Dan Quayle has this op-ed in the Sunday, April 4, Washington Post. Thanks to Nancy Hanks for the link.
Quayle repeats the cliche that a minor party or independent candidate always injures the major party closest (ideologically) to that minor party or independent candidate. Social science and historical research substantially rebuts that idea.
Dan Ariely’s best-selling book “Predictably Irrational” describes the findings of research that describes how individuals choose, when there are three choices. “Predictably Irrational” says that if two of the three choices are markedly similar in some way, but one of those two choices is obviously superior to the other similar choice, that superior choice then gains a significant advantage over the third choice, that is, over the choice that is not similar to either of the other two.
A real-world example is the 1948 presidential election. Pollster Samuel Lubell, who later became a political scientist, learned that Henry Wallace actually helped Harry Truman. Conventional wisdom, including the Quayle op-ed, would predict just the opposite. Lubell’s book “The Future of American Politics” explains how Wallace helped Truman by running against him.
The Communist Party understood this, and in 1936 ran its own presidential candidate, Earl Browder, even though the party in 1936 was very much in favor of Roosevelt’s re-election. The Communist Party’s campaign was run to boost Roosevelt, even though superficially the party was “taking votes away” from Roosevelt.
so true, so true ……….
I always figured Dan Quayle was George H.W. Bush’s insurance policy against an assassination attempt.
Paraphrasing Michael Seebeck // Apr 5, 2010
Remember the source. Dan Quayle and his ongoing criticism of the the media belies his family’s connection with the press. Among other things they own the (Phoenix) Arizona Republic! Apparently that’s still the case.
“if two of the three choices are markedly similar in some way, but one of those two choices is obviously superior to the other similar choice, that superior choice then gains a significant advantage over the third choice, that is, over the choice that is not similar to either of the other two”.
I can deduce from the context what this sentence is trying to assert, but I can’t parse this, and I don’t really see any evidence or argument above for the asserted claim.
Murphy Brown’s thoughts ……….
Remember the source. Dan Quayle was never the brightest crayon in the box. Apparently that’s still the case.
He has been vehemently anti-third party lately. Last week he dissed Ross Perot and the Reform Party, this week it’s this. The funny thing: nobody in my generation knows who Dan Quayle is except Poli-Sci students…so we’ll have the last laugh.