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.
-
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 Oh, now that's a fascinating take. I think I see where you're going with that?
-
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.
I am assuming there are basically two kinds of people; those who don't like Newsom much but recognize that he would be better than the totalizing nightmare of a republican alternative like JD Vance, and those who absoloutely hate Newsom for his quisling collaboration with fascists in the press and just cannot vote for him on the basis of his openly expressed hatred for trans people.
-
@glyph Oh, now that's a fascinating take. I think I see where you're going with that?
@glyph It's a terrible recording, but...
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
(www.youtube.com)
-
I am assuming there are basically two kinds of people; those who don't like Newsom much but recognize that he would be better than the totalizing nightmare of a republican alternative like JD Vance, and those who absoloutely hate Newsom for his quisling collaboration with fascists in the press and just cannot vote for him on the basis of his openly expressed hatred for trans people.
Let's call these Type A and Type B people, respectively. Type B people already understand this but obviously if you're not going to vote for Newsom in the general then now is the time to make that known, before any primaries, so that other voters in a Democratic primary will be *aware* that they are going to lose support in the general, if they back the "safe" candidate that they believe some Republicans will vote for (these people are mistaken; won't, c.f. Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney).
-
@glyph Oh, now that's a fascinating take. I think I see where you're going with that?
@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.
-
Let's call these Type A and Type B people, respectively. Type B people already understand this but obviously if you're not going to vote for Newsom in the general then now is the time to make that known, before any primaries, so that other voters in a Democratic primary will be *aware* that they are going to lose support in the general, if they back the "safe" candidate that they believe some Republicans will vote for (these people are mistaken; won't, c.f. Adam Kinzinger, Liz Cheney).
OK I will admit a third type of person, the Type C person who believes that Newsom is "electable" due to his willingness to be a hypocrite and advertise his lack of principles to mythical "independents" in the electorate. These people are wrong for the aforementioned reason. So Type C people should not say they're voting for Newsom because this belief is deranged and they should correct it. American voters value *consistency* from politicians, this tack-to-the-center shit just never works.
-
OK I will admit a third type of person, the Type C person who believes that Newsom is "electable" due to his willingness to be a hypocrite and advertise his lack of principles to mythical "independents" in the electorate. These people are wrong for the aforementioned reason. So Type C people should not say they're voting for Newsom because this belief is deranged and they should correct it. American voters value *consistency* from politicians, this tack-to-the-center shit just never works.
So Type C people shouldn't say they'll vote for Newsom because they should correct that error.
Type B people are not going to vote for Newsom anyway and should loudly declare that fact *now* to maximize their information advantage in the primary to avoid that outcome.
Type A people are worried about the general election and feel like they need to convince everyone of a "blue no matter who" coalition *now*, to focus on harm reduction and ending the Trumpian nightmare.
-
So Type C people shouldn't say they'll vote for Newsom because they should correct that error.
Type B people are not going to vote for Newsom anyway and should loudly declare that fact *now* to maximize their information advantage in the primary to avoid that outcome.
Type A people are worried about the general election and feel like they need to convince everyone of a "blue no matter who" coalition *now*, to focus on harm reduction and ending the Trumpian nightmare.
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!
-
@glyph It's a terrible recording, but...
- YouTube
Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
(www.youtube.com)
@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 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.
