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)

In a regime change game, privately informed agents sequentially decide whether to attack without observing others’ previous actions. To dissuade them from attacking, a principal adopts a dynamic information disclosure policy, frequent viability tests. A viability test publicly discloses whether the regime has survived the previous attacks. When such tests are sufficiently frequent, in the unique cutoff equilibrium, agents never attack if the regime passes the latest test, regardless of their private signals. We apply this theory to demonstrate that a borrower can eliminate panic-based runs by sufficiently diffusing the rollover choices across different maturity dates. (JEL C72, D82, G21)