game theory before elections

http://www.slate.com/id/2108640/

This article talked about dominant strategy and Nash equilibrium in the 2005 presidential elections. What I really enjoyed about this article is that it made the concept of randomization being an advantage really clear. It intuitively didn't make sense to me why being random would be an advantage if you could discover some kind of strategy. However this article states that being random is a strategy. By being random, you are not allowing your opponent to guess your next move. If he guesses your next move there is no longer a nash equilibrium and he has an advantage. This can be seen in rock paper scissors where the most random you are the better because if you develop a pattern for play, your opponent will be able to counter your choice. In the article, the author talked about how this was related to what state to visit right before elections. Suppose that Bush wants to visit the same state as Kerry but Kerry seeks to visit a different state from Bush. If Bush is trying to decide what to do, he should just pick a state randomly if Kerry is just picking a state randomly. Since there are two states to choose from, there is a 50 50 chance that he will end up in the same state as Kerry. The same applies to Kerry so a nash equilibrium exists.