# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Shyla Bisht

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Shyla Bisht

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting that the president does not have as much power as they think, based on public opinion. There is so much emphasis placed on the president when there are many other players who are important, too.

# data[].attributes.body
President Ronald Reagan, who is famous even today for being one of the more charming presidents, and President Bill Clinton, who some say is able to sell anything, both utterly failed at increasing public support for their key initiatives (they may have even done the opposite). Even President FDR's fireside chats didn't seem to change much in the polls. Presidents are expected to make speeches about their legislative agendas multiple times a year, even though data shows these appeals to the people often have little effect; they will be seen as inactive and sluggish if they don't. This is an examples of how many political norms are just that - norms - and don't really mean anything when push comes to shove (campaign promises, proclamations of bipartisanship or moderateness, etc.).

# data[].attributes.body
The article argues that the power of the presidential rhetoric is not as robust as many people, including presidents themselves, believe it is. Though the president attempts to use his position to influence public opinion and set the agenda, members of the opposing party and people who dislike the president tend to look for reasons to disagree with the president.

# data[].attributes.body
This article provides the definition and examples of "overreach," which is the idea that presidents are overconfident in the support they will gain for their own proposed policy, and that this overconfidence actually hinders long-term political success. Presidents tend to enter office with the idealistic goal to drastically transform policy, but are met with party polarization and gridlock instead. In reality, it is extremely difficult to gain bipartisan support for a specific presidential agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
This article expanded the argument made in "The Myth of the Bully Pulpit" and established how persuasiveness doesn't always work out for presidents. The speeches of former President Roosevelt, who was known for his Fireside Chats, weren't as effective as our textbooks say they were. Furthermore, the increasing polarization of the U.S. government has made it harder for the president to convince any member of the other party. Congress is too busy fighting each other and gaining control of the houses to effectively pass policies.

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - Kamila Errigo

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - Kamila Errigo

# data[].attributes.body
Trump's promises and big talk seem to mirror previous presidents' campaigns - the speeches that were effective occur during the campaign, but what happens during the presidency can be unpredictable and depend on how many legal boundaries are pushed, expanding presidential power. Speeches and communication during a presidency aren't effective, and can sometimes even hurt the president's position.

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the misconceptions of the effectiveness in presidential speeches. While many people, including the presidents themselves, believe that their speeches help persuade the public to support their views, research shows that this is not the case. For example, rarely has speeches increased the president's approval rating and caused a legislation to pass. I found it interesting that their attempt at persuading the public actually might have an opposite effect, as the opposing party may have a stronger opposite view on the issue. In addition, I found it interesting that the prosperity of people's lives are the strongest factor in presidential victories.

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Mikhail Mints

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Mikhail Mints

# data[].attributes.body
I found it interesting just how much power the president actually has because of implied powers such as executive orders and agreements. and the amount of changes he can implement using just the executive powers without the support of Congress. While the article described that of course there are checks and balances on the president by the legislature, I found it interesting that it stated that the main challenge to Trump's power does not come from other branches of government, but rather from the leaders of the agencies in the executive branch who might oppose him.

# data[].attributes.body
This article continues on the idea that both the American public and Presidential candidates overestimate a President's power. With things in place such as Congressional gridlock, the two-party system and the failure of the bully pulpit system, more and more presidents are failing to pass any of the policies they had promised to the American public initially.

# data[].attributes.body
This article shows how presidential speeches are not as effective as we might think. Similarly to The Myth of the Bully Pulpit, the author claims that according to the data, the president's speeches have almost no effect on the people. With one percent changes in opinion sometimes for and sometimes against the president, it is safe to say that presidents might be wasting their time. Although the president doesn't get their message through to the people, members of their party are often swayed.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Eugene Gonzalez

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Eugene Gonzalez

# data[].attributes.body
The author argues that the President is largely ineffective in convincing the public in Congress in agreeing to his ideas. Presidents generally have the most success in doing things that the public already wants, but they rarely win over the public on other issues. Instead, the power of the bully pulpit is useful in setting the agenda and delineating what should be prioritized.

# data[].attributes.body
We've only been alive in the age of days-long Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court justices, so I had no idea that it used to be a simple nomination-confirmation process in the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s. I was surprised to read that no Supreme Court nominee had to testify to the Senate before 1925, and that first nominee (Harlan Stone) testified voluntarily. It's likely that judges a century or two ago also entered into moneymaking deals with various corporations and interest groups, but the partisanship that has developed over the last fifty years created a political enviroment where it's expected that Senators with an opposing legal/political view and the media will dig through nominees' personal records to find anything that they can question nominees about.

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Chaemin

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Chaemin

# data[].attributes.body
I found it interesting that presidential power can be extended through various exploitations of implied powers. Executive orders can be used to defy Congress and the public opinion. The president also gets a certain amount of free rein in foreign military affairs because the judicial branch has historically not intervened in those areas.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Kamila Errigo

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Kamila Errigo

# data[].attributes.body
Presidents seem to give speeches and try to persuade people that are likely to be persuaded (such as people within their own party). This adds to the ineffectiveness of the bully pulpit in general, as public opinion won't change when presidents only try to convince people who are already more or less convinced.

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses the misconception that persuasiveness plays a large part in the public support for the president's actions/proposals. Previous research highlighting the effectiveness of presidential speech is often overgeneralized and unsupported, and an extended study with the subject of Ronald Reagan suggested that the president's extent of persuasion even decreased over time while in office. I found the numerical comparisons offered in this article pretty interesting, since it was helpful to see how efforts to communicate directly with the people (such as fireside chats or the State of the Union address) have little to no effect on presidents' approval ratings.

# data[].attributes.body
This article was very insightful as I saw how presidents don't always have the power everyone thinks they have. As other articles point out, Presidents are usually elected for their communication abilities, yet when they are tasked with the communication, they don't get the product or end result they desire. This clear distinction in expectation and reality shows kind of a failure with American politics.

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about how, even though being President gives you direct access to millions of Americans, the President still has very little power to persuade Americans for or against a certain bill - effectively, to change their minds. An especially interesting was the discrepancy between the expectation incoming Presidents had of the power of their rhetoric versus the power they actually had.

# data[].attributes.body
We found this article interesting because it reveals that the President actually hurts their public record by giving speeches and interacting with the public regularly. Instead, contrary to popular belief, Presidents can successfully gain public approval through instantiating programs and policies, or by staying quiet. In a way, less is more as far as communication goes, but Americans will always approve of actions. However, as presidents make more and more speeches about the policies they support producing, it's harder to pass those same policies. While petty, it is understandable that opposing party members in Congress would especially vote against issues the President is vocal about.

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected: What President Trump Could of Couldn't Do - Anderson Moffitt

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected: What President Trump Could of Couldn't Do - Anderson Moffitt

# data[].attributes.body
This article juxtaposes a variety of situations to highlight just how strange the executive power is. While congress can explicitly disallow the president from doing many things, the executive implied powers tend to have ways around nearly every situation. This is something Mr. Trump has definitely found out. I found it pretty interesting that there is so much loosey-goosey power for pushing legislature forward for such a powerful role in the government.

# data[].attributes.body
I took away that when you are running for President, your persuasion is more effective and can help you, but when you are the President, debate and conflict arises. It is very difficult to persuade people with different beliefs, and persuasion is usually only effective to those sharing the same views.

# data[].attributes.headline
Excerpt of Overreach by George Edwards - Jinwoo Kim

# data[].attributes.subject
Excerpt of Overreach by George Edwards - Jinwoo Kim

# data[].attributes.body
This article again mentions the lack of power in the Bully Pulpit, which seemed to be a failing strategy for Obama during his presidency. Edwards argues that the president's power is not to persuade the people, but that they instead have the power to use the already present potential support. There are many examples of this strategy of persuading the people failing, and is now coined as "overreach". One key example of this is how FDR tried to expand the court through persuading the people in order to support his New Deal program, but the court struggle would lead him to lose a lot of support due to other factors.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Mikhail Mints

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Mikhail Mints

# data[].attributes.body
It was interesting to see how presidents have tried to use the bully pulpit throughout American history and that it is very rare and unlikely for the president's speech to have any significant effect on the legislative process. The article described how today using the bully pulpit is even harder because of the prevalence of modern media, which is easily accessible and has just as much power to persuade.

# data[].attributes.body
The author notes that, in general, presidential speeches and other modes of communication tend to not sway public opinion towards his ideas, but they may instead lead those in the other party to be less willing to accept his ideas. Instead, the state of the economy tends to be a more accurate indicator of which party will win the next election. Partisanship has led to a decrease in the presidency's power to persuade because people of the opposing party tend to not want the President of a different party to succeed.

# data[].attributes.body
This article from The New Yorker uses the evidence and conclusions from a political scientist to allege that what might today be considered one of the POTUS's quintessential roles, shifting public policy with speeches, might not be as effective as we previously considered. One thing that I think is especially interesting from this article that even when there might be no clear partisan issue with a president's suggestion of a bill or goal of the government, the parties seem to find one anyway. The conclusion of the article makes it especially clear that deep divides like partisanship and increasing polarization need to be addressed in other ways than simple appeals to the American public.

# data[].attributes.body
This excerpt, despite its various examples, is quite simple in its message. In the grand scheme of presidential politics, the thing that a given President needs to be the most aware of going into a persuasion campaign is his audience. The president - hell, any politician, really - almost always believes that they have the interests of the public down pat. And while it may be true that at the time of their election, they knew their audience like the back of their hand, times and climate change, and it seems that most politicians have eczema (what?). Bizarre political metaphor aside, the excerpt shows that the only way to really get a good policy campaign started is by knowing all you can about the people you try to appeal to so that it doesn't look like you're trying to overstep your boundaries.

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Saloni Bedi

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Saloni Bedi

# data[].attributes.body
Before Presidency, Trump expressed that he would use his executive powers against his critics. For example, he mentioned that he would go after Jeff Bezos's company Amazon for antitrust violations.

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - Andrew Lam

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - Andrew Lam

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about the powers and limitations of the President. I found the implicit powers of the President interesting yet also scary, as the President has many methods to get around the restrictions and still cause an impact. Even though there are actions that others can take to limit the power of the President, the President can still get around these limitations and get what they want. For example, while Trump can't jail someone for criticizing him, he can direct legal investigations against them and cause hefty legal fees for the defendants.

# data[].attributes.body
Many people, even political scientists, believe that the bully pulpit and communication with the public is effective, despite the overwhelming evidence for the contrary. The ineffective nature of presidential communication is clearly shown through today's extreme political polarization - the only people that presidents are convincing are those within the same party who already hold similar opinions. In fact, legislation with little public attention given to it by the president seems to have more success in becoming law, according to the article.

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - Lillian Sun

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - Lillian Sun

# data[].attributes.body
Given that this article was written before former President Trump was elected to office, it's surprising how accurate the article is in predicting what Trump would do. From immigration policies and trade agreements to appointing his supporters and handing out pardons, almost all the claims in the article were spot on. Trump went after his critics, threatening legal action countless times against individuals, news outlets, and even organizations like the Pulitzer Prize for going against his wishes. While many believed that Congress would restrain the executive power, the president's influence goes well beyond his duties, as shown in Trump's presidency.

# data[].attributes.body
Researchers Edwards and Lee have evaluated the magnitude presidential rhetoric has on its recipients. Edwards had found that speeches and addresses are simply an ineffective way to sway the opinions of the opposition. He uses examples from Reagan and Bush, two good communicators, to exemplify that even the best don't succeed. Lee notes that presidential rhetoric may indeed do the opposite. It seems that after a plethora of speeches and addresses, a presidents rating seems to drop. Both researchers agree that in our current form of government where you must gain some support from the opposition, stuff is extremely hard to get done.

# data[].attributes.body
The biggest takeaway I got from this article is how Nixon transformed the political sphere by now making impeachment a viable political weapon. Also, it was interesting how the things like bible reading were only banned 200 years later- showing how ingrained religion is in geopolitics.

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Aishwarya Chakravarthy

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Aishwarya Chakravarthy

# data[].attributes.body
I found it interesting to learn more about what powers the President can extract while still not going against the law. Though the President cannot build a wall or lower/raise taxes without Congress's approval, he could unsign treaties (such as those pertaining to climate change), and stop certain groups of immigrants from entering the country. The article highlights the true extent of powers the president has, and what the other branches of government need to do in order to limit it.

# data[].attributes.body
The article describes how the effect of presidential rhetoric becomes much less significant when the president is in office as compared to when he is running for office. It was interesting to see how the expectations that most presidents have coming in are not reflective of reality in terms of how much their rhetoric can actually influence policymaking. Another interesting thing about this article is how a president makes a speech on an issue, the debate about it can become more intense and divided, even if it was originally bipartisan.

# data[].attributes.body
I was surprised to see that the bully pulpit wasn't as effective at persuading citizens as I thought it would be - after all a president going far for what they believe in shows commitment. It was only effective if the president had the support of the public beforehand, so the question once again arises. How does a president effectively persuade the public?

# data[].attributes.headline
Overreach by George Edwards - Saloni Bedi

# data[].attributes.subject
Overreach by George Edwards - Saloni Bedi

# data[].attributes.body
Edwards does not believe the President has the power to persuade. He believes that President Obama based his strategies (a major one of which was the Bully Pulpit) on having this power, which is why they weren't very effective.

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Jinwoo Kim

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Jinwoo Kim

# data[].attributes.body
It was interesting to see how the powers of the president seem to be very vague with very strict lines that determine what can and can't be done by the president. A lot of it is very technical, and merely changing some reasoning behind an action is enough to allow it. Being able to see what Trump is able to do and the technicalities behind his powers illustrate how strange the powers in our government are.

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Max Vetter

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Max Vetter

# data[].attributes.body
Oh Mr Trump. You were a mean one, but not with quite the power or wherewithal to actually do much. The article points this much out. While there's certainly some dangerous power that the President could wield with his executive position - cracking down with security laws, deporting more immigrants than ever before - his goals are ultimately impeded by the fact that, much like Mr Former President's fortunes, he has to rely on others to actually get them. The executive does not have the direct power to lower taxes, he can't give anyone the death penalty or pardon those who haven't committed federal crimes, and he can't build his wall without Congressional support.

# data[].attributes.headline
Excerpt of Overreach by George Edwards - Shyla Bisht

# data[].attributes.subject
Excerpt of Overreach by George Edwards - Shyla Bisht

# data[].attributes.body
Presidents often come into their presidency with the expectation that they can sway the people's opinions and enact change. Unfortunately, it is not that easy. In order to enact some of their goals, they have to take into account the environment they are leading in and taking advantage of the opportunities in it.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Aishwarya Chakravarthy

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Aishwarya Chakravarthy

# data[].attributes.body
Even though the power of the Bully Pulpit seems strong, it is very difficult to change the public's minds through speeches. Presidents have repeatedly tried the same method to advocate for their policies, but the data shows that only people who already agree with them are further rallied by their speeches.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Dan Nguyen

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Dan Nguyen

# data[].attributes.body
The article discusses how the bully pulpit is not as powerful as thought to be. The data shows that a President should expect failure when trying to persuade their audience. However, it is still important for the President to communicate their beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
The president's bully pulpit may seem like a powerful tool, but historically it has not always been effective. It makes sense that public speeches can successfully rally the people that already agree on the sentiments expressed by the speaker by providing them confirmation of their views. But people naturally tend to ignore or search for flaws in arguments that they disagree with, which weakens the effect of the bully pulpit.

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Nathanael and Freddie

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Nathanael and Freddie

# data[].attributes.body
We found this article to be particularly revealing about the vast amount of implicit powers that the president has. While there are a variety of things that Trump would not be able to do, he has methods to get around these restrictions and push for whatever he wants done. Unfortunately, there is precedent for these loopholes, which Trump has seemed to learn from. We also found it interesting how Trump could rationalize not supporting environmentally friendly policy. Telling courts that the effects of climate change won't devastate Americans for another century seems quite bogus. Is this how other legislation can be opposed? Where else can this thought process be applied?

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Grant Xiao

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Grant Xiao

# data[].attributes.body
I think this article shows how scary the presidential power really is. With power slowly being transferred to the president over the ages, I believe it has gotten to a point where the president is hard to restrict in any way. Thankfully, many of the outrageous promises that our presidents make, such as building a wall, are still limited, but presidents can still withdraw from treaties and cut funding for organizations without consulting congress.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Anderson Moffitt

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Anderson Moffitt

# data[].attributes.body
According to an in-depth study by Texas A&M's George C. Edwards III, the bully pulpit rarely serves to truly sway the opinions of others. This is ironic as nearly every president will use this tactic in an
"attempt" to change the opposition's mind. With such overwhelming data disproving the efficacy of the bully pulpit, it makes me wonder if Presidents use this tactic to try and gain leverage on the opposition, or really just to please their party by aligning with respected views.

# data[].attributes.body
Presidents often have misplaced confidence in their own rhetorical power, especially when they attempt to rally support for issues that are unpopular among the majority. The main conclusion of this article is that the bully pulpit, although believed to be a strong tool for the president to use, does not sway the public opinion as much as one might think.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Andrew Lam

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Andrew Lam

# data[].attributes.body
While the power of the bully puplit seems strong, it rarely causes and impact and rarely persuades the people into agreeing with the President. I found it interesting that modern technologies such as news outlets and social media has reduced the power of the bully pulpit.

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do- Aryan

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do- Aryan

# data[].attributes.body
President Trump's biggest obstacle to power was not the separation of powers, but instead the federal employees who are supposed to work for him. Quite frankly, those millions of people don't take orders from above well. Hence, it is imperative for presidents, including Trump, to appoint and get as many loyalists to work for him as possible, as if that is not the case, then nothing will be done.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Lillian Sun

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Lillian Sun

# data[].attributes.body
With numerous powerful news sources and social media platforms, I understand why the bully pulpit isn't as effective nowadays. I didn't realize that the bully pulpit never had much say in public opinion, even in the past. It makes sense that people only pay attention to what they believe in and ignore other opinions.

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Eugene Gonzalez

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Eugene Gonzalez

# data[].attributes.body
The author talks about the constraints that Mr. Trump would need to circumvent in order to do what he wanted. Mr. Trump's defenders, specifically Sens. McCain and McConnell, believed that the Constitution and the powers given to Congress would help keep Mr. Trump's activities in check. However, the article also illuminated that the President still had a lot of leeway in exercising its power, particularly in executive orders and foreign relations. The article also discusses the power he is granted from the agencies he presides over, as well as their potential to serve as a check if their employees do not act on his wishes.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Unpersuaded - Aishwarya Chakravarthy

# data[].attributes.subject
The Unpersuaded - Aishwarya Chakravarthy

# data[].attributes.body
I found this article to be interesting, as it describes the common flaw in thinking that the main strength of the President is to be able to communicate to the public and Congress. Even though communication is important for the role, the public judges the policies the President discusses based on their party/prior opinion of them, instead of truly judging the policies on their own.

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - Jay Siva

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - Jay Siva

# data[].attributes.body
This article gave a lot of insight into the oversight of the President and what the President is allowed to do under the Constitution. However, even though the article gives the impression that the power is constantly limited, the power of executive authorization does seem to expand the presidential authority a lot. Even though President Trump can't throw someone in jail for protesting him, he can still cut funding from organizations, showing kind of an abstract difference in power.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Max Vetter

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Max Vetter

# data[].attributes.body
The stuff here is unfortunate, but certainly not surprising. In a country where statistically, half your population doesn't agree with your politics, no matter how many rousing speeches you make it probably won't amount to much in changing people's minds. It's a little bit naïve to think that even as the President, you will have the power to sway people if they weren't already on the path to being swayed. The bully pulpit only ever really seems to work when it's a reflection of the people, not when it's trying to change them.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Saloni Bedi

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Saloni Bedi

# data[].attributes.body
The President only successfully uses his Bully Pulpit powers when the public already agrees with him/her. An example of an unsuccessful use is when President Reagan tried to convince the public that more money should be spent on defense. Because a majority of the public didn't agree with this proposition prior to President Reagan's attempt at persuasion, his use of the Bully Pulpit did not help.

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Dan Nguyen

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Dan Nguyen

# data[].attributes.body
I thought it was interesting how Trump was unable to follow through with many of his promises, such as building the wall, because of both the other powers keeping him in check and the many federal employees not having support for him.

# data[].attributes.body
It's interesting to see how different president approached communicating to the public differently and how more communication with the public wasn't always the best way to push forward their narrative. It also shows the fickle nature of the electorate to be so easily moved by things like the NFL or catchy one-liners that Reagan was so known for. Regardless, the nature of the government calls for persuasive presidents to get things down and oftentimes getting the public riled up is the best way to approach it

# data[].attributes.headline
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Rachel Lewis

# data[].attributes.subject
And If Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do - Rachel Lewis

# data[].attributes.body
Congress has handed various responsibilities and areas of authority off to the president over the last 240-ish years, including immigration law, military operations, and tariffs. Presidents today also face less opposition from both the legislative and judicial (the Supreme Court doesn't often overturn executive orders in the areas above) branches. However, each President's actions are easily reversible by later officeholders, which creates a somewhat unstable legal environment that probably doesn't promote consideration of long-term effects.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit comment- Aryan

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit comment- Aryan

# data[].attributes.body
Changing views is extremely hard, and public speeches don't really accomplish that either ways. Presidents need to explore other options and routes to take to accomplish this feat, as it has been proven again and again that extensive communication is not the solution

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Jinwoo Kim

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Jinwoo Kim

# data[].attributes.body
The myth of the Bully Pulpit is that it has less impact than people may think. Bully pulpits can frame issues, and bring attention to certain topics, but unless the public already agrees with the views of the president, bully pulpits cannot change anything. I found it interesting how this “power” that the president has, has little to no use.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit comment - Nathanael and Freddie

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit comment - Nathanael and Freddie

# data[].attributes.body
We think its interesting that more modern technologies have neutralized the President's bully pulpit power by giving more power to other media, like news outlets or social media. These outside sources are often faster than the president and can reach a larger audience. While it may take days or weeks for the president to reach Americans across the nation by travelling, a news outlet can do the same during their daily broadcasts. We wonder how broadcasted interviews and other televised events involving presidents fare when compared to standard State of the Union addresses and in-person speeches abroad when it comes to swaying public opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
I found it interesting how media-frenzy the world has become, and how people vote simply because of outside persona and not because of actual policy. Thus, presidents are becoming great users of publicity and their resources instead of advocating for their low-income constituents.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Grant Xiao

# data[].attributes.subject
The Myth of the Bully Pulpit - Grant Xiao

# data[].attributes.body
Although the power to sway the people through public speeches seems very strong, it rarely has any impact. It is useful in conveying new information and pushing forward new legislation, but when it comes to changing views, nothing usually happens. Presidents should try new strategies of influencing the people.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the way the article critiqued presidency, specifically how presidents become overly communicative very interesting. Presidents win because the American folk feel like their lives are going well, hence they are great communicators, not the way around. There is usually never a communication problem, it's almost always a job problem.