I didn’t see what the HFC did that put them in the nasty category. None of them slammed Trump, just Ryan’s bill.
Well, by ‘Nasty’ I don’t mean ‘bad’ or ‘evil.’
I probably should have come up with a better term for it, but that’s how I learned it.
What I mean is that the HFC negotiated in a way that was uncooperative. They were unwilling to give or compromise, and when Trump thought that he HAD their votes, they suddenly called up and changed their minds and/or increased their demands.
In game theory—at least how I learned it—those kind of tactics fall into the ‘Nasty’ category. That is, you try ONLY for what YOU want, and you close the door on any chance to cooperate or give and take, and sometimes even lie or negotiate in bad faith.
Sometimes that may be desirable, sometimes not; it’s just a name for how to run a business negotiation—or in this case a caucus negotiation. However, Trump’s reaction to what happened was exactly according to the Tough but Fair strategy; he started using the same tactics back on them.
I believe that Trump and the HFC have the same or at least similar goals. But the way the two groups pursued them led them into conflict, and in game theory and the business world, Trump gave, very broadly, the textbook reaction.
Just a little addition to my last reply.
If it were the case of, say, Obozo, ‘Nasty’ would probably be the tactic that we would try all the time, mostly because he would never be anything except towards us. To be ‘Nasty’ would be the correct move there because he’d never be anything different, and to be Nice would just be to get taken advantage of.
So when I say ‘Nasty,’ I don’t mean ‘bad,’ just non-cooperative.