Presidents don't really make policy decisions very often

[Recursion]

And they also don't pass legislation. The important thing Presidents do is hire people, and all these candidates have the same rolodex. I think it's important to keep that in mind sometimes: the difference between one's or another's administration just isn't going to be very big.

[jberryhill]

1. Yup

IMHO the most irritating aspect of US presidential elections are these debates over detailed plans to do x, y or z, as if we were electing a monarch.

[thesquanderer]

2. I'd say it's a lot more than who they hire.

Four things.

One, they have a lot of impact on foreign policy. Just look at what Trump is doing with tariffs, with pulling out of treaties, with ordering troops out (or not), with his E.U./Nato relationships (which may not have changed on paper, but have still changed), with his relationships with dictators... congress is involved in absolutely none of that. Though I would agree that our foreign policy will probably not be very different regardless of which Dem wins.

Two, they CAN have significant impact on domestic legislation. If they are elected on a particular platform AND their party is control of congress, they have some pull to get legislation closer to what they want and campaigned on, especially if the victory was substantial. I grant that, in 2004, W. went too far when he said his re-election was a "mandate" and he tried to push through social security reform, but the reality is, it was bluster, he was trying to persuade people to THINK he had a mandate, but in fact he did not, the election was a squeaker (it all depended on who swung Ohio, and Ohio had its own issues), and despite the victory, he was still largely unpopular (in fact, his popularity was near the lowest of his presidency thus far, and continued to go down from there). If a president truly DOES come in with a mandate, he can do more to influence legislation. If W. had higher popularity and had won the election more decisively, he may well have gotten more of the legislation he wanted. Also when it comes to domestic legislation, they have veto power, and the opportunity at least to try to be persuasive, a la LBJ who had significant impact on what came across his desk. So I do think we may see somewhat different domestic legislation depending on who wins, and how decisively.

Three, they have the power of Executive Order. There are limitations on what those can do, and on how easily they can be changed in the future, but it is not insignificant authority.

Four, they appoint supreme court justices, and we have some "coming due." I'm not sure all the candidates would look for the same kind of Justices. (That's something I'd like to see them discuss in a future debate.) Though depending on the makeup of congress, the more liberal attempts might need to be compromised on anyway. But it's not just the supreme court, as we've seen, there is importance to those appointments up and down the line. I'm not sure how much difference there would be here among the candidates, but I'm not sure it's negligible, in comparing (for example) who Biden would appoint and fight for vs. who Warren would.

I guess I'd say that I agree with the premise that, in the end, the actual changes in our country base on which Dem would win in 2020 will probably not be as great as the debates might make them seem, but OTOH, I not sure we could assume it would be negligible, either.

I mean, you could say all this about the right as well. Forget Trump, who is an aberration. But even among their version of more mainstream candidates, closer to our Biden-to-Warren spectrum, I think there would have been significant differences in our country with a Kasich than with a Cruz as president, especially if their victory had been decisive.

[Recursion]

3. I'd say it's a question of emphasis

An Inslee administration is going to focus on the environment; a Yang administration is going to focus on a UBI. But there's such a narrow window of what any given Congress can actually pass...