Politics and fiat Public and/versus congressional perception Perception of and tradeoff between issues Spin—who controls perception of the plan, and thus shapes public/congressional reaction Media Opposition Party White House Members of president’s party

 Does ‘normal means’ require congressional involvement/action  Obama tends to get credit and blame ◦ Visibility ◦ Psychological needs of the electorate (leadership) ◦ Overstatement of importance in policymaking ◦ Perceptual unitary nature of presidency vs. other branches  Teams often use alternate agents (agencies, congress, courts, other countries) to avoid politics links  Key Question—who will the hurt / benefitting groups blame

 THESIS: gestures that appeal to the other party increase the probability that other legislation will pass  Bipart: Plan fosters cooperation, this spills over to other issues  Olive Branch: Plan is a sop to the GOP, invites horse- trading  Logrolling: Passing one policy “breaks the logjam” that prevents other policies from passing… fosters momentum that transfers between legislative initiatives

THESIS: Presidents lose credibility when they are seen to change positions on important issues Most ‘flip flop’ links describe Bush’s rolling of Kerry in the ‘04 presidential campaign: “I voted for war funding before I voted against it” Has weaknesses as an internal link argument—easier to challenge uniqueness

Is the GOLD STANDARD of politics internals—most internal links can be explained and described in terms of political capital Describes the president’s overall ability to get their way with Congress—twist arms, offer favors, issue threats Key considerations include Is it limited? Does it cross over between issues? Is it replenishable

THESIS: Presidents with public approval are more likely to get their way with congress—congress is afraid to challenge popular presidents This is backed up by a ton of social science-esque research (Edwards et al.) Argument applies to both the POLICY and the PRESIDENT Interest groups can shape public reaction to a policy

 THESIS: Winners Win—presidents that push through contentious policies as being successful (winners), decreasing the chance that congress will challenge them in the future  Health care reform (ACA) is a decent example  Thesis was originally proposed by Norman Ornstein  Argument also works in reverse—presidents who lose have a more difficult time forcing congress into line on future votes

 THESIS: The reactions of like-minded lawmakers to the plan influence the chance of passage of future legislation  At the most basic level ◦ Democrats (unity) ◦ Republicans (cooperation)  Other groups ◦ Dem moderates ◦ Blue dogs ◦ New Democrats ◦ GOP moderates

McConnell (GOP senate leader) Boehner (GOP house leader) Reid (Dem senate leader) Pelosi (Dem house leader) McCain, Collins (GOP senators, centrists)

 THESIS: organized groups react to the plan in ways that impacts the future political process  This can include rewarding or punishing politicians through the use of campaign funding, directing advertising, and other means of exerting influence  Are VERY powerful link arguments, especially because the media and academics like to talk about their relative power  Are KEY on this topic because public reaction to most cases will be pretty minimal  Who are important lobbies on this topic?

Control of House (GOP) and Senate (Dems) is split between the two major parties House: 234 GOP / 201 Dems Senate: 54(55) Dems / 45 GOP Probability of passage of *any* meaningful legislation is very low Hastert Rule (House) Filibuster (Senate) Passage of any major legislation requires at least some GOP support GOP-acceptable bills likely alienate more liberal Democrats Election-season starts this fall and compromises a lot of potential politics arguments

 Immigration Reform  Climate Change (EPA authority)  Budget  Gun Control  Transatlantic Trade/TPA