New Book "Chasing Hillary"

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't see the concept of likability as applied to politicians (i.e., people the speakers don't know at all) as being meaningful with regard to election analysis. I think the main use of the concept is allowing people (including or especially people in the media) a kind of entry point to opine on complex issues that they have no knowledge of. Plus, it gives people to push off their personal hangups as objective analysis.

The baseball writer Bill James introduced the concept of a "bullshit dump," that this reminds me of:

Sure. And I agree that in this case there's no amount of quantification or clear logic that will satisfactory explain the loss to everyone. What's confusing to me is your pushback here. You're usually the guy claiming people aren't sufficiently interested in policy. So they must be going off something else, right? Some will vote D and some R. Then there's the independents and people are going to have make a choice based on something. Maybe it's one particular policy. Maybe it's something they just don't like about the candidate.

Likability isn't some bullshit concept just because there's no formula for it. As a fight fan this shouldn't be controversial for you. Some fighters a fan will like. Some they won't. Reasons vary. And like many things involving the concept of appeal, there's not always reasoning involved. I can't rationalize why Hendo is my favorite. Can't rationalize why I always cheered against Fedor (up until he lost). If someone says they voted Trump just because they really dislike Hilary who am I to say otherwise?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Sure. And I agree that in this case there's no amount of quantification or clear logic that will satisfactory explain the loss to everyone. What's confusing to me is your pushback here. You're usually the guy claiming people aren't sufficiently interested in policy. So they must be going off something else, right? Some will vote D and some R. Then there's the independents and people are going to have make a choice based on something. Maybe it's one particular policy. Maybe it's something they just don't like about the candidate.

Likability isn't some bullshit concept just because there's no formula for it. As a fight fan this shouldn't be controversial for you. Some fighters a fan will like. Some they won't. Reasons vary. And like many things involving the concept of appeal, there's not always reasoning involved. I can't rationalize why Hendo is my favorite. Can't rationalize why I always cheered against Fedor (up until he lost). If someone says they voted Trump just because they really dislike Hilary who am I to say otherwise?

If someone says "I personally dislike X so I voted for Y," there's nothing to say to that. It is what it is. If someone says, "X's personal unlikability is why Y won," that's a different statement, and one I'd call out as bullshit masquerading as analysis.

My general thinking (informed by looking at research on the subject) is that the candidates don't matter all that much in elections. Bigger forces move results. To the extent you can look for evidence that the candidates do matter, you'd have to conclude that Clinton performed better than you'd expect a generic Democrat to perform in 2016 (or conversely that Trump performed worse than a generic Republican would have--same thing, pretty much).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If someone says "I personally dislike X so I voted for Y," there's nothing to say to that. It is what it is. If someone says, "X's personal unlikability is why Y won," that's a different statement, and one I'd call out as bullshit masquerading as analysis.

My general thinking (informed by looking at research on the subject) is that the candidates don't matter all that much in elections. Bigger forces move results. To the extent you can look for evidence that the candidates do matter, you'd have to conclude that Clinton performed better than you'd expect a generic Democrat to perform in 2016 (or conversely that Trump performed worse than a generic Republican would have--same thing, pretty much).

Gotcha. Yeah, those are different. Although again, I'd call that analysis more tautological than bullshit. Either way, not incredibly enlightening all by itself.

I can't disagree at all that larger forces come into play and results don't just come from comparing one candidate to another. But unless you're saying her election was an impossibility then there must also be more to it. For me personally, I just don't like her. I'd have voted Democrat had they put up almost any other candidate. Instead I opted for a 3rd party. Couldn't even support Trump when trying to rationalize it as being a single issue voter (some pro-2nd Amendment legislation was all lined up).

As an aside, I'd suspect whatever research you looked at was more noting trends than explaining them. Human behavior isn't exactly a hard science.

 

[Idonotbelieveit]

So glad she didn't win. So corrupt. And would fuck usa up worse than bush

 

[Idonotbelieveit]

She lost get over it

hope her fans have.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I can't disagree at all that larger forces come into play and results don't just come from comparing one candidate to another. But unless you're saying her election was an impossibility then there must also be more to it. For me personally, I just don't like her. I'd have voted Democrat had they put up almost any other candidate. Instead I opted for a 3rd party. Couldn't even support Trump when trying to rationalize it as being a single issue voter (some pro-2nd Amendment legislation was all lined up).

As an aside, I'd suspect whatever research you looked at was more noting trends than explaining them. Human behavior isn't exactly a hard science.

I wouldn't say that Democrats winning was an impossibility at all. But I think if the takeaway from 2016 was "oh, Democrats should have won but they had an unlikable candidate and should make sure to nominate a likable one next time," that's a mistake. In another thread, Chris was saying that, basically, Democrats should give up on Warren because Republicans have allowed her belief that she was 1/32nd Native American to define her, which is drawing on that incorrect lesson, IMO.

My take is that the other side is going to hate the nominee that they oppose no matter what, the media will play into whatever stereotypes there are, and bothsidesists will assume that there's something to the attacks. That's not unique to Clinton or Warren--it's just the baseline that anyone has to work with. Republicans don't for the most part think highly of their own party and policies, but they do deeply hate liberals and they do have their own alternative media structure so there's no way to avoid that hate being focused on the top threat. Clinton was about as squeaky clean personally and as honorable a candidate as you can ask for, and the other side was still convinced that she was a crook and even wanted to steal the election by arresting her for ... doing work with an insufficiently safe email address.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I wouldn't say that Democrats winning was an impossibility at all. But I think if the takeaway from 2016 was "oh, Democrats should have won but they had an unlikable candidate and should make sure to nominate a likable one next time," that's a mistake. In another thread, Chris was saying that, basically, Democrats should give up on Warren because Republicans have allowed her belief that she was 1/32nd Native American to define her, which is drawing on that incorrect lesson, IMO.

My take is that the other side is going to hate the nominee that they oppose no matter what, the media will play into whatever stereotypes there are, and bothsidesists will assume that there's something to the attacks. That's not unique to Clinton or Warren--it's just the baseline that anyone has to work with. Republicans don't for the most part think highly of their own party and policies, but they do deeply hate liberals and they do have their own alternative media structure so there's no way to avoid that hate being focused on the top threat. Clinton was about as squeaky clean personally and honorable a candidate as you can ask for, and the other side was still convinced that she was a crook and even wanted to steal the election by arresting her for ... doing work with an insufficiently safe email address.

I don't know about Warren, but you'll probably never convince me that Trump wasn't a shit candidate ripe for defeat. There was an article about her telling her staff to quit focusing on her un-likability. Sounded like the campaign thought it was a concern. My speculation is anyone without the baggage and controversy would have taken down Trump. And yes, I'm drawing on my own motivations and the things other people said (i.e. not talking about her policies but her character). Not sure how anything definitive could ever be proven.

Yes, registered voters on both sides are almost certainly going to vote for their party's candidate. Then there's all the non-affiliated voters. Obama (a black Muslim ) somehow withstood the smear and disinformation campaign from the right. Maybe because he was charismatic? Sure isn't because white America is nothing but racists and bigots as the left seems to want us to believe. Or that independents are easily duped by Fox news. It's all kinda spilled milk anyway. I'm far more interested in who the dems come up with next time rather than picking at Hilary's political carcass.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, registered voters on both sides are almost certainly going to vote for their party's candidate. Then there's all the non-affiliated voters. Obama (a black Muslim ) somehow withstood the smear and disinformation campaign from the right. Maybe because he was charismatic?

See, 2008 was an extraordinarily favorable year for Democrats. You're overexplaining something very simple. Any Democratic candidate would have won that year, many likely by a bigger margin. That's my point. Someone who didn't even know who the candidates were but looked at the numbers would have predicted a big win for Democrats, just as they would have predicted a tight win for Republicans in 2016, a tight win for Democrats in 2012, a moderate win for Republicans in 2004, etc. By drawing all kinds of soft-headed conclusions about Obama's win, you're making the same mistake that I was criticizing earlier. Likewise, the superpolitician Bill Clinton (according to the media anyway) would have gotten crushed in 1992 if not for the recession wrecking Bush. And then in 1996, he was running as an incumbent with a soaring economy.

I think it's just really hard for some people to step back and try to analyze political results the way they'd analyze financial numbers or baseball because there's so much emotional investment.

 

[HereticBD]

I love how the left always manages to prove all the shit people say about them, to be 100% accurate.

"We're over Hillary. She was a shitty candidate. There. We said it. We're totally over it. It's the right who is obsessed with her!"

Negative Clinton thread pops up. Here comes the Libby brigade...

"She actually wasn't as bad as you're saying. W-w-why are lying about her? Stop lying about her! She was so good! It was just stupid people not being able to see how good she was! She would've won if it wasn't for (insert one of 9000 excuses here). Trump STOLE the election!


...we're totally over it though."


ROFL.

 

[bobgeese]

I . Obama (a black Muslim ) somehow withstood the smear and disinformation campaign from the right. .

Like him or not, Obama was a MASTERFUL politician. He played the game as good as anyone.

 

[Quequeg]

I love how the left always manages to prove all the shit people say about them, to be 100% accurate.

"We're over Hillary. She was a shitty candidate. There. We said it. We're totally over it. It's the right who is obsessed with her!"

Negative Clinton thread pops up. Here comes the Libby brigade...

"She actually wasn't as bad as you're saying. W-w-why are lying about her? Stop lying about her! She was so good! It was just stupid people not being able to see how good she was! She would've won if it wasn't for (insert one of 9000 excuses here). Trump STOLE the election!


...we're totally over it though."


ROFL.

How come all Hillary threads are started right wingers? Why is a Canadian obsessed with American politics?

 

[HereticBD]

How come all Hillary threads are started right wingers? Why is a Canadian obsessed with American politics?

Why can't hysterical Liberals who have been banned for not being able to keep their emotions in check, just stay away?

 

[Quequeg]

Why can't hysterical Liberals who have been banned for not being able to keep their emotions in check, just stay away?

Got any proof of my supposed banning or just your usual fact free shitposting?

 

[HereticBD]

Got any proof of my supposed banning or just your usual fact free shitposting?

Anybody who hops into the thick of it in the War Room and knows all the posters, with a two month old account, is obviously a formerly banned member.

C'mon son, you ain't fooling anybody. At least have the decency to admit it.

 

[Quequeg]

Anybody who hops into the thick of it in the War Room and knows all the posters, with a two month old account, is obviously a formerly banned member.

C'mon son, you ain't fooling anybody. At least have the decency to admit it.

Wrong moron, ever heard of reading the stuff with out having an account?

 

[HereticBD]

Wrong moron, ever heard of reading the stuff with out having an account?

Like I said, you're not fooling anyone.

 

[Quequeg]

Like I said, you're not fooling anyone.

Keep shitposting moron.

 

[HereticBD]

Keep shitposting moron.

Try not to get banned again.

 

[Quequeg]

Try not to get banned again.

Never happened, I love that you are so rustled though.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

See, 2008 was an extraordinarily favorable year for Democrats. You're overexplaining something very simple. Any Democratic candidate would have won that year, many likely by a bigger margin.

If you think one party's win is in a Presidential election is an absolute certainty than you're under-explaining something very complicated.

Have you told @waiguoren which upcoming races you guarantee. Maybe there's some action here for the bet thread. Out of curiosity, is there a post where you predicted Trump's victory?