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 -
Are Democrats going to show up on election day?
While the base poll numbers and prediction markets would seem to indicate a Republican disaster, there are also concerning signals for Democrats.
Supposedly, there were 59 million absentee ballots requested in 2022. This year, only 49 million have been requested and time is almost up. This includes states that spam mail to all voters, most notably California. Removing those, and absentee turnout could be down by 1/3rd this cycle.
This matters because Democrats are much more likely to vote absentee. In 2024, 44% of Democratic voters voted by mail, compared with 26% of Republicans.
So what's going on? Some possibilities:
Lower turnout across the board
Lower turnout among Democrats only, particularly black Democrats who can't be assed by the new Democratic party which is mostly about illegal aliens and gay stuff.
Democrats have lower faith in Trump-led postal service, thereby shooting themselves in the foot much like Republicans did in previous elections. Fewer absentees, more in person, but overall less since going in person is harder.
There really was lots of ballot harvesting, particularly in black areas, and it's being suppressed by fear of prison
Since reality is boring, it's probably just #1. But this election is going to come down to turnout. I'm definitely extremely skeptical of the poll numbers this far. The prediction markets seem crazy as well. It seems like free money to bet against Talarico in Texas and El-Sayed in Michigan. But maybe that's because the alternative is too painful to contemplate.
If it's not a Democrat landslide, then pollsters and prediction markets stand to lose a lot of credibility. It might also mean the official audience capture of Nate Silver who predicts a 71% chance of Democratic control of the Senate and says "Polls may be biased against Republicans. Or against Democrats".
Since reality is boring, I suppose we'll meet in the middle.
We live in a majority Democratic country. A small number of those Democrats will vote Republican when the Democrats are in power and screwing everything up by the numbers. A large number of Republicans will vote Democratic if Republicans are in power and screwing up any one thing. So I expect a Democratic landslide, Blue Texas and all.
Has there been any time ever when you haven’t blackpilled. I’m thinking now, and I don’t think I can remember one.
Not that you’re wrong, necessarily.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My guess: In 2020 mail-in voting was huge because of the pandemic. In 2022 there was still likely a desire to "do it how we did last time" which resulted in a still-elevated level of mail-in voting. By now we have returned to the new baseline.
I will also say that I have not been impressed with the Paxton campaign in Texas. Both candidates are calling each other pedophile protectors. At least one Talarico ad used the phrase, "Epstein-style sweetheart deal," when describing Paxton's record as attorney general. Paxton is mainly attacking Talarico on trans stuff instead of the economy, and that's letting Democrats take the mantle of lowering prices.
Probably a poor idea, his campaign should stand back and let his church pastor(ette)s do the work there on attacking him for reversing course on LGBT+ stuff. Unless the Paxton campaign ads are quoting Talarico suddenly deciding there are in fact two and not six biological sexes, and how his allies and friends are assuring one another that he's only lying about the trans stuff and once elected he'll be right back to "fairness in sport is not important" etc.
That one could work: if your own side are saying "nah he don't mean it about boys should not be playing on girls' teams" then you don't need to do anything more yourself than, say, show that clip of Pastorette Babs.
Which I understand is the angle Paxton's campaign is taking, and that makes sense: you can call each other hypocrites till the cows come home and people will dismiss it as just the usual campaign slanging match, but get your opponent's side admitting it's all for show and you have a better chance. Attacking him on the economy isn't going to help because right now prices are high everywhere in the world, and that's under Trump and a Republican administration. Talarico's campaign can just come back with "vote us in and give a Democratic party majority in Congress and we'll harvest $100 bills from the money trees we will plant" about how they have plans to fix the economy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it's quite likely that Talarico doesn't make it, but Paxton, I think, is a uniquely terrible candidate, so it's possible the inevitable comparison to the hype around Beto is misleading.
I never got the message of why Paxton is terrible. I heard there were allegations of corruption and allegations of some sexual harassment but none of those went anywhere. What actually makes him terrible?
Biggest thing I don't like about him is he's fat with a flabby chin and Talarico has neither of those problems. Still voting Paxton though.
They...actually did go lots of places; he was actually impeached by the Texas House of Representatives and narrowly acquitted by the Senate; was actually indicted on securities fraud charges (settled and paid $300,000 in restitution), and had to settle a lawsuit (for millions of dollars) brought by his own aides alleging wrongful firing after they blew the whistle on alleged criminal conduct.
Plus his wife divorced him on the grounds that he cheated on her (which I am given to understand he admitted to!)
(I'm going off of Wikipedia here, which I'm sure is full of editors trying to be maximally unfair, but I don't think it's incorrect about the basics of being impeached, indicted, and settling a whistleblower lawsuit. If any of this is wrong, please flag it!)
It doesn't seem insane to me that some of the above could have been unfair political smears, as Paxton alleged. But not the cheating, and even if he was innocent of all of the other alleged misconduct, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that someone who was indicted, impeached, and had his own staff whistleblow on him is not a great candidate because he's still tainted by the allegations, even if they are false, however unfortunate and unfair that might be.
More options
Context Copy link
If we're doing pure physiognomy, Talarico looks like the physical vessel of an evil spirit. Something about the eyes.
Ah, that's going a bit far. He just looks plastic, like the Ken doll version of "what a clean-cut candidate should look like".
Buttigieg maxing.
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
I genuinely don't know about Talarico. By every account from all sides, Paxton is a terrible candidate. I can't understand why Texan Republicans haven't done a Platner on him, except that perhaps he has such entrenched support that he cannot be shifted by anyone. That being so, I have to wonder: is it likely that Democrats won't turn out to vote for Talarico because they assume he'll win so it's not necessary? Or will the Republicans manage to convince enough voters to hold their noses and vote for Paxton?
Silver Bulletin is giving it to Talarico at the moment (48.9% to Paxton's 45.5%), but I dunno. There's something unconvincing about him. So I see why it's not free money on the prediction markets against him, but the result could always swing the unexpected way.
Paxton is (allegedly) corrupt and (hilariously) incompetent. It'd be a nice world where that mattered, but I'm honestly surprised that it's had as much a delta as it has so far. And since Cornyn burnt a lot of bridges over the last decade, he's got a lot of political capital on the right to burn.
I'd absolutely expect Vivek losing despite 10% tailwinds. I'd be extremely surprised if Paxton could.
More options
Context Copy link
Paxton won a very competitive primary against an incumbent who spent $100 million. He won in a landslide. So he’s the guy, obviously. I think people are smart enough to vote strategically instead of handing the seat to a guy whose biggest concern is trans kids. Even Paxton’s estranged wife encourages people to vote for him.
Nate is the sober rationalist here. Kalshi has Talarico at 63%!
Technically true.
This is an actual ad that I just saw on Sunday Night Football. The message is, "our candidates suck this year, but uh, we still need you to vote for us I guess."
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, I think Nate and the team are trying to keep their model from leaning too far in one direction or another. And while Talarico has a nice lead right now, it's not so huge a gap that Paxton couldn't catch up if something happens between now and election day.
Remember that 63% betting odds is literally "too close to call" - if 37% of your calls were wrong, you would be bozo-binned for calling elections too early. It is far closer than a 63-37 poll lead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Was 2022 a one-time bump from COVID? I know it was well and truly done by then, but habits can take a long time to break.
Not sure. It’s a good theory and could explain why the Red Wave never materialized. Dems were in general more scared of Covid, so might have been more likely to vote absentee. Absentee requested = higher turnout. Also explains why 2020 turnout was a record.
More options
Context Copy link
A quick Google says that in the 2024 election, nearly 67 million were requested and nearly 48 million returned, accounting for about 30% of total turnout.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link