Both sides make excellent points about the most effective means for examining the successes and failures of the presidency, but I tend to align more Skowronek. The main reason I tend to agree more Skowronek is his methods provide a more comprehensive view that considers more factors. Presidents in typical fashion are judged based on character, wins are because of the right combinations, and losses are the wrong ones. In this way of thinking every incumbent can be successful; however, this disregards the temporality of the position. Some presidencies are more set up to succeed than others. Considering presidents as a product of the time and using that as a benchmark allows the examination of the change from the benchmark. Presidents that would be considered failures by leadership and characteristic standards could be seen as successful and vice versa. There are many situations that may increase the likelihood that incumbents are successful. Things like the previous president’s alignment, may change the views the American people have towards that president, especially when considering the success or lack of it. Also, important is the way the institutions are leaning. If the previous president was successful incumbents may be faced with a more difficult starting spot, and the opposite may be true. In these scenarios the incumbent is merely a product of the temporal time, and they should be compared with like situations to determine relative success. The president may be influenced by his character, but effectiveness of that character is most limited or expanded by the situations the character is in. They may make different decisions policy wise, but the president is making decisions on the same things, relative to the four situations the incumbent may enter. Using this method should be the primary method, because in the end it is more accurate and applicable. Determining the situation is the first step then the comparison is easy. It also allows for a step-by-step analysis of what decisions will work in the different scenarios the incumbents enter. Using a character view does not allow for this comparison and merely relies on the policy that is implemented as a benchmark.

            Since the conception of the United States through the Articles of Confederation, and later the Constitution, there has been much discussion on what powers should be bestowed to the upper echelon of government. With the Revolutionary War still fresh in the minds of the framers, and the causes for it, they exercised extreme caution in granting powers to one man and one man alone. One specific power was that of war and the ability to wage and make decisions in it. In the Constitution Congress has the power to wage war, and the president was bestowed with title commander in chief to make decisions in war time should it come. However, clear cut as the constitution may seem decades of technological, economic, political, and military advancements has made what war means different. For this argument I will be taking the CON side along with Bob Baur, because from his writing although some power has been transferred to the President much still lies in the hands of Congress even if it is not obvious.

            The decisions the President makes on waging war or conflicts are difficult ones that must happen sometimes in hours or days. In political time it is a mere snapshot that would not mesh with how Congress is designed to work. Some acts have enabled the president to engage in these spurs of the moment engagements, but importantly they remain obscure enough to allow Congress to make moves from behind the curtain. These “hidden” powers are things like pressuring the president through public, or public support with hidden bills limiting the time of deployment or engagement. No matter what the president does in waging war (constitutional or not) the congress as of this paper has the ability to adjust how and if that war is waged making the usurpation of one power somewhat meaningless.

The electoral college happens to be one of the most cyclical arguments to ever be discussed. Every election especially in the last few presidential elections there have been increased arguments against the electoral college from the losing side. This happens within the party that lost because they feel cheated in some way. The voters feel as if their voice doesn’t matter and that they will be perpetually overlooked. This push for change is strong in the months after the elections, but they quickly die as the instant outrage flickers and the voters prepare for the next election. In a system that rarely changes eventually the people’s drive wears out and they move on to issues they may eventually change. I agree that there is something left to be desired with electoral college system, but I do not think it has to be changed; because every system will have its flaws and the benefits of an electoral college outweighs the disadvantages or outliers.

            The main point that makes me agree with the continuation of the electoral college is the point made by Busch and Shafer. The electoral college is one of the silent blockers of major party polarization. Parties are incentivized to choose candidates that will steal votes from across the aisle by allowing some concessions on platforms. By allowing these concessions more moderate candidates are put forth and straying from the party to run their own is incredibly counterintuitive. In a popular vote system straying from the party lines would be encouraged to gain more votes for the party overall especially if there is the potential for run-off elections. This encouragement of multiple candidates allows for more extremes to win elections through bargaining and other below the board tactics.

            In recent memory, political polarization has become more apparent, and thus more important to notice in all facets of politics. Most importantly hyper-partisanship has created a political atmosphere where slight advantages allow for huge rewards in the judicial branch. Recent changes in process and pushback have made the advantage more apparent and show the president has most of the power in this regard.

            Appointing and confirming a judicial candidate was originally designed to be a joint task between the Senate and the president. The president nominates a candidate and the senate either confirms or denies them. They also added that the senate should act as advisor in nominations. However, recently this advice function has been overlooked. The president often uses their own people outside the senate to search and vet potential nominees without giving the senate a chance to interject. This makes the senate disconnected and disinterested in the nomination process potentially limiting alliance. Currently, if this advice function is used it is mostly symbolic as a decision was already made. The framers knew that entrusting either side the full rights would ruin the checks and balances in place.

For a long time even, there were checks added to enable the senate to remain relevant in this process. However, the removal of the blue-slip system and the filibuster has had the effects of speeding up confirmation processes and endowing the president with more power. The strength of the senate continued to slowly die from outside and inside forces. When the Senate is controlled by one party, they make decisions that will further their party in the short term even if it is not ideal for the senate long term.

When a president makes the nomination the senate technically still can deny confirmation, but this hardly ever happens. Hyper-partisanship has made senators in effect unable to vote against their party. Those that do ultimately end up losing reelections and support. Thus, if a president even has a slight advantage in the Senate, it is almost a guarantee that the nomination will be confirmed. Even nominees with alleged devious backgrounds can be confirmed due to this fear.

This power has evolved from a bilateral power to a unilateral power, even at the risk of damage to the US. Presidents have become more powerful, and they will maintain that power even if using the senate as an aid could be beneficial to the whole country. Conceding any power comes with the risk of losing reelection and party support which is vital in this era.