Campaign cycles

A typical election cycle moves through three distinct phases. In the first primary voters are exposed to candidates' different personalities and backgrounds. In the second, debate shifts to specific policies, but only those that have survived first round of scrutiny. In the final phase, a choice needs to be made as to which candidate is realistically electable, although this is not always infallible, as perhaps is the case of the election of Jeremy Corbyn in the UK.

In tandem, there is a behind-the-scenes process of fund-raising which needs to keep pace with the spending demands of the psycho. Candidates how cannot raise money at a pace sufficient to keep up with the spending demands for campaign messaging may face the vicious circle of reduced exposure, declining poll numbers, reduced expectations of potential victory, and reduced funding.

This model applies as much to primaries as to the general election.

Trump and Carson will do well in the first phase, largely because pundits and pollsters victims are focused on personality and 'character'. Policy is generally articulated only in broad strokes and sweeping, fact free generalizations and predictably, is unscrutinised by the media.

Over time, the policy details will be prized from them, and in the process light-weights (Trump, Carson, Fiorina) will fall by the way. The interesting question is what then?

Both sides are faced with a prisoner's dilemma. Both want the candidate who reflects their values and antipathy for the other side; for Republicans that's most likely Ted Cruz; for Democrats is Bernie Sanders. But if either side chooses this route (the 'cooperate' option in a PD game) it runs the risk that the other will defect with a rush to the middle ground; the equilibrium is therefore defect-defect, with both sides fielding the centrist candidate, none of whom have any new ideas and whose agendas continue to reflect the main money-providing interest groups.