Tyndmyr wrote:Republicans are roughly equal to the democrats. The internal divisions of republicans are interesting, but not extremely relevant at the moment. The majority of the house is on board with this strategy. That's enough to be problematic. Squabbling over if it's the tea party or if it's republicans isn't terribly meaningful, especially as the tea party is mostly just a subset of republicans. It's not that radically different from basic republican principles, really. Just more angry, mostly.
The majority of the House is not
on board with this strategy. A majority of the House would vote for a clean CR, but Boehner refuses to let one come to the floor, invoking the Majority of the Majority rule.
Likely, Boehner even recognizes this strategy is bad. But he won't risk his position as speaker.
Blind acceptance is not negotiation. I don't insist that the democrats simply give up on the ACA...but coming up with counteroffers, etc would be nice.
Negotiate what? The shutdown? Both sides claim to not want a shutdown.
Asking for a compromise either shows Republicans are idiots who don't understand basic game theory and the meaning of the word compromise, or are cynical liars who are misrepresenting their position.
Rather than define payouts, I'll just frame them as positive or negative, and I'll do it how game theory usually does, so a positive payout for A and a negative for B is (+,-) which also looks kinda like a winking owl. Neat.
In a compromise, A does something that gives a negative payout for them and a positive for B (-,+). In return, B will do the reverse (+,-). The idea is that the positives each side gains outweigh the negatives. So to add arbitrary numbers, A does (-1,+2) and B does (+2,-1) leading to a (1,1).
Now for the shutdown negotiations, I'll put Democrats as A. Boehner is asking for the Democrats to make a concession (-,+). In return, he will fund the government. But wait. He says he wants to fund the government. Funding the government gives him a positive payout! It's a (+,+), which really looks more like a stoned owl.
And no, Democrats aren't offering a compromise either, since they aren't going to give anything up.
This is a different thing altogether. It's a threat.
In a threat, B demands that A do something with a payoff of (-,+). If A refuses, B will do (-,-). Sleeping owl!
It's not an offer of compromise coming from Republicans, it's a threat. Accepting any concessions wouldn't be a compromise or negotiation for Democrats, it would be a yield.