>>2935926 pb
Might there be more possibilities?
Back of Envelope:
A.
(+RR) + (+RM) = (+2) = [clean and clean] Best.
Both clean, and both present, best product for POTUS.
B.
(-1RR) + (-1RM) = (-2) = [dirty and dirty] Worst.
Both dirty, and both present, worst product for POTUS.
C.
(-RR) - (-RM) = 0 Neutral.
= dirty RR neutered with removal of dirty RM.
or vice-versa dirty RM neutered with removal of dirty RR.
Both dirty. Removal of one still leaves a dirty one. Product is neutral for POTUS. Stand-off not an advantage if one has departed.
D,
(+1RR) - (+1RM) = 0 Neutral
= clean RR neutered with removal of clean RM
or vice-versa, clean RM neutered with removal of clean RR
Both clean. POTUS would face neutral product if one or the other departed. POTUS needs movement, not indefinite pause, to reach favorable outcome. Momentum means need presence of both even if both "clean".
E.
(-1RR) + (+1RM) = 0
= dirty RR neutered with presence of clean RM
or vice-versa, dirty RM neutered with presence of clean RR
One is dirty, one is clean, product neutral for POTUS if both present. See D. But this scenario holds potential for becoming positive product. One is clean, the other can become "clean".
The "must" – both must be clean or both must be dirty – may be a bit more contingent on the presence (or removal) of one or the other.
Read "removal" as forced or unforced departure; or as disempowered and co-operating.
Suppose both dirty. How to turn this into positive product? Remove one as it would seem each needs the other to sustain negative product against POTUS. But that does not turn it around. Remains neutral. Standoff. Attrition can work in POTUS' favor but slow, slow, doubtful.
First, turn one "clean", keep both present, neutralized product. May be matter of perception (through eyes of RM and RR) that one or the other has turned or would logically turn. Prisoners dilemma.
Second, frustrate opponent through prolonged neutral product. Rewind the clock so it does not run out. Stress causes mistakes. Causes doubts. Fear. Desperation. All it takes is one to become convinced the other has or, logically should, turn. All it takes is one to calculate advantage to turn before the other turns. Could cause both to turn in joint move to maximize outcome for themselves. POTUS would pick and choose? Or not choose, just force competition.
Third, move from neutral product (even if in multiple phases) to positive product. RR and RM could calculate that after both become "clean" together one or the other would squelch on the deal and would depart to neutralize the product and deny POTUS positive product. But POTUS would anticipate that threat (soft as it might be compared to a negative product) and counter it with a freer hand.
Fourth, move from negative product to prolonged presence of both "clean" protagonists to sustain positive product. How?
Move from B to A through intermediary phase of E, then skip D, go right to C before reaching A. Leapfrogging is an art of dealmaking. Sometimes the terms of a deal are dictated, not negotiated.
Once there is movement from B to some other phase, the remaining moves are more predictable. Predictable and so more manageable. More manageable and so execution becomes more important than planning the pathway.
This goes for all parties, not just POTUS. Discipline under pressure. When your opponent has thrown his best shots, thrown haymakers, body blows, jabs, and you are still standing determinedly, discipline can crack under weight of demoralization.
This, too, can work both ways, of course.