Negative campaigning as a repeated prisoners' dillemma

Negative campaigning works well against an opponent in the primaries, but if the Democratic primary turns nasty, which by some accounts it already has, anything the Democrats say against each other will be used against them in the general election. So while negative campaigning will help win the primary, it will also reduce the probability of winning in the general election, setting up a game with the same logical structure as a prisoners' dillemma.

Later in the call, the Clinton team was asked whether the not-qualified-to-be-commander-in-chief criticism of Obama was going too far, given that it would be used by Republicans against Obama if Obama is the Democratic nominee against John McCain. "We don't believe that he is the one who will face John McCain," Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said. "This is a legitimate question that Sen. Obama would face if he were the nominee, and it is a question that he is facing as a result of criticism from Sen. McCain now, so I think it's perfectly appropriate."

Senator Obama's best response to negative campaigning comes right out of an economics textbook:

1. Be nice (no first strikes)
2. Be provokable (attack immediately if attacked)
3. Be forgiving (stop if she stops).
4. Be clear (make it very clear that you will attack every time she attacks.)

Winning strategy is probably tit-for-tat, do whatever she did yesterday.