Summary

Conservative economist Oren Cass warns that Donald Trump could jeopardize his presidency by focusing on donor and activist agendas rather than the priorities of swing voters who secured his victory.

Writing in The New York Times, Cass argues that new presidents often mistake donor interests, such as tax cuts and deregulation, for the will of the electorate, leading to ineffective governance and loss of public trust.

Cass urges Trump to prioritize issues that resonate with the broader American public to avoid a fate that has derailed past presidencies.

32 points

How are we already letting this fucking narrative take root?

TRUMP DID NOT WIN SOME EVER-IMPORTANT SWING VOTER. He kept his base while democratic support shriveled. This is the exact recipe to get the same fucking thing happening in four years where democrats refuse to offer anything but some “centrist” bootlicking bullshit.

Don’t let them spread this fucking bullshit

permalink
report
reply
11 points

There’s no such thing as swing voters. At least not one relevant to winning an election. Elections are about getting your 40% out to vote.

permalink
report
parent
reply
90 points

If the last few years have taught me anything, it’s that what you do is not important as much as the narrative that you are able to spin.

As long as TV news networks, podcasters, news outlets, and Musk’s Twitter exist, people who are too ignorant to understand they are being lied to, or too lazy to parse credible information, will stay in the dark and vote red in the next election as well.
Democracy doesn’t work when the electorate is too illiterate to cast their vote justly. They’ll just vote for the next clown who promises them the moon.

I don’t have a solution.

permalink
report
reply
16 points

Exactly.

I’ve had Republican friends send me articles, I read them, start the debate, only to realize they literally only read the headline.

I’ve found myself reading terribly written articles just so that I’m sure I don’t misunderstand anything being portrayed in the article. Sometimes spending an extra 20-30 additional minutes for fact checking.

Trying to have a subsequent conversation with them is like pissing in the wind.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I really enjoyed explaining to a friend that the headline about outlawing child genital mutilation was referring to circumcision.

…that was sarcasm.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

We need never be afraid of the vote of informed Americans. It is only the ignorant voter we have to fear, ignorant politically, no matter how fine his house or how expensive his schooling. Such people have never experienced democracy; they have merely enjoyed its benefits. It is hard to explain what democracy is; it is necessary to participate in it to understand it.

—Robert A. Heinlein, Take Back Your Government

Unfortunately, there seems to be an awful lot of ignorance out there today.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Well, if goods become even more expensive, and wages fail to improve or get worse, then people tend to notice that more than the spin.

Sure you have very loud passionate politically active people who are game for “their team” to win no matter what and will listen to anything to rationalize their position and reject anything that disagrees, but a lot of folks are just looking at their personal circumstance and deciding if they think it’s bad or not and voting either to continue or change, without a whole lot of consideration of what either side says will work or why things are the way they are, they just know “keep it going” or “change it out”.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points

Did this fucker say Trump shouldn’t focus on tax cuts & de-regulation?

Do people have fucking amnesia these days? That’s literally Trump’s strongest economic platform from his first term. The guy even said he wants to lower the corporate tax rate even lower to 15%!

How is this an economist?

permalink
report
reply
4 points
*

That summary was a bit misleading compared to the linked summary.

“What Americans really want, sir, is fewer protections on the job and a weaker safety net,”

The conservative economist is not saying that he shouldn’t have tax cuts and maybe some deregulation, is that he shouldn’t screw the pooch for swing voters in the process.

As he looks toward his new term, Mr. Trump could claim a mandate to lead however he wishes,

As an example, I heard a MAGA politician on the radio the other day. Admittedly it didn’t sound like anyone “hooked in” to Trump’s circle, but I suspect his rhetoric was consistent. The interviewer put to him a question like “given how divisive things are, what do you hope Trump will do to be a good leader for all the nation, including those that didn’t vote for him?”. The response was that Trump won, therefore, there’s no mandate to do anything for the losing voters, and the mandate was simple to do whatever Trump wants to do.

Further, Don Jr. said a key facet for anyone in Trump’s administration is that there must be no one who would dare think themselves smarter than the president. Only yes men allowed.

Ultimately, people need to feel like they have viable livelihoods with a return to relatively affordable goods, and they need to see that within 2 years or else the house and senate will be hard blue come 2027. Of course, there’s always the potential for dismantling the democracy, but the economist would probably think that would be disastrous for stability, and a grave threat to everything including economic concerns. So best outcome for him, as a conservative economist, is somehow making the electorate willingly want to keep the republicans, and he knows that Trump listening only to himself and hard core sycophants is not a recipe to make the electorate happy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
54 points

It is not a formula for a successful presidency

That all depends on how you define successful, doesn’t it. I rather think Trump has a different definition than most of us.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

It seems he is out for revenge on anyone who slighted him in the last 8 years.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Don’t forget the money. Any action that will personally enrich him will be taken. From Trumps point of view the electorate are now irrelevant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Maybe it’s time to try the Ricky

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

By that metric, I’d say it’s going to be a very successful presidency…

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points
*

Conservative economist Oren Cass warns that Donald Trump could jeopardize his presidency by focusing on donor and activist agendas rather than the priorities of swing voters who secured his victory.

Jeopardize how? He’s already been elected, and it’s not like a Republican congress is going to impeach the head of their own party for… checks notes… focusing on donor priorities, lol

The whole reason the Republican party exists in it’s current form is to rubber stamp the agenda of the ownership class. Maybe he’ll get his ass kicked in the midterms in two years, but so fucking what? He’s got more than enough time to trash everything before then, especially since the RS are going in with an actual plan this time.

No, the only ‘jeopardy’ for Trump in his second term is that the hamberders might finally catch up with him and his black, unfeeling heart explodes.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

Well, a scenario is that he cuts taxes and applies massive tariffs, resulting in a huge regressive expense paid the most by the poorest. That he lets companies be more sociopathic toward their workers and says “screw you” to anyone that needs welfare.

The end result if 2 years sees even more expensive bills and less safe employment and less recourse when the employment screws them over would be an electorate that demands him out and takes it out on the house and senate races. Perhaps to the point where they could remove him from office, and maybe even Vance too, and have a Democratic president finish out his term.

So his point is simply that while he pursues republican economic policy, which I suspect the author agrees with broadly, to take it easy and make sure he doesn’t piss everyone off in the process.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to “Mom! He’s bugging me!” and “I’m not touching you!” Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 187K

    Comments