Game theory as applied to the NYC mayoral election

Posted on by

This news item just appeared:

Ex-Commissioner Sues, Saying Adams Ran N.Y.P.D. as a Criminal Enterprise

Thomas G. Donlon, who served only weeks as police commissioner, said in a lawsuit that New York City’s mayor and top department officials had manipulated the system for personal and political gain.

Further details are here. He’s suing in Federal court, and this got me thinking. At this point, Adams pretty much has to do whatever Trump says, otherwise the government could prosecute him.

The question is, what would the Trump government want from Adams? He can keep helping as long as he stays in office, but that’s only until the end of this year (at most). Adams is running for reelection but he doesn’t seem to have much of a chance.

The question is, who does Trump want for the next mayor of New York? He might want Eric Adams to stay on, but it’s hard to see that happening. He might want the Republican candidate, Curtis Sliwa, to win, but that seems unlikely too, and it’s hard to imagine Trump supporting the remaining candidate, Jim Walden, who’s running on an anti-corruption platform. If Trump wants Andrew Cuomo to win, he could tell Adams to drop out of the race (in return for not prosecuting him in Federal court) and Adams would pretty much have to do so. It seems logical for Trump to want Cuomo as mayor–they share many (although not all) of the same rich-guy backers–; on the other hand, Trump probably dislikes Cuomo personally after all the poop they slung at each other during the covid outbreak in 2020. Or maybe Trump wants Zorhan Mamdani to win, as then the new mayor of New York would be a juicy political target as the symbol of a left-wing Democratic party.

To put it another way, now that Cuomo’s back in, why hasn’t Adams dropped out already? Presumably he could cut some deal with Cuomo or Cuomo’s financial backers and get some sweet payout. Maybe Adams is talking tough now to establish a bargaining position in anticipation of dropping out in a couple months. The election’s not till November, so there’s a rationale for Adams to hold out for better terms.

I can only assume that Cuomo and his backers (other than Michael Bloomberg) are working overtime on all their connections in the Trump administration, trying to persuade Trump to tell Adams to drop out. And Trump could dislike Cuomo enough, or his strategists could prefer the prospect of Mamdani enough, that they will force Adams to stay in.

The other option would be for Cuomo to drop out in favor of Adams, but I don’t know what Trump or Adams could offer Cuomo in exchange.

The possibilities are dizzying, and what makes it unusual is the direct involvement of the President of the United States in an election for mayor. Sure, you can expect an endorsement and maybe some phone calls behind the scenes, but the idea that the president can use the threat of prosecution to pull the strings on one of the candidates . . . this adds a new dimension.

P.S. More news here: the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security “made a direct appeal to voters to cast Eric Adams aside for not being a good enough partner to the Trump administration, telling them to ‘start looking at the candidates today and see which one is going to start making the city safer, because you’ve got a mayor today that could have done better.'” What this all means, I have no idea.

28 thoughts on “Game theory as applied to the NYC mayoral election”

  1. “At this point, Adams pretty much has to do whatever Trump says, otherwise the government could prosecute him.” Didn’t the charges get dismissed with prejudice?

    Reply ↓

        • John:

          I wasn’t thinking that Trump or the Republican party was behind the lawsuit. I was assuming the lawsuit just happened with no input from the government. But now that it’s happening, Trump can influence how the government responds to it.

    • I think it was dismissed without prejudice but realistically, trump won’t go after adams. Trump prefers Adams to the crazy commie socialist. Cuomo is after Adams and the commie. Incumbent trumps commie and trump is happy but played no real role. Cuomo pointless also.

      Reply ↓

  2. Andrew –

    Trump probably dislikes Cuomo personally after all the poop they slung at each other during the covid outbreak in 2020.

    There’s a long list of people that Trump previously slung shot with who are now his BFFs. There’s a lot of evidence that Trump is mostly transactional in the moment.

    Reply ↓

    • Joshua:

      Sure, but that goes both ways. What does Trump personally get from having Cuomo rather than Mamdani as mayor of New York? It’s not clear. I have no reason to think that Trump was a big fan of Eric Adams, until Adams got in trouble and then Trump gain have control over him by turning off the prosecution.

      Reply ↓

      • Cuomo could privately offer to support Trump’s aims; say dismantling the congestion pricing system. I would guess he’s at best, only marginally less transactional than Trump. Maybe I’m naive, but I’d guess Mamdani is more authentically ideological, and it’s hard to imagine any areas where Trump and Mamdani might overlap ideologically.

        Reply ↓

        • I think Trump and Mandani would agree on a lot. Not a Mandani-inspired maximum cap real estate value imposed on Trump tower but other stuff.

        • Intersting. What do you think they’d agree on? Trump has gone after him as a communist, has threatened to arrest him, called him a “nut job,” and questioned the validity of his citizenship status.

  3. Joshua: What do you think they’d agree on?
    When the s*it hits the fan, the Uber far left and Uber far light start agreeing. I predict that Trump and Mandani will agree on a lot, like the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. The Uber far left and Uber far right have been on the same stack off and on for a long time. It’s a circle, not a line. Imagine a and b are two points on a circle. Image c and d are two points on a line. Trump and Mandani are a and b, you assume c and. False premise applying topology to politics, I think. But nice approach.

    Reply ↓

  4. I don’t see Trump as ever doing 3-d chess tactics along the lines of “Try to help the most extreme opponent on the other side with the idea that I’ll be better positioned to attack them”. That sort of thing seems to be a Democratic idea of being clever, a kind of “Look how smart I am, how I have this brilliant counter-intuitive strategy … wait, why did it blow up in my face? It must have been Russian interference!”.

    Trump seems to follow a very simple game-theory strategy – “You back me, I back you, you attack me, I attack you”. It really is “Tit for tat”, which we are often told is the winning strategy. An interesting aspect is that he executes it ruthlessly.

    The answer to who Trump supports is then who has the most combined amount of willingness to support him and ability to deliver to him (Trump doesn’t support oprobable losers, period). That may not be obvious at the moment between Cuomo and Adams. But I’d say it’s the only relevant factor in the decision.

    Reply ↓

    • Seth:

      I’m not thinking 3-dimensional chess here.

      I’m imagining something like this: Adams is hit by a big lawsuit in Federal court, so he (or one of his associates) calls Trump (or one of Trump’s associates) and says, Hey, what can you do to stop this? Trump then asks, What can you do for me?, and Adams says, You don’t want that Mamdani guy to win, do you? If you help me out here, I’ll drop out of the race in favor of Cuomo. And then Trump talks to one of his political advisers who says, Yeah, that would be good for us. Or Trump replies, No way, Cuomo’s a loser. Or something like that.

      Or one of Cuomo’s rich backers calls up Trump and says, Look here, Adams is dead in the water. He just got sued by the police in Federal court. Cuomo’s the only challenger with a chance, so you should get Adams to drop out. And Trump decides that Cuomo’s no longer a loser and he calls Adams and says, Drop out and I’ll make that Federal case go away. Or Trump relays Cuomo’s request to a political adviser who says, No, if Cuomo wins he’s a threat to you in 2028. It’s fine for you if Mamdani is mayor, he’ll be a convenient target for you. And Trump says no to Cuomo.

      There’s a general principle of economics that the decision and payoff structures matter even if individual players are not acting rationally. Or, to put it another way, game theory applies even to irrational actors and to actors who don’t see themselves as playing games. Or, to put it another way, my post above is consistent with your take that Trump is following a simple strategy. No three-dimensional chess is required.

      Reply ↓

      • Things are so much simpler in Minnesota. For example, my daughter ran for office in Minneapolis and her two opponents had the same last name, thus insuring her victory.

        Reply ↓

  5. How does Trump influence a Federal civil suit? The only gov’t employees involved are judges with lifetime tenure. I mean Trump can do his usual poop-slinging, but he doesn’t have any power to intervene in a civil suit — see E. Jean Carroll, for example. where the case continues apace in Federal Court under appeal.

    Reply ↓

    • Jonathan:

      I was wondering about this too. In the current political environment, I think Trump would be able to do something–I’m not sure exactly what, but at this point there seem to be few limits.

      Reply ↓

  6. The NYC election seems like a good way to distract attention from all of the other things that journalists could be writing about Trump. I doubt he cares much about who wins since mainly he wants to have conflict with whoever is mayor to play to the audience that thinks NYC is a hell hole.

    Adams, I think, is looking for a payout from the Cuomo backers; I doubt he will be on the ballot in November.

    The Manhattan DA is a separate office, and he could easily be more interested in that race since if he gets through his term he will be facing the charges that were put on hold.

    Reply ↓

    • Joshua:

      Indeed, that article reads very much like my post. Maybe a Trump adviser is reading the blog.

      Also it’s hilarious that Bill and Hillary’s former pollster is now advising Trump. That must really thrill them! It says on wikipedia that this pollster is married to “the co-founder, board president and CEO of No Labels, a 501(c)4 political organization that advocates for centrism and bipartisanship.”

      Advising both Clintons and Trump . . . what could be more centrist and bipartisan than that?? Enough to make everyone happy, I guess!

      Reply ↓

      • It’s almost enough to make me fall in line with the conspiracy theory of a “duopoly” that wants to hamstring progressives at all cost – that became so popular with Bernie supporters in 2016.

        Like most conspiracy theories, it contains a kernel of truth, but its credibility falters due to the sheer scale and complexity such a conspiracy would requir

        Like most conspiracy theories, it contains a kernel of truth, but its credibility falters due to the sheer scale and complexity such a conspiracy would requir

        Like most conspiracy theories, it contains a kernel of truth, but its credibility falters due to the sheer scale and complexity such a conspiracy would require

        Like most conspiracy theories, it contains a kernel of truth, but its credibility falters due to the sheer scale and complexity such a conspiracy would require

        Like most conspiracy theories, it contains a kernel of truth, but its credibility falters due to the sheer scale and complexity such a conspiracy would require

        Like most conspiracy theories, it contains a kernel of truth, but its credibility falters due to the sheer scale and complexity such a conspiracy would require

        Like most conspiracy theories, it contains a kernel of truth, but its credibility falters due to the sheer scale and complexity such a conspiracy would require

        I mean like most conspiracy theories there’s a kernel of truth. Usually, the plausibility of conspiracy bugs down due to the scale and complexity the conspiracy would require. But in this case, the shoe seems to fit.

        Reply ↓

        • Democrats have asked Republicans to vote for them (and vice versa) for generations when a leftist comes to power. It’s pretty open, not a conspiracy, but it doesn’t always happen because the parties are just that craven and power-hungry.

          Here’s an example: a leftist congressman from New York was only voted out after 7 terms because the Democrat and the Republican joined forces (along with another powerful third party).

          https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/07/29/zohran-mamdani-new-york-socialism-history-00480054
          “It’s worth noting that Marcantonio was eventually ousted from office, but only after Republicans, Democrats and Liberals united behind a single candidate after years of defeat.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *