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 -
Ask and you shall receive!
This article summarizes some of the anecdotal concerns fairly well. As for polls, here is a source on comparisons to VP picks back to 1980, this article summarizes the four polls that asked specifically, and if you look at this YouGov poll linked in the previous roundup as an example, they have him at -8% (page 20), or -4% with registered voters more specifically, and -25% among self-identified moderates if you're trying to divine how the "swing vote" might go. Reuters/Ispos had him at -7% net, NPR/PBS/Marist at -3%, CNN -6%. The -13% was probably a less reputable poll, I was probably not cautious enough of hearsay there, but the original source I tracked down and is here.
Furthermore in at least the YouGov poll which I mentioned, and also the most recent Ipsos one, you can see independents and moderates reflect this trend, so it's not just closet Democrats. Ispos for example among n=341 independents shows a -15% net favorability rating!
So yeah, it's not just one poll, it's all of them. Obviously there's still plenty of space to go, it sounds like about a quarter to a third of voters either don't know him (Ipsos: 32% of independents, 20% of registered voters) or don't have a strong opinion right now, but given that normally VP picks provide an instant bump and only peter out later, it's big news. Polling seems to generally indicate that the upside of VPs more generally doesn't matter that much (though occasionally in their home state it does), but the downsides can move the needle. Palin for example didn't cost McCain the election (he lost by a lot) but as an example this paper thinks she cost him a whopping 2%. In national politics, that's very notable!
Thank you. I wonder if not having a direct competitor at this point is having an effect in any way. Much the same as "generic democrat" or "generic republican" can probably beat any specific democrat or republican. I think until he gets into a debate or does like a 60 minutes interview most of this is prognosticating without enough information. Palin not being able to name books or supreme court decisions is a kind of gaff/failure that moves the needle in my mind and as long as Vance can come across as even slightly intelligent he won't be impactful to the election. The fact that they're going so hard and so constantly against him with so little means, in my mind, they don't have much to tar him with. I am surprised they seem to have him out there appealing to the base though, maybe they needed to appeal to republicans more than independents.
Maybe his freshness or even appeal to republicans is a reason to pick him, but maybe it's just that Trump can stand him and considering the volatility of trying to get a VP that might publicly disagree with Trump and get Trump to start huffing and puffing at his own party it might be better to pick an "unlikable toady" than someone who might cause Trump to gaffe himself out of the election. It heads off Trump tripping over himself down the line. Who knows what strategy was put into the choice or if there wasn't any at all, really. Trump feels like a black box that you can't mess with if you want it to perform, if he decides it's JD Vance, then just let it be and try to make best of what you have.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link