site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   29967 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 1, 2024

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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

An American Cincinnatus, he ain't.

The Democratic party's post-debate woes continue. In the last few days, talking heads seemed to be converging on a new consensus: Kamala Harris is the only way to beat Trump. First of all, she is the only candidate that can be hot-swapped in without having to build a whole new campaign infrastructure. More importantly, the intersectional implications of passing over a woman of color in 2024 are beyond the Democratic party's ability to contemplate. And, finally, Kamala is not polling worse than Biden.

Though the details of her career are cringe-worthy, and insults like "cackle" and "word salad" seem to attach themselves easily, Kamala is still mostly an unknown to the American people. A well-managed media campaign, which limits unscripted appearances, will be able to put her in the best light. It's only 4 months to the election. "I'm With Her 2.0". It just... might... work.

There's one problem: The dinosaur won't die.

At a rally in Wisconsin today, Biden said unequivocably that he won't be stepping aside

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2024/07/05/president_biden_theyre_trying_to_push_me_out_of_the_race_im_staying.html

In 2020, you came through for me. I am the nominee of the Democratic Party. I'm the nominee of this party because millions of Democrats like you voted for me in primaries all across America. You voted for me to be your nominee, no one else. You, the votes -- the voters, did that.

Despite that, some folks don't seem to care who they voted for, well guess what? They're trying to push me out of the race.

Let me say this as clearly as I can -- I am staying in the race! I will beat Donald Trump! I will beat him again in 2020! By the way, we will do it again in 2024.

Yes, he did have another senior moment at the end there. But overall it was a forceful demonstration that he isn't going anywhere.

This complicates things considerably. The Democrats have about 4 weeks until state ballot deadlines force them to nominate a candidate. I do think Biden is right. Most Democrats want him gone. They voted for him in the primaries but now he's a liability. But how will they get rid of him? It's not so easy, especially without blackening the reputation of the party. Will the long-buried Biden hair-sniffing stories finally see the light of day? Or will the media come back to Biden's corner now that he's fighting back?

Trump has plot armor. I cannot believe how goddamn lucky the guy is. "'This Will Be The End Of Trump’s Campaign,’ Says Increasingly Nervous Man For Seventh Time", was published eight and a half years ago. Just when it seemed like the walls were finally closing in, he gets bailed-out by a double whammy of the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and his opponent publicly going senile. Losing in 2020 might actually end up in his benefit, because now he gets to control the Republican Party for 12 years instead of just 8.

I keep seeing ads from Democrats that lead with the idea of "protecting democracy". Are they trying to convince independents and Republicans, or are they trying to convince themselves? A Trump victory (especially if he wins the popular vote) would be a democratic ratification of Jan 6. It would be a rejection of the charges against Trump. If Trump wins 2024 bigger than ever before, the entire big-D Democrat philosophy collapses in on itself in a tapestry of self-reference paradoxes. A Trump victory is not only figuratively unthinkable, but literally unthinkable.

I think democrats have no one to blame but themselves. They absolutely lack party discipline of any sort. They could have told Biden he was done at any point between January and now and they knew that he was slipping mentally, and for whatever reasons they decided not to do it much earlier. So now they’re stuck.

Alternatively, this is the failure state of too much party discipline.

Biden is the leader of the Democratic Party, not the other way around. The American system is not a European parliamentary system, and there is no 'They' to tell Biden he was done: there is no list-control element that could keep him from running again, and he's the one whose allies and loyalists are in the positions of control of the national party infrastructure. That's why the primary season was reorganized to the benefit of state (state politicians that backed Biden in 2020), and why the national convention was being converted to a dial-in convention even before the debate- Biden is the leader of the party. Party discipline is discipline to him.

What's occurring now is the breakdown in discipline because discipline was used to drive into a crisis against misgivings. It was precisely the discipline that previously suppressed doubt and kept alignment, but discipline then breaks when respect and trust break.

I don't think it's "lack of discipline" so much as the DNC leadership hasn't really adjusted to the new normal. They're acting like they still have the capability to manufacture consent/consensus that they did 10 - 15 years ago, but the thing about burning trust for near tearm gains is that it inevitably screws you in the long term.

Like, @pigeonburger says below, they thought they could Jedi Mind-trick the public into seeing what they wanted them to see only for the public to pull a Watto.

A 2012 DNC wouldn’t have been able to cover up that debate performance, I don’t think. Biden looked like a dead rat for two hours on live TV.

Instead I think they were some combination of 1) lying to themselves(‘Biden’s not a good public speaker’ ‘He’s slowing down but not senile’) 2) thought it wasn’t as obvious(maybe stimulants before the debate? Maybe didn’t think to check him after 4 pm?) 3) didn’t think too hard about it 4) caught between a rock and a hard place and trying to rationalize.

I feel like 2008 - 2010 was the tipping point. The one-two punch of the Iraq War and TARP broke the dam. The coverage of the tea-party and Trump eroded it further, and Covid became the final nail in the coffin.

Edit: to clarify a bit, i dont think Biden did as bad as he has been portrayed in some circles, but after months of the official narrative being that "Joe's sharper than ever, anyone suggesting otherwise is a russian troll" his debate performance might've well been a public execution.

Edit: to clarify a bit, i dont think Biden did as bad as he has been portrayed in some circles, but after months of the official narrative being that "Joe's sharper than ever, anyone suggesting otherwise is a russian troll" his debate performance might've well been a public execution.

I agree with this and I think you gesture at an important point - a lot of credibility was put on the line and invested in the claim that Biden is doing just fine and any claims of mental health decline are just misinformation, and now that credibility is going up in smoke. Sure, a lot of people will just not care or forget, but some will remember this the next time the party needs them to believe something that doesn't quite seem true.

They had party discipline. Party discipline said not to admit to Biden's weakness. What they lacked is the ironclad control over public perception that they thought (not without good reason!) they had.

Basically, they thought they could Jedi Mind Trick the entire world into thinking they did not just see a clearly, obviously senile POTUS.

I don’t know why they didn’t just refuse to participate in the debates. Say Biden already debated Trump many times, and that Trump’s ‘a clown whose ungentlemanly conduct makes respectful debate impossible’. Obviously still looks weak, but most of the public would ignore it, on the day they’re not thinking “I haven’t heard from Joe in a while”.

Because they were the ones who wanted the debates. You're after-the-fact rationalizing that participating in the debates was an obviously wrong decision that everyone could see in advance, when two weeks ago before the debate everyone could 'clearly' see that Biden could expect to do reasonably.

Biden didn't just refuse to participate in the debates because he was the one who needed them to shake up a contest he was gradually losing. Trump approached from the position of having a consistent and enduring lead he could stand to lose; Biden was the one approaching from a position of having a consistent and enduring trail that would lead to loss if not changed.

To bring a card game metaphor: Biden had to make a bigger gamble because he was behind and couldn't count on average scoring to pull him ahead. The fact that the gamble failed, doesn't mean the game wasn't appropriate.

I don't know why we're discounting the possibility that the decision was made by Biden personally, and Biden is either in denial about his condition or otherwise not a rational actor.

I think they tried to do it in a way that saved face, by demanding a bunch of conditions that they didn't think Trump would agree to. But he called their bluff, and they were stuck.

They miscalculated. Either they thought the terms they offered for debate (e.g. cutting off mics) would get Trump to refuse, or they thought their candidate would make it through, either because they were mistaken/fooling themselves as to how bad off he was, or because he wasn't as bad when they made the agreeement.

The simplest answer is that Biden's the one making that decision and he thinks he's as sharp as he's ever been. Im sure he also thinks he won the debate and the current panic is all down to a hostile media environment.

After watching his post-debate interview with Stephanopoulos, I think you're right. Biden genuinely believes all his bad poll numbers are wrong/biased and his true level of public support is much higher.

Idle tongue-in-cheek thinking: if the Democrats really want Biden out - for they can't make him give up the candidacy - perhaps they could disqualify him from the presidency by impeaching, convicting, and removing him from office. I first thought that sounded like a path they might be able to expect full support from the Republicans on-

-But what kind of opposition would they be if they weren't reflexively contrary? Which in turn brought to mind, well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbados_4–2_Grenada

In the 1994 Caribbean Cup, the tournament organisers implemented a variant of the golden goal rule: the first goal scored in extra-time not only won the match, but was also worth two goals. Barbados needed to win the match by a margin of at least two goals to qualify for the final over Grenada. Barbados led the game 2–0 until Grenada scored in the 83rd minute, bringing the score to 2–1. Barbados then deliberately scored an own goal, tying the game at 2–2, to force extra-time so that they could take advantage of the golden goal rule to achieve their needed two-goal margin.[1] This resulted in an unusual situation: for the last three minutes of the match, Grenada tried to score in both goals. Either outcome (3–2 on points, or 2–3 via goal difference) would have advanced them to the finals, while Barbados had to defend both goals. Ultimately, Barbados was able to prevent Grenada from scoring, forcing extra-time. Barbados then scored the golden goal to win the match.

It's funny to think about, but I expect it wouldn't be nearly as fun to live through.

“Et tu, Brute?”

Biden got shivved last night. It was less of an interview and more a desperate attempt by George Stephanopoulos to convince Biden to step down. The narrative is moving from “Biden is senile” to “Biden is desperately clinging to power and is refusing to do what is best for the country.”

The critical moment was when Stephanopolous asked Biden if, “like Trump,” he was just running to pursue his own self-interest.

Biden’s choice is to “die” a hero or live long enough to see himself to become a villain. It seems like Dark Brandon has made his choice. It’s looking he is going to try to run out the clock to the convention. The Dem’s last play at that point would be to invoke the 25th. Or maybe they’ll slip something into his drink. Nobody would be surprised given his age.

In any case, we are living through a throughly dramatic and exciting piece of history. This will be a fun trivia question in 200 years (but not really—the robots won’t play trivia and if they do, the questions will be a lot harder).

I hope Biden survives long enough to see himself become disgraced and cursed by Democrats if he actually hangs on long enough to lose.

I've thought that Biden is Ruth Bader Ginsburging himself. He could have quit at his peak and been fondly remembered. Or stick around just a few years more and spoil it all.

I know there was a sense of, "wtf..." when she died, but surely her legacy wasn't tarnished to the extent Biden's might be. At worst, her legacy has only been significantly diminished in degree what with the whole abortion thing.

Or maybe they’ll slip something into his drink. Nobody would be surprised given his age.

Someone else suggested a false-flagging MAGA assassination. I'm prone to despairing that "Nothing ever happens," but if this were carried out convincingly it would be devastating for discourse. And yet I can't predict whether or not it would even lead to a D victory in November.

but not really—the robots won’t play trivia and if they do, the questions will be a lot harder

Two robots can play chess with each other right now, but humans still do it because it's fun and challenging for us. I walk in the park even though jets can outpace me.

but not really—the robots won’t play trivia and if they do, the questions will be a lot harder

Two robots can play chess with each other right now, but humans still do it because it's fun and challenging for us. I walk in the park even though jets can outpace me.

I think the implication - possibly tongue-in-cheek - was that robots will replace humans within 200 years.

If someone with a MAGA hat somehow managed to kill Joe Biden, there would immediately be conspiracy theories that it was a false flag. Probably most Americans would believe him- he's the friggin' president! Anyone well functioning enough to be capable of killing him is well functioning enough to know that the best move for MAGA is to have slow joe at the top of the ticket against Trump! This isn't a small town mayor where a sufficiently dedicated homeless schizo could assassinate him- he's one of the best defended figures on the planet. Tell me, what's more likely- an organized conspiracy by people who regard him as nonthreatening due to senility and incompetence which is capable of penetrating the secret service and yet so clownish as to betray their motivations or an organized conspiracy by people who really want him to stop kicking own goals which they try to pin on the other side?

After Covid you simply cannot convince me that we can assume the most likely explanation for anything will even be mentionable in polite company. I know you like to explain to us how the real blue-collars are talking to each other, but man, the people with nice houses and nice jobs are really, really careful about observing what they're allowed to say.

This is a fair point, but most people do not have nice houses and high status jobs, and voting is a game of, well, the masses.

...And even amongst the people with nice jobs and nice houses there are plenty who live in "Red" areas.

I feel like there's a tendency here to forget that there are tech jobs outside of FAANG and Silicon Valley startups, and that there is serious engineering work being done in states like Tennessee and Texas.

But as you say, voting is a game for the masses, and perhaps this is why the democrats suddenly seem so keen to "protect" democracy from bad outcomes. Ie things the masses might vote for.

Well yeah, that’s definitely not everyone with nice houses and important jobs. Actually nice houses being what they are(much more affordable in red areas), nice house owners probably tilt red. You can be a petroleum engineer and have, fairly openly, whatever opinion you want.

Out of curiosity, am I the only one will never get over Kamala Harris's insane questioning of Brett Kavanaugh, asking him over and over again about whether he has discussed "Bob Mueller or his investigation" with anyone? She may actually be the most unpleasant person to listen to in all of politics.

Kamala Harris's insane questioning of Brett Kavanaugh

Wow that's a bad clip. For those without 8:00 to spare, the summary is:

  • Harris: Have you discussed Bob Mueller and his investigation with anyone?

  • Kavanaugh: Yes, with fellow judges.

  • H: Have you discussed Bob Mueller and his investigation with anyone at [this specific law firm]?

  • K: I don't remember, but if you have something you want...

  • H: Are you certain you haven't?

  • K: Is there a person you're talking about?

  • H: It's a very direct question. [repeats it]

  • Committee Member(?): Objection, you can't expect him to know everyone who works at a specific law firm.

  • Harris: Have you ever discussed Bob Mueller or his investigation with anyone?

  • K: Of course, he was a coworker.

  • H: Have you discussed Bob Mueller or his investigation with anyone at [this specific law firm]?

  • K: I need to know who works there.

  • H: I don't think you do. You can answer it without a roster of the employees.

  • K: No, I can't, particularly when you switched from "and" to "or" after the objection.

  • H: Have you discussed Bob Mueller and his investigation with anyone at [this specific law firm]?

  • K: I don't remember.

  • H: So you're denying it? I'll move on, clearly you won't answer the question.

If anything, I'm being charitable to Harris. I cut out a bunch of repetitions, insinuations, and opportunities to clarify. (I also cut out some misconduct from the crowd and quibbling by one of her allies(?) because that's not her fault.)

Not everyone wants to follow some random link to watch a video, but it's hard for a transcript to convey her smug, condescending tone as she asked that ridiculous question over and over, acting as if it was Kavanaugh that was making things difficult by being evasive. Making matters worse is the fact that she never offered a post-questioning follow-up to let people know what the hell she was talking about.

Making matters worse is the fact that she never offered a post-questioning follow-up to let people know what the hell she was talking about.

I'm not sure what would lead her to do that.

My guess throughout was that she knew Kavanaugh had spoken to a specific person at that law firm, and was looking for either a denial (which she would confront with evidence to the contrary) or else confirmation (which she would use to question its propriety). She even set up her (presumptive, but not actual) followup with "So you're denying it?" at the end.

If she didn't even do a press release detailing what Kavanaugh should have answered and why the facts are damaging to him, then I don't know what her game was. Maybe Kavanaugh was on to something with "Are you thinking of a specific person?": maybe she wasn't.

EDIT: a better theory is that she was fishing for "I don't know who I spoke to about it", but Kavanaugh never gave that answer. He only said that he spoke to fellow judges, and that he didn't know who worked at the law firm. When asked if there was another way to know if he had spoken to someone at that law firm (fishing for "I spoke with some people I don't know well", maybe) he deflected back to the roster of employees.

Maybe she just thought she would show the country her prosecutor skills by making someone squirm on the stand, but forgot that the someone was one of the top judges in the land.

It'd be understandable for even a top judge to squirm on the stand in such a situation, where the "prosecution" is playing Calvinball as Calvin. That makes it all the more impressive Kavanaugh was able to make the "'and' to 'or'" catch, as @sarker pointed out.

Unfortunately, only dorks like us Mottizens are impressed by stuff like this. For most of everyone else it's a "and the crowd goes mild" type of a reaction.

K: No, I can't, particularly when you switched from "and" to "or" after the objection.

Pretty impressive to notice something like this in the stress of hostile questioning.

It was more obvious in the real one than my summary, but yes. I was quite impressed with Kavanaugh's responses.

This is a guy who kept a journal of his daily activities while in high school. And when I say kept, I mean he still had it when appointed to the Supreme Court. "Detail-oriented" doesn't cover the half of it.

You weren't supposed to notice that. ;-)

"I'd like to raise an objection here. This town is full of law firms...Law firms are full of people. Law firms have a lot of names, there are a lot of people who work at law firms. [Protestor interrupting]. Law firms abound in this town, and there are a lot of them. They're constantly metastasizing, they break off, they form new firms, they're like rabbits, they spawn new firms [guy behind him loses composure]."

Lmao. I suspect Mr. Lee is hilarious in person. It reminds me of some factoid I read one time, which was that the most reliable way to convince someone to vote for a politician was to have him meet the politician in person.

Politicians are, almost by definition, generally likeable and good at convincing others to support them.

That's why Hilary was such a bad candidate. It's not that she's unlikeable compared to an average person, it's that she's unlikeable compared to an average politician.

Having never campaigned for anything, she was thrust into the highest levels of politics without any skill development. It would be like going right from Little League to the Majors. No matter how much coaching she got, she just didn't have the skills.

Parties should lean into the primary process in order to find the best talent.

Hilary is a bad politician, but she's the best the democrats had (have?). No democrat right now is able to convincingly articulate any stance that is amenable to the centre, much less reach across the aisle. Polarization makes the task more difficult but not impossible. I can think of no democrat politician that has any charisma or rally skills. Its all partisan loyalty displays (BLM and Pride support), polemics about how the OTHER GUYS are evil and need to be stopped (everyone anti-maga) or mildly competent bureaucrats in boring constituencies without major insanity. This last category is a GOOD category that the dems have, but theyre not gonna be winners. Perhaps Gretchen Whitmer, Tony Evers or Mark Kelly can impress with quiet competence, but they can't slug it out in an open fight with Jeb Bush, let alone with any Trumper.

Ultimately I blame Obama. He was a charisma supernova that sucked all oxygen for politicking out of the democratic party and wasted an entire generation of politicians who needed to bloody their knuckles in the machines of electioneering.

or mildly competent bureaucrats in boring constituencies without major insanity. This last category is a GOOD category that the dems have, but theyre not gonna be winners.

Are you confident of this? I don't think Biden won in 2020 due to personal magnetism. At least until the boomers die, any politician that goes on the stage and says "I will be boring and keep the status quo, I'm not scary, no sirree" can siphon of votes from otherwise culturally conservative aging population — enough to win elections at least.

Even if boomers don't like guatemalans or transkids, the ones I know all have clay feet and spook at any politician seriously threatening to reshuffle the established order. They're winding out the clock on their comfortable retirements, after all. Consider that the democrats are still 40% likely to win according on betting markets, despite the last four years and their presenting an optically horrible candidate.

I agree that normies love stability. the problem is a bland democrat is the same is a bland republican. And the worry is that the bland bureaucrat is easily bullied by conviction motivated activists. Youngkin defeated McAuliffe because boring McAuliffe flubbed and made him seem vulnerable to the activist wing of trans advocates overriding parental concerns. It is these, among MANY blind spots in the democrat wing, which is why I believe the bland normie is seen as weak: push comes to shove no one has faith Evers or Whitmer will stand up to AOC. (the enemy to me is Jayapal, but no one seems to care about her)

I agree that normies love stability. the problem is a bland democrat is the same is a bland republican.

Can the GOP front a bland republican? It seems to me the Democrats are fairly successful at channeling their radical wing's energy into bland-seeming manager politicians. By contrast, the MAGA wing will veto non-MAGA candidates, who in turn spook the normies; this is to my eyes what happened in 2022 with the red wave that never materialized.

The core difference is that, for all of BLM and antifa's blustering about the revolution, the American red tribe is a whole lot angrier about the state of politics. Psmith is only somewhat exaggerating here when he says 100% of the revolutionary energy in our own society is on the right today. Blue tribe meanwhile knows it's playing defense.

Just this week in the UK, the MAGA equivalent in Britain blew up 14 years of Conservative rule to vote for the radical populist Reform, allowing Labour to waltz into power with a laughable third of the vote. This is what I expect in the US if 2028 Republicans try to field a Nikki Haley or Mitt Romney-like.

More comments

was thrust into the highest levels of politics without any skill development

How would you explain Trump stepping directly into the major leagues and winning in 2016?

I think people, on the left, right, and center vastly underestimate the fact Donald Trump was the most famous person since Dwight D. Eisenhower to run for POTUS.

Which is partly, as a left-wing social democrat, I'm not worried about MAGA, post-Trump. Tucker Carlson or J.D. Vance or whomever is famous to political weirdos, but they're not showing up in guest spots in major motion pictures or being on network TV for a decade or referenced by rappers.

I should have phrased that differently. Political skills are mostly innate, not learned. To paraphrase Wooden, primaries don't build political ability, they reveal it.

The candidate who emerges from a cutthroat primary will, statistically, be a superior political animal to one who is simply gifted the top spot.

He’s been people schmoozing for several decades prior.

Trump did over a decade of reality TV, which is plenty of time to experiment with what people like to see broadcast, anyway.

Well that and she was full of scandals and made idiotic and preventable decisions like barking on live TV and declaring herself ‘just like your abuela’.

But yeah, a coronated politician who hasn’t been through the selection process for politicians is probably going to be less likable than one who rose through the ranks. And that’s what Hillary was.

I complained about the same thing just the other day.

Nice to know there are at least two of us for whom the memories of that time are indelible in the hippocampus. What's notable about the clip I linked is that it occurred before the Blasey Ford allegations. I can almost forgive the Democrats for pushing the Blasey Ford story because they really had a chance to take down Kavanaugh, and the Supreme Court is worth a lot of dirty tactics. But Harris's questioning of Kavanaugh about Bob Mueller stood out to me because it was so pointless (and because she was so incredibly annoying).

Though the details of her career are cringe-worthy, and insults like "cackle" and "word salad" seem to attach themselves easily, Kamala is still mostly an unknown to the American people. A well-managed media campaign, which limits unscripted appearances, will be able to put her in the best light. It's only 4 months to the election. "I'm With Her 2.0". It just... might... work.

I agree that people here discount the possibility of her winning if she becomes the nominee. It’s not above or even close to 50%, but she probably has a 20-30% chance of winning. A lot of people dislike Trump and will be willing to come out to vote against him, just like last time.

I mean, the other thing we have to add is that if Kamala were put on top the of the ticket, she would be free. She could run however she wanted. That wasn't even something she had the liberty of doing back in the primaries. I think people should never underestimate what a freed politician is capable of. Look at Trump, after all! He didn't give a damn about most politicians and it worked out. Harris could do the same.

Oh, for sure Kamala has a chance. Trump is himself, unpopular and difficult to like, and if not as far gone as Biden clearly is is definitely slowing down.

I agree that people here discount the possibility of her winning if she becomes the nominee. It’s not above or even close to 50%, but she probably has a 20-30% chance of winning. A lot of people dislike Trump and will be willing to come out to vote against him, just like last time.

Yeah, while I don't think she would be ideal, people forget that Biden in 2020 had only two arguments in his favor:

  1. He wasn't Trump
  2. He was "safe"

Now that he's apparently mentally unfit, and therefore unsafe, the only argument for him is one he shares with literally every other Democrat, including Harris.

There's little Democrats love more than a historic DEI accomplishment and if Harris becomes the nominee we won't hear the end of all of the exciting potential "firsts" she represents and the enthusiasm for smashing that glass ceiling will become deafening.

I think this is a different America compared to 2008. DEI has become more prominent and is becoming more unpopular — especially affirmative action. I’m not sure “DEI candidate” will be a net positive.

Perhaps so, it's hard to tell for sure. But to the extent that's true, it'll be true for normies - not the Democrat elites who are making these decisions. Among the elites DEI is just as popular as ever.

I agree — my point was a general election point.

Most Democrats want him gone. They voted for him in the primaries but now he's a liability.

Did they? He ran (virtually) unopposed and only got something like 15 million primary votes. They didn't need to vote for him, and they mostly didn't.

Will the long-buried Biden hair-sniffing stories finally see the light of day? Or will the media come back to Biden's corner now that he's fighting back?

It's interesting how my Reddit in the last week has been overrun with "Trump's Best Buddy Jeffrey Epstein" and "Trump accused of raping a 13-year-old" posts across a variety of subs. The anti-Trump bots are out in force and aiming low. If "Biden's Top 10 Underage Gropes" doesn't get equal roll-out, someone is shirking their solemn responsibility.

I mean don't you know Reddit is a combination of willing echo-chamber and strong top-down ideological control by partisan mods? Expecting even-handedness in this case would be like expecting /r/europe or something to be balanced about the Ukraine war.

It's not just bots from team A fighting bots from team B. Team B doesn't even get to play.

Kamala Harris is a little bit wasted as veep, when she would be better suited to a more significant role like daytime talk show host or fun aunt. As President? She seems clueless. She's never won anything like a competitive campaign, she has California cooties, and though being Black And A Woman impresses Democrats, it doesn't impress anyone else. She will also need to own the unpopularity of the Biden administration. I would rate her chances as better than Biden's, but worse than Trump's.

She's not even all that black. She's one quarter black Jamaican, one quarter Irish, and half high-caste Indian. Zero ADOS heritage in there at all.

If you simply expand the A in ADOS to include the Americas...

No, black Caribbean immigrants have notably different (usually better) outcomes in the U.S. than ADOS.

I’d say black Caribbean people should count as ADOS for obvious reasons, but according to Wikipedia they don’t consider them to. In any case, it didn’t matter for Obama and I doubt it would matter here; hostility toward rich African and Caribbean people ‘taking the slots’ for ADOS is limited to a tiny subset of wealthy African Americans in elite institutions, and their white peers don’t seem to care about the debate at all.

Funnily enough the African slaves who were sent to the US had it good in their new countries compared to the fates of those who were unlucky enough to be sent to the Caribbean or Brazil to break their backs on sugar plantations. If anything the Caribbean descendants should be eligible for first class tickets on the US racial gravy train.

On the "hereditary oppression" theory of what is wrong with Black America, ADOS experienced slavery until the 1860's, Jim Crow until the 1960's, and life under hostile white majority rule ever since. The British Caribbean abolished slavery in 1833 (de jure) or 1838-1840 (de facto) - by which point they had already repealed Jim Crow-style restrictions on free blacks, stopped trying to maintain a plantation economy by the 1860's, and brought in near-universal suffrage (and therefore black majority rule within the powers of the local elected assemblies) in 1944. Most Jamaicans in America emigrated after independence in 1962. So although sugar plantation slavery was more lethal than cotton plantation slavery, there is a pretty easy case that the descendants of the survivors suffered more hereditary oppression in the US.

ever since

So, Clinton Obama now??

If anything the Caribbean descendants should be eligible for first class tickets on the US racial gravy train.

Except their case to blaming white Americans for their plight is much weaker, and the US descendants of slaves aren't about to let them forget that.

For what it’s worth, I don’t think Kamala would be too bad. I don’t think she’s especially smart or talented, but a lot of her most cringe appearances have been a consequence of her pretending to be someone she’s not, namely a mystic person of colour speaking truth to power. Ultimately I think she’s on the side of order and capital, and is probably a fair bit smarter than she’s been allowed to express on the campaign trail. I was mostly convinced of the above points by hard leftist friends who considered them disqualifying points, whereas to my mind they make her more plausible.

Of course, whether she’s able to run as a wonk and a cop is a different story. Democratic campaign incentives probably require her to play-act the role of mystic minority. But once in power, I think she could be pretty decent, and potentially far more autonomous than Biden.

She's a total unknown, IMO. What does she even believe? I haven't the slightest.

Assuming that she's a lightweight like everyone says, her presidency would be Biden 2.0 – a weak leader who just follows the consensus of their staff members, most of whom come from the wokest corners of society.

But maybe I'm wrong. Chester A. Arthur was also supposed to be a mere catspaw and he was apparently a pretty decent President.

I wonder how much of this is self-protection? Biden opened Pandora's box (or was seen to) with prosecutions of Trump. That '10% for the big man' avenue could be investigated, not to mention the hair-sniffing and showering-with-teen diary entry. I'm sure a creative judicial approach could find ways to make his life miserable until death. Hunter certainly wants Biden to retain power and protect him, that much is clear.

Biden can just pardon himself and hunter on the way out.

I’m not entirely sure if he can, based on the Supreme courts ruling on presidential immunity (which in effect says that a president cannot be prosecuted for official acts), I’m not sure what the outcome of a sel pardon would be (at a minimum it would end up in court and cost a lot of money).

The Supreme Court's immunity ruling did not rule either way on self-pardons (because they weren't at issue).

I don’t think Trump will go after Biden, he isn’t really a central enemy the way that various prosecutors and perhaps some media figures are. He might go after Hillary but he seems mostly over her too.

showering-with-teen diary entry

I know it's fun to assume maximally salacious details, but the diary entry gave absolutely no indication as to how old Ashley was at the time.

Hunter certainly wants Biden to retain power and protect him, that much is clear.

With what endgame? It seems unlikely at the moment that the big guy will survive his son.

I don't think we should make any assumptions based on Hunter 'Drugs and Hookers' Biden having strong long-term planning skills.

Hunter has another trial coming up.

What trial?

Tax fraud.

I don't actually think that Joe winning improves the situation for Hunter with his legal troubles though. If Joe loses he can pardon Hunter on the way out.

"25A time" is a logical consequence of "too senile to run again" at this point though -- so best case for Hunter is probably "runs and loses" -- then Biden can write a January pardon along the lines of "I hereby pardon my whole damn family for anything and everything we ever did or didn't do; I am a pretty Big Guy lol"

Biden can pardon Hunter whether he wins or loses; it's not like there's takebacks on November 20th.

That's my point. I don't dispute that Hunter wants Joe to retain power, but I don't see his personal legal issues as being a motivating factor.

With what endgame?

What happens to unspent campaign cash after an election? Let's say Biden is tanking but has healthy coffers. Would it benefit a candidate to quietly accept an early loss and become thrifty in the final months, setting aside a surplus of funds as a nice consolation prize?

You can spend it on more political campaigns. Pocketing it is a federal crime that everyone who does it gets prosecuted for.

Everyone? This list looks very short considering how much cash is involved and the kind of person attracted to a career in politics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_people_convicted_of_campaign_finance_violations

It looks like campaign money can also go into charities/foundations and PACs. You seem more confident in the sanctity of these funds than I am, especially when it's in the hands of a family associated with over 20 shell companies. Maybe the Clintons can tutor them on how to run a completely above-board Foundation.

It looks like campaign money can also go into charities/foundations and PACs.

I wondered if this was the case and looked it up just before reading your comment. I'm now also wondering if this is more common than we know. The analogy I have in mind is Wikipedia. At some point, someone was the first person to publicly point out that Wikipedia takes in vastly more donations than they need to actually run the site, and oh by the way, much of the extra money seems to get funneled into leftist causes. I don't know how widely spread that piece of information is (and frankly, I haven't checked into it, so I'm hoping I'm not falling into Scott's "too good to check"). But has anyone done a broad look at what percentage of campaign funds actually get spent on the campaigns, themselves? What, in practice, often happens with the leftovers? I imagine plenty of it gets recycled into future campaigns, but how much? How much gets rolled into 'charitable organizations'? How many of those are, like, actually spending the money on real charitable things, rather than being a hiring/holding location for party operatives, as a way to keep a bench of folks on some sort of payroll? Do the different parties have different mixes of how their funds get used? Etc.

Yeah at a minimum the campaign funds could go to some sort of Biden PAC which pays a healthy salary and expenses to the family.

It’s not like Biden is going to be drawing hefty speaking fees post presidency like Obama.

I doubt that money is Biden’s motivation but saying this can never happen is silly.

That's... Not how it works. You can't pocket unspent campaign money.

I keep going back to what Rob Costa said a week ago and retweeted this afternoon:

https://x.com/costareports/status/1807080990067576943

"Spoke this morning to a couple people close to President Biden. Hard to overstate how much he dismisses the political class and media in private. Believes many of them haven’t understood him for decades, don’t get his appeal. Cares what elected Ds with real power and voters say."

There is a decent chance that Biden is just stubbornly going to hold on at this point. The pundit class is certainly going to try to manifest Biden withdrawling, but it seems to me that the average person on the street is not there yet and remains unphased by the debate.

I think it also reveals just how weak the biden campaign infrastructure is. Even if biden doesnt have the ability to get out there and prove it was just a bad night, you'd think they would be able to bootstrap or astroturf a social media campaign to get a counter message out there. Even if its transparently fake, the fact that I havent seen a trending hashtag for #RidinWithBiden is pretty pathetic. I thought they had $90 million in the bank and just bought a $50 million ad campaign? They couldnt afford some fake follers and an influencer campaign? Of course they could. They just have no vision.

but it seems to me that the average person on the street is not there yet and remains unphased by the debate.

Oh no. The average person known Biden is fully senile and thinks it's extremely concerning.

Correct.

I'd wager about 47% of the vote (so, about 94% of the Blue tribe vote) is simply "Blue Tribe good. Orange man bad." The average voter looks at Biden and goes, "Oh, yeah, that guy isn't even on this planet. But...fuck Trump." They will vote for whatever blue option is there. This is why Harris (should the hot swap happen) will end up with "A historic share of the vote for the first BIPOC womyn candidate for President" .... even though most of her voters will (again) simply be smashing that Blue Like Button.

The obvious thing that I think is being missed is that the polling data for Biden is really, really, really bad:

Again, my back of the envelope math is that about 94% of the vote is already set in stone. If all you have to work with is about ~6%, the polls can't ever do a truly wild 10+ point swing. Most of all of it is already hard locked in.

This is why it's so on-its-face hilarious that you have some (not all, maybe not even many, but some) media outlets trying to spin the post debate polls as "hey, the polls have only moved against Biden 2 or 3 points maybe" when that's something like 30-40% of all moveable (I.e. not hard set) votes. It's a huge deal, especially because debates are mostly viewed as nothing burgers in recent campaign histories.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics. Presidential race polling is one of the most potent forms of copium with an overlayer of confirmation-bias rohrshach test. See also: the UK elections wherein "polls" had Labor absolutely "crushing" everyone and actual results showing ... 34% of the national vote (this is a little apples-to-oranges as the structure of British Parliament means you can win even though you don't win a big vote share, and I acknowledge that).

I mean it depends on who you're listening to. AFAIK virtually all of the actual pollsters, rather than politicians (or anchors) who make use of polls, have said that the polling is absolutely dreadful for Biden, and that was true to some extent even before the debate. Second-hand poll users are free to make arguments about how weak the polling is, but that does not make it what the primary sources are saying, so to speak.

The danger to the DNC is mostly not that regular dem voters will vote for Trump. That's probably not happening, except for however much racial realignment is going on.

The danger for democrats is that those voters will stay home instead of voting for Biden and throw downballot races.

Granted VBM has reduced this risk somewhat as it reduces the cost of voting.

They just paid a bunch of podcasters and votebots to push #DownWithCNN, so they're actively working on what it is certainly possible to describe as a strategy.

It's shocking how badly they perform the first time they have to face a hostile media. Without Voxspainer Graphics they can't get out any kind of coordinated messaging.

Still they're in a position where unless Biden resigns or otherwise has a severe medical downgrade they've already given him the nomination.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats