Many analogies can help to explain the obscure and opaque ways in which Washington works (or doesn’t). When it comes to the “shutdown showdown” over funding the federal government, much of the strategy resembles high-stakes poker.

In poker, a “tell” serves as an unspoken signal — some type of nervous tic, from a sly smile to a raised eyebrow — that a player has particularly good or particularly poor cards. A recent think tank memo likewise provided a subtle but important message, signaling that the left thinks Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Democrats are in a similar situation.

Reconciliation Threat?

In mid-September, Third Way published a short memo titled, “Democrats: Use Funding Fight to Stop the Republican Assault on Health Care.” The memo included typical talking points regarding the supposed parade of horribles resulting from 1) expiration of the enhanced Obamacare subsidies on Dec. 31 and 2) implementation of the Medicaid provisions of the “big, beautiful bill” Congress enacted this summer.

But the memo also contained discordant and contradictory messages. On the one hand, the introduction claimed that “this is the rare shutdown fight in which the policy, politics, and leverage all align” for Democrats. But just a few sentences later, the memo included this surprising statement:

If Republicans want to continue in their efforts to yank health care away from millions of Americans and massively increase costs, they should be forced to fund the government on their own through a partisan budget reconciliation process. (Emphasis mine.)

Nonexistent Leverage 

Put aside for a moment the question of whether Republicans could enact a full complement of government spending measures via a budget reconciliation bill. Neither party has attempted such a maneuver, at least in part due to the procedural obstacles this type of effort would face.

But if Republicans could enact appropriations measures via budget reconciliation, they could do so solely with Republican votes, hence the reference above to “a partisan budget reconciliation process.” Reconciliation bills are not subject to a filibuster in the Senate, meaning that the support of all House Republicans, and at least 51 of the 53 Senate Republicans, could get the measure to President Trump’s desk.

So if, in Third Way’s estimation, Republicans can accomplish their spending objectives through “a partisan budget reconciliation process” without the need for Democrat votes, why on earth would Third Way or any leftist group claim that “the policy, politics, and leverage all align” for Democrats? More importantly, why would Third Way go out of its way to propose an idea few in Washington are discussing — Republicans funding the entire federal government on their own — which would give up all of the supposed leverage Democrats have?

Failure Theater

One likely answer to this question comes from knowing about Third Way and its personnel. While the memo in question had no bylined author, the group’s longtime policy head, Jim Kessler, worked for none other than… Chuck Schumer. Couple that with Third Way’s positioning as “passionate moderates” and “radical centrists,” and the direction of travel becomes clearer.

The people at Third Way who wrote that memo understand that Kessler’s former boss has no leverage. They admitted Schumer has no leverage by advertising Republicans’ potential ability to pass “a partisan budget reconciliation bill” that circumvents Democrats. The rest of that memo represents a combination of leftist virtue-signaling and going through the motions. The reference to reconciliation — in poker terms, the “tell” — is the only sentence in that five-page memo that matters, the signal amid the noise. 

Like Republican “leaders” of yore, Third Way’s real, unstated strategy is not to fight but to lose in the most efficient manner possible. By throwing out the concept of “a partisan reconciliation bill,” the group wants Republicans to let Democrats “off the hook.” If Republicans don’t need Democrat votes and can “fund the government on their own,” then Senate Democrats won’t be forced into an embarrassing surrender and can instead “save face” to their radicalized political base. And if, by deploying budget reconciliation in service of funding the entire federal government for the first time ever, Republicans also give Democrats another procedural tool that Democrats can use to ram through their agenda without Republican votes when next in power, so much the better.

A Sucker’s Bet

If that’s what Democrats really think — they won’t win a shutdown fight and are willing to propose giving Senate Republicans more power to avoid a public climbdown — should Republicans take them up on the offer? The question answers itself: absolutely not.

As it is, funding the entire federal government via budget reconciliation raises all manner of procedural difficulties. In addition, enough Republican members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees would object to yet another diminution of their power — reconciliation runs via the Budget Committee of each chamber, rather than the Appropriations Committees — that Republicans likely would not have the votes to pass a bill via Republican votes alone.

But above the practical concerns lies a broader one: When you have leverage and are winning, why on earth take the foot off the accelerator? Democrats are in a political spot, and the Third Way memo reveals they know it. Republicans shouldn’t bail them out of their own political problems and should instead make Democrats swallow the bitter pill of surrender they know they will inevitably face.

Chris Jacobs is founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group and author of the book "The Case Against Single Payer." He is on Twitter: @chrisjacobsHC.