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 -
Reports are coming out that Biden will step down from the race this weekend.
My question is if he steps down from the race, will he be allowed to remain president (ie too weak to run for president but not weak enough to be president)?
ETA Here is a link https://www.axios.com/2024/07/18/president-biden-drop-out-election-democrats
While this is obviously a very different system and situation to the kinds of leadership challenges that happen fairly often in parliamentary systems, I'll make a few observations about what tends to happen in my experience.
The under-siege leader gets increasingly defiant and intransigent. Even when their position is obviously mortally wounded, they will desperately hang on and try to fight off the people coming for them. For example when Tony Abbott faced an empty-chair spill (no alternative candidate, just a motion to kick him out) that got 39% support, most observers recognised that there was no coming back from that. Abbott himself though clung on for another 7 months until finally being blasted out by Turnbull. Similarly, when the knives came out for Turnbull he made plans to call an early election before his internal party foes could get the numbers to take him down, and was stopped only by the Attorney General threatening to resign. Gillard endured two unsuccessful attempts over an extended period before Rudd finally took her down. Leaders can and will stay through wall to wall media coverage saying "X is GONE" for months on end.
The media narrative runs way ahead of the actual deciders. The news is frothy and excitable. Agitators use the media to build momentum and exaggerate their numbers. The people who actually need to gank the leader are much more slow to take that step. It absolutely can happen but it's a big deal and people have personal loyalties that are not so easily discarded. By the time it actually happens it usually has felt completely obvious and inevitable to everyone on the outside for some time. (Gillard's sudden and swift assassination of Rudd being an obvious exception).
Now we have party bigwigs openly calling on Biden to go, this is getting serious. But I'm still looking for a few more steps in escalation before I think Biden is likely to consider folding, such as a party leader (like Schumer or Pelosi or Obama) publicly calling on delegates pledged to Biden to abandon him, or an alternative candidate announcing they will try to win the nomination at the convention. If it gets to the point where Biden recognises he's going to lose regardless, he might back out then rather than forcing the issue.
More options
Context Copy link
Mark Halperin is reporting that Biden has decided to drop out. Who knows. Allegedly will not endorse Harris.
Uh oh. The Democrats may actually win the election.
Let's see how "allegedly" this turns out to be.
I don’t know how it plays out. Is it chaotic and is there a lot of snipping in the near term? Is there a rally around the candidate? Is there anger that they subverted democracy and frankly lied to the public until they were afraid their candidate would lose?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
At this point this is just circular reporting of the Axios reporting, trying to present pressure as already successful without actually citing new developments.
Here's a link to Halperin's PBS Frontline interview. It's relying on anonymous 'Democrat sources', for which there are counter-soruces 'close to President Biden' rejecting the validity of.
Mark Halperin is a Newsmax reporter, and Newsmax's party line is part of the same 'Biden will resign, Democrat sources say' push that the Axios article above is. If you compare the Axios article and the Newsmax article, you'll see they are following the same themes and narrative beats, but also with the same end-point caveats.
This is not a coincidence- this is a coordinated end-of-week media push, of which Halperin is a part of, to build a consensus going into the weekend that Biden has already agreed to resign, during a period of his personal weakness/absence/inability to counter-narrative due to COVID.
Yeah easily could be. Hard to separate fact from court intrigue.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Your own linked article doesn't say what you claim it says.
The very first paragraph of the Axios article is-
On its very own grounds, the framing of 'will persuade' (future action) indicates that President Biden has not already been persuaded, or else it would have been presented in past tense (has persuaded) to indicate success. Further, this action is to be taken by the Party congressional leaders and close friends (to persuade Biden). Biden is not the subject acting in this sentence, Biden is the object being acted upon.
Further, the grammatical structure of the claim is deliberately ambiguous in what, specifically, is supposed to occur by this weekend: you perceived it that Biden will drop out by the weekend, but the post-comma clause also refers to the persuaders, as in 'congressional leaders and close friends will persuade Biden as soon as this weekend.'
Which- from external context- we know they have to, because Biden has been pursuing and pushing forward a virtual roll call to affirm the nomination, which is supposed to kick off... Monday. Which is to say, if he didn't resign this weekend, it would be too late to convince him to drop out before he locked in the nomination. Hence this week's media reporting on the virtual roll call, and the internal party rebellion.
This puts the time suspense less in the 'he's agreed and waiting to announce it!' space, and more in the 'this is a last-minute effort we hope will succeed' space.
Which is why the article later acknowledges-
Which is to say- we're in the same position as before the article. Biden has to choose to not be the candidate, and there is no claim he's been convinced.
What there is a claim of if the attempts to try to do so-
-but, again, we go back to the point that no one is claiming Biden has been convinced to not run.
Note, further, the absence of references to key counter-actors who would have to be overcome to convince Biden. There is no mention of Hunter or Jill Biden- who have been shaping access to Biden, and have been key advocates influential to him. There's no indication of change in, or pressure by, the Black Caucus leaders who are his key pillar of support. There isn't even a claim that Obama or the Clintons have asked him to- rather, their non-position is taken as a position by inference, which is assuming a conclusion of what their silence means (such as, for example, helping Biden by not joining in / bolstering the anti-Biden crowd).
In summary, this is a pressure piece trying to shape Biden's decision on whether to withdraw, not a claim that he has decided to withdraw. The only claim on his withdrawal made is that of the belief that the pressure efforts will work by this weekend- a confident claim, but you'd expect confidence from a pressure-piece.
More options
Context Copy link
This is the culture war thread, not the small question Sunday thread. Please add more substance to top level posts, not just a single rumor and a question.
I think this is an unreasonable modding. A report by Axios that the President is dropping out this weekend is clearly big news. It isn’t a small question. It is a major issue.
Everything is a major issue lately. You can spend an extra three minutes to add more.
More options
Context Copy link
The original post didn't include anything as specific as what report you'd seen, that would have been an improvement.
I think it is nitpicking. Anyone could Google it. The act of linking something doesn’t really change anything in this context. I added a link nonetheless.
This website doesn’t have many posts. Seeing an axios report and X posts suggest “things are happening.” Isn’t it good to…discuss them? There was engagement. It was a really important story in our politics. Asking for a cite is one thing; modding it is another.
Thanks. I generally associate Axios with the thing you shout at the end of an ordination.
The shadowy and vague "Several top Democrats privately tell us" thing doesn't really add much new information. Not Worthy.
Axios! Axios! Axios!
You're taking me back.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You didn't even link the report by Axios.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They’ll just say he wants to be a bridge to the next generation and that he’s dropping out to do that.
He made statements in that direction during the campaign. It doesn’t matter what he’s said in the meantime. The media will just go with it.
More options
Context Copy link
If it happens this way it would essentially make the Dems a semiparliamentary party, one where a gaggle of congressional and ideological leaders can force out a sitting president on a relatively short notice despite not actually having the backing of primaries or anything like that for it, quite like Truss, for instance, was forced out of Tory leadership on short notice after the economic shock. Republicans, meanwhile, are now in uncommonly strong grip of their nominee, at least if these reports are be believed, with Trump easily steamrolling whatever religious conservatives there are to completely rewrite the party's language on abortion and SSM.
Which is a better way to lead a party? Dunno, but the Republican model, with its forceful leadership, would probably seem the more popular one, especially when talking about a singular executive who is expected to possess forceful leadership in general.
They already sort of are. In contrast to the Republican Party where the regional and state committees are largely seperate and operate independently of the national party, the Democratic Party's structure is much more "top-down" with the national chair holding power of the purse and an outsize influence over both the convention and the primary process. If you dont believe me, just ask a "Bernie-Bro" how they feel about superdelegates some time.
I mean, to be fair, they did undo a lot of the superdelegate system afterward because of exactly these kind of complaints. But yes the Democrats tend to be more centralized, at the very least since the Obama years, where that same centralization turbocharged a lot of their fundraising. I have no idea how much it may or may not predate that point.
More options
Context Copy link
This is also itself a reflection / downstream of how the primary Democratic Party machines are based on relatively centralized City Machines, which tend to dominate state politics, but also themselves the have (relatively) clear power differentials. The NYC political node and the California nodes, by virtue of their monetary influence for the rest of the power, have a degree of leverage over the lower party organs via patronage networks that the Republican Party lacks due to the decentralization.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don’t see why he wouldn’t remain President.
Dropping out is about whether or not it’s worth the time and money for an unwinnable campaign. Removal puts the shoe on the other foot, and asks whether the opposition has the time and power to pressure him. Or, in theory, invoking the 25th. I think that’s still unlikely.
More options
Context Copy link
Reports are he’s lost Barrack. It is now officially Joever.
Regarding whether he steps down from office or not, I doubt it. That would be a very dishonorable way to go out, but I do think there are conversations going on about whether Kamala has a better shot if she gets to run as an incumbent.
It's not really dishonorable if he's legitimately unwell. It would actually be clever to give Kamala a shot at being in front, helming any further debates, etc.
All she needs to do is get OUT the vote among women (and get traditionally uninspired young people to the polls). Hilary wasn't popular and she still beat Trump with the popular vote. Democrats aren't going to be turned off by Kamala, and undecideds that lean left will be reassured that she's not a doddering elder.
Dem voters hated her in the primary. Also the border is one of the major items this year and she was in charge of the Dems efforts. Also she is considered a known AA candidate.
Known bad candidate, but is she were to run without brakes? Could actually be powerful. In the primaries it's possible she tried to run as something or someone she's not, due to the competition and shape of the race. After all Trump did pretty well with a damn-the-torpedoes approach. I don't think she has it in her, but I wouldn't discount it entirely.
I reckon she'd have a decent shot if she went all in on a law-and-order message. That's pretty much her background but in 2020 Democrats were not keen to say things like "crime is bad" and that made her pretty rudderless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She is also a candidate able to campaign without stepping on her own feet (too much). If she's asked about abortion, she knows and is able to segue into Trump wanting raped 12 year olds to die giving birth. And, furthermore, she knows not to divert the question to the scourge of illegal immigrants rapists, which is... Not a topic Democrats should be focusing on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Him not running, so basically admitting he's not mentally sharp anymore, but remaining in office brings really uncomfortable questions for the Democratic nominee to answer (provided someone with a microphone and some reach in the public asks them).
Like "If Joe is not in condition to run, do you believe he is capable of taking charge of the most demanding office on earth? If he's not, who's in charge? Do you support this? Why aren't you (or your party) invoking the 25th? Aren't you irresponsibly gambling with the nation that there won't be a sudden crisis that will demand the President to act quickly and decisively until inauguration? Don't you think that our adversaries might see the Commander-in-Chief being unfit as a unique window of opportunity?"
If the media won't ask these questions, you can be sure the Republican campaign advertising will. "Kamala/Gavin/Gretchen/whoever thinks it's fine that america be without competent leadership for months. Should you trust the judgement of someone who leaves Dementia Joe with control of the nuclear football?"
It's not admitting that he's not mentally sharp, just that he doesn't think he has another 4 years where he'll be as on top of things as he is now.
This. The whole point is not necessarily that he's in full and total decline right now, just that the decline has started and that the trajectory is very worrying. Like, he can probably cope with his current 10-4 workday just fine. But in 4 1/2 years at the end of a hypothetical second term, who's to say it won't be a 2 hour workday, or worse? With how sharp mental decline often is, the difference between 6 months from now and 54 months from now can be absolutely massive. Stepping down is just acknowledging that his 54-month prognosis isn't good enough or likely enough. We've seen signs of decline, with the benefit of some extra retrospect, for about 2ish years I'd say? I think that was when aides started to limit his interactions in some form, including with foreign leaders, if memory serves and recent reporting is accurate.
Man, writing it out like that, 54 months... holy cow. No way he would make it.
I'm sure if the Chinese decided to invade Taiwan they'll wait until those hours as a courtesy.
What would happen is they'd do it in the middle of the night, his aides would wake Biden up and he'd insist they put him on a call with Mao so he can talk him off this.
The question is, is it better to attack during night in China so Taiwan has a worse reaction time, or during night in USA so Biden has a worse reaction time.
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
Surely just the opposite? Being self-aware of one's own limitations, especially in a context where they sneak up on you like aging does or where they make it harder to be self-aware like cognitive problems can, is much more honorable than letting those limitations hit reality unchecked.
Self-aware would have been to drop out before the debate. Honorable would have been doing what he suggested and being a one-term President.
Nothing about dragging this out, making every Democrat an accomplice and then haranguing them (some of the leaks imply he's not just a stubborn man but a deeply rude one) for complaining that you'll drag the ticket down is sensible or honorable.
The Democratic party may agree to pretend that him stepping down now is some honorable act of service. But that's just a face-saving measure.
Depends how you spin it. As the proverb goes:
More options
Context Copy link
Just depends on the outcome now. If the Dems win both houses of Congress, or even somehow Kamala wins the presidency, then he goes down as an honorable hero who sacrificed to put the country first. If the Dems get wiped out, he's the villain who hung onto power too long, and couldn't hack it, and put them in this position.
I'd say Ds taking the Senate but Rs hold the house and Trump wins the presidency is the neutral gear, and also a quite likely outcome.
If Trump wins the WH, how do Dems win the senate? They are going to lose WV. They would lose the tie break. I don’t see Trump and a dem senate.
Current 270towin map at least has Republicans projected to get to 50, Democrats getting 48, and two states (OH and MT) as toss-ups. Since presidency is tiebreaker, I have to agree with your analysis here. The two least safe seats outside of that are Texas and Florida... yeah, no chance in hell that happens. That means even if they pick up both toss-ups and all their leaners, they still lose a tiebreaker if they lose the presidential race.
More options
Context Copy link
It's unlikely, but not impossible. Strange things happen. I'd probably also give Biden credit if they hold it to 50/50 and then win Vance's seat in the special election.
R Senate candidates have had it rough since Dobbs. Statewide in general. There's always the chance a pretty blonde teenage rape victim dies as a result of a problem pregnancy.
That hasn’t happened, though, the underaged girl denied an abortion by Ohio law was knocked up by her mother’s illegal immigrant boyfriend.
What hasn't happened? Rs have definitely lost winnable races since Dobbs.
And who knows why one case becomes famous and another fades into obscurity. Why are George Floyd and Michael Brown more well known than Philando Castile? It's a mystery, but it does happen.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Of course maybe the reports are designed to force Biden to drop out (ie make it sound like a fait accompli thereby making it fait accompli)
Yes, news of the reports are evidence that so far Biden has resisted dropping out.
Obama let it leak. Seems coordinated to me. The news reports are likely part of the pressure campaign
The existence of pressure campaign - especially public reeks of desperation of the anti biden crowd. So it means it is not decided.
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
More options
Context Copy link