# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
This article talks about what the president can do with their full power. It's quite a lot, as they have executive orders, directing departments to do things, and other executive powers. I wonder how much they can actually do? From other articles it seems the president technically has power but has a hard time actually doing anything. - Anson

# data[].attributes.body
1. Takeaway: I found it interesting that Obama had to compete with the NFL for views. Although NFL certainly is popular, I would like to think that how the country is running would be considered more important. Evidently, that wasn't the case, and the fact that some were relieved that Obama's views were higher than those of the NFL slightly concerning.
2. I'm curious about how much influence persuasion and rhetoric actually have on public opinion of the President and on voting. Even if a candidate isn't as appealing with respect to goals or ideals, he or she could still presumably win an election through the strength of his/her persuasiveness. If we were to somehow remove rhetoric, how would that affect elections and public opinion?

# data[].attributes.headline
And if Elected What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.subject
And if Elected What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do - The New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
This article was very interesting to read because it showed what a President could do theoretically regarding situations or things that we've seen a lot about or can relate to. An example of this was how Trump, wouldn't be able to jail someone for criticizing him. On the other hand, Trump could direct agencies to have them use regulatory powers against executives of companies that displeased Trump. A famous instance of this is Trump and Jeff Bezos, in which Trump has "...hinted that he would go after Amazon for supposed antitrust violations." - Rick

# data[].attributes.body
This article hones in one the fact that the President's words make little to no difference at all. Yet, is that always the case? If the President is clearly able to energize and appeal to people's fears correctly, shouldn't they be able to make a significant difference on issues? Or is the power of the President's words even more hindered due to the polarizing media and subsequent echo chambers of information that have been created?
- Rhea

# data[].attributes.body
The article taught me something interesting that I haven't thought in a certain way, which is that the use of Bully Pits aren't as effective for persuasion for citizens as some may have believed, including me. This was shown by the presidential historian George C. Edwards III, who mentioned that presidents such as Ronald Reagan who was known as the "Great Communicator" weren't able to persuade the audience in a certain perspective well with Bully Pulpits, and that this happened with all U.S. presidents. What was intriguing, however, was that although Bully Pulpits aren't that effective, Presidents succeeded rallying the public with the use of Bully Pulpits when the public was already agreed with them beforehand. Examples include Obama advocating for the rich to pay more tax, Reagan mentioning that everyone should receive a tax cut, and FDR's views on Social Security.  -Rick

# data[].attributes.body
Presidents seem to overestimate their influence among the general public on the topic of their policies that they want to implement. They typically forget that congressional gridlock and bipartisan disagreements are something that will most likely always exist. This also relates back to how the bully pulpit tactics are becoming somewhat more ineffective, and Presidents calling action to their supporters seemed to result in a failed attempt. It would be interesting to learn about more effective ways to garner public support than the overreach tactics used by Presidents as presented in this excerpt. - Jashwanth

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
What this article tried to convey is the full extent of power a modern president could exercise after being elected. And it ends up being quite a lot, actually. Executive orders, the veto, and appointments give broad and largely unchecked powers to a sitting president. It's less of a question of what a president can do, and more what would hold him back.
-Junho

# data[].attributes.body
1. After reading the article from NYT about Trump, I found it interesting that Trump could have taken advantage of his power and changed a lot of the international relationships. Through reading this article, it felt like there were few checks and balances on the President, in terms of foreign affairs, and can easily influence the executive branch by appointing loyalists in the political positions.
2. After reading the Bully Pulpit article, I realized that the President's words can only have so much influence. In order to have the people agree with them, the issue already has to be majorly in favor. This made me realize that no matter how much they speak to the people, there is only so much progress they can make, if they are persuading the people to agree with their issues. It also made me realize the "Fireside Chats" of FDR are great for creating a sense of camaraderie between the people and the President, and for building some trusts between the two groups, but it is maintained at a casual level.
3. I read the excerpt on overreach by George Edwards and after I think it's interesting that Presidents think the Bully Pulpit is super effective and that, for example, FDR didn't even consult major groups of supporters when proposing the expansion of the Supreme Court.
- Michelle

# data[].attributes.body
So I feel like the scary thing about this is the idea that a president can do much more than we think they can if they're willing to shove congress out of the way and exercise the full extent of their power. That doesn't seem to happen to it's full extent, fortunately, since bypassing congress seems to be a good way to get no more support from congress.

# data[].attributes.body
I find it interesting that the president actually doesn't have much power to change people's minds. Although the bully pulpit is something that people think can be used to get people to do things, it seems it's very difficult or maybe even impossible to get things done. I wonder if there even is a way to convince people? It seems most things presidents have been trying aren't working. - Anson

# data[].attributes.body
1. One takeaway from the article about the Unpersuaded is that speeches and "Presidential rhetoric" have virtually no effect on public opinion and often have negative effects. I also didn't realize that most of Roosevelt's fireside chats had nothing to do with policy.
2. In the myth of the bully pulpit, a lot of the ideas from the Unpersuaded are repeated. If speeches do not influence public opinion, then what does? How much of an effect does media have on public opinion compared to the President?
3. One takeaway from the article "What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do", is that for almost every check on the President that exists, there seems to be a away of skirting around it. I also wasn't aware that Federal Employees had that much "power" to check Presidential actions. How often does that occur or what are some examples?

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
One takeaway I had from reading this article is that while there are institutions of government that restrain presidents from exceeding their constitutional obligations, there are various workarounds that allow presidents to tailor governmental policies and actions towards their personal agenda. For example, although Trump could not build the Mexican wall without congressional support, he could order the deportation of unauthorized immigrants. It is alarming how a president with a bad temper can use their power in a way that is unrestricted by other institutions of government.

-Arjun Jagannathan

# data[].attributes.body
There seems to always be a means to an end if the President sees fit. However that doesn't mean that the means is easy or long lasting. I find it interesting that many of the things that Trump did, many Presidents of the past have done similar things. The only difference is the media has made what Trump did a surprise, like it was something never done before when really many Presidents before him have done similar things. - jennifer

# data[].attributes.body
The article notes that Nixon and Agnew revitalized the tool of impeachment as a way to achieve other political agendas. What role does impeachment play in tumultuous presidencies, such as that of Trump, and how does it affect the future government when one polarizing leader is able to nominate three Supreme Court justices?
- Rhea

# data[].attributes.body
Presidents tend to believe they have larger political influence than they do. They believe they can generate bipartisan support and create new opportunities for change, when, in reality, strict bipartisanship and congressional gridlock are the norm. Nevertheless, presidents can build up support for their policies by discovering and exploiting existing public sentiment and opportunities for change. -Megan

# data[].attributes.body
This article supports the claims of presidential speeches lacking effect on public opinion, and it agrees with the article about Trump that it is even harder to persuade an opposing side through speeches. The article also mentions that every president has overestimated the effect of giving speeches in their campaigns, so I wonder how the presidential agenda would change if the White House knew that giving speeches wouldn't change public opinion in any noticeable way. -Blake

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
It was interesting to read about the extent of the Presidential Power with regards to internal affairs and foreign policy. It was also interesting to see how different each president, from Reagan to Trump, used their Presidential Powers. Although Presidents can have a strong agenda, not much can happen without the support from the people that work for them. For them to get work done on their own agenda, they would need to appoint many loyalists within their staff, who will do what they say. The biggest takeaway I got from this article was that although the President has many powers, some of which can be extremely dangerous, they have limits that prevent them from completely exercising that power. - Jashwanth

# data[].attributes.body
I kind of feel like presidents should have a better understanding of their inability to convince people to turn to their side, in comparison to their strong ability to rally supporters. They don't exactly go on the campaign trail to talk to crowds of people who hate them, they seem to spend more time getting supporters out to vote. It seems like they need to remember that that's not quite what they need when they are lobbying congress through the public.
-Addy

# data[].attributes.body
The Bully Pulpit: The Bully Pulpit seems to be more useful in revealing and spreading the issues at hand rather than actually convincing the people's opinion. It's interesting to see that people's opinions are really hard to sway and the president can't really do anything about it.

Overreach: It's interesting to see a difference of opinion between Clinton and Edwards. Clinton believes that his speech and words were insufficient in persuading the public, while Edwards believes the concept of persuading the public won't work. It's likely that there were elements of both problems that resulted in Clinton's bill not being passed.

Trump: One takeaway I got from this article was that it's quite hard for Congress to stop Trump from abusing his powers, and it's actually the federal employees that mostly impede him. This connects back to the Overreach and Bully Pulpit article about how the public's opinion is hard to persuade. It's going to be hard for Trump to order and convince the Federal Employees to do what he wants.

-Jason

# data[].attributes.body
If elected people believe that he would not be able to overstep his power because of the Constitution. The powers of veto legislation and to appoint gov officers give him a huge advantage. -Lexi

# data[].attributes.body
After reading this article, I understood how big of a role the president plays in international affairs. It seemed to me, that there was less of a checks and balances system when it came to this and the president's ability to make treaties and decisions with these foreign countries. Is this true? What is the role of the other branches? - ananya

# data[].attributes.body
My takeaway from this article was that in our government's structure, it is necessary to have an active and persuasive President that is combatted by a party system. ~ Aaryan

# data[].attributes.body
The article says that "The only presidential democracy with a long history of constitutional continuity is the United States..." It also says that having multiple parties with broad opinions and cross purposes lowered the stakes of such a democracy. However, with growing polarization between parties, will the democracy continue to last?

Sophia

# data[].attributes.body
I thought this was an interesting article, especially after reading the Myth of the Bully Pulpit and the If Elected articles. Here, it talks about the optimism around candidates and their promise to make change to public policy issues, and also the frustration and disappointment that comes when they are unable to meet their goals. I thought it was interesting how they talked about how the Obama campaign believed in the Bully Pulpit and his ability to garner bipartisan support, but unfortunately congressional gridlock left him at a stalemate. I wonder, how should presidents go about bringing the significant changes they promise to a seemingly unmoving political environment?

William M

# data[].attributes.body
The takeaway of this article is first, that a sitting president has almost no persuasive power across party lines; and second, that it's caused by a government structure that calls for a persuasive president, coupled with a party system that actively works against him.
-Junho

# data[].attributes.headline
Are Presidents really that good at talking?

# data[].attributes.subject
Are Presidents really that good at talking?

# data[].attributes.body
I read "The Unpersuaded", "The Myth of the Bully Pulpit", and "And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do".

I thought it was interesting how "The Myth of the Bully Pulpit" said presidential persuasion has no impact on public opinion, while "The Unpersuaded" even brought up how it could possibly be detrimental (especially as the opposing party is more likely to oppose the agenda of the party in power). However, presidents keep using this tactic because they feel obligated to and they're confident that it will bring them some advantages somehow. On the other hand, there was concern that Trump would throw all of this out the window. In comparison, inaction seems better than radicalism.

I'm curious about what these political scientists propose that presidents to do gain more support, or if they think this is as good as it gets.

- Anna

# data[].attributes.body
1: And if elected:
basically, answers the question of "woah can trump really do that?" it says "yea he can" to some stuff and "no lol" to others, basing it off of interpretations of the constitution and the actions of previous presidents. also, while he may be limited by congress and the courts quite a bit he does have the bargaining chips of vetos and appointments
2: Bully pulpit:
despite making speeches to the public to gain support being extremely popular among presidents, data shows it is kind of not effective at all at actually changing public opinion. also, it is even harder today because of the media
3: George Edwards excerpt:
main takeaway is that public speeches/bully puplit just does not work at all. even the largest movement to try to change public opinion has failed. presidents need to stop assuming they will be able to change public opinion on the policies they write and instead need to focus on understanding the current public opinion and write policies in a way that appeals to the people's current views

# data[].attributes.body
Many of the actions that citizens feared Trump would take were not novel. Past presidents had exercised those same powers in times of war or to promote their legislative agenda. For example, people feared that Trump would bar Muslims from entering the country, and questioned his ability to do so. However, a similar act had been done; in the past, Reagan successfully blocked Haitian migrants from entering the US. Although Trump seems to have an insanely radical agenda, some of his plans are not novel and have been put into action by past presidents. -Megan

# data[].attributes.body
Should anticipate failure in trying to move people. They are usually only successful when the public already agrees with them. -Lexi

# data[].attributes.body
Bully pulpits aren't effective and neither are Presidents are persuading Congress or the public. Knowing this makes me curious, if the President was elected for the people by the people, why push policies that aren't supported by the people? Why try all of these fancy speeches that have failed time and time again? -jennifer

# data[].attributes.body
I thought it was interesting how the President's use of bully pulpit may effect the views of Congress and the public differently. The opposing party in Congress may resist legislation the President proposes simply because they are not from the same party. Our Congress is extremely polarized and it is difficult to get things done. - Jaya

# data[].attributes.body
The president's power is to persuade people to do things. There have been many instances that the president has tried to persuade people very hard - visiting places all over the country and things like that - but still being unable persuade people. It turns out the president's power of persuasion is strong, but only within their own party - in fact, more people of the opposite party will not support something if they find out the president supports it. I wonder if there is a way to convince the other party to do something without making it seem like they "lose"? - Anson

# data[].attributes.body
Something interesting that stood out to me in the article was when it mentioned that Americans came to see former president Ronald Reagan as "...an unusually likeable and effective leader, " more so before he left office! I am curious as to why this might've occurred, as well as its connections to Reagan's method of creating speeches. A possible explanation could be that after Reagan's presidency ended, he was seen as more of "common man" that others could relate to due to the fact that he doesn't have the "higher status" acquired when he was once a president. In addition, the formality of his speeches, or just conversations, could be more informal and friendly to citizens listening to Reagan after his presidency, due to again, the fact that he is no longer a presidency who generally tends to act formal and their actions and speaking. -Rick

# data[].attributes.body
I think it's important to consider what factors lead to the conversation about Trump's power as a President. It seems that it is an issue of necessary powers that can be abused by a motivated person. There are quite a few ideas Trump mentioned that he planned on instituting immediately. However, it seems Trump may not fully grasp the extent of the presidential powers and that much of what he intended to do has to be approved by Congress. ~ Aaryan

# data[].attributes.body
How do we expect a president to reach the opposing party, when that party cares at least as much about presidential failure as it does about any one issue? -Addy

# data[].attributes.body
Similar to "The Unpersuaded" article, the main takeaway from this reading is that a president's speech does not have as much of an influence on the public as it may seem that it should. It is interesting that social and conservative media have more of an influence when compared to the president himself, as media is constantly filled with fake or biased news. - Ananya

# data[].attributes.headline
What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do

# data[].attributes.subject
What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do

# data[].attributes.body
Reading this article made me realize how much of a role the president has in global affairs and international relations. As such, I was wondering what the roles of ambassadors, diplomats, and other foreign service workers do, since the President has such a large role in terms of making treaties, etc. Also should the president have such an influential role with foreign governments? There doesn't seem to be a checks or balances system for international relations so does the president have too much power when it comes to working with foreign powers?

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
The President does not have supreme rule over the government and must make compromises to cooperate with Congress. To expedite things Trump would have had to get loyalists into positions of power. - jaya

# data[].attributes.body
I thought it was interesting that Presidential persuasion is not effective with the public. There is work that suggests that Presidential persuasion actually has an anti-persuasive effect on the opposing party in Congress. Presidents still do this because if they don't nothing will change, so it is worth a shot. -Lexi

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
This article discusses how President Trump could or could not complete some of the things he advocated for during his campaign. Surprisingly, many of the things he argues for, no matter how outlandish they seem, are actually implementable in the modern presidency. The Presidents power's span over a wide variety of activities, and other branches of the government, especially the courts, tend to leave the office alone in its actions. The President is even able to pursue their own personal goals and strike against those they do not like while remaining in the law. - Aditya

# data[].attributes.headline
What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do

# data[].attributes.subject
What President Trump Could or Couldn't Do

# data[].attributes.body
After reading the article. I realize how much influence the president has over our international affairs. The article mentioned the many trade agreements, international treaties, and immigration policies that the president can directly influence or pull out of. Although Senators McCain and McConnell said that Trump would be bound by the powers of congress, there is still a lot someone in his position could do, which is a scary thought for someone with such a volatile temperament. The article mentioned that it is very difficult to remove a president by impeachment, which we saw firsthand earlier this year. Should there be more limits on presidential power or would that significantly impair their ability to effectively lead the country?

William M

# data[].attributes.body
I found it interesting that during Warren's tenure in the Supreme Court, bible reading were banned from public schools. I had no idea this happened so recently but it probably was super important at the time. I thought that the separation of church and state was an enlightenment ideal. This means it took us nearly 200 years to actually put that into action. -Will

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
I learned a lot of new things about policy and the executive branch from this article. Why are the powers listed to the executive branch so flexible and why don't the courts seem to interfere with the President when they overstep on their constitutional obligations? It was enlightening to see that the President has a large influence on policy and can pass questionable legislation as long as they phrase their intent in a certain way. -Blake

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting that when running for president, a candidate can simply give a persuasive speech, and win over the public. However, once this candidate is president, it is difficult to convince the public to his side and he can only win if the other party loses, not through his own persuasion. Additionally, it is fascinating that while presidents may think that having a large audience when giving certain speeches means that he will be able to pull them to his side, in reality these people are only watching the speech as they believe it is their civic duty. - Ananya

# data[].attributes.body
It was interesting to note how most Presidents who used bully pulpit tactics, overestimated its effectiveness. It was thought to sway peoples opinions on certain agenda, while instead, it just brought people who backed that agenda together. With the rise of social media, it is curious to whether bully pulpit tactics will become more effective, or less. - Jashwanth Puvvadi

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
After witnessing four years of the Trump administration (as this article was written in 2016), it was interesting to see how many of Posner's predictions came true in the end. For example, Trump did hire loyalists in government agencies and essentially hired and fired as he pleased. Trump also did pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, staying true to his predecessor George H.W. Bush. It was interesting to see that Posner was concerned about how Trump would try to circumvent to judicial branch. He managed to do it by stacking the Supreme Court by getting an astounding three nominations during his Presidency.

- Rhea

# data[].attributes.body
Presidents believe they can unite the public through bully pulpit but surprise surprise they can't. Presidents surprisingly or unsurprisingly suck at persuasion. The article mainly talks about how Presidents should not use this tactic of forcing their agenda and hoping the public will play along. But this makes me curious: what would happen if they didn't "overreach"? Would progress become even slower? Would the public be more satisfied? - jennifer

# data[].attributes.body
It is interesting how despite their strong presence, the President still has a difficult time persuading the public. Media strongly controls public opinion, with Fox news and other conservative media having as strong as an influence as the President. It brings up the question of how other social media may influence public opinion. - Jaya

# data[].attributes.body
How do the presidential updates of today compare to FDR's fireside chats? It says that Fireside Chats are the most important rhetorical presidential persuasion. I'm curious if that really is true or if there is another example where presidential rhetoric had a greater impact. -Will

# data[].attributes.body
I thought it was interesting that the Bully Pulpit rarely changes public opinion but instead works more to rally the crowd when they already agree with the president or whoever is in charge. It's also interesting to see how modern technology and media platforms are, as the article said, "emasculating the bully pulpit." I wonder how effective the bully pulpit will be in this increasingly polarized political environment. William M

# data[].attributes.body
I find it interesting that statistically the power of the Bully Pulpit is not as strong as it seems like it would be. Having such a large platform, one would assume that the President would be successful in changing people's minds on at least some issues, but apparently rather than changing minds it just marshals support for ideas already liked by the public. -Aditya

# data[].attributes.body
The bully pulpit is even less effective in the era of social media and online news, where niche conservative or liberal media have just as much of a voice as the president does. -Megan

# data[].attributes.body
One thing I am curious about is whether or not the use of social media has affected the bully pulpit. Does having access to a digital platform rather than an in person one change the public's reaction? For example, would using Twitter yield the same results as a traveling to a location to speak? ~ Aaryan

# data[].attributes.body
It's interesting to know that the president himself doesn't have much influence on what people believe. But there are two ways to interpret this: is it that people in general are more difficult to persuade than they used to be; or is it that the position of a modern president, in competition with media outlets, is too weak to move them?
-Junho

# data[].attributes.body
1 (trump) One takeaway I had from this article was that while Trump has a lot of power as the President of the United States, a lot of the things that Trump was planning/would probably do with his presidential power were hard to get done. If Trump wanted to get things done, he will need loyalists into the leadership positions of agencies, which in turn needs the cooperation of the Senate. What Trump gets done depends on how willing he is to push existing legal understandings.

2 (bully pulpit) One thing I am curious about is how much of an affect the bully pulpit truly has. It is insinuated through the article that the bully pulpit has a very small affect on the people's opinion, but why is this? Is the affect and presence of social media just too great? Or are the presidents just not an extremely respected figure, but rather seen as more of a spokesperson or figurehead, whereas the people can think what they want.

3 (overreach) one main takeaway I had from this article is that the president isn't as respected of a figure as he seems. While people do acknowledge that the president holds the highest position in the United States, and he is considered the leader and figure of their country, they also understand that he does not shape their public opinions, and the president isn't always right. He is human just like the rest of us
- yatin

# data[].attributes.body
It's interesting to hear that it is hard to change public opinion and speaking out on pressing issues still does not change the overall consensus. I can understand how trying to influence the public can be temporary and not have any affect on the opposing side. -Blake

# data[].attributes.body
It was interesting to see that the examples showed the bully pulpit has never really gotten people to change their minds and only succeeds in getting people to come out and support something they already agree with.

And if Elected_ What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do

In this article, it was interesting to learn how although the President has a lot of broad powers, he does not have anything close to supreme control and he can't even fully control the executive branch. The many federal employees of the executive branch can wield their own power to slow down and stop what the President wishes to do.

Supremely Contentious _ Humanities

This article was interesting to read as it showed how the process of appointing judges has changed. I didn't know how easy it used to be for supreme court judges to get appointed with many of them not even needing to go before congress. Now the process is much more divisive with days of questioning that can lead to them not being appointed.
-Dermot

# data[].attributes.body
Reagan was relatively unconvincing during his time in office with many ideas he pushed for being less supported by the end of his presidency. However, after successive presidents he somehow became more likable and effective. -Aditya

# data[].attributes.body
My main takeaway for this topic was that the president no matter how popular he is, still serves more of a reaction to public opinion rather than an actual shaper of that opinion with his power as a bully pulpit. -Kritarsh

# data[].attributes.body
I think it's cool that the media has given everybody access to express their opinion, partially negating the bully pulpit -Will

# data[].attributes.body
Prior to the rise of social/mass media, what were the main factors that influenced public opinions on presidents?

-sophia