site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  18d ago (text post)   26902 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.

Realistically, what, if anything, is going to change from a culture war perspective because of this? Will the DNC conduct an election "autopsy" to determine what they got wrong here? They outspent and our raised Trump, a convicted felon with a negative approval rating, and still could not win. Will the Democratic party take a hard look in the mirror? Will the Republican party completely abandon moderates/the establish in favor of the winning populist rhetoric? Will nothing change at all?

There'll definitely be a campaign post-mortem -- this election is nearly as bad for them as 2012 for Republicans, and probably worse than Dukakis -- but the question of what is gonna be harder, because there's both a massive amount of blame to go around, and a massive variety of explanations and excuses, and there's a lot of the progressive sphere's decision-making apparatus that both deserves and desperately doesn't want to show up anywhere but the 'acknowledgements' page of that post-mortem.

Worst case, full Joy Reid: GOP votes were because of disinformation, minority voters are self-hating and/or disenfranchised, the working class in ungrateful for the excellent Biden-Harris economy, the margins were because of the last gasp of <hated other>, so to motivate for next election the Democratic Party needs to hit harder and reach deeper to the left. To the extent the Dems have to interact with Trump and co, the problem is resolved as not being aggressive enough. I don't think it's likely and it's definitely not a plausible explanation, but it's an attractive one because it means no Democratic party member is at fault.

Middle case, blame the campaign and economy. Harris genuinely isn't a skilled politician -- it's telling how many people from her own party outran her, as much as I hate that metric -- the last-minute swap left her little chance to build a real campaign or a positive identity separate from Biden, Walz was painful (even if you don't think he was picked over Shapiro), and broader secular trends about inflation and jobs and housing just drive too much voter sentiment. There's nothing here that's wrong, and it gives a really nice scapegoat who deserves it and isn't the unnamed professionals, but it still means little if any serious triangulation or consideration on politics.

Best case, there's a serious introspection at a policy level. The Biden-Harris maximalist immigration policies were so bad that Donald "They're Eating Dogs" Trump managed to seem more reasonable and no less untethered from reality. Trans stuff weren't a big vote-mover on their own, but the spectre of Loudon County wasn't nothing, either. You can call whatever happened with crime enforcement a policy thing, you can call it inviting police departments to have a wildcat strike, but whatever happened it pretty much sucked. Rent control, grocery store price controls, and stupidly-formed gimmick tax increases aren't real policies, they're what you do instead of having a real policy.

I'm hopeful on this, because there are genuinely a lot of spaces where there's a middle-ground position that's either factually better and/or much more politically popular than the hardline GOP one, and even if they can't get compromise they can at least make their opponents pay for refusing it. An actual immigration and refugee schema with real vetting and oversight is a lot more popular than a plain brick wall, a lot of the anti-trans and anti-gay positions only look remotely palatable when compared to a school hiding a twelve-year-old's transition from the kid's parents, there's a good few serious economic and foreign policies disasters coming down the pipe, there's a reason even Project 2025 didn't try to actually support the Second-Wave-Feminist take on porn beyond a throw-away paragraph, yada yada.

But I'm not optimistic; there's a ton of upper-echelon Dem political boosters who are very tied into the maximalist position of nearly every Dem position, and very strong institutional forces against serious introspection (and worse against cooperation-with-enemies, esp if the enemies aren't likely to want to play along). Indeed, even if federal Dems wanted to play along, there's a lot of state-level stuff that's already in motion and can't be unvoted, like New York's Prop 1 or various state sanctuary city rules.

Other worst case, the retrospective becomes They Weren't Trumpy Enough, and 2028 becomes a Populism of Presentation rather than policy considerations. Jim Carrey opens the DNC talking out of his ass sorta things. I don't think it's likely, but it's possible if the infrastructure of the party misread the situation.

Based on past performance, I would guess the worst case is the most likely one with a lot of confidence. However, past performance isn't always indicative of future performance, and I do have some hope that something like the best case will happen. Political success plays out almost entirely in votes, much like business success plays out almost entirely in profits, and if some tactic keeps losing you votes or profits, well, you can only keep following that tactic for so long before you run out of your accrued capital. 2024 may be the indication that this tactic has started to hit that breaking point; the sheer number and financial losses caused by the "woke" nature of a lot of media has added up to the point that some companies have begun to figure out that simply calling fans bigots isn't a viable corrective tactic. Perhaps the Democrats will also begin to figure this out about the electorate.

Depressingly, even taking into account all that, I'd still guess that the worst case is the most likely. It's so easy to see that any political party that actually cares about winning would choose the best case and avoid the worst case like the plague. Everyone knows that echo chambers exist, everyone knows that blaming people you don't like for your own failures is extremely seductive, even more seductive than blaming external circumstances, which is already very seductive, and everyone knows that blaming anyone other than yourself doesn't help much when it comes to improving oneself for the purpose of not repeating some failure from the past. Thus if people you like and respect are telling you that it's all the bad bigots' fault that you failed, you should be highly suspicious of the possibility that you're in an echo chamber that genuinely believes and tells you things that sound really nice to you, but which don't help you win in the future.

Which, I doubt the Republicans are any better on this, but the point of the Democratic party is that it's better than the alternatives. It's supposed to be the party of the educated and the empathetic, so much so that it actually knows the best interests of a significant portion of the population even better than they themselves do. If it can't even figure out its own best interests enough to know that any sort of blaming or placing of responsibility of failure outside of oneself is counterproductive for winning elections, then it calls into question why it's any better than the alternatives outside of simple sectarian allegiances.

Democratic attitudes definitely play into it, but the candidate herself completely failed in the second half. I think many people might find this video about Buttigieg interacting with 25 undecided voters very interesting. Pete himself is great -- but a LOT of the voters totally drew blanks when it came to Kamala's actual policies, which is so telling, and for good reason. She didn't talk about them a lot, and didn't have a full set of them to start with! She leaned on the Hillary "Trump bad" playbook instead of the Biden "do things" playbook. Even good old Mayor Pete's response to a question about why Harris wasn't being very outspoken (people noticed) was met by a kind of "well it's awkward when your boss is still President" -- he didn't actually challenge the perception, because it was accurate.

In an alternate world she could have released an actually ambitious set of changes and altered the narrative. Talk about what she wanted to actually DO. That's worth maybe a 2 point swing in swing states -- almost exactly the amount by which she lost.

I ACTIVELY follow politics and I can only name maybe TWO actual policies she proposed and actively promoted, and one of them was bad: a harebrained anti-scalping scheme, and an at-home medicaid expansion. That's literally it. That's all that comes to mind. And I'm a news junkie. That's horrific.

The lesson is clear: do not run women

Europe would like a word...

Both Clinton and Harris got where they got to because of who they slept with, and because their parties wanted a woman to be president. Compare someone like Margaret Thatcher or Angela Merkel, who earned their positions.

completely different circumstances

Maybe pick a woman worth running? Hillary was famously loathed by a large percentage of the country. Harris... an empty suit would have been an improvement.

Can you name a woman worth running? Hell, can you name a man worth running? Most people here would argue every president since Jefferson has been a low iq moron, which usually makes me think they either don't understand the incentives involved or drastically underestimate our politicians.

I remember my parents had hoped Condoleezza Rice would run in 2008, though by the time the primary season came around, they both agreed that she was too tainted by her association with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to be a viable candidate.

I like Tulsi, although admittedly I don't know very much about her. I think that the fact that she's a veteran would win over a lot of undecideds, and being good-looking never hurt.

Do you think if she ran a campaign and lost, the commentariat here (and elsewhere) would say I know she lost, but damn, she's a fine politician?

I'm not really sure what you're asking me. "The commentariat" aren't a hive mind.

All I know is she could destroy me in combat or debate. That is enough.

Can you name a woman worth running?

Anyone tried cloning Margaret Thatcher yet?

Hell, can you name a man worth running?

Vance is looking real, real good to me right now.

...But those aside, Harris was, legitimately, an absolutely terrible choice, and I am pretty sure she was chosen because the better candidates, male and female, saw the writing on the wall and didn't want to tank their future prospects trying to salvage an election that Joe Biden's dementia had already pretty clearly lost.

The legacy media gave her every possible advantage they could, at considerable cost to their own dwindling credibility. She couldn't do interviews. She couldn't field basic questions on policy or on her record. So they let her hide in a closet and spun their guts out trying to astroturf contentless, mean-girls-style social consensus ex nihlio, while claiming all possible policy positions to the point of obvious self-contradiction. She claimed she'd protect the Second Amendment from Trump, man.

In her prime, I can't imagine Nancy Pelosi would have been this bad. Clinton wasn't anywhere near this bad. I'm pretty sure AOC wouldn't be this bad. I can't imagine Oprah or Michelle Obama being this bad if they threw their hats in. I would strongly oppose all of those women if they ran because I disagree with their values and their preferred policies. But Kamala is all that and a bag of rancid chips. Oprah is a billionaire businesswoman, an expert on public relations and communication. She boot-strapped herself into a commanding position as one of the richest and most influential women in America. Kamala sleazed her way into a position under one of the most corrupt politicians of the modern era, made a career for herself personifying the worst stereotypes of a "tough on crime" caricature, was massively unpopular as a presidential candidate, was tapped for VP explicitly on the basis of identity-politics checkboxes, and has now lost an election to Donald Trump. She outperformed Joe Biden in zero counties in the entire nation. [EDIT] - This is false; I missed the clarification on CNN last night. Apparently she outperformed Biden in by at least 3% in 58 of 3144 counties, and presumably by less than 3% in more.

Blues need to take the L and ask themselves some serious questions about the long sequence of bad decisions that brought them to this moment.

She outperformed Joe Biden in zero counties in the entire nation

There's a map at https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/11/05/compare-2020-2024-presidential-results/?itid=ms_1 which is indeed mostly red, but there are a few blue arrows, e.g., in Colorado.

This confusion is due to a misunderstanding from CNN last night (I saw it live) King talking to Tapper said that, and later clarified the stat is actually there's no county she outperformed Biden by 3% points.

Yup, repeating what I saw last night. Apologies for the confusion.

Yes, Tapper was confused. It looks like the clarification was Harris outperformed Biden by 3% in 58 counties. That's plausible enough that I'm not bothering to check. There's 3,144 counties, so I was skeptical of claims that something didn't happen in any of them. In Henry GA, with rapidly shifting demographics, Harris improved on Biden by 9.2 points; Biden improved on Obama in the same county by 16.1 points.

Ah, Margaret Thatcher, universally loved and respected across the political spectrum. Not to mention a bizarre choice for a Trump supporter given her antipathy for the working class, out-of-touchness robotic character and neoliberalism. This smacks more of someone you agree with rather than an objective measure of quality or intellect, no?

Vance? Silicon valley, VC 1%er Vance who happens to have a convenient origin story and connections to an ecosystem of companies weaponizing AI to surveil our citizens?

You're missing the point. 8 years ago you were sitting here writing that Clinton was a historically unpopular candidate, manipulative, stupid, whatever. 4 years ago you were sitting here writing how useless Biden is, he can't even leave his basement to campaign, dementia means he doesn't have two functional brain cells left to rub together. 4 years from now you'll be sitting here writing that Pete Buttigieg was the worst candidate in history, who tries to nominate a goddamn secretary of transportation man, at least Kamala ticked some diversity boxes and had some funny coconut memes or something.

Most criticism of politicians is hopelessly facile and ignorant (I assume, this isn't my field) of the realities on the ground or the workings of the system we've created. And most criticism in general is just people playing Monday morning quarterback to feel smart.

Kamala was a candidate who, so far as anyone could tell, had a 50% chance of becoming president yesterday. Sure, hopefully the dems learn from the experience (insofar as they really had that much control over events), but I don't believe the over-the-top criticism of Kamala and Hilldog is warranted.

Ah, Margaret Thatcher, universally loved and respected across the political spectrum. Not to mention a bizarre choice for a Trump supporter given her antipathy for the working class, out-of-touchness robotic character and neoliberalism. This smacks more of someone you agree with rather than an objective measure of quality or intellect, no?

She didn't need to be universally loved across the political spectrum, honestly, I'd struggle to name a politician who was.

The fact is, she won three elections and was the longest serving prime minister for over 150 years. She was, objectively, an extremely successful politician.

Kamala was a candidate who, so far as anyone could tell, had a 50% chance of becoming president yesterday.

As far as anyone could tell bears a lot of weight here. It's not like the US flipped a coin yesterday. She had a much lower chance, we in the public just couldn't tell if the public polls were honest, artificially trying to keep it close to encourage turnout, or were afraid of predicting anything but 50%-50% because that's the safest prediction possible.

Thatcher, though now somewhat overrated on the right, won multiple elections and completely upended the political consensus. She succeeded at destroying the dead hand of the trade unions--an incredibly popular policy that Labour had promised and failed to implement--and was one of very few post-war politicians to have genuine convictions and enough political nous to push them through.

The people who hated Thatcher really hated her, but she was clearly beyond the vast majority of her peers. And I've met many, many working class people who loved and voted for her because she rescued them from the grasping hands of the people who pretended to speak for them. Any parallels to the modern day are left as an exercise to the reader.

Ah, Margaret Thatcher, universally loved and respected across the political spectrum. Not to mention a bizarre choice for a Trump supporter given her antipathy for the working class, out-of-touchness robotic character and neoliberalism.

And yet she was evidently damn good at her job, and it seems to me that it ain't the same working class, nor the same neoliberalism, nor the same world for that matter. She fought for liberty and against bureaucracy and communism.

Vance? Silicon valley, VC 1%er Vance who happens to have a convenient origin story and connections to an ecosystem of companies weaponizing AI to surveil our citizens?

He's the first politician I've listened to who could bring up interesting data-points I hadn't heard of before. I'm looking forward to his presidential bid. His "convenient origin story" happens to be his actual life, born to drug addicts and working his way up to the vice-presidency of the united states. Certainly his story looks considerably better than Kamala's.

8 years ago you were sitting here writing that Clinton was a historically unpopular candidate, manipulative, stupid, whatever.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't. I was planning to vote for Hillary until Trump cinched the nomination, because I wanted the neoconservative wing of the Republican party destroyed forever. She was quite unpopular in much the way Trump is, but 2016 was a very close election. I am pretty sure that I have never agreed with the moderate talking point that Hillary was a uniquely bad candidate and the only one the Dems could have picked that would have lost to Trump. I think if Trump could beat her he could likely beat most of the other Democrat contenders. I think she's a very bad, very corrupt politician, but that doesn't make her bad at securing power or an unserious candidate in the way Kamala was.

4 years ago you were sitting here writing how useless Biden is, he can't even leave his basement to campaign, dementia means he doesn't have two functional brain cells left to rub together.

And he was, in fact, actually suffering from dementia, a problem that only got worse throughout his term. And Progressives sticking their fingers in their ears about it is how he was allowed to vegetate in office, which is why they had to dump him at the eleventh hour, couldn't get their actual talent to sign on, and were left with running Kamala. His dementia actually was real, actually cost him the race, and after more than a decade of Progressive claims that Republican presidents were senile (a common accusation against both W and Trump), they collectively missed their own candidate actually going senile right in front of them. And sure, I claim Biden was a bad president, because I think the record pretty clearly shows that his policies had numerous woeful effects in the real world. The exception, of course, was the Afghanistan Pullout, which I think was a masterful achievement and which I will defend against all comers.

I'm not on your side. I'm opposed to your candidates, because I disagree strongly with their policies and values. But I, at least as an individual, am actually trying to speak honestly here: Progressives have suffered multiple, severe unforced errors due to believing their own bullshit. Their control of the consensus narrative has made them lazy, and now that this control is failing, they're stuck in a position where the main effect their spin is having is to compromise their own decision-making. Biden was in fact too old, as was RGB when she tried to hang on till Hillary. They should have picked a running mate who could actually run for his VP, but they were too busy playing identity bingo, and besides, it was an article of faith that he was sharp as a tack. They did this to themselves.

4 years from now you'll be sitting here writing that Pete Buttigieg was the worst candidate in history, who tries to nominate a goddamn secretary of transportation man, at least Kamala ticked some diversity boxes and had some funny coconut memes or something.

I am pretty sure it is in my direct interest for Progressives to see things the way you do.

Kamala was a candidate who, so far as anyone could tell, had a 50% chance of becoming president yesterday.

I predicted a Trump win, with weak confidence, based on a lot of factors that seemed to be leaning his way. This does not appear to have been a coin-flip election; pretty much every state in the country shifted right by significant margins, with Donald Trump as the candidate. As recently as two years ago, IIRC, Democrats were still directly funding Trumpian candidates in Republican primaries, hoping that public revulsion for him and his supporters would make them unelectable in the general. But as I said above, I am pretty sure that Progressives doubling down further is pure advantage for my side. By all means, don't let me dissuade you.

And yet she was evidently damn good at her job, and it seems to me that it ain't the same working class, nor the same neoliberalism, nor the same world for that matter. She fought for liberty and against bureaucracy and communism.

She was good at her job based on what, winning elections? Justin Trudeau won as many, after breaking 9 years of conservative rule, yet I doubt you think he's a particularly good candidate or Prime Minister.

As for fighting against bureaucracy and communism, these are just partisan buzzwords. 50 years ago, our ancestors were sitting in a pub bemoaning the sorry state of British politics and the terrible candidates and the country going to hell in a handbasket because the new generation was a bunch of pussies.

Not to mention it's telling that you picked a politician from 50 years ago that (I assume, based on the apparent age of your children) you were barely alive for in a country you never lived in. I'm willing to bet that 50 years from now our grandchildren will lionize the greatness of Obama and Trump without having to deal with the shitty day-to-day reality we inhabit. I'm willing to bet that very few people think [current year] politicians are particularly talented.

I'm pretty sure I wasn't. I was planning to vote for Hillary until Trump cinched the nomination, because I wanted the neoconservative wing of the Republican party destroyed forever. She was quite unpopular in much the way Trump is, but 2016 was a very close election.

Whatever - without guessing the particulars of who you have voted for, would you agree that my characterization fits a broad swathe of the at least the American public, and likely the local commentariat?

As for the 'historical unpopularity' that gets thrown around constantly - this absolutely drives me up the wall. Look at favorability polls (first figure). Insofar as Trump and Hillary were historically unpopular, they're just continuing a 70 year old trendline with vanishingly few exceptions. Do you think our politicians suddenly became retarded and unlikable in the 90s? Here's a bet for you - the next pair of candidates for both major parties will be historically unpopular (say the bottom quartile of favorability). Want to take it?

I am pretty sure that I have never agreed with the moderate talking point that Hillary was a uniquely bad candidate and the only one the Dems could have picked that would have lost to Trump.

I actually largely heard this from progressives and the right, not the center? If anyone liked Hillary it was the center. Bernie bros ain't moderates.

And Progressives sticking their fingers in their ears about it is how he was allowed to vegetate in office, which is why they had to dump him at the eleventh hour, couldn't get their actual talent to sign on, and were left with running Kamala.

Because if we had 25th'd Joe out (presumably he wasn't about to leave on his own)in the middle of the COVID and inflation shitshow and let Kamala run things for 2 years, this election just would have gone swimmingly for democrats? If you think 'the actual talent' refused to sign on this year, they 100% wouldn't have signed up in your hypothetical. Not to mention you'd be sitting here lecturing me about how stupid it was to 'allow' Joe to get elected in the primaries in the first place, or something.

And...you think progressives like Joe Biden? Is this just some Overton ploy to define Joe as a progressive such that everyone to his left is some insane fringe radical, while Trump and Vance live in the center? Public figures endorse him because they hate Trump, but Joe Biden was not the progressive candidate of choice in 2020.

And sure, I claim Biden was a bad president, because I think the record pretty clearly shows that his policies had numerous woeful effects in the real world. The exception, of course, was the Afghanistan Pullout, which I think was a masterful achievement and which I will defend against all comers.

I disagree. With the exception of inflation (and who knows whether the counterfactual recession would have been better or worse than inflation, or whether there actually was a center path that avoided both) I think he's been on point and centrist for the most part. CHIPS act and infrastructure are both great (though we'll see if either can actually be implemented in a meaningful way, there seems to be a lot of grift), the economy is doing well (just watch - the economic doomerism on the right is about to evaporate with the election alongside the voting fraud narrative), he tried to push immigration reform. The manufacturing sector is doing better under Biden than Trump. But I imagine this is an entire separate discussion.

I'm not on your side.

We're all on the same side here, brother.

Progressives have suffered multiple, severe unforced errors due to believing their own bullshit. Their control of the consensus narrative has made them lazy, and now that this control is failing, they're stuck in a position where the main effect their spin is having is to compromise their own decision-making. Biden was in fact too old, as was RGB when she tried to hang on till Hillary. They should have picked a running mate who could actually run for his VP, but they were too busy playing identity bingo, and besides, it was an article of faith that he was sharp as a tack. They did this to themselves.

And what was that mistake, not being leftist enough to inspire the workers revolution (cf Freddie De Boer, Bernie bros)? Not being centrist enough (cf Tracingwoodgrains, stupidpol, I'd guess some MSM outlets in the next few weeks) to win the suburban wine mom vote? You all agree that progressives are stupid and lazy and mistakes were made, you just completely disagree about the directionality.

Here's a different narrative - in 2020, Biden wasn't senile yet and won the primary. In 2020, the focus was on winning the election in front of you, because there's four years to worry about the next one. He governed well, although Harris got some tough assignments and the optics for both of them were bad with COVID/inflation/Ukraine/Gaza. Ending lockdowns would have enraged one section of the population as much as enacting them would another. Bombing the shit out of Gaza or taking a hard stance against Israel both would have pissed off a core constituency. Refusing to fire up the money printers may have triggered a recession that would have lost the election just as surely as inflation/idpol/whatever else actually did.

As an aside, you say identity bingo, analysts say lock down the black vote because you're an out-of-touch old white man. For all you know Biden would have lost in 2020 with a different VP pick.

I am pretty sure it is in my direct interest for Progressives to see things the way you do.

Y'know, the funny thing is Trump will probably push policies that benefit me more personally. Please cut my taxes and kill my competition from China, what do I care?

Whatever. Anyways, you think I'm an arrogant, complacent and intellectually lazy progressive who can't see the flaws in his own party. Leaving aside whether any of those are true, I just think the arguments here are lazy, superficial and mostly ignorant of the realities of governing and winning elections in America. Discussing politics is >95% hindsight bias.

I predicted a Trump win, with weak confidence, based on a lot of factors that seemed to be leaning his way. This does not appear to have been a coin-flip election; pretty much every state in the country shifted right by significant margins, with Donald Trump as the candidate.

If it wasn't a coin flip election, why did you have such weak confidence? And given your uncertainty, why would you say running Kamala was a mistake if you (and presumably the dem machine) couldn't have predicted her loss in advance?

But as I said above, I am pretty sure that Progressives doubling down further is pure advantage for my side. By all means, don't let me dissuade you.

Four years from now, conditional on the Trump faction losing the general election, will you be here saying you guys fucked up and Rs had better learn from their mistakes? Somehow, I doubt you'll take that L particularly gracefully if past experience is any indicator. I know the drill - time to reach for the fourth box, the election was rigged, America will be destroyed by a communist dictatorship.

I hope Trump is as successful as you think he will be, and that our country flourishes over the next four years.

I think pulling out of Afghanistan was the right call. I think how they executed was terrible. They were managing to a sept 11 timeline. That’s dumb.

Even the Biden administration gave strategic credit to Trump in trying to defend their tactical blunder. “This was the timeline Trump negotiated” was their refrain.

Yet it seems plainly obvious that if you’re going to exit the county, you retreat to your strongest position and exit from there. And you don’t leave unspoiled equipment for the enemy to use.

Why in the world would the last point of exit be the civilian airport and not the military airbase?

I think the point is that Thatcher was an impressive woman, worthy of running regardless of what you think of her politics or sensibilities.

Vance?

Yes, people like Vance. I'm guessing you don't? I'm struggling to parse your criticism other than a vague hand gesture towards his previous career.

You're missing the point

I think I'm missing your point... are you suggesting that we can't criticise politicians or are you saying that you can't criticise the Dems for consistently running poor candidates since Obama?

[Kamala] had a 50% chance of becoming president yesterday

Isn't this pretty much true for every US election ever?

I think I'm missing your point... are you suggesting that we can't criticise politicians

No, I think you do get my point - it's just a bit funny that you dismiss my criticism as superficial for Thatcher and Vance, but (and I make some assumptions here not knowing you) would accept my criticisms of Harris as being a historically bad candidate. Probably Clinton as well.

The point is that almost all of these 1-2 sentence comments about Harris being an unlikable whore who sucked her dick to the vice presidency is about as substantial and knowledgeable as me saying Vance is a 1%er puppet of the SV elite. I don't think these people know anything about politics, have never worked a political campaign or crafted a bill or written a political speech.

But hey, it sure is easy to wake up the morning after and rant about how the losing candidate was historically bad and the dems are a bunch of morons.

are you saying that you can't criticise the Dems for consistently running poor candidates since Obama?

I'm saying they weren't bad candidates, depending on what you mean by bad candidate. If you strictly mean they lost elections, well, I guess Biden wasn't a bad candidate? Or do you mean something else?

Isn't this pretty much true for every US election ever?

Maybe to put it differently, would you have taken 50-50 odds for Biden v. Trump in 2020? Or would you have taken 50-50 odds for Obama v. McCain?

So far as anyone could tell, it seemed like a true toss up last night. People with money and reputations on the line with access to similar information as the most of us agreed those were the odds.

No, I think you do get my point

No... I didn't... But I do now - so thank you for explaining.

Whilst I agree that there are superficial criticisms of all candidates, the difference is that Thatcher and Vance have ameliorating qualities to them whilst it's hard to parse what positive qualities Biden and Harris have when it comes to their candidacy.

Thatcher was intelligent, articulate, charismatic and had a penchant for leadership. Vance is intelligent and articulate; I wouldn't say he's particularly charismatic but he does come across as overwhelmingly normal and down-to-earth which has a charm to it, even if you wouldn't call it charisma.

This seems to be the difference that people are gesturing towards: whilst you can come up with superficial criticisms for all candidates, Biden* and Kamala seem fairly unique in their lack of positive qualities.

*2020 Biden.

I'm saying they weren't bad candidates, depending on what you mean by bad candidate. If you strictly mean they lost elections, well, I guess Biden wasn't a bad candidate? Or do you mean something else?

No, I would say they are bad candidates. Why would you say they're not bad candidates? What positive qualities could you name? Are they great orators? Especially charasmatic? Wonkish? Great leaders? I'm really struggling to see what your argument would be here.

Maybe to put it differently, would you have taken 50-50 odds for Biden v. Trump in 2020? Or would you have taken 50-50 odds for Obama v. McCain?

Yes to Biden v. Trump in 2020 and then I was too young back during Obama v. McCain to make a call there.

However, I imagine they were close.

Campaigns spend millions trying to secure the vote of a slither of the electorate. Given how few people the campaign is actually fought over, it kind'a means that all elections are close.

More comments

I actually don't think running women was the problem. plenty of women have won positions at all other levels. It's just that the way the DNC does it is to bypass primaries and put in a woman who might do well in closed-door insider politics, but is bad at public speaking in a normal election.

Isn't "closed-door insider politics" exactly how the examples of Thacher and Merkel rose to power? I don't entirely understand the parliamentary systems used in the UK and DE, but my limited understanding is that people vote for the party and the party produces the leader primarily through "closed-door insider politics". OTOH neither Thatcher nor Merkel ever won a direct election either. This comment is admittedly from a position of partial understanding of those system.

yeah, those are parliamentary systems where the party (mostly) selects the candidate and voters simply vote for the party. very different system. But it is somewhat analogous to how American politics works in "safe" seats, like Harris's California senate seat, where you simply have to win inside the local party political machine and then they'll guarantee you a victory.

Exactly exactly. Women in the House do just fine, though how often they emerge from the recruitment process varies greatly. I honestly don't think gender matters a whole lot anymore. Sure there are some double standards still, but also some advantages for a woman (though fewer), but overall it just doesn't move the needle a lot.

I think Trump winning is a huge victory for wokeness and a huge loss for liberalism, just as it was in 2016. Trump in office will give institutions the excuse they need to clamp down on dissent. Speaking on issues like free speech and meritocracy will become impossible, since the #Resist movement will occupy 100% of the airtime for the next four years, and anyone making the slightest criticism of leftist idpol will be labeled a Trump-supporting fascist. Young white men will be demonized at levels never seen before. Meanwhile Trump/Vance will likely erode civil rights and liberal values from the right, with things like porn bans, social media IDs, religion shoved into schools, etc. Basically, it's joever.

The level of vitriol I'm already seeing from my boomer democrat family members is even bigger than 2016 or Jan 6. Living in the blue bubble for the next 4 years is going to be hell.

I would agree with you if this weren't entirely politically irrelevant. It's the philosophy of vaguely autistic fandom guys. It's a story people tell themselves to play pretend. Your involvement in Democratic politics is as real as D&D licensed fiction. Nobody outside of here even hears you.

What you believe in died fourteen years ago. Get through the grief, cut it out of yourself, and go live.

Maybe wokism gets worse. It's definately a possibility. But I am not convinced. The woke policies under Biden never really moderated. They just leaned on the messaging less hard. I don't see any reason to believe they wouldn't have ramped right back up once they secured a victory. Just like Biden running on a 'moderate' veneer.

At the end of the day, Kamala was the final boss of woke ideology - an unaccomplished diversity hire who rose to the the highest level possible, unelected, annointed all through intersectionality, surrounded by true believers. Her winning would have been a confirmation of everything woke, not a repudiation.

Trump in office will give institutions the excuse they need to clamp down on dissent.

Having a government which supports clamping down on dissent also gives those institutions the excuse they need to clamp down on dissent. And it's a much better excuse.

By your reasoning, voting for Trump is bad for Trump supporters because of the backlash, but also good for Democrats, and you should be recommending to all your Democratic friends that they vote for Trump because voting for Trump helps the Democrats.

Having a government which supports clamping down on dissent also gives those institutions the excuse they need to clamp down on dissent

You might think so, but as far as I can tell, Trump did absolutely nothing to protect free speech or slow down cancel culture. The most egregious cancellation of all time imho (James Damore) happened under Trump. And the biggest cancellations under Biden have been by right-wingers (e.g. the ivy league presidents).

you should be recommending to all your Democratic friends that they vote for Trump because voting for Trump helps the Democrats

I don't think voting for Trump helps democrats win elections, I think it helps woke leftists gain power within the democratic party. Which I think is very bad for democrats longterm. The best thing for democrats would be to campaign hard for a reasonable, principled liberal candidate in the primary, and then vote blue no matter who in the general.

You might think so, but as far as I can tell, Trump did absolutely nothing to protect free speech or slow down cancel culture.

Rescinding the Dear Colleague letter, for example

The most egregious cancellation of all time imho (James Damore) happened under Trump.

Man, we need some Catalogue of Cancellations, because I've lost track of what happened to who, and when. In any case I'd say the Twitter Files and Zucks confession of the government putting pressure to censor dissidents is probably more egregious.

The Twitter Files were mostly about attempts to censor Twitter by the deep state while Trump was President, not attempts by the Biden administration to censor Twitter. In other words, they are a point in favour of "1st-term Trump was too ineffective as President to do much about pervasive censorship," which is what @LiberalRetvrn seems to be getting at.

I'm pretty sure I recall that it was both, with a marked change in how hamfisted it was the moment Biden got into office.

You might think so, but as far as I can tell, Trump did absolutely nothing to protect free speech or slow down cancel culture.

What he did was not deliberately try to make it worse which the Biden administration did. Merely doing nothing is an improvement over censoring Facebook.

Living in the blue bubble for the next 4 years is going to be hell.

Only if it remains a bubble. Musk bought Twitter, and it's interesting to note the giant seachange for Trump in young voters, those most exposed to the big social media platforms. Bezos may be starting to exert editorial control over WaPo. I would assume that Vance at least has a plan to dismantle Grievance Studies programs. You might find that that bubble bursts and people deradicalise.

(Or you might find that that bubble literally dies in nuclear fire. Never forget that awful possibility.)

I would assume that Vance at least has a plan to dismantle Grievance Studies programs

That's the problem, though. Vance isn't opposed to Grievance Studies programs for the same reasons I am. I oppose them because they're illiberal and divisive and force an absolute moral framework onto me. I'm fairly certain that Vance would replace them with something I dislike just as much.

I'm fairly certain that Vance would replace them with something I dislike just as much.

Like what? Do you have a specific policy in mind, or is it more of a vibes thing?

It's going to take a huge amount of effort just to move directionally towards more fairness. Actually taking such good control of the institutions that they reach fairness, go beyond it, and tilt towards the other side is pretty much impossible.

You're assuming that fairness is some bright line in the middle of a spectrum. I think this is incorrect, there are a lot of ways to impose your will illegitimately/immorally that don't require reaching 'fairness' from a position of disadvantage first.

Back in 2020 some people here tried to say a Biden win will the blue tribe to de-escalate, only for all the things you're warning about here to happen anyway. They'll keep on clamping down on dissent no matter what, they're doing it even in countries with no Trump. The idea they'd go easy on us if we let them win is hard to take seriously at this point.

Well from my point of view, things did dramatically de-escalate with Biden. But I think what I'm trying to say is that it's easier to critique idpol leftism when idpol leftism is explicitly in power. Trumpism is a backlash to idpol leftism, and is therefore perfectly optimized for providing it endless outrage to feed on. Trumpists and SJWs are having a conversation that I have no interest in participating in, I want to have a different conversation. If I'm over here arguing with a leftist that we should strive for equality rather than equity, it really doesn't help if a Trumpist starts yelling about how both equality and equity are for cucks. That just causes the leftist to stop listening to me.

That just causes the leftist to stop listening to me.

Maybe you should try cutting a deal with the Right instead?

Progressivism lost its mind in 2014, and their excesses have done significant damage to our nation and its institutions. Maybe it's time to cut the crazier fringes loose, rather than bankrolling them at every turn. And if you can't do that, why should we on the Right consider you distinct from them?

Maybe you should try cutting a deal with the Right instead?

Well I might have thought that was possible back in 2016. But the right are moving away from liberalism, not towards it. In 2016, Trump held up a rainbow flag, and now in 2024 his campaign is at least 25% about how transgenderism is destroying womens' sports. There was a brief time during G*mergate when we had a liberal backlash against wokeness, but the anti-SJW movement has long been replaced by unironic family values christian conservatism. On the other hand, it seems like more and more democrats are waking up to the flaws in the idpol system.

Trump held up a rainbow flag, and now in 2024 his campaign is at least 25% about how transgenderism is destroying womens' sports.

In what way is that against liberalism?

Well personally, I don't think MtF trans people should compete against women either, but it's not a political issue. It should be decided by individual sports leagues.

A minor criticism, even though I sympathize with your views: what stops individual sports leagues from just all agreeing to lump transwomen in with ciswomen anyways, and leading to a sort of "market failure"? These kinds of organizations are probably prone to follow-the-leader, which is something that happens in the corporate world across many specific kinds of markets, and many sports leagues are basically just corporations anyways. I happen to agree with the take that market failures may often need government correction to cut through market actors' inability and lack of motive to solve market failures.

Womens' sports leagues are an explicitly political creation, so their policies are a political issue.

There's things like college sports where a women's divisions were established by a supposedly-liberal state decree in the first place (Title IX, I think). What's illiberal about enforcing that they remain women's divisions?

More comments

To a first approximation, liberal = trans because "my body, my choice". "Bad for society, thus should be prevented" is usually the illiberal take.

Sure, you can have a liberal "my body, my choice" based argument on transgenderism, but it's about adults making their own decisions about their own bodies, not about abolishing sex-segregation in sports and all other spaces. Somehow liberals managed to go on a couple centuries without arguing for that, until like 5 minutes ago.

More comments

Well from my point of view, things did dramatically de-escalate with Biden.

Was it anything specific that gave you that impression? As far as I can tell to the extent things got better, it was a result of Reds escalating, not Blues de-escalating - Elon buying Twitter, the Bud Light boycott, Red states banning gender affirming care for minors...

But I think what I'm trying to say is that it's easier to critique idpol leftism when idpol leftism is explicitly in power.

I'm not interested in critique that doesn't result in anything.

Is there any proof that outraising and out funding helps campaigns ? In local elections sure. But once the national candidates are chosen. The media pretty much self-funds their preferred party. Who doesn't know about Kamala and Trump ? What does an extra dollar get you ?

Kamala was a horrible candidate. Everyone knew it. She lost. America has always voted for the more charismatic candidate, and wierdly 2020 biden did well on that front too. Kamala couldn't even place top 3 in the famously weak 2020 primaries (The whole Obama era chill grandpa routine worked well for Biden)

I hope this spurs a return to 'moderate' democrats. More Buttigieg, less AOC. Hope dems give up on their baffling support for free drug use, police abolishment and illegal immigration for good.

Is there any proof that outraising and out funding helps campaigns ?

Fundraising has a massive impact on campaigns. If Hilary Clinton had raised $200 million less, she would be President of the United States.

I think one of the most interesting lessons people often miss is that money in politics doesn't actually matter as much as most people think. People have the perception you can buy wins, and that's just... not true, broadly speaking. There's still plenty of room for more reform, but it's not a corrupt hellscape where only money talks.

With the priors a lot of people I talk to, and the cash advantage the Dems had pretty consistently, you would have seen a Harris victory.

Will the Democratic party take a hard look in the mirror?

They will double down.

I both hope and legitimately think it’s possible this could be the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party.

After nearly two centuries, they might not survive this. The Whig party doesn’t exist anymore.

No, I don't think so. They've survived genuine landslides against them before (as opposed to this "slim but consistent margin against them delivering many states"). It would still be totally fair, even after this election, to say roughly half of american voters want what the Democrats are selling. There's no reason for them to go anywhere, just to do better.

When was the last time they were in such a precarious position, losing every branch of government and being at an absolute nadir of lack of trust in their favored institutions? The 19th century?

I’m not being smart, I’m genuinely asking. From my understanding of history they just got absolutely walloped on a scale not seen since before the 20th century. Am I wrong?

2004 was a rough time to be a liberal. Dubya won an election that was close, but not that close, and massively improved his numbers with Hispanic voters compared to 2000. The GOP won its fifth straight House election (and actually had a capable Speaker) and a 55 seat Senate majority. If you were a doomer, Bill Clinton was looking like he papered over a losing platform with sheer charisma and the blue dog Democrats were not quite dead but dying fast. Unless you were paying attention to Illinois politics, you'd probably not heard of Barack Obama.

For fun, here's a bit of what passed for terminally online leftism back during the W era. For bonus points, here's his predicting that Hillary would lose back in '05, and his take on the Borderers long before Scott Alexander.

People say stuff like this every election. They still have the support of half the country and all the institutions. I'm pretty sure the institutions will have to go before the party does.

I do think it’s a distinct possibility that it’s really “different this time” because the institutions have tanked their credibility so completely in a way never done before, and the second Trump administration seems more primed to detonate the vest over and over again instead of cooperate.

In many ways the second Trump administration will likely be like the first, but there’s a significant non-zero chance they will pull a Milei and just start slashing and burning.

Why not? There’s virtually no downside.

Why not? There’s virtually no downside.

There is a lot of downside. Institutions, captured as they might be, have a lot of value. There has been a lot of pain in Argentina from Milei's reforms, and we were in much worse shape than the US already.

I’d say it’s manifestly obvious that our institutions have much less value than they did in the past.

There has to be a limit to how much they can beclown themselves and burn through their credibility until the currency they use to keep themselves afloat, reputation, is virtually worthless.

Clearly I’m not alone in feeling this, Trump has a mandate and I hope he uses it good and hard.

Why not?

The answer, of course, is the deep state.

Also, "the institutions" includes mass media, social media, and large Internet companies like Google, and there's little that Trump could do about them. Yes, Musk got Twitter, but that's a single black swan event, and isn't repeatable.

That “why not” had a lot more punch in his first term eight years ago, but now? The man has gotten into a slew of political knife fights and came out alive on the other side.

Success breeds success, victory brings victory. You see a black swan event, but it very well might just be the opening in the armor to hammer the deep state and scoop out the soft brains.

Second term, no need for re-electing. He doesn’t need speaking fees or book tours. He’s already clearly been targeted and survived to tell the tale. If anyone capable of burning the boats behind him and conquering, it’s him.

I’m not 100% on this either, I could see him being conciliatory. But I think the deep state is much, much more vulnerable than either the black-pillers and “nothing ever happens” crowd thinks.

Me, personally? I hope what’s swimming around in his mind is similar same as mine;

“The ram has touched the wall. No mercy.”

My prediction is that the DNC will just double down. They did it when Clinton lost, there's no reason to believe they won't do it again. I expect that after this there will be a lot of hand-wringing about how Harris lost because she's a black woman, gigantic screeds on the supposedly pernicious nature of misogyny and White supremacy in America will be penned, and Trump will be scrutinised for any hint of wrongdoing a la the Steele dossier. Expecting the DNC, their voter base, and their institutional apparatus to have any self-awareness at this current point in time is, I think, completely unrealistic. The strategy they've been going with for a while now is just to claim that it can't be anything they've done, it must be these horrible voters who are the problem. See also these exemplars from other countries: Brexit, Australia's Voice, the Irish referendum on women and family. Every time the voters vote "wrong", it is a sign that democracy itself is flawed. Perhaps much of this will be driven by strategic party-political considerations, but I think many members of the DNC certainly still believe that this tactic will help them garner support for 2028. They certainly have enough institutional clout to (try and) make it work.

Besides, the current tribal political landscape is not conducive to self-examination - oddly enough I'm reminded of the situation in many former communist countries. ln Mao's China, the horrific failure of the Great Leap Forward was attributed not to the communist system that produced it, rather it was attributed to the members of the cadres trying to sabotage their great political project. Despite the fact that the cadres acted the way they did because of the incentives created by the system, they were portrayed as secret members of the Kuomintang plotting a bourgeoisie revolution under the noses of the communist authorities, and Mao's reputation remained untouched. The ideological can never admit that what they're doing isn't working - rather, it is because their enemy is just too strong and too powerful, and it needs to be railed against even more until it goes away. These kinds of narratives are very easy to capitalise on, and I doubt one failed election will stop the DNC from using it.

As for the Republicans, I expect they will take this as a sign that populist politics are working, and it might motivate them to lean into it even more. I don't expect anyone to do anything that will decrease the temperature of the culture war. Perhaps something like a bringing back of the fairness doctrine might help prevent these partisan bubbles from forming, expose people to a more balanced information environment and stop people from creating superweapons backed by The Authorities, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

My biggest hope personally is that the DNC loses enough elections to moderate themselves significantly on the topic of idpol or discard it entirely as a part of their platform, but unless they have a very long string of losses under their belt, I think the only thing that'll happen is a doubling down. I think they'll need to be forced into having a major come-to-Jesus moment before any of this materialises. And until they stop being "woke" entirely, I'll take pleasure in their losses. I am also not of the opinion that a Trump win is a "win for wokeness", I certainly think they'll try to use a Trump win to drum up support, but I don't believe in giving your enemy what they want with the faint hope that maybe they stop stepping on you. The right way to deal with this is to make it very clear that such tantrums do not yield results, and if that entails increasing the temperature of the culture war, so be it.

My prediction is that the DNC will just double down. They did it when Clinton lost, there's no reason to believe they won't do it again.

The reason why is the Israel and Ukraine Wars, which serve as powerful wedge issues that break party lines, even as the DNC from a decade ago no longer exists.

In 2016, the DNC was able to double down because there was nothing particularly important that major Democratic constituencies or politicians wanted that Trump could give that they couldn't also get by opposing him. 2016-2020 was almost entirely domestic-focused, with few foreign policy priorities interfering. There was very little to gain for crossing the line, and so the party could be united in the name of anti-Trump by the still-credible Obama political machine who had only just barely had its first presidential failure by a narrow margin.

In 2024, the Obama political machine is in tatters. Key kingmakers (Obama, Pelosi, and now Biden) are out of politics and in many respects discredited as 3 of the last 3 Obama-machine candidates (Clinton, Biden, Harris) have cratered. The Democratic party is going through a major generational change, without the sort of iron-handed party control that Pelosi had on fundraising support. At the same time, the Democratic party has sunk substantial political capital into supporting Ukraine, and has had an internal civil war (complete with a Muslim voting block abstination) over Israel.

The DNC may try to double-down again, but that's different from the ability to. 2016 was a result of unexpectedly high Republican turnout in first-time deplorable trump voters, but 2024 has been a demonstration of low Democratic turnout. The political energy, the leadership and the unity simply are not there, even as major wedges are currently in the coalition.

After 2012, establishment Republicans conducted a similar autopsy and concluded they were too hard on immigration. Then the base ignored the result, and elected Trump, to some level of success.

I would love if Democrats took some time for self reflection, but elections are very noisy signals. There's no particular reason to think anything in elite culture will change because of this.

I'd also point out that Trump isn't particularly conservative or right wing. He's just a moderate populist.

It turns out that that autopsy was wrong though. Personally I think it was a complete lack of doing anything while claiming to be against it.

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