1980 Reagan (C) vs. Bush (M)
1988 Bush (M) vs. Kemp (C)
1992 Bush (M) vs. Buchanan (C)
1996 Dole (M) vs. Buchanan (C)
2000 Bush (C) vs. McCain (M)

In 2008 all three top candidates made a claim for conservatism and moderation. It never really jelled.

So, this time it’s going to be Romney – Huntsman – Pawlenty in a battle for top Moderate, and the others fighting to be top Conservative. If Perry enters the race, he’s top Conservative fighting against R -H – P.

I can analyze the heck out of campaigns, but I rarely guess the results correctly. I think that Perry’s the conservative most palatable to moderates, and Pawlenty’s the moderate most palatable to Tea Partiers. I also think that neither of them could go wrong with a retired general and CIA chief as a running mate.

Very, very true. I’m old enough that I remember the fed shutdown back in the Clinton administration. The truth is neither side budged in the budget negotiations, and both the Rs and the Ds were equally guilty of both the shutdown and the negative consequences that followed.

But only one side stated publicly that they welcomed a shutdown, and promised that everyone would love it when the shutdown happened.

When the shutdown happened and everyone hated it, guess which side got blamed entirely, and then took it in the shorts in the next election?

Both sides were to blame, but one side took all of it.

This strategy will indeed result in you walking home most nights with more money in your pocket then you had when you went to the game. That’s not why most people play poker, though.

And you can’t necessarily grind in a tournament. But that’s an aside.

> Also, if we’re going to apply this
> metaphor correctly, we can’t
> introduce this “public opinion”
> canard. In poker, the cards speak.
>
> In life, results do.

Well, that’s why the metaphor doesn’t work. Because public opinion matters in real life, m’man.

Results are in the eyes of the beholders. And the beholders have a group think that doesn’t match my think or your think or even, in every case, objective reality.

Poker is not a game of luck. A player with any skill will not allow themselves to get wiped out by a maniac. Instead, they’ll fold and fold and fold and then when the maniac does something stupid –and he will– the skilled player will pounce.

Advantage: Shark.

Disadvantage: Fish who thought he could cruise on luck

Also, if we’re going to apply this metaphor correctly, we can’t introduce this “public opinion” canard. In poker, the cards speak.

In life, results do.

Oh, before Koz accuses me of being a lefty again, I’ll fess up that I don’t buy for one second that the Dems actually are best described as the “not-GOP” for the center.

As far as the center is concerned, I think both political parties can really be best described as “out for our own agendas and screw the center whenever we can get away with it.”

But I do think that the Dems have done a better job of maintaining the “not-GOP is better for you, middle!” mantra for the last two years. It helps that the media has portrayed the GOP as listing Bachmann and Palin as serious contenders.

It’s easy to say, “Look, we’re Not Them, and They are Worse for YOU!” when They are easily characterized by the bozos in their group. Whether or not it’s a fair or true characterization isn’t really all that relevant.

The only person to go against him and win has been Bobby Rush and that was a decade ago. Maybe that just means he’s set up for a fall. Or maybe it means that the guy is a formidable opponent.

The GOP would be wise to consider him the latter.

Sooner or later, in poker, you have to show your cards to some other guy in order to take the rest of his money, and your cards have to beat his cards by the rules of the game to win. Nobody folds out with their last dollar in the pot (assuming table stakes, which is just about the only thing anybody plays anymore).

In politics, it’s not entirely about forcing your opponent to go all-in on the sucker hand, because the hands are judged by public opinion, which is affected by narrative.

It’s actually possible to have the showdown in politics and have both sides think that hand A lost to hand B, but they don’t get to decide, the gallery does. And the gallery is a odd duck, and can vote hand B the winner.

Let’s say the GOP actually sticks to its guns, and the Dems stick to their guns, and the debt ceiling vote deadline passes with no resolution.

Whose hand “wins”, when it comes to political capital in 2012? Fished if I know.

This is the big theme the Dems have been peddling for a while it seems to me. Consider the debt fight for instance. Obama et all have very publicly agreed to all kinds of spending cuts but are yelling loudly that the GOP won’t raise revenue by so much as a dime; not even to eliminate even some egrigarious and distortionary tax loopholes. That plays right into the theme of Obama et all being the adults in the room.