Cradarc wrote:To be honest, I'm not that informed about politics. Do any of you know how much power does the POTUS actually have?
I mean, we grill all the candidates on these questions, but at the end of the day, it's Congress that's making the laws. No matter who is in office, they must deal with Congress, and that inevitably requires compromise. Foreign policy also requires a lot of negotiation and compromise. Shouldn't we be testing their communication/diplomacy skills instead?
The veto power is quite significant. I would rate it above even a senator's power, though of course it's not quite apples to apples. But yeah, the president alone has some sharp limits on his power. If there's enough folks in congress that want something different than him, he's limited in many regards.
There's also of course, executive orders, appointments of cabinet members, appointment of supreme court positions. All of these things are very significant, and the SC in particular is a big deal, with long term effects.
sardia wrote:Take lessons from the NRA. Their civic engagement is superb despite their recent fundamentalism.
Their civic engagement IS excellent. But it's not really a "despite". Engaging with the base only really works if you actually represent their desires. Otherwise, it merely exposes you to lots of backlash. The internet has some really good examples of this...folks trying to talk to fans/supporters/etc can get highly varied responses depending on how much the message matches supporter desire.
So, yeah, civic engagement is great if representing them is your goal. If, say, gaining power, and getting money from big donors is instead your goal, then...it may be counterproductive to try engaging with everyone. The added publicity for things that not all supporters like might hurt you.