I don’t think that they would be correct to update on LTF’s strength based on the outcome of this race. But in practice, I think they will take away a very different lesson if he wins by 1% than if he loses by 1%.
From your perspective (which I share, though not as strongly), it sounds like a lot of LTF’s theory of change involves politicians and political advisors—who are strongly incentivized to be correct—making systematically wrong judgment calls about the reality of the impact of LTF’s money.
It seems like making this widely known is a good idea! Specifically it’d be good for tastemakers like Yglesias and Klein, and their right-wing analogues, to make it more widely known that LTF’s money increased rather than decreased Bores’ chances.
Yeah. I guess another piece of it is that it’s straightforwardly unpleasant to have attack ads being run against you, regardless of how much they affect your chances of winning.
From your perspective (which I share, though not as strongly), it sounds like a lot of LTF’s theory of change involves politicians and political advisors—who are strongly incentivized to be correct—making systematically wrong judgment calls about the reality of the impact of LTF’s money.
It seems like making this widely known is a good idea! Specifically it’d be good for tastemakers like Yglesias and Klein, and their right-wing analogues, to make it more widely known that LTF’s money increased rather than decreased Bores’ chances.
The Truth can be a powerful weapon, here.
Yeah. I guess another piece of it is that it’s straightforwardly unpleasant to have attack ads being run against you, regardless of how much they affect your chances of winning.