Sounds cool, I wish you well. Thanks for trying this

Thanks for the shout-out Dave! Political constraints matter in designing optimal policy

📌

Visit Lisbon afterward :)

📌

📌 bookmarking this to come back to again and again

At least in this context, the gamble paid off. A version enacted by Dems would of course look different, but basically Act 10 embodied the @mattyglesias.bsky.social
manifesto point that "Public services are for users, not providers." Our paper shows there's electoral juice here.

Democrats, take note too. The @ezraklein.bsky.social/ @dkthomp.bsky.social Abundance agenda requires politicians to take on special interests to make government work better. It's scary; politicians are guaranteed to take heat for it, & nobody knows if voters will reward or even notice improvements.

The law's rhetoric and substance were focused on cutting public spending - a perennial Republican priority. By doing so in a way that improved the experience for service users, Republicans achieved their policy aim while building up political capital rather than spending it down.

Don't be fooled. We show that even at the height of the Tea Party's performative grandstanding, it was (checks notes) the **GOP** which won votes by (checks notes again) making **public school** students learn more. 👀

First, the paper shows that regular voters really do reward governments that make services work better. This might seem obvious, but it's hard to pin down causally. And lately this idea has become quaint as political discourse is increasingly dominated by vibes and trolling. 🤡

📌

📌

📌