You don't have to be a leftist to have problems with party strategy

[jpgray]

In the illiterate and machismo-soaked slang of poker, our party would be classed as weak-tight. What "tight" means is that we rarely risk any significant amount on our weaker hands. That's good, especially if you want to avoid huge swings of fortune. What "weak" means is that we are largely passive, and unless victory is assured, we tend to fold under consistent pressure, always believing we are beaten. That's not good, because it's exploitable.

It's exploitable because you always know when this player thinks he is strong or weak. You know exactly what he will do, and exactly what he won't. When he holds a monster hand, you can avoid losing anything to it, so he wins a pittance. When he holds something more marginal, you can push him off it by applying pressure, since he will fold to pressure if he holds anything but an unstoppable hand. He sees monsters around every corner, congratulating himself on his "good folds" when often he has folded the stronger hand. His opponents are often raising him with garbage, and why not? They pay no price for it, and can win his whole stack piece by piece.

In essence his best hands don't pay off, and he bleeds chips by constantly folding when he is ahead. In fear of risking too much on anything but a sure thing, he loses everything over time.

Now politics ain't poker, but in terms of simple gamesmanship we fold too much as a party. We aren't willing to go the mat with anything but the nuts, and so our opponents take everything we have, bit by bit, while holding absolute garbage. The idea that the GOP is always willing to go all the way and always holding the better hand is nonsense. To believe that no pressure can ever push Republicans off their ultimatums and compel them to fold is simply wrong.

Had Obama paid for UI extension with the stimulus, and had Congress compelled a decisive struggle in a vote on tax cuts for the middle class only, the GOP would crack from the public pressure. Particularly they could never sustain an actual filibuster up until Christmas, holding the middle class hostage to enrich the wealthy. Public opinion was on our side, all our demands were sensible in every nonpartisan sense, and we folded to people holding garbage.

If this goes on, their goal of starving the New Deal is achieved. Simply hold necessary measures everyone wants hostage, such as START, UI extension, the debt ceiling, etc., and demand everything you want. The end result is you get what is necessary done, and get part of what you want in the bargain. The tax cut for the rich does great harm to us, while the middle class tax cuts, the UI extension, the payroll tax break, etc., do no harm to the GOP.

Isn't this bad strategy in the mind of any observer? Left or otherwise?

[polichick]

1. Very interesting explanation of "weak-tight". Yes, nobody could honestly say...

...this is a good strategy.

[pscot]

2. During the '08 campaign there was a story

in the Chicago Sun Times about Obama the poker player. He used to sit in a weekly game in Springfield when he was a legislator. One of the Republicans said he played a very close game, risk averse, sticking very close to the percentages. He never bluffed or took a chance. I wondered at the time isf it was a tell as to how he'd govern.

[polichick]

3. Good story - does seem to match his governing style. nt

[pmorlan1]

4. K & R

Good post. Thanks.

[pmorlan1]

5. part 2

Hit post before I got to tell you that I think your post is very creative and very on target.

[Laelth]

6. Well said, and I agree. k&r n/t

-Laelth

[EstimatedProphet]

7. I disagree

That's actually a very good analogy. That's what is so frustrating to me about the discussion we have been having so far. Letting the millionaire tax cuts get renewed IS POISONOUS TO US. They are directly responsible for what has nearly bankrupted this country already, and their only effect is to make the powerful more powerful - which means more effective political combat from their side. They didn't care one whit about the other tac cuts, or UI too, except to use as a bargaining chip for what they wanted. The people who talk about what our side got don't seem to understand that it gives our side no political leverage whatsoever, so they are completely free to come back in 2 years and do the exact same thing again. What our side got was staples and groceries; what they got was a rocket launcher.

[glitch]

8. The payroll tax holiday will also be poison to us because it removes the firewall

between Social Security and the Deficit.

And using UE as a bargaining point when UE extensions were automatically made in prior recessions is another strategic giveaway, especially since it has nothing for the 99ers (two thirds of the unemployed).

Extending the tax breaks is an opportunity cost as well, that money would be more productive as a jobs stimulus.

For Democrats this deal is lose/lose/lose.

[jpgray]

14. What really boggles my mind is the "we are getting more than them" people

The <$250k tax cuts are not "ours," they're also "theirs." They want those too. The UI extension is something they are fine with as well. What they wanted (and what they got) is a sop to the rich and a bigger hole in the deficit, one that will come to the fore in any debate over social security or starving other parts of the safety net in the next two years.

[glitch]

9. Really interesting analogy. K & R nt

[flying rabbit]

10. Strategy depends on the table

and Obama can't read this one at all.

[Rowdyboy]

11. I'm a moderate Democrat-conservative by DU standards-and I am fed up with our "strategy"

Or what passes for strategy with a Democratic White House and a Democratic Senate fighting over who can concede loss first. By any reasonable definition I'm no "leftist". I've been a party loyalist for almost 40 years. I'm a Bob Graham/Wes Clark moderate Democrat (hell I even defended Lieberman until 2006) but this pathetic weakness shown by our side is beyond the pale.

I like Obama, I voted for him and I want to support him. He is a gifted man with powerful gifts of persuasion which he has apparently forgotten how to use. His determination to be evenhanded and forgiving of Republicans who despise him is tragic. His contempt for those of us in his own party who want him to keep his promises is breathtaking.

Thank you for this post. You've helped me see the situation even more clearly through your analogy (I love poker and am definitely NOT "weak-tight")!

[jpgray]

16. We have to make news around the simple truth that the GOP is crazy

Their "fiscal conservatism" is a massive lie just waiting to get pierced. What we don't want to do is have a "only Nixon could go to China" moment with Obama cutting social security under GOP pressure. That is pretty much a nightmare scenario.

[WiffenPoof]

12. Well, You Are Correct Sir...

You can be critical of another party's strategy.

Even good ol Joe Scarbutt was criticizing the President and the party for their horrible strategy.

Where are we going and why am I in this hand-basket???

-PLA

[ibegurpard]

13. K&R

the strategy sucks AND their policy sucks.

[jannyk]

15. k&r!

[Supersedeas]

17. how pure and sanctimonious of you --- are there any other 'code' words to silence

criticism.

[jpgray]

19. I'm sorry, I don't understand.

What do you mean by "code" words?

[Supersedeas]

21. sarcasm directed at the President's remarks which avoid any discussion of strategy

and substance.

[jpgray]

22. The real wherefores are never made clear for this sort of thing

And no explanation proffered is very satisfying.

[Supersedeas]

23. all the more reason why the WH and Corp media's characterization of all objections

to the compromise as coming from the "loud" (pure and sanctimonious) left.

The tactics of the White House, the Media, and the President's supporters are pretty revealing.

[ProSense]

18. True, but

having a problem with party strategy does nothing to change the party strategy immediately in play.

For example: Democrats should have held the vote prior to the election. The House rejected that strategy. Now, it's time to deal, and the best they can do is be upset by the deal.

Not holding the vote before the election was likely a fine strategy for the House because, after the election, they did pass the middle-class tax cuts only.

The problem is that before the bill goes to the President, it has to pass the Senate, which last Saturday was unable to pass the middle-class tax cut only (four Democrats voted against. Even when they raised the threshold to $1 million it failed with five Democrats voting against it.

A better strategy, if they wanted a deal at this late stage, would have been to try to identify what a better deal would look like to gain the votes needed in the Senate.

So Congress has to either negotiate a better deal now or later.

Later, means the deal will be negotiated by Republicans. They will not need a single Democratic vote in the House, and there will be five more Republicans in the Senate.

They will ensure that all the things that are currently being held hostage by them are still held hostage in the next Congress.

They will negotiate a deal that includes more tax cuts for the rich, middle class tax cuts, a lesser deal for the unemployed and none of the stimulus provisions.

The President will have to sign or veto a bill with relief for the middle class and unemployed. Do you think that they will change their package to accommodate him when they are the majority in the House?

People have to realize that Republicans are assholes, and they are not going to act otherwise. This is not shut the government down, this is about tax cuts for the middle class and stimulus provisions. Any package that Republicans negotiate will be accepted by Americans as the best we can do, especially when they are calling the shots in Congress.

The Democratic Congress needs to make the deal better now because it's unlikely to get better in the next Congress.

[jpgray]

20. What's done is done--but I disagree with you on what should have been done

When the GOP position is so full of garbage, and lacks the support of even a majority of GOP voters, that is the time to take a stand. It's time to raise the stakes, to apply pressure, to push them off their ultimatum and reveal the bankruptcy of their ideology. How to do this? Ultimatum time, from our side. Off the top of my head:

No tax cuts for the rich will be signed. No tax cuts of any kind will be signed if UI is not funded. In the Senate, votes must be held on START, DADT and DREAM if a tax cut vote is to be held.

Get that out there from the president and Reid, and see if the GOP move. If they don't, it's still not time to fold. Pass middle class cuts in the House including UI extension, and then fight it to the finish in the Senate. No cloture vote and done--keep up the pressure, bring it to a decisive fight. The public pressure would grow as the spectacle grows, and the GOP position would not get more popular with time.

I really think we could have won this one. We'll never know, but it's hard to imagine a stronger position: we had the public, the presidency, the House and the Senate. Our policy demands were nonpartisan and sensible, theirs were wildly partisan garbage and reckless to the core.

If all this isn't enough for a winning fight, what will be in the future? What new necessities will be held hostage to compel the starvation of the government? I don't want to see Obama preside over social security cuts. I'm not among those who thinks he -wants- to, but there is no shortage of hostages to take, and the GOP is no longer a minority in the House. Issa chairing Oversight alone is going to be a torrent of distraction and innuendo.