point — he's old, he's demented, he caused inflation, he fucked up the Afghanistan pullout, the "Biden Crime Family", etc. What happens if, at the eleventh hour, Joe Biden is no longer the candidate? Suddenly, a year's worth of planning is down the toilet. Now they'll find themselves likely up against some "Generic Democrat" on whom they will have no opposition research, no idea who his base is, no idea what his policy positions are. Meanwhile, the Democrats could have been planning this for months and have ready solutions to all the problems out there. Plus they can run on the idea "that he knew when to step aside", unlike somebody else. This is a person who didn't have to spend primary season pretending to be further left than they really were and didn't have the misfortune of months of oppo research from members of their own party. A candidate who's optimized for winning a general election.
Then there's the matter of the debates. Trump was eager to debate Biden. Maybe a little too eager. He agreed to an unusually early first debate and to a format that stripped him of the ability to interrupt his opponent and to draw on a supportive studio audience. If a new guy comes in soon, there's the possibility that he pushes for two more debates with the same rules. Trump really isn't in a position to refuse given how adamant he's been about debating. If he wants his mike permanently unmuted then he'll get criticized for being afraid to let the public hear what his opponent has to say — "He agreed to the rules for Biden because he thought he could win against Biden; if he wants to change the rules it must because he doesn't think he can win." Maybe give him his audience back as a token of goodwill. Now he's got to go up against someone who's much younger and more adept at pushing his buttons than Sleepy Joe.
The major downside is that the country collectively goes "Who?" and votes for someone they're familiar with. But this is overrated, both because Joe Biden is massively disliked in some circles and because most of the people who will ultimately decide the election aren't really paying attention until after Labor Day. Trump can and should run his "Who is Lou Lipschitz" routine for a couple months, but after that it starts to wear thin and make people think "Is that all you've got?" I don't actually think this is what will happen but I hope it will. It would make this fall much more interesting than another slow descent into a Trump presidency.
I think the main question with this is what it means to be 'back to his old self'. I did not see much of him in NC except the short clip that his campaign blasted on twitter. Best I could tell just from that, it looked like 'back to his old self' meant that he was back to reading from a teleprompter rather than hearing unscripted questions and comments from others, mentally formulating his own thoughts on the fly, and constructing cogent responses. It seemed to me like everyone in the campaign knew it was absolutely vital to survival to have some clip where it looked like he had 'energy', apart from such mental faculties, and the result was more like yelling what he read on a teleprompter than even just reading from a teleprompter. If 'teleprompter yelling' is 'back to his old self', and what we can expect in the future is competence in teleprompter yelling and not much other activity, I'm not sure that's particularly encouraging.
More options
Context Copy link
This is too clever by half. Swapping candidates puts the new candidate in an impossible position unless it is Harris, who is unpopular and subject to plenty of attacks as it is. The new candidate, like Humphrey, will be tied to every Biden policy without the advantage of being the incumbent. They'll have all the downsides of incumbency, tied to unpopular policies in Israel and at home, while having few of the advantages. If people feel good under Joe Biden, do they automatically think they will feel good under Big Gretch? Idk.
It's important to note that the one example we have of this happening, the Dems in '68, it was a complete disaster.
On a smaller scale, it also happened twice in 2002-2004 when MN Senate candidate Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash just before the election and a NJ Senator had to drop out due to corruption charges after the nomination deadline passed. The results were mixed, but there was a wave of sympathy for Wellstone which just fell short, and a burst of enthusiasm in NJ that carried the replacement candidate to victory.
With Biden, however, there is no upside to sticking in the race because the optics are horrible, and it threatens to taint the entire party if they try to push him over the line and it fails because everyone can see how desperate it is. So do you stick with an obvious and likely losing deceit, or do try something more positive?
In Missouri in 2000, Senatorial candidate Mel Carnahan also died in a plane crash just before the election, and he won.
It seems that sometimes a tragic death can be electorally beneficial. (I hope that just saying that doesn't bring the Secret Service down upon me.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The problem with this theory is all the likely Democrat candidates are poisonous in their own right.
Newsom comes up constantly, but California and his governorship of it in particular is practically a cautionary to the rest of America. Virtually the entire comedy scene had to flee his state due to mismanagement and talks about it all the time on podcast, interviews, standup specials.
Gretchen Witmer comes up, I can't tell why. The only thing she's notable for is participating in one of the few FBI entrapment plots/misinformation events that was so bad it actually did get thrown out of court.
There is Harris, but while Biden at least has the excuse of dementia, it's unclear what Harris' excuse for her constant word salads are. She polls worse than anyone.
Buttigieg I guess still exist, but has overseen possibly one of the most disastrous 4 years the Department of Transportation has ever seen. Rail disasters, air disasters, bridge disasters, you name it. It's hard to imagine failing up with that public a record of incompetence.
And that's more or less all the contenders unless Bernie Sanders wants to give it another go. But after how the DNC ratfucked him to position Biden as the nominee in 2020, I sincerely doubt they'd tap him for 2024, even if he is politically the least toxic candidate.
There is always RFK Jr... but the DNC ratfucked him in the 2024 primaries as well, and will almost certainly not tap him either.
There's another suggestion I see mooted pretty often that isn't on your list: Michelle Obama. Mostly, that she's got name recognition, a lot of the same identity politics positives as Harris without some of the latter's particular negatives, and she's only 60. I'm not sure how plausible the argument for her as a candidate is though.
Another one I've seen raised a couple times, that I do think is rather implausible, but which I'll also include for completeness, is to replace Biden with Biden… that is, with Jill Biden. Besides the usual "first woman president" thing, the argument goes that, as she's clearly one of the main people actually making the decisions and running things, she can run on this "job experience."
More options
Context Copy link
Beto is the best shot. He won’t win, but his actual scandals are a drunk driving charge that got dismissed under funny circumstances. He’s a normal white guy who at least tries to talk to proles, so he won’t come off as DEI, and the dems are enthralled enough with his lackluster political performance to bypass those concerns. He’s too dumb to try anything overly clever and willing to play towards the middle. He can at least get dem normies to show up well enough so he doesn’t throw Virginia and Colorado and lose senate races that should go dem.
I donno. He has a habit of confidently blundering onto third rails as though the entire rest of the country consist of his political consultants. Instead of mealy mouthed lies about "common sense gun control" that might at least fool enough people who care to win, he just goes all in with "Hell yes we're coming for your guns!" for example.
As bad as the "coming for your guns" is, it's nothing compared to "we should tax religions I don't like." Beto has been one of my go-to examples for why the Culture War is terminal, and the counter-argument previously was that Beto was a minor, dead-end presidential contender of no consequence. I was assured that his naked appeal to intolerance, for which his audience cheered and which the press responded to by stroking their chins thoughtfully, should not be taken as representative of Blue Tribe generally. Charitably, we shouldn't see him floated as a serious candidate now, because of course Blues wouldn't rally behind such an obviously unfit candidate.
More options
Context Copy link
Sure, but at this point actually winning the election is a tall order, it’s about giving normie dems and dem leaning independents someone they wouldn’t be ashamed to vote for so trump doesn’t win blue states and Kari Lake stays out of the senate.
Yeah, I have heard some of that talk. Replace Biden not to win the presidency, but rescue the down ballot races. Breaking Points keeps covering polls indicating that down ballot dems are doing fantastic even when Biden is polling horrendously, the theory being there might be significant ticket splitting. Personally I think it's more likely people just stay home.
I just struggle with the notion that run of the mill liberals could get excited about anyone nakedly appointed by a cabal of donors and party insiders. But then again I'm not a liberal, so what do I know? The same thing more or less happened with Biden, and I'm expected to believe he got the most votes of anyone any in history.
‘Willing to vote for’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘excited’.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Newsom’s California reputation isn’t as bad as you suggest nationally. If someone brings up how badly California is run he can reel off richest state, home to big tech, home to entertainment, major tourism destination, economic powerhouse of America, yeah it has problems but it’s the best of what America can be etc. Trump fires back by calling cities violent dumps full of crime and homeless tents, but almost all people who believe that and really care about it either live in deep blue cities in blue states (and Trump isn’t going to win California or NY) or already vote for him. Gavin can also reply that crime is much higher in red states (reasons are unimportant and even Trump isn’t going there).
More options
Context Copy link
It’s actually a bummer that Amy Klobuchar has completely and permanently disappeared from this conversation. I’ve said before that I was enthusiastic about her candidacy during the 2020 primary season. She’s still only 64 - an absolute spring chicken compared to the current candidates - with a long and unimpeachably successful political career. Now, in the intervening years she has revealed herself to be less moderate/non-progressive than she appeared in early 2020; she was an intense COVID hawk, and has been absolutely abysmal on free speech/“fighting disinformation” issues as of late. However, I would still compare her very favorably to all of the individuals you have listed. I can imagine a future timeline in which I would consider voting for her, if the Republican nominee is wacky/unqualified enough. The “moderate, technocratic wing” of the Democrats might be in full thrall, at least rhetorically, to the wacko wing at this juncture in time, but if it ever reasserts itself, she’d be a great representative on paper.
However, she appears to have been permanently blacklisted from consideration due to the absolutely pathetic complaint that, in her former capacity as county attorney in Minneapolis’ Hennepin County, she didn’t terminate Officer Derek Chauvin after some (almost certainly specious and worthless) complaints were lodged against him. Even though the Dems have largely stopped talking about George Floyd and the “Racial Reckoning”, she’s still too toxically adjacent to it to ever be a choice that the progressive base would accept. Yet another thing the Summer of George permanently stole from us.
Amy Klobuchar couldn’t name the President of Mexico over a year into his term. She sat on the Senate Commerce Committee at the time, and Mexico was our largest trading partner
(Nota bene Klobuchar doesn’t show any recognition when given López Obrador‘s name - she doesn’t go “Oh, AMLO, of course!” like anyone with passing familiarity to the leader would, but rather stares daggers at the host)
Given technocracy refers to rule by qualified experts, I’m puzzled why she of all candidates is meant to exemplify those traits?
I don't know much anything about Klobuchar, but I wonder if there exist any politicians, regardless of the smarts level, who hasn't committed at least one gaffe like that that can be conveniently brought up to go "Wotta idiot!" by the opponents.
AMLO is, if not quite a household name, someone that the politically informed could be expected to know of in the USA(although perhaps knowing what it stands for is too much).
I guess I'm not politically informed, then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What about that former astronaut? Mark Kelly.
I mean, what about Santa Claus? The nominee will never be Mark Kelly.
Why not?
The Democratic Party is all in on identity politics. They can't put some random white man on the ballot ahead of Harris.
Only a heavy hitter like Newsom could do it, and it would be a major struggle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's why it has to be an unknown with no slate of known negatives, or a celebrity who can drown out the negatives with new voters.
If either Oprah or Clooney was willing to do it they’d have been drafted in years ago.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Wicked Witch of the Midwest is also known for being one of the 5 governors to send COVID patients to nursing homes (Newsom is another), and for COVID restrictions which were arbitrary and capricious even by blue state standards. This is significant in that it means she provides no hope of bringing pre-debate RFK Jr. supporters back into the fold.
My theory is this would be a positive for Whitmer: Blue Voters don't care if the experts may have accidentally been a tiny bit overzealous in saving the world from Covid, and if Red Voters hate it, she must be onto something!
I suspect most pre-debate RFK Jr. supporters are COVID single-issue voters from the blue side of the aisle.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Normies know about the debate. The double haters, who can’t stand Trump but think Biden’s performance has been awful, know he belongs in a memory care facility. They’re paying attention right now, not after Labor Day.
Trump has also not historically taken much time to start attacking new opponents.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link