You could lose because the rational choice model does not accurately model human behavior in the real world; people don't act based on perfect information, in part because even when presented with correct information, they are likely to reject it if it doesn't fit their pre-existing world view.
No, full rational choice theory posits that people do behave in a way which maximizes actual (not expected) net utility, or, in more detail, as if:
(1) They have a coherent “utility function” mapping each potential path through time that might be taken to a unidimensional, real-number utility value.
(2) They have perfect knowledge of the outcome (path through time), or at least resulting utility value, produced by every possible option with every decision they make,
(3) They consistently choose the option that maximizes utility.
There are more limited modifications of rational choice theory that attempt, with varying degrees of success, to close the predictive gap between full rational choice theory and actual behavior resulting from the fact that humans do not behave “rationally” in the sense of rational choice theory, but they aren't what is involved with the question “how can you lose when rationality is on your side?” asked upthread.
Look at south Africa, multi vitamins, and hiv/aids denialism. It's pretty fascinating, human toll aside.
As for Aids denialism, South Africa suffers from a case of cultural antiestablishmentism, particularly in the context of Western medicine. Thankfully our government has stepped up in recent years, and actively promotes HIV/Aids education these days.
You could argue that technically "climate change scepticism" only means you don't know, but in practice climate change sceptics argue for political actions (or inaction) basing on their (lack of) beliefs.
Similarly I can be anti-vacc without claiming "vaccines cause autism". just claiming "I'm not sure what they cause, so just to be sure don't do it".
The science in favor of anthropogenic global warming includes two parts: well-understood physics and chemistry (which is quite trustworthy and is actually science), and a bunch of conflicting computer models of a chaotic and poorly understood system with a huge number of inputs and feedback loops (which I'm not sure why anyone trusts).
This blog post puts it pretty well: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/158778029326/how-to-change-my-b...
(I know I just went full circle)
Do you think rationality can win when the President of the United States says that global warming is a Chinese hoax.
And to be accurate, I believe Trump's current position is "global warming is happening, caused by humans, but Paris unfairly advantages other nations over the US."
Which is how all climate agreements look when you're trying to get buy in from developing economies... but at least it's better than hoaxism.
-Keynes
Hahahhaha. Great joke. Sadly, there are and probably always will be a lot of ignorant/gullible people. As PT Barnum said, "there's a sucker born every minute."