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

Scott Alexander endorses Clinton (or Johnson/Stein in safe states) over Trump, citing concerns about Trump's unpredictability and potential negative impacts on conservatism and social dynamics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander endorses voting for Hillary Clinton in swing states, and Clinton, Johnson, or Stein in safe states. He argues against Donald Trump, not primarily on policy grounds, but because of Trump's unpredictability, potential for high-variance outcomes, and the damage he could do to conservatism and the fight against social justice extremism. Alexander expresses concerns about Trump's lack of concrete plans, his potential to radicalize the next generation towards the far left, and his movement's epistemic vices. He also touches on issues like global warming and immigration, urging readers to consider the long-term consequences of their vote. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander debunks the idea that Trump's supporters are disproportionately white, revealing that Bernie Sanders actually has much whiter support, and uses this to challenge common narratives about race and politics. Longer summary

Scott Alexander analyzes the media narrative that Donald Trump's supporters are disproportionately white, showing it to be unsupported by polling data. He then reveals that Bernie Sanders, not Trump, has a much higher ratio of white to non-white support within his party. Scott uses this to illustrate two points: 1) 'white' in political discussions often means the 'Red Tribe' rather than literal race, and 2) low minority representation in a group doesn't necessarily indicate racism. He suggests that Sanders' lack of minority support might be due to him being seen as a 'weird intellectual signaling-laden countercultural movement', similar to other groups with low minority representation like atheists or BDSM enthusiasts. Shorter summary