Who ran a worse campaign Hillary Clinton Or Michael Dukasis

[junior chįmp]

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

[junior chįmp]

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

Dukakis blew a double digit lead, there can be no excuses for that, none, especially when Bush Sr. was being investigated by the FBI for colluding with Iran.

Dukakis never blew a double digit lead. The fact is he was never really in the lead. SUre the polls said he was in the lead but the fundamentals overwhelmingly predicted a GOP win that year. Take for example these ''prediction'' models:



So GW Bush Sr. had a 72% chance of beating Dukakis. On top of that, he was predicted by the ''experts'' to win 56.1% of the vote (he only got 53.9%)

Obviously Hillary. The fundamentals predicted a GOP victory in 1988 for the most part. The whole notion that Dukakis ran some terrible campaign and was ''ruined'' by Lee Atwaters negative ads is nonsense.

Those fundamentals work for the popular vote, not the EC.

And even with the whole, EC magnifies PV thing in mind, he still didn't have to lose by 7 points. It could've and should've been close. Clearly something had to go wrong. And Atwater was clearly the guy to ensure that.

This is a prime example of the narrative fallacy. You see, after elections...idiot pundits and useless journos will go back and create a phony narrative about why so and so lost but the fact is that elections are by and large the product of just a couple fundamentals and national environment that are mostly out of a candidates control.

Let's take for example the 1960 election...people will write stuff like: ''Nixon lost because JFK looked so good on the TV even though people that listened to the debate on the radio said Nixon won.'' This actually never happened:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But that's the narrative written about the 1960 election. You now have the same thing happening right before you with the 2016 election about how it was, ''economically anxious WWC'' that propelled Trump to victory but we all know its baloney.

The fundamentals and national environment predicted a GOP win in 1988 but the phony narrative written after the fact about how the tank ad sank Dukakis or how Atwater's ads caused him to drop in the polls is just bogus. A Democrat just wasn't favored to win that year and its human nature to create narratives to explain outcomes we either dont want to accept/believe or just arent curious enough to investigate ourselves.

Pay attention to the fundamentals, demographics, and national environment and ignore the narratives.

[junior chįmp]

This is a prime example of the narrative fallacy. You see, after elections...idiot pundits and useless journos will go back and create a phony narrative about why so and so lost but the fact is that elections are by and large the product of just a couple fundamentals and national environment that are mostly out of a candidates control.

I want this to be true, because it is the only halfway rational explanation for President Trump.

From the famous Lewis, Beck, and Rice ''prediction models'' of the past:



GOP favored to win in 1988. I dont know why people were so surprised that Nate Silver choked in 2016. Lewis, Beck, and Rice got it wrong 3 times as models are not perfect.

[junior chįmp]

He didn't really choke.  His model is based on polling.  If the polling is off, his model will be as well.  The model was actually much less bullish on Clinton than  many others, because it took into account that there were a lot of undecideds.

I mean he did choke as all prediction models (whether they are based on polling, fundamentals, economic conditions, etc...) have some blind spots that might not be known until you have some event like a Trump getting the nomination.

[junior chįmp]

Silver's model was also better than others (i.e. Huff Post that had a Clinton presidency at 98% or so) because it assumed correlations among states, i.e. if you were underperforming in Ohio, you were probably underperforming in Wisconsin as well.

Nate Silver can make up all the fancy sounding excuses he wants but the fact remains that big data and polling alone cannot predict every election. As I seem to recall, Silver said Trump would never win the GOP nomination...let alone the presidency. rofl...the arrogance of the intellectual professional class in this country.

He didn't really choke.  His model is based on polling.  If the polling is off, his model will be as well.  The model was actually much less bullish on Clinton than  many others, because it took into account that there were a lot of undecideds.

I mean he did choke as all prediction models (whether they are based on polling, fundamentals, economic conditions, etc...) have some blind spots that might not be known until you have some event like a Trump getting the nomination.

The Founding Fathers would've been more shocked by Obama winning the nomination than Trump winning the nomination.

Prolly