SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Index
Explanation .................................................................................................................................................... 3
Midterms 1NC................................................................................................................................................ 4
Midterms 1NC................................................................................................................................................ 5
Midterms 1NC................................................................................................................................................ 6
2NC Uniqueness Wall ................................................................................................................................... 7
2NC Link Wall ................................................................................................................................................ 8
2NC Impact Wall............................................................................................................................................ 9
*** UNIQUENESS *** .................................................................................................................................. 10
Uniqueness – Dems Win (Economy) ........................................................................................................... 11
Uniqueness – Dems Win Majority................................................................................................................ 12
Uniqueness – Dems Win Majority................................................................................................................ 13
Uniqueness – Dems Win Majority................................................................................................................ 14
*** LINKS *** ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Links – Generic............................................................................................................................................ 16
Link – Weakness ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Links – TNWs .............................................................................................................................................. 18
Link – Afghanistan ....................................................................................................................................... 19
Link – Controversy....................................................................................................................................... 20
*** INTERNALS *** ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Democrats key............................................................................................................................................. 22
Independents key ........................................................................................................................................ 23
Independents key ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Independents key- Empirics ........................................................................................................................ 25
Libertarians key ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Tea Party key .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Latinos key .................................................................................................................................................. 28
California key- Democrats ........................................................................................................................... 29
California key ............................................................................................................................................... 30
Unemployment key ...................................................................................................................................... 31
Perception key ............................................................................................................................................. 32
*** IMPACTS *** .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Democrats Good – Immigration ................................................................................................................... 34
Democrats Good – Immigration ................................................................................................................... 35
Democrats Good – Cap & Trade/ Health Care ............................................................................................ 36
Democrats Good – Health Care .................................................................................................................. 37
Democrats Good – Economy....................................................................................................................... 38
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
1
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
CAN BE USED AS AFF ANSWERS OR REVERSE MIDTERMS
*** NON-UNIQUES *** ................................................................................................................................. 39
GOP Wins – Empirics .................................................................................................................................. 40
GOP Wins – Majority ................................................................................................................................... 41
GOP Wins – Public ...................................................................................................................................... 42
GOP Wins – Public ...................................................................................................................................... 43
*** LINK TURNS *** ..................................................................................................................................... 44
Afghanistan Link Turns ................................................................................................................................ 45
Iraq Link Turns............................................................................................................................................. 46
*** IMPACT TURNS *** ............................................................................................................................... 47
Republicans Good – Economy .................................................................................................................... 48
Republicans Good – SKFTA........................................................................................................................ 49
Republicans Good – SKFTA........................................................................................................................ 50
Republicans Good – Cap and Trade Bad .................................................................................................... 51
Republicans Good – Obama Reelected ...................................................................................................... 52
Republicans Good – Freedom ..................................................................................................................... 53
Republicans Good – Prolif ........................................................................................................................... 54
*** IMPACT DEFENSE *** ........................................................................................................................... 55
Impact Defense – Immigration ..................................................................................................................... 56
Impact Defense – Cap & Trade ................................................................................................................... 57
A2: Freedom Come First ............................................................................................................................. 58
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
2
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Explanation
(Great Summary from Emory National Debate Institute)
Congress has a major election coming up in November. Every single member of the House of
Representatives is up for election and 36 of the Senate seats up for election as well. This is an
important part of the democratic process because obviously President Obama can get more things
done if there are a bunch of Democrats in congress with him instead of a bunch of Republicans that
disagree with his general governing philosophy. Currently the Senate has 57 Democrats, 2
independents, and 31 Republicans. The House currently has 256 Democrats, 178 Republicans, and
last time I checked one vacant seat. It takes 217 seats to have a majority in the House.
UNIQUENESS – Right now the Republicans are going to win a bunch of seats in both the House and
the Senate. Historically, the President who is elected loses seats for his party the following
November. So, since Obama is a democrat the democrats stand to lose a number of seats. The
question is really how many will they lose. The uniqueness for the disad argues that the Democrats
will lose a good number but will ultimately be able to keep their majority of more than 217. The
majority is important since they are in the majority they can all just agree on something and pass it
even if the Republicans don’t like it. The Senate will still stay in the majority of the democrats.
Given how few seats are up for election [36] few people think that the Republicans will be able to
get a majority in that part of congress.
LINK – Plan is a decrease in our military. That decreasing the force of our military is what many
people would refer to as a “weak national security strategy.” Obama, as a result of such a policy,
would lose some of the critical support he needs in the midterms. Many of the voters who may still
be leaning towards supporting the Democrats may switch their votes – OR just simply not vote
anymore – because the Democratic party is seen as jeopardizing America’s national security.
Losing some seats in the House and the Senate means that the Republicans might get the majority
as a result of the “weak national security” image Obama would be displaying so close to the
election.
IMPACT – If the Democrats lose their majority then there is no chance that the republicans will pass
legislation to help combat global warming. Most Republicans don’t even admit that global warming
is a problem. The U.S., as the largest economy in the world and the most influential country, needs
to act on warming so that other countries start to act as well. Warming could be really really bad
for the planet as it would possibly make it impossible for humans to survive if it got hot enough that
it started messing up our ability to grow food, the oceans began to rise, or countries began to fight
over decreasing global resources.
Finally, if you are interested in trying to learn how to research your own debate evidence, this is
probably the easiest place to start. You can search for any of the following:
A. Newer evidence for Uniqueness.
B. Cards for the link. As you hear about specific affs – look for cards that talk about whether each
of those affs is popular or not. For example, there are many Asian-American voters in the United
States, how do you think their votes may change if we pulled our troops out of Japan or South
Korea? Could those votes make a difference in the congressional election.
C. New Impact Scenarios. What other reasons would a Republican majority be bad?
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
3
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Midterms 1NC
A. Uniqueness: Democrats will maintain a majority in Congress after the Midterm
elections – every major political firm predicts only marginal gains for the GOP.
Ryan Witt, Professor of Government, 5/10 (2010, " Taking back the House, an analysis of the Republicans' chances in the 2010 ... ",
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner%7Ey2010m5d10-Taking-back-the-House-an-analysis-of-the-Republicans-chances-in-the-2010midterm-elections)
There is still a ton of time between now and election day. Still, that has not kept the experts from making their best guesses of what will happen in six months.
Here is what the best of the best say about Republicans' chances to take back the House: - Nate Silver of
FiveThirtyEight.com has now come out yet with his predictor for the House.
He has written an excellent article comparing 1994 with
2010. In 94 the Republicans were able to take the House from the Democrats by gaining 54 seats. If the Republicans can repeat that performance they will
easily be able to take back the House. Silver's article describes the various similarities and differences between 1994 and 2010. He concludes that a
repeat performance is possible, but hedges on whether it will actually happen. - Real Clear Politics has 22 seats
being gained for Republicans under their "Likely Republican" or "Lean Republican" ratings. However, they also have Democrats
stealing two districts from Republicans. That gives Democrats a net gain of 20 seats. There are then 35 seats rated as toss up
elections and 34 of those seats are held by Democrats. If one does the math, you see that Republicans need to win 20 of those 34 toss ups in order to take back
the House. - The New York Times has a much better outlook for Democrats. They have 164 seats being rated as "Solid Democrat"
with 64 seats rated "Leaning Democrat." Those numbers would give Democrats a total of 228 which is enough to keep their majority. The paper has 30 seats
rated as toss up with with 177 rated either "Solid Republican" or "Leaning Republican." - CQ Politics has 172 seats rated as "Safe
Democrat”; with 35 seats rated as "Likely Democrat." Those numbers alone give Democrats 217 seats, just one short of what
they need for a majority. CQ then has 24 seats rated as "Lean Democrat." On the Republican side, the breakdown is 157 "Safe", 12 "Likely", and 9
"Lean." - Intrade currently gives Republicans a 46% chance of taking back the House. InTrade operates by individual trades.
People buy credits and then can use the credit to bet on a given scenario. The reliability of InTrade as a predictor is constantly debated. I
apologize, but I do not have the time to post the polls for every single House race. If you are interested in any particular race you can check them using the
resources above. Right now polling is available for some of the closer districts. As the election nears I will post some polls on the key races that may determine
who controls the House. For now, polls on the overall ballot will have to do. Here are the latest polls on the 2010 midterms: - Rasmussen has Republicans
leading Democrats on the generic ballot by seven points (44%-37%). Historically that is a very large margin that should allow Republicans to gain many seats if it
holds. The debate is how accurate the Rasmussen generic ballot actually is. For a closer look at that issue you can click here. - Talking Points Memo has a
much better outlook for Democrats. They have averaged out all the polls and Democrats leading Republicans by a very slight margin (44.3%-44.1%). Once
again the predictive nature of this compilation is debatable as most polls are thought to be too favorable to the Democrats in their results. - What is clear is that
most Americans do not like the incumbents right now. According to an ABC poll, six in ten Americans are looking to replace their current Congressman or
Congresswoman with someone new. That is bad news for Democrats since they obviously have the highest number of incumbents running. There is thought
among many analysts that Republicans
may have peaked too soon. Things looked very bad for Democrats just four months
Since then, Democrats have been able to
re-energize some of their own base with the passage of health care reform. What is worse for Republicans, they now
seem more like the "establishment" with their recent opposition to Wall Street reform. The recent stories about Republicans
ago as health care reform was on life support and Republicans rode a wave of anti-Washington fury.
fundraising money being spent at a bondage style, lesbian strip club also hurt the GOP. Finally, the last jobs report was a positive for the Democrats and if that
trend continues they could benefit from a "stay the course" mantra. Right now the momentum is definitely with Democrats, thought there is plenty of time for that
to change. Generally the party in power has an easier time raising money and that principle is holding true thus far. Democrats have out raised Republicans
nearly every quarter and are believed to have more cash-on-hand as a party than Republicans. This will enable Democrats to purchase ads in the closer districts
as the election date nears. As a disclaimer I should mention I only had a 50% success rate at predicting the 2009 elections. Elections with lower
turnouts like midterms and special elections are much harder to predict. This is especially true when you throw in the
wild card of the Tea Party which has a significant influence on many elections. Having said that, barring a major change of
events (i.e. a right-wing terrorist attack or economic boom) Republicans can be assured of gaining some seats in November. The real
question is not whether Republicans gain seats, but how many they are able to obtain. Using the projections seen above, the polls,
and the recent trends I believe Republicans will gain 25-30 seats in the House. This is a very significant number, but not enough
to gain a majority. In the end, I believe the Democrats will benefit from more good news on the jobs front over the coming months. In addition, the
Democrats significant financial advantage will start to come into play. Republicans lack the kind of organization and unifying message
they had in 94 elections. While they may wish for a sequel, at this point I rate it unlikely.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
4
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Midterms 1NC
B. Links –
1. Foreign policy will be a key issue in the election – appearing weak on security or
retreating from our presence overseas crushes the Democrats.
James Fly, Executive Director - Foreign Policy Initiative & Research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations, 1/28 (2010, Does Obama Have a Foreign
Policy?, http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/does-obama-have-foreign-policy
While it is understandable that given the state of the economy and lingering recession, most Americans are perhaps more focused on
their job security than about what is happening in Kabul, Tehran, or Pyongyang, it is troubling that this president does not
seem to have a clear agenda on these issues other than a retro-80s approach to twenty-first century challenges. If the Christmas Day bomber,
growing concern about Yemen, instability in Iran, continued uncertainty about nuclear Pakistan, and the difficult months (and years) ahead in Afghanistan are any
indication, 2010 will be just as consequential for U.S. foreign policy as any year in recent memory with the exception of 2001.
President Obama came into office with a foreign policy agenda that was essentially limited to expressing concern about nuclear weapons and showing the world
that he was not George W. Bush. He has now done the latter through speech after speech in Istanbul, Accra, Cairo, to cite just a few of the exotic venues.
Despite focusing on the former with his “reset” of the U.S.-Russian relationship, the foreign policy challenges he
faced during 2009 were largely thrust upon him by events. Despite several courageous decisions as commander in chief, he was
clearly uncomfortable (witness the Afghanistan Strategy Review) with the issue set he was forced to focus on during
year one. In this very political White House, foreign policy is viewed through the lens of mid-term elections in 2010 and the
president’s reelection in 2012, just like any other issue. Thus, it is important for Team Obama to act tough on security and kill
terrorists (preferably using classified means), but most other foreign policy issues become time consuming obstacles to the pursuit of a robust domestic agenda.
This is foreign policy as a political tactic, not as a grand strategy or a coherent formulation of America’s global
interests (with the exception of a headlong rush for disarmament). Despite the challenges the country faces on the domestic front, it would behoove
the president in 2010 to do what he failed to do last night -- speak more frequently to the American people about
what is at stake overseas and what his vision is for keeping Americans safe and advancing U.S. interests around the
world. Otherwise, he risks being nothing more than a reactionary president doing little more than what is required to
avoid the wrath of the electorate. He runs the risk of becoming an inconsequential commander in chief in very
consequential times.
2. Obama’s approval rating is key to the outcome
Dante Chinni, Christian Science Monitor Staff, 2009 (11/25, What Obama’s approval ratings could mean for midterm elections,
http://patchworknation.csmonitor.com/csmstaff/2009/1125/what-obama%E2%80%99s-approval-ratings-could-mean-for-midterm-elections/
With less than a year until midterm elections, special interest is being paid to President Obama’s approval rating. A few
new polls show him below 50 percent for the first time since his inauguration.
As the president’s support goes, so goes the support of his party – or at least that’s what recent history says. Look at
the approval ratings of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and the congressional results of midterm elections
during their tenures. So what does this mean for Mr. Obama? For one thing, a president’s approval rating is a slippery thing. It can
change in a moment.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
5
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Midterms 1NC
C. Impacts –
1. The Democrats must keep their majority to pass cap and trade in 2011
High Plains Journal 1/29 (Sara Wyant, 1/29/10, " How a topsy-turvy political world got turned upside down again ", google news)
Cap-and-trade legislation also seems destined for retooling, perhaps in favor of a much broader energy bill focused on job creation. "We
will likely not do climate change this year but will do an energy bill instead," said Sen. Byron Dorgan during a recent speech. The
North Dakota Democrat says he supports "fuel economy standard increases, moving toward electric drive transportation systems, renewable energy production,
modern transmission grid, conservation, and efficiency" as part of U.S. energy policy. Dorgan's assessment is that "In the aftermath of a
very, very heavy lift on health care, I think it is unlikely that the Senate will turn next to the very complicated and very
controversial subject of cap-and-trade climate change kind of legislation." Fight, fight, fight Several Democratic Party members expect the
president to learn from the recent elections and hit the "reset" button on his far-reaching agenda. Independent voters
are fleeing their party in droves. To get them back in the fold and re-energized, they expect him to move more toward
the middle, focusing on bread and butter issues like jobs and the economy, just as Bill Clinton did after the Republican takeover of the House and Senate in
1994. Yet, many other Democrats are pushing President Obama to charge ahead with a very liberal agenda--despite the recent Senate loss in Massachusetts
and losses in gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia last fall. It's now or never, they reason, and if
Democrats lose their majorities in
2010, it will be impossible to pass health care reform the following year. They want a fight to the finish, even if there is barely anyone left to take credit.
2. Cap and trade will stimulate the economy and prevents global warming.
Frank, 7/2 [The Choices That Pay Us Back By ROBERT H. FRANK Published: July 2, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/business/04view.html?_r=1&src=busln]
Another useful measure would be a carbon tax — or its approximate equivalent,
a cap-and-trade system — scheduled for a gradual phase-in after the
would stimulate an immediate, huge jump in private investment without the
government having to spend a penny. Why? Investment is currently depressed because companies can already
produce much more than people want to buy. But once a carbon tax was announced, the design of nearly every existing machine or structure
economy has again reached full employment. This
that uses or produces energy would be rendered suddenly obsolete. Motor vehicle engines, electric power plants, refrigerators, air-conditioners, furnaces — all
would have to be redesigned for greater efficiency. The resulting flood of research and investment would enhance our ability to cope with future energy shortages
and would serve another crucial purpose. Taxing carbon could eliminate the catastrophic risk of vastly rising global temperatures
by the end of this century; it would be a prudent act, quite apart from its utility as an economic stimulus. The tax would generate no revenue until its phase-in, so
it wouldn’t reduce the current deficit. But deficits are a long-run problem, and its enactment alone would increase creditors’ confidence that we are committed to
solving it.
3. Global warming results in extinction.
David Stein, Science Editor, The Canadian, 2007, Scientists say Humanity ignores Antarctic melting and Greenhouse gas time-bombs with the price of
Mass-Extinction, http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/02/26/01381.html
Global Warming continues to be approached by governments as a "luxury" item, rather than a matter of basic human survival. Humanity is being taken to its
destruction by a greed-driven elite. These elites, which include 'Big Oil' and other related interests, are intoxicated by "the high" of pursuing ego-driven power, in
a comparable manner to drug addicts who pursue an elusive "high", irrespective of the threat of pursuing that "high" poses to their own basic survival, and the
security of others. Global Warming and the pre-emptive war against Iraq are part of the same self-destructive prism of a political-military-industrial complex,
which is on a path of mass planetary destruction, backed by techniques of mass-deception. "The scientific debate about human induced global
warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public - still seem to not understand the scope of the
impending tragedy. Global warming isn't just warmer temperatures, heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific
understanding increasingly points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction", reported Bill Henderson in
CrossCurrents. If strict global environmental security measures are not immediately put in place to keep further
emissions of greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization
as we know it and in all probability the end of humankind's several million year old existence, along with the
extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the world we share.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
6
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
2NC Uniqueness Wall
We control uniqueness! Extend the evidence with WITT from the 1NC –
And, Democrats will win now.
a. Obama’s coattails
Marr 7/18/10(KENDRA MARR, 7/18/10, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39885_Page2.html, reporter for POLITICO)
Democrats saw it otherwise. Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign said “Democrats
will retain a
majority in the House” in a “tough election.”
Despite falling approval ratings, President Obama is “absolutely an asset," Van Hollen said, as he hits the campaign trail in the coming months.
The White House understands that it needs a "strong majority" in both the House and Senate to move forward on
their agenda, he said. "They also know that the day after the elections, it will be interpreted as a referendum on the president’s policies in the press,
whether they like it or not," he said. "So, we are on the same page.” Vice President Joe Biden, in an interview on ABC’s “This Week,” said he and
President Barack Obama were confident Democrats would hold the House. "I don't think the losses are going to be bad at all,"
Biden said. "I think we're going to shock the heck out of everybody."
b. Financial resources
Zeleny 7/20/10 (reporter for "The New York Times" July 20, 2010, 5:00 pm JEFF A Financial Bright Spot for Democrats
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/
The Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee ended the month of June with twice as much money in the bank as
the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to fund-raising figures released Tuesday, an advantage that
Democratic leaders hope will help protect their majority in the midterm elections. Both parties raised $9 million in June, which was
the most lucrative month for the Republican committee since July 2008. Yet at the midpoint of the year, the D.C.C.C. still had $34 million compared to $17 million
for the N.R.C.C. The financial edge – one of the biggest bright spots for the party – allows the Democratic committee to
invest in more competitive races across the country. The money will allow some of the party’s candidates to begin their television advertising
campaigns earlier in an effort to hold onto their seats in a challenging political environment.
c. Demonization of Pelosi is backfiring
Bresnahan 10 (JOHN BRESNAHAN | 5/18/10 5:10 AM, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37380.html,capitol bureau chief of Politico,a decade
covering Congress,)
Even if Democrats drop by the dozens in the midterm elections, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hold on power will be as
safe as ever if Democrats retain a thin majority in the House. In a smaller majority, Pelosi will be even more surrounded by loyalists,
because most of the losers on the Democratic side of the ballot would likely be moderates and conservatives who have
been the least reliable Pelosi supporters. In interviews with more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers, none suggested Pelosi should be
replaced, and nobody predicted a serious challenge to Pelosi’s authority, provided Democrats hold onto power. Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of
Maryland and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina also would keep their leadership titles in a Democratic majority, lawmakers said, though there might
be contests for some junior leadership posts Republicans who have demonized Pelosi may actually be cementing her hold on
power within the Democratic Caucus. With GOP leaders openly predicting that Republicans will seize control of the House, any failure to do so will
be portrayed by Democrats as a triumph for Pelosi and solidify her reputation as a survivor in a tough political
environment. “The bar is taking over the House. They’ve been clear about it,” Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) said of his Republican counterparts. “So if
they don’t take over the House, I think it’s a big win.”
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
7
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
2NC Link Wall
Extend the pretty FLY evidence from the 1NC –
And, reductions in military presence ensure a GOP victory
a. Empirics
Peter
Wallsten, 2009 (staff writer at the LA Times, “GOP targets Obama's foreign policy”, http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/02/nation/na-iran-politics2 )
WASHINGTON — As
he embraces direct talks with Iran and weighs his strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama is
facing a new political threat from Republicans: Be hawkish on foreign policy or risk letting your party be painted as
weak in next year's midterm elections. Top Republicans have adopted that line of attack in recent days, led by
congressional leaders and at least two of the party's possible 2012 presidential contenders. Their warnings to the president mark a shift in
tone and tactics for a Republican Party that had been largely supportive of Obama administration policies in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The GOP lost its long-held advantage as the party of national security when the public rejected the
policies of former President George W. Bush in the 2006 and 2008 elections. But now, Republican strategists say
that foreign policy could prove to be a potent weapon in 2010. The Republican strategists are poring over Obama speeches, such as his
June address to the Muslim world, that they can portray as apologies for American actions abroad. Additionally, GOP strategists are homing in on Obama's
recent policy shift on missile defense, in which the administration decided to cancel a radar installation in the Czech Republic and ground-based interceptors in
Poland that had been proposed by Bush to protect Europe from Iranian long-range missiles. Obama wants to focus instead on combating short-range missiles
that some intelligence officials say are a more likely threat. Republicans are panning that shift as a unilateral concession to Russia, which viewed the Bush
missile plan as a threat. "The agenda is coming down the pike on national security, and Republicans are going to see an
opportunity to regain the mantle," said Vin Weber, a former congressman from Minnesota who is advising the governor of that state, Tim Pawlenty,
on a possible White House bid in 2012.
b. GOP strategy.
Wallsten, 2010 (2/22, Peter writes for the Wall Street Journal, “GOP Seizes on Security as Issue”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239113219413017.html)
WASHINGTON -- Political
furor over the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 has thrust national security back to
the center of American politics, with Republicans and the White House scrambling to blame each other for
intelligence lapses and present themselves to voters as tougher on terrorism. Strategists in both parties believe that
terrorism and, more broadly, foreign policy could emerge in the November midterm elections and in President Barack Obama's
2012 re-election campaign as key issues for voters who have been focused primarily on the economy. GOP opinion leaders such as former Vice
President Dick Cheney have seized on the attack to question President Barack Obama's grasp of foreign affairs.
Republican Party officials have sent fund-raising appeals that take aim at Mr. Obama's response to the episode. Republican strategists said in
interviews that they saw an opportunity to regain the traditional advantages on security issues that failed them in the
past two national campaigns, as the economic downturn and public opposition to President George W. Bush's policies in Iraq took primacy in voters'
minds. The White House and its allies, meanwhile, have responded by mounting a campaign to assert Mr. Obama's
bona fides as a strong commander in chief while blaming Bush policies in Iraq for emboldening al Qaeda to plan attacks such as the
one Christmas Day in the skies over Detroit. Their efforts include using a White House Web site posting personally rebuking Mr. Cheney for "seven years of
bellicose rhetoric" and arguing that al Qaeda during Mr. Bush's tenure "regenerated" to establish "new safe havens" in Yemen and Somalia.
c. Even if they win it’s a strong foreign policy, it still trades off with more important
domestic issues.
Kosu News, 2009 (12/22, For Obama, A Foreign Policy To-Do List For 2010, http://kosu.org/2009/12/for-obama-a-foreign-policy-to-do-list-for-2010/
Put Domestic Priorities FirstPerhaps Obama’s
top goal will be trying to prevent or avoid any time-consuming international
crises that would distract him from his domestic agenda. The 2010 midterm elections will be all about the U.S. jobless rate, which
stands at 10 percent and is expected to remain high for most of the year. Obama will want to be seen spending most of his time trying to
create jobs at home and getting the massive health care overhaul bill through Congress.“It’s going to be tougher for him on the domestic
front in many ways,” says Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group. “He needs to try to keep foreign policy as much off his
agenda as possible, and he knows it’s going to be hard.”
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
8
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
2NC Impact Wall
Disad outweighs and turns the case –
And, US refusal to adopt cap-and-trade collapses global emissions trading – that
market is key to the world economy
Harvey & Kirchgaessner '8 (Fiona and Stephanie writers for Financial Times, "Carbon Clincher; America weighs an emissions mechanism,"
Financial Times June 18 http://www.energycommission.org/ht/display/ArticleDetails/i/6249)
Devoid of American participation, the international market in carbon dioxide emissions is a partly formed creature
whose health remains uncertain. When President George W. Bush took office he refused to ratify the United Nations' Kyoto protocol on climate
change and attempts to set up a domestic system of trading emissions have been thwarted. But with Mr Bush's departure next January, that is likely to change.
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have pledged to introduce a federal carbon trading system if they succeed him. Though a proposal for such a system
failed to secure enough support for a vote in the Senate this month, many think it will return successfully under a new administration. If so, that
would do
more than anything to propel this obscure market into becoming one of the most important elements in world trade influencing the price of oil, gas, electricity and more. "It would have a very big effect," says Henrik Hasselknippe, director at Point
Carbon, a carbon market analysis company. "It would be a huge event." Carbon trading elsewhere has been growing solidly since 2005, when the European
Union started its trading system and the Kyoto protocol came into effect. Last year the market was worth about $64bn (£33bn, €41bn) according to the World
Bank, more than doubling from $31bn in 2006. Yet the value would soar to more than $3,000bn a year by 2020 if the US introduced carbon trading, Point Carbon
estimates. The
US, the world's biggest annual emitter of greenhouse gases until overtaken by China last year, would
account for about two-thirds of the total. "The market is already preparing for a new policy shift," says Paul Newman,
managing director of Icap Energy, an energy trader, in London. "US participation really does matter." The investment in carboncutting technologies that would be stimulated by a global carbon price could also benefit the world's
economies, according to Mitchell Feierstein of Cheyne Capital, the fund management company. He predicts that
carbon trading legislation will lead to the "development of numerous ancillary climate- change-related businesses,
which will provide an immeasurable boost to the global economy that may prove to be bigger than the tech boom".
Conversely, it could prove fatal for the carbon market if the US shunned carbon trading for much longer. The European Union's bloc-wide emissions trading
scheme would be in danger, as businesses and politicians would clamour for a more competitive basis with US industry, says Mr Hasselknippe, adding: "It's
critical for the carbon market to get the US involved in the long run." Worse, without US approval a successor
to the Kyoto protocol - the main provisions of which expire in 2012 - is unlikely, threatening to end a flow of carbon
trading investment from rich to poor countries.
Global nuclear war
Mead 09 (Walter Russell, “– Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations Only Makes You Stronger,” The
New Republic, 2/4/09,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)
History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If
financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the
Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution;
the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad
economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German
public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching
toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back
on track, we may still have to fight.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
9
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** UNIQUENESS ***
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
10
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Uniqueness – Dems Win (Economy)
Democrats will win now.
Ogle 7/18/10, AFP, Biden says Democrats will 'shock' everyone in midterms,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jB2FhVbAaGzdHa1PofeVW0DadAOg
Vice President Joe Biden
brushed aside suggestions on Sunday that Democrats will suffer big losses in November midterm
elections, vowing that Barack Obama's governing party will "shock the heck out of everybody." Speaking on the ABC News
program "This Week," Biden dismissed prevailing wisdom that Democrats, 17 months into Obama's transformative residency in the White House, would suffer a
drubbing at the hands of salivating Republicans. "I don't think the losses are going to be bad at all," Biden said. "I think we're going to shock the heck out of
everybody." Biden said he was "confident when people take a look at what has happened since we've taken office in November and comparing it to the
alternative, we're going to be in great shape." The
vice president said he believes the Obama administration will get credit from
voters for helping guide the economy out of recession and passing key legislation on health care and financial reform .
"It's just going to take time," Biden said. "The election is not until November. And I think we're going to have to firmly make our
case." Obama has launched into campaign mode in recent weeks, hoping to transform the spectacular grassroots
support from Democrats and independent voters which propelled him to the presidency in 2008 into a full-bodied
platform for his party in the upcoming congressional races. In a swing through western states earlier this month,
Obama sought to brand Republicans as extreme and incompetent, reminding voters the party were in charge when
the economy pitched into the deepest recession since the 1930s. "I think we can make it and especially in the context of who's going to be
opposing us," Biden said Sunday. "Compared to the alternative, I think we're going to get a fair amount of credit by November and I think
we're going to do fine."
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
11
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Uniqueness – Dems Win Majority
Democratic Leaders are certain of victory.
The Associated Press 7/18/10 (The Associated Press (“AP”) is the essential global news network, delivering fast, unbiased news from every
corner of the world to all media platforms and formats. 07/18/10 Democrats say they will keep control of Congress
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOYZ65LhDAYP92JtRaA2cgyUppaAD9H1GNVO0)
WASHINGTON — Democratic lawmakers leading their party's election efforts are predicting
Democrats will retain control
of Congress this fall. GOP leaders are looking to a strong Republican showing amid voter anger over one-party government. Republican Rep. Pete
Sessions of Texas says he thinks the GOP will have a net gain of just over 40 seats, enough for a House majority. In the Senate, Republican John Cornyn of
Texas says it's anybody's guess which party will be in control after fall elections. Democrats
in charge of election efforts, Sen. Robert
Menendez of New Jersey and Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, say their party will win out. The lawmakers appeared
Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Democrats are confident in keeping their majority of the house
Mamula 7/20/10(Sarah Mamula, Tuesday, July 20, 2010, http://www.talkradionews.com/news/2010/7/20/hoyer-democrats-will-keep-the-house.html)
Despite increasing doubt over the Democrats’ ability to keep their majority past November, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (DMd.) remains confident. “We will hold the House,” he stated firmly during his weekly briefing with reporters. Hoyer and other Democrats are using a sound bite from Rep.
Pete Sessions (R-Texas), Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, who said just days ago on Meet The Press, “We need to go back to the exact same [Bush] agenda.” Hoyer predicted the
American public would not vote for the “Bush fail policies.” “I don’t think that’s what the American people wanna do,” he said. “I’m convinced that they don’t wanna do that. They want
[Democrats] to continue to create jobs and grow the economy.” Hoyer promoted what he called the “Make It In America” agenda. According to the Majority Leader,
the goal of the agenda is to encourage people to make goods and to expand manufacturing in the United States. “If we make it in America, in terms of products, more people will make it in America in terms of
opportunity and success,” said Hoyer. The agenda includes about 20 bills and would include tax benefits for companies, however, Hoyer stressed that exact numbers and dollars are yet to be discussed. When asked
about the biggest problem facing the Democrats this fall, Hoyer said it was inheriting “the worst economy in threequarters of a century.” He repeatedly spoke of the success the Obama Administration has had with a Democratic
majority when it comes to addressing the struggling job market. “Over the last 6 months, we have had over 700,000 new jobs created as opposed to losing
786,000 jobs in…the last month of the Bush administration.”
“The American public gets it. They know that President Obama inherited the worst economy of any
president in their lifetime,” he added.
Democrats will definitely hold the majority after midterms
Newmyer 10(Tory Newmyer Roll Call Staff Feb. 9, 2010, 8:16 p.m., http://www.rollcall.com/news/43160-1.html)
Speaker Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.) is literally laughing off the suggestion House Democrats could lose their majority in the
top House Democrat said her party would “definitely” retain control of
the chamber and emerge from the November balloting with “much more than a simple majority.” That was a rosier view than
midterm elections. In an interview with Roll Call Tuesday, the
the one offered last month by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), when he told an interviewer he would consider Democrats successful if they simply managed
to outnumber Republicans after the elections. The assessment comes as political forecasters hike their predictions of Democratic losses and begin to discuss the
possibility — remote but real — that the party could actually lose enough seats to cost them the majority. But Pelosi, Speaker since Democrats assumed House
control in January 2007, also made clear she is gearing up for a tough midterm battle in which she intends to scrap for each of her incumbents. “We
will not
be taken by surprise,” she said emphatically, echoing a pledge her lieutenants have made to not repeat Democrats’ mistake in 1994 when the GOP
caught them napping amid a rising tide of voter anger and swept them from power. “I am not yielding one grain of sand. My responsibility is to protect and
preserve my incumbents and that’s what I intend to do… I’m fighting for every seat.” Pelosi alluded to her own fundraising prowess — she had helped
bank $21.3 million for House Democrats as of late last month, an internal fundraising tally showed — in making the case that her candidates would have all the
resources they need. It’s one category where Democrats have a commanding edge over Republicans, having stashed $16.7 million in cash
on hand through the end of the year to $2.7 million for the National Republican Congressional Committee, the GOP’s campaign arm.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
12
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Uniqueness – Dems Win Majority
Republicans won’t take over.
Johnson 7/17/10 (Geoff Johnson, Jul 17th, 2010, http://www.gcadvocate.com/2010/07/midterm-and-long-term-electoral-prospects/)
There is no ques-tion that the 2010 midterm
elec-tions are going to be fairly bru-tal for the Demo-c-ra-tic Party. While there are a
president’s party usu­ally loses con­gres­sional seats at midterm elec­tions, and
the econ-omy is still largely in sham-bles, par-tic-u-larly with respect to employ-ment lev-els (which is what vot-ers are noticing). Repub-li-cans need to
pick up 39 seats to cap-ture the House of Rep-re-sen-ta-tives, and with over 60 Demo-c-ra-tic seats in play and very high voter enthu-si-asm
among Repub-li-cans and Republican-leaning inde-pen-dents, there is a good chance that John Boehner will be the next Speaker of the House. It’s also
pos-si-ble for the Repub-li-cans to take power in the Sen-ate, though that seems to be sig-nif-i-cantly less likely. It’s
num-ber of rea-sons for this, two are cen-tral: the
fairly cer-tain, how-ever, that the Democ-rats will lose at least sev-eral seats in the upper cham-ber where they are obvi-ously hav-ing enor-mous trou-ble
pass-ing leg-is-la-tion as it is.
Republicans taking Midterms is less than likely
Barr 10(ANDY BARR, 1/5/10 9:24 AM, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31163.html,reporter for POLITICO,)
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele predicted Monday night that the GOP will not regain control of
the House in the 2010 midterm elections.
Steele said during an interview with Fox News’s Sean Hannity that Republicans will see some “nice pick-ups in the House” but would not
predict the number of seats the GOP will win. “I can't give a number yet,” Steele said. “We are just now beginning to look at races.”
Asked if Republicans will retake the House, Steele responded: “Not this year.” Steele added: “We still have vacancies that need to
get filled. “If we do that, are we ready? I don't know. That's what I'm assessing and evaluating now.”
While Steele was less than confident that Republicans could take back power in Congress in 2010 , he did say that
conservatives have been presented with an excellent opportunity this year to build momentum. “I don't think there is a better moment for conservatives than right
now,” he said. “I think this is an opportunity for us to speak truth to power in a way in which we are leading not obstructing, but giving Americans the pathway they
need to self-empowerment.”
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
13
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Uniqueness – Dems Win Majority
Democrats will retain majority of House & Senate.
Memoli 10 (Reporter at Tribune Company Former White House Reporter at Real Clear Politics Campaign Reporter at NBC News Senior Writer at The
Hotline Mike July 14 2:45 PM Gibbs: Democrats will retain Majority Web
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2010/07/gibbs_democrats_will_retain_ma.html
Clarifying remarks that have angered some Congressional Democrats, White House press
secretary Robert Gibbs said today that the
party will hold its majorities in the House and Senate after November elections. Gibbs, speaking at today's White House briefing,
said he has not spoken with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi or heard from other leaders about his statement on "Meet The Press" Sunday that, "There's no doubt
there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control." Asked about reports that Pelosi was furious with him, the presidential spokesman
said the speaker's opinion matters to him. "Let's be clear that the work that the House and the speaker have done over the past
18 months in making tough choices and making tough votes and in passing the agenda of this president have -- have
been monumental," he said, a comment that seemed meant to acknowledge the concerns of House Democrats
specifically that they were being left in a lurch. He then made a new prediction. "There are a whole host of issues
that will be worked on in the next couple weeks that will highlight the choices that voters will have. And I think in that
choice, we are going to do very well. And I have said throughout this, I think we will retain the House and the Senate," he
said. Gibbs said he had a "cordial" relationship with Speaker Pelosi, and would welcome an opportunity to discuss any concerns she had with her. Asked later if
he would have phrased Sunday's comments differently if he knew they would spark such a reaction, Gibbs said: "Of course." House Democrats are set to meet
with President Obama this evening to discuss the legislative agenda.
Republicans will not win the Midterms
Connor 10(Brian O'Connor, February 8, 2010, http://reddogreport.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/why-republicans-will-lose-in-2010/)
.John
Boehner, the GOP minority leader in the House of Representatives and his Republican counterpart in the Senate Mitch Mitch McConnell
are expecting big gains in the 2010 mid-term elections (dare they hope for a majority?), but here are 5 reasons why the Democrats will
maintain their hold on power.
1) Economy - Although jobs creation has lagged behind, GDP was up in the final 2 quarters of 2009 and is projected to grow at a 2.6% rate for 2010. The US economy will not be surging into the
stratosphere, but will certainly better than the previous 4 quarters of downturn. Unless there is a major scandal, the incumbent party usually benefits from economic growth .
Advantage: Democrats.
2) Jobs – Every economist and every government report tells us that although the economy is expanding, very few new jobs are being created. The problem here is two-fold. First, because this economic
downturn has lasted so long, many of those on unemployment have reached the end of their benefits and are beginning to fall of the rolls. In January, jobless numbers increased, but the overall rate of
unemployment dropped from 10% to 9.7 %. Although the number of people unemployed/underemployed remained at 17.6%, the Department of Labor reports unemployment numbers, which will continue to decline
as workers run out of benefits.
Second, the Census is coming! The US Government is going to hire upwards of 2.5 Million people to count their neighbors. The White House will blatantly flout these numbers to “prove” that the Stimulus plan
The result, big numbers for jobs created and a dramatic lowering of the unemployment numbers and a smiling
President to take all the credit.
Advantage: Democrats.
3) Focus – When President Obama took office in January of 2009, the Democrats held a majority in the House , and a
filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Democrats had the ability to pass any bill that they wanted without even one vote from a
Republican. With no need for their support, the Democrats basically locked the GOP out of all legislative discussion and debate . The Republicans were able to sit on the
sidelines, pointing out every flaw in the Democrat’s plans. After their love-fest in the beginning of 2009, the press ran out of accolades for the Obama White House and
worked.
began to join in with the Republicans, sniping at the details of the Majority’s plans.
Fast forward to January 2010 and suddenly the balance of power has changed. Scott Brown (R) upset Martha Coakley (D) to take Ted Kennedy’s seat in the Senate and the filibuster-proof majority was no more.
David Pouffe, the Democrat strategist who was the architect of Obama’s campaign
plan is to stop the Republicans from sniping at the Democrat’s plans by inviting the GOP to the table. He wants
Suddenly the White House needs at least one Republican vote in the Senate to get their agenda passed. Enter
strategy. His
Messers Boehner and McConnell to offer Republican alternatives, if only to tear apart their ideas and then to use that criticism to define the GOP in the 2010 mid-term elections.
The press, after a year of nobody to tear down but Democrats for more than a year, smells fresh blood. They are
ready, willing and able to tear apart anything that the party of no has to offer.
Advantage: Democrats.
4)
Momentum – Recent elections in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts show that, at the moment, ALL of the momentum belongs to the Republican Party. The problem though is that the elections
ebbs over time and the press loves to knock the front-runner down a peg or two. As the press
and the American people begin to focus more and more on the Republicans, the luster will wear off. Will there be any shine left for
are in November, not today. Momentum
the November Elections?
Advantage: Democrats.
5)
Candidates – Time will tell which party has the best candidates. All elections are local. If the GOP wants rely on the current downturn in the President’s popularity to elect their candidates, they may
The only way that they can take advantage of their current political momentum is to vet and run
strong candidates on issues that resonate with the voting public.
be in for a serious upset in 2010.
Advantage: Unknown.
It is far too early for Republican’s to begin counting gained seats in 2010. Life in the GOP is about to get much
tougher.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
14
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** LINKS ***
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
15
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Links – Generic
Fears mean voters punish Dems
Stuart Rothenberg 2009, “Should Democrats Worry About Obama Disconnect in 2010?,”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/should_democrats_worry_about_o.html)
Their fear is that even if Obama remains personally popular, voters will not look kindly on their party's candidates for
Congress and governor if the economy remains weak and the public mood is sour and frightened. And even if the economy
is showing signs of life, public concern over the deficit, taxes or cultural issues could drive turnout among voters wanting - you guessed it - change. The
concern is well-founded, and you don't have to believe me to take this danger seriously. Here is what noted
Democratic pollster/strategist Stanley Greenberg wrote in his article "The Revolt Against Politics" in the Nov. 21, 1994, issue
of "The Polling Report," just two years into a Democratic president's first term and only weeks after a midterm
election in which the GOP gained more than 50 House seats and won control of the House for the first time since the
1950s:Voters this year voted against Democratic-dominated national politics that seemed corrupt, divisive and slow to
address the needs of ordinary citizens. In that, they were voting their disappointment with the spectacle of a Democratic president and a
Democratic Congress promising change, but seemingly unable to produce it. Many voted to change a government that spends too much and accomplishes too
little, and to shift the public discourse away from big government solutions." Midterm
elections are about anger, so if there isn't any,
incumbents of both parties do just fine. But if there is some - watch out. Blaming the previous administration works for six months or a
year, but after that, it's a much tougher sell. In focus groups in Macomb County, Mich., and Riverside, Calif., Greenberg wrote in his article, "one hears an
electorate acutely conscious that the Democrats came to power promising change, but produced only turmoil." t's not hard to imagine some voters feeling that
very same way next fall, especially if the Obama administration continues to spread itself so thin by dealing with an endless number of problems, yet solving
none. As for the issue of corruption that Greenberg referred to in 1994, it, too, could be a problem for Democrats next year.Democratic operatives are still
regurgitating old e-mails trying to hang Jack Abramoff around the necks of GOP candidates, but how will those same operatives deal with Democratic Reps.
Charlie Rangel (N.Y.), John Murtha (Pa.), Eliot Engel (N.Y.), Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Alan Mollohan (W.Va.), all of whom have their own issues to deal with, to
say nothing of the tax problems of Obama Cabinet nominees? Republicans aren't likely to give Democrats a free pass on ethics nationally. Later in his 1994
article, Greenberg made another crucial point that is certain to be applicable for 2010: "Democrats lost ground because of the composition of those who went to
the polls." The makeup of the midterm electorate always differs from that in a presidential year, and next year's
electorate will be less sympathetic to Obama and Democrats. The 2010 electorate is likely to be less black than was
the electorate of 2008, and it's almost certain to be older. Given those factors, it's also likely to be at least a bit more
Republican.
Weak on national security crushes Dems in the midterm
Karl Rove in 2009 (11/11, former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush. Karl Rove, “'A Referendum on This White
House': Obama's plan to nationalize the midterm elections may backfire,” Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704402404574529583347899774.html
Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia governors' races last week—despite eight campaign appearances in the two states by
President Barack Obama—have unnerved Democrats. Over the weekend, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod tried to
calm jittery Democrats who might go wobbly on the president's ambitious agenda by telling NBC's Chuck Todd that
next year's congressional elections will be "nationalized." Because they "will be a referendum on this White House,"
he said, voters will turn out for Mr. Obama. Mr. Todd summed up Mr. Axelrod's plans by saying, "It's almost like a
page from the Bush playbook of 2002." I appreciate the reference. Only two presidents have picked up seats in both houses of
Congress for their party in their first midterm elections. One was FDR in 1934. The other was George W. Bush in 2002,
whose party gained House seats and won back control of the Senate. But those midterm elections might not be a
favorable comparison for this White House. The congressional elections were nationalized seven years ago largely
because national security was an overriding issue and Democrats put themselves on the wrong side of it by, among
other things, catering to Big Labor. At the time, there was a bipartisan agreement to create the new Department of
Homeland Security. Democrats insisted that every inch of the department be subject to collective bargaining. They
pushed for this even though sections of every other department can be declared off-limits to unionization for national security reasons. What Democrats
wanted was shortsighted and dangerous. Voters pounded them for it.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
16
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Link – Weakness
Strong stance on foreign policy key to Dems winning midterms
Glen Greenwald 3/11/2010, “Carville/Greenberg strategists and national security”,
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/11/democrats)
Earlier this week, a new poll and accompanying "strategic analysis" was released by Democracy Corps (the
Democratic firm founded by James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Bob Shrum), co-sponsored by Greenberg Quinlan
Rosner ("GQR") and the "centrist" Third Way. It spat out decades-old, warmed-over, fear-driven conventional
wisdom: Democrats are in danger of being seen as Weak on National Security and Terrorism, etc. etc., and
specifically warned of the dangers from abandoning Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies (while suggesting ways for
Democrats to appear Strong when they do). In response, Andrew Sullivan rightly urged caution about taking seriously any such analysis from
this inside-Washington, "centrist"-Democratic faction, because -- as he put it -- "they always, always reeked of fear"; have been dominated by a "refusal to stand
up against the Cheneyite right on critical matters such as national security and American values"; and "very few represent that kind of politics more than Jim
Carville, Stan Greenberg and, yes, Rahm Emanuel, still traumatized after all these years." Today, Jeremy Rosner of GQR wrote an email strenuously objecting to
Sullivan's claims ("I have never, ever believed or advised that Democrats should 'cede national security' to the Republicans, and neither has my partner Stan
Greenberg, or my friends James Carville and Rahm Emanuel"). He quotes from several memos issued by that faction -- mostly from 2006-2009 -- urging
Democrats to exploit various national security weaknesses of Bush and the GOP, along with one from late 2003. Obviously -- as support for the Iraq War
crumbled and the public began doubting the GOP 's national security approach -- these strategists advised Democrats to exploit that change in public opinion
(November, 2007: "For the first time in decades, national security has become a potentially winning issue for Democrats"). A child would have known to do
that; that oh-so-bold advice proves nothing. But when it actually matters -- back in 2002, as Bush was pushing for the invasion of Iraq, and now -- James Carville
and Stan Greenberg (along with chronic loser Bob Shrum), as part of Democracy Corps, did exactly what Sullivan described (and what Rosner astoundingly
denies they ever did). Contrary to Rosner's claim that Democracy Corps' memos are available online, all memos prior to 2007 are archived on a site that
appears to be not publicly accessible, but no matter: for years, Digby has been chronicling the central (and quite effective) role played by Carville/Greenberg in
urging Democrats to capitulate to Republicans on national security. In 2002, shortly before the Congressional vote on Iraq,
Carville/Greenberg/Shrum distributed a memo to Democrats advising them that the most politically productive course
would be to support the AUMF so that Iraq was off the table for the midterm elections, and the focus would instead
be on domestic issues, where Democrats were stronger -- exactly the fear-driven, profoundly immoral and
excruciatingly stupid advice which Congressional Democrats followed. From their 2002 memo:This decision [the Iraq vote] will take
place in a setting where voters, by 10 points, prefer to vote for a Member who supports a resolution to authorize force (50 to 40 percent).2 In addition, we found
that a Democrat supporting a resolution runs stronger than one opposing it. For half the respondents, we presented a Democratic candidate supporting the
resolution. Among these voters, the generic congressional vote remained stable, with the Democrats still ahead by 2 points at the end of the survey. In the other
half of the sample, we presented a Democrat opposed to the resolution. In this group, the Democratic congressional advantage slipped by 6 points at the end of
the survey.[...]The debate and vote on the resolution will bring closure on the extended Iraq debate that has crowded out the country’s domestic
agenda as Congress concludes. But there is substantial evidence, as we indicated at the outset, that voters are very ready to turn to domestic issues. It is
important that Democrats make this turn and provide a compelling reason to vote Democratic and turn down the Republicans.In this survey, we tested two
message frameworks – one offers a transition to the domestic agenda ("We need independent people in Washington who will be a check on what is going on and
pay attention to our needs at home") and one focuses on corporate influence ("Washington should be more responsive to the people and less to big corporate
interests"). Both frameworks defeat the Republican alternative that begins with support for the President’s efforts on security.The memo did say that the
Iraq vote was one of conscience and provided some strategic advice for those who intended to vote against it, but most key Democrats (including Carville's
patron, Hillary Clinton, 2004 presidential nominee John Kerry and vice presidential nominee John Edwards) followed their advice perfectly -- they "supported the
President's efforts on security" by voting for the invasion of Iraq. In fact, it is clear that both Edwards as well as John Kerry -- guided by Shrum as his campaign
manager -- voted for the Iraq War at least in part due to this strategic advice: The 2004 election proved that the Democratic Party needs leaders -- not poll-driven
consultants, who too often sacrifice principle for what appears expedient.For example, Kerry voted for Bush's Iraq war resolution, following the "guidance"
offered by Democracy Corps, a non-profit "dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people."On October 3,
2002, prior to the Iraq war resolution votes, Democracy Corps (founded in 1999 by James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Bob Shrum) advised Capitol Hill
Democrats: "This decision [to support or oppose an Iraq war resolution] will take place in a setting where voters, by 10 points, prefer to vote for a member who
supports a resolution to authorize force (50 to 40 percent)." Needless to say, the Democrats' support for Bush's "security policies"
hardly "brought closure" to the Iraq debate, nor did it move the focus to domestic issues. Instead, the Republicans in
2002 and 2004 ran -- and resoundingly won -- by depicting as Weak on Terror even Democrats who voted for the
Iraq War (such as Max Cleland), and even more effectively, by bashing the muddled, confused, contradictory and
unprincipled national security position of leading Democrats (I voted for it before I voted against it -- yes, I voted for the invasion of Iraq but.
. . .). It was that deep-seated fear of taking a stand, which voters could easily smell, far more than any specific policy
position, that made (and still makes) Democrats appear so pitifully "weak."
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
17
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Links – TNWs
Unilateral nuclear cuts means GOP can paint him as weak on national security.
Barry M. Blechman, Ph.D., co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank, 1-21-2009. [Stimson Center, Don’t Reduce the US
Nuclear Arsenal Unilaterally: We Need Levers to Move the World Toward Disarmament, http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=734]
President Obama
also should be aware of the political implications. The announcement by a new president that he is
making significant unilateral reductions in US nuclear forces, in the hope the Russians will follow suit, would play into the hands
of those seeking to tar him and his party as “weak on defense.”
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
18
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Link – Afghanistan
Afghan troops and national security issues are important for the midterms
Zogby, 12.31.2009 ( John is an American political pollster and first senior fellow at The Catholic University of America's Life Cycle Institute. “Obama's
Unappreciated First Year”, http://www.forbes.com/2009/12/30/obama-president-polls-first-year-opinions-columnists-john-zogby.html )
Meanwhile, Obama's
decision to add 30,000 troops in Afghanistan brings the total to more than 100,000. Short of the
capture of Osama bin Laden or dramatic military gains in Afghanistan, it is unlikely national security will be a positive
issue for Democrats. In our December poll, 30% gave Obama's handling of Afghanistan positive ratings (7% excellent and 23% good) and 67% of likely
voters gave him negative ratings (30% said fair and 37% poor). Midterm elections are historically bad for the president's party. Unless
voter attitudes toward Obama and the Democrats change, 2010 will be no exception.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
19
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Link – Controversy
Controversy will bring out large voting base.
Burden & Wichowsky, 10 (Barry C. Burden is an expert on American Politics and professor of political science with the University of WisconsonMadison; Amber Wichowsky is a PhD candidate in the Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Chapter 24“Local and
National Forces in Congressional Elections” from The Oxford Handbook of American Elections and Political Behavior a book by Jan E. Leighley
https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/bcburden/web/BW123108.pdf)
Under some conditions voters appear responsive to the political environment, electoral context, and strategies of congressional candidates. Not surprisingly,
research finds voters are more likely to turn out in congressional elections when they are closely contested (Caldeira,
Patterson and Markko 1985). As in other elections, voters are more likely to be mobilized in competitive districts and it is
those elite activities and investments that stimulate turnout (Cox and Munger 1989; Huckfeldt et al. 2007). Competitiveness may be driven
by either local or national factors, but it is often national elite decisions that result in higher levels of mobilization.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
20
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** INTERNALS ***
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
21
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Democrats key
Democrats taking lead, but on the brink.
By Chris Cillizza | July 20, 2010; 7:28 AM ET Categories: Morning Fix http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/1-2-former-georgiasecretary.html
A week removed from an internecine fight about whether or not control of the House is up for grabs this fall (it is),
Democrats got some welcome news this morning as the party re-took the lead in Gallup's generic congressional
ballot question. Forty-nine percent of those tested said they preferred a generic Democratic candidate for Congress while 43 percent said they would opt
for a generic Republican. Democrats' six point margin represents a bump from the Gallup data earlier this month -- Democrat 47
percent, Republican 46 percent -- and marks the first time that Democrats have had a statistically significant edge on the question so far this election cycle. The
reason for Democrats' upward movement in the poll appears to be independent voters where Republicans now hold a four point generic edge (43 percent to 39
percent), a major drop from Gallup polling earlier this month that showed the GOP with a 14-point margin. A few caveats: 1) The generic ballot should
not be taken as predictive of what is going to happen in any particular House race but rather as an broad -- though
usually accurate -- indicator of which way the national wind is blowing. 2) This is one poll. Gallup has shown
Republicans consistently tied or ahead in the generic ballot question and it's not clear whether these latest findings
are an outlier or the start of a broader trend. 3) This is a poll of registered voters not likely voters, making it slightly
less predictive about expected election outcomes. Although the generic has clearly improved for Democrats, some
of the other numbers in the poll should provide them pause about the election to come -- most notably a widening
enthusiasm gap between the two parties' bases. More than half (51 percent) of self-identifying Republicans describe themselves
as "very enthusiastic" about the coming election while roughly half that number (28 percent) of Democrats say the
same. If midterm elections are about base turnout and history suggests they are that sort of base energy disparity could signal major Democratic losses in the
fall -- no matter what the generic ballot says.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
22
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Independents key
Independents key to midterm votes on both sides
By Chris Cillizza | July 19, 2010; 6:52 AM ET http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/morning-fix/republican-campaign-chairs-def.html “Republican
campaign chairs defend George W. Bush”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid isn't the only Nevada Democrat rebounding in the polls as a new independent poll shows
Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) in a statistical dead heat with her Republican challenger -- an improvement since the last survey in the race. The poll, conducted for the
Las Vegas Review-Journal by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, shows Titus at 42 percent to former state Sen. Joe Heck's (R) 40 percent. In April, Heck led 49
percent to 44 percent.The freshman
Congresswoman's favorability rating is still positive, but just barely so, at 42 percent
favorable and 41 percent unfavorable. The previous poll was conducted just after the health care vote, when the bill was more
unpopular than it is now. Titus voted for the bill. Most important in this swing district that takes in large swaths of
Clark County (Las Vegas) suburbs are independent voters. They are currently split 39 percent apiece between Heck
and Titus. The Review-Journal poll also shows the governor's race narrowing, but former federal judge Brian
Sandoval (R) still leads by double digits, 47 percent to 36 percent, over Reid's son, Rory.
Since Massachusetts, Independents are continually showing meager Democratic
support.
Cook, April, 10 (Charles E. Cook, Jr. writes weekly columns for National Journal and CongressDaily AM
and is a political analyst for NBC News as well
as editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report. “Preparing For the Worst: Democrats’ Fears of the 2010 Midterm Elections” The Washington Quarterly • 33:2
pp. 183-189 http://www.twq.com/10april/docs/10apr_Cook.pdf)
That leaves independents, who seem to like Obama personally, believe he is very smart and knowledgeable, and like what his election represents and says
about our country. But at the same time, these independents are growing increasingly concerned that Obama’s view of the role of government may be different
and more expansive than theirs. Independents are showing more and more concern about deficits, spending, and that the tentacles of
government are reaching far beyond their level of competence and ability to pay. To
the extent that these independents hold Obama in high
personal regard, this feeling does not extend to the Democratic Party overall or Democrats in Congress. Democrats
now, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts loss, have to admit that, among independent voters over the last year,
their party’s brand has been badly damaged.
Independents represent large voting bloc which can be easily influenced by policy
changes.
Cook, April, 10 (Charles E. Cook, Jr. writes weekly columns for National Journal and CongressDaily AM
and is a political analyst for NBC News as well
as editor and publisher of the Cook Political Report. “Preparing For the Worst: Democrats’ Fears of the 2010 Midterm Elections” The Washington Quarterly • 33:2
pp. 183-189 http://www.twq.com/10april/docs/10apr_Cook.pdf)
Democrats can generally be counted upon to support Obama and Democratic candidates this year, to the extent that
Democratic voters will turn out. Similarly, Republican voters can be expected to toe the line for GOP candidates this year, assuming they are not
siphoned off by Tea Party candidates. But just as they were in Massachusetts, independents are nationally the largest bloc of
voters. Independents showed in Massachusetts that they had little patience left for Democrats, despite their long
history of supporting them. There is little reason to believe that independents nationally, who are even more fickle
than their counterparts in Massachusetts, will feel any differently. This is a very turbulent time, and Democrats have
to worry that the same wave of independent voters that swept the GOP out of Congress in 2006 by an 18-point
margin will do the same to Democrats, at least in the House, on November 2. Unless some significant event changes the trajectory
of this midterm election, Democrats will suffer House losses of the magnitude they suffered in 1994 and Republicans experienced in 2006 and will wind up with a
very narrow majority in the senate.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
23
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Independents key
Pennsylvania Senate race underscores Democratic troubles with independent voters
in midterm vote
By: Liz Sidoti 07/19/10 3:35 PM Associated Press EDT Pa. Senate race underscores Democratic troubles with independent voters in midterm vote
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/ap/pa-senate-race-underscores-democratic-troubles-with-independent-voters-in-midterm-vote-98727844.html
MEDIA, PA. — Democrat Joe
Sestak — a son of the Philadelphia suburbs — needs the independent voters in his backyard as he
campaigns for a Senate seat in a swing state that may tilt Republican this year. Independents have been turning
away from President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party, frustrated with the economic downturn and
administration initiatives, even in Pennsylvania where Obama won by double-digits two years ago. Sestak, a two-term
congressman, has his work cut out for him. "To vote for any of them right now, I'm not really sure I could. It's too early to say," says Tori Fisher, 45, an artist
selling handmade jewelry at a picnic table down the street from Sestak's bustling campaign headquarters. Fisher backed Obama two years ago and Democrats
in 2006 but says "all
of my friends feel frustrated" with the president's policies. "All of them could be doing a better job," she
said of the Democrats controlling the White House and Congress. On a nearby park bench, Albert Davis, 63, calls his previous support
for Obama unfortunate. He faults the president and his party for their handling of the troubled economy, the soaring budget
deficit and the new health care law. "I thought he could straighten this country out," he says. "I may have been
wrong." Davis doesn't know how he'll vote this fall — "if I vote." Although Democrats outnumber Republicans by
about 1.2 million in Pennsylvania, independent voters, especially those in the so-called collar counties around
Philadelphia, have proved decisive in elections in this swing state. They are seen as key to victory in the competitive Senate race
between Republican Pat Toomey, a former congressman who once headed the anti-tax Club for Growth, and Sestak, who defeated Sen. Arlen Specter, a former
Republican who switched parties to run in the May 18 Democratic primary. A recent poll showed Toomey with a clear advantage among independent voters, and
the same Quinnipiac University survey showed Obama's approval under 50 percent in the state. The president
has lost considerable ground
among Pennsylvania independents. In 2006 and 2008, independents frustrated with then-President George W. Bush and the war in Iraq pushed
Democrats to House and Senate wins across the country. Among the winners was a retired admiral and political novice named Sestak who captured a district
that encompasses the one-time factory town of Conshohocken and the wealthy enclaves of the Main Line. This
year, voters unaligned with a
political party are disgruntled with the direction of the country, the Democratic-controlled Congress and Obama —
and appear poised to punish the party in power. Nationwide, a recent Pew Research Center survey showed
Republicans with an edge over Democrats — 44 percent to 36 percent — among independents. At this point in 2006,
independents backed Democrats 47 percent to 32 percent. With independents so critical to victory, each Senate candidate is casting the other as an extreme
ideologue out-of-step with voters on economic issues. "Pat Toomey, someone I like, will always side with Wall Street and big oil ... but I'll stand up and fight for
the working family and what they need," says Sestak, painting Toomey as far too conservative for the state. Sestak regularly hammers the former Republican
congressman on his support for drilling in Lake Erie and his House votes on measures that included tax breaks for corporations. Sen. Robert Menendez of New
Jersey, chairman of the Senate committee charged with electing Democrats, tags Toomey as "a former Wall Street executive who made his money trading
derivatives" after a House stint in which he "not only racked up an extreme right-wing voting record, but he also championed freewheeling Wall Street practices."
Toomey, in turn, assails Sestak for voting for the Wall Street bailout, the economic stimulus, the health care law and cap-and-trade legislation that critics deride
as an energy tax. "That's liberal," says Toomey. "He is in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and her agenda." Republicans frequently link Sestak with the House
speaker from San Francisco and argue that Sestak does nothing more than toe the Democratic line. Says Texas Sen. John Cornyn, chairman of the National
Senatorial Campaign Committee: "If voters give Sestak a promotion this November, they can expect more of the same from the Washington Democrats' tax-andspend agenda — lost jobs, higher taxes and bigger government." Freed from a GOP primary this year, Toomey has amassed far more money. He raised $3.1
million in the most recent fundraising quarter and ended with $4.65 million available. He has four offices open, is running TV ads and is getting help from deeppocketed groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Sestak emerged from his Democratic primary with Specter all but broke; he raised $1.95 million last
quarter and had about $2 million on hand. He has yet to run TV ads but has 10 campaign offices. Three months out, polls show the Senate race a dead heat.
Stephen Bouikidis, a
founder of the grass-roots organization Independent Pennsylvanians, says it's unfulfilled promises of
bipartisanship that influence the state's 1 million independents. "We are very interested in candidates who want to
reform. But what we won't respond to is partisanship," he says. If independents side with Republicans this fall in
Pennsylvania, Democrats could lose both a Senate seat and a governorship in an important presidential state two
years before Obama is expected to seek re-election. There's little disagreement over what's on the minds of the
state's electorate, independents included. "They want to see government get their fiscal house in order," says Dan Onorato,
the chief executive of Allegheny County and the Democrat running for governor. And his GOP opponent, Attorney General Tom Corbett, says: "They're
concerned about taxes, they're concerned about spending."
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
24
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Independents key- Empirics
Independent swing voters are capable of changing elections in favor of Republicans
(empirics)
Kirby& Boaz, January (David Kirby is an associate policy analyst, and David Boaz is executive vice president, at the Cato Institute. They are
coauthors of “The Libertarian Vote,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 580. “The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama” Policy Analysis No. 658 for the CATO
Institute. January 2010 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa658.pdf )
Pundits are baffled. After an election victory billed as “historic,” many expected President Obama to translate the hope of his campaign into a new consensus in
politics. The New York Times editorialized that Obama’s election would forge a “broad political consensus.”2 David Gergen describes Obama as a “consensusseeking” politician.3 Yet in nine months, we’ve witnessed increasing anger toward Obama and his administration’s continuation of the Bush-era policies of
takeovers, bailouts, federal spending, and the extension of federal control. Citizens have staged “Tea Party” protests, shouted down
members of Congress at town hall meetings, and marched on Washington. So much for consensus. As early as July,
polls detected that centrists and independents were moving away from the Democratic Party.4 From January to October,
Gallup data show that independents’ job approval of Obama has dropped 16 points, from 62 to 46 percent .5 In the 2009
gubernatorial elections in Virginia and New Jersey, independents swung away from Democrats according to CNN exit polls. In Virginia,
independents voted for Republican Bob McDonnell 66 to 33 percent,6 a 34-point swing from 2008 when independents voted for Obama 49 to
48 percent. 7 In New Jersey, independents voted for Republican Chris Christie 60 to 30 percent,8 a 34-point swing from 2008 when
independents voted for Obama 51 to 47.9
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
25
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Libertarians key
Libertarians can sway independent voters in November like they did in 2006.
Kirby& Boaz, January (David Kirby is an associate policy analyst, and David Boaz is executive vice president, at the Cato Institute. They are
coauthors of “The Libertarian Vote,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 580. “The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama” Policy Analysis No. 658 for the CATO
Institute. January 2010 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa658.pdf )
Libertarian—
or fiscally conservative, socially liberal—voters are often torn between their aversions to the Republicans’ social
conservatism and the Democrats’ fiscal irresponsibility. Yet libertarians rarely factor into pundits’ and pollsters’ analyses. Polls show
that libertarians are 10 to 20 percent of voters and a key swing vote. In 2004 libertarians swung away from George W. Bush,
A closer look at ideology reveals that these two ideas—of polarization and consensus— were both based on a misdiagnosis of public opinion.
anticipating the Democratic victories of 2006. In 2008, according to new data, libertarians voted against Barack Obama. Libertarians seem to be a lead indicator
of trends in centrist, independent-minded voters. Libertarians’ concerns about Republican overspending, government growth, excessive social conservatism, and
Before the 2006 elections, we predicted
that if the swing away from the Republicans continued, “Republicans will lose elections they would otherwise
win.”13Now we offer the reverse prediction: libertarians were more skeptical in 2008 about Obama’s big-government
agenda, but now those concerns are widespread among moderates and independents. If libertarians continue to lead
the independents away from Obama, Democrats will lose 2010 midterm elections they would otherwise win.
the war in Iraq prompted them to move away from Bush in 2004, earlier than other independents did.
Nation is straying from mainstream politics to sympathizing with Libertarian
cynicism.
Kirby& Boaz, January (David Kirby is an associate policy analyst, and David Boaz is executive vice president, at the Cato Institute. They are
coauthors of “The Libertarian Vote,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 580. “The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama” Policy Analysis No. 658 for the CATO
Institute. January 2010 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa658.pdf )
Yet there are few Americans who like the Republicans. An October NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that only 25
percent have a positive opinion of the Republican Party, tying the survey’s all-time low.10 In 2008 we were told that Obama
would forge consensus. In the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, we were told that we’re a polarized nation, sharply split between “red team” Republicans
But entering 2010, the nation doesn’t seem to want to be part of any team at all . A standard
question for pollsters is, “How much of the time do you trust the government in Washington to do what is right?” In the
and “blue team” Democrats.
NBC/Wall Street Journal survey, the answers were not encouraging for incumbent politicians or people who want the federal government to take on sweeping
The overwhelming majority,
65 percent, said they trust the government “only some of the time.”11 An unprecedented 11 percent of respondents
volunteered—this option wasn’t asked—that they “never” trust the government.12 No doubt some of those mistrusting
voters are libertarians.
new obligations. Just 4 percent said they trust the government “just about always” while 19 percent said “most of the time.”
Numerical representation of Libertarians is on the rise.
Kirby& Boaz, January (David Kirby is an associate policy analyst, and David Boaz is executive vice president, at the Cato Institute. They are
coauthors of “The Libertarian Vote,” Cato Institute Policy Analysis no. 580. “The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama” Policy Analysis No. 658 for the CATO
Institute. January 2010 http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa658.pdf )
Gallup consistently finds about 20 percent of respondents to be libertarian. In
2009 they found 23 percent libertarians, along with 18 percent liberals, 19 percent populists, and 31 percent conservatives (9 percent were
unclassifiable). The number of libertarians may be on the rise. Gallup’s calculations show a slight upward trend, in
particular a rise in recent years from a dip in the early 2000s, which was perhaps a reflection of the briefly renewed confidence in
Combining the responses to these two questions,
government after the 9/11 attacks.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
26
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Tea Party key
Tea party voters are key to midterms
By Chris Cillizza | July 6, 2010; 3:24 PM ET Tea Party = Republican party? http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/republican-party/tea-party-as-therepublican-pa.html
The scads of media coverage about the burgeoning "tea party" effort has focused heavily on the idea that those who identify themselves as part of the movement
are political free agents -- dismissive of both parties and Washington in general. New data out of Gallup suggests that premise isn't right, as nearly seven in 10
tea party supporters describe themselves as "conservative Republicans." All told, nearly 80 percent of tea party supporters
describe themselves as Republicans, while 15 percent say they are Democrats and just six percent are, in their own minds, "pure independents." The numbers
between tea party supporters and conservative Republicans also track closely on other measures, including the image ratings of President Obama. Fifteen
percent of tea party backers have a favorable view of the president, while 11 percent of conservative Republicans say the same. Those numbers are strikingly
dissimilar from the poll of all Americans -- 53 percent of whom view Obama
favorably. Asked whether they would support a generic
Republican or a generic Democrat for Congress this fall, 80 percent of tea party supporters chose the GOP candidate,
while 15 percent opted for the Democrat. While the loyalty of tea party supporters to Republican candidates is lower than that of self-identified "conservative
Republicans" -- 95 percent of whom back the GOP candidate in the generic ballot --
it is still heavily weighted toward candidates of a certain
ideological proclivity. "Their similar ideological makeup and views suggest that the Tea Party movement is more a
rebranding of core Republicanism than a new or distinct entity on the American political scene," Gallup Poll director Frank
Newport wrote in an analysis of the results, which were culled from national surveys conducted in March, May and June. The Gallup findings
generally affirm findings by Resurgent Republic, a conglomerate of GOP polling firms, in five states over the past
weeks. "This is a group that is organically more Republican," said GOP pollster Glen Bolger, who conducted several focus groups of tea
party backers. "They have turned the page on Obama." The Gallup data, when combined with the Resurgent Republic findings, suggests that the
constant comparisons between today's tea party voter and the supporters of Ross Perot in the early 1990s are simply wrong. The Post's Dan Balz debunked that
comparison several months ago. Wrote Balz: "The Perot voters were a disparate group, ideologically diverse, with generally secular views. The tea party
movement is far more cohesive. If anything, it is simply an adjunct of the conservative wing of the Republican Party,
even if many of its supporters say they hold no particular allegiance for the GOP and are critical of party leadership."
That final point is the most important one when it comes to assessing the tea party's influence in the midterm
elections. As victories by Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharron Angle in Nevada show, the tea party crowd doesn't
take its marching orders from the national Republican leadership. But, in the fall campaign, when faced with a choice
not between two Republicans but between a Republican and a Democrat, the Gallup data seem to suggest that the
tea party crowd will opt for the GOP candidates in large numbers. Why? Because they are, at heart, Republicans -only by a different name at the moment. Or, as, Newport puts it: "Republican leaders who worry about the Tea Party's
impact on their races may in fact (and more simply) be defined as largely worrying about their party's core
base."impact on their races may in fact (and more simply) be defined as largely worrying about their party's core base."
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
27
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Latinos key
Latino voter turnouts are key to midterm elections
JILL Lawrence 7/20 2010 Senior Correspondent Latino Vote Could Be Key in Midterm Contests for Congress and Governorships
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/08/latino-vote-could-be-key-in-this-years-contests-for-congress-an/
Presidential candidates of both parties have long vied for Latino voters. In this midterm year, a new report from
America's Voice, a group working for comprehensive immigration reform, suggests Latino voters will be a potentially
decisive force in 37 House and Senate races, plus contests for governor in California, Colorado and Texas. The report says Latino voters may
be pivotal in eight Senate races, in Arizona (where Republican Sen. John McCain is trying to keep his seat), California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,
Nevada and New York. It says the
group could also decide 29 House races in those states and in New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas and
Latinos are the fastest growing part of
the population. Their voting participation grew by one-third between 2004 and 2008, Janet Murguia, president of the National
Virginia. That includes seven House races in Florida alone, and four each in Arizona, California and Illinois.
Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, told reporters Monday. President George W. Bush captured 44 percent of their vote in 2004 compared with 53
percent for Democrat John Kerry, exit polls showed. In 2008, McCain only won 31 percent compared with 67 percent for President Obama . Frank Sharry,
executive director of America's Voice, which promotes comprehensive immigration reform, said Latinos make up at least 25 percent of the
population in nearly one in five congressional districts and more are registering to vote all the time. He predicted
decisions by Latino voters to turn out or not, and to vote for Republicans or Democrats, will have "huge impact" on
these 40 congressional and gubernatorial races
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
28
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
California key- Democrats
California key to Democrats, right now it’s on the brink and needs all the support it
can get
USA TODAY 7/8, 2010
Poll: Barbara Boxer slightly leads Carly Fiorina in Calif. Senate race
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/07/boxer-fiorina-senate-poll-/1
A poll out today shows Democrat Barbara Boxer has a slight lead in her competitive California Senate race against
former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. USA TODAY's Naomi Jagoda reports that the independent Field Poll shows Boxer
leading, 47% to 44%. That difference is within the poll's margin of error. More than a year ago, Boxer had a wide lead over Fiorina in a hypothetical
matchup. But in the latest survey, one key difference for Boxer: A majority of likely voters have a negative view of the threeterm senator. By comparison, 29% of likely voters view Fiorina unfavorably. This is the first Field Poll since Fiorina won the June 8
Republican primary. The day after her victory, Fiorina was caught on an open microphone calling Boxer's hairstyle "so yesterday." Boxer joked to the Associated
Press earlier this week that her appearance could be used to her benefit. "I decided I'm going after the bad hair vote," she said. The survey results
come as Vice President Biden is set to campaign in California for Boxer today. President Obama has made two
recent campaign trips for Boxer and is out stumping today for Missouri Senate candidate Robin Carnahan and
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Field Poll was conducted by telephone from June 22 to July 5 among 1,390 registered voters, 1,005 of
whom are considered likely to vote in the general election. The margin of error for likely voters is +/- 3.2 percentage points. Update at 4:35 p.m. ET Jack Pitney,
a political science professor at Claremont-McKenna College, said the poll "confirms that it's a tight race." Boxer is "going to have to
work very hard" to boost her positives and Fiorina's negatives, Pitney said. Because the current political climate is not favorable to
Democrats, "this is the toughest race of Boxer's career," he said. On the other hand, Pitney said the poll results signal "an opportunity" for
Fiorina. Signs that the race is close will make it easier for Fiorina to raise money, he added.
Cannabis progressives will not turn out for midterms. This hurts Democrats
Calpotnews 5/16/10 Key progressives could skip mid-term vote for legal pot http://calpotnews.com/government/ballot-initiatives/key-progressives-couldskip-mid-term-vote-for-legal-pot/
cannot count on cannabis’ strongest ally: progressives, because they historically stay home
at mid-terms, analysts say. Fifty-six percent of Californians favor legalization, David Downs writes in “Legalization Nation,” but voter turnout
will drop dramatically from the historic 2008 presidential election of Barack Obama. Obama’s election saw 80 percent of registered
voters turn out to vote one way or the other, but perhaps 60 percent of registered voters will turn out this year, says professional pollster
Ben Tulchin. That drop is expected to comprise the youthful idealists. “A lot of younger voters voted for the first time, a
lot of ethnic voters voted for the first time, that dynamic won’t be in play this year. Quite frankly, when you go from 80
to 60, that difference in the electorate is the progressives.” And those who do vote are there for the main event: the
The Tax Cannabis 2010 initiative
likely gubernatorial election of either Republican businesswoman Meg Whitman or former Democratic governor Jerry Brown. “My experience is candidate
campaigns drive turnout. They are the highest profile in terms of what people are paying attention to and that drives turnout. Every
ballot initiative is
along for the ride.” So is Whitman and Brown’s stated opposition to reform going to hurt the initiative? It could, says
Tulchin, but opinions of politicians are at new lows. “Voters are cynical,” Tulchin says. “They’re fed up with the status quo.” Driving that
cynicism is a cycle of budget crises California’s leaders cannot seem to terminate. California’s wrecked balance
sheets actually fuel TaxCannabis 2010. Pot sales could mean billions of dollars in local taxes, and there’s early proof that
TaxCannabis 2010 can amass the campaign funding necessary to advertise that fact. Their direct opponents, on the other hand, don’t seem to have much cash
for a fight. When Whitman and Brown tussle over fixing the state budget, they help TaxCann by reinforcing perceptions of the fiscal crisis’ severity. Tax revenues
from alcohol encouraged the end of Prohibition in cash-strapped Depression-era America. The same dynamic could come into play. “It’s an activity that is
already being done,” Tulchin says. “If the ‘Yes’ side can frame this as, ‘Let’s regulate and tax it to help balance the budget and fund essential services,’ the
public is open to coming up with creative and alternative ways to raise new revenue.” But Californians are
notoriously unpredictable. The state banned gay marriage and OK’d stem cell research. It prosecutes non-violent
drug offenders while collecting almost $100 million in medicinal marijuana taxes each year. “It all depends on timing
and mood,” Tulchin says. “I think it’s a very bellwether initiative because of voters’ competing motivations. Traditionally
California voters have voted for every tough on crime measure on the ballot. It’s a pretty consistent pattern that goes
against what the initiative is trying to do. With the budget deficit being a fundamental problem, this is a change from
the status quo. You can take advantage of cross currents in this election.”
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
29
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
California key
Cannabis plant Legalization bill will cause big turnout for voters and is key to
winning any elections in California
Calpotnews 6/5/10 Analysis: Pot-smoking voting bloc holds key to legalization http://calpotnews.com/government/ballot-initiatives/analysis-pot-smokingvoting-bloc-holds-key-to-legalization/
California’s November ballot initiative to legalize marijuana for recreational use may well ride on a potent voting block
— people who currently smoke marijuana or have used pot in the past. All told, past and present pot smokers
comprise 37 percent of registered voters in California, according to a recent poll undertaken by the University of Southern California
College of Letters, Arts, & Sciences and the Los Angeles Times. That’s well more than the number of registered Republicans (31
percent) and independent voters (20 percent) and within striking distance of the number of Democrats (just under 45
percent), Peter Hecht writes in “Weed Wars.” The significance is that pot smokers overwhelmingly support the November initiative to legalize recreational use
for Californians over 21, allow small residential cultivation and permit local governments to tax and regulate marijuana . “It is a very identifiable and
easily targeted voter group,” said Dan Schnur, director of USC’s Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics. “It’s very clear that individuals who have used
marijuana either medicinally or for recreation are a lot more likely to vote for the initiative. “Short of giving out free baggies at the polling place, the smartest thing
for the ‘yes’ side to do is motivate
election day.”
that base to turn out on
Yet Dan Newman, a strategist from the Tax Cannabis 2010 campaign, said there will be no bring-the-smokers-to-the-polls election push.
“There won’t be any sophisticated, fancy pants micro-targeting,” Newman insisted. “We simply don’t need it. We have truth, justice and common sense on our
side.” In the USC/L.A. Times statewide poll conducted May 19-26, eleven percent of registered voters reported using marijuana in the past year. Of those, 82
percent favored the legalization initiative. Twenty-six percent of registered voters said they have smoked pot in the past – and 61 percent favored the measure.
Overall, 68 percent of current and former marijuana smokers backed legalization. Voters who never used marijuana opposed legalization by a lesser margin, 53
to 36 percent, according to the poll. And indications are pot smoking voters will be motivated — and not too medicated — to cast their ballots. Some 88
percent of registered voters who have used marijuana in the past told pollsters they were “almost certain” to vote in
2010 and another seven percent said they would “probably” vote. Seventy-five percent of voters who smoked in the
past year reported they were extremely likely to vote and another 14 percent said they would probably cast ballots.
Newman, who promotes the pot measure as an important source of tax revenues for California communities, predicted the initiative will bring out both smoker-
“There are going to be people showing up at the polls who
don’t vote in every election because this is on the ballot,” Newman said. But Wayne Johnson, lead campaign consultant for Public Safety
voters and others newly discovering where their local polling places are located.
First, which opposes the legalization, said voters’ marijuana use will prove to be irrelevant. Public Safety First, a coalition of law enforcement, transportation and
religious organizations, attacks the initiative as promoting a drug that causes physical impairment and presents a safety risk. “We’re going to win both
of those groups (pot users and non-users) before this is over – because it’s not about marijuana,” Johnson said.
“People who have driven under the influence are certainly not going to vote for driving under the influence. I don’t
think the fact that somebody is or isn’t a marijuana user takes away from that notion of the public good.”
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
30
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Unemployment key
Republicans rely on unemployed Americans for votes, however, party doesn’t take
into account the internet which is a large variable for change. Our evidence is
comparative.
Edward Nelson 10 July 20, 2:43 AMNY Public Policy Examiner http://www.examiner.com/x-48240-NY-Public-Policy-Examiner~y2010m7d20-The-strengthof-unemployment-legislation-being-tested-in-the-US-Senate “The strength of unemployment legislation being tested in the U.S. Senate”
At the pain of repeating that the unemployment insurance situation is a national emergency, therefore, exempt pursuant to Section 11 of the PAYGO Act,
requiring that current unemployment extension legislation can legitimately be added to the deficit. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
reiterated this point today and added that Republicans have treated unemployment insurance benefits as
“emergency spending” during a less severe socio-economic milieu. Republicans have passed unemployment
legislation in the past that has added to the national deficit. So why is their position different now? Research has
shown that the state of the economy has a negative impact on the party in the majority. However, that was before the
Internet was available and information was much slower at reaching most Americans. Fortunately, that’s not where
we are today! In its formulaic assessment of American voters, the Republicans have forgotten the Internet as a
variable for change. Here are a few interesting videos that tend to show that the Republican party is really the party of no ideas. Today, U.S. Senator Carte Goodwin will be sworn in at 2:15 p.m.
Immediately after the swearing in ceremony, a vote is expected on H.R. 4213. At this juncture, it is difficult to say to what's in H.R. 4213 because there have been so many amendments. I've read that the Estate Tax
could be incorporated into the bill. I guess that pleases Senator Blanche Lincoln. Misinformation is circulating about S. 3520 being the bill that will be introduced in the Senate
chamber tomorrow. H.R. 4213 appears to be the bill that will be introduced tomorrow at 2:30 p.m. in the Senate chamber. H.R. 4213 is very much alive! Many of
you are worried about technicalities like collecting unemployment benefits in States that are below the level of 8.5 percent unemployment. Well, for those of you
who have been collecting tier I, II, III, or IV unemployment benefits prior to March 29, 2010, you will be “’grandfathered’” in to receive your full entitlement to
unemployment benefits.
On the other hand, many would like to know how soon can they expect to receive an unemployment check. Spokeswoman
Evangelina Garcia of the Department of Labor has been quoted by David Lightman and Steven Thomma McClatchy of Politics AP as having said that once H.R.
4213 is passed, “’checks can go out as soon as administratively feasible.’” Ms. Garcia explained that “’it will depend upon how quickly the states can modify their
automated benefit system to process the claims.’” The
Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has described President Barack Obama’s
speech on unemployment today as historic. Never in the history of the United States has a President called a press
conference to recognize the unemployed with three unemployed American citizens standing by his side. However,
WSJ slams the President for supporting an increase in unemployment insurance benefits using statistical studies that
show the unemployed are slower at returning to work when unemployment benefits are increased. Let’s Looking in
retrospect, with the assistance of YouTube, one can fairly place the Republican party in proper perspective as doing
nothing but wasting precious time with their “start over” tactics they’ve utilized at the Healthcare Reform meeting.
Technically, what the Republicans are doing adds to the deficit because it prevents real Senatorial work from being done
on the citizens dime. This video dates back to March 27, 2009 regarding the national Republican budget. Joe Scarborough concedes that
these Republicans, like Senate Minority Leader Mitchell McConnell, were following George Bush’s deficit spending .
Here’s a video that dates back to April 22, 2009 and reveals that the Republicans “hope that the economy does bad” to gain your vote. It
is said that an unemployed American father who worked for 32 years recently killed himself because he could no longer feed his three children in the State of
Michigan. If true, that death falls in the lap of the Republicans. An interesting report reveals that the unemployed are at a high risk of
suicide. Economically, there is no difference between the beliefs of Jack Kevorkian and the Republican party. Both
believe that assisted suicide should be legal in every State. However, the two have different methods of effecting
their desired result. The loss of human life! As for the West Virginia Legislature, they have set August 28, 2010 as the date of the U.S. Senatorial
primary and November 2, 2010 as the date of the special election
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
31
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Perception key
Changes in majority perception create wave effects because of the perceived voter
majorities.
Dyck & Seabrook, March 2010
(Joshua J. Dyck, Assistant Professor and the Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Political Science
Department at The University at Buffalo, SUNY. Nicholas R. Seabrook PhD candidate and Instructor in the Department of Political Science at the University at
Buffalo, SUNY. Beginning Fall 2010, he will be an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of North
Florida. “Mobilized by Direct Democracy: Short- Term Versus Long-Term Effects and the Geography of Turnout in Ballot Measure Elections” Social Science
Quarterly, Volume 91, Issue 1 (p 188-208) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123237739/PDFSTART )
Research has demonstrated that neighborhood effects condition the impact of the factors traditionally associated with turnout, specifically that
partisans are less likely to vote in areas where opposite partisans constitute a large majority, and in areas with very
high levels of in-migration (Gimpel, Dyck, and Shaw, 2004). Those voters who live in homogenous communities whose
partisan disposition matches their own are more likely to turn out than those who are dispersed within neighborhoods
where they are among fewer like-minded individuals (Mutz, 2002). While the former are likely to have their political views reinforced by
interaction within their social networks, thus increasing their political knowledge and personal efficacy (Gimpel, Lay, and Schuknecht, 2003), the latter are
more likely to withdraw from politics entirely to avoid conflict and disagreement with those around them (Mutz, 2002;
Be´langer and Eagles, 2007). Thus, despite the fact that ballot initiatives allow for more complex preference expression, partisan political contexts may act to
stunt the growth of this expression. Furthermore, the highly partisan electoral environment surrounding the most salient initiative
elections may further reduce the potential for the institution of direct democracy to appeal to nonpartisan voters.
Therefore, to the extent that independents are mobilized or demobilized in initiative elections, we should expect more
partisan neighborhood contexts to act as a demobilizing force against independent voters, while at the same time
stimulating peripheral partisan voters who are already more likely to be mobilized to show up at the polls.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
32
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** IMPACTS ***
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
33
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Democrats Good – Immigration
Democrats push for immigration
Christina Bellantoni April 27, 2010(Inside Democrats' Election-Year Immigration Push -- 'Either Way We Win'
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/inside-the-new-immigration-push----an-election-year-boost-for-reid-boxer-bennett.php
Making a genuine attempt at a comprehensive immigration plan that includes a pathway to citizenship has dual potential to
help Democrats politically -- they motivate Latino voters and labor unions who have long championed the issue, and they can portray
unwilling Republicans as anti-Hispanic. Demographic shifts in the West have helped Democrats scoop up more Congressional
seats and win electoral college battles in recent years.With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid among those on the ropes in this fall's
midterm elections, fighting for an issue that voters and political activists in Nevada are passionate about can't hurt. The same
goes for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO).
Immigration is key to US competitiveness
By Jeb Bush, Thomas F. McLarty III
and Edward Alden July 21, 2009“Decrease Increase Nation needs comprehensive, flexible immigration reform”
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/nation-needs-comprehensive-flexible-97393.html
Our immigration system has been broken for too long, and the costs of that failure are growing. Getting immigration policy
right is fundamental to our national interests — our economic vitality, our diplomacy and our national security.
In the report of the bipartisan Council on Foreign Relations’ Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy, we lay out what is at stake for the United States.
President Barack Obama has made it clear that reform is one of his top priorities, and that is an encouraging and welcome signal.
Immigration has long been America’s secret weapon. The
U.S. has attracted an inordinate share of talented and hardworking
immigrants who are enticed here by the world’s best universities, the most innovative companies, a vibrant labor market and a welcoming culture.
Many leaders in allied nations were educated in the U.S., a diplomatic asset that no other country can match. And the contributions of immigrants — 40
percent of the science and engineering Ph.D.s in the U.S. are foreign-born, for example — have helped maintain the scientific and
technological leadership that is the foundation of our national security.But the U.S. has been making life much tougher for many
immigrants. Long processing delays and arbitrary quota backlogs keep out many would-be immigrants, or leave them in an uncertain temporary status for
years. Background and other security checks are taking far too long in many cases. Other countries are taking advantage of
these mistakes, competing for immigrants by opening their universities to foreign students and providing a faster
track to permanent residency and citizenship. In part because of such measures, illegal immigration to the U.S. has fallen to its lowest levels since the
mid-1970s. When the economy recovers, those numbers are likely to rise. But Congress and the administration have an opportunity now
to develop and put in place an immigration strategy for the recovery by offering new legal paths for immigration and
temporary work, along with tough enforcement of the law.
Immigrants necessary to re-start the economy
Darrell M. West, July 21, 2009(west is a vice president and director of Governance Studies and founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation at
Brookings)” The Path to a New Immigration Reform” http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2009/0721_immigration_reform_west.aspx
For starters, the
country is in recession. Historically, immigration reform never is easy during bad economies. Anxiety over the economy
spreads and as people grow fearful about immigration, they worry over new arrivals taking jobs held by residents. But this is a new century
and a new reality. Skeptics need to understand how important a new immigration policy is to American competitiveness
and long-term economic development. High-skill businesses require a sufficient number of scientists and engineers. Many industries such as
construction, landscaping, health care and hospitality services are reliant on immigrant labor. Farmers need seasonal workers for
agricultural productivity. Critics who worry about resource drains must understand that immigrants spend money on goods and
services, pay taxes and perform jobs and start businesses vital to our economy.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
34
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Democrats Good – Immigration
Republican victory blocks Cap & Trade and immigration reform.
Abramowitz 2009 (Alan, Ph.D. professor of Political Science at Emory, “Forecasting the Midterm Election: An early look at what to expect in 2010”)
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/aia2009090301/
Democrats are likely to lose at least 15 seats in the House of Representatives in 2010 and their losses could go as high as 30-40 seats. The Senate looks more
promising for Democrats because there are as many Republican as Democratic seats up for election next year but a loss of 3-4 seats is entirely possible.
Given the deep partisan divide in both chambers, diminished majorities will make it much more difficult for Democrats
to pass any major legislation in the next Congress. If anything, Republican leaders emboldened by a successful election
are likely to be even less interested in compromise with the White House and Democratic leaders than now. If
Democrats can’t pass health care, carbon caps, and immigration reform in the current Congress, they probably won’t
have another chance until at least 2013.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
35
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Democrats Good – Cap & Trade/ Health Care
Republican victory blocks Cap & Trade and repeals health care.
Page 4/28/10
(Susan, USA Today, "Six months to November, with dates to watch,") http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2010-04-28-six-
months_N.htm
Eighteen months after Barack Obama was elected president and Democratic margins in Congress widened, Republicans
boast that they're poised
to regain control of the House in November and be in a position to stymie the White House agenda . Democrats argue that
they have enough time amid signs of a brightening economy to improve their prospects and minimize their losses in the midterm elections. With six months to go,
At stake is the future of the Bush administration tax cuts that expire this year, the
ambitious cap-and-trade climate bill now stalled on Capitol Hill, even the efforts to reshape or repeal the health care
law that was enacted just last month and is a signature of Obama's administration. A Republican takeover
presumably would dispatch the president to a land of diminished expectations, where a GOP rout sent then-president Bill Clinton for
there are road signs to watch for that will indicate which side is right.
a time after his disastrous 1994 midterms
GOP stops cap and trade
Newton 10’ (BP: The End of Cap & Trade? June 7, 2010. http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/06/07/bp-the-end-of-cap-trade/?xid=rss-topstories]
Posted by Jay Newton-Small)
Bingaman's bill
does not include cap and trade, or as Republicans call it cap and tax. For years, Democrats and a
dwindling number of Republicans have tried to pass cap and trade: the Lieberman/McCain bill failed 43-55 in 2003 and again in 2005
38-60 (McCain's no longer a supporter of the bill). Lieberman/Warner failed 48-36 in 2008 (Virginia's John Warner has since retired). Schumer's suggestion this
morning that Kerry/Lieberman be added by amendment to Bingaman's bill -- and here he really means the cap and trade program -- essentially means
the Democratic leadership will give it an up and down vote but they know it won't garner the 60 votes it needs to
pass. Even if Lindsey Graham, Kerry/Lieberman's once-and-remains-to-be-seen-future GOP co-sponsor came back on board, it's pretty clear that
without offshore drilling and other sweeteners attached, he would have a hard time bringing on board many -- if any -fellow Republicans
GOP will block cap and trade
Abramowitz, 09’(Alan Abramowitz Ph.D., Professor of Political Science at Emory, 9-3-2009. [Center for Politics, Forecasting
theMidtermElection:AnEarlyLookatWhattoExpectin2010,p.\http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/aia2009090301/])
Democrats are likely to lose at least 15 seats in the House of Representatives in 2010 and their losses could go as high as 30-40 seats. The Senate looks more
promising for Democrats because there are as many Republican as Democratic seats up for election next year but a loss of 3-4 seats is entirely possible. Given
the deep
partisan divide in both chambers, diminished majorities will make it much more difficult for Democrats to
pass any major legislation in the next Congress. If anything, Republican leaders emboldened by a successful election
are likely to be even less interested in compromise with the White House and Democratic leaders than now. If
Democrats can’t pass health care, carbon caps, and immigration reform in the current Congress, they probably won’t
have another chance until at least 2013.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
36
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Democrats Good – Health Care
GOP victory wrecks health care.
Lach 4/12/10 (Eric, TalkingPointsMemo, "Boehner: Repealing HCR Must Be GOP's #1 Priority,")
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/boehner-repealing-hcr-must-be-gops-1-priority.php
House Minority Leader
John Boehner (R-OH) is putting it bluntly: repealing health care "has to be our number one priority." "They got
While some Senate GOPers have been attempting to do some fancy footwork around the issue of repealing health care,
everything else in the entire bureaucracy that they need to control our health care system -- is all in place with the signing of this bill," Boehner said on WFLA-
also hinted that repeal isn't the only option available. If the GOP retakes
the House, Boehner said, they could simply not fund reform: Remember, all spending bills and all tax bills start in
the House of Representatives under the Constitution, and as a result, if the funding isn't there, the funding isn't there,
whether it's their health care bill or all this other unnecessary spending that's coming out of Washington
AM's The Bud Hedinger Show this morning. Still, Boehner
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
37
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Democrats Good – Economy
The Democratic majority is key to stimulating the economy and avoiding the politics
of budget cuts—the recent jobs bill is part of a bigger debate
Reueters 7/20— (Andy Sullivan, “Senate breaks deadlock on jobless benefits”, http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66J3KV20100720)
(Reuters) - The
Senate on Tuesday cleared the way to extend long-term unemployment benefits, breaking a partisan
stalemate that has caused more than 2 million jobless Americans to lose the weekly checks that help them stay
afloat. By a vote of 60 to 40, Democrats overcame a Republican procedural hurdle and moved toward a final vote,
expected later in the day. The House of Representatives is expected to approve the measure on Wednesday and
send it President Barack Obama to sign into law. With congressional elections looming in November, the Senate had been
locked in a partisan standoff for weeks over how to pay for extending benefits for those who have been out of work
the longest. Democrats, eager to show voters they are doing all they can to bring down the 9.5 percent
unemployment rate, tried to extend the benefits when they expired at the end of May. But they were blocked by
Republicans who said the $34 billion price tag should be covered by cuts elsewhere rather than more borrowing that
would add to a trillion-dollar budget deficit. "There's no debate in the Senate about whether we should pass a bill -- everyone agrees that we
should," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. "This debate is about whether in extending these benefits we should add to the debt or not." Nearly
half of the 15 million Americans out of work have been jobless for more than six months, the highest level of longterm unemployment since the government began keeping track in the 1940s. Nearly a quarter of the unemployed have been out of
work for more than a year. Democrats broke the deadlock shortly after swearing in the new senator from West Virginia,
Carte Goodwin, who gave them the 60th vote they needed to overcome the Republican procedural roadblock in the
100-seat chamber. Goodwin succeeds Robert Byrd, who died last month after 57 years in Congress. Moderate Republicans Susan Collins and Olympia
Snowe voted with the Democrats, while centrist Democrat Ben Nelson voted against the extension. The fight over jobless benefits is the latest
skirmish in a broader debate over whether Congress should spend further to stimulate the economy or start making
the painful cuts needed to bring down record budget deficits, which hit 9.9 percent of GDP in the last fiscal year.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
38
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** NON-UNIQUES ***
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
39
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
GOP Wins – Empirics
Backlash from agenda will cause democrats to lose in midterm elections.
Feldmann 7/13/2010, Linda Feldmann, Christian Science Monitor, Obama's triumphs are also his weaknesses: Health care, stimulus, financial reform,
http://www.minnpost.com/worldcsm/2010/07/13/19639/obamas_triumphs_are_also_his_weaknesses_health_care_stimulus_financial_reform
After 18 months on the job, Barack Obama has made his mark as the do-something president. Economy near collapse? Less than a
month after taking office, President Obama signed a record $787 billion stimulus package. Comprehensive health-care reform? Obama succeeded, after a
grueling year-long legislative process, where predecessors going back decades had failed. Credit-card reform? Check. Student loan reform? Done. Financial
regulatory reform? Close. To Obama supporters, this burst of activity represents a welcome record of accomplishment after eight years of damaging Republican
rule. To critics, it is an abomination marked by runaway deficits, dangerously high public debt, and government overreach. But on one aspect there is no doubt.
Obama has not won many new fans with his activism. After winning the election in 2008 with 53 percent of the vote, and taking
office with popularity ratings well into the 60s, Obama's job-approval ratings have declined steadily into the mid-40s - and stand at just 38
percent among independents, according to Gallup. Neither will his Democratic Party be rewarded for this activism in the November
midterm elections. In fact, a conservative backlash against Obama's agenda, fueled by, but not limited to, the "tea party"
movement, points to an electoral wave that could topple the Democratic majority in the House and cut deeply into the
party's big majority in the Senate. Obama's political peril comes as no surprise to analysts, who see a history of
presidents courting trouble by doing big things. True, the president's party typically loses seats in the midterm
elections. But even Democrats are starting to worry out loud that their ranks could suffer far more than the average
24 House seat loss, potentially shedding the 39 seats Republicans need to take control.
Republicans will win big in the midterms, empirically proven
John Farmer 7/11/10 (Staff writer at nj.com Will Republicans squander their midterm election advantage,
http://blog.nj.com/njv_john_farmer/2010/07/will_republicans_squander_thei.html)
This should be a Hallelujah year for the Republican Party. It has history on its side — the almost unbroken record of
mid-term Congressional losses by the party in the White House — and a sour economy to boot. The authoritative
National Journal reports a rising tide of belief that the GOP will not merely gain seats in the House this fall but take
control of the place and also capture five, maybe six, more Senate seats. The champagne should already be on ice.
Elections will mirror 1994 in Republican victory
Mara Liasson, national political correspondent, for NPR in 2010 (Will This Year's Midterm Elections Mirror 1994?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126985064)
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), who is in charge of recruiting Republican House candidates, thinks this year is a lot like
other "wave" elections that changed party control of Congress. "I think this is a national campaign year, much like '94
and 2006. If you look at the intensity, you look at the generic polling, Republicans are in stronger position today than
where they were at this time in 1994," he says. There's no doubt Republican voters are more energized this year —
and in what McCarthy calls the generic polling, voters are split between wanting a Republican or Democrat, and
that's not a good sign for the majority Democrats. But there's something that's very different from 1994, says Democratic strategist Geoff Garin.
"In 1994, when Democrats were last in this position, they really did not engage the race until it was too late, and there was a lot of whistling past the graveyard.
There's no Democrat anywhere in America who takes this election lightly," Garin says. Former Democratic Rep.
Martin Frost, who survived the Republican tidal wave that swept his party out of power in 1994, says Democrats have
to do something that's very hard to do for a party holding the reins of government: make the election into a choice
between individual candidates instead of a referendum on Democratic policies. "The election is very much up for grabs," Frost says.
"The Democrats just need to keep running good campaigns, hope that the economy turns better, and maybe the losses won't be nearly as great as the press
thinks they're gonna be." That's the best outcome Democrats can hope for this year. And, after Tuesday night, they may have some reason to hope.
Pennsylvania's District 12 was the third special election this year in a swing district that Democrats have won. That makes Republican Davis wonder if this will be
a wave election like 1994 — or something else. "There's a lot of dissatisfaction with Washington. The president's numbers are way
down," Davis says. "The question is, what form is it going take on Election Day? It may be, instead of a hurricane, that this is one of these tornadoes that
comes around and hits here and then skips a couple towns and lets down somewhere else. In the race in Pennsylvania, the Democrat was pro-gun, he was prolife, he said he voted against health care. Democrats that can adapt to their surroundings — maybe they can survive."
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
40
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
GOP Wins – Majority
Republicans will take the house
Kevin Bogardus 7/18/10 staff writer for The Hill (Sessions predicts ‘slightly over 40’ House seats gained by Republicans, the hill,
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/109419-sessions-predicts-slightly-over-40-house-wins-for-gop-in-november)
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) predicted Sunday that Republicans will win just enough House seats come November
to gain control of the House. Speaking on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” the chairman of the National Republican Congressional
Committee said he was confident the GOP will become the majority party in the House for the next Congress. ”I think
we’re going to be slightly over 40,” Sessions told David Gregory when asked for a specific number on how many
House seats Republicans will win. That would give Republicans just enough seats to win the House. The GOP needs to win
39 House seats in the fall elections to take control of the chamber. Sessions’s counterpart, Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), chairman of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee, disagreed with his prediction. “I know these guys are popping the champagne bottles already over there, but the fact of the
matter is the Democrats will retain a majority in the House,” Van Hollen said. Also on the program were Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National
Republican Senatorial Committee, and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Like Van Hollen, Menendez
said he was confident Democrats will keep a majority in the Senate. Cornyn
said he was happy with the election outlook right now,
noting that Republican candidates were competitive in eight races for Senate seats held by Democrats. But unlike
Sessions, Cornyn did not say how many Senate seats Republicans would win in the 2010 elections. “I don’t know,” Cornyn said. Earlier on CNN’s “State of the
Union,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that Republican candidates are “either competitive or
ahead in 11 different states now where there are Democratic incumbent senators.” McConnell didn’t predict a
number, though, instead saying, “If the election were today, we would have a good day. ... I’d like to be in better
shape than the 41 that we have now. And I think the chances of that are pretty good.”
Polls are in favor of the GOP
Babington 7/4 Associated Press Writer (GOP touts midterm elections as national referendum; Democrats push local issues,
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/07/gop_touts_midterm_elections_as.html)
Polls show significant discontent with policies linked to Obama and congressional Democrats, including rising deficits
and bank bailouts. The latest AP-GfK survey found that 60 percent of those questioned think the nation is heading in
the wrong direction, and 73 percent disapprove of the Democratic-led Congress Polls also show significantly higher
energy and enthusiasm among conservative voters than liberals. GOP strategists believe they can sustain this wave
and ride it to victory if they can focus voters' attention on overarching complaints against Obama and Democratic
lawmakers: government overreach, big spending, Washington intrusion. "It's going to be a national election," said Rep. Pete Sessions
of Texas, head of the Republican committee overseeing House races. He said Republicans will run on broad themes, such as arguing that House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi's agenda for health care, energy and labor unions is destroying jobs. Even if Pelosi, D-Calif., isn't well-known to some voters, Sessions said,
"I think they're aware that America is under one-party rule."
Poor approval ratings will lead to Democratic losses
Jim Malone 7/14/10 national affairs correspondent for voa news (US Democrats Bracing For Election Setbacks, VOA,
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/usa/US-Democrats-Bracing-For-Election-Setbacks-98441014.html)
In U.S. politics, President Barack Obama's public approval ratings are hitting new lows and a
growing number of analysts now believe
opposition Republicans have an excellent chance of winning back control of at least one chamber of Congress in
midterm elections in November. The news for President Obama seems to be getting grimmer. The latest ABC News/Washington
Post poll found that nearly 60 percent of those surveyed lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the
country, and that only 43 percent approve of his handling of the economy. Both figures are new lows for that poll.
The negative poll ratings have been building for some time, according to Karlyn Bowman. Bowman monitors public opinion at the
American Enterprise Institute in Washington. "Pew [poll] noted last week that more people think Obama is having an effect on the economy than felt that way a
year ago," said Karlyn Bowman. "The bad news is that more people think he is making it worse rather than better." The president's overall approval
rating is at or just under 50 percent in most recent polls, and that could spell trouble for Democrats trying to hold onto
their majorities in Congress in the November midterm elections. Poor presidential approval ratings usually mean
losses for the president's party in midterm congressional elections. In addition, the Democrats are fighting history. With very few
exceptions, the party that controls the White House loses congressional seats in a new president's first midterm election.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
41
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
GOP Wins – Public
Public wants republicans
UPI 7/18 [United Press International, “Dems, GOP speak out on November prospects”] 7/18/10
Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, speaking on "Meet the Press" Sunday, predicted Republicans
will win control of the House in November by
winning "slightly over" 40 seats. "I think our candidates are going to take us from good to great to victory and I think
Republicans can win in November," Sessions said. ON CNN, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said of the November elections,
"The environment is very good for a good year" but did not offer specific predictions beyond saying he was hopeful Republicans would gain Senate seats. "I'd
like to be in better shape than the 41 that we have now," McConnell said, "and I think the chances of that are pretty
good." He took aim at Democrats for continuing to blame economic woes and the deficit on the administration of President Barack Obama's
predecessor, former President George W. Bush. "How long can the other side run against the previous administration?" McConnell said. "They've been in
charge now for a year and a half. They've been on a gargantuan spending spree. "What we are proud to say 'no' to,
and I think what the public wants us to say 'no' to, are things like the government running banks, insurance
companies, car companies, nationalizing the student loan business, taking over our healthcare." On "Fox News Sunday,"
Rep. James Clyburn, D-South Carolina, said of Democrats: "We're very poised in our campaign. We believe we'll have a strong showing come November." But,
also appearing on Fox, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said: "I like our our chances. The American people are tired of borrowing and
spending and bailouts and takeovers, and I believe they're poised to express themselves in the midterm
elections."
As time progresses Democrats are losing more seats
Time 7/19 [Time, {Dems Start to Panic As Midterm Reality Sets In”] 7/19/10,
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2004646,00.html#ixzz0uFzFONiS
Under pressure, the Democrats are cracking. On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there is a realization that Nancy Pelosi's hold on the
speakership is in true jeopardy; that losing control of the Senate is not out of the question; and that time, once the Democrats'
best friend, is now their mortal enemy. Since January, when Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts
Senate seat, the President's party has tried to downplay in public what its pollsters have been saying in
private: that Obama's alienation of independents and white voters, along with the enthusiasm gap between the
right and the left, means that Republicans are on a trajectory to pick up massive numbers of House and Senate
seats, perhaps even to regain control of Congress.
A change of support ensures Republican control in November
CNN 7/15 [CNN, “Obama could benefit from GOP takeover”] 7/15/10
To the members of one party, Obama is increasingly out of favor. Some people think he's in over his head, and
they've lost confidence in his ability to steer the economy away from the rocks. They're disappointed, angry
and doubtful of his ability to make the right decisions in order to lead the country. Then there's what the Republicans
are saying. This is interesting. Obama never had much Republican support. Then he lost most of the independents who
voted for him. Now he's fighting to hold on to his Democratic base, many of whom feel they got less than they
bargained for. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions
for the country. That is especially true when it comes to dealing with what many Americans consider the most pressing issue of all. Just 43 percent of
respondents say they approve of the job Obama is doing with the economy and 54 percent disapprove. The poll
found that even a third of Democrats gave him negative marks in that area. And overall, twice as many people rated
his performance strongly negative than did strongly positive. Some of this seems to be spilling over to Congress,
where a majority of likely voters say they want Republicans in control to act as a check on the White House.
Fifty-six percent support the GOP, while just 41 percent want to keep the legislative branch under Democratic control. Other polls show the same
thing. In the Post poll, however, lawmakers on the whole didn't fare very well: Seven in 10 respondents said they have no confidence in
Democrats and about the same number said they have no confidence in Republicans. Still, given the lack of voter confidence in Obama,
this could be a particularly bad year for Democrats. The White House is paying attention. On Sunday, press secretary Robert
Gibbs acknowledged for the first time that Republicans could take control of Congress in November. It's not just because,
as Democratic strategists argue, the party in power traditionally loses seats in midterm elections. Much of it
stems from voter dissatisfaction with Obama.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
42
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
GOP Wins – Public
Support for Republicans, disappointment in Democrats, and certain voter turnout
leads to Republican victory
Economist 7/8 [The Economist, “Waiting to thump the Democrats: The only question is how bad will things be for the ruling party in November”] 7/8/10,
http://www.economist.com/node/16541619?story_id=16541619&fsrc=rss
THIS is a miserable time to be a Democratic politician in America, especially if you are a member of the House of Representatives. Most non-partisan pollsters
and pundits agree that the Democrats can expect a thumping on November 2nd, when all of the 435 seats in the House and 36 of the 100 in the Senate will be
up for grabs in the mid-term elections. By general consent the Republicans are unlikely to gain the ten seats they need to
capture the Senate from the Democrats. In the House, on the other hand, the Democrats’ majority hangs by a
whisker. A nice indication of how close a race it is comes from a study by Alan Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University. He calculated last month
that the Republicans are on track to win 42 House seats currently held by Democrats and lose just three of their own
seats. That would give them a net gain of 39, which by coincidence is exactly how many they need to gain
control. Nancy Pelosi would then have to surrender the speaker’s gavel she won in 2006 to the Republicans’ John Boehner, who would preside over a
majority of 218 to 217—tiny, but enough to make life wretched for the Obama White House. Mr Abramowitz’s projection is only one of many to suggest that the
election is tight. Although the analysis of his Cook Political Report still puts the Democrats’ losses between 30 and 40, Charlie Cook, an expert on the horse-race,
says his “gut” tells him that the Democrats will lose “a few more than 40”. “Earth to House Democrats,” Bill Galston, a senior fellow in the Democrat-leaning
Brookings Institution, wrote recently: “It’s time to press the panic button.” Comparisons with the wave that saw the Republicans take the House for the first time
in 40 years at the 1994 mid-terms are inescapable. Like Bill Clinton then, Barack Obama has seen his approval rating shrivel to under 50%; our YouGov poll has
him at just 43%, though the average of all such polls is three points higher. People are once again deeply dissatisfied with both the performance of the
Democratic Congress and the direction of the country. Mr Abramowitz notes that fewer of the seats the Democrats are defending this time are in marginal or
Republican-leaning districts, and fewer are in seats where the incumbent is not running. This should make the Democrats’ majority a bit easier to defend than in
What has gone wrong for the Democrats? Almost everything. For
all the stimulus spending, unemployment remains stubbornly high at 9.5%. On July 2nd gloomy figures showed that
the private sector created only a measly 83,000 jobs in June, while the public sector shed jobs as temporary census-workers were laid off.
Far from delivering a bounce in the polls, the overhaul of health reform that Mr Obama pushed through in March has incensed
many voters. Oil is still bubbling into the Gulf of Mexico. The country is in the sort of unhappy and scratchy mood
that voters in mid-terms habitually take out on the president’s party. The outlook for the Democrats is certainly worse than you
1994, when they lost 54 seats. But they still risk being overwhelmed.
would think if you looked only at the “generic” polls that ask which party voters are likelier to vote for. Right now they are more or less level-pegging (see chart 1).
That is a big drop for the Democrats since Mr Obama was elected, but not necessarily fatal on its own. The real trouble is that an enormous “enthusiasm gap”
In the general election of 2008 part of the Democrats’ appeal was their fresh and inspiring
presidential candidate. But Mr Obama is not up for re-election until November 2012, so even the diminishing
number of voters who continue to find him inspiring might not vote in the mid-terms, when turnout is usually
a good 15 points or so lower. That is especially true of the first-time voters, enthusiastic young people and fired-up
blacks Mr Obama was able to mobilise in 2008. All polls now find that a far bigger proportion of Republicans
than Democrats or independents are “more enthusiastic” about voting in the mid-terms. A survey published by the
Pew Research Centre on July 1st found that 56% of Republican voters were more enthusiastic about voting this year, the highest
proportion since the Republican triumph of 1994. More Republicans than Democrats (64% to 50%) say they are playing
close attention to election news. True, the same poll found that under-30s favoured the Democrats by a wide margin (57% to 32%), but only half of
now separates the two parties.
these were absolutely certain to vote. Among over-50s, on the other hand, the Republicans enjoy an 52% to 41% lead, but about eight of ten of these older
voters said they were absolutely certain to vote. For the Democrats this is an ominous change: in the mid-terms of 2006, they held the same lead among young
people but a 14-point lead among older voters too. The enthusiasm gap exists even among the growing proportion of voters
who choose to register as independents. Pew finds that 44% of this group intend to vote Republican and 36%
Democrat, and that 77% of the Republican-leaning independents are “absolutely certain” to vote, compared with 62% of
those who intend to vote Democrat. Gallup says its polls show a bigger enthusiasm gap between the parties than it has measured in any previous mid-term,
including the 1994 landslide.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
43
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** LINK TURNS ***
Dems on brink of losing- Afghan withdrawal Key
Broder 7/17/10 (David, reporter for the Washington Post, “If Reagan returns, Democrats get whomped”) http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_15535121
WASHINGTON — When Congress stays in session during the dog days of a Washington summer,
rebellion is always bubbling just beneath
the surface. And sure enough, it erupted at a caucus of House Democrats one night last week, triggered by an injudicious comment from White House
press secretary Robert Gibbs. Gibbs made the terrible mistake of affirming what all the Democrats know to be true, namely, that the
combination of high unemployment, oil pollution in the Gulf of Mexico and growing casualties in Afghanistan has so aggravated the voters
that control of the House is seriously at issue. Gibbs was denounced for telling television interviewers that the 39
House seats Republicans would need to take over to become a majority are certainly in play. For his candor, Gibbs was
roundly roasted by some of those who could well be the victims of such an upheaval. The president himself hied up to Capitol
Hill to make amends, but the underlying ferment remains. One White House aide told me, "They (the House members) really hate the Senate, but we made it
easy for them to take it out on us." The fact is that the Democrats are out of sorts — frustrated by the effectiveness of the
Republican opposition that makes it so hard to pass bills in the Senate, and battered too by the inability of
Washington to solve any of the big problems facing the country. They were greeted on their return from their Independence Day holiday
with a Washington Post-ABC News poll reporting that voters think, by a margin of 51 percent to 43 percent, that it is more important to
have a Republican majority in the next Congress to act as a check on President Obama's policies, rather than a
Democratic majority to support him. Unless Obama can turn that psychology around, the Democrats could well be
on their way to another 1994-style defeat.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
44
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Afghanistan Link Turns
Democrats upset over leaving forces in Afghanistan.
Baker, 09- A former writer for the Washington Times, White house correspondent (Peter Baker, “Iraq withdrawal Plan gains G.O.P. Support” 2/26,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27troops.html?_r=1)
President Obama won crucial backing on Thursday for his Iraq military withdrawal plan from leading Congressional Republicans, including Senator John McCain,
the party’s presidential nominee, who spent much of last year debating the war with Mr. Obama.
Obama’s Iraq Plan Has December Elections as Turning Point for Pullout (February 26, 2009)
Obama Favoring Mid-2010 Pullout in Iraq, Aides Say (February 25, 2009)
As the president prepared to fly to Camp Lejeune, N.C., on Friday to announce that he would pull combat forces out by August 2010 while
leaving behind a residual force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops, he reassured Congressional leaders from both parties that
his plan would not jeopardize hard-won stability in Iraq.
But Republicans emerged from a meeting Thursday evening more supportive than several leading Democrats, who
complained earlier in the day that the president was still leaving behind too many American forces.
Majority of democrats favor troop withdrawal in Afghanistan
Naiman 10 (Robert Naiman, Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy, “3/5 of House Dems 'Obsessed' With Afghan Withdrawal Timetable”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/35-of-house-dems-obsessed_b_634217.html?page=5&show_comment_id=52420226#comment_52420226, July 2,
2010)
"Obsession" isn't just "a fragrance for men." According to our Commander-in-Chief, "obsession"
now also characterizes the widespread interest in
the timeline for bringing home 100,000 American boys and girls safely from Afghanistan so they can grow old with their
sweethearts and lead economically productive lives, rather than becoming Pentagon statistics or lifelong burdens on their family members and the public purse.
President Obama
said there's "a lot of obsession" about the withdrawal date for U.S. troops from Afghanistan, the AP
reported Sunday. This "obsession" has so afflicted the body politic that Thursday night, three-fifths of the Democrats in the U.S. House of
Representatives voted for an amendment on the war supplemental that not only tried to lock in the July 2011 timetable
for the beginning of the drawdown that President Obama promised last year, but also would have required the president to establish a timetable for
the completion of the drawdown. Are some of us "obsessed" with a withdrawal timetable for U.S. forces from Afghanistan? Damn straight we are. Advocacy of a
withdrawal timetable is the principal means by which Americans outside of the military can act politically to protect the lives of our fellow citizens who are being
deployed. Every day by which we can shorten the war is a day on which our fellow citizens won't have the opportunity to be blown up in Afghanistan. The group
of Americans afflicted by this "obsession" is surely going to continue to grow in numbers and influence. The 162 who voted for a timetable for
withdrawal yesterday represented almost a 20% increase over those who voted for an exit strategy last June. The
three-fifths of the Democratic caucus in the House who voted for a timetable for withdrawal yesterday featured many
members of the Democratic leadership, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who usually doesn't vote on the floor (her statement backing her
vote for the amendment is here), David Obey, chair of Appropriations, who co-sponsored the amendment; John Larson, chair of the Democratic Caucus; Chris
Van Hollen, assistant to the Speaker; George Miller, chair of Education and Labor; Barney Frank, chair of Financial Services; and Henry Waxman, chair of
Energy and Commerce.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
45
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Iraq Link Turns
Troop withdrawal popular with Democrats
The New York Times 06 (“Democrats push for troop Cuts Within Months”, 11/13/06,
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/13/washington/13military.html?pagewanted=print)
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — Democratic
leaders in the Senate vowed on Sunday to use their new Congressional majority to
press for troop reductions in Iraq within a matter of months, stepping up pressure on the administration just as
President Bush is to be interviewed by a bipartisan panel examining future strategy for the war.
The Democrats — the incoming majority leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada; the incoming Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin of
Michigan; and the incoming Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware — said a phased redeployment of
troops would be their top priority when the new Congress convenes in January, even before an investigation of the
conduct of the war.
“We need to begin a phased redeployment of forces from Iraq in four to six months,” Mr. Levin said in an appearance on the ABC News program “This Week.” In
a telephone interview later, Mr. Levin added, “The point of this is to signal to the Iraqis that the open-ended commitment is over and that they are going to have to
solve their own problems.”
The White House signaled a willingness to listen to the Democrats’ proposals, with Joshua B. Bolten, the chief of
staff, saying in two television appearances that the president was open to “fresh ideas” and a “fresh look.” But Mr. Bolten
said he could not envision the White House signing on to a plan setting a timetable for the withdrawal of troops.
Democrats support immediate pullout from Iraq
Duffy, 07- Journalist and winner of the Gerald R. Ford award for reporting, 1998 winner of Goldsmith award (Michael Duffy, “ How to leave Iraq” 7/19
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1644877,00.html)
There are two big schools of thought about what the U.S. should do next in Iraq, and both schools are almost certainly wrong.
The first, represented
by many congressional Democrats, argues that it is past the time for America to leave. The best
thing that could happen now is for the U.S. to pull out as quickly as possible, force the Iraqis to take control of their
destinies and compel the oil-rich gulf states in the neighborhood to get off the sidelines. In this view, leaving Iraq would deny al-Qaeda its best recruiting tool,
a large U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Along the way, the U.S. could save the $10 billion a month that it is spending on the war and rescue the U.S.
Army and Marine Corps before they both collapse.
Troop withdrawal from Iraq has bipartisan support
Sargent 09 Greg Sargent, editor of Election Central, Talking Points Memo's politics and elections Web site. He has previously covered New York City
politics for The New York Observer and for New York magazine, where he published a number of features, columns and news stories. He has also written for the
Washington Monthly, The American Prospect, Newsday, Mother Jones and other publications “Poll: Three Quarters Of Republicans Back Withdrawal From Iraq’s
Cities” 06/30/09
“This plan has widespread bipartisan support,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Seventy two percent of Democrats
and 74 percent of Republicans favor this move.” Can it really be that less than a year ago, one of the central arguments in American politics
was over whether Obama’s plan to pull out of Iraq, rather than secure “victory” first, signaled that he was defeatist, weak, possibly unpatriotic, and generally unfit
to defend the country? That said, the basic point stands: Obama’s
call for a withdrawal timetable — one that got him attacked
relentlessly by Republican leaders during the campaign as weak, unfit to defend the country, and possibly anti-troops
— helped produce today’s plan, and it now has the support of three fourths of Republicans. That’s the core point
here, and we shouldn’t be distracted from it.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
46
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** IMPACT TURNS ***
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
47
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Republicans Good – Economy
Republican victory would create the perception of congressional gridlock- that’s key
to the economy.
Panteli 10 (Chris Panteli, “Wirtz eyes US capital market rally after mid-term elections”, Investment Week, March 15, 2010,
http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/1596324/wirtz-eyes-us-capital-market-rally-mid-term-elections)
Fifth Third Asset Management president and CIO Keith Wirtz believes the US
capital markets will enjoy a late rally following the mid-term
elections in November. Wirtz, whose firm took on management of Skandia Investment Group’s $80m US Large Cap Growth fund, says the prospect of a
hung parliament, which is currently hitting sterling badly, would have the opposite effect across the Atlantic. He predicts the Democrats will lose
seats in both the house and the senate in the mid-terms, resulting in congressional gridlock, which in turn will lead to
a rally in the markets. “The US markets would cheer for a divided government,” Wirtz says. “The markets will perceive
less risk coming from congress and less damage to the American taxpayer and that may lead to a pretty nice rally
late in the year. “The markets respond quite favourably to congressional gridlock and I have every hope and expectation our
congress is going to lock up in November.” Wirtz believes the US equity markets will lead equity markets across the world in 2010.
He says quality, which can now be bought cheaply in the US, will be the key theme in the SIG portfolio. As opposed to last year, returns will be sourced from
quality larger-cap stocks, he adds, with pharmaceutical and technology stocks being favoured in the portfolio. “Financial
quality is now the
important theme. Earnings, margins, balance-sheet condition – those kinds of measures of quality to us look particularly attractive and cheap to us now,”
Wirtz says. “You can buy quality fairly inexpensively in the US relative to other factors. “We have raised the capitalisation structure and have been moving
towards areas which have been somewhat out of favour such as healthcare, where stocks look cheap to us right now. “We
think technology still looks
attractive to us because of the fundamentals we see over the next two years and we also want to re-expose to the
energy areas of the US economy.”
Economic growth is key to avoid global conflict
Tilford 2008 (Earl Tilford, PhD in history from George Washington University and served for thirty-two years as a military officer and analyst with the Air
Force and Army, 2008, “Critical Mass: Economic Leadership or Dictatorship,” The Cedartown Standard, Lexis)
Could it happen again? Bourgeois democracy requires a vibrant capitalist system. Without it, the role of the individual shrinks as government expands. At the
very least, the dimensions of the U.S. government economic intervention will foster a growth in bureaucracy to administer the multi-faceted programs necessary
for implementation. Bureaucracies, once established, inevitably become self-serving and self-perpetuating. Will this lead to “socialism” as some conservative
economic prognosticators suggest? Perhaps. But so is the possibility of dictatorship. If
the American economy collapses, especially in wartime,
American democratic era may be over. If the world economies collapse,
totalitarianism will almost certainly return to Russia, which already is well along that path in any event. Fragile democracies in South
America and Eastern Europe could crumble. A global economic collapse will also increase the chance of global conflict. As economic
systems shut down, so will the distribution systems for resources like petroleum and food. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that
nations perceiving themselves in peril will, if they have the military capability, use force, just as Japan and Nazi Germany did in
the mid-to-late 1930s. Every nation in the world needs access to food and water. Industrial nations—the world powers of North
America, Europe, and Asia—need access to energy. When the world economy runs smoothly, reciprocal trade meets these
needs. If the world economy collapses, the use of military force becomes a more likely alternative. And given the increasingly
rapid rate at which world affairs move; the world could devolve to that point very quickly.
there remains that possibility. And if that happens the
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
48
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Republicans Good – SKFTA
Democrat majority blocks the FTA with Korea-guts US credibility
Korea Herald 2010 (1/8/10, "KORUS FTA in limbo ", http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2010/01/09/201001090027.asp)
Domestic political complications in both Korea and the United States are keeping the free trade agreement between
the two countries from moving toward ratification. At the start of 2010, pessimism prevails in the capitals of both countries about having the
KORUS FTA, signed in July 2006, ratified this year. Korea has crucial local elections in June, which will serve as a mid-term appraisal of the Lee Myung-bak
government currently pressured by the Sejong City project and the need for economic recovery. In the United States, the 435 members of the
House and one-third of the Senate are already looking ahead to the November elections, calculating the impact of a
sensitive FTA on votes. The worst detriment to the FTA between Korea and the U.S. was the fact that changes of
power took place in both countries after the signing of the pact. A great irony is that the Democratic Party, the ruling
force throughout the two years of hard negotiations for the FTA, has now become the diehard opponent of its
ratification. In Washington, Barack Obama, who had called for a renegotiation of the FTA deal over what he believes are inadequate provisions regarding
auto trade during the campaign, must now still be preoccupied with the heavily unbalanced numbers of cars Korea sells in his country and the struggling
American cars in the Korean market. On his visit to Seoul last November, Obama gave no strong assurance of his push for FTA ratification. Calls for a decisive
action by the U.S. president are being raised in the United States, particularly from the conservative circles to prevent the nation from being left behind in global
post-recession trade. Among them, Edwin Fuelner, president of the Washington-based think tank Heritage Foundation, urged Obama to "give it a push" in his
2010 State of the Union message to be delivered to Congress later in January. Yet, U.S. trade officials want to address concerns over auto trade imbalance and
beef import restrictions through side agreements, possibly without revising the text of the FTA. But mutual concessions have already been made and observers
like Fuelner believe that there are enough sensible people in both the House and Senate who will vote yes when the FTA bill is sent to Congress. The U.S.
president needs to be reminded that an indefinite delay in the implementation of an FTA with a major trading partner
hurts the credibility of the governments involved, perhaps more of Washington`s, when world nations are rushing
toward individual free trade deals amidst the absence of progress in the WTO-based negotiations for a universal
regime.
GOP gains in midterms is key to FTA passage
Tandon 2010 (Shaun, Agence France Presse, "Obama risks party showdown on S. Korea deal,"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jXc3NbMVbqypa3su7mNSooP8lf_g)
Ironically, the rival Republican Party, while opposed to many of Obama's key priorities such as climate and immigration legislation, may
offer
greater support than Democrats on the South Korea free trade agreement. "Before the midterm elections, he cannot
submit this to Congress. It's impossible," said Anthony Kim, a policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank. "But after
the election, there will be a new set of minds. It will be an uphill battle -- there is no doubt about that -- but I think it
may come to life next year," he said. Sabina Dewan, associate director of international economic policy at the left-leaning Center for American
Progress, said that any trade deal would be controversial at a time that the wobbly US economy is voters' top concern. But she noted that Obama has set a goal
"Given the domestic
climate and the challenges that President Obama is facing right now, he would not have picked this battle if he didn't
truly believe in the merits of it," she said.
of doubling US exports as a way to fuel growth and that, in a globalized economy, the United States risked being left behind.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
49
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Republicans Good – SKFTA
The FTA is key to US influence and hegemony
Korea Times 2010 (Lee Hyo-sik, 2/1/10, " US Loses Clout on Korean Economy ", http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/biz/2010/02/123_60075.html)
South Korea was able to rise from the ashes of the 1950-53 Korean War on the back of international aid, most of which came from the United States. The world's
largest economy imported Korea's agricultural products, garments and other manufactured goods from the 1950s through the '70s on favorable terms to help the
Asian nation outpace the Communist North Korea. The U.S. also provided Korea with flour and other basic necessities at lower costs to help it feed its people.
influence in what is now Asia's fourth-largest economy has been
diminishing rapidly over the last 10 years, with Korea expanding trade relations with China, Russia and other
emerging economies. Analysts here say that the U.S. could lose more of its economic clout in Korea if the administration of
President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress continue to delay the ratification of the Korea-U.S. free trade
agreement (FTA). They say the European Union and China, which compete with the U.S. for global hegemony, will
establish closer economic ties with Korea if the U.S. heads toward protectionism and places greater priority on
domestic populism than trade. According to the Korea Customs Services (KCS) Monday, Korea's trade dependence on the U.S. stood at 9.7 percent
It was the country's largest trading partner over the past five decades. But its
in 2009, down from 24.4 percent in 1991. Korea shipped about 10.36 percent of its total outbound shipments to the world's largest economy, down from 25.8
percent over the same period, while taking 9 percent of its total imports from the U.S., down from 23.18 percent.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
50
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Republicans Good – Cap and Trade Bad
Cap and Trade drives our economy downward
Furchott, 10’ [Diana Furchtgott-Roth: Why President Obama has not created more jobs By: Diana Furchtgott-Roth Examiner Columnist July 2, 2010
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Why-president-Obama-has-not-created-more-jobs-97618189.html]
The proposed cap-and-trade bill would raise energy prices, impose strict new efficiency standards on automobiles
and appliances, require firms to use imaginary future technology, and mandate greenhouse gas emissions per person be reduced back
to 19th-century levels by 2050. Speaking about the bill in Racine, the president said, "And you know what, it will be good for our economy. It is going to drive our
economy in the 21st century." Speaking at an American Enterprise Institute conference on Capitol Hill yesterday, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who represents
Racine, disagreed, saying, "Cap and trade is a job killer." The only direction cap and trade can drive our economy is down.
Sure, if passed, it would create jobs building expensive solar panels and windmills, and inventing the technology to comply with the government's new
requirements. But the bill's
$800 billion plus price tag comes from new taxes, higher prices for cheaper energy such as oil
and gas, and increased borrowing. This is money lost that businesses and consumers can no longer spend on
products they actually value. Higher energy prices drive companies offshore.
US economic decline causes multiple war scenarios
Mead 09 (Walter Mead- Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy in the Council on Foreign Relations. “Only Makes You Stronger,” February 4
2009. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2 AD 6/30/09)
Frequently, the crisis has weakened the power of the merchants, industrialists, financiers, and professionals who want to develop a liberal capitalist society
integrated into the world. Crisis can also strengthen the hand of religious extremists, populist radicals, or authoritarian traditionalists who are determined to resist
liberal capitalist society for a variety of reasons. Meanwhile, the companies and banks based in these societies are often less established and more vulnerable to
the consequences of a financial crisis than more established firms in wealthier societies. As a result, developing countries and countries where capitalism has
relatively recent and shallow roots tend to suffer greater economic and political damage when crisis strikes--as, inevitably, it does. And, consequently,
financial crises often reinforce rather than challenge the global distribution of power and wealth. This may be
happening yet again. None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that
financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have
been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League
of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of
wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the
Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring Adolf Hitler to power. If
the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough
beasts might start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not,
yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
51
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Republicans Good – Obama Reelected
Republicans winning in the midterm elections would allow Obama to be reelected.
Morrissey 7/15/10, Ed Morrissey, Who will be the New Obstructionists after the midterms?, http://hotair.com/archives/2010/07/15/who-will-be-the-newobstructionists-after-the-midterms/
Rumor has had Barack Obama secretly hoping for a Republican victory in the midterms, a pet conspiracy theory that propagated
among House Democrats during the winter of their discontent over ObamaCare. Ever since, pundits have convinced themselves that having a foil in a
Republican-controlled House would allow Obama to blame the GOP for any gridlock, and use that to get himself re-elected in 2012. Bill Clinton did something
similar when he won a standoff and a government shutdown with Newt Gingrich in 1995. I’m reminded of this theory in Howard Kurtz question of whether
Americans see gridlock as a good choice after experiencing the runaway Democratic agenda: Democrats, who are acutely aware of the president’s sinking
poll numbers, flush out the
argument this way: Sure, the country blames us for the rotten economy and thinks we spent too much time
what’s the GOP alternative? They’re the party of no, they don’t offer a positive agenda, and they did crash the economy at
the end of Bush’s term — after years of overspending. Polls show the public is as fed up with the Republicans as they are with us.
Obama is trying to do the right thing — the stimulus did create plenty of jobs — and the Republicans shouldn’t be
rewarded for being obstructionists. But what if Americans like obstructionists? By which I mean, what if the country, having sampled
all-Democratic rule in Washington, would much prefer divided government? … That’s why the Obama rhetoric about giving back the keys may fall flat: A
Republican Congress wouldn’t be running things. It would be more in the role of backseat driver. GOP lawmakers
could schedule hearings, issue subpoenas, keep bills off the floor — but would have a hard time passing anything
over a presidential veto. That could be a formula for gridlock — but if enough voters are angry at big government,
they might prefer a government that doesn’t do much. That’s one part of the problem and blessing of a GOP House
for Obama. If voters remain as angry at Democrats as they are today, an obstructionist Congress will become pretty
popular over the succeeding two years before Obama’s re-election campaign. On the other hand, with that in mind,
independent voters might like the idea of divided government enough to favor Obama rather than a Republican in
2012 under those circumstances.
on health care, but
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
52
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Republicans Good – Freedom
Republican victory in the midterm election is key to a free and moral society.
Walker 7/20/10, Bruce Walker, Conservatives and Republican Victory, http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/07/conservatives_and_republican_v.html
Conservatives are doing an outstanding job in gaining strong control of the Republican Party. Not a single Republican House member supported the stimulus
package or ObamaCare. The primary season so far has been an almost unbroken string of more conservative Republicans pushing out less conservative
Republicans. Rubio pushed Crist out of the Republican Party. Toomey did the same to Specter. Perry defeated Hutchison in Texas. Utah's veteran Senator
Bennett was denied re-nomination. Although conservatives have not jelled around a presidential nominee yet, that is because until the dust of 2010 settles, no
one can know who the strongest candidates will be. Will
Republicans win the muscle to pass laws over the objection of the entire
Democratic Party? Only if every conservative grasps that this is the first chance that conservatives have had since
the New Deal to roll back secular nanny-statism -- and that it may be the last chance, too. ObamaCare, for example, will be
repealed only if Republicans do not need a single Democrat vote in Congress. If ObamaCare is not repealed soon, then it will become one of those indestructible
Conservatives should also enact, in a narrow window of real
power, reforms that dramatically consign control over education back to families and which encourage the rapid
growth of small business, which is not only the economic dynamo of American enterprise, but also the only
counterweight to the corporate fascism Obama is trying to force on America. There are several critical reforms which, if passed
in a single session of Congress (assuming the GOP has the numbers), would permanently move our republic back
on the course of ordered liberty, modest governance, and moral society. It would be extraordinarily simple to prevent Democrats from
"entitlement" programs which gobble up huge chunks of the economy.
repealing these reforms: While Republicans have never had this carte blanche power, Democrats have held it for only a few brief years, separated by several
decades.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
53
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Republicans Good – Prolif
Obama’s Nuclear Agenda triggers Iran and North Korea Proliferation. Republicans
are key to stopping it.
Tapper, 10 – (ABC News' senior White House correspondent (Jake, “Nuclear Policy Enrages Republicans, Administration Argues It Will Make U.S. Safer”,
4/7, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/nuclear-policy-enrages-republicans-administration-argues-make-us/story?id=10306720&page=1)
President Obama says his new nuclear policy restricts the use of weapons while continuing to protect the United
States and its allies, but some Republican critics argue that the world is now less safe and that the president's vision
of a nuclear-free world is unrealistic. Republicans voice concern over the president's change in U.S. nuclear policy. It's
unclear if the pushback will impact the pending Senate vote on ratification of the U.S.-Russian nuclear disarmament treaty that Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev are scheduled to sign Thursday in Prague. White House officials are increasingly
expressing concern that the polarized political atmosphere might impact what is traditionally a bipartisan vote. On Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs again brought up past votes on arms treaties: the 1972 SALT I [Strategic Arms Limitation
policy shift, the president is
pledging to not use nuclear weapons against any country that has signed and is abiding by the Nuclear NonProliferation Treaty, even if they attack the United States with chemical or biological weapons. The United States also
will not conduct any new nuclear testing or develop new nuclear weapons, but it will continue to modernize its
infrastructure and bolster the development of other conventional weapons. The new nuclear policy, announced Tuesday, has
Republican critics up in arms. They argue that the U.S. government is making the concessions without getting
anything in return. "If you look at the issue of threat based, the world is not getting safer, the risks to the United States are certainly increasing," Rep. Michael R. Turner, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Armed
Services subcommittee on strategic forces, told ABC News. "It does overall diminish our options, and I think certainly that the American people should be
concerned that the president would take this kind of action and get nothing in return." The House does not vote on treaties, but Turner said he would need to
Talks Agreement], which was ratified by a vote of 88-2, START I in 1992 (93-6), START II in 1996 (87-4) and SORT [Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty] in 2003 (95-0).
In a major
further study the new agreement with Russia before being able to express support for it. GOP senators from Arizona John McCain and Jon Kyl expressed concern about the message the new policy will send to countries seeking nuclear weapons. " The
Obama Administration must clarify that we will take no option off the table to deter attacks against the American
people and our allies," they said in a combined statement. "We believe that preventing nuclear terrorism and nuclear proliferation should begin
by directly confronting the two leading proliferators and supporters of terrorism, Iran and North Korea. "The Obama
administration's policies, thus far, have failed to do that and this failure has sent exactly the wrong message to other
would-be proliferators and supporters of terrorism." Across the airwaves, the president's pledge fueled the outrage of conservatives. "I think the only thing that would work with Iran is they're thinking
that there's a military consequence that could be faced if they become nuclear, and the farther he moves away from that, the more difficult his role with Iran is going to be," former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said on CNN. Obama and administration
officials, however, argue that the new policy sends exactly the right signal to Iran and North Korea, that by not complying with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and pursuing nuclear weapons, they are less safe. "I actually think that the NPR [Nuclear Posture
Review] has a very strong message for both Iran and North Korea," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said Tuesday. "We essentially carve out states like Iran and North Korea that are not in compliance with NPT." The message to these countries, Gates
said, "is that if you're going to play by the rules, if you're going to join the international community, then we will undertake certain obligations to you, and that's covered in the NPR. But if you're not going to play by the rules,
be a proliferator, then all options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you."
if you're going to
Nicholas Burns, who served as
undersecretary of state for political affairs in the Bush administration, agreed, saying that the new policy should be welcomed and that it maintains "a very tough
"The president is clearly signaling that we are really decades away now from the end of the Cold War," he said. "That the real threats are no longer just those nuclear
weapons states that bedeviled us in the past but they're the terrorist groups, and they're the renegade states like Iran
and North Korea that are truly disruptive and a threat to the world. "It seems to me that this new nuclear policy review by the Obama Administration strengthens the ability to the
line" on Iran.
United States to counter that threat and safeguard American interests."
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
54
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
*** IMPACT DEFENSE ***
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
55
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Impact Defense – Immigration
Bipart opposition to Immigration Reform before and after midterms.
Hooper 6/24/10 (Molly K., Reporter for The Hill, Key Dem: Immigration bill lacks votes) http://thehill.com/homenews/house/105503-key-democratimmigration-bill-lacks-votesRep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who co-sponsored
the bipartisan, bicameral 2006 reform measure with Gutierrez, McCain and the late
that the drive to pass immigration reform in his conference gave way to a push
for stricter border security policy. “I’m willing to work with anybody to get it through, but I’m under no illusion that we
can. A lot of the Republicans, particularly in the Senate, who are pushing for comprehensive reform have said until
we see the borders secure, we can’t move to the other elements, so that just puts us in a holding pattern,” Flake said.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), indicated
Flake and Gutierrez have spoken about the issue as recently as a few weeks ago but have not engaged in formal conversations on the matter. Flake added,
“It’s
a tough issue for both sides of the aisle.”
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
56
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
Impact Defense – Cap & Trade
Cap-and-Trade, even modified, will be defeated regardless of midterms.
Rossomado, 7/1/10 (Inhofe: Obama Trying to Trade Border Security for Sweeping Amnesty Thursday, 01 Jul 2010 07:48 PM By: John Rossomando
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/inhofe-obama-amnesty-immigration/2010/07/01/id/363634)
Regarding cap and trade, meanwhile, Inhofe tells Newsmax that he remains confident it is dead in the Senate and likely would be
defeated even if the Democrats try bringing it up in a modified form during the lame-duck session following the
midterms. Nonetheless, Obama plans to do everything he can to get a carbon-emissions tax passed. He recently met with moderate-to-liberal GOP senators
such as Olympia Snowe of Maine, seeking their backing for a restriction on CO2 emissions. “Well, they can call it anything they want, but cap
and trade is cap and trade,” says Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. “And these guys all
know now that. Even the more mushy Republicans who used to be hard for me to deal with all realize that cap and trade is the
largest tax increase in the history of America.” Democrats reportedly intend to pass some sort of “benign” sounding
energy legislation before the August recess, put it into conference with Waxman-Markey — the House cap-and-trade bill — and
pass it after the midterms. Inhofe tells Newsmax.TV the senators who vote for this legislation will likely be defeated.
US Climate bill stinks – won’t help solve warming.
SASSOON
Oct. 2009 founder of SolveClimate, a website offering daily climate news and analysis
[David Sassoon, Weaker and worse October 2009, http://www.himalmag.com/Weaker-and-worse_nw3576.html]
When the US Congress unveiled a proposed national climate law for America last spring, the international community was left
surprised and disappointed by its lack of ambition. “Handouts and loopholes” was the headline of The Economist
story that summed it up best. “America’s climate-change bill is weaker and worse than expected,” the magazine declared.
The bill came as a sobering reality cheque, a comedown from the elation felt in climate circles at President Barack
Obama’s election. The law aims to reduce US emissions a mere four percent below 1990 levels by 2020, far short of both what the science
demands and the European Union’s reduction commitment of 20 percent. But the oddest thing about the so-called American Clean Energy and Security Act is that it
sends its single most generous handout – more than USD 60 billion worth of free carbon credits – to the coal industry. Further, the fine
print was even worse. It revealed that most of the proposed emissions cuts would likely come not from the actual
reduction of industrial CO2 pollution in the US, but from a giant loophole that allowed for purchase of up to two billion
tonnes of carbon ‘offset’ credits. Lawmakers had created a mechanism for allowing the US to outsource its emission reductions and proceed with business as usual at
home. The bill is one major reason why the prospects of an international climate agreement in Copenhagen are today
looking dim. Without the leverage of good example and leadership, President Obama’s team has little negotiating
leverage, or the means to sweeten the global deal, in order to secure the cooperation of developing nations. Since
June, the bill has been stalled twice in the US Senate, and the latest word is that it will be taken up in October. As a
result, final passage before the December meetings in Copenhagen is highly unlikely. That may be a good thing,
however, because the Senate is expected to weaken the bill even further. This is not the reality that President Obama sought to underscore
before the UN General Assembly in September. At the climate summit convened by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on 22 September, he said “I am proud to say that the United
States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.” This statement may have been true, but it was
of insufficient significance, and the speech as a whole proved to more a collection of quotable platitudes than a roadmap for progress.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
57
SCFI 2010
Midterms
Team Jabob & the STGs
___ of ___
A2: Freedom Come First
The 1ac impacts come before freedom because all values are derived from life.
Freedom Universal No Date, The Freedom Universal, A full presentation and discussion of the various elements and dimensions of the Freedom
Universal, including the historic, philosophic, economic, legal, social, and policy arguments and evidence, is beyond the scope of this website., Explanation of the
Freedom Universal's Elements, http://freedomuniversal.com/explanation
The sovereignty of the individual is the foundation of the Freedom Universal and its reason for being. The source of this sovereignty is the individual’s life. An
individual’s life is the supreme value. All other values derive from the supreme value of life, and are values only by
virtue of serving the needs of the individual’s life. Freedom, justice, and prosperity—and all the values of a civilized
society—have meaning only in relation to an individual's life. Therefore, all other values—including social institutions
such as the government—are subordinate to the supreme, inviolable, sacred value of life—the sovereignty of the
individual. The statement of individual sovereignty establishes the proper relationship between individuals—a
relationship of sovereign equals before the law. The sole exception to individual sovereignty is when, and to the extent that, a person has
violated the sovereignty of another person (which occurs primarily by initiating violence against their person or their property). Through violating the sovereignty
of another, an individual loses their own sovereignty—but only to the extent necessary to restore the integrity of the injured person by making the injured person
whole again through restitution. Once the injurer has made full restitution to the injured person, the sovereignty of the injurer is thereby restored.
“I’m going to keep judging you by the way you look”
58