Scott Alexander examines prediction markets suggesting that replacing Biden as the Democratic nominee could significantly improve the party's chances in the 2024 election. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes prediction markets to assess whether replacing Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee would improve the party's chances in the 2024 election. He finds that replacing Biden with Kamala Harris would be neutral to slightly positive, while replacing him with Gavin Newsom or a generic Democrat could increase their odds of winning by 10-15 percentage points. Scott discusses potential objections to these findings, examines his own previous skepticism about Biden's cognitive decline, and reflects on the implications for Democratic party leadership and decision-making. 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 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 presents satirical and absurd 'hardball questions' for 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, showcasing clever wordplay and humorous connections. Longer summary

Scott Alexander proposes humorous and satirical 'hardball questions' for the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Each question is a clever play on words, current events, or personal characteristics of the candidates, designed to be absurd and comical rather than serious policy inquiries. The post showcases Scott's wit and ability to find unexpected connections and wordplay in political discourse. 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 the tension between adopting voter-friendly strategies and maintaining intellectual rigor in political discourse, warning against sacrificing competent governance for electoral success. Longer summary

Scott Alexander discusses the debate surrounding Hillary Clinton's campaign mistakes and potential changes for the Democratic Party. He argues that while certain approaches may be effective for winning elections, they might not be conducive to good governance. The post explores the tension between adopting strategies that appeal to voters and maintaining an epistemic culture that allows for competent leadership. Scott warns against political parties and media outlets fully embracing emotional appeals and simplistic messaging at the expense of factual, nuanced discourse. He suggests that most of the audience for online content and publications are not the general public, so these platforms should maintain higher standards of intellectual discourse. Shorter summary