My understanding is that GiveWell also emerged from a giving group at Bridgewater.

This post makes an argument that politics is important, but I don't really see any argument that it is neglected or tractable?

You could imagine some kind of quota, where for any partisan political issue, you can only post about it on side X if there is any X quota remaining (which can only happen if posts are added from the perspective of side Y).

But, what would we do if (as seems likely) everything gets polarized? Animal welfare, AI, even GHD are starting to show signs of political polarization. Would everything then be subject to quota?

Is there any reason to believe that the election would have been a tractable cause area? As @Jason noted, "the pre-eminent EA funder was one of the top ten donors in the 2024 US elections cycle"

My sense is that even if the full weight of EA were thrown towards preventing Trump from getting elected, it would still have not been enough, and also it would have antagonized Trump.

Would you say that Teryn Mattox or Dan Brown at GiveWell or Alexander Berger or Emily Oehlsen at Open Philanthropy meet this description?

Communist revolution? American independence?

I agree with this in principle; however there are some practicalities that go the other way. One in this domain is that investment performance is likely anti-correlated with donation effectiveness. In other words, if the economy is booming and your investments are performing well, then you should expect charitable giving opportunities to be worse; on the other hand if there is a global recession and your investments are tanking, it's likely there will be unusually good giving opportunities. Or to put it another way, there are advantages to countercyclical giving.

You could give to AMF directly. But it would still most likely be funged by GiveWell. I don’t think there is any good way out of this, short of funding something you are confident GiveWell wouldn’t (like GiveDirectly); but by doing that, you are also implicitly choosing a worse charity.

Just give to AMF, New Incentives, GiveDirectly, etc., in your estate instead, if you are worried about this? Most likely the money will be funded by GiveWell regardless.

I would just make the observation that one doesn't have to buy into GiveWell's moral weights to make user of their research and recommendations. A donor can build their own moral weights, plug that into GiveWell's research, and come up with a top choice for the donation. GiveWell is in my experience pretty happy to walk larger donors through this process.