Cruz and Rubio are playing Chicken…
…and it’s a bumpy ride:
The game of chicken, also known as the hawk-dove game or snowdrift game, is an influential model of conflict for two players in game theory. The principle of the game is that while each player prefers not to yield to the other, the worst possible outcome occurs when both players do not yield.
The name “chicken” has its origins in a game in which two drivers drive towards each other on a collision course: one must swerve, or both may die in the crash, but if one driver swerves and the other does not, the one who swerved will be called a “chicken,” meaning a coward.
Before most of the other candidates had dropped out there were more players, and I wrote that the GOP race was a variation of the Tragedy of the Commons. Recently “Cornhead” suggested it was actually the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
But I have decided that, although it has elements of these, it’s really closest to Chicken.
It’s becoming more and more clear””and it was already clear””that if Cruz and Rubio stay so evenly matched it will benefit Trump. For a while I thought that a three-way race would allow one of them to dominate, and then the real picture would be clarified. But no.
Now, it’s certainly possible that if it were a two-way race, Trump would continue to win. But at least then the GOP voters’ preference for Trump as candidate would be clear.
If they both can see the game emerging””and they must see it already, because it’s crystal clear””someone could decide to sacrifice himself. Or, the one doing a little worse could be promised something (Cabinet, VP spot, SCOTUS appointment) by the other.
If they are both smart people””and they are””they must find their way out of the dilemma. It’s one of those Solomaic things, too””which one is the true patriot, who will sacrifice himself? If it’s too early to do it now, then a bit later. But soon, soon.
I keep hoping that one will do better than the other and it will become clear who should drop out. At this point I don’t care which one it is. One is a more consistent conservative (Cruz), and the other is (I think) more likely to win an election (Rubio), although I think both are basically conservative, and either could probably win a general against Hillary or Sanders.
I think Kasich and Carson need to get the hell out. Neither of them has any business still being there. My hope is that once that happens, either Cruz or Rubio, will emerge as the favorite.
Jan Brewer just came out and endorsed Trump. As did the governor of Maine. So are all 3 of these governors (including Christie) delusional? Are they somehow duped by the mastermind Trump who is mesmerizing all of us?
Christie even declared he’s been friends with Trump for years.
When I hear these over-the-top alert messages that Trump is going to be the next Hitler…well, it makes me thing that some of you are getting a little nutty (as you accuse any Trump supporter of being).
But maybe that is what you believe. That Christie is also a secret megalomaniac with bad intentions for the U.S. That Jan Brewer is only out for herself and how she can latch on to our future dictator.
Christie’s been the NJ governor for awhile and Jan Brewer was a successful governor in AZ. I didn’t see any of these qualities in either of them for years.
Rubio said today that it is all about delegates. Nate Silver has analysis on how Rubio can win. But it is a tough thing to pull off.
Trump is going to get his 30-40%. Once the primaries go to winner-take-all, the math changes.
Glad the some of the dirt on Donald is coming out, but his people are impervious to evidence.
Just today he was spinning his con that he called Trump University between insults at Rubio. But he can’t spin hiring foreign workers at his Palm Beach hotel while screaming in favor of jobs for Americans. Hypocrite isn’t a good enough word. We need something bigger. Trumpocrite?
K-E : you like Trump; we get it. You don’t think there are valid enough reasons to be against Trump; we get it.
Much as I like Cruz, I think he should work a deal with Rubio where Cruz drops out in return for the SCOTUS nomination if Rubio wins.
It’s obvious that Rubio has decided to throw caution to the winds. He is on fire with his new strategy of giving Trump a taste (actually more than a taste) of his own medicine – insults, mocking, and challenging everything about Trump’s claim to success. It may not work, but it had to be done. If it doesn’t work, the GOP is cooked. There is no way that Trump, as the nominee, can unite the party. He also will be unable to win enough of the Hispanic and black vote to win the general. At this point it is looking very grim. And gives some credence to this conspiracy theory:
http://neveryetmelted.com/2016/02/25/what-if/
Cruz is a Constitutional conservative. Rubio is a conservative, for the most part, but poisoned the well of believability with the Gang of 8. I wish Rubio would come clean and admit he was wrong for working with the DC establishment and that he knew the bill would mean amnesty for millions of illegal aliens who are criminals simply because they willfully violated our immigration laws. Plus, he needs to swear on the lives of his children that as POTUS he will never sign into law a bill that allows amnesty.
Rubio is correct that deporting the 12 or so million illegals is not practical. Cruz was pandering when he echoed Trump’s claim that he would deport all of the illegals. They both are mere mortals. They make mistakes, they make promises they can not keep. Unlike Trump and obama they do not pretend to be the messiah.
parker, much of the controversy revolves around what is defined as amnesty. For some a path to citizenship, no matter how difficult, is amnesty. For others a path to a green card with no citizenship, ever, is amnesty.
For them, anything short of deportation of all illegals is amnesty. The definition varies. We have to agree on what constitutes amnesty.
I’m in agreement with Rubio and many others. Nothing should be decided about the status of those who have been here illegally until the border is under control. I would like to see a three year period of proven border control where ICE works on deporting all criminal illegals/visa overstays and any others who happen to come to their attention. Also, sanctuary cities need to be ended. If e-verify is successfully actuated during the three years and employers follow the law, many illegals will self deport.
Once the border is reliably under control and visa overstays are too, then Congress should debate the issue of how to treat those who are still here and have no criminal records. They should take note of their constituents’ opinions. This problem has been brewing for 29 years. There are a lot of people on both sides. It’s going to take time to solve it. IMOHO.
JJ
Amnesty will repeat the 1986 sequence.
1) Now holding legitimate political rights — the ex-aliens are no longer employable.
For they can EASILY pull down more in welfare benefits than they can earn in legitimate commerce.
As America has no need for stoop labor — at legal wages.
2) So, en masse, they go onto our welfare rolls. Virtually no-one who was granted amnesty held on to their jobs.
No employer could afford to promptly lift their wages 100 to 300 percent.
3) So a New Wave of illegals were imported — en masse — to promptly replace the semi-slaves who’d just been elevated to citizenship.
&&&&&&&&
We REALLY have to kick out illegal aliens.
Every other nation on earth does so.
Even Sweden ejects more illegals than America. Such ejections just don’t get any press.
Sweden throws out about HALF of all the migrants that come her way.
Yep.
Similar ejection stats occur in Denmark.
Unlike America, criminal activity really does get one ejected in Scandinavia.
This mass influx of Mexicans has ELIMINATED the California republic.
It’s been replaced by a one-party state.
The GOP is such a rump in the legislature that Arnold couldn’t get anything through.
Statistically, Whites are fleeing California.
&&&&
I believe firmly that Rubio’s primary desire above all else is to pass amnesty, to give citizenship to those who are here illegally. he has worked towards this his whole career, and you cannot miss the passion when he speaks of this. If elected president he will work with Ryan, McConnell, and democrats to push this trough, and damn the political costs. My question is how can you be considered mostly conservative when the one policy you favor the most, kills the chance of conservatism from ever winning another election?
David Aitken said:
“Much as I like Cruz, I think he should work a deal with Rubio where Cruz drops out in return for the SCOTUS nomination if Rubio wins.”
That’s been floated online, but it’s unrealistic. Cruz is an actual conservative. His nomination would be fought to the bitter end by Democrats.
Compared to their implacable hatred, what good would be the GOP’s tepid support?
Does anyone think Mitch “Liar” McConnell would go to the mat for Cruz?
Rubio and Cruz are both taking a risk.
Many say that in order to beat Trump, you have to actually BEAT him (figuratively, of course). You have to attack him head on.
The problem with that is when Christie did it to Rubio, all it did was drag both of their numbers down.
Rubio is betting he can attack Trump and come away with a benefit for doing it. Cruz may benefit from NOT being the one to attack Trump.
OTOH, maybe both of them are attacking Trump and it’s just that Rubio is getting the lion’s share of the coverage.
The MSM seems to be holding a partial embargo of Cruz to make sure he doesn’t look too good.
I do think republicans would be happy to put Cruz on the SC.. I read a lot of Trump supporters who dream of Cruz ether as VP or on the SC, and I think it is a thought that Cruz be an insurance policy to make sure Trump doesn’t mess up too much.
I find myself getting irritated with Carson.
I plan to continue through this year to vote for Cruz in the primary and the general, even if I have to write in.
I saw on another site, someone was going to write themselves in as part of a bucket list. That’s a thought.
Unity ticket with Cruz as the VP or Cruz SCOTUS deal after Tuesday. It’s the only thing that will save the race.
JJ,
Okay, what constitutes amnesty may be up for definition, but in the end we are talking about criminals who violated our immigration laws. However, I am willing, for practical purposes, to allow that a majority of those criminals (who violated our immigration laws) should be allowed, baring any other crimes committed, to go to the back of the line to apply to legally reside in the USA. Not citizenship, but a green card.
But that is not what will happen. 1986 proved what I am saying is true.
Becky Says:
“February 27th, 2016 at 11:15 pm
I do think republicans would be happy to put Cruz on the SC..”
With 24 R Senate seats up vs 10 for the Ds, there is a strong possibility that the Marxists regain control. If that happens, Pres Rubio or Trump would face (at least) a two year long media circus spectacle over a Cruz nomination. Even if Schumer let the nominee out of committee, it would make the Bork and Thomas hearings – combined – look like a Mr Rodgers Neighborhood episode.
We’d have to win the POTUS (50-50), then keep the Senate (very difficult), then actually pick up six Senate seats (next to impossible). If not, McConnell would have to be willing to employ the “nuclear option” and even if he did, Conservative Review only gives a dozen R Senators passing grades with 26 between 14% (Collins; Sanders is at 15%!) to 50%. It would only take a half dozen to side with the Democrats.
I think Cruz must have made a similar analysis. Maybe that’s why I don’t think he’s going to get out of the race.
Rubio, OTOH, is going be under tremendous pressure from the entire GOPe not to settle for Cruz as the VP, as well as the recipient of several king’s ransoms in donations.
Stalemate between them – checkmate for the attention whore.
We are effed.
I understand that it looks bad for the conservatives having Trump run the board early, but what’s the rush to get one to concede?
As long as one of them folds and endorses the other before the winner-take-all states on 3/15, the proportional delegates accumulated before that can be used for either candidate.
On the other hand, if they split the vote in the winner-take-all’s, they’re doomed.
blert: “No employer could afford to promptly lift their wages 100 to 300 percent.”
When the illegals are all gone, what choice will the employers have? I live in a small community in a big ag area. The crops here that require a lot of manual labor are berries, flowers (bulbs), beans, apples, apricots, etc. About 25% of the population of the town I live in Is Hispanic. Some, I assume, are illegals. These are the people who do the necessary seasonal ag work. But many of them also have jobs in local construction, government agencies (I assume those people are legal), and the hotel/motel business such as it is. We have some sporadic gang problems, but for the most part the Hispanics I encounter blend right in to the local scene. I see and talk with a lot of younger Hispanics who work out at the gym where I work out. Most are respectful and friendly to me.
I have seen Mexifonia and read all that Victor Davis Hansen has written about the changes.
I have driven Highway One in California in recent years. It does resemble driving in Mexico, just with better roads. In every business you encounter Hispanics, some who don’t speak English all that well. It was a bit shocking to find every store in Solvang manned by Hispanics.
If you try to deport them all, it would be a huge job requiring a lot of manpower as well as the acceptance by all the bleeding heart liberals in the country. It will not be a smooth, process with all citizens accepting it.
When they are all deported, you will either see crops rotting in the fields or the prices will have to go up. Maybe that is the price we have to pay to deport them. That’s a question for after the border is secured.
You keep referring to 1986. That was a comprehensive immigration law. The problem was the enforcement of the border was never implemented. If the border is enforced first and proven under control over a period of years, then we can make a judgment about what to do with those who are still here.
“Now holding legitimate political rights – the ex-aliens are no longer employable.
For they can EASILY pull down more in welfare benefits than they can earn in legitimate commerce.”
Is there any reason why we can’t pass a law to deny welfare benefits to those who have only green cards status? That is one of the issues to be decided after the border is closed. And that will be a difficult fight as well, because…..bleeding heart liberals.
Close the border and stop visa overstays. Unless those two things are done, deporting an illegal does no good at all. They will just slip back in as did the killer of Kate Steinle, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez (Deported five times.). After the border/visa overstays are under control, deport all the criminals. Then decide what to do with those who remain. Border and visa control first. It cannot be emphasized enough.
blert, Bob, you’re just flat-out wrong — Immigration is not the most important issue of this election, not by a long shot. I’d rank it about sixth, after the gutting of the military, the feckless foreign policy of undercutting our friends and boosting our enemies, the refusal to deal with, even acknowlege, Islamic Fascism as an existential threat, the overregulation and overtaxation of the economy, and the grotesque overspending, utter ineptitude, and outrageous unconstitutional overreach by the federal government.
As to immigration, after securing the borders, controlling visa overstays, deporting criminals, implementing e-verify and other employment controls — as to which Cruz and Rubio are in agreement — we can work out the details of who gets to go and who to stay later. Hell, you can’t even define what amnesty is, but you’re against it.
Illegal immigration has been an issue for decades, it can wait a couple more years for complete resolution. Eliminating bilingual education would do more to resolve the baleful effects of illegal immigration than almost anything else we could do, and that properly belongs at the state, not the federal level.
Of the top three remaining candidates, Trump in actually the weakest on immigration. He’s said he doesn’t believe visa overstays are a problem. He’s said, “we deport all of them and then let the good ones back in.” What the hell does that mean? He hasn’t said anything about what happens next, just as he hasn’t said anything about anything else except “I’m great and everything I do is great, therefore the country’s going to be great.” And he’s made unforgiveable statements about Putin, George W. Bush, and Israel, he’s the last person a conservative should be supporting.
Since Rubio and Cruz are about equal on both the more important issues, the question comes done to who is more electable. I always go back to William F. Buckley’s prescription for elections, you pick”the most conservative ELECTABLE candidate.”
Yes, i would have preferred Fiorina or Carson. (Yes, I would still like to see Fiorina as VP, Christie as Homeland Security or AG, and Cruz as AG or SCOTUS.) But right now, the question has to be who can beat Hilary or Joe for president. I think that’s Rubio. Yes, it shouldn’t be, but personal attractiveness is much more important than two points on the ACU rating scale. Why do you think Trump is going after Rubio’s looks? (Whatever you might say about Trump, he’s no dummy!)
If you think Cruz or somebody else is more electable, tell me why.
The problem has always and ever will be, the Leftist alliance. Nothing else really matters, because all of America’s problems can be linked to an origin point somewhere caused by a member in the Left.
Destroy the Left, and half of your problems vanish, and the other half can finally now be “solved”.