Since the health care debate turned sour, politicos have been dissecting how President Obama lost his mojo. Some argue he has governed too liberally. Others think he hasn’t taken his case to the American people.
I think he just hasn’t changed his poker game, and his new opponents are making him look like easy money.
President Obama’s fondness for poker came to light in the 2008 presidential campaign. Analysts suggest that his game, like his demeanor, is calm and conservative and he almost never bluffs.
That game can win significant money in certain circumstances: Low stakes, inferior opponents, or lucky cards. Against Sen. Clinton, then Sen. Obama arguably had all three. With experience and inevitability, Clinton thought she had the strongest hand, and bet it early and heavily. When public opinion, “the flop” if you will, matched Obama’s hope and change cards better, she couldn’t adjust.
As to the stakes, in many ways they weren’t very high in the presidential primary. On policy issues, there was little difference between Sens. Obama and Clinton, as evidenced by the fact that Obama has enacted a health insurance mandate he railed against to separate himself from Clinton. A defeat on any particular issue could be washed away in the broader narrative, limiting the impact. Further, the chips were abstract political stances and breakable promises, not decisions that put Americans in harms way, either militarily or economically.
Once he started governing, the dynamics of the game changed dramatically, but the President doesn’t seem to have altered his approach. The stakes are clearly higher, with differences over laws that will or will not be enacted, directly affecting the lives of American voters. Higher stakes can be a trap for conservative players; they tend to become more conservative when smarter, and slightly riskier, play may be needed.
Mr. Never Bluff is an easy target in heads up poker. An opponent who is willing to bet on poor to mediocre cards can clean up most hands, and fold quickly anytime Never Bluff puts in chips. Unless he hits a streak of incredibly solids cards, Never Bluff will eventually end up throwing his last chips at a terrible hand when it is clear to all that it is his only play.
The only thing worse that never bluffing is placing a small bet on mediocre cards, called “limping in.” It tells the opponent that you want to play a hand in which you don’t have much confidence, and invites them to scare you off with a big bluff. Unless you are slow playing great cards, or are willing to bluff back, you may as well just hand over the chips.
Against his new Republican opponents, President Obama appears unwilling to bluff and insistent on limping in. To make matters worse, he telegraphs, nay, teleprompts his plans. Take the “debt ceiling.” Republicans didn’t have to decipher subtle blinks and facial expressions to determine if deficit reduction could be attached to debt ceiling legislation; the president conceded on the record before the cards were even dealt. He then limped in with a grand bargain that required revenue increases. Republicans represented that they would crash the economy rather than compromise. Obama could have raised the stakes by invoking the 14th Amendment or refusing to sign a bill without a balanced approach. Instead, he threw in his chips and signed the legislation.
It’s almost like the president doesn’t want to win, which perhaps is the real problem. He’d clearly prefer a bipartisan solution where no one loses. In chess and checkers, good play can force your opponent into a draw without their consent. In poker, a tie requires that your opponent agree to stop playing and split the chips. Unfortunately for President Obama, opponents only accept that offer when you are ahead in the game. To get there, the president needs to hide his tells, start bluffing and stop limping in. If he doesn’t play to win soon, all the chips will be stacked against him in Nov. 2012.
