OK I'm depressed and anxious so let's talk about some game theory: under no circumstances should *ANYONE* in 2026 admit that they would vote for Gavin Newsom for president.
-
@glyph There's an odd British game show called Golden Balls (really) where every round involves some kind of Prisoner's Dilemma like conundrum, the final round of which is *literally* the Prisoner's Dilemma. Two contestants share a prize pool, and decide whether to vote Split or Steal. If both vote Split, they each get half the pool. If one votes Steal and the other votes Split, the Steal-er gets everything. In the Steal/Steal case, neither gets anything.
(con'd)
@glyph The unique twist is that the players get to talk freely for thirty seconds before committing to Split or Steal. In the recording, one of the players starts off by loudly declaring that he will pick Steal no matter what, and that he'll mail the other player a check for half the prize afterwards. He's absolutely immobile on that, despite the other player pleading.
At the end, both players choose Split.
-
But type A people are making a similarly big mistake: they know that Newsom will lose when type B people don't vote for him, when he loses enthusiasm of the democratic electorate more generally, and when approximately zero "moderates" show up to reward his "moderating". The presence of Type C people make them *feel* a sort of inevitability to Newsom that makes them anxious about this outcome. But that is not the only outcome!
Type A people, even if they *will eventually* vote for Newsom in that very unfortunate circumstance in 2028, should *say* they won't vote for Newsom in 2028, because the more people that stand up and say this, the *less likely* it is that he will be on the ballot in the general. If this strategy works it won't even have been a lie! No way to prove a negative!
-
@xgranade@wandering.shop @glyph@mastodon.social this is absolutely the strategy/idea I've been pursuing. On a related note, if you can't loudly proclaim, "I am not voting for Gavin Newsom, ever", at this point, you should at least not say, "I am going to vote for Gavin Newsom" because you're giving up a lot when you do that in 2026.
-
-
@glyph The unique twist is that the players get to talk freely for thirty seconds before committing to Split or Steal. In the recording, one of the players starts off by loudly declaring that he will pick Steal no matter what, and that he'll mail the other player a check for half the prize afterwards. He's absolutely immobile on that, despite the other player pleading.
At the end, both players choose Split.
@glyph Making the implicit analogy explicit, the Pareto optima of Split/Split corresponds to getting anyone other than fucking Newsom and that person then winning the general, the two Split/Steal options are the bad case of getting Newsom, and the Steal/Steal Nash equilibrium worst case is somehow getting Trump yet again.
-
@xgranade@wandering.shop @glyph@mastodon.social this is absolutely the strategy/idea I've been pursuing. On a related note, if you can't loudly proclaim, "I am not voting for Gavin Newsom, ever", at this point, you should at least not say, "I am going to vote for Gavin Newsom" because you're giving up a lot when you do that in 2026.
-
@glyph Making the implicit analogy explicit, the Pareto optima of Split/Split corresponds to getting anyone other than fucking Newsom and that person then winning the general, the two Split/Steal options are the bad case of getting Newsom, and the Steal/Steal Nash equilibrium worst case is somehow getting Trump yet again.
@xgranade somebody smarter than me needs to draw the diagram for this where you have not just the reward matrix but the signaling matrix
-
@glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop who knew that "blue no matter who" turned out to be "so long as they're a neoliberal who will support a 'soft' white supremacist position that is oligarch friendly", huh*
* well, lots of people did, but they really did make it super obvious with their "you should vote for governor grab ass over the actual DNC candidate who won the nomination", didn't they. -
@dave@alvarado.social @glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop right? And at the very least, don't swear fucking fealty to the dude, because all you're saying is "nothing you can do will cause you to lose my support". We can, and SHOULD, do a lot fucking better than Newsom who has already given up on a lot of groups of people.
-
@xgranade somebody smarter than me needs to draw the diagram for this where you have not just the reward matrix but the signaling matrix
@glyph Someone smarter than me as well. Anyway, I'll stay home before I vote for Newsom, and I'll mail you a check after the election.
-
@glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop who knew that "blue no matter who" turned out to be "so long as they're a neoliberal who will support a 'soft' white supremacist position that is oligarch friendly", huh*
* well, lots of people did, but they really did make it super obvious with their "you should vote for governor grab ass over the actual DNC candidate who won the nomination", didn't they. -
@glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop who knew that "blue no matter who" turned out to be "so long as they're a neoliberal who will support a 'soft' white supremacist position that is oligarch friendly", huh*
* well, lots of people did, but they really did make it super obvious with their "you should vote for governor grab ass over the actual DNC candidate who won the nomination", didn't they. -
@dave@alvarado.social @glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop right? And at the very least, don't swear fucking fealty to the dude, because all you're saying is "nothing you can do will cause you to lose my support". We can, and SHOULD, do a lot fucking better than Newsom who has already given up on a lot of groups of people.
-
@glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop Newsom is a guaranteed loss. The guy has the charisma and moral integrity of beige wallpaper that's been infested with mold. If they push him as the nominee, they're totally fucked, and I'm pretty sure the only way they're going to figure that out is if we make it REALLY CLEAR if we're not going to vote for Newsom under any circumstances. Or, at the very least, not openly proclaim he'll get our vote.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
-
-
@dave@alvarado.social @glyph@mastodon.social @xgranade@wandering.shop right? I don't get the impression there's as many reliable personality cult true believer types in the dem base as there are for ol trumpety dumpety, either, so it's hardly a reliable base to pull from.
-
@xgranade@wandering.shop @glyph@mastodon.social @dave@alvarado.social I feel like the "vote blue no matter who" card is one you can only logically play after the primaries. But of course, with Mamdani, suddenly no one played that card after the primaries...
-
@xgranade@wandering.shop @glyph@mastodon.social @dave@alvarado.social I feel like the "vote blue no matter who" card is one you can only logically play after the primaries. But of course, with Mamdani, suddenly no one played that card after the primaries...
-
OK I'm depressed and anxious so let's talk about some game theory: under no circumstances should *ANYONE* in 2026 admit that they would vote for Gavin Newsom for president.
@glyph Until a year and a half ago, I'd have grudgingly voted for him. But not now, his fascist turn has destroyed any tolerance I had for my former mayor.
-
