DISQUS

randy · 10 months ago

"If they support him and he succeeds, they fail."

Can you expand on that thought? I just don't get how if a plan they support succeeds they'll end up failing overall. Wouldn't it be good for their careers to say "Hey look, I'm such a good decision maker that I backed the stimulus package despite my party saying not to and it was a raving success. I do what's best for you my voters, not just tow the line."

Daniel Miessler · 10 months ago

They would fail in the view of Republican leadership because helping Obama succeed still equates to a success for Obama and Democrats, not for Republicans.

Remember, they're ultimately trying to prove to the American people that electing Obama was a mistake, and that they need to be returned to power. So to them it's a simple matter of supporting all Republican ideas, and attacking those from the Democrats.

PublicMic · 10 months ago

If they support him and he succeeds they win. It is all about being able to claim credit. While it would be a failure in terms of the Republican leadership, it would be a win with the electorate which is the ultimate in the game of politics.

Looseleaf · 10 months ago

Electorate, schmelectorate. Republicans still fail if O and the stimulus package succeed, because the electorate will see not Republicans as successful, but the Democratic successor to the Republican president as successful. And make no mistake about the political craziness of opposing your own party's leaders. John McCain, the famous maverick, started out that way and soon learned that he couldn't run a campaign without aid of his party's leadership. Not that they were very helpful, but still...

Stefen Glancy · 10 months ago

That isn't game theory. Those are like the charts you read in high school. If it was game theory each of those boxes would contain two values. Reference this next time you decide to misname an article http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/


Also if the Republicans support Obama and he does well it means we would have had a popular president who represented the views of both parties for the first time in a long time. I would call that a win.

Anonymous · 10 months ago

The choice of a graphical representation has nothing to do whether this is or isn't game theory. In fact it's straightforward to assign the payback for the two actors involved according to that chart you are so quick to diss. Chart which is quite effective in conveying the situation to the readers. Basic? Yes. Effective? Certainly.

You fail at both reading comprehension and communication.

On the subject of opinions I have to disagree with you. You would call that a win but the republican party would surely call it a loss. Even more so because if the democrats are seen as successful they'll stay in power longer. The ultimate goal for the parties is not to be good for America but to stay in power; it happens that being perceived as successful helps but it certainly not their motif.

Daniel Miessler · 10 months ago

Hi Stefen,

Whether or not something is game theory doesn't have anything to do with the complexity of a chart. Game Theory is about how people make strategic decisions about how to proceed, based on what others have done. Here's a summary from Wikipedia:

"Game theory attempts to mathematically capture behavior in strategic situations, in which an individual's success in making choices depends on the choices of others."

So, not only should you not be rude when you correct people, but you should also be right.

Steve · 10 months ago

"So, not only should you not be rude when you correct people, but you should also be right."

i lol'd

but seriously, it's a cute and eerily accurate image!

Jen · 10 months ago

I disagree. Even if we (republicans) oppose the plan, if it succeeds we (as Americans) will still win, because we want our economy to flourish. If we oppose and it fails, we still fail.

Anonymous · 10 months ago

The republicans and the republican leadership are two different beasts, unfortunately. The former may have the interests of america first, but the second for sure has the interests of the party foremost. It's called politics.

Same with democrats.

Maxolasersquad · 10 months ago

The conservatives I know who oppose the stimulus package do so out of a genuine belief that it is bad idea. I think opposition to this plan is in line with Republican ideology, so I don't think an exterior motive needs to be found for why most Republicans don't back it.
One may point to Bush's stimulus plan to say that it is not necessarily anti-Republican to do this. I would point out that it didn't have strong Republican support, either from the lay people or politicians. Also, Bush was not a fiscal conservative, he just believed strongly in "trickle-down", or "push all the money up and hope it stay there" theory.

Maxolasersquad · 10 months ago

And what's with the heavy use of Japanese and Chinese symbols on your site?

Daniel Miessler · 10 months ago

It's an unordered list style I came across a while back. Thought it looked cool.

Spivey Rickless · 10 months ago

They don't HOPE he fails, you dill-weed. They oppose him because they know the plan WILL fail. It flies in the face of years of empirical economic evidence. It will harm the country.

Nice chart though, point-misser.

Anonymous · 10 months ago

Yes, it has certainly been the strong steering wheel of the Republicans the one that has kept the US economy strong (even before the crisis). I'm sure their knowledge and opinions are sound, except for maybe crackpots like Dr. Paul.

Daniel Miessler · 10 months ago

Dill-weed?

Dr. Naberius · 10 months ago

Sure, dill-weed. It gets the point across while backpedaling on the vulgarity to lighten the tone and give the whole insult a faint whiff of amused irony that makes it all go down a bit easier. It's a perfectly cromulent word.

That said, the poster is still being kind of a dill.

Supernintendo Chalmers · 10 months ago

They DO hope he fails, dill-hole:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011...

Anonymous · 10 months ago

I agree that that is probably how they figured this working, but I think if they'd been a little more sophisticated about the game form they'd chosen, say if they'd gone with a tree, they'd have seen that they payouts for opposing Obama in a situation where he has a tremendous set of leveraging operations available to him, they would have seen that they're opportunities for coming out even slightly above even are dwindling like firelight in the arctic. They are about five minutes from being totally f**ked, but I'm not sure any of them really realizes it. We'll see.

md · 10 months ago

dumb article. historical evidence shows that pork spending doesnt really stimulate the economy, just wastes money.

Ron · 10 months ago

So, Republicans should abandon everything and hop on the Obama bandwagon, give him free reign to do anything he wants, and throw common sense to the wind. Umm, no thanks. Opposition is healthy when the Democrats are out of power but when they call the shots, opposition is dangerous and subversive?

Remember when Clinton appointed Ginsburg and Breyer? Bob Dole was asked why he allowed it to go through and his response was, "The President is entitled to his appointee." You never hear that from Harry Reid.

unknownmosquito · 10 months ago

I don't think that's necessarily true, especially for middle-of-the-road Republicans (ie the 3 that voted w/ Obama in the Senate); they succeed if they support him and he succeeds.

And honestly, I think the others just don't expect him to succeed (he won't).
They understand economics. And they understand the hypocrisy of someone who spends 0.9 Trillion and then calls for "fiscal responsibility."

Johnnny · 10 months ago

Agreed. This is definitely what's going on. The Republicans are now heavily invested in the failure of America.

rock · 10 months ago

Sounds like the Democrat position with Bush. mmmmmmmmmmmmm... When are we going to focus on what just works. All of them are corrupt bozos. Just a bunch of Clowns in position for way too long. Keeping money for themselves. Wake up and smell the Jo Joe.

Griff · 10 months ago

Couldn't the same be applied to Democrat support of the war in Iraq? And along the same lines can't the Republicans later say they were against it first but then supported it in the event of a success?

kojak76 · 10 months ago

congrats; this is what I've been telling people; although I am completely opposed to the stimulus for obvious reasons.

JamesDSpencer · 10 months ago

Considering that the GOP is now reduced to a bickering collection of racists, warmongers, corporate apologists, gay-bashers, and those still clinging to Reagan-era tax cuts as the solution to everything, I can hardly blame them for a strategy that's basically, "oppose everyhing, then punt!"

Will · 10 months ago

you could use that rubric for any opposition party ever.

cooperati · 10 months ago

Wow. First I'm a racist for not voting for Obama, and now I'm wishing the death of America in some sad pathetic partisan tantrum.

That is one hell of an insult.

Bravo.

-=T=-

Daniel Miessler · 10 months ago

Tim,

You can disagree with the stimulus without being anti-American, but you can't hope, and plant for, its failure without being so.

Grendel · 10 months ago

but you can hope and plant for failure in Iraq and still not be anti-American..right?

intellectual honesty....so rare these days...

Maxolasersquad · 10 months ago

And who hoped for that? I don't recall one public figure coming out in support of failure in Iraq.

CarlM · 10 months ago

Correct, Maxo. Grendel, like too many, you allowed those on the far right to tell you what the motivation was of those who opposed the war in Iraq. NOBODY wanted failure there.

Grendel · 10 months ago

wow..reminds me of Democratic politicians for the last 8 years. Oh, but that's different....

Intellectual honesty, look into it....

Bill Harrison · 10 months ago

It is sad that a country considered, at least by many, to be a bastion of freedom and democracy, is reduced to being governed by groups (mobs?) of people whose primary concern is continuing or regaining their hold on power. This is particularly true in this current crisis but is a reality probably of any government. Governments are run by people and people usually have their best interests in mind.

How about a New Game.... the old one hasn't worked so well. A game where WIN is redefined. Lemee see... how about WIN being defined as restoring our economy - at least to pre-Bush levels. How about WIN including restoring our honor to pre-torture levels?
We need to change the paradigm. Redefine WIN. LOSE is easy to define - it's where we're at. I hesitate to mention that I am a lifelong democrat - that's a label that lends itself to defining WIN in terms of party. I also happen to be a lifelong American. I would rather define WIN in those terms.
The old games didn't work. Let's dump the checkers on the floor, turn the board over and see if there is another game on the back.
Or better yet, let's stop playing games and get down to the serious business of restoring America for our children.

CarlM · 10 months ago

... strange .. when I posted this I didn't see any of the other responses .. now I see a day's worth. (Sorry that I'm a tad late to the game.)

But that's not the only possibility. They could have admitted that tax cuts don't automatically translate into immediate spending in the same way that immediate spending translates into immediate spending. (From what I've been hearing, most economists believe that IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE, tax cuts would not translate into spending in anywhere near the same way they would during healthy economic times.) They could have jumped on board and made it a bipartisan stimulus package. In this way, they could have stolen the thunder from the president.

I believe that by doing what they did, they have put all their eggs in one basket .. and if the economy turns around, it will be seen as turning around in spite of the Republican stonewalling. This will NOT be good for the Republican party.

Brosan · 9 months ago

I'm not sure I follow the logic: "If they support him and he succeeds, they fail."
If I support the president & he succeeds, don't I succeed also? That would be bi-partisanship. From what I have read, the Republicans were locked out of the negotiations for the stimulus bill. Lamely, they did the same thing to the Democrats on major legislation when they were in power. This is Washington politics, as usual. Could Republican opposition to the stimulus bill be based on their beliefs for solving the economic crisis? Would you vote for something if your ideas weren't even considered? The Democratic Congress doesn't care if the Republicans are on board. They can pass anything they like on a straight party vote. This is not bi-partisanship. Bi-partisanship involves the art of compromise. I believe that making fun of a political party, either party, because they won't do what the other party wants, is ridiculous. Why have two parties if they have to think the same way? I truly hope our new president can forge an atmosphere of cooperation & bi-partisanship in the future.

Some Honkey · 9 months ago

This is nearly asinine. Any given republican politician's goal is to be reelected. If a republican supports the stimulus and it's effective, that would undoubtedly be a success. There isn't a republican conspiracy to sabotage Barack Obama, despite what millions of morons (who most likely watch the daily show and the colbert report) think. Also, the reason some people oppose the stimulus/bailout is because not everyone subscribes to Keynesian economics. Free market economists oppose the plan for innumerable reasons; the most obvious being the fact that creating billions of dollars all at once might turn an ordinary cyclical contraction into a decade-long depression.

And for the record, I'm an apathetic non-voter (although I'm a fan of Ron Paul); I stumbled on this page and was compelled to comment by the overwhelming idiocy of your theory that the evil fat-cat republicans are purposefully trying to ruin the economy so that they might be vindicated decades from now.

Daniel Miessler · 9 months ago

> If a republican supports the stimulus and it's effective, that would undoubtedly be a success.

But it would be a political victory for the Democrats, therefore to the Republicans it equates to a failure. This doesn't mean all Republicans want Obama to fail, just that the Republican party as a whole does.

Emily · 8 months ago

Republicans oppose the stimulus plan because they understand that sucking money out of the hands of American citizens and pumping it into the belly of an ever-growing federal government is a policy destined for failure. Its just basic economics. The number of Americans who earn 250k+ annually is not a large enough group to fund a multi trillion dollar stimulus package, especially because they (just like the rest of america) are losing their jobs left and right, thereby becoming dependent on the gov themselves. Its a self-perpetuating cylce of destruction and anyone who thinks spending money we dont have on shit we dont need is an idiot.

DannyBoy · 8 months ago

this is not a game theory matrix. if you added the democrat's position on the same issues- you could find the NE(s) and your dominant strategy.

Stumbler · 8 months ago

So how does this use game theory???

dwinkle · 8 months ago

You mean kind of like every person in the world who voted against their current leader? I don't think this is nearly as profound as you think it is. Why do you think Dems opposed invading Iraq under Bush when they supported it under Clinton just a year earlier?

nona · 8 months ago

so what you are saying here is that creating $1 trillion out of thin air is a good idea?

(some will be paid for via taxes, and some via the creation of new government debt)

simple fact, dump $'s into the system...the $ loses value.