Sure, self-fulfilling prophecy and the troops tend to bolt or stand fast based on that. Much of congress, post-Clinton, think a shutdown hurts them more than the president and that's probably why we never saw an attempt under bush after the Dems got the House and senate in 2006. A lot of republicans think this is doomed to failure and a lot of Dems think they can't lose, that perception could become reality very easily. If it does, then I doubt we'll see another shutdown seriously proposed for at least a decade and the card might be permanently deleted from the deck of tricks.

I don't think he's so much prone to blink first as that he often assumes he has support that evaporates on him and forces the blink. The senate is where his power remains and senators tend to expect to be treated as equals more than the House does, Presidents always have problems with the Senate whether they have a majority or not if they try to push at them. Obama has a pretty bad relationship with the senate, which you wouldn't expect from a former senator but he wasn't one for very long and thinking on it it isn't very surprising. Most of our presidents are former governors, senators can slide in to give smug advice on dealing with congress and have it received with sincere thanks.

It's all stats, this will backfire for some, bolster some, for both sides regardless. It will solidify the GOP with the Tea Party and some other groups which matters. Sometimes its worth losing a few hundred indy/mod votes if it gains you a hundred from a dispirited but vocal base. The Dems have to do that game with the Unions and Greens a lot, hence Keystone, plus the base has a longer memory then the middle anyway. You can piss off a big chunk of the middle to gain a small portion of the base and win most back a year later while retaining the loyalty of that base, who also provide your volunteers and contributions not just your votes.

View original postRegarding the democrats under Jimmy Carter, I think from what I've read of american political history (I tend to like to read odd things ) differing parties at times have had problems with cohesiveness, and with the Tea Party, the GOP seems to be at risk in that regard.

The analogy is fairly apt, the Tea Party is a lot like the Hippy vote of that era, they're numerous, they dislike the government, and they have enthusiasm, but they don't have much cohesive unity or ideology. They can be beneficial swords in the arsenal but you have to juggle them while waiting to strike and you tend to lose hands that way.