Slashdot Mirror
Rubio and Kasich Are Living Out a Classic Game Theory Dilemma
HughPickens.com writes: Kevin Quealy writes in the NYT that the two remaining mainstream candidates for the GOP Presidential nomination — Marco Rubio and John Kasich — are living out an issue studied for decades in game theory. Game theorists might call the GOP predicament an anti-coordination game or a volunteer's dilemma but most of us might call it by a more familiar name: chicken. Although Rubio is the obvious establishment favorite, the two are splitting some votes. so to have his best chance against Trump and Cruz, Rubio needs Kasich to drop out. The longer both candidates remain in the race, the worse it is for both of them.
Kasich's first option is to stay in the race but he could go further, by committing to stay in no matter what. In a classic game of chicken between two drivers rushing headlong toward each other, this strategy is like removing your steering wheel, leaving you no choice but to drive straight toward your opponent. Kasich could hope for another robotic debate performance from Rubio or even an implosion from the Trump or Cruz campaigns. Kasich 's second strategy would be to cut a deal with Rubio — offer to drop out, for example, in exchange, for the second spot on a Rubio ticket or a cabinet post. Kasich's third strategy would be to threaten to support a different candidate, like Trump or Cruz. If the threat had the potential to damage Rubio enough, it could be a useful bargaining chip. "Being crazy is a strategy, but only if your opponent actually believes it," says Richard Thaler. Part of the problem is that this is a game that's played just once. "The chance to be your party's nominee for president comes along only every four or eight years, even for the very luckiest candidates," says Quealy. "If the candidates lived in a universe in which they could run for president hundreds of times, they might agree that, on average, their shared interests were better served by cooperating." But this is not an iterated dilemma. It's a one-time-only dilemma with a tremendous payoff for the winner. Ultimately, both Kasich and Rubio risk an outcome neither wants. But as Daniel Diermeier, the dean of the public policy school at the University of Chicago, notes, "A very important lesson of game theory is that sometimes the world is a grim place."
Kasich's first option is to stay in the race but he could go further, by committing to stay in no matter what. In a classic game of chicken between two drivers rushing headlong toward each other, this strategy is like removing your steering wheel, leaving you no choice but to drive straight toward your opponent. Kasich could hope for another robotic debate performance from Rubio or even an implosion from the Trump or Cruz campaigns. Kasich 's second strategy would be to cut a deal with Rubio — offer to drop out, for example, in exchange, for the second spot on a Rubio ticket or a cabinet post. Kasich's third strategy would be to threaten to support a different candidate, like Trump or Cruz. If the threat had the potential to damage Rubio enough, it could be a useful bargaining chip. "Being crazy is a strategy, but only if your opponent actually believes it," says Richard Thaler. Part of the problem is that this is a game that's played just once. "The chance to be your party's nominee for president comes along only every four or eight years, even for the very luckiest candidates," says Quealy. "If the candidates lived in a universe in which they could run for president hundreds of times, they might agree that, on average, their shared interests were better served by cooperating." But this is not an iterated dilemma. It's a one-time-only dilemma with a tremendous payoff for the winner. Ultimately, both Kasich and Rubio risk an outcome neither wants. But as Daniel Diermeier, the dean of the public policy school at the University of Chicago, notes, "A very important lesson of game theory is that sometimes the world is a grim place."
He has only been a senator for 3 years, and is associated with the radical second-wave/post hijack/radical conservative Tea Party movement (not the libertarian movement).
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Nobody gets it Trump is going to win! Man people are so clueless whats going on around them.
" Cruz is not controlled by Wall Street ... Clinton, on the other hand, is married into Wall Street."
Clinton may be figuratively married to Wall Street, but Cruz is LITERALLY married into Wall Street! His wife works at Goldman Sachs and GS has provided financing for Cruz's Senate campaign. If it's Cruz vs. Clinton, Wall Street wins the presidency.
Go back to 1995 when we had the first Republican-controlled Congress after many decades of Democrat control. Then, examine all of the laws they passed by "compromising" with the Democrats.
Just to name a few...
NAFTA
GATT/WTO Treaty
Gramm-Leach-Bliley (Wall St. dereg)
Commodity Futures Modernization Act(more Wall St. dereg)
AUMF
Patriot Act (and several renewals)
Military Commissions Act
TARP (bank bailout)
FISA Revisions Act
NDAA 2012
TPP
Not to mention all the years of massive deficit spending.
F*** "compromise". Every time these jackasses "compromise" the people of the USA suffer. I despise the religious and militaristic wing of the GOP, but the so-called "moderate" Republicans are the problem, not the solution.
I'd argue that the democrats have two pretty good candidates. I'll be happy with either one, but I think Clinton has the skills, brains and experience to actually get some shit done.You can promise the world, but can you actually move the ball forward? I think she can. She's had a lot of shit thrown at her for the last thirty years. She's tough as nails. She also knows how to run very large organizations and has better foreign policy experience than all of the other candidates combined. The biggest problem is going to be dealing with an obstructionist congress and luckily she's married to someone who has a great deal of experience dealing with that problem.
... surprise surprise, trust issues with Hillary.
One downside though is that a lot of people are susceptible to the narrative that the media has been pushing for decades. Take a look at the vitriol many people immediately spew when her name comes up. The Bernie Bros are all over twitter calling her a lying cunt, etc.. The media decided long ago that she had trust issues with the american people, they kept saying it and now people have
Our press has become lazy and stupid and would rather talk about the horserace or youtube videos than actually spending time to inform people. I swear if I hear one more clueless reporter talk about how good Trump is at getting media attention while they give him said attention I'm going to shoot my TV.
If you can't tell the difference, either you're not paying attention or you like to buy into the false equivalency of "they're both as bad".
Democrats try to work together for progress republicans try to destroy.
Let me put it to you in a different way. During the Iran deal who was it that wanted to go to war and who wanted to build peace? The conservatives in the US, Israel and Iran all wanted to go to war. The liberals wanted to build a lasting peace. If you took all the conservatives in the world and put them together they would start killing each other. If you did that with all the liberals, they would try to build a society.
That in a nutshell is the difference. Conservatives are a "fuck you, I've got mine" mentality whereas liberals are more of a "we're all in the together, let's make it work" mentality.
You've been told not to trust her by the media since 1992. How long have you been politically aware? She's not being indicted for the same thing that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did.