4 ms·

The whole speaker situation is the first time in a while I've seen Democrats effectively use game theory principles. Michelle Obama famously said "when they go

The whole speaker situation is the first time in a while I've seen Democrats effectively use game theory principles. Michelle Obama famously said "when they go low, we go high". This, sometime called bipartisanship, is provably a losing proposition in repeated games, like politics. One of the best strategies in the iterated prisoner's dilemma is tit-for-tat, which translates to "when they go low, we go low. when they go high, we go high". The downside of this strategy though, is that you can get trapped in a suboptimal state, where both sides continually fight against each other. The best strategy is probably something like a tit-for-tat with a rare, occasional olive branch. "When they go low, we go low, but every once in a while, we'll go high to see if the offer is reciprocated".

mauvehaus 3y ago
If the democrats had the wisdom to do so, they'd have backed McCarthy. Was he perfect (if you're a democrat)? No. Was he willing to at least keep the government from shutting down? Yes. You'd think that would be table stakes for speaker, but I digress. It's a no brainer, they'd have him McCarty the balls, Matt Gaetz looks like a jackass, and they can use the leverage they have to keep the house doing its job. Instead, we have pandemonium, no speaker, no plan to ensure the government doesn't shut down in a month, and Gaetz has something to crow about. Do the republicans look like a clown show? Sure. Is that a better overall outcome for the country than having a (barely, semi) functioning House? No (even if you're a democrat). The whole goddamn lot of the house ought to be ineligible for reelection for failing to govern.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- spencerflem 3y ago
  Read the article, it covers why they didn't thoroughly
- xoa 3y ago
  The article directly addresses this: >"In the end, they all voted to remove McCarthy. Many people wondered afterwards why McCarthy did not offer the Democrats a bargain in order to sustain him. The answer is that the logic of the procedural coalition wouldn’t allow it. As with the Speakership vote in January, McCarthy didn’t need one vote, one time. He needed an ongoing procedural coalition. Unless the Democrats were going to form a permanent alliance with him, saving him on the vacate vote wouldn’t have done any good. In fact, it would have simply turned more Republicans against him, as whatever concessions he gave the Democrats would have certainly moved policy to the left." So it either had to be a fully negotiated, lasting alliance for the rest of this Congress, or nothing. McCarthy did not make any moves towards such a thing, completely contrary to your assertion that they'd "have him by the balls". On the contrary right after the vote for the CR he immediately went on TV Sunday to try to backstab Democrats and (preposterously) say they were at fault.
- floren 3y ago
  > Do the republicans look like a clown show? Sure. Is that a better overall outcome for the country than having a (barely, semi) functioning House? No (even if you're a democrat). This presupposes that the Democrats prefer "a better overall outcome for the country" over "the Republicans look like a clown show". It seems like the predominating political theory of the day is that any bad thing is actually good, as long as you can convincingly blame the other party for it.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    Making it crystal clear that the clown show is, in fact, a clown show is the better overall, longer-term outcome for the country.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    I mean nobody is stopping the Republicans from doing a sober self-assessment and agreeing among themselves on some sort of compromise - other than Republicans. Besides the factional issues described in the article, they also have several loose cannons in their ranks; George Santos, credibly charged with numerous frauds; Matt Gaetz, who has had his own brushes with the law and is a gleeful consensus-wrecker; and multiple hardline ideologues like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, and Andy Biggs, who are out at the ideological wings of the party but also have an apparently bottomless appetite for publicity, because their antics generate a reliable flow of donations which makes them less dependent on leadership for campaign funding.
- DevX101 3y ago
  There are multiple 'games' being played. The article is about the game within the Republican party, between leadership and the Freedom Caucus. The Democrats are playing a different game with the Republican leadership, which isn't the core focus of this article. In the game between Democrats and Republican leadership, McCarthy promised to work with the Democrats on several issues and then back tracked multiple times. McCarthy then assumed that the Democrats would simply support him since the alternative was the chaos we have now. Democrats intentionally adopted tit-for-tat, and 'went low', which is why McCarthy is now no longer speaker. By playing hardball, the Democrats have increased the chances that the next speaker will be a moderate willing to have some semblance of bipartisanship. This is a longer video but here AOC gets into the politics a bit more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahEgoH8UfLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahEgoH8UfLU
- InTheArena 3y ago
  At the end of the day McCarthy chose to do the right thing by keeping the government open and doing a bipartisan bill with the Democrats. The reality of it is that parties are not in the United States Constitution, and our enshrinement of them is becoming an increasing problem. So let’s set the record straight, it was not Republicans that provided 95% of the votes to punish McCarthy. It was democrats. And when they’re looking at President Trump‘s second term in January 2025, this will be on them. There was a moment to showcase good government and defy extremists, and they chose what was electorally better for them but worse for the country. like they did the same when they started giving money to the most insane MAGA clowns, because they would be easier to beat in a general election. When the government is shut down because moderates were purged by the companies and parties reveal their moral and ideological corruption like this it plays into populist hands. The parties are cancer on America. They will kill the democracy.
  - tremon 3y ago
    The parties are cancer on America. They will kill the democracy. What is your proposed alternative? (also: I think the analogy is flawed. The cancer on America would be the media and other moneyed influence. The democracy has been brain-dead for two decades already, and the parties are the only thing keeping it on artificial life support. Pulling the plug will not magically make the patient better)
  - ball_of_lint 3y ago
    Why should a Democrat with wildly different ideology support McCarthy for speaker, especially in light of his bad faith such as raising a spurious impeachment inquiry against Biden? Why should they believe that voting for a speaker opposed to what they believe is best for the country is best for the country? This is a failure of government and unity within the Republican party. If there is some moderate that could form a coalition between the parties, great. Wonderful. Let them be speaker. But no Republican has tried (or at least, no one has gotten even a single vote across party lines). This clown show does not enhance the image of the Republican party, instead lessening it. It only heightens the image of the ultra-conservative because their base is not rational and doesn't recognize that any result will be touted as a win.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  I think the Democratic leadership has enough wisdom to see that the best long term outcome is probably for the clown show to be on full display so that maybe next cycle the voters will elect fewer clowns and more people who are at least capable of keeping the lights on.
  - tivert 3y ago
    > I think the Democratic leadership has enough wisdom to see that the best long term outcome is probably for the clown show to be on full display so that maybe next cycle the voters will elect [more Democrats]. That's not wisdom, that's cynicism and selfishness.
    - bandyaboot 3y ago
      The Democrats seem to be the single party that is capable of governing. It’s not selfish to want to replace dysfunction with function.
      - tivert 3y ago
        > The Democrats seem to be the single party that is capable of governing. It’s not selfish to want to replace dysfunction with function. Not really. The Democrats take deliberate action to cultivate and perpetuate that dysfunction for partisan advantage. They scream about the danger of "Ultra MAGA" Republicans while supporting those very same people in primaries, and they refuse to take very easy actions to stabilize the system (e.g. not siding with Matt Gaetz's antics). That shows they're not interested in "replac[ing] dysfunction with function" but rather with acquiring power. And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities.
        bandyaboot 3y ago
        > Not really. The Democrats take deliberate action to cultivate and perpetuate that dysfunction for partisan advantage. They scream about the danger of "Ultra MAGA" Republicans while supporting those very same people in primaries, and they refuse to take very easy actions to stabilize the system (e.g. not siding with Matt Gaetz's antics). That shows they're not interested in "replac[ing] dysfunction with function" but rather with acquiring power. We're going in circles here. "[The Democrats] acquiring power" in this case, IMO, is replacing function with dysfunction. And the Democrats were trying to stabilize the system. After Gaetz made the motion to vacate, there were active discussions happening between moderates from both sides to pass rule changes to go along with saving McCarthy's skin. McCarthy decided to blow that up by not waiting for that to play out before holding the vote. One of the very few things that I'm in wholehearted agreement with Matt Gaetz is that a clear majority of the House did not trust McCarthy's word, and rightfully so. The Democrats have no obligation to save someone that they don't trust on the assumption that the Republicans would be unable to agree amongst themselves on a replacement. > And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities. Thank you for reminding me to think about it carefully. Ok, I've thought about it carefully. When I speak of the capability of governing, I'm speaking pretty close to literally. When the Democrats are in power there is no risk of the government shutting down and there is no risk that making our debt payments will be used as a hostage to achieve policy goals.
- outside1234 3y ago
  I see you can't read the article either
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Besides the fact that this argument is addressed in the article, consider the calculus from the Democrats' POV: They'd prop McCarthy up for the sake of continuity but with absolutely zero guarantees that he would come through on promises, and zero chance they'd get any credit for it from Republicans. At the next election Republicans would blame the Democrats for anything that went wrong, and their base voters would also blame them for letting the GOP get away with stuff. It might seem unfair of me to say that Republicans would just be complete hypocrites like this, but consider the phenomenon of politicians taking credit for public works projects or similar even when they voted against the law that appropriated the funding for them.

mauvehaus 3y ago

If the democrats had the wisdom to do so, they'd have backed McCarthy. Was he perfect (if you're a democrat)? No. Was he willing to at least keep the government from shutting down? Yes. You'd think that would be table stakes for speaker, but I digress. It's a no brainer, they'd have him McCarty the balls, Matt Gaetz looks like a jackass, and they can use the leverage they have to keep the house doing its job. Instead, we have pandemonium, no speaker, no plan to ensure the government doesn't shut down in a month, and Gaetz has something to crow about. Do the republicans look like a clown show? Sure. Is that a better overall outcome for the country than having a (barely, semi) functioning House? No (even if you're a democrat). The whole goddamn lot of the house ought to be ineligible for reelection for failing to govern.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
spencerflem 3y ago
Read the article, it covers why they didn't thoroughly
xoa 3y ago
The article directly addresses this: >"In the end, they all voted to remove McCarthy. Many people wondered afterwards why McCarthy did not offer the Democrats a bargain in order to sustain him. The answer is that the logic of the procedural coalition wouldn’t allow it. As with the Speakership vote in January, McCarthy didn’t need one vote, one time. He needed an ongoing procedural coalition. Unless the Democrats were going to form a permanent alliance with him, saving him on the vacate vote wouldn’t have done any good. In fact, it would have simply turned more Republicans against him, as whatever concessions he gave the Democrats would have certainly moved policy to the left." So it either had to be a fully negotiated, lasting alliance for the rest of this Congress, or nothing. McCarthy did not make any moves towards such a thing, completely contrary to your assertion that they'd "have him by the balls". On the contrary right after the vote for the CR he immediately went on TV Sunday to try to backstab Democrats and (preposterously) say they were at fault.
floren 3y ago
> Do the republicans look like a clown show? Sure. Is that a better overall outcome for the country than having a (barely, semi) functioning House? No (even if you're a democrat). This presupposes that the Democrats prefer "a better overall outcome for the country" over "the Republicans look like a clown show". It seems like the predominating political theory of the day is that any bad thing is actually good, as long as you can convincingly blame the other party for it.
- bandyaboot 3y ago
  Making it crystal clear that the clown show is, in fact, a clown show is the better overall, longer-term outcome for the country.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  I mean nobody is stopping the Republicans from doing a sober self-assessment and agreeing among themselves on some sort of compromise - other than Republicans. Besides the factional issues described in the article, they also have several loose cannons in their ranks; George Santos, credibly charged with numerous frauds; Matt Gaetz, who has had his own brushes with the law and is a gleeful consensus-wrecker; and multiple hardline ideologues like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Paul Gosar, and Andy Biggs, who are out at the ideological wings of the party but also have an apparently bottomless appetite for publicity, because their antics generate a reliable flow of donations which makes them less dependent on leadership for campaign funding.
DevX101 3y ago
There are multiple 'games' being played. The article is about the game within the Republican party, between leadership and the Freedom Caucus. The Democrats are playing a different game with the Republican leadership, which isn't the core focus of this article. In the game between Democrats and Republican leadership, McCarthy promised to work with the Democrats on several issues and then back tracked multiple times. McCarthy then assumed that the Democrats would simply support him since the alternative was the chaos we have now. Democrats intentionally adopted tit-for-tat, and 'went low', which is why McCarthy is now no longer speaker. By playing hardball, the Democrats have increased the chances that the next speaker will be a moderate willing to have some semblance of bipartisanship. This is a longer video but here AOC gets into the politics a bit more. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahEgoH8UfLU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahEgoH8UfLU
InTheArena 3y ago
At the end of the day McCarthy chose to do the right thing by keeping the government open and doing a bipartisan bill with the Democrats. The reality of it is that parties are not in the United States Constitution, and our enshrinement of them is becoming an increasing problem. So let’s set the record straight, it was not Republicans that provided 95% of the votes to punish McCarthy. It was democrats. And when they’re looking at President Trump‘s second term in January 2025, this will be on them. There was a moment to showcase good government and defy extremists, and they chose what was electorally better for them but worse for the country. like they did the same when they started giving money to the most insane MAGA clowns, because they would be easier to beat in a general election. When the government is shut down because moderates were purged by the companies and parties reveal their moral and ideological corruption like this it plays into populist hands. The parties are cancer on America. They will kill the democracy.
- tremon 3y ago
  The parties are cancer on America. They will kill the democracy. What is your proposed alternative? (also: I think the analogy is flawed. The cancer on America would be the media and other moneyed influence. The democracy has been brain-dead for two decades already, and the parties are the only thing keeping it on artificial life support. Pulling the plug will not magically make the patient better)
- ball_of_lint 3y ago
  Why should a Democrat with wildly different ideology support McCarthy for speaker, especially in light of his bad faith such as raising a spurious impeachment inquiry against Biden? Why should they believe that voting for a speaker opposed to what they believe is best for the country is best for the country? This is a failure of government and unity within the Republican party. If there is some moderate that could form a coalition between the parties, great. Wonderful. Let them be speaker. But no Republican has tried (or at least, no one has gotten even a single vote across party lines). This clown show does not enhance the image of the Republican party, instead lessening it. It only heightens the image of the ultra-conservative because their base is not rational and doesn't recognize that any result will be touted as a win.
bandyaboot 3y ago
I think the Democratic leadership has enough wisdom to see that the best long term outcome is probably for the clown show to be on full display so that maybe next cycle the voters will elect fewer clowns and more people who are at least capable of keeping the lights on.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I think the Democratic leadership has enough wisdom to see that the best long term outcome is probably for the clown show to be on full display so that maybe next cycle the voters will elect [more Democrats]. That's not wisdom, that's cynicism and selfishness.
  - bandyaboot 3y ago
    The Democrats seem to be the single party that is capable of governing. It’s not selfish to want to replace dysfunction with function.
    - tivert 3y ago
      > The Democrats seem to be the single party that is capable of governing. It’s not selfish to want to replace dysfunction with function. Not really. The Democrats take deliberate action to cultivate and perpetuate that dysfunction for partisan advantage. They scream about the danger of "Ultra MAGA" Republicans while supporting those very same people in primaries, and they refuse to take very easy actions to stabilize the system (e.g. not siding with Matt Gaetz's antics). That shows they're not interested in "replac[ing] dysfunction with function" but rather with acquiring power. And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities.
      - bandyaboot 3y ago
        > Not really. The Democrats take deliberate action to cultivate and perpetuate that dysfunction for partisan advantage. They scream about the danger of "Ultra MAGA" Republicans while supporting those very same people in primaries, and they refuse to take very easy actions to stabilize the system (e.g. not siding with Matt Gaetz's antics). That shows they're not interested in "replac[ing] dysfunction with function" but rather with acquiring power. We're going in circles here. "[The Democrats] acquiring power" in this case, IMO, is replacing function with dysfunction. And the Democrats were trying to stabilize the system. After Gaetz made the motion to vacate, there were active discussions happening between moderates from both sides to pass rule changes to go along with saving McCarthy's skin. McCarthy decided to blow that up by not waiting for that to play out before holding the vote. One of the very few things that I'm in wholehearted agreement with Matt Gaetz is that a clear majority of the House did not trust McCarthy's word, and rightfully so. The Democrats have no obligation to save someone that they don't trust on the assumption that the Republicans would be unable to agree amongst themselves on a replacement. > And the idea that the Democrats are the only party "capable of governing," is just propaganda or marketing. If you think about it carefully, "governing" is subtly redefined as being in relative harmony with Democratic party priorities. Thank you for reminding me to think about it carefully. Ok, I've thought about it carefully. When I speak of the capability of governing, I'm speaking pretty close to literally. When the Democrats are in power there is no risk of the government shutting down and there is no risk that making our debt payments will be used as a hostage to achieve policy goals.
outside1234 3y ago
I see you can't read the article either
anigbrowl 3y ago
Besides the fact that this argument is addressed in the article, consider the calculus from the Democrats' POV: They'd prop McCarthy up for the sake of continuity but with absolutely zero guarantees that he would come through on promises, and zero chance they'd get any credit for it from Republicans. At the next election Republicans would blame the Democrats for anything that went wrong, and their base voters would also blame them for letting the GOP get away with stuff. It might seem unfair of me to say that Republicans would just be complete hypocrites like this, but consider the phenomenon of politicians taking credit for public works projects or similar even when they voted against the law that appropriated the funding for them.