site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  16d ago (text post)   26871 thread views

U.S. Election (Day?) 2024 Megathread

With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.

If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.

If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.

Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Muslims didn't vote for a woman

Absolutely shocking, I say. Maybe the democrats will finally learn their lesson about pandering to this particular demographic

I haven't seen it discussed much, probably because Harris didn't lean into it, but the elephant in the room is that maybe America just doesn't want a woman president?

I think we'd elect an Iron Lady, but Harris and Clinton are the opposite of that.

Clinton seems to me to fit an iron lady archetype very well. (Kamala the Brat, less so.)

I can see the headlines now:

Trump beats women

I'm following Ken White and some other usual suspects on bluesky. If she does lose they're already prepping that narrative hard. Lots of "the votes of racist misogynists aren't valid expressions of democracy"

I’ve been watching NBC, and they just talked about that too. (Paraphrased) “If Harris loses, it might just be proof that Americans won’t vote for a black female president.”

There have been two notable female candidates for the American Presidency in the last half century. One was a clearly ambitious, unprincipled, anti-charismatic party member with debatable interest in legality who ran because it was her turn and the party machine cleared the way. The other was Hillary Clinton.

There are jokes about which was the better role model for young women, but the key point is that neither ran or rose the position on the power of their popularity. This is something of an obstacle in democratic elections, which are basically weighted popularity contests.

I think Hillary would be the better role model. Harris is just as venal but a lot stupider.

I'd like to be able to contradict you, but I don't actually know anything about her, and it looks like I'm going to keep it that way.

I think the Democrat coalition contains a lot of small but important demographics (Muslims, evangelical blacks etc.) who are very firmly opposed to a female President, for many of the same reasons that they're opposed to LGBTQ stuff. This fact makes DNC staffers uncomfortable, so they ignore it, but if they want to win elections, they won't be able to ignore it forever.

I actually don't think the idea of the Republicans putting forward a successful female candidate in the next decade is completely implausible.

A republican woman President is completely plausible, but the problem is that there aren’t many matronly Republican women in senior state positions, the default look seems to be a bimbofied Fox News anchor (just look at what they did to Kristi Noem) which I don’t think people see as particularly presidential.

The odds that the next Democratic presidential nominee is a white male are 100%.

I recall seeing a couple articles about this leading up to the election (eg, from the BBC). I expect to see a whole lot more if Trump wins.

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