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 -
Let's talk midterms. I haven't been keeping up with the races too much, but some quick research shows that Polymarket has odds for Democrats to take the House at ninety four percent and Democrats to take the Senate at seventy two percent (House market, Senate market). Apparently, the odds of a Republican sweep are down to five to seven percent (Balance of Power market).
Obviously, we can't really trust polls entirely. But I do trust the markets to be at least somewhat accurate, and so things are looking pretty horribly bad for Republicans. What are the actual implications if this happens? Because like I don't know, the second Trump term after Doge flopped, or rather, after Trump pulled back on Doge and was afraid to actually back them when it mattered. This whole term feels like kind of a mess.
What actual goals are going to be blocked by the Trump administration if the Democrats win a sweep? And I guess how much can they get done if they don't control the presidency? Or is it mainly, like, if they win the presidency in 2028 that things are gonna be bad? Walk me through the real ramifications of midterms flipping for the Democrats.
If the Democrats win the Senate, which I am hopeful they will not, then they will likely refuse to confirm all of Trump's judicial nominees, which will start a constitutional crisis whereby judges will only be confirmed when the same party controls both the Presidency and Senate.
Democratic control of the House, which is likely, will just become a circus of hearings and impeachments. Very little legislation is passed these days with executive action being much more important. Where was the law that allowed Biden to let in 15 million illegals?
Honestly, that's their prerogative. If he can't/won't send someone acceptable to them, even if they'd find nobody acceptable if he sent them up to and including someone on their own side, so be it. Them's the breaks. Losing an election has consequences.
More options
Context Copy link
It's really not a constitutional crisis. McConnell blocked Obama's SC nominees. The constitution didn't catch fire despite all the screaming the left did. Dems blocking Trumps Fed judge nominees is predictable escalation of norms. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Whether or not this is a productive state of affairs is besides the point.
Democratic control of the House and Senate, which seems likely will probably result in Trump's actual impeachment. The interesting question is will they pull that trigger. There are enough "reasons" to make it on its face justified but almost everyone knows that the real reason is they hate him. That would be a significant escalation of degrading norms. Leading to situations where having the presidency and failing to maintain one of the legislature chambers is fatal. Also President Vance is likely more competent and less of a situation to be milked going into the 2028 election. The political calculus will be interesting.
I'd note that the last time Dems went with a political calculus approach, RGB's retiring under Clinton instead of Obama, it blew up in their faces in a massively bad way. Are Dem voters willing to stomach another round of Dem establishment fuckups as they try 4D chutes and Ladders instead of actually delivering wins the voters want. Might be interesting to see normie Dems string the representatives up by their toes and vote DSA-version Trump into office in 2032.
I'm not so sure. Republicans tried to do it to Bill Clinton when he was President in 1998. They had plausible legal grounds to do it, but it's not like it would be hard for Democrats to find plausible legal grounds to do it to Trump.
More options
Context Copy link
Trump won't be removed from office it requires a supermajority. He's already been inpeached twice so 3 more that go nowhere is probably happening
More options
Context Copy link
Surely you are aware that it requires 2/3rds of the Senate to convict.
Damn early morning brain fart strikes again.
More options
Context Copy link
There are about 12 GOP Senators who are waiting around for some excuse to vote to impeach and remove Trump so they can blame all their failures on Trump and get back to the real GOP values represented by people like Mitt Romney. It all depends on what deal they can strike with JD Vance, but after Trump's behavior towards Vance over the last couple years it may not be too difficult.
And sadly, there are any number of real scandals which could be used as the excuse in the context of a horribly unpopular president. If we're in 50 or 51 territory, this is out of reach absent one of the scandals catching fire. However, as we climb up much past 52 this becomes within reach for far lesser scandals. And the media will be throwing those scandals balls hoping for one to connect regularly and they won't even need to completely make them up this time.
I'm not saying it will happen because the smartest move would be do something to Trump to placate their voters/supporters, but also keep horribly unpopular Trump in office until they can capitalize on this in 2028. And so I think their targets will be people in the Trump administration and leave Trump on top.
Who? Name them.
Mitch McConnell - Retiring in January
Bill Cassidy - BTFO by MAGA in the primary
John Cornyn - BTFO by MAGA in the primary
Susan Collins - Will be gone in the event of a blue wave. Don’t double-count her seat.
Thune, Lankford, Wicker, Risch, Moran, Fischer, Rounds, Moore Capito, Young, Cramer, Armstrong, Curtis, McCormick, Justice. If things are really dire he could also lose Kennedy, Paul, Scott and Scott, though they certainly aren't "moderates waiting for an excuse" but rather "conservatives who could flip depending on the circumstances"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This feels like something I'd hear on Tucker Carlson.
Trump's popularity ratings are in the same range as Obama and Biden, and certainly much higher than the nadir reached by Bush II. And he remains extremely popular within the Republican party.
Consider, for example, that John Cornyn lost his primary to Ken Paxton by 27 points! An incumbent! Against a supposedly very bad no good candidate in Ken Paxton. All because Trump went for Paxton.
The Republican Party as it existed before 2016 is dead.
Nevertheless, the current iteration of the party has a lot more integrity than you give them credit for. These extreme examples of party disunity or people trooning out and becoming leftists seem to be concentrated among a group of weird, young, extremely online people. Most Republicans continue to vote the party line, and the remaining leftists in the Republican party are actually being sent packing.
Cornyn lost because he supported gun control, and this was baked in before Trump endorsed against.
Also because he refused to endorse the SAVE act. Paxton said he would drop out if Cornyn endorsed it!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This feels like a paid-for post I would see on maga twitter
Trump's approval is around Bush 2's 2006 wipeout loss territory (<40)
What happens when people disapprove of Trump? They don't identify as Republican or MAGA anymore. Having a high approval rating among a much smaller group than previously isn't an argument in favor of Trump's popularity.
Trump famously stayed out of the Cornyn/Paxton contest despite Paxton being his #1 loyal soldier for years and only endorsed Paxton when the writing was on the wall that Paxton was going to win. And because of this, Ken Paxton is currently in the fight for his life in a 50/50 coin-flip because the NSRC spent $150,000,000 tarring and feathering Paxton trying to protect the horrible unpopular Cornyn from his just removal. I'm glad you brought this example up because it is representative of Trump's dumb interaction with the House and Senate and why despite resounding victory he's unable to pass basic legislation like the SAVE Act or even get his appointees approved in a remotely timely fashion.
the Trump coalition losses are concentrated among the young, that's true
Millenials and gen z are gone; what GWB did with the millenials to lose a generation to the Democrats until Trump came along is now being done to Gen Z and Millenials again
relying increasingly on the older boomer cohort is a desperate short-term strategy with horrible long-term losses, but good luck
I will admit, I don't often hear from Paxton supporters. Would you be willing to explain your case for him? I honestly haven't heard much that doesn't, to me, ring as a embrace of zero-sum politics-like-sportsball principles, but I'm willing to listen.
I don't know 2 facts about Paxton besides the fact that any Republican to the right of Cornyn is better than Cornyn. And that Paxton is to the right of Cronyn.
He has my 100% support, I was the first in line to vote for him on EV for the primary and general.
More options
Context Copy link
The best thing you can say about Ken Paxton is he represents his voters well. I support Paxton because I have supported his, at times, one-man-legal crusade against the Democrat/Leftist creep of policies and admin regulations since he took office over 10 years ago. This has been going on for years from same-sex marriage, to marijuana legalization, to Obamacare, to immigration issues, to environmental regulations, to defending Texas landowners and farmers against national overreach, to being the catalyst for contesting the 2020 election forcing the SCOTUS to issue the clownish no standing holding in Texas v Pennsylvania. He's been a loyal warrior even when it came at significant personal cost. It is completely shameful Trump didn't immediately endorse him over the horrible Cornyn whose purpose for decades was to suck up resources and energy and then stab his voters in the back regularly.
When the light was dimmest Ken Paxton was there to carry it and he should be lauded for it.
More options
Context Copy link
I voted for Ken Paxton in the general, but supported Wesley Hunt in the primary. Does that count?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Look, it's bad that Republicans are not popular with young people.
But it's not because of Trump. The people who are trooning out now were always going to troon sooner or later. If not about Israel or Epstein or data centers, then about some other low IQ thing. I'll admit that is probably too harsh. People are just the way they are, and the arc of history bends towards communism.
So let's say you are President. What are you going to do to make young people support Republicans without losing enough Boomers to permanently become an unviable party?
I don't think that's set in stone. In any case, the current bending towards socialism becoming a viable force in American politics again could be stopped by another New Deal-like compromise in which the wealthy make things better for the poor and the middles. I do not know if today's wealthy have the insight to do it, the will, or even the necessary political levers to make sweeping changes instead of getting bogged down in bureaucracy and regulations.
Now if by communism you mean social leftism, as the trooning example seems to indicate... I also wouldn't be so sure. I think that wokism is too authoritarian to ever be popular for long in a modern psychological climate... which is why it reached its high water mark a few years ago and has since receded a bit.
More options
Context Copy link
You’re presuming most people are interested in politics enough in general to even care about the platform of either party. When I was in high school and college, you couldn’t get young people to care at all about politics (truth be told, I don’t care that much either outside of political philosophy; it’s agonizing over the least impactful differences people feel in their daily lives; whether it’s been Obama or Trump hasn’t left me feeling like I’ve been affected when I go to the grocery store all that much). Except there was one instance I recall in high school. When the time came to do an essay, everyone was extremely excited to select George W. Bush’s State of the Union address, and for one reason. “That dude was Comedy Central,” every time he opened his mouth.
More options
Context Copy link
maybe the supporters who supported Trump because of his stand on immigration would turn against him if he passed an illegal amnesty bill
or some other low IQ thing
what a silly comment
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Amusingly if you look at the average approval rating for the whole administration, Bush II was IIRC slightly above Obama. I think part of the nadir there was a counter reaction to the sky-high post-9/11 approval ratings and flag waving, although certainly policy mistakes were made. OTOH that is also a continuing trend this century of monotonically falling presidential approval ratings since IIRC Clinton.
What's interesting about Bush is that he reached a top approval rating of 94% and a low of, IIRC, something in the teens.
Incredible that a President's approval rating could ever go that high. In my mind, this demonstrates the need for an immigration moratorium from Third World countries until we are that united again.
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
That is called disfunction, not constitutional crisis. Maybe more harmful in the long run but perfectly constitutional.
I am not even sure what constitutional crisis could look in the USA. Almost everything is constitutional if you control 2 branches of the government. So the only possible constitutional one that doesn't involve the states and their rights is if we have standoff between scotus and congress on one side and executive on the other.
A constitutional crisis doesn't require something to happen which is unconstitutional. It also happens when the constitution is inadequate to resolve disputes.
Packing the Supreme Court is not unconstitutional. It will nevertheless be a constitutional crisis when it happens.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the Senate doesn't approve of Trump's picks and therefore none of them happen, that's not a constitutional crisis. It's literally what the constitution says, the president (unless authorized by a passed law) must have their picks approved.
This is explicitly how the balance of powers is laid out, there is no confusion here. "But I don't like it" is not a crisis. If Trump has an issue with this, Trump should have been a better president so American citizens would vote in senators who agree with him on his nominees.
To be fair, there were also informal norms about judicial appointments and under what circumstances it was proper to block them in the Senate, but during the Bush years these norms started to break down and since then both parties have been happily ridding themselves of century-old norms to win the political fight of the day. The remaining survivor so far is the blue slip (effectively giving senators veto powers over appointments to their home state), but I am confident that is only a matter of time.
And to be fair, norms isn't the constitution. The same arguments can be pointing the other way, if Obama/Biden was a better president, their judicial picks wouldn't be blocked by a Republican senate. As much as Trump is a stressor of political norms, I think with matters like this there is a silver lining as it really brings into public consciousness of what people are willing to do away with, and what people want to have instead.
More options
Context Copy link
The blue slip is a dead letter if Talarico wins.
More options
Context Copy link
I've heard a lot of theorizing from friends about when some of these norms actually started to break down. Democrats violate this norm, Republicans escalate, Democrats tit-for-tat... Enough to convince me that the "true history" has not been written or contains so many episodes now considered obscure that nobody remembers it anyways.
The sense I've gotten is that a good portion dates back to the Carter-Reagan years, that the rejection of Robert Bork was a seminal moment, and that everything really starts escalating uncontrollably in the Gingrich years.
More options
Context Copy link
According to some scholars they started with Bork. To protect the holy cow of abortion.
While I am pro-choice, I feel that Roe v Wade was something of an original sin for the SCOTUS in the last century. "Legislated from the bench" is not a minor flaw you can overcome if your cause is just righteous enough. I am sure it seemed like an amazing hack at the time, bypassing the consensus of the governed entirely and doing the right thing, but most people who make a Faustian bargain come to regret it eventually.
The saner approach would have been a federal law backed by the commerce clause. Sure it would have taken decades, been subject to attempts to revert or constrain it, and sure, you would have had to torture the commerce clause into shape to make it regulate abortions-as-a-commercial-service, but quite frankly the commerce clause has been tortured far worse in other decisions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What makes you hopeful, despite the terrible odds stacked against Republicans?
Do you think they'll actually pull the trigger on a constitutional crisis? That would be nuts.... and yeah deeply unfortunate.
I think the polls are fake and that states which Trump won by more than 10 like Kansas, Alaska, Texas, and Ohio are unlikely to elect Democrats. I also think El-Sayed will lose in Michigan because he sucks and his opponent is a moderate.
Clearly the prediction markets think I'm wrong. I'm not sure what information punters are going on though. Polls consistently underestimate Republicans.
Yes, if Democrats get elected, I think they will stop all judicial nominations and maybe refuse to fill other vacancies as well. This could easily lead to an 8 person Supreme Court with its obvious problem. If Dems get a trifecta in 2028, they will attempt to pack the Supreme Court as well. Even "moderate" democrats like Hilary Clinton and Pete Buttigieg seem to be onboard.
The continued (unjustified) support of Nate Silver as a polling guru by "Rationalists" (to say nothing of "Prediction Markets") proves that there now 4 things you never ask:
A man, his salary
A woman, her age
A white nationalist, if his girlfriend can pass the paperbag test
And a Rationalist, to ever, ever, just even once, actually update his priors
Nate put his thumb on the scales to give Trump even the small chance he gave him in 2016 (those odds were not supported by the actual polling data), and has been a debacle ever since. This cycle alone we've already had two completely fake polling companies exposed, and Nate taking them out of his model doesn't help given that other pollsters were already herding towards them. WaPo had to put a disclaimer on their Kansas poll data because Republicans won't respond; this is not a new problem, and it is not one that pollsters have any way to solve. But "muh Nate Silver!" will ever be the rallying cry.
Early Voting/Absentee ballots that can be traced by voting district don't look promising for Dems. Going into the midterms, I'd pegged Dems taking the House, while retaining the Senate, mostly based on "Everyone Knows" the incumbent President always loses seats, but also Iran and inflation, but at this point, it would take a miracle for the Dems to take control of the Senate, and I wouldn't be shocked if the Republicans managed to keep control of the House. The only way the polling makes sense if Dems in deep Blue states collapsed while surging in states Trump won by double digits. It's beyond preposterous.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
72% odds are reason to be hopeful. The outcome is not close to being set in stone
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It was less than ideal, but we survived the Bush years when this happened.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link