This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/05/game-theory-republican-presidential-debate

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Is game theory the key to success in the Republican presidential debate? Is game theory the key to success in the Republican presidential debate?
(35 minutes later)
As Jeb Bush crams on books and Scott Walker runs mock debates, Donald Trump can laugh, revelling in the disarray of the Republican field ahead of the party’s first primary debate as he sits atop many polls. But the Fox News debate on Thursday will not only pit Trump against his rivals on a single stage, it will pit the mogul against his natural enemy: rules. As Jeb Bush crams on books and Scott Walker runs mock debates, Donald Trump can laugh, revelling in the disarray of the Republican field before the party’s first primary debate as he sits atop many polls. But the Fox News debate on Thursday will not only pit Trump against his rivals on a single stage, it will pit the mogul against his natural enemy: rules.
“Since there are rules we’re talking about a game,” said Steven Brams, a New York University professor who specializes in game theory. “And the game is of course a function of who’s in it and how the players are determined.”“Since there are rules we’re talking about a game,” said Steven Brams, a New York University professor who specializes in game theory. “And the game is of course a function of who’s in it and how the players are determined.”
Candidates will be arranged according to their place in the polls used by Fox News: Trump will be front and center, reflecting his lead; Jeb Bush and Scott Walker will stand at his sides; and the others – Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich – will extend radially outward, with the stragglers on the fringe. (Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki and James Gilmore will appear at a pre-debate beforehand.)Candidates will be arranged according to their place in the polls used by Fox News: Trump will be front and center, reflecting his lead; Jeb Bush and Scott Walker will stand at his sides; and the others – Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Chris Christie and John Kasich – will extend radially outward, with the stragglers on the fringe. (Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, George Pataki and James Gilmore will appear at a pre-debate beforehand.)
Related: Donald Trump to take center stage at Republican primary debateRelated: Donald Trump to take center stage at Republican primary debate
Leading his closest competitor, former Florida governor Bush, by more than 10 points in the polls, Trump is the default king the other Republicans will have to uncrown.Leading his closest competitor, former Florida governor Bush, by more than 10 points in the polls, Trump is the default king the other Republicans will have to uncrown.
“Candidates could be aggressive in general, aggressive against a particular candidate, try to appease the rest of the field, try to look moderate – those are the strategies I think we’ll see,” said Brams.“Candidates could be aggressive in general, aggressive against a particular candidate, try to appease the rest of the field, try to look moderate – those are the strategies I think we’ll see,” said Brams.
“But I don’t think we know enough about the preferences of the players to say how the game should be optimally played.”“But I don’t think we know enough about the preferences of the players to say how the game should be optimally played.”
Neither do the candidates, to judge from the performance of 14 Republicans at a forum in New Hampshire on Monday night. Facing each other but not Trump, nearly every candidate hemmed, hawed and occasionally stumbled at the Q&A event. Whether the lackluster showing reflects poor preparation or simple caution will only be clear after Thursday’s main event.Neither do the candidates, to judge from the performance of 14 Republicans at a forum in New Hampshire on Monday night. Facing each other but not Trump, nearly every candidate hemmed, hawed and occasionally stumbled at the Q&A event. Whether the lackluster showing reflects poor preparation or simple caution will only be clear after Thursday’s main event.
Fox has set simple rules for its moderators, hosts Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, to rein in the excesses of its political celebrities. Candidates will have a minute to answer questions posed to them, and then moderators will select candidates who will have 30 seconds for rebuttals.Fox has set simple rules for its moderators, hosts Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier, to rein in the excesses of its political celebrities. Candidates will have a minute to answer questions posed to them, and then moderators will select candidates who will have 30 seconds for rebuttals.
Should one candidate refer to one of his rivals in the course of an answer, that rival will have the opportunity for a rebuttal, the duration of which is at the moderators’ discretion.Should one candidate refer to one of his rivals in the course of an answer, that rival will have the opportunity for a rebuttal, the duration of which is at the moderators’ discretion.
Facebook, the co-host of the debate, will toss in a question at 15-minute intervals as well, presumably provided by users.Facebook, the co-host of the debate, will toss in a question at 15-minute intervals as well, presumably provided by users.
Most of the candidates have signalled that they hope to wait out Trump’s popularity, expecting a self-destruction when his bombast goes too far or when voters simply lose interest in hearing about “tremendous” casino success from a man who once joked that he would date his own daughter if she weren’t related. Most of the candidates have signalled that they hope to wait out Trump’s popularity, expecting self-destruction when his bombast goes too far or when voters simply lose interest in hearing about “tremendous” casino success from a man who once joked that he would date his own daughter if she weren’t related.
They also seem to fear the unpredictability of a man who read out Senator Lindsey Graham’s cellphone number on national television and, within a single sentence, will insult Hispanic immigrants and then insist: “I’ll win the Hispanic vote.”They also seem to fear the unpredictability of a man who read out Senator Lindsey Graham’s cellphone number on national television and, within a single sentence, will insult Hispanic immigrants and then insist: “I’ll win the Hispanic vote.”
Trump’s indefatigable will to shout pejoratives almost at random, as evinced by a decade on reality TV, also threatens to humiliate even the most patient contender – further incentive to demur when the mogul starts speaking.Trump’s indefatigable will to shout pejoratives almost at random, as evinced by a decade on reality TV, also threatens to humiliate even the most patient contender – further incentive to demur when the mogul starts speaking.
The debate rules could make candidates more cautious – stick to the script and opponents will have less chance to respond – and conventional wisdom holds that presidential debates, especially in the crowded primary races of recent elections, are more about avoiding mistakes than a dominant performance.The debate rules could make candidates more cautious – stick to the script and opponents will have less chance to respond – and conventional wisdom holds that presidential debates, especially in the crowded primary races of recent elections, are more about avoiding mistakes than a dominant performance.
Americans are more likely to remember the spectacular errors than the strong showing, Princeton professor Julian Zelizer wrote in 2012, cataloguing the long list of gaffes and unforced errors by candidates over the decades. Richard Nixon pale and sweating next to JFK; Al Gore’s audible sighs interrupting George W Bush; Rick Perry unable to name three departments of government mid-boast about a plan to cut them.Americans are more likely to remember the spectacular errors than the strong showing, Princeton professor Julian Zelizer wrote in 2012, cataloguing the long list of gaffes and unforced errors by candidates over the decades. Richard Nixon pale and sweating next to JFK; Al Gore’s audible sighs interrupting George W Bush; Rick Perry unable to name three departments of government mid-boast about a plan to cut them.
“Presidential debates are full of landmines for the candidates,” Zelizer wrote, adding that “the last thing that a candidate wants to do is provide material” for Saturday Night Live.“Presidential debates are full of landmines for the candidates,” Zelizer wrote, adding that “the last thing that a candidate wants to do is provide material” for Saturday Night Live.
The ideal approach may be an opportunistic one, holding back for the chance to strike a memorable quote or pile on to a particular opponent. But even if Trump’s campaign for the Republican nomination splutters, as many predict, as a third-party candidate he could hurt the eventual nominee in the general election.The ideal approach may be an opportunistic one, holding back for the chance to strike a memorable quote or pile on to a particular opponent. But even if Trump’s campaign for the Republican nomination splutters, as many predict, as a third-party candidate he could hurt the eventual nominee in the general election.
Brams said that Democrats and Republicans ought to take more care about the players if they wanted their preferred candidate to win the whole game, an election in November 2016. Brams said that Democrats and Republicans would have to take more care about the players if they wanted their preferred candidate to win the whole game, an election in November 2016.
Social choice theory, and not game theory, had more application, he suggested, explaining that if the parties used approval rating polls (based on voters’ opinion of candidates) rather than plurality polls (based on voters’ first-choice candidate) that would help cut down on the influence of extreme politicians in the primaries. Social choice theory, and not game theory, had more application, he suggested, explaining that if the parties used approval rating polls (based on voters’ opinion of candidates) rather than plurality polls (based on voters’ first-choice candidate), that would help cut down on the influence of extreme politicians in the primaries.
“They’re making the calculation that they want the candidate and their party to win, and that’s where approval voting would help the parties avoid extremists and win the general election.“They’re making the calculation that they want the candidate and their party to win, and that’s where approval voting would help the parties avoid extremists and win the general election.
“It’s ultimately the position of the candidates that matter,” he said, adding that “it’s unusual for voters in primaries to choose an extremist”.“It’s ultimately the position of the candidates that matter,” he said, adding that “it’s unusual for voters in primaries to choose an extremist”.