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 -
Hot Swap time?
On the All-In podcast, a couple of the podcasters have been making bold claims that Biden would be "hot-swapped" out for a different candidate (presumably Gavin Newsom) after the first debate. I thought their claims were pretty outlandish, but after last night they are seeming a lot more, um, inlandish.
I concur with a lot of the Mottizens below that Biden's performance was not that bad. I thought he landed some decent punches and fought Trump mostly to a draw. But expectations matter. Like most people here, I am well aware of Biden's state of decline, whereas perhaps the average voter is not. I was not expecting vigor, so was in no way shocked by Biden's lack of it. Furthermore, Mottizens tend to actually listen to the words that are said. Normies react more to feels. Biden's blank-eyed stare and gaped mouth said more than words ever could. If this was your first exposure to Biden in the last 4 years, it would be unsettling.
What I was shocked by was the immediate consensus by CNN's post-debate panel that Biden's performance was a disaster, and the immediate speculation about a new candidate. I had expected them to rally around their leader. There was a plausible argument to be made that Biden did okay. Instead, they threw him under the bus.
The timing of the debate certainly seems a bit suspicious. This was the earliest Presidential debate in some time (ever?). Conspicuously, it comes before the convention, but after the primaries. If Biden can be pressured to resign, the DNC will be able to handpick their preferred candidate without the pesky need for voters.
As Bill Ackman and others have pointed out on Twitter, everyone in Biden's inner circle knew that this was Biden's ability level in 2024. They didn't have to agree to a debate. Why did they send him out there to get slaughtered?Seen through this lens, Obama "helping" the elderly Biden off the stage a couple weeks ago take on a darker tone.
Shares in "Biden 2024 Democratic nominee" crashed during the debate and now trade at just 63%. Newsom is at 22% and Harris at 13%.
I don't know. All of this seems very conspiratorial. The real world is messy and boring. I doubt that the DNC are sitting around in a smoke-filled room, twirling their mustaches. But, however it shakes out, odds of Biden being replaced are shooting up. This seems very undemocratic. There was a time to replace Biden, and that was during the primaries. However it shakes out, the election season just got a lot more interesting.
I'm very interested if anyone has any ideas for how this could be done in a way that doesn't feel awfully undemocratic. So far, the dominant position seems to be that the only mechanism would be if Joe willingly stepped back, said he'd refuse the nomination, and supported someone else. Josh Blackman suggests that maybe a deal could be made to give him some things he'd want in return. "Look Joe, we'll hook you up with two more SCOTUS nominees and _____. You have the ability to take an easy out by just saying that you've had a very recent health issue. No one will view you too negatively, and the history books will mostly forget about this."
At the same time, looking in from the outside, it will be hard to distinguish between positive, log-rolling like trades here (which I wouldn't view as too undemocratic) and negative, coercive ones ("Joe, if you don't step back, we're going to X,Y,Z to hurt you in whatever ways"). The latter feels more undemocratic to me, but again, it will be hard to distinguish from the outside.
All that said, has anyone seen any other credible ideas for how the DNC could pull off a switch without Joe's explicit agreement and without it seeming too terribly undemocratic?
It's not very credible, but it's not impossible: They could cause his death or complete disablement. He's probably on a bunch of drugs, a slight change in dosage and Biden goes from an incoherent old man to one in a coma or dead.
We don't need any such sinister scenarios. Honestly, if the DNC really, really wanted Biden to step down, they could probably lean on his family and friends enough to talk him into it. Does he, personally, really, really want to spend the last few years of his life in the White House? I think he's only doing it because he genuinely believes the country "needs" him and if he could be persuaded that he'll be a hero and not be handing over the country to Trump, he could be convinced to let someone else step in.
I don't think it will happen because as bad as Biden is looking right now, openly admitting "Yeah, our guy we've been talking up for months is in such decline that we're replacing him months before the election" would look even worse. I doubt Kamala Harris or Gavin Newsom does better against Trump.
My understanding is that Biden is, personally, an incredibly stubborn person and prickly about his ability or lack thereof. that's not unusual for a politician, but I don't know if anyone could do this.
The issue is not that him being removed from the candidacy looks bad. It's better to admit a mistake and fix it than to soldier on. The issue is that it raises the question - who the fuck is running the country today while Biden is apparently unable to carry a conversation?
The President mostly has advocacy powers, nomination powers, and a ton of power in a crisis. Functionally, Cabinet members run the government. This has almost always been true. And that part of the system does have checks to it, for example all nominees must be Senate-confirmed. The president doesn't even need to sign bills into law! They become law automatically without a veto. In other words, virtually all government functions can and do run just fine without a President by design.
Again, this is not new, and is on purpose. Even if the President were a potato, and no one invoked the 25th, the country would run just fine unless a major military conflict were to pop up, and even then presumably the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State could put their heads together and figure something out together.
More options
Context Copy link
There's a theory that it's Obama. Who is living in DC (which I think is highly unusual for a former President), and who has connections to a lot of the members of the Biden administration.
More options
Context Copy link
My guess: To the extent that the United States Government needs anyone running it, it is being run by whoever is in the room with Biden at any given moment. Biden himself acts not so much as decision maker, but as a magical talisman, granting whoever is nearest to him authority over government decisions.
Like a conch... pass me the Biden so that I may speak.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Harris is a long shot against Trump but I think Newsom, without the need to appeal to primary voters, could take up the mantle of "generic Democrat". Trump's biggest play against him might be the LA train robberies and general law-n-order in California, but even given that he could get all the "we want a competent adult in office" types and get the base by default.
Does he get the base by default? Are the black and/or female parts of the Democrat coalition going to accept Harris being looked over?
She got looked over by primary voters in 2020. It's reasonable to hope that the people who stan for her (are there actually any?) will come into the fold. And if they don't and the only plausible option for replacing Biden is Harris, then Democrats are cooked anyway, so better to jump into the unknown than face very likely defeat.
Wasn't the whole purpose of making her VP to appeal to black voters? The Democrats appear to at least believe she's valuable for that reason, and I'm not sure they want to risk that.
More options
Context Copy link
The #KHive hashtag is still gettin recent results, at least.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
For me, Newsom gives off an "I am a sociopath" vibe. I mean this literally, and am not implying that the vibe is reliable evidence of him being a sociopath, rather a possible hindrance to him being elected president. Do any of you also get this vibe from him?
Why do you imply that sociopathy is a hindrance to electability?
I didn't mean to. I think giving off the vibe of being a sociopath is the hindrance because voters want someone who they think cares about them.
Well, he did get elected in California, so it can't be too big a hindrance.
Fwiw I don't like him myself and didn't vote for him.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've had a dislike of Newsom long before it was cool, and I don't see it. He's more just a smarmy politician. Voters won't love it, but it's just a generic politician vibe, which would be a win for Democrats.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link