Politics and fiat Public and/versus congressional perception Perception of and tradeoff between issues Spin—who controls perception of the plan,

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, states) 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 high poll numbers 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 #1: 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) Brown, Collins, Snowe (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

Key lobbies include:◦ Airlines & airplane manufacturers◦ Automobile manufactures◦ Environmentalists◦ Industry lobbying groups affected by particular

plan actions or changes in modes of transportation

◦ Oil/fossil fuel interests◦ Unions (public and private)

Link arguments are generally about the reaction of different segments of the public to the plan

Link arguments need to be about groups who will either swing (vote switch) or not vote

Internal link arguments focus on the importance of those voting blocks, especially in swing states (CO, FL, IA, MI, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI)

Winning an elections disad is largely about controlling top level (who wins now) and link uniqueness

Differences in the Obama and Romney legislative agendas are tempting areas for elections impact work

PROBLEM: the Senate filibuster rule The strongest elections impacts involve those

policies that the president can change unilaterally◦ China-U.S. relations◦ EPA’s CO2 regulations◦ Mexico City policy/gag order◦ Russia-U.S. relations◦ U.S. stance towards Iran and its nuclear program