Yuval Levin: What is Trump's "Mandate"?

A.E.I.'s Yuval Levin discusses Trump's mandate (or lack thereof), building coalitions, and how the classic divide between Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine remains relevant.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Yuval Levin: What is Trump's "Mandate"?

HD Video Download

Is Trumpism America's new governing ideology? Just asking questions.

Trump won decisively by modern standards, meaning for the first time in several cycles nobody is seriously disputing the results, but did he really win bigly? Does he have a governing mandate?

Today's guest says, not really. Yuval Levin is the director of Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies at the American Enterprise Institute and the editor of National Affairs. He co-authored a paper published just before the election called "Politics Without Winners" about the inability of either Democrats or the GOP to build a lasting governing coalition in the 21st century.

He recently published some of his thoughts on the election in The Dispatch under the headline, What Trump's Win Doesn't Mean, writing "The 2024 election was very much of a piece with our 21st-century politics: It was a relatively narrow win owed almost entirely to negative polarization." We dig into that negative polarization, whether Trump was given a "mandate" by voters, and how Edmund Burke vs. Thomas Paine is still a relevant divide in contemporary politics.

Sources Referenced:

• 2024 Presidential General Election Results
• Politics Without Winners: Can Either Party Build a Majority Coalition?
• Yuval Levin in The Dispatch: What Trump's Win Doesn't Mean
• 2024 House General Election Results
• 2024 Senate General Election Results
• AP VoteCast: How America voted in 2024
  • Is Trump honest and trustworthy?
  • Harris and Trump's moral character as seen by voters.
  • College vs. no college
• Cleveland-Stevenson Tariff Reform Portrait Handkerchief, 1892
• Levin's book: The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left

Chapters:

• 00:00 Coming up
• 00:20 Is Trumpism America's governing ideology?
• 00:33 Subscribe to the channel!!!
• 00:54 Introducing Yuval Levin
• 02:22 What is the significance of Trump winning a fairly slim majority?
• 04:04 Given the sweep of all swing states, and the wins in the House and Senate, are you SURE this isn't a mandate?
• 07:25 Do the parties retain any internal coherence?
• 09:01 Which faction in the GOP is ascendant?
• 13:14 Why did people who called Trump untrustworthy still vote for him? What does that mean?
• 16:38 Comparing Trump and Grover Cleveland
• 24:40 Are we now are we coming out of this electoral results legitimacy crisis?
• 26:09 The history of populism in the Democratic party
• 29:53 The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Right and Left
• 42:51 Is the left going to be insanely statist forever?
• 48:04 Why does America consistently produce two major parties?
• 52:16 Is Yuval bullish on Elon and Vivek's D.O.G.E.?
• 55:39 Would it take for the Democrats to build a lasting coalition?
• 58:40 The Final Question: What does our political system lack?

• Producer: John Osterhoudt

Comments

[Quo Usque Tandem]

I am inclined to ask: is government a necessary evil, or the answer to every problem it created in the first place?

And then there's the status quo.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

It is neither: as the Declaration of Independence says "government exists to protect our rights"

[VULGAR MADMAN]

I remember reading some democrat columnist in 1984 saying; “Sure he won 49 states but he didn’t win them by large margins, so..,”

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

An honest spectator notes that Kamala ,when running for President , was never higher than 3rd in her own state !!! Makes Dukakis look like Washington !!

[Chumby]

To drain the swamp.

[Juliana Frink]

That's about the size of it. To the extent the voting public are at long last becoming aware of the "Swamp" I'd say therein lies the "mandate."

That's a very tall order, but as long as Trump has the ball, he'd better run with it, and BIGLY. And if he can get ANY cooperation from Congress, who after all took an oath to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, he should get a very clear mandate in the midterms. Is that a fantasy?

I don't think it is, as long as we do our part to hold the feet of the corrupt press to the fire until they are forced to acknowledge reality. There will come a point where the parasites in this society will no longer want to show their faces. And we must stomp the Censorship Industrial Complex to ruin. Because the more people are aware of what's going on, the LAST thing they will do in 2026 would be to vote the swamp back to its full strength.

People started to really come alive in the run-up to this election. I hope that was just the tip of the iceberg.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Won the electoral College, popular vote, senate, house, picked up state legislatures, picked up state governors, largest increase in GOP state representatives in years.
Anyone who says there isn't a mandate is a liar or a shill.

[MWAocdoc]

What does "mandate" mean to you? He has a mandate to occupy the White House. He does not have a mandate to violate the Constitution. The fact that every previous Administration and Congress in U.S. history has violated the Constitution repeatedly does not give him - or ANY President, Congress or Supreme Court - a mandate to continue and extend those violations.

[sarcasmic]

What does “mandate” mean to you?

It clearly means two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner (as long as he's one of the wolves).

[R Mac]

We can add “clearly” to the list of words sarc doesn’t know what they mean.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Ah, democracy...

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

He does not have a mandate to violate the Constitution.

GFY. Where did I say anything about the Constitution? Where did Trump say he was going to violate the Constitution?

Why did you just pull that accusation out of your ass?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

MWA is as dishonest as sarc.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Wow, that's not quite Jeff dishonest but it's still pretty bad.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Bullshit. MWAocdoc is right, even if he is half off-topic. This was no mandate of any kind.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

So Trump shouldn't push for the policies a large part of the electorate agreed with? Such as reducing illegal immigration? No regulatory reduction? No spending reduction?

No mandate. Keep status quo.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You're better than that, usually.

The choices are not limited to mandate and status quo.

[sarcasmic]

You’re better than that, usually.

No, he's not.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

You never are. You're always worse than before.

[sarcasmic]

Oh yeah. Sorry. I forget he's your mendacity coach.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

How about you keep your retarded ass out of things the adults are discussing, Sarc?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

He can’t. He craves the attention. Whether positive or not.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

I'm not the one assuming mandate assumes unconstitutional actions. That assumption alone is a stupid one.

[R Mac]

Unless someone is claiming Trump has a mandate to violate the Constitution, then no, he’s not right. He’s full of shit.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"Bullshit. MWAocdoc is right"

Where the hell did Trump or I say he should violate the constitution?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

“Violating the constitution “
Includes enforcing actual laws liberals don’t like,

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

IF IF IF it were a 'no mandate of any kind" you would not say it.
Like looking outside and seeing 50 foot waves approaching and saying "It's just water"

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

He has taken to calling anyone who disagrees racist and xenophobic like sarc as well.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Lol.

You go right to mandate to violating the constitution.

No middle ground like push for policies he campaigned on. Lol.

Such an unserious person.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Middle ground? Like between mandate and status quo?

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

You can follow the embedded chain of comments.

Doc literally jumped to constitutional standards and you said he had a point. At no point did I declare that a mandate, but your response that doc was right assumes that point.

I actually don't think mandate is extreme such as that. It had never mean ignoring the constitution.

Doc asserted that, you agreed.

That's how flows of conversation work.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

"...He does not have a mandate to violate the Constitution..."

Did you drag that strawman all the way from home, or find it on the way?
FOAD, asshole.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

I at least can tell that you perfectly understood what he said -- but you didn't like it. 🙂
A mandate is for a PERSON and not for anything else.
Why did people not give a mandate to Kamala...because she is stupid dishonest waseful of money and can't speak like an adult.
GIve the right views on all your issues and she is still all those things.

[Chumby]

Chase wants a mandate.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

You win

[Gaear Grimsrud]

I think Linsey Graham is available.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Which am I, then? Which are you? It was not a mandate. None of the last three elections have been mandates. A hundred thousand votes could have flipped them all.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Wrong on data and logic.
The Founding utterly opposes your math. California has 40 !!!!! Times the population of Rhode Island but both have 2 senators because when your sentiment was expressed at the Founding it was roundly mocked.Your view is : Let's have the Tyrrany of the Majority that Madison and the Founders said was the root of ALL TYRANNY.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

But that destroys your point. Whatever would have flipped it, we still have Hillary referring to many tens of millions of her potential citizenry as DEPLORABLE. Are you really that thick?

[Zeb]

I'm not even sure what a "mandate" is supposed to mean. He won the election, so now he can do what is in his power to do. Is that all it means?

[sarcasmic]

"Mandate" is just a word that the winners use as an excuse to be dicks and not compromise at all.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Unless it's the Democrats and then it's (D)ifferent.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

YEs, and you just used it.

[CLM1227]

My understanding is that a mandate constitutes some concept of controlling majorities in President/senate/house.

In the past, the popular vote has been used to say “no no no” to the reds… but now that went to Trump, too.

Winning an election should count for something. The constitution is there to protect the minority from rights violations… not to protect the minority from the majority’s constitutional policy preferences.

[Zeb]

OK, so more or less what I said. Seems a silly thing to argue about in that case. He has a mandate to the extent that congress will support his agenda. Just seems silly to argue about it when the real question is what is it possible to accomplish with the current political and legislative state of affairs.

[CLM1227]

Yeah… that would be a more intelligent discussion… but are we really reading reason for intelligent political discourse?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"I’m not even sure what a “mandate” is supposed to mean. He won the election, so now he can do what is in his power to do. Is that all it means?"

A mandate means he has commission from the voters to enact his campaign promises. Nothing more.
If Trump had won the electoral college but lost the popular vote it could be argued that he didn't have a mandate to put his policies in action.

[MWAocdoc]

Well, of course, if you make up a totally meaningless concept like governing "mandate" and then abuse it, you can draw any conclusions you want to from it. The entire Constitution was designed to PREVENT Presidents and Congresses from using some imagined public "mandate" to impose the will of the people on the people. The only mandate any of us should recognize is the mandate that public officials support and defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic. If Trump believes his mandate would be to refuse to enforce or carry out any of the unconstitutional laws, regulations and rules passed and signed into law by previous Congresses and Presidents and refuse to spend funds or collect revenues then I would support that. If the President refuses to appoint Secretaries for those Departments or fill vacancies in or fund those Departments, I would support that. If the Supreme Court were to nullify all of those unconstitutional departments and their rules and regulations, I would support that. However, I seriously doubt that that is the mandate the Trump would claim at this point.

[Dillinger]

>>Trump's mandate (or lack thereof)

T campaign destroyed decades of steered voter coalitions and awakened millions of Americans to America again ... keep off Yuval's short bus.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

T campaign did not. The election could have been flipped by just a few thousand votes, same as 2016 and 2020.

[Dillinger]

sorry bro. I was there.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

So the GOP(e) after winning an historic election, finds ways to lose anyway.

Mitch McConnell just stated there will be no recess appointments.

Also, more swamp winning: GAETZ WITHDRAWING FROM A.G.

Still want the House Ethics report on him released and hopefully Trump nominates MTG or Patel instead.

[Lester75]

Gaetz withdrawing is not a loss. Trump can persecute his enemies list without using Gaetz. He can pick another bootlicker who is less repugnant to the other Republicans.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Thanks new guy. The depth of your insights is truly impressive. I'd like to subscribe to your Substack.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Well now we know what MSNBC thinks. Good thing Lester's here.

[Chumby]

Preference for less Lester not mo Lester.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Wrote this earlier:

Gaetzkeeping

I don’t see him getting through confirmation hearings, and he has resigned his House seat. Seems like maybe he was rope-a-doped to the sidelines, while Trump can say “Hey I nominated you, like I said I would…it’s not my fault you screwed up your confirmation.

[sarcasmic]

A presidential mandate is when the winner deliberately conflates the EC vote with the popular vote and says "Look, we won X percent of the EC, that means X percent of the country wants us to steamroll over everyone who disagrees with us!"

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Trump won the popular vote by 5 million. He won the electoral college with 213. Both ways he won decisively. Your argument is irrelevant.

[sarcasmic]

If vote counts were honest they would count the percent of eligible voters.

150 million people voted out of 254 million eligible voters, and Trump got 76.6 million of them.

That means around 30.1% of eligible voters supported him.

Not so much of a mandate when put into full context.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

That was terrible. Are you sure you don’t write for this shitty webzine ?

[Dillinger]

the Chiefs never let me hold the Super Bowl trophy either.

[sarcasmic]

Holy non sequitur Batman!

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Add "non sequitur" to the giant list of words Sarcasmic doesn't know the meaning of. Would you like me to buy you a dictionary, Sarckles?

[Chumby]

He might hollow it to fit a flask.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

At this point, I think the number of terms Sarc doesn't understand far outweigh the ones he does understand.

[EISTAU Gree-Vance]

I bet the lions will.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Because all those eLiGibLe vOteRS would have voted Kamala or Chase, right?

Fucking retarded sophistry.

[sarcasmic]

What is it called when you deliberately misconstrue what someone says and then argue against what you just made up?

Here's another clue: You accuse me of it when I don't, and always deny when you do.

You got it! Strawman!

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

Do you understand what a "strawman" even is? You sure as hell use enough of them, yet lack any understanding of describing when someone else is/is not using them.

Let's add "strawman" and "sophistry" to the list of terms you fail to comprehend.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"Here’s another clue: You accuse me of it when I don’t, and always deny when you do.
You got it! Strawman!"

Again, for the hundred millionth time, retard, strawmanning isn't simply pointing out that you're lying.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Lol. I've seen liberals make this very argument. It is nonsense.

[Zeb]

I don't know. I think it is at least an interesting observation that someone who wins a pretty resounding victory in a presidential election really only has the explicit support of 30% of the population that is eligible to vote.
And I'm pretty sure some conservatives and libertarians were making the same observation when Obama won big.

[sarcasmic]

I know I made the same observation when Obama claimed to have a mandate (and was attacked for it of course).

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Cite?

https://reason.com/search/Obama%20mandate%202008/

There’s the search of articles. Show us. Change filters to months around the election.

I'll wait.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Not voting is a choice. One of apathy. They've made their non voice heard. Why listen to their nonvoice and assume their beliefs?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Explicit support of the majority of voters is the only possible way to determine it. All you can do is extrapolate on the numbers you already know.
If candidate #1 gets an majority of the votes it's safe to say that his level of support is the same amongst non-voters. It's like a gigantic poll.

[Medulla Oblongata]

Now do Biden (34.8%) and Obama (33.0% and 30.45%) in "full context".

Trump's 2nd term is almost exactly the same "mandate" as Obama's 2nd term.

People will need to remember that somehow Joe Fucking Biden pulled more voters than Obama...

[sarcasmic]

It would also mean 28.8% of eligible voters voted for Harris.

30.1% vs 28.8%. Neither of them can say they got one out of three eligible voters to support them.

That’s not a mandate. That’s just sad.

[damikesc]

Given how blue states have a habit of registering illegals to vote ("just for local races", of course), the numbers you present mean less than nothing.

[sarcasmic]

Math doesn't matter because blue states mumble mumble illegals. Sure buddy.

[damikesc]

Math does not matter when you place illegitimate voters on the rolls. I know, massive concept there.

[sarcasmic]

You say that a fraction of illegals registered to vote for local elections in a fraction of states (true so far), and that a fraction of them have voted in the general election (possible), and that fraction of a fraction of a fraction negates everything I said.

Yeah, math does not matter to you. Not one little bit.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Doesn’t matter, illegals can’t vote.

[Medulla Oblongata]

They're not supposed to be able to, but they can and they do.

We're not allowed to wonder how many actually do it or something like that. God forbid we actually try to audit voter rolls to find the answer to that question.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Voting is a choice. If you choose not to vote you are saying it doesn't matter who wins. This is a choice.

You don't get to complain after the fact that you abstaining means your voice wasn't heard.

[sarcasmic]

Attacking people who didn't vote doesn't change the fact that neither candidate could get one out of three eligible voters to support them, and it certainly doesn't make 30.1% a mandate.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

We're not Australia where voting is mandatory. Take your sophistry and go fuck Jeffy with it.

[Medulla Oblongata]

So many sour grapes.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

If 140 million people across the entire nation and every race and socio-economic group have made a choice, you can extrapolate those percentages straight across with a high amount of confidence.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

That is not decisively. There is no national popular vote; if you think there is, you are in Hillary's corner.

[sarcasmic]

If Trump had won the popular vote but not the EC, you can bet that his defenders would calling for the end of the Electoral College. And it would be ok because Democrats did it first.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

Trump also got roughly 0% of the invisible spaceman vote. So he extra double-dog doesn't have a mandate!

[damikesc]

Can we ALL play hypothetical whataboutism without you whining or can only you do that?

Just wondering.

[Super Scary]

No. If someone does something first, no one else is allowed to do it. It's the iron clad rule he posts nearly every single day.

[sarcasmic]

That's just dumb.

Tell you what, when you guys stop justifying actions that you know you'd complain about if someone else did it by saying people you hate did it first (election denial, lawfare, etc), then I'll stop pointing it out.

[damikesc]

YOU are doing that.

Should you not lead by example?

[sarcasmic]

Like what?

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

Let's start with the fact you aren't even registered to vote in the first place. So why are you even using these numbers or whining about it?

[Super Scary]

Nah, Imma do my own thing. Eye for an eye and all that.

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

More of sarc imagining what his enemies think or say to excuse what democrats are currently doing. Even after being called out in the roundup for this.

You're the political equivalent of a race hoaxer. Lol.

[sarcasmic]

You didn't deny it. According to your rules that means it's true.

[InsaneTrollLogic (Factio Democratica delenda est 5/30/24)]

Are you drunk, retarded, or both today?

[JesseAz (5-30 Banana Republic Day)]

Deny your imagination?

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

"There is no national popular vote"

There absolutely is a national popular vote. It just has no bearing on becoming president because the electoral college determines instead.

But that doesn't mean that the popular vote doesn't confer a large amount of legitimacy to the results, which was precisely (ignoring the Tammany Hall factor) the problem with Gore and Hillary and they were able to delegitimize the electoral college results because of it.

Winning both the electoral college and the popular vote conferred moral legitimacy, "a mandate", to W's second term, and Obama's term and now to Trump's term. Strictly how the law views it is irrelevant to the zeitgeist.

Trump had the legal right in the first term, but he has the legal and societally conferred right now.

[Medulla Oblongata]

(With all due respect to what ML is saying...)

THERE IS NO POPULAR VOTE.

The “popular vote” is to presidential elections what total yards of offense are to a football game.

The goal of a presidential election and a football game is to put points on the board. In the election, that’s winning states (and thus electors), in football that’s getting the ball across the goal line or through the uprights.

Having 500 yards of offense and 14 points is a losing proposition if the other team has 21 points but only 150 yards of offense! STFU crowing about “Yeah, but we ran up and down the field on them and they couldn’t move the ball!” THEY put POINTS on the board–THEY did what it takes to win the game. There’s ZERO points for total offense.

In their contest, Clinton had 658 yards of total offense (she had 68.5M votes) and Trump had 629 yards of total offense (62.9M votes). But the fact is, that despite moving the ball up and down the field somewhat better than Trump, she turned the ball over 5 times (lost 5 state that Obama carried twice) and failed to score points when it counted. Someone crying about total yards off offense is readily countered with “Scoreboard!”.

Because the rules are the rules, we can’t really look at the aggregate vote totals.

Campaigns and elections are based on the rules of the Electoral College. Everyone planned their strategy for campaigning based on garnering EC votes. Voters in locked-in states made their Election Day decisions to perhaps stay home knowing their candidate had basically already won (or lost) their state.

Based on the final score of a football game played under the current rules you can’t say who’d have won if 2 points were also awarded based on each first down gained, because team strategies would change based on the different rules in effect at the time of the game. If fouls in a basketball game resulted in 2 points being deducted from your team score rather than allowing the other team the chance to shoot 1+1 or 2 free throws, think the game would be played differently?

If the winner needed to win the popular vote nationwide, campaigns would run very differently and voters’ behaviors would be very different.

In addition, there’s simply no requirement that a state even hold a presidential election.

“Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Note that there’s not a word about “popular vote”. There’s not a word about holding any elections within a state. A state’s Electors are determined by whatever “Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct”. If a state decides that the Governor should appoint Electors directly, they can do that. If a state decides they will allow their Congressional Representatives and Senators to each appoint an elector, they can do that. If a state decides to have an election and appoint all their Electors to the statewide winner, they can do that. If a state decides to hold elections and appoint Electors, one per district based on per-district results, they can do that. If a state decided to appoint electors by a random lottery, they could do that, too.

Electoral College magic trick…let’s say that 2 years ago California passes legislation that allows the governor to simply appoint the state’s electors. Perfectly Constitutional.

Had this been in effect this election, we can assume Gavin Newsome would appoint 54 Democrats for VP Harris.

The EC results remains unchanged, but the “popular vote” likely swings to Trump. With no election in California, there are no California “popular votes” to count. Based on the last contest, VP Harris would have ~9M fewer popular votes and Pres. Trump would have ~5M fewer popular votes. So Harris would have “lost” a net 4M “popular votes” while retaining all of California’s electors.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

It is more stupid than irrelevant. Sarcasmic seems to be math-challenged. There are many , even conflicting, reasons for opposed folks to vote for the very same thing. People generally hate Kamala and they only sent their hard-earned money to her she promised money for houses, dissovling of student loans, abortion on demand, and a promise not to call your particular perversion a problem

[VULGAR MADMAN]

The sad sack in the video looks like he’s about to take the cowards way out.

[Wizzle Bizzle]

Oh please, God, yes! I just hope he streams it so I can masturbate to it.

[Super Scary]

Who still uses wired earbuds nowadays? Get with the times old man!

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Depends on how you define mandate but amidst all of the hyperbole Trump explicitly laid out some pretty explicit policy objectives that a majority of the electorate apparently agrees with. Enforce immigration law and deport aliens who do not have asylum rights. Expand domestic energy production. Negotiate an end to foreign wars and reduce US exposure in foreign conflicts. End DEI enforcement in federal agencies and the military. Drain the lawfare swamp in the DOJ and IC. Increase wages and decrease inflation. Withdraw from WHO and the Paris accord. End federal EV mandates. This is not a definitive list and we can argue about his likelihood of success or whether or not these policies are worthy but he believes he has a mandate to accomplish what he can.

[Marshal]

I think his mandate is:

1. End huge giveaways so inflation remains under control.
2. Enforce immigration law, and quit nonsense like giving handouts to illegals.
3. End frivolous government spending and corruption.
4. Eliminate government participation and support for Dem culture war initiatives like CRT and trans programs.

These are the reasons people not traditionally Reps voted for him.

I don't think he has a mandate for tax cuts or increased military spending, two traditional Rep programs he did not run on.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

True but what is the point of saying anything about a mandage for what he didn't run on. WIth Kamala you get the promised goodies, with Trump you get the man. She is a fool and he is not.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

I still respect Yuval but he is sooooo wrong here.
Maybe he didn’t see that Kamala blew through to $1.5 Billion, th negative polarization is worse post-election. Voting against Harris was of course what voting for Trump meant in almost every case. She is a fool, no doubt. But she is a longtime fool representing the party of fools. Those Catholics for example wake up this morning to BIden giving an award to a woman in charge of killing hundreds of thousands of babies.

IF Yuval lived in my neighborhood. --- Someone put lights spelling MAGA and a flag made from lights ...maybe 3 Biden or Harris lawn signs in the whole damn community, maybe 150 families
Maybe Yuval doesn’t see things morally

[Medulla Oblongata]

1a. Close the border, remove those with deportation orders, deport the convicted criminals, stop handing out free shit to every illegal alien with their hand out, work within the Constitution and duly-authorized laws to remove additional illegal aliens and persuade others from coming the USA.

1b. Undo adverse Biden economic policies (student loan handouts, Inflation Reduction Act orders...). Generally, try to just keep the ship on keel and reduce federal government, or at least not feed leviathan to grotesque proportions.

2. Fill SCOTUS openings with the best nominees possible (must be able to define "woman").

3. Start no wars.

Honorable mention: undo Title IX atrocities; undo federal DEI initiatives in favor of honest anti-discrimination policies; clean house at DOJ, Homeland Security, Pentagon, etc.; eliminate or gut Dept of Edu. and anything else possible.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

Can't say that in fact Yuval clarified anything. Skimming the comments I don't see many agreeing with him. Trump can't claim a mandate but Yuval can declare "not a mandate"...you picks your man and you takes your man as an oracle.

[It's only a paper moon, Nominalists]

We all have our off days and this is Yuval’s.
When you have to tell people their ass is not on fire you should think: Why did they think their ass was on fire ? Yuval reminmds me of the doctors who see a patient in great pain and say “It’s all in your head ! Neeeeext! ” He admits the mandate is almost unversally felt in the Trump voters ( a majority, mind you)

I think Yuval has joined the Woodrow Wilson Club and thinks all the suptid clueless common folk need somebody ---an expert -- to tell them whether their ass is acutally on fire.