Scott Alexander presents a satirical, fictional Republican primary debate with absurd rules to highlight candidate personalities and critique political debate formats. Longer summary

Scott Alexander presents a satirical, fictional account of a Republican primary debate with unusual rules. The debate features Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Donald Trump answering questions while adhering to increasingly absurd constraints, such as avoiding specific letters, using certain words or phrases, or speaking in specific poetic forms. The satire highlights the candidates' personalities and political positions while critiquing the format of political debates and the state of American politics. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines which US political party has become more extreme faster, concluding Democrats have moved further left on policy since 1994, while results vary for other aspects of extremism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the question of which political party in the US has become more extreme faster, breaking it down into four sub-questions. He concludes that Democrats have moved further left on policy positions since 1994 than Republicans have moved right, based on survey data and first principles. On divergence from ordinary Americans, he calls it a tie. Regarding ideological purity, Republicans show more polarization in Congress, but it's unclear for average voters. Scott avoids declaring a winner on which party has become crazier in worldview and messaging. He argues the policy position change is most important, supporting the meme that Democrats have moved more extreme, while noting other interpretations could point to Republicans. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander evaluates his predictions about the Trump presidency, finding he performed about average overall with some notable successes and failures. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews and grades his predictions about Donald Trump's presidency, covering topics from Trump's base diversity to the likelihood of a coup. He analyzes his successes and failures, discussing his performance on prediction markets and his overall accuracy compared to average pundits. Scott concludes that he did about average in his predictions, with some notable successes in race-related predictions and on prediction markets, but also made mistakes in overestimating Trump's competence and underestimating his continued support from Republicans. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander shares reader comments on his review of Fussell's class book, covering upper-class perspectives, class indicators, and political implications of class distinctions. Longer summary

Scott Alexander highlights comments on his review of Paul Fussell's book on class. The comments cover various aspects of class distinctions, including perspectives from upper-class readers, discussions on flower preferences as class indicators, and debates about the portrayal of working-class life in 'The Simpsons'. The post also touches on modern class analysis, Republican politics, and the author's thoughts on political strategies for Democrats. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander suggests Republicans should focus on fighting cultural classism to broaden their appeal and unite their base. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes a strategy for the Republican Party to pivot towards fighting classism as a way to maintain relevance and appeal to a broader base. He suggests that the party should focus on the cultural aspects of class rather than economic ones, positioning themselves as champions of the working class against the upper class. The post outlines several potential policy areas, including reforming higher education, challenging the concept of expertise, critiquing upper-class media, and reframing the debate on 'wokeness' as a class issue. Alexander argues that this approach could unite various Republican constituencies and potentially attract new voters, including minorities. Shorter summary

Scott examines claims that political parties should focus on base turnout rather than appealing to moderates, finding evidence that extreme candidates decrease turnout and swing voters matter. Longer summary

This post analyzes the claim that political parties should focus on turning out their base rather than appealing to moderates. Scott examines research and data on voter behavior, finding that extreme candidates tend to decrease turnout for their own party and that swing voters can be decisive in close elections. He concludes that the evidence does not support the 'win-by-extremism-turning-out-the-base' argument. While acknowledging that non-centrist candidates like Trump can win, Scott argues this is by appealing to new coalitions rather than just moving to ideological extremes. The post evaluates academic studies, exit polls, and analysis by political commentators to reach these conclusions. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines how Republicans' failure to achieve smaller government despite holding power contributes to increased polarization and the election of more extreme candidates. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses a factor contributing to increased polarization among Republicans. He argues that despite Republican control of various levels of government, they have failed to achieve their stated goals of smaller government, fewer regulations, and a reduced welfare state. Scott presents graphs showing growth in government spending, regulations, and welfare spending over time. He suggests this failure is due to secular trends that make everything more expensive, requiring more government spending and regulation. However, Republican voters, unaware of these underlying factors, perceive this as betrayal by their elected officials. This leads to a cycle of electing increasingly extreme candidates who promise to be 'real' Republicans, resulting in hyperpartisanship and refusal to compromise. Scott notes that this is a general issue when people have unrealistic expectations, leading to rejection of existing governments in favor of extremism. Shorter summary