site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  16d ago (text post)   26869 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.

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.”

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