The Monty Hall problem – a brain teaser that's stumped countless people, including math PhDs! Picture this: you're on a game show, faced with three doors. Behind one, a shiny new car. Behind the other two? Goats. You make your choice, but wait! The host, who knows what's behind each door, opens one to reveal a goat. Then, he offers you the chance to switch. What do you do?
This solution is not intuitive because most people assume that once the host reveals a goat, the probability of the car being behind either of the remaining doors is 1/2. However, this is not the case. The key to understanding the solution lies in recognizing that the host's actions are not random; he always opens a door that he knows has a goat behind it.
In 1990, Marilyn vos Savant, a columnist known for having one of the highest recorded IQs, addressed the Monty Hall problem in her column in Parade magazine. When a reader asked her about the problem, she correctly stated that switching doors would increase the contestant's chances of winning the car to 2/3. This answer sparked a heated debate, with many readers, including Ph.D. mathematicians and university professors, challenging her solution and insisting that the probability remained 1/2.
The controversy surrounding vos Savant's answer highlights the counterintuitive nature of the problem and how even experts can struggle with understanding conditional probability.
We can now apply the principles of the Monty Hall problem to analyze the potential strategies for the Democratic Party. Let's consider three options:
-
Joe Biden continues as the presidential nominee, because maintaining the status quo is the safest path to victory (initial choice)
-
Joe Biden continues as the presidential nominee, but his advanced age unnerves voters and lead to losing the election (opened door)
-
Joe Biden passes the torch to Kamala Harris, ensuring continuity with a new younger option that leads to victory (switching choice)
Applying the Monty Hall problem to this scenario, the revelation of Biden's age as a potential liability (the opened door) suggests that switching to Harris (Option 3) may be the better strategy. However, there are both downside and upside risks associated with switching nominees, such as the perception of weakness, loss of Biden's support base, and unintended consequences.
However, there are also some flaws to this analogy because in the Biden/Harris scenario:
- There isn't a "host" figure definitively eliminating one of the options. The scenarios are hypotheticals, not guaranteed outcomes.
- The new information of the “open door” is not new… however the poor performance has lended credence to Republican attacks on Biden’s age and ability to serve the full term.
- "Switching" to Harris doesn't necessarily change the probability of winning the general election. One could at best argue it might increase or decrease the odds.
Additionally, the Monte Hall problem has defined statistics and probabilities, while electability is much more complex and uncertain.
So let's dive deeper into the analysis by examining both the downside and upside risks associated with each option.
Downside risks:
-
Perception of weakness: Passing the torch to Harris could be seen as an admission of Biden's weakness, potentially undermining confidence in the Democratic Party.
-
Loss of Biden's support base: Some voters who strongly support Biden may feel betrayed if he steps aside, potentially leading to a loss of votes.
-
Unintended consequences: The switch to Harris could have unforeseen effects on voter sentiment and might not necessarily improve the Democrats' chances of winning.
Upside risks:
-
Energizing the base: Harris's nomination could energize the Democratic base, particularly younger voters and those who are eager to see more diversity in leadership positions.
-
Attracting new voters: Harris's unique background and perspective could help attract new voters who may not have been enthusiastic about Biden's candidacy.
-
Positive media narrative: The historic nature of Harris's nomination as the first woman and first person of color to be a major party's presidential nominee could generate a positive media narrative and boost the Democrats' campaign.
Let's examine each remaining option in light of these risks:
Option 1 (Joe Biden continues as the nominee, maintaining the status quo):
-
Downside: If voters perceive Biden's age as a significant liability, maintaining the status quo could lead to a loss of support and enthusiasm.
-
Upside: If Biden's successful track record resonates with voters, he could maintain a strong base of support and benefit from the perception of stability and continuity.
-
Critical Point: Biden must effectively address concerns about his age and demonstrate his continued vitality and leadership, he could potentially neutralize this issue and maintain support.
Option 3 (Joe Biden passes the torch to Kamala Harris, to maintain continuity and create a new narrative):
-
Downside: Some Biden supporters may feel betrayed, and the perception of weakness could undermine the Democrats' campaign.
-
Upside: Harris's nomination could energize the base, attract new voters, and generate a positive media narrative, potentially boosting the Democrats' chances of winning.
-
Critical Point: Harris must unite the key factions within the Democratic Party, especially Party leaders and current Administrative leaders with personal stake in the status quo.
Biden's core supporters tend to be older, more moderate Democrats, as well as some independents and even a few Republicans who appreciate his centrist approach and long political experience. Many of his supporters prioritize stability, bipartisanship, and a return to pre-Trump "normalcy." Biden also has strong support among African American voters, particularly older African Americans, who were crucial to his victory in the 2020 Democratic primaries.
Key characteristics of Biden's core supporters:
-
Older voters (50+ years old)
-
Moderate Democrats and Moderate Independents
-
Prioritize political experience and stability
-
Appreciate bipartisanship and centrist policies
-
Significant support among African American voters, especially older ones
Key characteristics of Harris's potential core supporters:
-
Younger voters (18-49 years old)
-
Progressive Democrats and Moderate Democrats
-
Prioritize diversity, change, and bold policy proposals
-
Strong support among women, especially women of color
-
Voters passionate about social justice issues
In the 2020 U.S. presidential election, voter turnout was significantly higher across all age groups compared to 2016, with notable shifts in age demographics impacting the results. Here's a detailed breakdown and the implications:
-
Youth Turnout: Voter turnout among citizens aged 18-34 increased from 49% in 2016 to 57% in 2020. This age group heavily favored Joe Biden, with 60% of voters aged 18-29 and 52% of voters aged 30-44 supporting him, compared to 36% and 46% for Donald Trump, respectively (Roper Center) (Census.gov).
-
Older Voters: Among voters aged 45-64, the vote was almost evenly split, with 49% supporting Biden and 50% supporting Trump. For voters aged 65 and over, Trump had a slight edge with 52% compared to Biden’s 45% (Roper Center).
Game theory can help us understand the strategic interactions between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, as well as the payoffs associated with different actions. In this case, we can model the game as follows:
Players: Democratic Party (D) Republican Party (R)
Strategies: Democratic Party: D1: Joe Biden continues as the presidential nominee D2: Joe Biden passes the torch to Kamala Harris Republican Party: R1: Focus on Biden's age and the performance of his administration R2: Focus on contrasting their vision with the Democrats' vision
Payoffs:
-
If D chooses D1 and R chooses R1, the election is a toss-up (0, 0)
-
If D chooses D1 and R chooses R2, the election is a toss-up (0, 0)
-
If D chooses D2 and R chooses R1, the Democrats have a slight advantage (1, -1)
-
If D chooses D2 and R chooses R2, the Democrats have a significant advantage (2, -2)
The payoffs suggest that the Democratic Party's optimal strategy is to choose D2 (passing the torch to Kamala Harris), as it yields better outcomes regardless of the Republican Party's strategy. If the Republicans focus on Biden's age and the performance of his administration (R1), the Democrats can mitigate this by shifting the focus to Harris and the party's vision for the future. If the Republicans focus on contrasting their vision with the Democrats' (R2), Harris can effectively counter this by tapping into the anti-Trump sentiment and mobilizing younger, more diverse voters.
Moreover, the increased turnout and support for Biden among younger voters in the 2020 election indicates that Harris's potential core supporters could play a decisive role in 2024. By prioritizing issues such as diversity, change, and social justice, Harris can energize and expand the Democratic base, particularly among younger voters, women, and voters of color.
To maximize their chances of success, the Democratic Party should develop a comprehensive strategy that:
-
Ensures a smooth and unified transition from Biden to Harris, emphasizing the passing of the torch and continuity of the party's vision.
-
Mobilizes and engages younger voters by addressing their key concerns and priorities, such as climate change, racial justice, and economic inequality.
-
Builds a broad coalition of support, bridging the gap between moderate and progressive Democrats and appealing to a diverse range of voters.
-
Effectively communicates the party's vision and accomplishments, while countering Republican attacks and narratives.
In conclusion, game theory and the analysis of the 2020 election results suggest that the Democratic Party's optimal strategy for the 2024 U.S. presidential election is to pass the torch from Joe Biden to Kamala Harris. By capitalizing on Harris's potential to energize and expand the Democratic base, particularly among younger and more diverse voters, the party can increase its chances of success and mitigate the risks associated with focusing on Biden's age and the performance of his administration.