Game theory and "Bernie or Bust"

[geek tragedy]

Please tell me if any of the below is incorrect:

Assumption 1: Bernie Sanders supporters want his values and policy goals to be achieved to the maximum extent possible. They want his voice to be heard, and to influence our government because they share his policy goals and values.

Assumption 2: As things currently stand, there is a very substantial likelihood (though not a guarantee) that Hillary Clinton will win the most pledged delegates in the Democratic Primary.

Given the above two assumptions, it would seem Bernie Sanders supporters would have three options in case Clinton does win the most delegates:

1) Vow to fall in line behind the Democratic nominee, whoever it is (Party discipline);

2) Vow to not vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee (Bernie or Bust);

3) Decide to follow Bernie's lead--if he says third party run, support his third party run, if he says vote for Hillary vote for Hillary ("I'm with Bernie),


Which of the three options above would increase Bernie's power and influence within the Democratic party and society at large?

I would argue that pretty clearly it's (3)--if their behavior is predictable and not dependent at all on what Bernie does, this decreases his leverage with the DNC in terms of platform, and leading a larger movement to reform the party.

I would also suggest that (2) would be the least conducive to helping him influence the party--the Democratic party is not going to overturn the results of its primary vote over such threats, and indeed it means taking those making the threat out of the process entirely. If the Democrats win, it shows that they're irrelevant. If the Republicans win, the party moves right (people generally look at the winner and decide to do what the winner did) and they get blamed.

(1) would seem to leave them with some influence, but ultimately not that much, but it wouldn't be self-defeating.

Competing values/motives would be required to have a person choose (1) or (2)--if it's (1) they could decide that it's more important to stay unified to defeat the Republicans.

But, I'm at a complete loss as to what rational purpose would cause people to choose (2).

Suggestions?

[peacebird]

1. I would choose two because I cannot vote for a neocon warhawk. Who lies incessantly. Lacks integrity

Has WallStreet and too big to fail on speed dial. Sells out average american workers via support for increasing H1B visas & outsourcing.
Considers Kissinger a mentor.
Game on. I will do everything I can to help get Bernie, and progressives downticket, elected.

[geek tragedy]

8. ok, but you recognize that you would diminish Sanders's influence by taking that stance? nt

[peacebird]

9. No, it doesn't diminish Sanders in any way. Nice try though.

[geek tragedy]

12. sure it does, it shows that he has no influence on you if he doesn't win.

So, if you're a DNC honcho, and Bernie's asking for changes to the DNC platform, why do you care about a guy whose supporters won't listen to him?

[peacebird]

23. In case you haven't noticed DNC honchos only pay attention to the rich people who donate $$$$$

It is long since they paid attention to we, the people. The ThirdWay/DLCers took over the DNC and shifted it hard right on economic issues. It is now more concerned about the plight of poor WallStreet bankers than main street people. Hence the hollowing out of the middle class which they have helped cause with NAFTA, CAFTA, most special nation status for china, repeal of GlassSteagal, welfare 'reform'.

[artislife]

48. It was about the ISSUES

The issues were first, we got lucky and had a candidate that also believed in them.

He is influenced by us.

Really, this is the difference.

This is the big difference. If it were another candidate who had the same platform, we would be supporting that candidate. Hillary supporters seem to support the person first, the issues last. So if Bernie fails and the platform leaves, why would we support a candidate who supports so little of it. There are more liberal choices.

Sure they may not win. But I don't believe she will either. Why not continue voting for the platform of choice?

[Mike__M]

54. What artislife said. ^ ^ ^

Bernie is great, and his personal integrity adds immeasurably to his campaign's appeal, but I think most of us are supporting him for the principles we share.

[TM99]

19. Your assumption is just that

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:49 PM - Edit history (1)

your assumption.

Sanders had little influence before this election season, and he will have it likely even less if he loses. It doesn't mean that he will stop fighting for what is right and just as he has always consistently and honestly done. That is who he is. He did not run to 'gain influence'. That is Clinton speak.

I don't vote to enable influence either. I don't vote because someone suggests I should. I don't vote because I have to be loyal to some team.

I vote based on the positions and policies that I respect and agree with. I vote for a candidate that matches that. I know the right rarely if ever puts a candidate forward that will meet my requirements. That generally has left the Democratic Party as my option. And when they do so, I vote for them like I did for Jesse Jackson. And when they do not, then I vote third party. I did not vote for a Clinton in the 1990's, why in the fuck would I vote for one in 2016?

[artislife]

49. ^^^This.

[MaggieD]

32. Can you prove any of that?

Because I have been seeing this baseless innuendo and these smears for 9 months now. And it's time you all either provided something to back up these smears or just stop.

[hack89]

46. So you have enough privilege to do well in a Trump presidency

What about those who are not so fortunate?

[PowerToThePeople]

55. So, you have enough privilege to do well in a Clinton presidency?

What about those who are not so fortunate?

How much collateral damage is acceptable to you?

[hack89]

56. So Trump is the same as Clinton

Ok. The reality that you will soon face is choosing between Trump and Hillary.

[PowerToThePeople]

57. There is more reality than what you state.

[hack89]

58. Ballots are black and white

You will have to choose. And you will choose the person best for you, warts and all. Is that person Trump?

[PowerToThePeople]

59. I can assure you that I will not cast a vote for Trump or any Republican.

[hack89]

60. Thanks. nt

[cosmicone]

2. 2 is just anger and frustration taking away the person's best judgment

3 is a better option only if Bernie supports the nominee and campaigns for her. If he runs as an independent, 3 is suicide.

1 is the option of least resistance with the best upside potential. That is living to fight another day.

[Kelvin Mace]

4. If HRC is the best candidate

then she has all the votes she needs. If she doesn't, she wasn't the best candidate.

That's kind of how democracy works.

Observation:

A significant number of Sanders supporters say that for a variety of reason (mostly ethical/moral) they cannot support HRC with their vote.

Conversely, very few HRC supporters say they have any objection to voting for Sanders.

(Side note, personal opinion: Any Sanders supporter who says they will vote for Trump is an asshole).

Conjecture: It would seem that there is some defect in HRC that is absent in Sanders.

[LonePirate]

24. Devil's advocate: maybe the defect is in Sanders' supporters and not in Clinton

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Well, we can look at the candidates and ask

What issues that supposedly matter to HRC supporters are not addressed by Sanders? What issues that supposedly matter to Sanders supporters are not addressed by HRC?

I think the reason for the disparity is that Sanders hits all of the major liberal issues, but HRC does not.

[Jefferson23]

5. Too soon to say, bud. We still need to see what happens with Republicans which may or may

not help Clinton should she win the nomination. I am not expecting her to see any
significant consequences from the FBI investigation but there are other variables
that could still negatively impact the race.

[Politicalboi]

6. Bernie or Bust

Sorry, I can't support someone who lies, and cheats during the primary by her and her "husband" visiting polls on election day. If Trump did that in the GE she would be screaming and so would her followers. Fuck that shit. I want to win fair and square. And the Queen doesn't play fair.

I thought I could actually support her at one time. But since they pull tricks and cheat and cheat us out of our choice, I can't help come November if she is the nom.

[geek tragedy]

7. nobody cheated you out of your choice. Clinton won because Democratic primary

voters overwhelmingly prefer her to Sanders.

Bill Clinton being near a polling station in Massachusetts didn't cause her to destroy Sanders in Texas, Florida, and Ohio.

[UglyGreed]

10. She has not won

yet, anointed perhaps.....

[geek tragedy]

15. not won, but very much on the way to winning, due

to the votes of rank and file Democrats.

[UglyGreed]

17. She has a big lead

right now but she has not won and that's all I'm saying.

[Kalidurga]

11. It's nice to see you have dropped the pretense.

[geek tragedy]

13. I changed my mind as I gained a better understanding of the candidates nt

[Kalidurga]

14. LOL

Yeah right

[geek tragedy]

18. yes, it began with the way they handled the data breach situation.

Bernie apologized but then had his campaign fundraise off it and sue the DNC, while peddling conspiracy theories.

It raised for me grave doubts about (1) the kind of people Bernie Sanders would appoint to government positions and (2) his general competence to govern.

[Kalidurga]

20. Nah it began in June when Bernie announced

But, you can pretend I never read any of your posts and you can pretend you sometimes had something nice to say about Bernie and that you never attacked a Bernie supporter. Carry on now.

[Scootaloo]

16. it's not game theory. it's cost - benefit analysis.

The left has tried all three of these methods and receives the exact same result each and every time. Flawlessly, in fact. The democratic party is just not that interested in us. The "competition" to the Democratic party is even less interested in us. And thanks to the winner-take-all method of US elections, those are really our options.

Option #1 is that our votes are simply taken for granted. We're treated like a captive bloc, to be used for votes then ignored.

Option #3 gets exactly the same result as option #1, simply because the party sees us as having no alternative no matter what. And as i noted, they're actually right.

So why do people take #2? cost-benefit. you can work your ass off to be ignored (#3), you can subliminate yourself and get ignored (#1) or you can sit at home, scratch your ass, and still be ignored (#2). The second option simply takes less time, energy, and resources to achieve an outcome that will be the same regardless of what you do.

This is why we're trying for option #4 - winning the damn thing. it's a long shot but it's our best bet.

[geek tragedy]

21. the 'left' is a concept, not a movement

Climate change activists and GLBT rights activists are the models for how to successfully pressure the national party to enacting progressive legislation and policies. Ditto the DREAMers.

That's because they are movement activists, who apply pressure through lobbying and by offering--and withholding--support.

If the left really wants to be considered a movement, they need to organize and do the hard work in non-presidential election years.

[Scootaloo]

36. You're comparign several very different things there.

Yup, the left is a very broad term. But that's who you're directing your question at. Would you care ot actually respond to the answer I gave?

[geek tragedy]

37. my point is that when you say "we" and "us" that doesn't refer to

any identifiable group of people.

Does Dolores Huerta count as a member of the left?

[Scootaloo]

39. You seem to have a lot of points, none of which address the answer to your question

[geek tragedy]

40. the answer was a bit confusing, as it presumes that there is an actual group of people who feel

that they are hostages to the Democratic party and are incapable of moving it in the right direction.

Since the party has moved left on a number of issues over the past few decades, this is demonstrably false.

[dana_b]

22. "would increase Bernie's power and influence within the Democratic party "

Bernie isn't in this for himself. He's doing this for us and that's why he is in it through until the convention. He can and would go back to the great state of Vermont and represent them as he has for many, many years.

if he is not the nominee, I think he'll endorse Clinton because he's running as a Dem and he knows that Trump is a fascist. But I don't think that he expects us to follow him like lemmings (saw that video yesterday - lol...) and that we can make up our own minds.

[geek tragedy]

28. the more influence and prominence he has, the more he can do for people.

the question is how much he wants to lead on these issues after the election.

[dana_b]

31. okay, and that's his decision but

he has over 4 months until the convention to think about that. Right now he is trying to win this thing.

[geek tragedy]

35. as he should--I think it would be a betrayal for him to quit at this stage.

Just like Hillary owed it to her supporters to compete in all 50 states in 2008, he also owes it to his supporters to keep going.

But, I certainly hope--and believe--he won't do the 'kitchen sink' strategy.

[rock]

25. Allow me to critique your analysis (since you appear to be asking)

I'll try to stay close to points raised.

1) I don't believe Assumption 2 is needed. There's nothing wrong with it though;

2) Options (1) and (2) do not really need to be phrased with a "vow to", just do it. No vow is actually required.

3) You prefer option (3) but that one implies Bernie would run as an Independent if he did not get the candidacy. My take on that is that it would be political suicide. It's one thing to run as an Independent from the get go, but a sure means to make you a pariah if you switch because you are losing. Although I obviously support his lead if he supports Hillary.

Nice article.
Thanks

[geek tragedy]

30. re: 'vow' I originally had (1) be "promise" and (2) be "threaten"

but that was too much editorializing so I went to a more neutral word. maybe didn't work.

Maybe I can modify (3) a little bit--publicly vow to follow Bernie's lead. Obviously, if he jumps off the Brooklyn Bridge, they're not going to follow him. But, send the statement as clearly as possible that if they mess with Bernie, they mess with you, while if Bernie is happy with the DNC platform, such concessions will be rewarded.

[rock]

34. If you meant 'vow' as 'promise' that's perfectly OK

I was reading it as a formal process involving hand and bible, other hand in the air, etc. Thanks.

[PonyUp]

26. Bernie's the messenger, not the message.

if he decides to support Hillary, that's his choice. I'll find another messenger.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

27. Bernie is a patriot and a good politician.

Which is why he will handle his bowing out, if that happens, with timing and grace maximizing his supporters willingness to continue to participate in this ever so crucial election.

[coyote]

29. For me, voting for Hillary is like continuing an abusive relationship.

I will not help a candidate that facilitates the enrichment of a few at the cost of many. I will not help bankers and corporations make ill-gotten gains at the expense of us, our communities, our environment, our jobs, our health, and everything we hold dear in our lives. Enabling her power (voting for her) will only perpetuate the abuse of the status quo...so this is where I draw the line. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton regardless If she is the Democratic nominee.

[pat_k]

33. The campaign itself is a force for change.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511507143

[PowerToThePeople]

41. My theory

The USA is beyond saving. It is corrupt to the core and nothing short of violent revolt will change this.

One thing Bernie has done is give me some hope again. Very similar feelings that I had when Obama was first running in '08. The difference being that Bernie has a history, where as I mostly took Obama on his word and believed him.

Bernie will continue to fight the good fight, so will many people that have the advantage of some financial safety backing them. I applaud these efforts.

I do not have the ability to weather another decade of neo-liberal policies. I have been treading water too long now, waiting on better policies. The nation that I was raised to believe in, the nation where dreams can come true if you just persist and work hard is non existent. Blatant fascism and corrupt pay to play politics benefit the few off of the backs of the many. The many are too weak to fight it or have yet to be damaged enough to really accept the truth of the situation, imho.

RIP USA.

[geek tragedy]

43. sorry to disappoint you but there won't be a violent revolt from the left. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

44. I never claimed there would be.

Last edited Wed Mar 16, 2016, 06:47 PM - Edit history (2)

I also never claimed that I desired to see a violent left revolution.

I said that, at this point in time, that is the only method to improve the plight of the common man.

No matter which right winger gets elected, America will continue to devolve into further dystopia. Unemployment will get worse, poverty will get worse, suicide rates will increase, income inequality will worsen.

None of the front runners will work to change this path.

[rogerashton]

42. Taking your game theory seriously

The thing is that this is not a one-off game. We will be playing with (and against) the same folks in four and eight years.

Thus, some might take option 2 in the hope that the centrists in the Dem party would take the threat of a third party run more seriously in future years, increasing our bargaining power in the party. Now, that was tried in 2000 and to some extent in 1980. Didn't work, but in both cases there was reason to think that the defection didn't really make the difference. It did make some centrists bitter, though. Now, a third-party defection of the scale of Perot's 1992 run could make the difference -- and create bargaining power -- but President Trump is a steep price to pay, and there might not be a Democratic party with a centrist tendency to bargain with.

Some might take option 1 on the reasoning that the Democratic Nominee is not going to win without us and will want to be elected to a second term -- with our help. That runs the risk that she might blow the Republicans out with such a big win that she feels she doesn't need us. I'm beginning to worry a bit about that.

Taking option 3 makes sense if you think Bernie could extract something that would actually make a difference -- and that promises made under those circumstances would be kept. But Bernie has said he won't run third party, and I believe him -- and I think Hillary believes him.

[geek tragedy]

45. the bigger Clinton wins, the more Democrats get elected to Congress

which means better legislation and policies

[silenttigersong]

47. Bernies leverage

He needs to start messaging more on reducing military spending,show a vast diff on foriegn policy,Clinton has the same interventionist policy as Bush,is kissy with the Sauds(like Bush).He may be able to continue to Trump-Trump in the polls.The supposed game theory is irrelevent as stated until the convention.If certain things are proven (primary)voter fraud,litigation concerning DNC ,Bernie would then be vindicated for going 3rd party and WIN .If he chose to do so.

[aikoaiko]

50. It depends on the game. In a one-round PDG, the best option is to defect immediately from parter.

If Hillary wins the nomination and GE she can offer him nothing.

[desmiller]

51. Bernie or Bust

period.

[seabeyond]

52. With women's rights up for grab, I couldn't get behind not voting Democratic. If Sanders says 3rd

party vote, then It pretty well clarifies what kind of man he is and integrity has no part in it. He will have spent the Democratic party time, effort and resources to trash them then go back on his word and run against him.

I would have even less respect than I do now.

No one could argue voting for the man because of integrity.

[geek tragedy]

53. I have my own notionas as to what motivates people to choose (3)

but I am trying to play nice.