We consider bargaining environments in which public opinion provides leverage by making compromises costly. Two parties make initial demands, before knowing the public opinion. If deadlocked, they can bargain again after public opinion forms, but suffer reputation costs if they compromise, i.e., scale back their demands. We show that in equilibrium, parties may choose to make incompatible demands initially and gamble over public opinion even though one or both parties must bear a cost later. We characterize when deadlocks arise, and how this affects the welfare of the public in a representative two-party democracy compared to a direct democracy. (JEL C78, D72)

We study optimal adversarial information design in a dynamic regime change game. Agents decide when to attack, if at all. We assume (1) delay incurs a continuous cost and (2) agents doubt the correctness of their actions. The game may end in a “disaster” due to weak fundamentals or panic—agents attacking despite sound fundamentals. We propose a “timely disaster alert” that promptly warns about impending disasters, making waiting for and following the alert the unique rationalizable strategy, thereby eliminating panic. We relate this optimal policy to early-warning systems such as bank stress tests and debt sustainability analysis.