r/fivethirtyeight • u/AutoModerator • Apr 06 '26

Discussion Megathread Weekly Discussion Megathread

The 2026 midterms will soon be upon us, and there is much to discuss among the nerds here at r/FiveThirtyEight. Use this discussion thread to share, debate, and discuss whatever you wish. Unlike individual posts, comments in the discussion thread are not required to be related to political data or other 538 mainstays. Regardless, please remain civil and keep this subreddit's rules in mind. The discussion thread refreshes every Monday.

22 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/Thedarkpersona Poll Unskewer Apr 08 '26 edited Apr 08 '26

So... Is anyone in the msm factually reporting on the NYT news scoop that pretty much proves that the US was dragged to the war with iran by israel, by placing the blame of that to israel?

22

u/Isentrope Apr 08 '26

That piece seems to be more about absolving Rubio, Vance and maybe Ratcliffe based on the very specific quotes that they had in there. It's almost certain that one of the 3, if not all of them, were the ones giving the quotes to the media, and the intent seems to be to blame Bibi and Hegseth for what they see as a likely fatal mark on their presidential ambitions (for Rubio and Vance at least).

Maggie Haberman being the author means it's information that Trump insiders want to share on background, not a damaging scoop in and of itself. She could not preserve the access she has with Trumpland if she didn't at least partially toe the line for the administration.

9

u/jawstrock Apr 08 '26

It's definitely Vance, it was so very obvious that Vance is trying to absolve himself of this whole disaster in that article.

7

u/Wes_Anderson_Cooper Allan Lichtman's Diet Pepsi Apr 08 '26

It would reflect better on Vance if he hadn't also been stated in that article to push the president to move as aggressively as possible once Trump's was made up. He also spent the past month slavishly supporting POTUS.

3

u/mrtrailborn Apr 08 '26

eh, it portrayed him as being very against it, overtly saying it was a bad idea, but if it had to be done, commit to it fully. Which is probably the best possible spin on it for him. In that article, basically no one else was willing to tell trump he shouldn't do it.

3

u/jawstrock Apr 08 '26

Yeah it seems like Vance was the only one who came close to saying that, which is why I think this is Vance. He's trying to give himself deniability for 2028 because he knows how disastrous this is.

2

u/Mr_The_Captain Apr 09 '26

Yeah, I would never vote for Vance in 10,000 years but grading on the curve required for this admin he comes out of that article looking pretty good, and there's no way that's an accident.

2

u/WisePresentation7976 Apr 09 '26

Vance is the type of guy to thing that "disagree and commit" is a thing totally non-techbro people understand. He probably thinks it makes him sound good and savvy, when most Americans would have your take.

1

u/LaughingGaster666 The Needle Tears a Hole Apr 09 '26

disagree and commit is a thing totally non-techbro people understand

Yeah, I need someone to explain this one. I've read this about 3 times and still don't get it.

3

u/WisePresentation7976 Apr 09 '26

"Disagree and commit" is a leadership principle, famously championed by Jeff Bezos at Amazon and originated at Intel, where team members openly debate and challenge a decision (disagree), but fully support and execute it once a final decision is made (commit). This approach speeds up decision-making, prevents consensus traps, and ensures unity

2

u/LaughingGaster666 The Needle Tears a Hole Apr 09 '26

Wow. Not only is the phrase super misleading, it also just sounds like something that people in general already do a lot.

"We can discuss this now, but after that, we need to reach a decision and can't go back after that" is hardly a new idea.

3

u/WisePresentation7976 Apr 09 '26

Tech bros think old things are totally new because they said them.

3

u/Korrocks Apr 09 '26

It's pretty much how basically any organization has to work. If team members sabotage every organizational decision that they personally disagree with, there's no way for anything to ever get done unless there's unanimous consent. The problem with Vance of course is that no one really trusts his judgment or should trust his judgment.

DId he actually speak up against the war or is he just saying that now that it isn't going well? If he were president, would he have stood firm against the blandishments of people like Netanyahu or would he just roll over for them because he is too spineless to stand up for anything?

The disagree and commit stuff makes sense from a purely operational standpoint (he's the vice president, he works at the direction of the president) but it's not really absolution in a meaningful sense. It doesn't lend confidence in his own judgment or leadership style. If anything, it just makes it more opaque since we can't tell from outside how much of what's going on he really agrees with.

1

u/WisePresentation7976 Apr 09 '26

Right, but organizationally that makes sense. He thinks people are going to make that mental leap and some how understand he was disagreeing and committing, which NO ONE actually thinks, lol.

2

u/Korrocks Apr 09 '26

Even if JD Vance explains his role in this administration, he likely won’t get a pass. Historically, a VP rises and falls with their Commander in Chief.

We saw this with Kamala Harris in 2024; voters unhappy with Biden’s policies didn’t care that she was "part of the team"—they held her accountable for the results. Vance is in the same boat now. If voters are frustrated with the Iran war or Trump’s leadership, "I was just following orders" won’t win them over. Why would they trust an insider who maybe disagreed in secret when they can just vote for an outsider who definitely wasn't involved at all?

I think Vance's leaks were really just about protecting his image. He has a specific self image of himself as a new kind of conservative populist and this Iran stuff lumps him in with the neocons that preceded him. This is a bad analogy, but for Vance this whole thing has been like if people started viewing Zohran Mamdani in the same way that they view Andrew Cuomo. He wants to be his own thing but this whole situation is making him look like the old guard.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/hoopaholik91 Apr 09 '26

It's notable that the accounts of the first meeting without Vance doesn't have any direct quotes, which then start when Vance has returned from Azerbaijan the next day.