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.
One implication is when Democrats win the Senate, Lisa Murkowski will probably swap parties to Democrat or at the very least caucus with them so any number you see being bandied around you should throw another 1 on top.
If Susan Collins loses in Maine (and it's looking like that will be the case), the likelihood Murkowski swaps to Democrat goes up to near certainty. Also, if Susan Collins loses in Maine, we're looking at an at least 52 Dem Senate majority (then throw Murkowski on top) which would be a 5 seat loss. It could be as much as 55.
And the larger the majority, the more radical they will behave. A 225 seat majority in the House will get Hakeem Jeffries while a 240 seat majority will get someone far more likely to push the envelope, e.g., around funding/defunding Trump admin priorities (think deportations and immigration enforcement) as well as endless investigations in the plentiful fields of rank corruption in the Trump administration. We may even see impeachment and removals of some of the more unpopular Trump appointees. I doubt even a 55 seat majority will remove Trump, but they definitely will allow impeachment trials to go on and on and on broadcasting anything bad about the Trump admin, real or made-up.
It's really incredible how quickly Trump was able to shred his winning political coalition, but I guess all the political capital Trump built over hardship for 10 years and the best political comeback since Andrew Jackson was all accumulated to engage in a preposterously stupid war for Israel for reasons we're all just left to speculate about.
Why would she do this? What's in it for her, and what could the Dems want to offer her to make this happen?
Murkowski is a Republican because its the only way she'll get power in Alaska. She doesn't like Republicans, she doesn't like Trump, and she doesn't like her voters. She is one of the many Republicans who desperately wants to be accepted by established power and protected by the NYT. Murkowski&Co has a decades long history of working with Democrats to protect her seat from far better candidates who would better represent the actual beliefs of the voters in Alaska.
If she sees a pathway to keep power and not be Republican, she is going to take it.
access to power, prestige, playing for the winning team, protection by the media
if personal political beliefs were irrelevant, would you rather be a Democrat or a Republican? I don't think it's particularly close.
Wouldn’t her political career be dead if she swaps parties? She’s not winning in 6 years as a Dem.
No. Alaska uses ranked choice voting for federal elections, a system it adopted entirely to protect the Alaska establishment machine and Murkowski specifically in 2020. And that's true even if the Alaska Senate race wasn't competitive which it currently is right now.
I bet on Dem in Alaska over 6 months ago when the odds were 4 to 1. I should look at the race and see if I should sell it or hold it.
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