site banner
Goodguy  1d ago (text post)   Edited 1d ago   8015 thread views

Midterms Megathread

Cause otherwise midterms discussion will be scattered around a bunch of separate Culture War thread posts. And it's nice to have more off-the-cuff rapid reactions in a dedicated megathread.

The first thing I've noticed so far: if the exit polls are correct, Americans are very pessimistic about AI.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

No, I think any other Republican candidate gets beat in both those elections, though narrowly. Trump boosted Republican voting by low-propensity voters far beyond what it had previously and had major downballot coattails. Given demographic trends, I think it's unlikely any non-populist Republicans can win national elections. ETA: Obviously, if Hillary won the first time, Biden and probably Harris never happens anyways, it would be 8 years of Clinton

any other Republican candidate gets beat in both those elections, though narrowly

The question is poorly conceived. A Romney Republican isn't going to get nominated in 2020 or 2024 in a world in which Trump wins in 2016, even if he dies of diet coke poisoning in his first term. The GOP had already been running hot with a populist revolt when Trump won the nomination, and that only intensified over the course of the first term. If Trump dies of health complications or just decides he's bored of being president, the likely successor is someone like Ted Cruz cosplaying as Trump. And that would go very poorly - the hardcore Trumpists, at least so far, seem to accept no substitutes, while the people who disdain Trump are not going to be drawn back by that messaging.

On the other hand, if Trump just... doesn't run in 2016, I think the likely nominees (Cruz or Rubio, neither of whom are really Romney Republicans, but close enough) handily beat HRC. Clinton was a WEAK candidate who would have lost to almost any credible Republican after eight years of a Democratic presidency on sheer thermostatic backlash if nothing else.

Trump boosted Republican voting by low-propensity voters far beyond what it had previously and had major downballot coattails.

He also repels a lot of traditionally centrist demographics like suburban professionals and has likely calcified a massive amount of winnable votes as near-permanent Democrats. And the suburban professionals vote every year.

I don't agree at all. Obama was still very popular in 2015 (for a lame duck President) and Clinton was the designated successor for his political juggernaut of a coalition. She had experience in the outgoing admin, national politics, and Presidential administration, and had a huge base of institutional DNC support. Bill was still widely liked. She was at least as well positioned as HW Bush was after Reagan.

He also repels a lot of traditionally centrist demographics like suburban professionals and has likely calcified a massive amount of winnable votes as near-permanent Democrats. And the suburban professionals vote every year.

They had already been lost to the Obama coalition and weren't coming back. Certainly not for Cruz or Rubio.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats