If we give him a MANDATE, he'd better USE IT.

[Selatius]

80. It's game theory. Nash equilibrium to be exact.

Play a game.

Let's say to get a bill passed, you have 100 cents. You must let the other player split the pile of pennies into two piles--one for yourself, the other for himself.

The problem is if you're dealing with a faithless negotiator, he'll take 99 cents and leave you with just 1.

The 1 penny, for example, represents the health care bill, without the Public Option. You are the only player that was forced to change strategy to get something passed, anything that you could grasp at and call progress. The other player held the same strategy throughout the whole exercise: Obstruction.

If both players are in the mood to cooperate, a lot more could get done. You could've been looking at a 52 to 48 split if you were dealing with Goldwater Republicans, but that's not what your other player was. Your other player was a total whore of Wall Street.

See, to get a bill passed, you're going to have to go through the gauntlet of people in office who don't want the bill passed, so you are at the disadvantage of making concessions to win their vote. On top of that, you have other members who are threatening all progress by filibuster.

In other terms, a lot of people are getting paid precisely to avoid liberal legislation or at least try to water it down. The wealthiest donors, for the most part, are right-wingers in favor or corporatism, collusion between state and big business. Liberals were never so rich as a group. To make it worse, some of the members who were threatening to side with Republicans were fellow Democrats.