Who ran a worse campaign Hillary Clinton Or Michael Dukasis

[IceSpear]

Dukakis made about three errors (albeit big ones) while Clinton did virtually everything wrong.

Well, her entire strategy and direction proved wrong, sure. But that's with hindsight. With the information available at the time, we were talking about her winning South Carolina in the middle of the summer or her beating Trump by 15 points in early October.

It's very easy to look at where she lost and to say the strategy didn't work, but during the race, there wasn't any real evidence that Michigan and Wisconsin were close to toppling until it was way too late. Who knew Maine and Minnesota would end up so close? This wasn't on anyone's radar. The other states that were close are always close, and it was easy enough to write off Iowa/Ohio when it seemed she was the favourite in North Carolina and could probably count on Florida as being more solid than it was in '08/'12.

It wasn't clear that her strategy was off as the race was playing out. And we can talk strategy all we want, but her loss had just as much to do with unfounded animus against her than any actual direction she was taking the campaign.

Literally zero people were ever talking about this.

Let's not do revisionist history here. I was still arguing with hacks that she couldn't win Texas and Utah as late as October, and was called a concern trolling Eeyore for it. lol

Here's just one example, among many. This was in October, less than a month before the election.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=247949.0

Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Alaska, Indiana, and even Texas are all potentially in play now.

With these numbers, Hillary wins all the battleground states and might force the battle into Missouri, Indiana, and South Carolina. Montana, Alaska, and maybe Texas will be reasonable. The rest will still be a Trump landslide.

And here was my take on it:

BEAUTIFUL POLL!

However, I wouldn't count my chickens yet. Let's not forget there's still a month left and the American public has the attention span of a goldfish. They forgot the "fatal" Khan stuff in like a week. I'm crossing my fingers for more tapes so this won't be an issue.

Unfortunately they did forget and unfortunately there was another event, but not the one I'd hoped for.

[IceSpear]

Oh, here's another good one:

She wasn't going to win Alaska before the email stuff, and she's certainly not winning it now. Same goes for Texas. Please stop this idiocy. Some of you guys are starting to sound as delusional as Dean Chambers and the Reddit Berniebros.

Do you honestly believe that Trump has a better shot in PA than Clinton does in Alaska?

Yes, as does every objective political analyst. I doubt Trump will win PA, but whatever his chances are, they're certainly better than Hillary's chances of winning AK.

Lol. Even my "pessimistic take" was way too optimistic.

And an unironic thread about how North Carolina was now in Hillary's firewall, with many users concurring:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=250395.0

[HagridOfTheDeep]

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/south-carolina/

On August 14th, the aggregate had Hillary Clinton trailing Trump by just one percentage point in South Carolina.

While it's true that there were alarmists like IceSpear, Beet, and occasionally myself, our caution came, I think, from our well-earned pessimism towards the electorate. That said, I think we'd all have agreed that if a snap election were held on August 14th (or, let's say, the day after Access Hollywood dropped), Hillary would have swept the swing states and had a good chance at capturing places like Arizona and Georgia. She would have made other states much closer than they were in reality, much like how Trump managed to surprise in Minnesota, Maine, etc

So what does this mean? Well, it means that there was a lot of noise about Hillary winning big for most of the campaign. And, truth be told, a lot of the noise was based on poll numbers. Were there things in the polls to be concerned about at various points in the race? You bet! That's why she did actually start to shift some attention to Michigan at the end-game. But I will still maintain that for much of the race, there was not too much data pointing towards some dire need for a course correction.

She seemed to have the edge in what was a volatile race. I'd bet good money that would have been the case no matter what her strategy was.

[All Along The Watchtower]

In 2016, an historically unpopular and polarizing Democratic Party presidential nominee won a plurality in the popular vote by 2 points against an historically unpopular and polarizing - albeit for different reasons - Republican presidential nominee, with 6 percent of the presidential vote going  to third-party candidates or write-ind and with a likely record or near-record percentage of voters leaving their presidential ballots blank; yet Donald Trump ultimately won the Electoral College 304-227 (with 7 EC votes going to write-ins) - and hence, the Presidency - because of very narrow wins in several key states.

In 1988, by contrast, after eight years of Ronald Reagan Americans everywhere were begging for the bold ideas and charisma of George H.W. Bush even more than they were begging for the bold ideas and charisma of Hillary Clinton after eight years of Barack Obama, as you can see from his more than 7-point win in the popular vote and 426-111 win in the Electoral College.

But seriously: at least Hillary Clinton had the "break the Glass Ceiling" thing going for her. What did George H.W. Bush have that would be genuinely exciting or appealing to anyone outside of some country clubs and a bunch of old hands from the State Department, CIA, and other concentrations of Skull and Bones alumni? "Oh, I loved Senator Prescott Bush back in the 1950s!"

Guess how I voted.

[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.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Dukakis.  He lost in a landslide, and also blew a 20 point lead.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Hillary, however, had a lot going for her, and she still messed up. Sure, the warning signs were not there for most of the campaign, but she still was able to blow a rather large lead and give Trump the technicality needed to win the presidency.

Dukakis started with no chance, and didnt win. Hillary had the race in the bag, and then squandered it. I see that as a bigger loss.

I honestly see a lot of similarities between Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. Both failed to attach themselves to the successes of the incumbent, both failed to separate themselves from the incumbent's downsides, and both won the popular vote while failing to win the electoral. Both dropped states that should have been gimmies (TN for Gore, WI for Hillary). Both lost to a GOP candidate who seemed unprepared for the job. Both failed to capitalize off of bombshell oppo revelations (though the drunk driving charge was too little, too late).

Why not talk about how terrible Gore's campaign was?

[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.

[South Dakota Democrat]

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.

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.

[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.

[South Dakota Democrat]

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.

[Use Your Illusion]

Clinton lost the electoral college by 77,774 votes when she lost Michigan by 10,704 votes, Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes and Wisconsin by 22,748 votes. She healthily out-performed Trump in the national vote by nearly 3 million. She lost by a fraction of a fraction. It all boils down to the fact that Republicans showed up come voting day and never had any real sense of moral conflict with Trump to begin with. You don't churn out record shattering numbers of support in Republican counties enough times to win by a fraction of a fraction because you're split about your candidate. She didn't run a great campaign but she did her job.

Dukakis on the other hand learned the hard way that high roads are far to fall from and refused to follow the advice of his management team at every turn right down to not answering the death penalty question the way he was told. He absolutely could have beaten George Bush if he simply ran a more aggressive campaign that was centered on the idea that Republican administration could not be trusted and he had Watergate and Iran/Contra to prove it. It would have been dirty but doable.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Dukakis on the other hand learned the hard way that high roads are far to fall from and refused to follow the advice of his management team at every turn right down to not answering the death penalty question the way he was told. He absolutely could have beaten George Bush if he simply ran a more aggressive campaign that was centered on the idea that Republican administration could not be trusted and he had Watergate and Iran/Contra to prove it. It would have been dirty but doable.

Was this rehearsed, or did it come out of thin air? I wish I could step into Dukakis's body and answer that question for him, starting with, "What the f*** kind of question is that, Bernard?"

[South Dakota Democrat]

Clinton lost the electoral college by 77,774 votes when she lost Michigan by 10,704 votes, Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes and Wisconsin by 22,748 votes. She healthily out-performed Trump in the national vote by nearly 3 million. She lost by a fraction of a fraction. It all boils down to the fact that Republicans showed up come voting day and never had any real sense of moral conflict with Trump to begin with. You don't churn out record shattering numbers of support in Republican counties enough times to win by a fraction of a fraction because you're split about your candidate. She didn't run a great campaign but she did her job.

Dukakis on the other hand learned the hard way that high roads are far to fall from and refused to follow the advice of his management team at every turn right down to not answering the death penalty question the way he was told. He absolutely could have beaten George Bush if he simply ran a more aggressive campaign that was centered on the idea that Republican administration could not be trusted and he had Watergate and Iran/Contra to prove it. It would have been dirty but doable.

This.

[uti2]

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.

[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

[Progressive Pessimist]

Clinton lost the electoral college by 77,774 votes when she lost Michigan by 10,704 votes, Pennsylvania by 44,292 votes and Wisconsin by 22,748 votes. She healthily out-performed Trump in the national vote by nearly 3 million. She lost by a fraction of a fraction. It all boils down to the fact that Republicans showed up come voting day and never had any real sense of moral conflict with Trump to begin with. You don't churn out record shattering numbers of support in Republican counties enough times to win by a fraction of a fraction because you're split about your candidate. She didn't run a great campaign but she did her job.

Dukakis on the other hand learned the hard way that high roads are far to fall from and refused to follow the advice of his management team at every turn right down to not answering the death penalty question the way he was told. He absolutely could have beaten George Bush if he simply ran a more aggressive campaign that was centered on the idea that Republican administration could not be trusted and he had Watergate and Iran/Contra to prove it. It would have been dirty but doable.

This.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

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

They would probably be so shocked that the President has a vast, standing professional army at his command and a personal directorship over a bureaucracy of several million people, that they wouldn't notice who personally held the office.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Again: after two terms of the vastly overrated and polarizing Ronald Reagan (1984 landslide notwithstanding - that was irrelevant by 1988) and Democrats retaking the Senate in 1986, the burden was on George "Wimpy Lapdog for Reagan/Ford/Nixon" Bush to win the Presidency in his own right without distancing himself from Reagan too much while at the same time, providing his own version of the "vision thing."

George H.W. Bush was, needless to say, not a very smooth campaigner, certainly not a natural (as 1992 painfully revealed for him). And again: Iran-Contra was still very real and very fresh, and he was directly caught up in it, despite his protests to being "out of the loop"*

*(Yeah HW Bush, everyone certainly believed that you - a Vice President whose resume included CIA director, Ambassador to the UN, Presidential Envoy to China, member of Congress - not to mention, being a multi-generation Skull and Bones alum and the son of a US Senator/confidant of Allen Dulles - were "out of the loop" of all of that skullduggery in the 1980s that included the highest levels of the National Security Council and the CIA in the administration of a senile B-movie actor who had no pre-presidential foreign policy experience. Uh huh. )

At the very least, Dukakis or any other Democratic candidate should have given "Poppy" a run for his money. Pretty embarrassing result in 1988.

[South Dakota Democrat]

Again: after two terms of the vastly overrated and polarizing Ronald Reagan (1984 landslide notwithstanding - that was irrelevant by 1988) and Democrats retaking the Senate in 1986, the burden was on George "Wimpy Lapdog for Reagan/Ford/Nixon" Bush to win the Presidency in his own right without distancing himself from Reagan too much while at the same time, providing his own version of the "vision thing."

George H.W. Bush was, needless to say, not a very smooth campaigner, certainly not a natural (as 1992 painfully revealed for him). And again: Iran-Contra was still very real and very fresh, and he was directly caught up in it, despite his protests to being "out of the loop"*

*(Yeah HW Bush, everyone certainly believed that you - a Vice President whose resume included CIA director, Ambassador to the UN, Presidential Envoy to China, member of Congress - not to mention, being a multi-generation Skull and Bones alum and the son of a US Senator/confidant of Allen Dulles - was "out of the loop" of all of that skullduggery in the 1980s  that included the highest levels of the National Security Council and the CIA in the administration of a senile B-movie actor with no pre-presidential foreign policy experience. Uh huh.

At the very least, Dukakis or any other Democratic candidate should have given "Poppy" a run for his money. Pretty embarrassing result in 1988.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Again: after two terms of the vastly overrated and polarizing Ronald Reagan (1984 landslide notwithstanding - that was irrelevant by 1988) and Democrats retaking the Senate in 1986, the burden was on George "Wimpy Lapdog for Reagan/Ford/Nixon" Bush to win the Presidency in his own right without distancing himself from Reagan too much while at the same time, providing his own version of the "vision thing."

George H.W. Bush was, needless to say, not a very smooth campaigner, certainly not a natural (as 1992 painfully revealed for him). And again: Iran-Contra was still very real and very fresh, and he was directly caught up in it, despite his protests to being "out of the loop"*

*(Yeah HW Bush, everyone certainly believed that you - a Vice President whose resume included CIA director, Ambassador to the UN, Presidential Envoy to China, member of Congress - not to mention, being a multi-generation Skull and Bones alum and the son of a US Senator/confidant of Allen Dulles - was "out of the loop" of all of that skullduggery in the 1980s  that included the highest levels of the National Security Council and the CIA in the administration of a senile B-movie actor with no pre-presidential foreign policy experience. Uh huh.

At the very least, Dukakis or any other Democratic candidate should have given "Poppy" a run for his money. Pretty embarrassing result in 1988.

[pandes]

Hillary Clinton

[morgankingsley]

Dukakis had a great idea on how to win, but failed badly. Hillary was a mess from start to finish, and ruined a easy to win election. That being said, I will still say Dukakis. I knew people who were alive at the time, and from what I hear, I would say that. He was supposed to win Illinois, and California, which would have given him over 70 electoral votes, and messed those up