Evaluate the argument put forward about the presidency by Doug Kriner and Andrew Reeves, and assess potential challenges to their findings

What will be an ideal response?

The ideal answer should:
a. Explain Kriner and Reeves' argument as suggesting that in spite of presidential statements to the contrary, most presidents, especially on budgeting matters, exhibit all the parochial and particularistic tendencies of legislators and that they have little option but to do so, as their electoral fortunes and those of their party depend on it.
b. Discuss how institutional features of the office, such as the Electoral College, keeps presidents tied to local constituencies and that the need for a large number of co-partisans in Congress to pass legislation means that presidents go out of their way to attend to the material needs of those constituents who are most supportive of the party. Illustrate these claims using evidence showing that electorally competitive districts that support the president receive a disproportionately larger share of federal monies.
c. Assess the arguments by noting that although the evidence supportsKriner and Reeves' claim, the claim itself goes too far, and that the politics Kriner and Reeves consider are not representative of all areas in which presidents assert power.
d. Challenge the arguments on two further points: first, our ability to infer presidential preferences and perspectives on the basis of presidents' actions;and second, how it is not clear that a national perspective requires presidents to attend to the welfare of each citizen in equal measure.