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 -
https://x.com/IAPolls2022
Latest Nate Silver polls are Trump 55, so it seems that polymarket picks up trends (and is noisier) somewhat faster than the model. Or that Nate Silver has slight Harris bias.
I don't think that polymarket can be manipulated (delusional yes though) - it is too niche to move voters.
What is interesting is that the media is moving slowly against her - I think that this is just a backfire of not giving at least token respect to the journalists/keyfabe. But coronations have risks. I think that Biden's Kamala endorsement was just a brilliant fuck you to obama.
55% vs 60% sounds like a pretty normal difference in estimating likelihood of low frequency events that both add up to 'this thing is more likely but not so much so that the other happening would be a shock'. I wouldn't call it evidence of major differences between models or evidence of bias.
Didn't imply anything of the sort - just that nate just made a post about polymarket overestimating Trump and then his trends moved into the same direction, just a day or two later - so lets see if it will get to 60 in next few days.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, markets are a leading indicator.
If Silver only looks at the current polls without looking at momentum, his predictions are going to be slightly late and wrong. In the era of true betting markets, there is no longer much value to Silver's data aggregation methods. Even though he has one of the best models, the market will do a better job still.
Silver is also a biased Kamala supporter who tends to tweet about positive Kamala polls more than negative ones. But I trust him enough to say that he will ignore his biases and go where the data leads.
Nate Silver's analysis is upstream of the Polymarket prices, in the sense that everyone who trades serious amounts of money on Polymarket is reading Nate Silver and either agrees with him or has a good reason for disagreeing.
Both polls of superforecasters and prediction markets are ways of aggregating a range of information including the opinions of bona fide subject matter experts (which Nate Silver is), not a substitute for subject matter expertise.
More options
Context Copy link
I've seen some recent podcasts where Silver is a guest and he seems to think the blue tribe still underestimate Trump. If he is a Democrat, at least he's taken his blinkers off.
Silver is tentatively on my very short "Good Pundits" list in that he seems to honestly eschew bias in his prognostications and is completely willing to tell his own side when they are being utterly stupid.
His willingness to throw down bets on his own arguments is also promising.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To his credit, he's open about his bias.
Yes. I see him as a fundamentally honest person who is more resistant to groupthink than the standard Cathedral member. His behavior during the pandemic reinforced this belief in me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not really following the happenings, what did he do, and how was it an FU to Obama?
Bident endorsed Kamala instantly. Obama delayed his endorsement almost a week. The rumor mill was that: Bident was threatened with 25th section 4 if he doesn't drop. Eventually he folded. Obama was considering her slightly less charismatic, skilled, electable, and competent than a 2x4 piece of lumber. His plan was to have a mini convention and then someone that is not fucking kamala harris - to come forward. And biden immediate endorsement threw mightily off the rails those plans, so Obama wing were stuck with a candidate that will make their lives harder.
Because someone like Mark Kelly would have wiped the floor with trump without breaking a sweat.
Would Biden really gun for a Trump victory in order to defeat his real enemy, Obama?
He wouldn't be gunning for a Trump victory, he'd be absolving himself of the blame for a Democratic defeat.
Regardless of what Obama may or may not have intended a convention to go, two of the facts that were critical to Kamala's consolidation of being nominee was (1) her head start on all other candidates with her campaign media (some starting the Sunday after the Saturday-ish media covering Biden's step down, meaning all the other main political rivals and their support staff were home for the weekend), and (2) her legal inheritance of the Biden campaign war chest. The later of these was already known and being speculated about even before Biden's resignation, and the former was clearly pre-planned at the time given the dynamics of the surge flooding the media space. Again, no matter what Obama or others might have wanted, these dynamics were already in play and smothered potential for a viable convention.
What a Biden endorsement of Kamala does is flip the script of the pre-stepdown narrative of Biden as the responsible actor with agency (if Biden loses this, he put himself before the Party) to Biden as the non-primary agent (Biden ultimately put the Party before himself). This puts the agency in the actors/leaders of the Party who led the confrontation- namely, Obama and Pelosi among others. Except Pelosi has already largely retired from active politics (and is very old), whereas Obama specifically lives in the DC area to remain engaged in party politics.
Whereas a contested political convention might have produced an absolving 'well, no one's at fault especially not me' dynamic (or, more plausibly, everyone blaming eachother, but not one specific person in general), and Kamala coronation puts the agency/responsibility for the results of that one the part of those who arranged it- which goes back to the Obama wing of the party. Note further that Obama never actually publicly opposed Kamala, so any post-defeat gripings would be significantly undercut by his agency in putting her in the position in the first place.
Bringing this back to Biden, there's basically a political binary after supporting Harris. Either Kamala wins- in which he has backed the winning horse / has a higher relative influence than he would have had he held out / Kamala's favors to him likely include the protection of his political dynastic interests- or Kamala loses. If Kamala loses, however, the fault is not his- it's either whoever failed to support her (if a key wing of the party rebels), or it's the fault of whoever put her in the first place (the Party leaders who ejected him). The Obama wing of the party suffers whatever intangible consequences there are of having backed three losing candidates (Hillary, Harris, and Biden who they themselves ousted) and bringing Trump into office twice.
It might be to the Party and/or Obama's interest that Biden have not supported Harris in a purely 'Trump minimization' perspective... but this route is also a route in which Biden could also be blamed for a failed convention (which itself could be a defeat condition), which would serve Obama's political interests but hardly Biden's. And also if the party actually wanted a Trump-minimization strategy in the first place, there were many other things they could have done over the last few years other than pave the road for MAGA's return.
Thanks for the explanation, it was a real head-scratcher to me how anyone could be upset at his endorsement, but it makes sense now. Though it's some real Game of Thrones shit, and more cunning then I'd expect from an 80 year old man.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah I don’t think Biden disliked Obama that much historically but it’s easy to see why he might feel very betrayed at being essentially forced out.
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