Speaker McCarthy? O...Kay. Two questions: How? Also, huh?!

 Yesterday was a strange day.  Kevin McCarthy began the day with an exhortation that we watch in amazement for impending surprises, yet given his track record in producing surprises (not to mention his track record for honesty), one might have retained a healthy skepticism, and I have been bearish on his chances of getting the gavel throughout (remember how I suck).  Then a series of votes began, and the previous night's negotiations actually did manage to flip most of the holdouts.  By giving away damn-near every power and goodie available, defanging either himself or whoever would get the Speakership, McCarthy had gotten the rump, so to speak, of the obstructors.  Just not quite enough to get a majority.  Through the magic of "narrative," this somehow gets the remaining detractors to vote "present," rather than actively voting for McCarthy (translation: they either surrendered or accepted victory, depending on perspective), and Kevin McCarthy will now be Speaker, until he either raises the debt ceiling, leading to a motion to vacate, or refuses to allow the debt ceiling to be raised, blowing up the economy.  Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen!  Place your bets!

So let's puzzle through this.  Recall that when the Republicans took the House majority, five Representatives, led by Andy Biggs, announced that they would never, under any circumstances, support Kevin McCarthy, creating an arithmetic problem.  With 222 Republicans, that was more than he could afford to lose.  When he lost 19, then 20 votes, that looked like the end for McCarthy because it was so much worse than just five, but five was mathematically enough to stop him, as long as they just voted for someone else.  After all, by doing so, they would block McCarthy, and McCarthy would not be able to punish them because he wouldn't be in a position to punish them.

In game theory terms, if we assume that all of the original five truly just hated McCarthy and didn't want him as Speaker, then it was a Nash equilibrium for them to vote for someone else indefinitely.  This is the shutdown caucus, after all.  What do they care?  Every one of those legislators is pivotal at the five member level, so even one defection hands the gavel to McCarthy, which is an outcome they don't want, and it then allows the group to be punished, because flipping the outcome is the precondition for punishment.  Nash equilibrium.

The trick is adding all of those other members.  That changed the narrative, and made it look bad for McCarthy, but then when he brought the number back down, it created this illusory, meaningless thing called "momentum."  Which doesn't exist.  It's an illusion.  It is mathematically irrelevant.  It is a figment of the collective imaginations of those watching, having no mathematical, legal or institutional power.  What has power?  The magic number of 50%+1, which was either going to be 218, or the equivalent based on attendance.  That's it.  Everything else is bullshit.

But what happened when those who joined the original five then abandoned them?  Despite having no legal nor mathematical implications, a storyline changes.  For whatever that is worth.

At this point, the Biggs faction still could have just said no.  This is Square 1.  McCarthy is back where he was when I told you that he was in an intractable position, unable to win because 222-5 brings him below the necessary threshold.  But something irrational happens when that original group gains and then loses, bringing them back to their original size.

In order to lose, the Biggs faction had to decide to lose.  Which they did.  Technically, they voted present rather than for McCarthy, so what does this mean?

McCarthy will be so hobbled by all of the concessions he gave them that on content, the Biggs faction and the Freedom Caucus won.  McCarthy will be the most institutionally powerless Speaker in modern history, and that's before factoring in the man's idiocy.

Did the Biggs faction lose?  Well, kinda, yeah.  They did not want Kevin McCarthy, because they don't trust him.  Because he's a lying weasel.  And they could have stopped him.  All they had to do was keep voting no.

So a few observations.  For the original five, it really was personal.  In fact, for most of the group who joined them, it was personal, but due to a combination of factors, including the norms of House floor speeches, they had to make up a bunch of shit to explain their positions.  Matt Gaetz took a break from his sex trafficking operation to bash McCarthy personally, thereby demonstrating that two reprehensible people can hate each other, but Gaetz's floor speech was very poorly received because of how personal it was.  The Freedom Caucus detractors basically had to make shit up for why they opposed McCarthy.  It was a combination of personal factors and obstruction for the hell of it.

But you can't say that.  So they made up a bunch of demands, and when McCarthy decided that he would just give in to every demand, not caring about policy, procedure or anything except the title, detractors didn't have a lot of places to hide.  So, you had Gaetz and Good and Boebert saying that they would just never vote for McCarthy, no matter what, and they technically followed through by voting "present," but the bullshit constraints forced insincerity into a process in which insincerity is a default anyway.

So this is still a bit puzzling.  From a game theory perspective, McCarthy shouldn't have won.  Five opponents voting Jordan or Donalds or whoever would still be a Nash equilibrium.  They like government shutdowns, McCarthy cannot punish them if he doesn't get the gavel, and they fuckin' hate him.  Nash.  However, the process of gaining and then losing allies created a weird narrative.  Narratives are bullshit.  Narratives are about "feelings."  Fuck your feelings.  This was a math problem, but it was a math problem handed to people who can't do math.  McCarthy can't do math, or this spectacle wouldn't have taken place.  The Freedom Caucus can't do math, or they wouldn't be so gung-ho about blowing through the debt ceiling.  The "fuck your feelings" ethos is supposed to be an entreaty to do the goddamned math.

Instead, the party that likes the phrase just elected a Speaker who cannot handle basic arithmetic.  Yeah, this'll go well.

Present, "Alone," from C.O.D. Performance.