site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  17d ago (text post)   26883 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.

Separate from the presidency itself, it looks like a takeaway from the night is that the Republicans are taking back control of the Senate.

Assuming Trump wins, this would give the Republican party to make various federal appointments, including Supreme Court judges. Four of the current judges- Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, and Roberts- will all be 70 or older next year, and all of theme are Obama, Bush, or H.W. Bush appointees. Meaning long-term implications for the balance of the court if any, especially Sotomayor, does, though alternatively entrenching a Republican justice in place if the oldest (Thomas) leaves.

Not clear at this point but maybe possible is a government trifect if Trump wins the presidency and the Republicans win the house. While potentially very powerful, the narrow Republican majorities will likely limit any organized effectiveness of this, bar some signature legislation push.

The Senate control looks to be, while not quite best-case, pretty darn good for the GOP, but it's not totally settled. This is actually a very, VERY big deal. We might be in the weird situation where the House margins are way more tight -- all eyes are going to be on Johnson for the next few years (assuming he even survives)

If Sotomayor doesn't make it to the next D President, she'll look as dumb as RBG not resigning under Obama.

I've noted before that this campaign has been awfully short on signature legislation. Is that strategic ambiguity? Is it a crippling fear of 🤓 emoji? Is it a tacit admission that our most salient problems are unusually vague? No idea. But I'm betting Supreme Court decisions will be the closest we get to a lasting legacy of the next President.

Kavanaugh has exceeded my expectations. Barrett has not. I don't even think I have an opinion on Gorsuch. Not thrilled about the prospect of one or two more Trump picks.

Trump didn't talk legislation because he didn't have to. Lingering economic goodwill from his 4 years was plenty for him to campaign on.

I think the reality is that Kamala's signature legislation would have been farther left than she's comfortable campaigning on.

Trump couldn't get border wall funding from Congress with R control of the House and Senate. I don't think his campaign expects a new Congress to be very supportive, so why bother with some bold legislative promise.

Legislative promises during the Presidential campaign always seemed kind of weird custom to me. It's literally not part of the job.

Is it a crippling fear of 🤓 emoji?

I'm old. What does this mean?

Fear of getting shoved in a locker for talking like a nerd.

https://em-content.zobj.net/source/apple/76/nerd-face_1f913.png

Here is an enlarged image of the nerd face emoji.

"Nerd", generally in long form.

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