New Book "Chasing Hillary"

[Jack V Savage]

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

Are you denying that 2008 was an extraordinarily favorable year for Democrats, and that it would have been difficult for them to lose?

That's the general point here. The individual candidates can move the needle by a couple of points (not an insignificant matter in a close election), but there's no evidence that the effect can be bigger than that. Obama won by more than 7 points. I don't think the biggest plausible difference in candidate quality would cover that gap, and I think Obama's liabilities (race, inexperience) probably suggest that a generic Democrat would have done better.

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?

I can tell you that Hirono will win. That's a lock, unless her health goes south. Agree? I'll give you 10-1 odds on a bet if not. I'm not basing that on an assessment of her "charisma" (I couldn't pick her out of a lineup) but on the fact that it's a safe seat for her party. On the other hand, Dean Heller will probably lose his re-election campaign, but he might not. Not because I'm on the fence about his charisma but because an incumbent running in an unfavorable environment. I could predict most of the Senate races with a high degree of certainty without knowing anything about the candidates if I took the time, but my point is so obviously true, I don't see any reason to bother.

With regard to Trump, the polls had him as a big underdog, though after the Comey letter, he moved to within the margin of error of a win. This is actually an area where more quantitative analysis did better than expected--it appeared to be a good year for Republicans but people thought that a joke candidate would blow it. He still performed worse than would be expected (note that he lost the popular vote by 2 points). I think that demonstrated the extremes (3-point PV swing between a candidate-blind projection and reality--might have been 1-4 more without FBI interference, but then Comey wouldn't have sent the letter if he thought it was a close race)--with the favored party nominating a joke candidate and the underdog party nominating a strong candidate.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Are you denying that 2008 was an extraordinarily favorable year for Democrats, and that it would have been difficult for them to lose?

Nope. Just sticking with my opinion that wide-scale human behavior isn't as predictable as you seem to think and that a party can't just throw out whatever candidate and still win (even when the environment is set up for it). In same elections in some regions it's a foregone conclusion. Not for all states when it comes to the Presidency. But if you can show me the post where you predicted Trump defeating Hilary I'll admit it appears I'm underestimating the methodology.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nope. Just sticking with my opinion that wide-scale human behavior isn't as predictable as you seem to think and that a party can't just throw out whatever candidate and still win (even when the environment is set up for it). In same elections in some regions it's a foregone conclusion. Not for all states when it comes to the Presidency. But if you can show me the post where you predicted Trump defeating Hilary I'll admit it appears I'm underestimating the methodology.

I think you're deliberately missing the point, and in a pretty obvious way (one of the worst tendencies of people here). How predictable to you think I think wide-scale human behavior is? Do I think it's more predictable than you do? What makes you think that, if so? Let me spell it out:

1. Variation in voting results that can be attributed to individual candidate quality (however you define that) is much smaller than variation that can be attributed to broader forces. I illustrated that point by noting that Hirono (who I know nothing about though I assume you do) is a lock, barring health problems. The vast majority of general-election races are similarly predictable. It gets harder when broader factors predict a close race or predict an outcome that runs against other factors.
2. Because of a variety of biases (outcome bias being a big one), the winner of any election will retrospectively be assigned greater "likability" or "charisma" or any other unmeasurable quality that the speaker thinks is significant in races.
3. All reasonable attempts to *measure* individual candidate quality that I'm aware of show that Clinton was a strong candidate in 2016 (specifically, she outperformed downballot Democrats, she outperformed expectations based on fundamentals, and turnout was strong). Because presidential elections are zero-sum contests, those findings could also be explained by Trump's weakness.

If you disagree with 1 and think that individual candidate quality matters more than other factors, you're not necessarily saying that elections are less predictable than I am--you're just saying that they can be predicted with a different set of observations. Hunter thinks that "charisma" essentially is all you need to know and can predict results perfectly. I think that's ridiculous.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think you're deliberately missing the point,

Whereas I think I've understood what you said, mostly agree, said I'd shift position some toward your view if you could show you predicted Trump's win, and you chose to repeat yourself instead.

1. I've agreed broad forces are at work and think the actual candidate matters too. Broad force would be party. No matter the candidates, third parties don't do well.
2. I've said that trying to explain outcomes in terms of likability is tautological.
3. She was strong in many ways. Clearly not enough (eg. under FBI investigation, having a long history of controversy, and strong dislike among many voters). Could have sworn you were among those who felt Comey's late-game announcement of re-opening the investigation was a big factor in her losing. Guess not. My mistake.

I really don't know where else you want to go with the conversation. I've done what I can to find common ground with you here (which is something I've never seen you do with me). Try acknowledging some of my points once in a while and maybe there wouldn't seem like such a gap in the conversation to you such that you think I'm the one avoiding points. It's almost like you think either someone agrees with everything you say or they don't understand at all what you're saying.

If you want to debate the efficacy of models and formulas predicting human behavior I'm probably not interested. Suffice it to say, I'm sure the results will vary greatly depending on the specific behaviors being predicted. I'm also sure not all relevant factors will be able to be ascertained, measured, etc. And I'm pretty sure people change their minds a lot and can be influenced by future (i.e. unpredictable) events. Econ is measuring human behavior. I wonder how many people could correctly predict every night before bedtime which direction the market would go (and by how much) the next day. Pardon me if I have limited faith in human understanding of their own group dynamics. It's a product of my Sociology degree. But who knows. Maybe things have come a long way in 20 years.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Whereas I think I've understood what you said, mostly agree, said I'd shift position some toward your view if you could show you predicted Trump's win, and you chose to repeat yourself instead.

I didn't predict Trump's win or say that all elections are easily predictable. That's a strawman. I would say that some elections are easily predictable, though. And that candidates matter within a very narrow range. The GOP had the edge in 2016, but they still lost the popular vote because candidate quality does matter.

1. I've agreed broad forces are at work and think the actual candidate matters too. Broad force would be party. No matter the candidates, third parties don't do well.
2. I've said that trying to explain outcomes in terms of likability is tautological.
3. She was strong in many ways. Clearly not enough (eg. under FBI investigation, having a long history of controversy, and strong dislike among many voters). Could have sworn you were among those who felt Comey's late-game announcement of re-opening the investigation was a big factor in her losing. Guess not. My mistake.

Of course Comey's announcement swung the race. You're misinterpreting my position if you're saying I wouldn't put that in the realm of possibility. I made my position super clear so I don't see how that's even possible at this point.

I really don't know where else you want to go with the conversation. I've done what I can to find common ground with you here (which is something I've never seen you do with me). Try acknowledging some of my points once in a while and maybe there wouldn't seem like such a gap in the conversation to you such that you think I'm the one avoiding points. It's almost like you think either someone agrees with everything you say or they don't understand at all what you're saying.

No, there is a third possibility--that someone is misrepresenting my position. I've consistently said that candidates matter a little (and luck matters a little, too), but that broader forces matter more. And yet you continually insist that I'm saying that races are entirely predictable. You can't see how that would be a problem? I'm making one claim and being asked to defend a very different one that I don't agree with.

If you want to debate the efficacy of models and formulas predicting human behavior I'm probably not interested. Suffice it to say, I'm sure the results will vary greatly depending on the specific behaviors being predicted. I'm also sure not all relevant factors will be able to be ascertained, measured, etc.

Again, I very clearly said that we're not disagreeing about the level of predictability of elections.

"If you disagree with 1 and think that individual candidate quality matters more than other factors, you're not necessarily saying that elections are less predictable than I am--you're just saying that they can be predicted with a different set of observations. Hunter thinks that "charisma" essentially is all you need to know and can predict results perfectly. I think that's ridiculous."

The argument is about what factors help us make more accurate predictions. Not whether perfectly accurate predictions are possible.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

No, there is a third possibility--that someone is misrepresenting my position. I've consistently said that candidates matter a little (and luck matters a little, too), but that broader forces matter more. And yet you continually insist that I'm saying that races are entirely predictable. You can't see how that would be a problem? I'm making one claim and being asked to defend a very different one that I don't agree with.

Let's focus on this for a moment. I've agreed broad forces are at work that are largely determinant (eg. party membership). You agree candidates matter. You agree it's to some degree unpredictable. Glad that's all clear.

Here's a learning moment for us. You said this.

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.

To me, when you say "any democratic candidate would have won", that contradicts "I've consistently said that candidates matter a little..." You can make accusations of misrepresentation, but to me it looks like uncertainty on my part caused by your word choice.

The argument is about what factors help us make more accurate predictions. Not whether perfectly accurate predictions are possible.

Here's the broad strokes, in my view, of what it takes to go form aspiring to elected.

1. Party affiliation
2. Unknown (to me) forces that produce support for the two parties' primary candidates
3. Political climate / mood of the country
4. Candidate rhetoric
5. Candidate personality
6. Voter turnout

That's in order (more or less) and I wouldn't know how to bust that into a pie chart. I'll just say #1 is by far the most important and the majority of the pie. As for measuring, well...

1. You're either an R or D or you can't win.
2. Maybe not important for predicting elections when the races are announced, but it's key to who gets to enter them. And as they say, you gotta be in it to win it.
3. No clue how to measure that in a meaningful way.
4. There's polling for this. I have my reservations about polling, but it's overall pretty useful.
5. This is for each an every one of us to determine for ourselves and highly subjective.
6. I'm sure there's good historical data to make educated guesses here.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To me, when you say "any democratic candidate would have won", that contradicts "I've consistently said that candidates matter a little..." You can make accusations of misrepresentation, but to me it looks like uncertainty on my part caused by your word choice.

The margin in 2008 was beyond what I think the most extreme (realistic) candidate difference can be. Read that as "anyone who could have realistically gotten the Democratic nomination in 2008 would have won the general election." That's no different from me saying that Hirono is a lock. Or try this: If Hirono drops out, her replacement will win. In a closer race, you can't say that with the same level of confidence.

What you said in the first paragraph does indicate that we're not so far off on the bottom line, but I think it gets personal for you because you were really caught up in the hatred for a specific candidate that the other side promoted and because you're generally more old-school in your thinking (what do you think about "clutch hitting" in baseball? I'd guess that you put more stock in it than I would).

Here's the broad strokes, in my view, of what it takes to go form aspiring to elected.

1. Party affiliation
2. Unknown (to me) forces that produce support for the two parties' primary candidates
3. Political climate / mood of the country
4. Candidate rhetoric
5. Candidate personality
6. Voter turnout

That's in order (more or less) and I wouldn't know how to bust that into a pie chart. I'll just say #1 is by far the most important and the majority of the pie. As for measuring, well...

1. You're either an R or D or you can't win.
2. Maybe not important for predicting elections when the races are announced, but it's key to who gets to enter them. And as they say, you gotta be in it to win it.
3. No clue how to measure that in a meaningful way.
4. There's polling for this. I have my reservations about polling, but it's overall pretty useful.
5. This is for each an every one of us to determine for ourselves and highly subjective.
6. I'm sure there's good historical data to make educated guesses here.

I like this attempt to spell things out. I think that 1 is not sufficient to describe the way party ID affects voting. For example, what's going on in the economy and who the incumbent is will have a big impact on the race--a recession hitting right before an election will hurt the incumbent party, the incumbent always has an advantage (if he's on the ballot--the incumbent party is at a disadvantage if they're running someone new), a popular war will help the incumbent party, etc. As I said, I think 2016 was a good test of the extremes of the candidate impact, as the GOP ran a joke candidate and Democrats ran a very respectable one, and the PV were significantly more favorable to Democrats than would have been predicted by models that ignored the candidates.

 

[Judge]

Every time I read a few sentences in an article about Hillary I immediately remember how much I dislike that woman.
Not sure why? I am not even American.

Because you are human like the rest of us.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The margin in 2008 was beyond what I think the most extreme (realistic) candidate difference can be. Read that as "anyone who could have realistically gotten the Democratic nomination in 2008 would have won the general election." That's no different from me saying that Hirono is a lock. Or try this: If Hirono drops out, her replacement will win. In a closer race, you can't say that with the same level of confidence.

What you said in the first paragraph does indicate that we're not so far off on the bottom line, but I think it gets personal for you because you were really caught up in the hatred for a specific candidate that the other side promoted and because you're generally more old-school in your thinking (what do you think about "clutch hitting" in baseball? I'd guess that you put more stock in it than I would).



I like this attempt to spell things out. I think that 1 is not sufficient to describe the way party ID affects voting. For example, what's going on in the economy and who the incumbent is will have a big impact on the race--a recession hitting right before an election will hurt the incumbent party, the incumbent always has an advantage (if he's on the ballot--the incumbent party is at a disadvantage if they're running someone new), a popular war will help the incumbent party, etc. As I said, I think 2016 was a good test of the extremes of the candidate impact, as the GOP ran a joke candidate and Democrats ran a very respectable one, and the PV were significantly more favorable to Democrats than would have been predicted by models that ignored the candidates.

Great. Thanks for the clarification. I see that it could be read either way. Hopefully you do too.

You shouldn't so often project emotional reasoning onto me. I don't recall people ever doing that constructively here. Especially since you really have no way of gauging my overall demeanor on the subject. I'll answer your question on "clutch", but I'll use football and stipulate it doesn't represent any view I have toward politics.

I believe some people handle stressful situations better than others. I believe stress affects performance. The flipside of that coin would be confidence. I believe confidence is important in sports. Sure, you can define an instance of success in the clutch as a matter of odds and it's true that when it comes to playing for titles one team will win and one lose. So if somebody has a good game out of nowhere that doesn't mean much. But what if someone shows a pattern of performing better as the stakes rise? Terry Bradshaw has a career passer rating of 70.9. In the playoffs it rises to 83. In the Super Bowl it goes to 112.8. He has seven 300 yard passing games. Three were in the playoffs and two were in the Super Bowl. Call it what you want, but Terry's game improved as the pressure rose.

You might be misunderstanding #1. I'm saying the most important factor in a particular candidate winning the Presidency is being able to secure the nomination from one of the two major parties. We can't just ignore the fact there's more parties out there and that representing them gets you nowhere close to elected. Like you said about 2008, any reasonable D candidate would win. But none of those candidates would win without that party affiliation. That's why it's the #1 factor for me. Things like recession and war would fall into #3. So once it's determined who gets to run and for which party (i.e. #1 and #2), it would appear we agree on what's actually most important in determining a race. If we're just going to assume a D and R candidate and go from there then you could simply omit the first two and bump #3 up to #1 and possibly subdivide from there (economy, war, etc).

 

[Jack V Savage]

Great. Thanks for the clarification. I see that it could be read either way. Hopefully you do too.

Close enough.

You shouldn't so often project emotional reasoning onto me. I don't recall people ever doing that constructively here. Especially since you really have no way of gauging my overall demeanor on the subject. I'll answer your question on "clutch", but I'll use football and stipulate it doesn't represent any view I have toward politics.

We're at the point of a big understanding here, I think. To me, it's all the same--meaning that my views on baseball or MMA or finance are the same as my views on politics or anything else. I know people here have tried to attack me with vague accusations of political bias, but I don't think such accusations could ever be supported with any concrete examples because that's just not the way I think. I always start with the process and work toward a result, and so if I have any biases, they are cognitive ones that aren't related to politics.

I believe some people handle stressful situations better than others. I believe stress affects performance. The flipside of that coin would be confidence. I believe confidence is important in sports. Sure, you can define an instance of success in the clutch as a matter of odds and it's true that when it comes to playing for titles one team will win and one lose. So if somebody has a good game out of nowhere that doesn't mean much. But what if someone shows a pattern of performing better as the stakes rise? Terry Bradshaw has a career passer rating of 70.9. In the playoffs it rises to 83. In the Super Bowl it goes to 112.8. He has seven 300 yard passing games. Three were in the playoffs and two were in the Super Bowl. Call it what you want, but Terry's game improved as the pressure rose.

I think some people handle stress better than others, but when we watch professional sports, we're watching the very tip of the pyramid (Similar to how many people have trouble with public speaking, but I think anyone accepting an acting award at the Oscars is able to get over that, and thus I wouldn't look to that as a differentiating factor in the quality of acceptance speeches).

I don't know as much about football (or hardly anything), but I can tell you that there's no evidence in baseball that hitting ability varies depending on the game situation or the importance of a game. There are people who have better stats in certain circumstances than they ordinarily do, but that's to be expected if variation were random (plus, sample sizes are way too small). Most notably, it's not a tendency that holds (people who outperform in certain circumstances defined as "clutch" in a given period aren't any more likely to outperform in the same situations going forward). I would assume you'd see the same thing in football (with the small sample size being an even larger problem).

That said, you can't rule it out, either. Maybe people really have differing ability there, but the ability itself isn't consistent. Maybe there's something else that's causing it to hide from numbers crunchers. Personally, I don't believe it exists at all.

Charisma or likability are similar. If "likability" is an inherent quality, why does polling on it vary so much over time, and coincident with predictable events (stepping away from politics makes it go up; getting attacked a lot makes it go down, for example)? If Bill Clinton is so likable and charismatic, why did he win by just 6.4% in an election during a recession with a major 3rd-party spoiler? Unlike clutch hitting, I'm willing to grant that these qualities exist to some extent, but the fact that it's so hard to find them in the data does mean that they must be quite small in their effect.

You might be misunderstanding #1. I'm saying the most important factor in a particular candidate winning the Presidency is being able to secure the nomination from one of the two major parties. We can't just ignore the fact there's more parties out there and that representing them gets you nowhere close to elected. Like you said about 2008, any reasonable D candidate would win. But none of those candidates would win without that party affiliation. That's why it's the #1 factor for me. Things like recession and war would fall into #3. So once it's determined who gets to run and for which party (i.e. #1 and #2), it would appear we agree on what's actually most important in determining a race. If we're just going to assume a D and R candidate and go from there then you could simply omit the first two and bump #3 up to #1 and possibly subdivide from there (economy, war, etc).

I think we're mostly on the same page there, but I don't really like the definitions. But that's as good as we'll likely get.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

We're at the point of a big understanding here, I think. To me, it's all the same--meaning that my views on baseball or MMA or finance are the same as my views on politics or anything else. I know people here have tried to attack me with vague accusations of political bias, but I don't think such accusations could ever be supported with any concrete examples because that's just not the way I think. I always start with the process and work toward a result, and so if I have any biases, they are cognitive ones that aren't related to politics.

Don't get me wrong. There's fundamentals in life that spill into many walks of it. Certainly handling stress is one of them. Just not sure where the parallel in politics is for elevating one's game as the stakes grow. I guess debating might be closest. But that's not something where a winner is clearly defined and declared. So if you're simply saying that you apply basic principles and let those guide you then yeah, same here. Where I'm sure we'd differ is how to prioritize one's principles when they conflict.

That said, you can't rule it out, either. Maybe people really have differing ability there, but the ability itself isn't consistent. Maybe there's something else that's causing it to hide from numbers crunchers. Personally, I don't believe it exists at all.

Charisma or likability are similar. If "likability" is an inherent quality, why does polling on it vary so much over time, and coincident with predictable events (stepping away from politics makes it go up; getting attacked a lot makes it go down, for example)? If Bill Clinton is so likable and charismatic, why did he win by just 6.4% in an election during a recession with a major 3rd-party spoiler? Unlike clutch hitting, I'm willing to grant that these qualities exist to some extent, but the fact that it's so hard to find them in the data does mean that they must be quite small in their effect.

I mostly agree. In sports guys get hot at the right time and they look clutch. If I had to find another example like Bradshaw it'd be tough. Since you don't know much about football let me put it this way. Imagine in baseball a guy ends a lengthy career with a .250 average. Over that time he was in the playoffs 10 times and batted .330 in those games. Out of that, in four trips to the series, he batted .400 and won each time. Weird anomaly or something psychological? I'm probably gonna take the agnostic position of I simply don't know. On the opposite end, do you believe in choking?

I understand the comparison. Clutch is also something that is defined by the results and the winners always look more clutch than the losers.

I think we're mostly on the same page there, but I don't really like the definitions. But that's as good as we'll likely get.

Incredible!

That shit was all off the cuff dude. I hated fuckin' poly-sci and can't say I've thought much about this over the years. If you want to add to or correct something I'm listening. Just wanna reiterate that my list starts from a random person setting out to become President. Your thinking seem to begin with already established R & D candidates and going from there. That's why I say you could chop off my first two and then we're at the same point in the discussion.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't get me wrong. There's fundamentals in life that spill into many walks of it. Certainly handling stress is one of them. Just not sure where the parallel in politics is for elevating one's game as the stakes grow. I guess debating might be closest. But that's not something where a winner is clearly defined and declared. So if you're simply saying that you apply basic principles and let those guide you then yeah, same here. Where I'm sure we'd differ is how to prioritize one's principles when they conflict.

The parallel is in the "bullshit dump" aspect. I brought it up as another thing that kind of dominates the discussion of the topic but possibly doesn't exist as a factor. I'm not a robot, and I realize there are things that can't be measured, but things that can't be measured and things that don't exist are very hard to tell apart.

Why it even matters in this case is that I don't think the lesson of 2016 should just be "Clinton was an evil monster who is a bad politician." I think one takeaway is that anyone--no matter how clean their record and how popular they are before the campaign starts--can be made to be hated, and you can even get Republicans to support arresting anyone. This goes to the Warren thread, where my view is that instead of meekly accepting that she's been dead-agented by bullshit propaganda and move on to the next candidate (who will then get the same treatment), people should push back against it. Nominate the best candidate and don't worry about what the media says unless they have something legit.

I mostly agree. In sports guys get hot at the right time and they look clutch. If I had to find another example like Bradshaw it'd be tough. Since you don't know much about football let me put it this way. Imagine in baseball a guy ends a lengthy career with a .250 average. Over that time he was in the playoffs 10 times and batted .330 in those games. Out of that, in four trips to the series, he batted .400 and won each time. Weird anomaly or something psychological? I'm probably gonna take the agnostic position of I simply don't know. On the opposite end, do you believe in choking?

Don't have examples off the top of my head, but I think it's very likely that there have been baseball players who fit that. Maybe not .400 in four WSes exactly, but something like that. Ad I would think it's a weird anomaly.

Choking definitely happens at lower levels. Not sure we see it at the MLB level, though you certainly have bad games by good players (you see that in April as well as October, though).

Another one I could have mentioned is "hot streaks." Haven't seen the latest research, and I recall it being kind of an open question, but the kind of in-season fluctuations we see would exist even if we were just running a simulation. Could very well be that there is no such thing as a "hot hitter" or a slump. And yet people make a living spinning narratives around those possibly random performance fluctuations.

I like the sports comparisons because similar observations related to politics just cause people to get pissed off because their cherished narratives are being challenged. I think a serious, objective analysis of media bias, for example, shows a pro-Republican lean (pro-Trump in 2016) from the MSM (of which CNN is a part). But you say something like that, and right-wingers take it like you raped their mother.

That shit was all off the cuff dude. I hated fuckin' poly-sci and can't say I've thought much about this over the years. If you want to add to or correct something I'm listening. Just wanna reiterate that my list starts from a random person setting out to become President. Your thinking seem to begin with already established R & D candidates and going from there. That's why I say you could chop off my first two and then we're at the same point in the discussion.

Fair enough.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

The parallel is in the "bullshit dump" aspect. I brought it up as another thing that kind of dominates the discussion of the topic but possibly doesn't exist as a factor. I'm not a robot, and I realize there are things that can't be measured, but things that can't be measured and things that don't exist are very hard to tell apart.

Gotcha. Glad I covered my bases with this. "I understand the comparison. Clutch is also something that is defined by the results and the winners always look more clutch than the losers."

Yeah, my position is humans have a long way to go when it comes to measuring and predicting their own behavior. Part of what makes it hard is if you measure and make humanity aware of the results then people will adjust their behaviors.

Thinking about 2008, the people were very dissatisfied and looking for a change due to war fatigue and recession (so agreed it would be hard to fuck that election up for the dems). In 2016 though what is there? War efforts are, for lack of a better term, status quo. The economy is good. Obama was viewed as a success. I don't see how mood and political climate would inspire those of us in the middle to seek change (i.e voting R). So to me the candidate's rhetoric and appeal then become things that can swing the vote. Both candidates labeled crooks. Trump (appropriately) labeled a moron. To me the biggest issue was Clinton being under investigation by law enforcement (not some politicized Senate committee). If that one detail didn't exist I'd put money on her winning. And frankly, that goes to appeal. Others say it was lack of hitting the rust belt with the right message. That would go to rhetoric.

You place any stock in this?

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/americans-havent-voted-a-bald-president-into-183150330.html

Choking definitely happens at lower levels.

Isn't that the same phenomenon as clutch, just in reverse? Speaking of Clutch. Fancy a little Hard Rock today?





Or how about something acoustic?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thinking about 2008, the people were very dissatisfied and looking for a change due to war fatigue and recession (so agreed it would be hard to fuck that election up for the dems). In 2016 though what is there? War efforts are, for lack of a better term, status quo. The economy is good. Obama was viewed as a success. I don't see how mood and political climate would inspire those of us in the middle to seek change (i.e voting R).

2016 wasn't nearly as favorable for Republicans as 2008 was for Democrats, but while incumbents are 3-1 shots on average (taking no other factors into account), "successors" (same party as the incumbent, not an incumbent) have that reversed and are 1-3 shots. That's also affected by the approval rating of the sitting president, but it has to be very high to help the successor, while Obama's was not. And then while the economy was strong, it wasn't growing fast, and the rate of change matters more than the level.

It had seemed that Republicans were punting an election they should have won by nominating a uniquely bad candidate, and, in fact, they did underperform expectations (set by fundamental models rather than by polls), but still did well enough to take a razor-thin win.

So to me the candidate's rhetoric and appeal then become things that can swing the vote. Both candidates labeled crooks. Trump (appropriately) labeled a moron. To me the biggest issue was Clinton being under investigation by law enforcement (not some politicized Senate committee). If that one detail didn't exist I'd put money on her winning. And frankly, that goes to appeal. Others say it was lack of hitting the rust belt with the right message. That would go to rhetoric.

Note that the investigation was highly politicized, and more importantly, the decision to publicize it (while not publicizing the fact that Trump was *also* under a far more serious investigation that was NOT concluded before the election, and in fact still hasn't been--in a way) was politicized. By Comey's own admission, his belief that Clinton was far more likely to win played into his decision to publicize the reopening (his comments suggest that if it were a close race, he would have followed protocol). The theory that more campaigning in the Rust Belt would have flipped the election fails to take into account the fact that there is no evidence at all that increased campaigning in a place changes voting outcomes in that place and the fact that the actual key state did get a lot of campaigning.

You've characterized our differences as relating to your greater willingness to acknowledge uncertainty, but my view is actually that there is very little we know about how to affect results, but there is something we know. The economy matters and incumbency effects matter. Campaigning patterns and rhetoric can't be shown to matter.

You place any stock in this?

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/americans-havent-voted-a-bald-president-into-183150330.html

I do not. Isn't Trump bald? Who are the bald candidates who have underperformed expectations? Milton Friedman should have run for something. Super popular among Republicans but bald and only 4'11".

Isn't that the same phenomenon as clutch, just in reverse?

Yes. In both cases, I can believe it matters at a low level (haven't seen evidence on it, but it seems highly believable to me), but not at the professional level (because I think there would be evidence).

Speaking of Clutch. Fancy a little Hard Rock today?

Cool.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Campaigning patterns and rhetoric can't be shown to matter.

Thanks. Not much to add to what you said except for this. People must seem to think it matters or candidates wouldn't be spending a billion dollars to get elected. They'd just announce their candidacy and let media outlets make 'em famous.

Since the same election can't be run twice, it makes sense the more specific circumstances are difficult to measure and account for.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Thanks. Not much to add to what you said except for this. People must seem to think it matters or candidates wouldn't be spending a billion dollars to get elected. They'd just announce their candidacy and let media outlets make 'em famous.

Since the same election can't be run twice, it makes sense the more specific circumstances are difficult to measure and account for.

Yeah, I think it's a racket--that consultants and campaign managers really don't add much value. It's OPM, though, right? This also ties into my belief that campaign finance is mostly a nothing issue (though Mulvaney shows that it can be a real problem--I don't think his comments were typical).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Yeah, I think it's a racket--that consultants and campaign managers really don't add much value. It's OPM, though, right? This also ties into my belief that campaign finance is mostly a nothing issue (though Mulvaney shows that it can be a real problem--I don't think his comments were typical).

lol

OPM for sure. For years I've thought picking candidates should be run like a job hunt. Set up a website, citizens sign up as the hiring committee, resumes are submitted, those of quality are upvoted, top candidates are entered into the election process. News and social media covers their platforms. Hardly any money spent at all.

Honestly, your position sounds counter-intuitive. You may be right. I'll be on the lookout now to see if it rings true. Makes me even sadder to think that independents are just gonna pick a party on any given years, regardless of the candidates put forth.

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol

OPM for sure. For years I've thought picking candidates should be run like a job hunt. Set up a website, citizens sign up as the hiring committee, resumes are submitted, those of quality are upvoted, top candidates are entered into the election process. News and social media covers their platforms. Hardly any money spent at all.

Honestly, your position sounds counter-intuitive. You may be right. I'll be on the lookout now to see if it rings true. Makes me even sadder to think that independents are just gonna pick a party on any given years, regardless of the candidates put forth.

Definitely counter-intuitive, but I think true nonetheless. Possibly a bias of mine (I think it's cool to find out that things are unexpectedly true and might rush to that judgement at times).

What you describe is kind of like the backroom picking that we had before primaries, isn't it? Possible that we'd get better candidates that way, but there are other issues with it.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Definitely counter-intuitive, but I think true nonetheless. Possibly a bias of mine (I think it's cool to find out that things are unexpectedly true and might rush to that judgement at times).

What you describe is kind of like the backroom picking that we had before primaries, isn't it? Possible that we'd get better candidates that way, but there are other issues with it.

Unexpectedly true things are oftentimes fun.

Backroom? This would be open for public viewing and anyone eligible to vote could sign up and support candidates. Those with the most support run in a primary or the final candidate could be picked through this means. I don't know how it would shake out. The goal would be to get the public choosing from the entire pool rather than choosing from who the gatekeepers have put before us. That and removing money from the equation.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Backroom? This would be open for public viewing and anyone eligible to vote could sign up and support candidates. Those with the most support run in a primary or the final candidate could be picked through this means. I don't know how it would shake out. The goal would be to get the public choosing from the entire pool rather than choosing from who the gatekeepers have put before us. That and removing money from the equation.

I was just thinking in terms of a smaller group. I like the idea of a broader group. Right now, you pretty much have to be rich or somehow prominent to run for any major office. We should be able to have plumbers and teachers and other regular people running for at least state senates and maybe even for the House of Representatives and have them be plausible candidates.