Thread by @JuliusGoat

I’ve been writing for some time about the absolute necessity of another impeachment, conducted as aggressively as possible, and there’s an aspect I realize I haven’t much unpacked: those who would come after Trump even Democrats prevail.

So I've been thinking about scared money.

In essence, “scared money” means rather than playing to win, you’re playing to not lose. Ironically, it almost guarantees loss, by exposing your strategy as essentially weak, with a shallow understanding of risk and leverage.

“Scared money” is a poker term, but don’t let that chase you off. I'll just be using it metaphorically, thinking on a concept broadly applicable to strategy.

Here’s some basic ideas to help the metaphor.

First in a tournament, there’s a structure of always rising antes and enforced opening bets (“blinds”), which enforce play. If you just sit there and fold, you’ll see your chips evaporate, first slowly, and then, as they rise, quickly.

Risk is assumed. It's mandatory.

In a tournament, you’ll soon see huge imbalances in chip amounts. The ones with large stacks can use this to their advantage. They can make bets opening bets large enough to jeopardize smaller stacks, making them fold, allowing the big stacks to get those large ante and blinds.

This is one reason why you may have heard it said that in poker your cards aren’t all that important. Often you're playing with leverage more than the cards.

Everybody knows the large stack is being a bully. They just can’t risk their entire tournament, so they fold. And fold.

And folding can be good! Just blindly calling and calling and calling is worse than just raising and raising and raising.

But you have to call the bully. And you can't wait for perfect moments.

Risk is mandatory.

You have to risk loss to win.

Sometimes you get a bully who got there simply by bullying and getting lucky. They have a shallow understanding of the game, and no real strategy beyond the application of force. Just raise. Raise. Raise. Raise. Scare everybody into compliance.

Maybe this sounds familiar.

Some bullies are being more strategic, too. They still raise and steal a lot, but in strategically advantageous spots.

You have to stand up to both types of bully. But you have to recognize which type you have.

You can stand up to a dumb bully with worse cards than a smart one.

Do you know who knows these facts? Smart bullies.

Any potentially smart bully is watching which players will stand up to dumb bullies, and with what.

And which ones stand up to a dumb bully almost never, and reluctantly.

I'm still talking about poker here.

A smart bully knows that a player who rarely stands up to a dumb bully--who is bullying even from a position of disadvantage--will probably stand up to them, who will bully only from positions of advantage ... well, never.

Never.

So yes, you can play with scared money and wait.

Dumb bully isn’t going to win in the end. Eventually someone waits for advantage. Then another. Eventually the bully crumbles. Hooray!

But now smart bullies have those chips. And they’ve been watching you.

They’ve noticed if you’ve been playing with scared money. They’ve learned that you waited and waited and waited and never fought back.

Now they have a big stack and you don’t. And they’ve seen the bully test you. And they’ve watched you fold fold fold.

Is this clicking yet?

Even if dumb bully wins temporarily, he’s doomed because of his shallow understanding and predictable aggression.

The danger of not standing up to dumb bully is never the bully.

The danger is showing the others at the table what you’ll fold to.

I’m still talking about poker.

People who play with “scared money” do so because they think they’re avoiding risk, but they’re misunderstanding the nature of risk.

Risk is a guarantee. It’s how you handle the risk that rises.

To win you have to be willing to lose.

Don’t worry, I’m still talking poker.

OK, now let's talk about present Democratic leadership. They've been in power of the party for a really long time now. They've largely steered the party to where it is, better or worse.

They did get thwarted one time that I recall. It was in 2008.

It went OK.

Now: Republicans.

Donald Trump is a danger, there’s no doubt. But there are much smarter people who want to do all the terrible corrupt and authoritarian things Trump is doing. And their understanding of the game, unlike Trump’s isn’t shallow; it’s deep.

And they’re noticing all the things Trump does. And they’re noticing how often Democratic leadership is folding.

Folding.

Folding.

Folding.

I'm sure they appreciate the message that the only problem is the dumb bully.

They’ve noticed how long it took to drag Dem leadership to a needed impeachment. How reluctant they were. How willing they were to frame it as their own problem. They watched how narrowly articles were drawn. How quickly investigated.

They’ve seen no further impeachments since.

And they’ve noticed subpoenas flaunted, and enforcement deferred to the courts. How the leadership stood up to the bully once, partially, reluctantly, and seems to have little appetite to do it again.

They’re watching. I think they can't wait to get the bully’s chips and play.

The President of the US is flagrantly unfit and an open criminal, who has very obviously abused the office he holds, conspired with foreign actors against the country's interests to benefit himself.

Those are weak weak cards.

That should be a ceaseless problem for Republicans.

I know people are worried about the risk of further aggression by Dem leadership—and there is risk. But to not take that risk introduces a far greater risk.

There will come somebody after Trump. That somebody knows how many folds he can get from current Democratic leadership.

We can choose in this election to deliver a message to Donald Trump—and we should! But if the message we deliver is, we think the only problem is Trump, the bully, or that elections are the only message we have to deliver, then we have badly miscalculated.

We need to deliver a firm message that the strategy is changing. That what the Democrats have been they will be no more.

And we can do that.

It's not just Republicans playing. We can deliver messages to the whole table with our votes.

We need to let people of deep understanding but evil intent know that the age of automatic folding, of scared money, is over.

We need to show them that they’re playing with somebody new.

Yes, that’s risky. But not nearly as risky as not doing that.

I know people are worried about the risk of making changes to the very nature of a power structure residing atop Democratic leadership for decades—and there is risk. But to not take that risk introduces a far greater risk.

They’re playing with scared money

We need a new player

Fixing the thread:

https://twitter.com/juliusgoat/status/1234099241611677696?s=21

https://twitter.com/juliusgoat/status/1234099241611677696