Timex
5079
I think that’s what their demands are… they aren’t asking for additional stuff. They are asking for stuff to be pulled out, and for the cost to come down. That seems pretty clear, right?
Manchin’s been saying for weeks now that he doesn’t want the cost over, what, 1.5T? That means there’s a potential for $1.5T in new spending that you could just agree on.
I just don’t see how the negotiation tactic of taking your own bill hostage is going to influence Manchin.
Thrag
5080
Weeks now you say? Well, why hasn’t he spent every available waking moment of those weeks to hash out the details? If there are things he agrees with, why has he held them up for weeks?
If we were to simplify things to numbers:
Progressives want to spend 9 dollars
Democratic Conservatives want to spend 4 dollars
GOP wants to spend -10 dollars
I feel like @Timex believes Progressives should be happy getting 4 dollars because at least they almost get half of what they want, and Conservatives get everything they want.
And I think people on this forum are arguing that since Progressives can sabotage the deal just as much as the Conservatives are trying to do, they should be able to insist on at least 6 or 7 dollars, out of the 9 they want. They shouldn’t have to compromise completely because of 2 holdouts.
Does that seem about right?
Now where’s that Like button?
But I do understand the idea of “taking the win.” The problem is that passing the BIF will not, on its own, do much for Biden or Congressional Dems, especially not for the mid-terms, due to the timing of the spending. People in a “first-world” country (I know the terminology is dated, but it’s convenient shorthand) have a baked in expectation of good infrastructure, and they should. The reason they’ve started not to these days is because of 45 years or so of what I like to call “professional anti-government types” at all levels shouting about how ever lower taxes will magically solve all our problems because government can’t solve any of them.
For any electoral benefit to accrue to Biden (and especially the Dems in Congress, and “super-sekrit especially” for the mid-terms) BOTH bills have to pass. The shady way Manchin and Sinema have been acting makes it clear that if the BIF is passed separately, they will hem and haw till November of next year on the other bill, effectively negotiating it down to an extension of the debt ceiling plus just enough federal spending to shovel money to influential contractors as usual, and keep the lights on.
Interesting take.
- The standoff between progressive and centrist Democrats resembles the classic prisoner’s dilemma of game theory.
- Research has shown that the ideal strategy for this situation is to cooperate until you’re betrayed.
- Centrists reneged on the plan to move both bills together, so game theory suggests progressives are right to threaten their own defection.
Game theory… its what’s for dinner.
A possible ranking of those outcomes for both the centrists and the progressives might look like the following: Passing a complete version of one side’s bill, without any compromise from the other side, would likely be the best outcome. Second-best would be a pair of compromises, in which your side gets most of what they want while the other side gets most of what they want. The third-best option for either side would be neither bill passing at the moment (which would theoretically leave open the option of ongoing negotiations). And the worst option would be the other side’s bill passing while you get nothing and lose any further leverage.
Timex
5084
Ya, I think I kind of do think this, because in this case, 100% of what the moderate democrats want, is stuff that the progressives want.
It’s not like a normal negotiation where both sides are actually giving up stuff. It’s not like that moderates want to spend money on X, and the Progressives want to spend money on Y, and so they are trying to find a way to get both things.
It’s that both of them want to spend money on X, but only the progressives want to spend money on Y, so spending the money on X is a no brainer.
Then, after that, you work on convincing the moderates of why they should support the other stuff you want.
Thrag
5085
Right! Only one side is expected to give things up. That you see no problem with this is kind of the problem.
But seriously, giving up one’s opposition to paid family leave is indeed a kind of giving up.
Yeah, except, the Progressives can spike the ball just as the Senate can, and really, it’s in their best interest to just do that, according to Game Theory.
It would almost be irrational not to spike the ball. It is all about the long-term play here because the Moderates can’t seem to be trusted.
I don’t want them to spike the ball, but science/math says they should.
Thrag
5087
Come to think of it, every negotiation would be easier for the center position if you could bring a third party to the negotiation whose position was to eliminate the first two parties and treat them as a legitimate voice in the negotiation.
I’ll give you $20.
The price is $50, and let me introduce you to my friend over here who wants to kill you and everyone like you and dance on their corpses. Doesn’t $50 seem like a good deal now? I mean it’s sure a lot better than that corpse dancing offer.
Timex
5088
This analysis seems flawed though, because it’s not accounting for the fact that in this case, “the other side’s bill” is in fact ALSO your own bill. So it’s not like you get nothing in that case.
So it seems like, in this case, if only the BIP passed, that would be a better option than neither bill passing.
To be clear, no it doesn’t.
Game theory is one of the most commonly misused and misunderstood things there is.
Timex
5089
Neither one of them is giving stuff up in the case of the BIP. They are both getting a pure win.
It’s not like a traditional negotiation where you are exchanging things of value with each other.
The BIP is 100% good for the progressives. Passing it is not them “giving up” anything. It’s not like there is stuff in there that they do not want passed. They would be giving up something if the bill contained spending that they opposed, like military funding.
Or, perhaps in this case, if they said something like, “We would expand subsidies for the coal industry in WV, in exchange for Manchin’s support.”
Actually, it is the other side’s bill. It’s the bill that the GOP would agree to after all. It’s the Make Believe bill that only exists because Manchin wants it too.
You could throw the whole bill away, and just include the stuff in BBB without missing a beat.
This game is apparently called let us imagine something that has not yet happened and probably won’t, and then argue with Timex about who is to blame for the thing that has not yet happened and probably won’t.
Timex
5092
No, the bills being described here, as described in the article, are:
“The two bills at stake are a $1 trillion bipartisan, roads-and-bridges infrastructure deal favored by the centrist wing of the party and a $3.5 trillion social spending bill backed by the progressive faction.”
So their analysis is clearly flawed, because neither bill is “the other side’s bill” from the perspective of the progressives. They are BOTH the Progressive’s bills.
That’s why the analysis presented is wrong, because it’s definitely not better for them to get neither one.
Their analysis is based on the idea that the two bills are entirely for the sole benefit of each negotiating party, respectively. That Party A has a list of demands X, and Party B has a list of demands Y. In that case, if Party A gets their bill passed, then party B gets nothing.
But that’s not a correct representation of the situation here, which would be better described as “Party A has list of demands X, and Party B has list of demands X+Y”. But the analysis of that situation is not going to be the same as what they described.
To be clear, the problem with the article is that they are incorrectly attempting to apply the prisoner’s dillema to a situation that doesn’t match.
It’s the Senate Bill that 10 GOP members would agree to. This is like going to battle and using only the battle plans that your Opponent agreed to let you use. It’s only approved by the Democrats because we would get what we actually want in the real Bill.
Honestly, it’s a shit bill created so Manchin can feel powerful, and if Machin can’t get behind the Progressive ideas, why the heck should the Dems get behind the GOP ideas?
Manchin got to play his game, got to have his moment in the sun. Now it’s time he held on to his part of the bargain and come to the table with something reasonable that will actually benefit the American People and Families. Not this joke of a bandaid bill that should have been passed with 100 senators.
Timex
5094
They aren’t “GOP ideas” man. Just because some GOP members agreed, that doesn’t make those ideas bad. Do I really have to explain this? I’m sure some of those members like ice cream… it doesn’t make ice cream bad.
Everything in the bipartisan infrastructure bill is good stuff that you support, right?
It’s the GOP Bill. It was created to appease the GOP (and Manchin), because the Dems could ram through the rest on their own.
It’s a bill that only exists for political theater.
It only has value because of the BBB billl.
Timex
5096
No man, the majority of the GOP actually voted against it.
The reason why we are even having this discussion is because it has ZERO support in the house from the GOP.
If the GOP actually wanted to pass this bill, then the progressive vote wouldn’t even matter in the house. It would already be passed.
Listen to what I’m saying. It was created to appease the GOP and Joe Manchin. It doesn’t exist for any real reason. The Democrats don’t even need the Bill. They could roll it all into the BBB bill.
Except, the Speaker wouldn’t bring it to the floor, because the Bill was only agreed because the BBB would come along with it.
This was the agreement that was made.
Timex
5098
Ok man, I’m just gonna leave you to it… I feel like we’re speaking different languages now.
