[aSanchezStern]

Actually exit polls say that most people who voted for Trump did so because they thought he would lower grocery prices, not because they thought he would make the government more efficient. So far grocery prices have risen significantly under his administration. As far as I know there is no evidence that there was a program to destabilize bangladesh that doge cut, that appears to be another case of doge not really understanding what it was cutting. But if you have a credible reference on that which isn't just saying "Elon said so", I'd love to see it.

[spiderfarmer]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump started mailing checks to people just before the midterms. I remember a documentary before election day where many gladly people remembered receiving stimulus checks just because Trump demanded they were sent in his name. They’ll forget about the wounds he’ll cause, as long as they receive a bandaid with his face on it.

[bamboozled]

They already have spoke about passing on the savings by sending out $5000 cheques. A small price to pay for gutting your healthcare benefits and social security :)

[actionfromafar]

Like bribing children with candy.

Well, a quarter of the population can barely read, so makes sense.

( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States )

[rayiner]

Coalitions are built by uniting various factions and their interests. Cutting the administrative state is #9 on Trump’s platform: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/platform. Just because it wasn’t the top reason doesn’t mean it wasn’t part of the platform that people voted for.

For example, I don’t personally care for RFK. I’m the opposite of an anti-vaxxer, I think the government should vaccinate you in your sleep. But he was part of the pitch and MAHA was part of the coalition and I voted for the platform and was happy to see him confirmed. That’s how political coalitions work.

[pcwalton]

So wait, I'm supposed to wish success for everything, say, Gavin Newsom does because I voted for him? Is that how it works?

[rayiner]

If Newsom explicitly runs on X, Y, and Z, and you vote for him for X and Y, I think it’s fair to say that you’re at least acquiescing to Z in return for forming a majority coalition.

[littlestymaar]

Why? That's a very weird line of reasoning!

Then who are you supposed to vote for if you want X and Y but are against Z (but think X or Y is more important than Z)?