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 -
I think I was trying to answer OP's question – "what's the cope for Trump winning" – with a more sophisticated steelman than "the CIA fell asleep at the hacker remote control button." Now, I never "doomed about the 2024 election" on here – you can go back and look at my posts, I don't think I talked much about it at all, but it's a sort of interesting intellectual exercise to think about, even if I don't personally feel the need to cope.
I would need more evidence than a single interview to contend this (although I will admit that it certainly sprang to mind watching the interview!) I also think that even without any "rigging" the local party machine can make a big difference! Of course, Brady says that he did in fact do his darndest to win the election for Kamala regardless of how poorly he and his team were treated.
I definitely think the Kamala campaign could have used his sage advice. My recollection of the interview was that he says he wanted to coordinate with her campaign, and although the details are a bit unclear I get the impression that it was in resource allocation, probably related to GOTV efforts, and maybe messaging. Now, my assumption is that political machines work on a patronage model (where they receive funding from their patrons for GOTV which they then pass down to their clients and so forth) and Brady's interview – which, as you say, has some whining – sounds to me like what someone would say if they weren't receiving expected allocation of funding from on high. (Of course it is very much in Brady's interests for people to think that he has magical powers to GOTV if they just treat him with enough deference and supply him with adequate funding).
First off, let me say that I really appreciate you bringing the numbers here.
Secondly – yes, and why do you think that was? I definitely think some of it was that voting was easier in 2020. But if you're a political machine, you should be aiming to at least match last year's performance, and they didn't. However, I do think there are non-conspiratorial interpretations for this, though. Besides COVID, it's also true that the city's population is declining – they probably lost upwards of 50,000 people between elections. 2024's voter turnout still didn't match 2020's, but it was very close. All of this – I agree – is consistent with Brady attempting to (and failing) bring home the bacon for Kamala (and again we don't even need to believe in any fraud for this to be the case).
On the other hand, if I don my tinfoil cap and grant the machine 1) very good fraud capabilities, and 2) a decent idea of what the other side's total turnout is going to be, then what I see is that the machine puts in just enough fraud to guarantee a win and for some reason didn't do it here – in Philadelphia they could have turned 70% of the voters instead of 65% and it might only have raised eyebrows in the usual places while bringing in, what, an extra 50,000 votes? That would have gotten them nearly halfway to the win they needed in the state.
TO BE CLEAR, I am not saying I believe this. I'm engaging with the OP – he asked what the cope is for the Trump win, and I'm suggesting one possible cope is that the Kamala campaign failed to play ball with the county campaigns and they reciprocated by failing to bring home the bacon (which frankly seems plausible even if you assume zero fraud). On balance I am inclined to believe that 1) Brady is telling the truth about poor coordination by Team Kamala, and 2) this hurt their GOTV, and 3) Brady would have preferred Biden was the nominee. I think you make a decent case that as much as Brady might prefer for everyone to think otherwise, he wouldn't have been able to tip the balance here (unless you grant the machine really good fraud capability - and from what I've seen actual cases of voter fraud where people have been caught have been box-stuffing, not "I am generating arbitrarily large numbers out of thin air.")
Well, my first question is – do we know that the machine doesn't lend support to county parties outside of its geographic boundaries? My second question is – did you catch the part where Brady suggests that Kamala's failure to coordinate wasn't just with his city, but was nationwide? Obviously PA itself wasn't the deciding factor here in the election, although it was important. Brady's suggesting a nationwide systemic failure to engage with local political machines. That seems to me like something that could be significant – but maybe not enough to tip the balance.
This is a very funny use of charitable, 10/10.
I certainly cop to not paying attention – I don't live in PA, for one thing, so I defer to your superior knowledge of the place or attention-paying skills. In fact, the sausage of political campaigning is fairly opaque to me, so I appreciate being told when I am wrong.
More options
Context Copy link