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."
I still wonder how it is possible that the republicans can't come up with a single decent candidate. And this is not the first time that happened.
Whoever wins the republican nomination could still win. Political races are funny things and swing voters are fickle and emotional. Let me give an extreme example. Kasich is almost the nominee and a fire breaks out in his hotel. He starts pulling people from the fire and saves some children and it's caught on camera. Suddenly he takes the nomination and the presidency. Yes, it's stupid but people have lost over less... see Howard Dean's scream.
The thing that is scary about Kasich is how he has fooled the press into thinking he's a moderate. He's no moderate. He's one of the stealth anti abortion candidates of the 90's. He sounds moderate but his actions are pretty radical(anti abortion bills with no abortion exception even to save the life of the mother). I fear Kasich far more than Cruz. Cruz can't hide his instanity. Kasich does it quite nicely.
The press has failed us. They tell us all about the horse race, but tell us little to nothing about policy differences.
If Cruz or Trump wins and Hillary is the nominee. You will see Republican-leaning voters and blue dog democrats coming out of the wood work to support the Republican over Hillary. Cruz is not controlled by Wall Street and Trump is openly running a pro-common man, fuck the special interests campaign and he can pull it off because he's so rich he could moon Wall Street in public and not miss a single dollar from them.
Clinton, on the other hand, is married into Wall Street. She's pro-amnesty, pro-every Chamber of Commerce fuck the little guy interest out there.
And to add to the problem for Clinton, she consistently loses millennial female support every time the issue of her and Bill's behavior toward women comes up. Bill makes Trump look like Billy Graham in his treatment of women. Hillary has a proven legacy of keeping women from getting their due in court, including laughing at a 12 year old rape victim.
Sanders is the only electable candidate they have unless it's a Kasich-Bush ticket.
As a former Libertarian who grew up from its puerile musings to a far left Democrat, I'm scared of Trump being the next president. I'll take next 8 years of Rubio or even Cruz over a possibility of Trump. It's discouraging to think how many people are shocked by honesty and how few by deceit.
but I think Clinton has the skills, brains and experience to actually get some shit done
But why would we want that shit done? You can't just look at capabilities, you also have to look at what the candidate has done. Here, committing multiple felonies just so you can evade FOIA requests is not the sort of person that I'd want for president.
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 ... surprise surprise, trust issues with Hillary.
It would help here, if she didn't actually lie all the time. For example, coming up with evolving excuses about her private email server and why she couldn't be bothered to comply with US law on classified information and the handling of email for public business.
I suspect however the nastiest trust issues comes from her willingness to sacrifice principle for the need of the moment. For example, she was an instrumental part of the propaganda machine that tore up women who had extra-marital affairs with her husband. I bet that rubs feminists the wrong way right there, having a candidate who supposedly cared about feminist issues, but readily threw that principle away the moment her meal ticket was threatened.
When Cheney/Bush/Rove where at the height of power, they realized several things.
1) They could move the GOP from a 'conservative' party to a "rural" party.
2) That would make gerrymandering much easier, giving them 20 seats in the House of Representatives.
3) This, new gerrymandered political situation would allow them to push away from the center and create more conservative, far right party, while still remaining in control of the House.
Their plan worked. But they failed to realize their would be pushback. In effect, the far right conservatives that won their districts easily failed to understand that they had cheated. They believed the entire country was far more republican than they were, and pushed for even more conservatism. This was called the T-Party movement. It pushed most of the moderates out of the Republican party.
The few remaining centrists in the Republican party have too little power to lead. Hence Huntsman lost the primary in 2012, and Kasich can't get traction in 2016.
No sane person can lead the crazy mob the GOP invited in. That is why their two leaders are Trump and Cruz
Right now, there are three wings of the Republican party. 1) The lunatic far right invited in (Cruz). 2) The original conservative party leaders that decided to use deception to bring the far right lunatics in. (Rubio/Kasich), and 3) The majority, honest, non-crazy, faithful moderate conservatives that reject the old guard party and the lunatic far right (Trump).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I have no doubt in my mind that Clinton is a very smart person - that shows through in the debates. I just don't fucking trust her at all, and am particularly concerned that the Democrats might be about to nominate someone that is a short-hair away from indictment.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
-1 Stupid.
Bernie has a political career that spans decades now, and he's been entirely consistent. And unlike Hillary, he doesn't have a lot of questionable ethical actions in his past. You can think he's unrealistic or overly idealistic if you want (which doesn't really matter; the President can only pass the laws that Congress puts on his desk anyway), but if you think he's less trustworthy than Hillary, you're either an idiot or a shill.
Wrong about Bernie: how do you think Obama got elected? He energized the young people and they turned out in droves to vote for him.
Of course, then Obama turned out to be a big disappointment to him, as he was just a lot of hype, and then you saw a lot of non-voting as you noted from that crowd, because other Dem candidates just didn't excite them. However, Bernie is exciting them now, and unlike Obama, Bernie actually has a long political career that backs his rhetoric, and has done a lot more than just being a "community organizer" and a short-tern Senator voting mostly "present".
Bernie could easily get elected, but only if the DNC allows him to win the nomination. They don't look like they want to do that, because they want corrupt Hillary instead and are willing to do just about anything to get her there.
The republican party at its core is there to push the agenda of the rich.
I fundamentally disagree with the premise of your comment. Real Republicans believe that Federal Government is not the answer to every problem. To Real Republicans, the 10th Amendment still counts, just as much as the 1st, 2nd, and 5th.
The problem with your comment is that in practice there are essentially two choices of who holds power in this country. Power is held by the rich or the common people. The only significant voice of the common people is the federal government. State governments cannot exert much power over the wealthy because of how easy is it to move between states. It is also hard for the federal government to exert power of the wealthy, but it is order of magnitudes more capable than state governments.
So while in theory strong state governments are a good idea, in practice only a strong federal government is capable of giving a significant voice to the people. So there really are only two choices:
1) Believe in a strong federal government
2) Believe in pursuing the agenda of the rich.
At some point in the future a strong federal government will not even be enough, and a strong world government will be necessary. Trade agreements play that role now but will be even more important as time goes on.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke