1NC
Democrats Good
Democrats winning the Senate now – new jobs report gives a boost.
Mackenzie 7/04 (Drew “Obama slaps GOP as jobs report gives democrats boost for midterms” Newsmax
07/04/2014 http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/jobs-midterms-2014-Obama/2014/07/04/id/580873/)
President Barack Obama
took a swipe at the GOP while heralding the June employment report showing 288,000 new jobs
that gives Democrats a much-needed lift in the run-up to the midterm elections, The Hill reports. During a surprise visit to a textile
factory in Washington, Obama said that Republicans are more concerned about politics than people while urging the GOP
to support legislation vital to greater job growth. "It's really important for us to understand that we could be making even stronger progress, we
could be growing even more jobs, we could be creating even more business opportunities for smart, talented folks … if those of us here in
Washington were focused on them, focused on you, the American people, rather than focused on politics," Obama said,
according to The Hill. The Hill said that the jobs report was a vital boost to Democrats following a recent NBC/Wall Street
Journal poll that showed 54 percent of Americans perceive that Obama is doing a poor job when it comes to the
economy. June was the first time that there had been five straight months of job growth with 200,000 new positions
since the late 1990s, according to The Hill. But economist Peter Morici says the figures remains far short of the 390,000 needed each month to keep up
with population growth. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest hailed the positive jobs report, saying that it was "an indication that these crises aren't
created overnight, and they're not solved overnight, and that there needs to be a long-term, coordinated strategy to strengthen our economy." House Democratic
Pelosi of California backed the president’s criticism of the GOP by saying that opportunities to grow the
economy are being lost because establishment Republicans are kowtowing to tea party conservatives. She said the
GOP continues to block a minimum wage hike, the renewal of emergency unemployment insurance and the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank. "House Republicans' relentless obstruction and dysfunction are holding back
our growth and threatening hundreds of thousands of American jobs," said Pelosi, according to The Hill.
Leader Nancy
[Insert Link]
Popular Opinion of Presidential Policy is key to midterm success, enthusiasm empirically
generates better midterm results
Cushman 2014 (Jackie Gingrich Cushman, graduated cum laude from Presbyterian College in Clinton, S.C. She
received her MBA from Georgia State University | May 15, 2014, Turn Out
http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2014/05/15/turn-out-n1838195/page/full, bs)
It's spring, an election off year, and primaries are in full swing across the country. In my home state of Georgia, the primary is less than a week
away, and the ballot is chock full of hotly contested primaries.¶ ¶ In the race for the open U.S. Senate seat, a slew of Republican candidates are vying for one of
the two spots for the July 22 runoff. These candidates include three sitting congressmen — Paul Braun, Phil Gingrey, and Jack Kingston. The top three
candidates in this primary are David Perdue, Jack Kingston, and Karen Handel; only one of the sitting congressmen is in this group.¶ ¶ Many
of the polls
so far have been based on total population or on registered voters, but they may not give an accurate picture of what
will happen. That's because, in off-season elections, the opinion of those who bother to go to the polls may not reflect
the opinion of the universe of voters who are eligible to do so.¶ ¶ This is true not only in Georgia but across the country.¶ ¶ President
Obama is not up for re-election, but his approval/disapproval ratings will have an effect on those running on the
Democratic ticket. The Republicans in the House are expected to retain the majority and more than likely pick up
seats.¶ ¶ The real excitement this year is on the national Senate race. The Senate is currently held by the Democratic
Party. There is a very good chance that the Republicans will take over the Senate in the fall.¶ ¶ Based on Real Clear Politics
rankings, there are 45 safe (or not up) Democratic Seats, 46 safe (or not up) Republican seats and nine seats that are in the toss-up category. Only two of those
seats — Kentucky and Georgia — are currently held by Republicans. The toss-up seats in the other states — Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana,
Michigan and North Carolina — are all held by Democrats.¶ ¶ The
races in these nine states are going to garner national attention,
both from the news media and from donors. As is the case in Georgia, Iowa and Michigan are open races.¶ ¶ Here's what a Gallup poll released
Monday has concluded: "A majority of U.S. registered voters, 53 percent, say they are less enthusiastic about voting than in previous elections, while 35 percent
are more enthusiastic." (April 24-30, 1,336 registered voters, 95 percent confidence level, sampling error plus or minus 3 points.)¶ ¶ It also found a big difference
in enthusiasm between the parties: "42 percent of
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents currently say they are
more enthusiastic than usual about voting, while 50 percent are less enthusiastic, resulting in an eight-point
enthusiasm deficit." Democrats are less enthusiastic; only 32 percent are more enthusiastic about voting vs. 55 percent who are less
enthusiastic.¶ ¶ Of course, elections are determined not by polls or opinions, but by counting the votes of those who
bothered to go to the polls. Turnout is key, especially in an off-year election.¶ ¶ "Typically, the party whose supporters
have an advantage in enthusiasm has done better in midterm elections," noted Gallup.¶ ¶ "Republicans had decided advantages in
enthusiasm in 1994, 2002, and especially 2010 — years in which they won control of the House of Representatives or expanded on their existing majority.
Democrats had the advantage in 2006, the year they won control of the House. Neither party had a decided advantage in 1998, a year Democrats posted
minimal gains in House seats."¶ ¶ In hotly contested primaries such as Georgia, negative ads often have a way of making their way to the forefront, especially in
the final days of the primary when candidates and their staffs may become desperate to make it into the run-off. The challenge with negative ads is that they
might lead some prospective voters to decide not to vote at all. While this might be a plan to win — voter suppression never works for a democracy in the long
run.¶ ¶ Elections
should be won by candidates who offer a better path and vision to a brighter future, who engage and
energize voters rather than repel them.¶ ¶ This year, the midterm elections will be about turnout. Let's drive turnout
based on voter enthusiasm.
GOP controlled Senate blocks a push for EPA regulations. Those are key to cut emissions
to respond to climate change.
Sarlin 2013 (Benjy Sarlin,Political reporter at MSNBC, Dems win filibuster fight as John McCain defuses ‘nuclear
option’ 07/16/13 ,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9gS1Lh50cPUJ:www.msnbc.com/hardball/dems-winfilibuster-fight-john-mccain-defu+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
The partisan standoff was the result of years of growing tensions over the GOP’s unprecedented levels of obstruction and Obama’s use of executive power, the
latter of which is heavily influenced by the former.
In Obama’s first term, Senate Republicans stymied the president’s legislative
priorities with record use of the filibuster, nearly derailing health care reform and preventing serious movement on
either a climate or immigration bill. Because the House GOP today won’t pass even routine bills without apocalyptic
threats of their own, the Senate GOP’s legislative roadblocks are no longer as relevant. But they’re still holding up judicial picks
and presidential appointees at high rates, both of which become even more important in the absence of a functioning legislature. Democrats considered
reforming the rules governing filibusters at the start of the new Senate, but ultimately backed off any major changes
for fear of antagonizing the GOP. But as the situation grew more dire, Reid reopened the discussion and even apologized to colleagues for not
doing so sooner. Two things kicked the fight into overdrive. First, Senate Republicans decided to start blocking presidential nominees
for key positions out of hand. That means they didn’t just filibuster individual appointees because they didn’t like their
qualifications, they announced plans to block any nominee for their position, either because they thought the
agencies shouldn’t exist or because they wanted to undermine their ability to function. This might have been tolerable
until a federal appeals court ruled early this year that President Obama could not fill the positions with recess
appointments. Democrats now had to either fix the Senate procedure or leave crucial agencies’ rudderless for an
indefinite period. “It’s the only way, in many cases, the president can have any impact on policies he cares deeply about,” Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institute and prominent critic of GOP obstructionism, told msnbc. Take one prominent nominee addressed by the McCain-Reid deal: Richard
Cordray. Obama chose him to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the new agency long championed by Senator Elizabeth Warren. The CFPB was
created by the Wall Street reform law that both the Senate and House passed in 2010. But Republicans announced they would block Cordray and anyone else
unless Democrats agreed to revisit the law and weaken the bureau’s authority. In another critical case, the court’s decision to void recess appointees threatened
to leave the National Labor Relations Board without a quorum to make decisions. That’s an outcome many Republicans would likely prefer after tangling with the
NLRB over a dispute (since resolved) over whether Boeing was retaliating against unions in Washington by opening an assembly line in South Carolina. The
most important nominee included in the deal, however, is probably Obama’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy. Climate
change remains a growing threat, but Republicans are so united in denouncing the science behind it as a hoax that
one Congressional staffer felt compelled to use a pseudonym just to argue the opposing view. With no hope for
meaningful legislative action in the near future, environmentalists are counting on EPA regulations on power plants to
help turn the tide, a process made easier by having an actual appointed leader at the agency. Adding to the urgency:
if the EPA fails to act before the 2014 elections, a Republican-led Senate could block any new rules.
New EPA regulations are key to send an international signal to resolve impacts of climate
change.
Martinson 2014 (Erica Martinson, Regulatory reporter for Politico, "Obama's agenda: EPA leading the charge on
climate change," http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3BE87317-0921-4B01-A3B5-C39AEF6CDDC3)
President Barack Obama’s
environmental regulators will spend the rest of this year writing climate rules that would reshape the
nation’s electricity supply, throw a cloud over the future of coal power and take the biggest stride ever in throttling the nation’s greenhouse
gas pollution.¶ And that’s just the beginning.¶ While the EPA takes on carbon pollution from thousands of power plants, the State Department is moving to
carry out Obama’s orders to cut off funding for many coal projects overseas. The president’s agencies are also financing giant solar farms in the Mojave desert,
working on doubling the federal government’s own reliance on green electricity and coming up with ways to help states gird their roads and bridges against
severe storms and rising seas.¶ This is hardly a secret agenda. Obama has spoken of it proudly, most recently in Tuesday night’s State of the Union address,
when he said: “Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable
world with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”¶ But some of the administration’s climate work is taking place under the radar, in ways
few Americans would notice until the impacts ripple through the economy. One example: Last year, the administration quietly rejiggered a wonky calculation
known as the “social cost of carbon” in a way that will make it easier to justify the economic burdens of a wide range of climate regulations.¶ The
regulators
are racing the calendar to get the rules in shape to take effect before Obama leaves office. That will be no easy feat, especially
with the opponents in industry and coal-friendly states already fighting in the courts and Congress to thwart the new regulations.¶ But Obama and his
“green Cabinet” — the secretaries and administrators in charge of energy, the environment and public lands — also have their eyes on 2015.
That’s when the U.S. and other countries face a deadline to craft a legally binding agreement committing the world to
reducing carbon dioxide emissions.¶ The president’s team is convinced that the U.S. must lead by example if it hopes to get
China, India and Russia to follow suit, but the only hope of doing that is through the executive branch’s actions.
By showing that his administration has taken concrete action, Obama can wipe out some of the embarrassment the U.S.
suffered in international climate circles after rejecting the 1997 Kyoto climate accords.¶ The president made it plain in last year’s State of the Union
that he wouldn’t wait for lawmakers to tackle climate change, proclaiming that “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.” But in fact, the
administration’s climate efforts have been in motion since the start of his first term.¶ The
administration’s major climate effort is a pair of EPA
regulations aimed at cutting carbon pollution from power plants. The EPA proposed the first rule, aimed at future plants, in September
and must finish writing it by January 2015. This June, it’s due to release the draft of a rule for the nation’s thousands of existing power plants — the agency’s
main target and the
single largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution.
Warming causes extinction
Ahmed 2010 (Nafeez Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development, professor
of International Relations and globalization at Brunel University and the University of Sussex, Spring/Summer 2010,
“Globalizing Insecurity: The Convergence of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and Economic Crises,” Spotlight on
Security, Volume 5, Issue 2, online)
Perhaps the most notorious indicator is anthropogenic global warming. The landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report
of the UN
that at then-current rates of increase of fossil fuel emissions,
the earth’s global average temperature would likely rise by 6°C by the end of the 21st century creating a largely uninhabitable planet – was a
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which warned
wake-up call to the international community.[v] Despite the pretensions of ‘climate sceptics,’ the
peer-reviewed scientific literature has
continued to produce evidence that the IPCC’s original scenarios were wrong – not because they were too alarmist, but on the
contrary, because they were far too conservative. According to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, current
CO2 emissions are worse than all six scenarios contemplated by the IPCC. This implies that the IPCC’s worst-case sixdegree scenario severely underestimates the most probable climate trajectory under current rates of emissions.[vi] It is often presumed that a 2°C rise in global
average temperatures under an atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses at 400 parts per million (ppm) constitutes a safe upper limit – beyond which
further global warming could trigger rapid and abrupt climate changes that, in turn, could tip the whole earth
climate system into a process of irreversible, runaway warming.[vii] Unfortunately, we are already well past this limit, with the level
of greenhouse gasses as of mid-2005 constituting 445 ppm.[viii] Worse still, cutting-edge scientific data suggests that the safe upper limit is in fact far lower.
James Hansen, director
of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues that the absolute upper limit for
CO2 emissions is 350 ppm: “If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of
seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.”[ix] A wealth of scientific studies has attempted to explore the role of positivefeedback mechanisms between different climate sub-systems, the operation of which could intensify the warming process. Emissions beyond
350 ppm over decades are likely to lead to the total loss of Arctic sea-ice in the summer triggering magnified
absorption of sun radiation, accelerating warming; the melting of Arctic permafrost triggering massive methane
injections into the atmosphere, accelerating warming; the loss of half the Amazon rainforest triggering the
momentous release of billions of tonnes of stored carbon, accelerating warming; and increased microbial activity in
the earth’s soil leading to further huge releases of stored carbon, accelerating warming; to name just a few. Each of these
feedback sub-systems alone is sufficient by itself to lead to irreversible, catastrophic effects that could tip
the whole earth climate system over the edge.[x] Recent studies now estimate that the continuation of business-asusual would lead to global warming of three to four degrees Celsius before 2060 with multiple irreversible, catastrophic impacts;
and six, even as high as eight, degrees by the end of the century – a situation endangering the survival of all life on earth.[xi]
Republicans Good
GOP winning midterms now – strong campaign contributions and low presidential approval
rating
Bolton and Sink 6/26/14 (Alexander Bolton, Staff writer, The Hill newspaper, and Justin Sink, White House
correspondent for The Hill. - 06/26/14, Odds tilt toward GOP Senate, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/210639primaries-tilt-odds-toward-gop-senate)
Republicans are in the strongest position to win back the Senate since losing it eight years ago. Over several
months, the party has expanded its range of targeted seats, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee
(NRSC) has helped defeat insurgents it didn’t want representing the GOP in the midterm elections. This sober realization
came to Democrats on Wednesday, as Tuesday night’s primary results showed they cannot count on Tea Party candidates upsetting more-electable incumbents.
And Democrats are increasingly realizing that President Obama’s approval rating will probably remain mired at 45
percent or lower until Election Day, giving Republicans ammo. As their difficulties mounted, Senate Democrats met with the president at
the White House on Wednesday evening. Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), perhaps the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, said she would confront Obama over
his failure to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline and expand natural gas exports. “I personally don’t agree with this White House on everything,” she said. “I
have a divergent view on a lot of the energy policies.” Earlier this week, Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), another red-state Democrat, vented her irritation with the
administration when she called IRS Commissioner John Koskinen “arrogant.” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and other
Democrats criticized Obama’s recent decision to release five senior Taliban commanders from the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. She is ready to put that
dispute into the past, she said Wednesday, adding that Obama made the right move in inviting his colleagues to the White House for talk and cocktails. “It’s all
ancient history now,” she said peaceably, adding, “I think this is a positive thing to do.” But a Democratic strategist said: “There’s going to be a lot of vocal anger
and frustration. They’re going to hear a lot of, ‘You guys [have] got to have your house in order.’” Details of Wednesday’s discussion were not available at press
time. But it is clear Democrats are nervous. After
Republicans flopped in the last two Senate election cycles, the GOP
establishment fought and frequently defeated the Tea Party candidates that Democrats hoped to face. Meanwhile,
conservative nonparty committees have already spent $68.2 million this cycle, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, and Americans for Prosperity, a group backed by Charles and David Koch, has pledged $125
million against Democratic candidates. “After having failed to take the Senate the last couple cycles, the other side is
pulling out all the stops and that has raised awareness among Democrats about the outcome of the election. The political
money has raised that level of awareness,” said David Di Martino, a Democratic strategist.
[Insert Link]
Popular Opinion of Presidential Policy is key to midterm success, enthusiasm empirically
generates better midterm results
Cushman 2014 (Jackie Gingrich Cushman, graduated cum laude from Presbyterian College in Clinton, S.C. She
received her MBA from Georgia State University | May 15, 2014, Turn Out
http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2014/05/15/turn-out-n1838195/page/full, bs)
It's spring, an election off year, and primaries are in full swing across the country. In my home state of Georgia, the primary is less than a week
away, and the ballot is chock full of hotly contested primaries.¶ ¶ In the race for the open U.S. Senate seat, a slew of Republican candidates are vying for one of
the two spots for the July 22 runoff. These candidates include three sitting congressmen — Paul Braun, Phil Gingrey, and Jack Kingston. The top three
candidates in this primary are David Perdue, Jack Kingston, and Karen Handel; only one of the sitting congressmen is in this group.¶ ¶ Many
of the polls
so far have been based on total population or on registered voters, but they may not give an accurate picture of what
will happen. That's because, in off-season elections, the opinion of those who bother to go to the polls may not reflect
the opinion of the universe of voters who are eligible to do so.¶ ¶ This is true not only in Georgia but across the country.¶ ¶ President
Obama is not up for re-election, but his approval/disapproval ratings will have an effect on those running on the
Democratic ticket. The Republicans in the House are expected to retain the majority and more than likely pick up
seats.¶ ¶ The real excitement this year is on the national Senate race. The Senate is currently held by the Democratic
Party. There is a very good chance that the Republicans will take over the Senate in the fall.¶ ¶ Based on Real Clear Politics
rankings, there are 45 safe (or not up) Democratic Seats, 46 safe (or not up) Republican seats and nine seats that are in the toss-up category. Only two of those
seats — Kentucky and Georgia — are currently held by Republicans. The toss-up seats in the other states — Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana,
Michigan and North Carolina — are all held by Democrats.¶ ¶ The
races in these nine states are going to garner national attention,
both from the news media and from donors. As is the case in Georgia, Iowa and Michigan are open races.¶ ¶ Here's what a Gallup poll released
Monday has concluded: "A majority of U.S. registered voters, 53 percent, say they are less enthusiastic about voting than in previous elections, while 35 percent
are more enthusiastic." (April 24-30, 1,336 registered voters, 95 percent confidence level, sampling error plus or minus 3 points.)¶ ¶ It also found a big difference
in enthusiasm between the parties: "42 percent of
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents currently say they are
more enthusiastic than usual about voting, while 50 percent are less enthusiastic, resulting in an eight-point
enthusiasm deficit." Democrats are less enthusiastic; only 32 percent are more enthusiastic about voting vs. 55 percent who are less
enthusiastic.¶ ¶ Of course, elections are determined not by polls or opinions, but by counting the votes of those who
bothered to go to the polls. Turnout is key, especially in an off-year election.¶ ¶ "Typically, the party whose supporters
have an advantage in enthusiasm has done better in midterm elections," noted Gallup.¶ ¶ "Republicans had decided advantages in
enthusiasm in 1994, 2002, and especially 2010 — years in which they won control of the House of Representatives or expanded on their existing majority.
Democrats had the advantage in 2006, the year they won control of the House. Neither party had a decided advantage in 1998, a year Democrats posted
minimal gains in House seats."¶ ¶ In hotly contested primaries such as Georgia, negative ads often have a way of making their way to the forefront, especially in
the final days of the primary when candidates and their staffs may become desperate to make it into the run-off. The challenge with negative ads is that they
might lead some prospective voters to decide not to vote at all. While this might be a plan to win — voter suppression never works for a democracy in the long
run.¶ ¶ Elections
should be won by candidates who offer a better path and vision to a brighter future, who engage and
energize voters rather than repel them.¶ ¶ This year, the midterm elections will be about turnout. Let's drive turnout
based on voter enthusiasm.
GOP winning the Senate is key to TPA passage and future free trade negotiations.
Financial Times 2014 (5/27/14 "Fate of Obama's 'fast track' authority rests with the Oregon Democrat,"
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/74ebaf84-e4bf-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3347p74GH)
The power may be fleeting. Prognosticators
such as Nate Silver, the influential psephologist who predicted President Barack
Obama’s 2012 re-election with uncanny accuracy, say Republicans have a good chance of regaining control of the
Senate in this November’s midterm elections.¶ But Mr Wyden holds in his hands the fate of the “fast track” authority Mr
Obama needs from Congress in order to conclude deals with the EU, trading partners in the Pacific Rim and the two
dozen economies the US is working with to update the global rules for the $4.6tn annual trade in services. Without the Senate’s
assent the White House’s ambitious second-term trade agenda is likely to go nowhere and Mr Wyden’s support is
critical.¶ That backing is conditional, Mr Wyden says, on an effort to at least partially reverse one of the biggest trends in US politics of the past 20 years. Since
the early 1990s and a bitter debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement the majority of congressional Democrats, urged on by labour unions, have
voted against trade agreements.¶ Mr Wyden
says he wants to use the debate over granting the president Trade Promotion
Authority, as it is formally known, to soak up Democratic concerns and build a “new and enduring bipartisan coalition
for expanded trade”.¶ His predecessor, Max Baucus, who left this year to become ambassador to China, spent months last year working with Dave Camp,
the Republican chair of the House ways and means committee, to draft a “fast track” bill.¶ But Mr Wyden says that bill lacked broad support in
Congress and he wants to push for a “smart track” bill that will win over more Democrats to the cause of trade.¶ To do
so, he argues, will mean addressing concerns over the lack of transparency that plague negotiations. He also wants
to make sure any TPA bill, which traditionally sets US objectives for trade deals as well as limiting Congress’s ability
to amend them, addresses modern sectors such as the trade in digital goods.¶ In a move that will cause concern with some US
negotiating partners such as Brunei and Vietnam, Mr Wyden says he would also like to see trade agreements address human rights, something advocated by
fellow Democrats.¶ “I think it’s the responsible thing to do and I think it will bring more support for the cause of trade expansion,” Mr Wyden says.¶ I continue to
believe it is absolutely critical for us to grow things here, make things here, and add value to them here and ship them somewhere¶ - Ron Wyden¶ All of those
issues need to be addressed, he says, in order to convince fellow Democrats and many middle-class Americans worried about the direction of the US economy
that trade is not the bogeyman it often is portrayed to be.¶ Many
Democrats remain sceptical. Too many among the party’s base still
blame trade agreements and globalisation for the hollowing out of the US manufacturing sector and rising inequality,
they point out. And when Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate, rebuffed Mr Obama’s requests for a speedy
vote on the Baucus-Camp version of TPA in January it was with an eye on the base and the midterm elections.¶ All of
Mr Wyden’s efforts to build his “enduring coalition” for trade may be moot if the Republicans win control of the Senate
in November. Orrin Hatch, the Utah senator likely to take Mr Wyden’s place at the head of the finance committee
should that happen, was a vocal backer of the Baucus-Camp bill.¶ Republican trade experts also point out that the
bill was the result of months of negotiations and therefore finely balanced. Adding anything to it to win Democratic
support may well result in losing Republican backing.¶ Few in Washington expect any trade bill to be voted on before
the midterm elections with many predicting the issue will be left until January 2015, when a new Congress is sworn
in.
TPA’s key to the economy and global trade
Kennedy and McLarty 2/12/14 (Mark and Mack, director of George Washington University's Graduate School
of Political Management + White House chief of staff and Special Envoy for the Americas under President Bill
Clinton, "Expand trade, improve economy: Column," http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/12/tradepromotion-authority-obama-economic-growth-column/5340989/)
After struggling with anemic growth for the last six years, the
nation now finds itself with an opportunity to renew its vitality through the
most powerful economic elixir: expanded trade.¶ This benefit cannot be achieved without giving our partners the confidence
that the United States is negotiating in good faith, free from last minute changes and additions. This requires giving President Obama Trade Promotion Authority
(commonly known as TPA or "fast track") to present trade agreements for an up or down vote in Congress.¶ Passing TPA is distasteful to both Republicans who
do not the trust the president and Democrats who believe the benefits of free trade are overstated. Yet before they added cherry flavors, many medicines with
powerful cures had a bitter flavor. For
the sake of America's economic health, Congress must come together in a bipartisan fashion to
give President Obama fast track authority, a power granted to every chief executive since 1974.¶ The Obama Administration, led ably
by United States Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman, has engaged the European Union and nations in
the Pacific in serious negotiations for high standard trade agreements. These two accords would increase ties with
historic allies, make us more competitive, increase job opportunities, enhance incomes and allow American
businesses to effectively sell to the fast growing Asian region.¶ Critics would have you believe that somehow these agreements would
weaken environmental and labor standards, but most partner countries in question are already high-income nations that embrace strong worker and
environmental protections.¶ Ambassador Froman attempted to assuage those fears saying, "We have made clear that we're committed to negotiating a highstandard, ambitious comprehensive deal." The
TPA bill introduced by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,
already incorporates new protections to ensure that all partner countries meet rigorous guidelines.¶ As President
Clinton's chief of staff when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed and one of the
deciding votes the last time Congress granted Fast Track authority, we know how hard it is to move a significant
trade accord. We also know how the dire predictions of skeptics are often shown to be illusory.¶ The only sucking sound induced by NAFTA was the gasps
of trade skeptics whose economic chimeras failed to materialize. NAFTA has instead exceeded expectations.¶ It launched Mexico on a path to strengthen its
democratic institutions and progressively open its economy. A more democratic and competitive Mexico, along with a more tightly integrated supply chain
between the three North American economies, makes each member of the NAFTA trio more competitive in world markets. Similar benefits await if we proceed
with the proposed Asian and European accords.¶ Passing TPA will require significant attention and effort from President Obama
and Congress. Over 500 advocacy groups have written to lawmakers urging a vote against it. To date, 49 more House Democrats are on record opposing fast
track than supported NAFTA in 1994.¶ Advocating
for free trade will require the president to stand up to members of his own
party to further his economic agenda.¶ It will take courage to forcefully advocate for an issue that splits one's party, but the benefits
to the nation will far outweigh any intra-party strife. That is what presidential leadership is all about.¶ There has never been an
economic golden age without trade. It has been the driving force behind new innovation. Its expansion has allowed countless
people the chance to achieve financial prosperity and advance civilization.¶ Trade has a wonderful history, but we believe its best
days are still ahead. Every trade liberalization advance has enhanced the well being of mankind. The United States has arrived at a
monumental opportunity to craft landmark trade agreements with the world. Let
us not fail to build accords that will spark economic
growth, create a better future for our children and launch a new golden era of trade.
Free trade solves multiple extinction scenarios.
Panzner 8 (Michael, faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked in New
York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase “Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic
Collapse,” pg. 136-138)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew
forth protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a
series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn
into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next
collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment,
and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border
movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential
travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As
desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on
foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets
on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to
ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this
will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any
link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management,
or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise
facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in
isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over
shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be
acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and
energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes
over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace.
Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In
some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and
religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling
frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning
threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks,
bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency.
China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt
colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around
the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even
speculated that an “intense confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out
to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to
battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human
instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional
forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up
conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
Uniqueness
Democrats Win
Republican opposition to planned parenthood and education spending means that single
women are backing democrats and are key to secure the house.
Calmes 7/2 (Jackie staff writer “To hold senate, democrats rely on single women” 07/02/2014 The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us/single-women-midterm-elections.html)
RALEIGH, N.C. — The
decline of marriage over the last generation has helped create an emerging voting bloc of
unmarried women that is profoundly reshaping the American electorate to the advantage, recent elections suggest, of the
Democratic Party. What is far from clear is whether Democrats will benefit in the midterm contests this fall. With their Senate majority at stake in
November, Democrats and allied groups are now stepping up an aggressive push to woo single women — young and old,
highly educated and working class, never married, and divorced or widowed. This week they seized on the ruling by the Supreme Court’s
conservative majority, five men, that family-owned corporations do not have to provide birth control in their insurance
coverage, to buttress their arguments that Democrats better represent women’s interests. Half of all adult women
over the age of 18 are unmarried — 56 million, up from 45 million in 2000 — and now account for one in four people of voting
age. (Adult Hispanics eligible to vote, a group that gets more attention, number 25 million this year.) Single women have become Democrats’
most reliable supporters, behind African-Americans: In 2012, two-thirds of single women who voted supported
President Obama. Among married women, a slim majority supported Mitt Romney. “You have a group that’s growing in size, and
becoming more politically concentrated in terms of the Democrats,” said Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the
National Opinion Research Center of the University of Chicago. Single women, Democrats say, will determine whether they keep
Senate seats in states including Alaska, Colorado, Iowa, Michigan and North Carolina — and with them, their Senate
majority — and seize governorships in Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, among other states. The party is using
advanced data-gathering techniques to identify unmarried women, especially those who have voted in presidential
elections but skipped midterms. By mail, online, phone and personal contact, Democrats and their allies are spreading the word
about Republicans’ opposition in Washington — and state capitals like Raleigh — to pay equity, minimum wage and
college-affordability legislation; abortion and contraception rights; Planned Parenthood; and education spending.
Democrats concentrating efforts on the single woman’s vote to secure the senate
Calmes 7/2 (Jackie staff writer “To hold senate, democrats rely on single women” 07/02/2014 The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us/single-women-midterm-elections.html)
In May, Stan Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, and James Carville, a party strategist, called on Democrats “to make
major targeted efforts aimed at unmarried women.” They warned that support among them was down from early 2010, the previous midtermelection year, when the Tea Party’s rise powered a Republican romp. The Democrats’ model is last year’s victory in the off-year election
for Virginia governor. Terry McAuliffe, bolstered by groups like Planned Parenthood’s political advocacy arm, beat a
conservative Republican officeholder after a campaign in which women were repeatedly reminded about his rival’s
record against reproductive rights. In a race decided by just over two percentage points, Mr. McAuliffe won unmarried
female voters by 42 points. This year Democrats modified the McAuliffe model to emphasize pocketbook issues, too.
While single women generally are socially liberal, “the issues they really care about are economic,” Mr. Greenberg said. Personal economics help explain the
difference in voting patterns between unmarried and married women, analysts say. Unmarried women, especially single mothers, have greater “economic
vulnerability,” said Ruy Teixeira, a political demographer at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “Married people
are typically a bit more
secure and have more buffers, so that tends to make them a bit more conservative.” Democrats say one advantage they have
this year, compared with 2010, is that they can cite Republicans’ voting records since taking power that year in the House and in states like North Carolina.
“The policy issues that unmarried women care about are legitimately under attack,” said Kelly Ward, executive director of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In response, Republican strategists are urging candidates to counter such talk of a Republican “war on
women” by describing party policies as pro-family. Democrats “know if they can paint Republicans as meanspirited, that’s very helpful with women,” said Katie
Packer Gage, a Republican consultant for the party’s effort to reach out to women. In a Twitter posting on Wednesday, her firm said, “Our party needs to take
seriously the Democrats’ efforts to turn out single women.” By then, however, a
Fox News reporter had ignited a social-media furor by
mocking the diverse bloc as Democrats’ “Beyoncé voters” — for the entertainer’s hit song “Single Ladies” — who
depend on the government since they lack husbands. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee calls its
new voter-mobilization program Rosie, evoking Rosie the Riveter, for Re-engaging Our Sisters in Elections. Among
outside groups, the Voter Participation Center has sent registration materials to single women in 24 states, including North Carolina, and will follow up through
the fall.
Democrats fundraising more than republicans- help to secure the house
Livingston ’14 (Abby “House democrats ante up for midterms” Roll Call 06/25/2014 http://atr.rollcall.com/housedemocrats-ante-up-for-midterms/)
House Democrats’ pressure on caucus members to pay dues early to the Democratic Congressional
Campaign Committee is paying off, according to the party’s most recent fundraising document. The
DCCC has raised more than its Republican counterpart so far this cycle, and that’s partly a result of its
successful member dues program and the money members have raised on behalf of the committee. A
House Democratic source highlighted to CQ Roll Call that 90 percent of the caucus has paid its dues in some form and
that 21 members have paid in full, including five freshmen. Beyond that, on the latest dues sheet — which tracks
members’ dues payments and fundraising through May, and is distributed to members’ offices — most of Democratic leadership
had met its goals for the cycle in both categories. In effect, the monthly dues sheet is a report card for how much of a team
player each House Democrat is. Members’ goals for dues and DCCC fundraising vary based on committee assignments, leadership ranking, their
roles within the DCCC and seniority.
The Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision further alienated the single women voting base
against the GOP
Roller 6/30 (Emma “Why the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision could be good news for
democrats” The National Journal 06/30/2014 http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-thesupreme-court-s-hobby-lobby-decision-could-be-good-news-for-democrats-20140630)
The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, and thereby held that some businesses may claim religious
exemption and not follow Obamacare's contraception-coverage mandate. In the run-up to a summer where midterm campaigning will
begin in earnest, this may not be the worst thing for Democrats. Under the Affordable Care Act, employers are required to provide contraception
coverage to their employees, free of charge, as a preventive health service. Two businesses—Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties—claimed the
mandate violated their First Amendment right to practice religion, and successfully took their case to the Supreme Court. As Sam Baker wrote last week, this
ruling may have little effect for many employers—particularly large companies—because contraceptive coverage is popular and cheap in comparison to an
employee getting pregnant. By encouraging companies to offer health benefits like free contraceptive coverage, the free market can work to job seekers'
Democrats and others who support the mandate are already fuming at the decision. "This decision takes
money out of the pockets of women and their families and allows for-profit employers to deny access to certain health
care benefits based on their personal beliefs," said Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz in a statement after the decision. But that anger may actually work in Democrats' favor, come fall, in courting the votes
and participation of single female voters. Single women make up one of the fastest growing voter demographics in
the U.S.—they now comprise a quarter of the electorate. A recent Stan Greenberg poll posits that unmarried women can "make
or break" the 2014 elections. And, as Mara Liasson wrote in May, they are firmly in Democrats' camp. But Democrats have a problem:
Like most everyone else in the electorate, young women are less likely to turn out to vote in midterm elections. A
advantage. Still,
Supreme Court case doesn't necessarily change that: Getting young female voters fired up about a decision is one thing; getting them to vote is another.
Luckily, contraception coverage is an issue young women care about. A March poll conducted by Hart Research Associates (and
commissioned by Planned Parenthood) found that a large majority of female voters—81 percent—believe prescription birth control should be covered as a
preventive health service, at no additional cost to prescribers. For
single women, birth-control coverage presents a trinity of issues
they care about—health care, reproductive issues, and pay equity (after all, this is an issue that men don't really have to worry about).
The Hobby Lobbydecision may not be a silver bullet, but it could be enough to energize support among female voters
who are suddenly worried that their employers could stop covering their birth control. Fear is almost always a better
political motivator than positivity. Democratic and Republican fundraising groupsoften successfully use scare tactics to get supporters to donate
money, and they're now ramping up their online solicitations more than during any previous cycle. Young women may not be the well-heeled donors the
Democratic Party needs to buy up beaucoup television ad time in the midterms. But asking
young women for a $5 contribution—less than a
grande latte at Starbucks!—to
fight the Republicans who supported the Hobby Lobby decision could be Democrats' way into
their hearts and wallets. And, depending on how tone-deaf the Republican response to the decision sounds, they
could be fightin' words for a chronically underrated subset of voters
Palin’s call for impeachment will distract from the midterm elections and give a boost to
democrats
Grier 7/11 (Peter, staff writer “When Republicans cry impeach do the Democrats win?” The Christian Science
Monitor 07/11/14 http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/Decoder-Buzz/2014/0711/When-Republicans-cryImpeach!-do-Democrats-win-video)
So the subject’s been around. But really, Palin aside, it’s not something that’s engaged high-profile party figures. Those
advocating impeachment
are mostly a scattering of former congressmen and state lawmakers. Establishment Republicans – many tea party leaders, too – have
tended to avoid talking about it, or say flatly they oppose impeachment. Thus Speaker John Boehner, asked to comment on Palin’s
position, this week said simply, “I disagree.” There’s a reason for that. Mr. Boehner lived through the experience of
the impeachment of President Clinton, and from that took away the conclusion that it was nothing but a political disaster
for Republicans. The GOP looks to do well in 2014 midterms, possibly recapturing control of the Senate. Impeachment
proceedings could scramble those prospects. Why? It could energize an otherwise-dispirited Democratic Party base,
for one thing. Minority and low-income voters who generally turn out in low numbers in midterms might flock to the
polls. And it might blot out virtually all other issues. That’s led conservative pundit Bill O’Reilly, among other Republicans, to say he would
oppose any impeachment push.
Face of the Senate has changed everything about Dem reelection
Weisman, 7-12 (Jonathan Weisman, New York Times. “As Senate Spotlight Is Given to Vulnerable Democrats,
G.O.P. Finds a Dimmer” Lexis)
WASHINGTON -- Very
little is happening in the Senate these days, but what passes for action has a lot to do with re-electing
Democrats -- or blocking their re-election. Senator Kay Hagan, Democrat of North Carolina, saw her popular sportsmen's bill crash on the Senate floor
on Thursday when her Republican co-sponsors flipped, voting instead to filibuster and ensuring that it would die. Next up on the list of legislation with voter
appeal but little chance of passage: a contraception access bill sponsored by Senator Mark
Udall, Democrat of Colorado, or a measure to end tax breaks for
companies that send jobs overseas, offered by Senator John Walsh, Democrat of Montana. The three Democrats are among the more
vulnerable going into Election Day this November. All could use a late accomplishment on legislation drafted for important
constituents in their state. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, has used his powers to selectively give them a
platform and the megaphone of the Senate floor. But even that collides with a Republican Senate minority that is united
to deny them any victories. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, called the Senate floor ''a
campaign studio for one political party,'' and Democratic leaders are not exactly denying that they are giving their endangered senators precious
floor time for political reasons. Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said it was a time-honored bipartisan tactic. The question for the
endangered incumbents is whether voters will reward the effort, or simply see it as another measure of their
ineffectiveness. ''It's important for people to demonstrate that even in a world where there's continuous efforts to stop everything, we're continuing to try,''
said Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The political undertones are not exactly
subtle. Ms. Hagan, who is running for re-election in a state that leans Republican in midterm elections, was given a bill with red-state
resonance. It would have prevented the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating lead ammunition and
fishing tackle; required the federal government to keep lands open to hunting, fishing and target shooting; required federal land managers to include such
activities in their land planning; and even allowed polar bear pelts harvested in Canada before a 2008 ban to be brought into the country. The bill's noted
lack of gun control prompted even some Democrats to support the Republican filibuster, but the measure gave Ms.
Hagan a talking point in a state where gun rights play well. ''We actually put politics aside to get behind a bill that benefits tens of thousands
of hunters, anglers and outdoor enthusiasts,'' Ms. Hagan said on the Senate floor, extolling the bill's co-author, Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska, and 25
other Senate Republican co-sponsors. ''This kind of bipartisan support has been virtually unheard of these days.'' All 26 of those Republicans
voted on
Thursday to filibuster the bill. After the Supreme Court ruled last month that some private companies may opt out of some employee contraception
coverage for religious reasons, Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, moved immediately to try to reverse the decision legislatively. Yet it was Mr.
Udall on Thursday who kicked off a news conference unveiling what he called his Not My Boss's Business Act, which is likely to be considered by the Senate
next week. ''Mark Udall has an exemplary record on women's health issues,'' Mr. Reid said. ''It would be political malpractice if we did not react.'' For years,
Senator Debbie Stabenow, Democrat of Michigan, has been pushing legislation that would deny a tax deduction for the costs that American businesses face in
moving operations overseas. But when the bill is taken up by the Senate this month, she will share top billing with Mr. Walsh, an appointed senator considered
the underdog in his race against Representative Steve Daines, a Republican. Mr. Daines lived in China, where he helped set up and supervise factories for
Procter & Gamble, an issue that Democrats have tried hard to use against him. Republicans
say their united opposition to ending debate on these
bills is not intended to deny success to endangered Democrats, but is aimed at forcing Mr. Reid to allow them freedom
to offer amendments to Democratic legislation. Republicans had wanted to amend the Hagan sportsmen's bill with legislation easing access to firearms, a
vote that Democratic leaders did not want endangered Democrats to take. But Mr. McConnell has been voluble in accusing Democratic
leaders of turning the Senate floor over to the re-election effort. ''I know the majority leader would rather turn to a political agenda he
already admitted was written by campaign staffers, but we'll have plenty of time to consider bills designed intentionally to fail later,'' Mr. McConnell said last
month. ''Instead, now
is the time for the Senate to act like the Senate again, to be serious.''
GOP Wins
The GOP will win the midterms now – strong campaign contributions and low presidential
approval rating
Bolton and Sink 6/26/14 (Alexander Bolton, Staff writer, The Hill newspaper, and Justin Sink, White House
correspondent for The Hill. - 06/26/14, Odds tilt toward GOP Senate, http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/210639primaries-tilt-odds-toward-gop-senate)
Republicans are in the strongest position to win back the Senate since losing it eight years ago. Over several
months, the party has expanded its range of targeted seats, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee
(NRSC) has helped defeat insurgents it didn’t want representing the GOP in the midterm elections. This sober realization
came to Democrats on Wednesday, as Tuesday night’s primary results showed they cannot count on Tea Party candidates upsetting more-electable incumbents.
And Democrats are increasingly realizing that President Obama’s approval rating will probably remain mired at 45
percent or lower until Election Day, giving Republicans ammo. As their difficulties mounted, Senate Democrats met with the president at
the White House on Wednesday evening. Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), perhaps the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent, said she would confront Obama over
his failure to approve the Keystone XL oil pipeline and expand natural gas exports. “I personally don’t agree with this White House on everything,” she said. “I
have a divergent view on a lot of the energy policies.” Earlier this week, Sen. Claire McCaskill (Mo.), another red-state Democrat, vented her irritation with the
administration when she called IRS Commissioner John Koskinen “arrogant.” Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and other
Democrats criticized Obama’s recent decision to release five senior Taliban commanders from the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. She is ready to put that
dispute into the past, she said Wednesday, adding that Obama made the right move in inviting his colleagues to the White House for talk and cocktails. “It’s all
ancient history now,” she said peaceably, adding, “I think this is a positive thing to do.” But a Democratic strategist said: “There’s going to be a lot of vocal anger
and frustration. They’re going to hear a lot of, ‘You guys [have] got to have your house in order.’” Details of Wednesday’s discussion were not available at press
time. But it is clear Democrats are nervous. After
Republicans flopped in the last two Senate election cycles, the GOP
establishment fought and frequently defeated the Tea Party candidates that Democrats hoped to face. Meanwhile,
conservative nonparty committees have already spent $68.2 million this cycle, according to the Center for
Responsive Politics, and Americans for Prosperity, a group backed by Charles and David Koch, has pledged $125
million against Democratic candidates. “After having failed to take the Senate the last couple cycles, the other side is
pulling out all the stops and that has raised awareness among Democrats about the outcome of the election. The political
money has raised that level of awareness,” said David Di Martino, a Democratic strategist.
GOP will win the Senate, class 2 Senate seats up for re-election this year are stacked in the
GOP’s favor.
Barone 7/11/2014 ( Michael Barone, resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Friday, July 11, 2014,
2014 Midterms: Another Six-Year Senate Sweep?, http://american.com/archive/2014/july/challenging-the-six-yearsenate-loss-theory)
One reason is that not all Senate election cycles are the same: comparing them is like comparing apples and oranges. The
Constitution sets Senate
terms at six years and provides that only one-third of them come up for election in every even-numbered election
year. Senators elected in the same year are assigned to a class. Class 1 seats were most recently up for election in
2012, Class 2 seats in 2008, and Class 3 seats in 2010. The regional breakdown of these seats is quite different, as shown in the following
chart: Thus the East is heavily represented in the Class 1 seats, with every Eastern state but New Hampshire, while the South is heavily represented in the Class
2 seats, with every Southern state but Florida. The political leanings of the classes are different as well, as indicated in this chart showing the percentages for
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012: The alert reader will note that Obama’s average percentage for all states is below his percentage of the popular vote —
and below Romney’s average percentage for all states. That is because we are averaging the state percentages, so that Wyoming counts the same as California
— as it does in the Senate. Obama
still has an advantage in the Class 1 states, which came up for election in 2012, which
helps to explain why Republicans failed that year to secure a majority in the Senate and in fact lost a net two seats.
But Obama and Democrats are clearly at a disadvantage in the Class 2 seats that are up this year. And it is a greater
disadvantage than the last three reelected presidents had in the Senate races in the sixth years of their presidencies.
The following table shows the percentages won by each president in gaining reelection nationally, in the states with Senate contests in his sixth year, and in
those Senate seats held by his party and those held by the opposition party. Thus
George W. Bush in 2006 had a stronger hand, but
nonetheless saw his party lose its Senate majority as his job approval sunk to levels below where Barack Obama’s is
today. His Republican Party lost six Senate seats and gained none. In 1998, Bill Clinton’s job approval was much higher, above 60 percent, and his
Democratic Party lost three Senate seats but captured three others, for no net change in party balance. Ronald Reagan went into the 1986 off-year with similarly
high job approval, but nevertheless saw his party lose a net eight Senate seats. Republicans lost four seats in Southern states, where many voters were still
inclined to give favorable consideration to purportedly moderate Democrats, and two in the Dakotas, which since the 1960s have shown a predilection for
electing Democratic senators even while almost always voting Republican for president. That willingness of white voters in the once solidly Democratic South to
continue voting Democratic for senator is apparent also when we look at the historical performance of the two parties in the three classes of Senate elections
over the last half-century. Class 3 seats, which include every Southern state except Florida, started off heavily Democratic in the 1962 election, then moved
toward Republicans in 1968, tilted heavily Democratic in the Watergate year of 1974 and then heavily Republican in the Reagan year of 1980. As we have seen,
Democrats made (usually by small margins) significant gains in these seats in 1986 and held a majority of them in the 1992 and 1998 elections. Republicans won
a small majority of those seats in 2004, as George W. Bush was reelected, and then a large (24-10) majority in 2010. Those seats come up again in 2016,
leading some analysts to opine that even if Republicans win a Senate majority in 2014 they may have trouble holding it two years later. The Class 1 Senate
seats, including 10 of 11 Eastern states, have been a Democratic stronghold since the 1958 off-year elections (an example of the conventional wisdom, perhaps:
big Republican losses in the sixth year of Dwight Eisenhower’s presidency), with the single exception of 1994, when Republicans won a majority (19-14) of these
seats. But Democrats reversed that in 2000 and came out of the 2006 and 2012 elections with huge majorities (24-9 and 25-8) of the Class 1 seats. These will be
up for reelection in 2018, and if Republicans are vulnerable to losing seats in 2016, so Democrats may be two years afterwards. The following table shows for
each election year the number of Republicans and Democrats elected in seats of the class up in that year; these do not include the number of those elected to fill
unexpired terms in those elections. As for the Class 2 seats which are up this year, Democrats
did better in 2008 in that class’s seats than
they have in any year since 1960, the last year in which there were no Southern Republicans in the Senate. They appear to be hardpressed to duplicate that showing this year, given the large number of Southern seats in this class, the fact that this
was the weakest of the three classes in terms of Obama percentage in 2012, and the polls showing negative job
approval of the president. These factors, more than the conventional political wisdom’s six-year itch, are working
powerfully against the Democrats this year.
GOP voters are more interested in voting this election, polls prove.
Blanton 6/25/14 (Dana Blanton, correspondent for Fox News June 25, 2014, Fox News Poll: Republicans more
interested in upcoming midterm elections, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/25/fox-news-poll-republicansmore-interested-in-upcoming-midterm-elections/)S
The congressional generic ballot is tied in this week’s Fox News poll, yet the GOP has an important edge: More
Republicans than Democrats are really interested in the upcoming elections. If the congressional election were “held
today,” 42 percent of voters would support the Democratic candidate in their district, while 42 percent would back the Republican. Another 13 percent aren't
sure for whom they'd cast their ballot. Click here for the poll results. Earlier this month the GOP candidate had a four-point edge. In May,
the Democrat was up by three points. The new poll shows the parties evenly matched on the generic ballot despite Republicans continuing to trail Democrats in
congressional job ratings. For Congressional Democrats: 30 percent of voters approve and 62 percent disapprove of their job performance. For Congressional
Republicans: 22 percent approve vs. 68 percent disapprove. Perhaps
surprisingly, only 39 percent of GOP faithful approves of the job
Congressional Republicans are doing. That accounts for most of the approval-rating gap between the parties. Among
Democrats, 59 percent approve of their party’s lawmakers in Congress. Independents give both Republicans (13 percent) and Democrats (20 percent) low
approval ratings. One election advantage for the GOP is that 66 percent of Republicans are at least “very” interested in the midterms, while just 54 percent of
Democrats feel the same. Moreover, 35 percent of Republicans are “extremely” interested compared to 24 percent of Democrats. When
zeroing in on
only voters who are at least very interested: 49 percent would vote for the Republican candidate and 38 percent
would back the Democrat. And that’s mostly unchanged for the last two months. Among interested voters the GOP candidate was
up 11 points in early June and seven points in May. The Fox News poll is based on landline and cell phone interviews with 1,018 randomly chosen registered
voters nationwide and was conducted under the joint direction of Anderson Robbins Research (D) and Shaw & Company Research (R) from June 21-23, 2014.
The full poll has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
GOP will win- Obama disapproval rates and economy prove
Judis 6-12 [John B. Judis, writer and political tracker for New Republic, “Democrats, Don't Dance on Cantor's Grave Because you'll be digging your own
in November”, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118108/senate-2014-why-democrats-will-probably-lose, June 12 2014, Ssanchez]
The Senate is currently divided between 55 Democrats (counting two independents who caucus with the Democrats) and 45 Republicans. Thirty-six senate seats
are up for grabs this November. Of these, 21 are unlikely to change hands. Two
Democratic seats in West Virginia and South Dakota are
very likely to go Republican. Thirteen (assuming Chris McDaniel wins the runoff in Mississippi) could conceivably go either way, and of them, ten are
held by Democrats. So if the Republicans were to hold their seats in Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia, then they would
have to win only four of the remaining ten seats in order to take back the Senate. That’s not a tall mountain to climb. ¶
If you look at the 13 races, they are almost all in states where Obama and his signature programs, including the Affordable
Care Act, gun control, and the plan to restrict carbon emissions from power plants, are very unpopular. That goes without saying in Southern states where
Democrats are running for re-election. In Louisiana, Obama’s approval rating is at 41 percent and support for the ACA at 33 percent. In Arkansas, Obama’s
approval is at 34 percent and Obamacare’s is at 31 percent. In North Carolina, Obama’s approval is at 41 percent. Fifty-two percent of registered voters in
Arkansas, 58 percent in Louisiana, and 53 percent in North Carolina would not vote for a candidate who does not share their view of Obamacare. It’s likely that
most of these are opponents of the president’s program.¶ But Obama
and his programs don’t fare much better in Eastern, Midwestern,
and Rocky Mountain states where Democrats are defending seats. In Iowa, Obama’s approval rating is at 42 percent
and only 30.7 percent of Iowans think the country is on “the right track.” In Colorado, Obama’s approval is at 38 percent, Obamacare’s at 39 percent, and 73
percent think the shape of the national economy is either “not so good” or “poor.” In Michigan, 53 percent oppose Obamacare, and in New Hampshire 57.6
percent. ¶ Obama’s
climate initiative may help Democrats in 2016 and is popular in some states that the president carried in 2012, but it will probably
not be popular in some of the crucial swing states this November. As the National Republican Senate Committee has noted,
Arkansas, Colorado, West Virginia, Michigan, Iowa, Kentucky and Montana—all except Kentucky with Democratic incumbents—
depend on coal for more than half their energy needs. Obama’s other initiatives are also not popular in some swing states. In Colorado, 56
percent of voters now oppose the state’s strict gun control laws. In Michigan, a plurality opposed Obama’s gun control proposals.¶ Obama and the
Democrats seem poised to suffer from the “six year itch” that the president’s party has usually suffered during
midterm elections of a second term. Ronald Reagan’s Republicans lost the Senate in 1986, and George W. Bush’s Republicans lost it in 2006. The
exception was Bill Clinton’s Democrats in 1998, who broke even in the Senate and won five House seats. That was because Clinton remained very popular,
thanks to a booming economy. His job approval in the weeks before the election was in the low 60 percent range. The impeachment inquiry, which Republicans
had hoped would discredit the president and the Democrats, actually helped the Democrats. Southern black voters, who enthusiastically backed Clinton and
believed he was being unfairly targeted, turned out in large numbers. ¶ But the
Democrats’ situation this year is very different. The
economy is still in the doldrums, Obama is unpopular, and Republican scandal-mongering is unlikely to generate a backlash. In 1998, many
Democrats took offense at the Republican impeachment efforts because they were aimed not merely at censuring Clinton, but at unseating him. To date, the
Republicans have not used the Benghazi and Bergdahl scandals to call for Obama’s removal. Instead, they have merely called for investigations. And as
recent polls have shown, many Democrats and Independents, as well as Republicans, favor an investigation into Benghazi
and are critical of the administration’s deal with the Taliban for Bergdahl’s release. That probably means that the scandals will be a small, and
probably temporary, net plus for the Republicans. They will cast a pall over the White House and, with an assist from Fox News, fire up the
Republican base.¶ The Democrats have not developed a national theme—comparable, say, to the Reagan administration’s “staying the
course” in the 1982 election—to rally voters to their cause. Many of the Democratic candidates are trumpeting the party’s support for boosting the
minimum wage and for women’s rights—two issues that are popular with voters—but few of the embattled Democrats are running on the
White House’s record. With Obama and his programs so unpopular in the key election states, the Democrats in these
states are desperately trying to distance themselves from the national party. Congressman Travis Childers, who is likely to face Tea
Party favorite McDaniel in Mississippi’s senate race, actually has a very small chance of winning only because he voted against the Affordable Care Act. In
Kentucky, Democrat Allison Grimes promised to “fiercely oppose” the president’s climate change plan. While the Republicans are seeking to nationalize the
campaign, Democrats like Grimes or Mary Landrieu in Louisiana or Mark Pryor in Arkansas want to make the election all about themselves and not about their
party or the President.¶ If these Democrats can pull this off, they might able to hold off the Republican challenge in November. Certainly, polls suggest that
candidates like Landrieu, Pryor or Kay Hagan in North Carolina have a chance of winning. But at this point, it seems likely that Obama will have to face a
Republican House and Senate next year. That’s a recipe for two more years of gridlock.
GOP will win Midterms- Polls prove advantage areas and democratic disapproval
Politico 5-5 [Jonathan Topaz, breaking news reporter and former web producer for POLITICO Pro and a contributor for
POLITICO Morning Defense, “Poll: GOP gains edge in midterms”, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/2014-midtermelections-gop-poll-106337.html, May 5 2014, Ssanchez]
Republicans are beating Democrats in a generic ballot for the 2014 midterm elections — a reversal from just two months ago, a
new poll says.¶ According to a Pew Research poll released Monday, 47 percent said they would vote for the GOP candidate in
their district while 43 percent said they would vote for the Democrat.¶ The 4-percentage-point edge is an improvement
for the GOP. Just two months ago, Democrats had a 46 percent-44 percent edge in the Pew generic ballot.¶ The poll also suggests President Barack
Obama will likely be more of a liability for Democrats than he was in 2010. Sixteen percent of voters said their midterm vote should be
considered a vote for the president, while 26 percent of voters said their vote should be considered a vote against him. In the
midterms in 2010, 24 percent said their congressional vote was a support vote for Obama, compared to just 20 percent who said theirs was a vote against him.¶
Sixty-five percent of voters also said they want the next president in 2016 to pursue different policies than the Obama
White House.¶ Democrats are struggling to win over independent voters, according to the poll. Republicans hold a 16-point
edge among independent voters, 49 percent-33 percent.¶ Another poll released Monday by CNN, also favors Republicans — albeit with a smaller
margin — ahead of the upcoming midterm elections as 46 percent of registered voters said they would vote for the Republican candidate in their district, while 45
percent said they would vote for the Democratic candidate.¶ Sixty-two percent of respondents said the economic conditions of the country are poor, continuing a
steady decrease from October in which 71 percent said the nation’s economic conditions were poor.¶ Additionally, 45 percent said the country would be better off
if Democrats maintain control of the Senate, while 42
percent said it would be better off if Republicans gained the majority if the
GOP holds onto the House.¶ The Pew poll was conducted April 23-27 with 1,501 adults from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., using landlines and
cellphones. The margin for error is plus or minus 2.9 percentage points.¶ The CNN poll was conducted May 2-4 and surveyed 1,008 adults, including 911
registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
GOP will win- US disapproval rating for Obama foreign policy giving huge advantage for Midterms
Zelizer 6-9 [ulian Zelizer, CNN contributer and a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, “Will Democrats pay a price for Bergdahl
deal?”, http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/opinion/zelizer-bergdahl-democrats-midterms/, June 9 2014, Ssanchez]
(CNN) -- Critics
of President Barack Obama's foreign policy are getting louder by the day, and that poses risks for Democrats this
fall and even in 2016.¶ According to previews of Hillary Clinton's memoirs, "Hard Choices," the former secretary of state distances herself from Obama on
certain decisions, such as on the question of whether to arm Syrian rebels. She wanted to be more aggressive; he did not.¶ Democrats have grown
more nervous about foreign policy as Obama has been working hard to respond to critics who say hasn't taken a tough-enough
line. The controversy over the deal to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban
prisoners has flared into an extraordinarily heated debate. Obama has watched as his approval rating for handling
international affairs has fallen to 41%. Last month, Obama had to stand by as Republicans launched another round of congressional investigations
into the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Russia's aggressive moves into the Ukraine stirred talk of a new Cold War
and concern that the President didn't really have a viable response to this kind of aggression.¶ More recently, the controversies
shifted to the President's broader vision or lack thereof. Republicans found a lot to dislike in his address at West Point,
where Obama indicated that the nation should step back from using military power as freely as it has done in the past.¶ Soon after came the news about the
release of Bergdahl, in exchange for the release of five notorious Taliban prisoners. Republicans
were quick to accuse the President of
negotiating with terrorists. They have also accused him of violating the law by failing to inform Congress of the
impending deal. Even though Democrats point to a number of huge accomplishments during the Obama presidency -- the killing of
Osama bin Laden, the drawdown of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and diplomatic initiatives to bring nuclear disarmament in Iran without bloodshed -- the
critics have upped their volume.¶ All of the recent stories add up to the potential for foreign policy to emerge as a
potent issue in the midterm campaigns this fall. Congressional Democrats could suffer as a result of the unhappiness
with the administration's policies. Even though midterm elections generally focus on bread and butter questions about the health of the economy, as
well as local concerns, there are times when foreign policy can hurt the party of the president.¶ In 1966, for instance, Republicans campaigned
against Lyndon Johnson's policies in Vietnam. GOP officials such as former Vice President Richard Nixon said that Johnson was not unleashing enough force
against the North Vietnamese Communists and leaving U.S. troops in a quagmire. In 1978, Republicans railed against President Jimmy Carter for his alleged
weakness in foreign policy, claiming that he gave away too much in the Panama Canal Treaties and that he was pursuing a dangerous policy of détente with the
Soviet Union.¶ In 1982, Democrats, who were generally focused on the recession, also spoke in favor of a nuclear freeze and warned that President Ronald
Reagan's embrace of the military was bringing the nation close to war. More recently, Republicans blasted Democrats in 2002 for being weak on defense after
having not supported the administration's homeland security bill. And in 2006, Democratic candidates returned the favor by criticizing the president's war in Iraq
as a reckless, unnecessary and extremely costly operation that had actually undermined the war on terrorism.¶ While
foreign policy carried different
levels of weight in these midterms, in some of these contests, such as 1966 and 2006, the administration's actions
overseas dismayed voters.¶ Will foreign policy play a factor in the 2014 midterms? It is unlikely that it will be a major issue but there are ways it could
have an indirect effect on the ballot box and cause trouble for Democrats when Americans turn out to vote.¶ At the most immediate level, the foreign policy
controversy has already distracted the news media from other kinds of stories upon which congressional Democrats
were hoping to focus. The foreign policy controversy intensified just as there was evidence that the economy was
picking up steam and that the Obama's health care program was gaining strength. Both signs of accomplishment were put on the
back burner, overshadowed by the Bergdahl debate.¶ The stories also feed the perception of some voters who feel that Democrats
have not done a good job managing government. This is a White House that once prided itself on competence. Obama, a well-educated
politician who surrounded himself with bright staff, vowed to avoid the kind of mismanagement that had been on display with Hurricane Katrina during President
George W. Bush's term. But that reputation has slowly been undercut, especially after the botched health care website rollout and the VA scandal.
A2 GOP doesn’t have minority voters
Voter turnout for minority populations is empirically lower for midterm elections.
Bitzer 2014 (MICHAEL BITZER, associate professor of politics and history at Catawba College JULY 3, 2014,
Influence Of Black, Hispanic Voters Smaller In Mid-Term Elections, http://wfae.org/post/influence-black-hispanicvoters-smaller-mid-term-elections)
Much has
been made about who will show up in elections and how both parties put together their different coalitions
to win in state-wide general elections. And with the significant growth in one bloc of the general population, both sides are attempting to see how
they can best capitalize on a changing electorate. One critical electoral group that has seen the greatest growth is that of
Hispanic/Latinos in the nation, with their growth seeing a 50% increase since 2000. With this growing population, both political
parties are seeking to continue their courtship of Hispanic voters: Democrats have a strong connection already with this group, with
President Obama securing 70% of the Latino vote in 2012. This caused Republicans to reevaluate their strategy and
recognize the need to gain greater support in their bid to expand their party’s electoral coalition. But that tremendous
Hispanic population growth could be misleading in terms of their electoral power. In a recent New York Times blog piece, Nate Cohn looked at Hispanic voting
influence and found that Latino voters “will represent a tiny fraction of the electorate in the states and districts critical to the battle for control of Congress.” If North
Carolina continues its trend of swing-state status in presidential and US Senate races, the state could be a critical test of the rise of new racial and ethnic
coalitions within the two parties, and more importantly, what role Hispanic voters play in deciding state-wide competitions. In the past decade, North Carolina has
seen a 49% increase in black voter registration, rising from 984,000 in 2004 to over 1.4 million in the latest numbers for 2014. Among
Hispanic voters,
there has been an astounding 1,094% increase in voter registration; yet the raw numbers show demonstrate Cohen’s
point: registered Hispanic voters have increased from 10,000 in 2004 to over 120,000 this year, barely 2% of the states 6.2 million voters. In comparison, white
voters in North Carolina saw a 17% increase from 2004 to this year, rising from 3.9 million to 4.6 million. But it’s not just about registering these
voters; it’s also about getting them out in November elections. In North Carolina, black and Hispanic registered voters
tend not to show up in mid-term elections like they do in presidential election years. All three groups—white, black,
and Hispanic voters—tend to see a zigzag in turnout between presidential and mid-term election years. White voters saw a
69% turnout of registered voters in presidential years, but turnout dropped to the 40s in mid-term years of 2006 and 2010. Among black voters, turnout has been
71% in the past two presidential election years, but dropped to 29% and 40% in 2006 and 2010 mid-term years, respectively. The emerging Hispanic voters saw
a 59% and 54% voter turnout in 2008 and 2012, but a dismal 21% and 19% voter turnout in 2006 and 2010 mid-term election years. Among black voters who
cast ballots in 2012’s presidential election, only 2% were registered Republican; among Hispanic voters casting ballots, only 17% were registered with the GOP.
Recently, left-leaning groups seized on a two-year old comment by U.S. Senate Republican candidate Thom Tillis about how the "traditional population of North
Carolina and the United States is more or less stable. It's not growing. The African American population is roughly growing but the Hispanic population and the
other immigrant populations are growing in significant numbers. We've got to resonate with those future voters." In the
heat of this year’s competitive
U.S. Senate campaign, commentators pounced on Tillis’ definition behind his ‘traditional population’ remark. But what
Tillis remarked after the 2012 election is exactly what national GOP leaders found in their post-mortem analysis: the
future demographics of the county will require Republican outreach to minorities and, “if we want ethnic minority
voters to support Republicans, we have to engage them, and show our sincerity.” This year’s mid-term election
should see potentially a continuation of the increase in registration, as well as the precipitous drop in turnout among
all voters, traditional or non-traditional, as well. The more worrisome figures for the Grand Old Party’s ‘big tent’ is the fact that their supporters
are more and more the traditional spectators — mostly white. What Tillis was perhaps seeking to do was broaden that electoral racial coalition that the GOP will
need to survive in the future. It may do all Republicans some good, however, to perhaps rethink the idea of what is “traditional” in light of the obvious change in
American society and in the Old North State and engaging with this growing and diverse set of “future voters.”
Links
Link – Aquaculture – Popular
1NC – Aquaculture Link
Aquaculture unpopular with the public—NGO lobbying has devastated support
Panorama Acuicola, 1-9-2013
[Editorial, Magazine about aquaculture policies, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture,
http://www.panoramaacuicola.com/interviews_and_articles/2013/01/09/the_political_economics_of_united_states_m
arine_aquaculture.html#sthash.KaRUbino.dpuf] /Bingham-MB
4. NGO’s have systematically and effectively opposed U.S. marine aquaculture. Numerous U.S. Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) have invested significant funding and effort to advocate banning, delaying ,restricting, or
regulating U.S. marine aquaculture. These organizations have played a major role in influencing the public, the press,
politicians, and regulators in ways which have contributed to unfavorable leasing and regulatory policies towards
marine aquaculture. This NGO’s include the Packard Foundation, Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund,
and others. The scale, objectives, strategies, and arguments of these groups vary widely, making it difficult to
generalize about their motives, methods, and effects. ¶ Advocacy groups can provide a valuable service by acting as
an impartial watch dog of environmental issues and calling attention to legitimate concerns. However, a very real and
frustrating challenge for marine aquaculture supporters is that some NGO’s appear willing to say any thing to oppose
marine aquaculture, with casual and sometimes blatant disregard for objectivity, truth, or the complex reality of what
experience and science have shown about the hugely varied effects of the hugely varied kinds of activities
collectively known as aquaculture.
2NC – Aquaculture Link
Aquaculture unpopular—NGO lobbying has created an environment of public hostility—
That’s 1NC Panorama evidence
And the link goes one way, lobbying against aquaculture outweighs because the risks are
easier to understand than benefits, no lobbying power, and new industries fail
Panorama Acuicola, 1-9-2013
[Editorial, Magazine about aquaculture policies, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture,
http://www.panoramaacuicola.com/interviews_and_articles/2013/01/09/the_political_economics_of_united_states_m
arine_aquaculture.html#sthash.KaRUbino.dpuf] /Bingham-MB
Why are United States Policies Unfavorable to Marine Aquaculture?¶ The starting point in addressing the political
challenges to U.S. marine aquaculture has to be clear thinking about why U.S. marine aquaculture faces unfavorable
leasing and regulatory policies. Here are five broad contributing factors.¶ 1. Marine aquaculture is new and small. This
raises economic challen-ges for U.S. marine aquaculture. It cannot achieve economies of scale in production,
processing, transportation and marketing. It cannot learn and innovate from practical experience.—But being new
and small also raises political challenges for U.S. marine aquaculture. Because it is new and small, it is harder to
demonstrate the benefits and easier to exaggerate the risks of marine aquaculture.¶ Thus opposing aquaculture
development is viewed by advocacy groups as applying an ounce of prevention now instead of the pound of cure that
would be required later.” —To overcome the political challenges it faces,U.S. marine aquaculture will need committed
supporters at all levels of the political and policy process. All of this takes committed people and money. Relatively
few Americans have— or realize they have — a direct stake in it. In much of the United States marine aquaculture is
still below a political threshold scale necessary for people to understand, accept, and effectively advocate for marine
aquaculture.¶
And, public aquaculture development faces public resistance—tied to land resource
development debate
Panorama Acuicola, 1-9-2013
[Editorial, Magazine about aquaculture policies, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture,
http://www.panoramaacuicola.com/interviews_and_articles/2013/01/09/the_political_economics_of_united_states_m
arine_aquaculture.html#sthash.KaRUbino.dpuf] /Bingham-MB
2. Marine fish and waters are traditionally public resources. The concept of private ownership of land is fully accepted
in American law and culture. Many Americans oppose land-based resource development such as mining or logging
or industrial agriculture, but they don’t generally base their opposition on the principle that land or resources shouldn’t
be privately owned.¶ In contrast, there is no tradition of private ownership of marine fish or waters in America. Many
Americans oppose allowing private exclusive use of or rights to marine coastlines, water or fish. The tradition that
marine fish and waters are public resources imposes an extra political and regulatory hurdle for the development of
aquaculture, especially for finfish farming. Before any kind of marine aquaculture can begin, new mechanisms need
to be created to allow for exclusive use of marine waters.¶ Efforts to implement rights-based management regimes
for wild fisheries, such as individual fishing quotas, face similar strong philosophical resistance from many
Americans. However, as these new management regimes are implemented, public attitudes are likely to shift as the
economic logic and advantages of exclusive use rights become more apparent. The same process will likely occur
with marine aquaculture — but it will take time.
And, Unpopular—fishing groups create biases against aquaculture
Panorama Acuicola, 1-9-2013
[Editorial, Magazine about aquaculture policies, The Political Economics of United States Marine Aquaculture,
http://www.panoramaacuicola.com/interviews_and_articles/2013/01/09/the_political_economics_of_united_states_m
arine_aquaculture.html#sthash.KaRUbino.dpuf] /Bingham-MB
Several structural biases against aquaculture result from this fragmented governance system. Most agencies have a
limited focus. Rather than considering the best interests and/or preferences of society as a whole, or balancing both
costs and benefits of marine aquaculture, they are charged with more narrow and specific goals, such as protecting
water quality or promoting economic development. Besides, a single agency — at any level— can stop marine
aquaculture even if all other agencies are willing or eager to promote it.¶ A second structural bias is that agencies
may be biased internally against aquaculture. For example, fisheries management agencies may be strongly
influenced by constituents who oppose aquaculture, such as fishermen, or their staff may have little interest in or
knowledge of aquaculture, or may actively oppose it.
Link – Ocean Fertilization
Ocean fertilization unpopular—opposed by multiple constituencies in the U.S.
Johnson, 3-14-2013
[Carolyn, Boston Globe, Geoengineering solutions to global warming need oversight, Harvard professor argues,
http://www.boston.com/news/science/blogs/science-in-mind/2013/03/14/geoengineering-solutions-global-warmingneed-oversight-harvard-professor-argues/i91l7xVuQRYpk4ctzZQnfP/blog.html /Bingham-MB
Large-scale projects that could temper or reverse the effects of climate change by blocking some incoming sunlight or
manipulating the atmosphere have long been unpopular on two opposing fronts. On one side are those worried about
the unintended consequences and doomsday scenarios that could be set off by careless experiments. On the other
are those who believe such research is important, but to support it now will detract from the urgent need to cut
greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global temperature rise.¶ The result, argues Harvard University applied physics professor
David W. Keith, is an impasse: no government framework regulating when and how such research can be done, and very little funding for the work.¶ “We’re a
little bit stuck,” Keith said. “What’s sort of strange is this is potentially as big, in a sense, in its potential impact on the world over a century as, say, engineering
new life forms or nuclear weapons. But as of now, there’s much less attention paid to it.”¶ Only in Boston!¶ News Share¶ Social Media Abuzz with Spectacular
Images of Supermoon¶ Social Media Abuzz with Spectacular Images of Supermoon¶ News Share¶ The 7 Longest-Lasting Hybrid Cars¶ The 7 Longest-Lasting
Hybrid Cars¶ Cars Share¶ To move the debate forward, Keith and Edward A. Parson of the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, published a
policy perspective Thursday in the journal Science, presenting a practical solution that would help the science move forward safely.¶ Although an international
treaty is a good long-term goal, Keith said a science agencies from international governments could come together this year and define some basic guidelines for
how such research can and should be done. That sort of direction would help clarify the situation for researchers and funding agencies. Instead of focusing on
specific projects and technologies, he and Parson argue that an international consortium could define two key thresholds.¶ The first threshold would outlaw the
large-scale projects that scare people. They propose a numerical value for this threshold, which essentially amounts to ruling out experiments that could trigger
climate change big enough to be detectable in the world’s temperature record—“a moratorium on anything big enough to be observable on a global scale,” Keith
said.¶ They also propose a low threshold, beneath which everything would be allowable. This would include small-scale outdoor experiments that might involve,
for example, releasing a few hundred pounds of a substance into the atmosphere and monitoring what happens in the atmosphere. Such experiments should be
allowed, the scientists argue, because they perturb the environment far less than routine human activities such as airplane flights, fish farms, and sewage
outfalls.¶ Keith, for example, is working on a proposal for an experiment that would measure ozone loss and involve releasing sulfur in the stratosphere. He noted
that the project, which will not go forward without funding and public approval, is on a tiny scale when considering the 50 million tons of sulfur pumped into the
atmosphere in a given year by a variety of sources.¶ Keith is president of Carbon Engineering, a Calgary-based company that is working on technology to
capture carbon dioxide from the air and use it to create environmentally-friendly fuels. But he thinks that geoengineering efforts go far beyond the scope of simply
removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which is why they need more study and funding.¶ He notes that geoengineering
experiments don’t
get much support, especially in the U.S., where he says just a handful of research teams have been funded to specifically explore the potential of
such technology by the National Science Foundation, a major funder of basic research. That potentially leaves scientists and policymakers in an
uncomfortable place. If an emergency situation were to arise, in which a geoengineering technique could be valuable, the necessary basic research that
would flesh out the viability and risks of geoengineering solutions would never have occurred. A range of potentially powerful scientific solutions would be risky
and untested.¶ “Of course we should cut emissions, but it doesn’t reduce all the risk,” Keith said. “And geoengineering has some real prospect” of making a
difference.
Empirically unpopular with the public—studies prove
Vance, 2010
[Eric, 2-24-2010, Geoengineering divides scientists, http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/41830]
/Wyo-MB
In the end, debates about the best form of climate manipulations may be moot because geoengineering remains
publicly unpopular. Ortwin Renn, a sustainable technology expert at the University of Stuttgart, Germany, cited recent
small-scale studies that suggest the more people learn about geoengineering, the less likely it is that they will
endorse it.¶ As if to confirm the public's continued confusion, protesters gathered outside the meeting; several
managed to attend and pepper the scientists with questions about secret government climate-manipulation plots.
Link – Drilling – Unpopular
Public doesn’t see drilling as a priority
PRC ’14 (“Energy: Key Data Points” The Pew Research Center January 27, 2014 http://www.pewresearch.org/keydata-points/energy-key-data-points/)
The share of Americans citing energy issues as a top priority was unchanged from last year at 45%, down from a high of
60% in 2009, according to a survey conducted Jan. 15-19. Partisan differences about the importance of the issue were small. The recent energy boom
in the U.S. has not registered widely with the public. Our September 2013 survey found that only 48% correctly say that U.S. energy
production is up in recent years. But there is no indication that awareness of the nation’s growing energy production is related
to energy policy attitudes. Two-thirds or more of Americans favor government policies to require better fuel efficiency more funding for alternative
energy research and more spending on mass transit. A smaller majority supports more offshore oil and gas drilling.
Local businesses oppose drilling-North Carolina proves
Canevale ’14 (Chris, 2/19/2014 CleanEnergy.org “Local Biz owners say drilling is bad for business”
http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2014/02/19/local-biz-owners-say-offshore-drilling-is-bad-for-business/)
In North Carolina, coastal businesses recently made themselves heard in a letter to the Obama administration , spurred by
Governor Pat McCrory’s push for opening the Atlantic coast to offshore oil and gas drilling and recent meeting with U.S. Energy Secretary Moniz to see it
through. In response to these actions, 60
North Carolina businesses–30 from the coast and 30 inland–delivered a letter to
President Obama and Secretary Moniz offering the locals’ perspective and not surprisingly, they unanimously and
vigorously proclaim that offshore drilling will jeopardize the coastal economy. An excerpt from the letter: We are writing as
businesses that depend upon a healthy coast as the foundation of our economy. Visitors come to North Carolina’s coast to experience our
national and state parks and engage in recreational diving, boating, fishing and surfing, among many other activities.
The North Carolina Department of Commerce estimates that coastal tourism and recreation in North Carolina support more than 25,000 jobs and contribute more
than 2 billion dollars to the state economy annually. Commercial fishing is also a major industry that supports more than 5,000 jobs and has an estimated annual
economic impact of 336 million dollars. These industries depend on a healthy coast and thriving natural resources. [...] As coastal business owners, we believe
that the Governor’s push for offshore exploration is misguided and presents significant risks to our economy. At about the same time this letter from the business
community was being delivered to Washington, DC, coastal
citizens made their sentiments about offshore drilling quite clear in the
normally peaceful town of Kure Beach, NC. The Kure Beach mayor had signed on to a letter from the American Petroleum Institute (Big Oil’s
lobbying arm) in support of offshore oil and gas exploration. Hundreds of citizens showed up (notable in a town of just 2,000
residents) to a subsequent town council meeting to let the council know that they do not support offshore drilling along
North Carolina’s coast nor undertaking the risky exploration process. Interestingly, Kure Beach also passed a resolution in support of offshore wind energy,
showing that offshore energy can be a sound economic development opportunity, as long as its done right–with wind, not drilling. The popularity of offshore wind
with coastal residents is proven with scientific polling carried out by Clemson University. The
business community’s letter and the display of
public outrage about offshore seismic testing show that coastal businesses and residents are not going to put up with
the pro-drilling agenda pushed by Big Oil and repeated by politicians that could leave coastal citizens and our natural
resources high and dry while padding faraway pockets. These events show that coastal businesses and residents are taking a stand for
what we love about the coast, how we want to sustain our economy and way of life, and what we hope to pass down to future generations. We hope that the
McCrory administration and Obama administration are listening with genuine intentions of serving the public interest.
Public support for drilling is declining
Weiss ’10 (Daniel J. Senior Fellow and Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund
“Support for offshore drilling dirty energy gets dispersed by BP oil disaster” Climate Progress 06/06/10
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/05/28/206102/support-for-offshore-oil-drilling-dirty-energy-production-getsdispersed-by-bp-oil-disaster/)
two just released polls by USA Today/Gallup show that Americans are
increasingly skeptical of increased offshore drilling — and increasingly support environmental protection. In the one month
since the April 20thexplosion at the Deepwater Horizon rig, support for more offshore drilling has dropped by nearly 20 percent – a big
change in a short period of time. Gallup pollster Jeffrey M. Jones notes that: Americans’ support for increased offshore drilling has
In the wake of the largest oil disaster in U.S. history,
declined significantly since April, to the point that the public is now about evenly divided on the issue.President Obama’s decision to extend the
moratorium on new offshore drilling is now more in line with Americans’ – and particularly Democrats’ — current views on drilling after the oil spill than before it,
when Obama called for more drilling. The oil spill has also changed Americans’ attitudes on the trade-off between energy production and environmental
protection — underscoring the challenges U.S. leaders will face in addressing such issues going forward. Similarly,
Americans favor protection of
the environment over development of “oil, gas, and coal” by 55 percent to 39 percent. This is the first time that environment lead
energy development in over a year.
Link – Drilling - Popular
Public support of offshore drilling-assumes your BP warrants
Swanson ’13 (Emily “Offshore drilling support high as deepwater horizon oil spill trial opens” 2/28/2013 Huffington
Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/offshore-drilling_n_2783337.html)
After the opening of a trial this week to assess BP's responsibility for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a new HuffPost/YouGov poll finds that support for
offshore drilling has returned to high levels, and more think that spills are isolated accidents rather than routine
events. According to the new survey, 58 percent of Americans favor increased offshore drilling, and only 28 percent are
opposed. Among Republicans, support for drilling is near universal, with 86 percent saying that they support
expanded drilling. Most independents also said they support drilling, 58 percent to 26 percent. Democrats were divided on the issue, with 41
percent saying they favored and 40 percent saying they were opposed to increased drilling. Support for increased drilling has recovered
nearly to where it was before the Gulf oil spill. A YouGov/Economist poll conducted the month before the spill found that support for increased
drilling outstripped opposition 62 percent to 24 percent. Support dropped as low as 44 percent in another YouGov/Economist poll taken after the spill, in June of
By a 50 percent to 30 percent margin, respondents to the
HuffPost/YouGov survey were more likely to say that drilling technology is safe and that spills are rare accidents -rather than say that the technology is unreliable and routine spills inevitable. The survey also finds a big turnaround in how people
2010, with 40 percent saying they opposed expanded drilling at that time.
perceive BP's role in cleaning up the spill since YouGov's last survey on the subject, in April of 2011. Forty-eight percent of respondents now say that they would
rate BP's cleanup efforts as either excellent or good (though only 13 percent said excellent), while 36 percent say that BP was doing only a fair or poor job. In the
April 2011 YouGov/Economist survey, more than half said that BP was doing only a fair or poor job. Thirty-eight percent of respondents to the survey think that a
lot of progress has been made in cleaning up the 2010 spill. Another 28 percent think some progress has been made. Thirteen percent said not much progress
has been made, and 3 percent said no progress has been made at all.
Ocean Development – Popular
Public opinion polls show that the public supports ocean exploration
Nichols et. al ’03 (C. Reid, David Larson Porter, Robert G. Williams “Recent Advances and Issues in
Oceanography” 06/30/2005 p. 197)
Fantastic voyages to the planet’s inner space are happening close to home in the waters that surround us, and are
reminds that the ocean is still brimming with life that scientists are only just discovering. The ocean has been
navigated for thousands of years, but exploration of the deepest parts of the ocean is just beginning. Public opinion
polls indicate that Americans care strongly about the ocean and are prepared to support ocean exploration over
space exploration. The survey participants nearly three quarters (72 percent), also see the health of the ocean as
intimately connected to the future well-being of humankind.
Public supports ocean exploration.
Lilley ’10 (Johnathan Charles, PHD dissertation for degree in Marine Studies “Navigating a sea of values:
Understanding public values towards the oceans and ocean energy resources”
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf)
Regarding action that could be taken to protect the marine environment, 85% thought the government needs to do
more, with 72% stating that funding for ocean exploration should take priority over space exploration (17%). In terms
of individual action that a person can take, 49% said they would be almost certain to recycle used motor oil and 42%
said they would be almost certain to pick up trash on the beach Much smaller percentages said they would be pay
higher water bills to fund better sewage treatment (20%); lobby their politicians to support positive ocean related
actions (18%); join an environmental group (12%); or attend legislative meetings on ocean issues (10%). Regarding
the perceived effectiveness in protecting the marine environment and 63% thought that picking up trash on the beach
would be very effective.
Ocean Development - Unpopular
Ocean development is unpopular with women
Lilley 10 (Summer, Jonathan Charles, PhD in Marine Biology, “NAVIGATING A SEA OF VALUES:
UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD THE OCEAN AND OCEAN ENERGY RESOURCES”
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf)
With regard to environmental beliefs and values, geographic location and sex prove influential. There exist a number of
differences between people living in the coastal zone and those who live away from the coast, with the more pronounced differences among those who live within
coastal zip codes. These people are more cognizant of the economic importance of the ocean and more likely to feel they have a responsibility to protect and
preserve the ocean. People living in coastal zips also hold slightly less anthropocentric attitudes when it comes to humans’ relationship to the environment.
Women are also less anthropocentric than men and more likely to understand they have a personal impact on the
ocean. Additionally, women feel that anti-pollution laws should be enforced more strongly
Public opinion shows opposition to ocean development
Lilley ’10 (Johnathan Charles, PHD dissertation for degree in Marine Studies “Navigating a sea of values:
Understanding public values towards the oceans and ocean energy resources”
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf)
Respondents were also asked how serious they thought ocean degradation was. More than half of those interviewed
(52%) saw the destruction of the ocean as a very serious threat to society’s current quality of life. When asked
whether this might be a problem ten years from now, this number increased with 63% agreeing that it would be a
very serious threat. Regarding the personal importance that people place on the ocean, in coastal communities 64%
said the ocean was very important to them personally; in non-coastal communities the number of respondents
holding this viewpoint fell to 49%. Over half of those asked (58%) believed that the condition of the ocean has
declined over the last few years whereas a small minority thought the state of the ocean had improved (6%).
Public values ocean health
Lilley ’10 (Johnathan Charles, PHD dissertation for degree in Marine Studies “Navigating a sea of values:
Understanding public values towards the oceans and ocean energy resources”
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf)
The SeaWeb survey also found a high level of agreement for protecting the ocean for the benefit of future
generations. When asked whether people have a ‘responsibility to protect the ocean for future generations,’ 84%
strongly agreed. Similarly, 82% strongly agreed that the ‘destruction of the ocean is a threat to the health of future
generations.’ In short, the SeaWeb study described the ocean as an “issue waiting to happen” and comments that
while the ocean is not seen as a top priority there exists “strong latent, if not manifest, concern for the fate of the
ocean”
Climate Push Unpop
Climate focused plans ostracize the public
Real Clear Politics 5-11 (2014, Salena Zito, “'Climate' a Huge Threat - to Democrats in Washington”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/11/climate_a_huge_threat__to_democrats_in_washington_122600.html#ixzz32OgkzL57)
No one knows yet if Dutton will win his bid for Congress; he is just one candidate in a five-person Republican primary in Georgia's 12th Congressional District,
fighting to face U.S. Rep. John Barrow, an Augusta Democrat. One thing
Dutton already has won is the sentiment of a country
dumbfounded that President Barack Obama last week defined climate change as the most pressing issue facing the
country. Obama did so as part of a huge public relations campaign — yes, campaign — that included asking people to pressure Washington to act on the
issue. Not jobs. Not the economy. Not rebuilding our aging infrastructure. Not gang violence, or education. Climate
change. And he and his party ridiculed anyone who disagrees. A couple of things about all of this smack the sensibilities of regular
folks. First, most people know Earth's climate always has changed; everyone knows about this little thing called the Ice Age. What most people don't
care for is the issue being used politically to slice and dice the country, the same way the minimum wage, gender,
race, immigration and religion have been used by this administration. This is why folks do not look toward Washington, D.C., to solve
problems anymore. This is why young people — the Millennials — are so turned off by the brands of both political parties,
a one-time advantage that Democrats have completely squandered. And this is why we have wave-election cycles.
Also, most folks who don't live in the privileged enclaves of high society or high academia or high government would argue that other, more pressing crises —
most of them hidden in plain sight — should be considered the gravest threat to our country in our lifetime. Things such as subpar graduation rates in our innercity schools, or the 90 million people who have left the nation's workforce in the past six years, or our economy being less entrepreneurial now than at any point
in the last three decades — or that a Brookings study showed, between 2009 and 2011, small businesses were collapsing faster than they were being formed.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka cautioned Obama and Democrats to consider how millions of livelihoods outside of D.C. would be impacted: “We are
prepared to ... make sacrifices, but not while the most privileged in our society stand on the sidelines and expect our poorest communities to bear the costs.” A
wave election is building beyond Washington — not a tsunami, but a wave — yet most experts don't see it because they define an electoral “wave” as a large flip
to the party in power; Republicans already control the House and probably will add more seats to their list. Those experts should review the results of
November's races for state legislatures, governors' mansions and the U.S. Senate, and then rethink their definition of a wave. And Democrats should rethink
what really constitutes a “pressing issue.”
Climate policies are unpopular – trends
New York Times 10 (Jan 26, Alex Kaplun, ClimateWire, If Polls Say 'Yes' to a Climate Bill, Why Do Lawmakers
Say 'Maybe'? http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/26/26climatewire-if-polls-say-yes-to-a-climate-bill-why-do-la41121.html?pagewanted=all)
Should climate change legislation move to the forefront of the national political debate, that does not mean the
current levels of support for a bill will remain constant, as support for seemingly popular ideas can fall off the cliff
once it becomes the dominant issue of the day. Democrats would have to look no further than health care reform,
where public support has fallen as the debate has dragged on. Another example cited by some pollsters is President George W. Bush's effort to reform social
security -- an idea that tested well initially but whose support quickly collapsed as the Capitol Hill debate got under way. "It's unclear if this were to move up on
the agenda, whether those numbers would change or not," said Doherty of Pew. "At
this point, it's a gut-level response to something that
most voters probably haven't thought very much about." The polls have already shown some troubling signs for
climate change supporters. The Washington Post poll, for example, which showed 65 percent for climate change
legislation in December, showed 75 percent support just six months earlier. The 54 percent support found in the NBC
News/Wall Street Journal represented a drop of 2 percentage points from just a couple months earlier but a 10percentage-point drop from 2007. And a Pew poll released in the fall showed a drop of 14 points in the percentage of voters
that believed there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming and a 9-percentage-point drop in the voters that saw global
warming a "serious" problem -- one of several polls that has shown increased voter skepticism over the issue. "There's a lot of movement going on
here, which makes people even more uneasy," Borick said. "There may still be majority support, but the trend lines are going in
the other direction."
A2 Climate Push Popular
Americans support climate change in the abstract, but the real-life costs aren’t popular
New York Times 10 (Jan 26, Alex Kaplun, ClimateWire, If Polls Say 'Yes' to a Climate Bill, Why Do Lawmakers
Say 'Maybe'? http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/01/26/26climatewire-if-polls-say-yes-to-a-climate-bill-why-do-la41121.html?pagewanted=all)
Independent media polls have shown roughly the same results. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released just before Christmas showed that 65 percent
wanted the federal government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll a few days earlier placed that voter support for
government action at 54 percent. But if
the adage that politicians follow public opinion is true, why are so many key lawmakers
still on the fence over the legislation? Why are politically endangered Democrats hesitant to support a bill that the
polls say that voters actually like? And why does the seemingly popular legislative item continue to slide further and further down the congressional
agenda? Answering those questions could be pivotal for the future of climate legislation, as both sides admit that the fate of the bill could be determined just as
much by public opinion as by the actual policy language in the legislation. Environmentalists and their allies say it takes time to connect public sentiment with
political behavior, and many lawmakers do not have a firm grasp of how the public views this issue or how it can benefit them on the campaign trail. "There are
frequently positions that politicians take that are out-of-step with America," said Joel Benenson, head of Benenson Strategy Group, which conducted its poll for
the coalition Clean Energy Works. "I think that when you campaign and you create a narrative about whether a candidate is siding with special interests like oil
companies and Wall Street is opposed to creating energy independence, capping pollution, regulating the financial industry, I think that's a pretty good argument
for a Democrat to have against a Republican in a lot of races right now." Some
lawmakers say their colleagues' perception of public
opinion has been muddied by efforts launched by a handful of powerful interests to defeat the bill. "Some folks, I don't think are listening to people on
the ground -- this is a battle between public sentiment and special interests," said Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), an ardent supporter of the climate change bill.
"Over time, the public sentiment has started to prevail." But
critics and some polling experts see the matter differently. They say that
while the public may indeed articulate surface-level support for climate change legislation, that sentiment
fails to adequately reflect two important factors in any political debate -- cost and voter engagement. "When
you ask people in an isolated way do they want to do something to address the problem, they say, 'yes,'" said
Christopher Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion. "When you give them financial
implications, those numbers start to erode." Borick added, "Political figures just do not sense a deep commitment; they
see it as a cursory commitment to action rather than a deep commitment that would include financial support."
Yesterday, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press reported that 28 percent of voters believed that dealing with global
warming should be a "top domestic priority" for President Obama. That number put it dead last among the 21 topics
covered by the poll and at its lowest level since Pew started testing the issue in 2007. Addressing the country's "energy problem"
came in at 49 percent -- an 11 percentage point drop from last year and the lowest since 2006. "There's more support than opposition for it, but people haven't
heard a lot about this," said Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. "This
for a lot of people."
issue is off the radar
Obama Pop Key to Dems
2014 election is a referendum on Obama – his political standing is key to midterm Senate
races
Cilliza 2/2/14 (Chris, founder + editor @ The Fix + Political Commenator @ Wash Post, "2014 Senate races may
be a referendum on Obama; if so, Democrats should worry," http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014-senateraces-may-be-referendum-on-obama-if-so-democrats-should-worry/2014/02/02/f566ddac-8c1b-11e3-95dd36ff657a4dae_story.html)
If the 2014 election is a referendum on President Obama, Democrats are in deep trouble.¶ That’s according to a new
state-by-state study of Obama’s job-approval ratings released by Gallup that puts his disapproval rating at over 50 percent in 10 of the
21 states where Democrats are defending Senate seats this fall. In many of those states,Republicans have recruited strong candidates and are preparing to
spend big bucks to win the six seats they need to regain the majority.¶ Obama
is deeply unpopular — with a disapproval rating higher than 55 percent
— in
five states: West Virginia (67.3 percent disapproval), Montana (60.9 percent), South Dakota (59.3 percent), Arkansas (57 percent) and Alaska (55.4
those five seats, there is a second tier of states where the president’s disapproval rating stands
somewhere between 50 percent and 55 percent, including: Iowa (50.1 percent disapproval), New Hampshire (50.2 percent), North Carolina
percent).¶ Beyond
(50.4 percent), Colorado (51.2 percent) and Louisiana (53.9 percent).¶ Let’s look first at the five states where Obama’s approval rating is certain to be an issue
for the Democratic candidates.¶ Three of those states have a Democratic incumbent retiring — West Virginia, Montana and South Dakota — and that fact,
combined with Obama’s unpopularity, makes those seats tough holds for Democrats.¶ In Arkansas and Alaska, the Democratic incumbents are running and
distancing themselves from the president as fast as they can. “Overall, I’m disappointed with the president’s State of the Union address because he was heavy
on rhetoric but light on specifics about how we can move our country forward,” Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) said after Obama’s speech last week. Sen. Mark Begich
(Alaska) offered skepticism about the president’s executive-order emphasis, disagreed with him on energy policy and said that if Obama wants to come to the
Last Frontier, “I’m not really interested in campaigning” with him.¶ Democrats
are putting considerable stock in the ability of people like
Pryor and Begich — both of whom followed their fathers into elected office — to run on their own independent brands rather than be
dragged down by the national one. They rightly point to North Dakota’s 2012 Senate race as a blueprint. In that campaign, former state attorney
general Heidi Heitkamp, a known candidate with a well-regarded name, won despite the state’s clear Republican lean.¶ For his part, Begich likes to note that he
won in 2008 while Obama was losing in Alaska by 22 points; the counter to that argument is that the race was wholly defined by the federal investigation
surrounding then-Sen. Ted Stevens (R): The incumbent was found guilty on seven felony counts eight days before the election. There is no Stevens in this race,
making it far more difficult for Begich to keep Obama (and his unpopularity) on the back burner.¶ Pryor didn’t even face a Republican opponent in 2008, but the
Natural State has moved heavily against Obama and Democrats more broadly over the past six years, and Pryor is the last Democrat standing in Arkansas’s
congressional delegation.¶ Of course, even
if Republicans win in all five of the states where Obama is a major drag, that still
leaves them a seat short of the majority. So where do they go to find that sixth seat?¶ Judging from the Obama disapproval
numbers alone, Louisiana, where Sen. Mary Landrieu is running for a fourth term, and Colorado, where Sen. Mark Udall is seeking a second, represent
the GOP’s best chances.¶ Landrieu has never won reelection with more than 52 percent of the vote, and because of the Pelican State’s quirky election rules, she
may face a runoff against Rep. Bill Cassidy (R) in December — a contest that would immediately be turned into a national party referendum if control of the
Senate were at stake.¶ Colorado, at the moment, looks like the GOP’s biggest recruiting failure in the nation, an opportunity lost unless the party can persuade a
better candidate to run.¶ In two other states where Obama’s disapproval rating stands between 50 and 55 percent, Republicans have yet to coalesce behind a
candidate in Iowa and continue to play a game of wait-and-see with former senator Scott Brown (R-Mass.) in New Hampshire.¶ And in North Carolina,
Republicans are optimistic about state House Speaker Thom Tillis’s chances of surviving a primary and taking down Sen. Kay Hagan, although he remains very
much an unproven statewide candidate.¶ Amid all of this, it’s important to remember that the Gallup numbers are from 2013 and that eight months (or so) remain
before any of these Democrats will have to go before voters. It’s
possible that Obama’s disapproval ratings will drop further between
now and then. But even a slight comeback for the president would probably do a world of good for someone like
Hagan. It’s also possible — per the Heitkamp example cited above — that people like Begich and Pryor can effectively turn the
focus of their races from national concerns to state ones.¶ But, because Obama will never appear on a ballot again, the
voters in these 10 states may decide they have only one way to express their displeasure with his leadership . If that
happens, Democrats should be very worried.
Turnout Key to Dems
Turnout key to the midterms - Dem turnout protects Senate control
Tomasky 14 (Michael, Columnist @ Daily Beast, "Democrats’ Best Weapon for Midterms: Fear of a Red Senate,"
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/21/democrats-best-weapon-for-midterms-fear-of-a-red-senate.html)
You’ll read a lot about Obamacare and the minimum wage and the War on Women and everything else, and all those
things will matter. But only one thing really, really, really matters: turnout. You know the lament: The most loyal
Democratic groups—young people, black people, single women, etc.—don’t come out to vote in midterms in big
numbers. You may dismiss this as lazy stereotyping, but sometimes lazy stereotyping is true, and this is one of those
times.¶ So how to get these groups energized? Because if core Democratic voting groups turn out to vote in decent
numbers, the Democrats will hold the Senate. Two or three of the six will hold on, the Democrats will prevail in the
end in Michigan and Iowa, and either Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky or Michelle Nunn in Georgia will eke out
a win. Or maybe both—if Democratic voters vote. And if not? Republicans could net seven, eight.¶ The other side
will be motivated: They’re older, white, angry that Obama continues to have the temerity to stand up there and be
president, as if somebody elected him. This will be their last chance to push the rage button (well, the Obama-rage
button; soon they’ll just start pushing the Hillary-rage button). But what will motivate the liberal side?
Partisan turnout key to midterms
Zelizer 3/10/14 (Julian, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, "Obama may hate the
midterm results," http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/10/opinion/zelizer-midterm-obama/)
The problems and burdens that come from being in office, especially after an entire term of controversial decisions,
never disappear. As with all midterms, partisans turn out to vote much more eagerly than moderates and
independents who sit these contests out.
Turnout key to midterms
Malone 3/19/14 (Jim, Voice of America, "Obama’s Low Approval Hurting Democrats,"
http://www.voanews.com/content/obamas-low-approval-hurting-democrats/1874619.html)
Another lesson from the recent Florida race is who turned out to vote. Democrats did not get their supporters out to
the polls as they had hoped while Republicans were able to do a better job of firing up their base, in large part
because of opposition to Obamacare. Most experts already see a Republican advantage in this year’s midterm
elections because the voter turnout in non-presidential election years tends to skew toward older white voters, a
strong constituency for the Republicans. The younger, more female and more ethnically diverse electorate that
helped to elect Barack Obama twice in 2008 and 2012 is not likely to show up in similar strength this year, and that
has Democrats scrambling to find ways to motivate their core supporters.¶ Carroll Doherty with Pew says Democrats
have a chance to be competitive in November if they can find a way to somehow cut into the Republican
advantage on turnout, according to the latest research he’s seen. “What it is showing is that there is no wave election
for the Republicans or the Democrats at this point. It looks pretty even, which means that the turnout is going to be
a big factor and Republicans in midterms do pretty well in turnout.”
Turnout is key in midterm elections
Hohmann 10 (James, Politico, "Kaine aims to moblize '08 voters,"
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36508.html)
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine announced Wednesday that a key part of his strategy for
averting major losses in the midterm elections centers on turning out as many of the 15 million first-time voters who
backed President Barack Obama in 2008 as possible. ¶ While polls show many traditional voters have soured on the
president, Kaine thinks this group– made up largely of blacks, Latinos and young people – remains energized and
loyal to Obama. ¶ Midterm elections always see a falloff in turnout, increasing the importance of a party’s base.
A2 Obama/Agencies Shield Blame
No link shield – everything (bad) sticks to Obama
LATimes 10 (July 30, Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook, the Washington Tribune, “Obama the Velcro President”
http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/jul/30/nation/la-na-velcro-presidency-20100730)
If Ronald Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through two terms, Reagan
eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years, Obama has
become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher profile and
additional public exposure. They are also crafting new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama remains the colossus
of his administration — to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to solve. The president is on the hook to
repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department official
fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's
not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent
predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have been fleeting. Instead, voters are
measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval
ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove, according to Gallup's daily tracking poll.¶ "I think the
accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The
agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't translated into dinner table conversations."¶ Reagan was able to glide past
controversies with his popularity largely intact. He maintained his affable persona as a small-government advocate while seeming above the fray in his own
administration.¶ Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving members of
his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most of the blame fell on lieutenants.¶ Obama
lately has tried to rip off the Velcro veneer. In a
revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he reminded Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He told residents in Grand Isle, La., that
he is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comic-book superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and plug the hole.¶ "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said.¶
But as a candidate in 2008, he set sky-high expectations about what he could achieve and what government could accomplish.¶ Clinching the Democratic
nomination two years ago, Obama described the moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless" and
"when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."¶ Those towering goals remain a long way off. And most
people would have
preferred to see Obama focus more narrowly on the "good jobs" part of the promise.A recent Gallup poll showed that
53% of the population rated unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important problem. By contrast, only 7%
cited healthcare — a single-minded focus of the White House for a full year.¶ At every turn, Obama makes the argument that he has improved lives in concrete
ways.¶ Without the steps he took, he says, the economy would be in worse shape and more people would be out of work. There's evidence to support that. Two
economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder, reported recently that without the stimulus and other measures, gross domestic product would be about 6.5% lower.¶
Yet, Americans aren't apt to cheer when something bad doesn't materialize.¶ Unemployment has been rising — from 7.7% when Obama took office, to 9.5%.
Last month, more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in various stages of foreclosure — up from 1.7 million when Obama was sworn in.¶ "Folks just aren't in a
mood to hand out gold stars when unemployment is hovering around 10%," said Paul Begala, a Democratic pundit.¶ Insulating the president from bad news has
proved impossible. Other White Houses have tried doing so with more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the blame, shielding the boss.¶ But the
Obama administration is about one man. Obama is the White House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and negotiator. No Cabinet secretary has
emerged as an adequate surrogate. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy Secretary Steven Chu is prone to long,
wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to end.¶ So, more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro
effect: Everything sticks to him. He has opined on virtually everything in the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star
LeBron James' career plans; Chelsea Clinton's wedding.¶ Few audiences are off-limits. On Wednesday, he taped a spot on ABC's "The View," drawing a rebuke
from Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who deemed the appearance unworthy of the presidency during tough times.¶ "Stylistically
he
creates some of those problems," Eddie Mahe, a Republican political strategist, said in an interview. "His favorite pronoun is 'I.' When
you position yourself as being all things to all people, the ultimate controller and decision maker with the capacity to
fix anything, you set yourself up to be blamed when it doesn't get fixed or things happen."
A2 Youth Vote
Even if the youth vote turns out, it’s less dem-leaning than in prior elections
Enten 5-7 (2014, Harry, senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight.Com “Young Voters in 2014 May Be
Less Democratic-Leaning Than in 2010 And 2012” http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/young-voters-in-2014-may-beless-democratic-leaning-than-in-2010-and-2012/)
Republicans have had a problem with young voters over the past few elections. Mitt Romney lost 18- to 29-year-olds by 26
percentage points in 2012 (after adjusting the exit polls to match the actual result). Romney lost among all voters by just 4 points. In 2010 — a great year for the
GOP — House Republicans lost 18- to 29-year-olds by 14 points. They won among all voters by 7 points. That’s
why Democrats are hoping to get
more young people — who are less likely to vote in midterm elections – to vote in midterm elections. Yet, early polling suggests that
even if Democrats are successful in 2014, the payoff would be less than it would have been in either of the past two
election cycles. We know this by looking the national generic House ballot, as good an indicator as there is of the national political mood. Most generic
ballot surveys only have somewhere between 100 and 300 respondents between 18 and 29 years old, which makes for a large margin of sampling error. But by
taking an average across a number of surveys, we can get a good idea of how young voters are feeling. In the past six months, eight generic ballot polls have
been released with an 18- to 29-year-old cross tab. Together, they add up to well over 1,000 respondents. Democrats
clearly hold a lead among
young voters. Across the eight surveys from Marist, the Pew Research Center and Quinnipiac, Democrats hold an average lead of 14.3 percentage points
and a median lead of 12.5 points. The median may be a better indicator because of the outlier Marist poll from February, though both results are close to each
other. A
14.3-point win among 18- to 29-year-olds for Democrats would match their 2010 election performance, while
12.5 points would be a little worse. But keep in mind, these polls show Democrats — among all voters — up by an average of 0.1 percentage points
and down by median 0.5 points. In other words, young voters are less Democratic in comparison to the rest of the electorate than
they were in the prior two elections. In fact, they’re about a third less Democratically inclined in comparison. Voters ages
18 to 29 were 22 points more Democratic-leaning than all voters in 2012, and 21 points more Democratic-leaning in 2010. These polls show young voters just 14
points, on average, more Democratic-leaning. Polling young voters is difficult. Even averaging across a number of surveys leaves room for error. Also, the likely
voter electorate will almost certainly be more Republican than the registered voter electorate, though so, too, will likely younger voters. Younger voters in 2010,
like all voters, were more likely to be white than in 2012. Put it all together and, at least at this point, it
closer to all voters than in the prior two elections.
looks like younger voters in 2014 may be
Internal Links
Obama’s actions are key to party success in the midterms. The public holds him
accountable.
Podhoretz 2014 (John Podhoretz, Editor of Commentary. Columnist, New York Post. Contributing Editor of the
Weekly Standard. , followed by Lil B, Obama’s failed foreign policy just another drag on Democrats March 18, 2014 ,
http://nypost.com/2014/03/18/obamas-failed-foreign-policy-just-another-drag-on-democrats/, )
What could Vladimir Putin’s seizure of Crimea possibly have to do with the upcoming midterm elections in the United
States? Indirectly, a very great deal. But only indirectly. It has become the most conventional of conventional wisdoms that American voters
have tired of controversies beyond our shores, like Crimea. They want to focus on problems at home, not to get involved in what a notable
figure of the 1930s described in a different context as “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing.” This opinion is supported by an
undeniable sea-change in the nation’s attitude toward military power generally: A bipartisan consensus in Washington has effectively agreed to shrink the US
military to its smallest size since the demobilization after World War II, which will make the projection of American power abroad vastly more difficult in the
coming decade. Left-liberal ambivalence about military spending is decades old. But these liberals have now found unexpected allies in today’s House
Republicans, who believe they’re serving the wants and wishes of their constituents on reducing the federal debt by supporting these severe cuts. Nearly half the
GOP members of the House were first elected in 2010 or 2012. This means they are from the post-Bush, post-Iraq era, and don’t share the older conservative
zeal for national defense and national security. The
new Republican Party has, to some extent, detached itself from its longestablished moorings. With the exception of Ted Cruz, the loudest and most eloquent voices attacking President
Obama on foreign-policy matters over the past few days have been John McCain and Mitt Romney, both of whom
the president easily defeated and who therefore define their party’s past rather than its future. And yet, even if
Republican politicians don’t take the lead in pressing the argument, there is strong reason to believe Barack Obama
will be held accountable for the Crimean disaster by voters — and that Democratic candidates will pay the price in
November. He is the president. It’s his watch. Americans may be war-weary, but they still look to the man in the White House
to provide an overall sense of stability and safety. Democrats need Americans to feel positively about the president
going into the 2014 elections. All election experts say the party’s showing nationally in November will correlate
strongly with how the country feels about the job the president is doing. His poll numbers sank into the low 40s with the botching of the
ObamaCare rollout. The incompetence and sense of disorder caused by that domestic-policy catastrophe can only be
deepened by the worldwide chaos right now, and will only make the effort to climb out of the hole all the more difficult
— and unlikely. At the least, it should feel like the president has his hand on the tiller, keeping things steady or trying
to. And it doesn’t feel that way. Russia has stolen Crimea, and is on the verge of gobbling up Eastern Ukraine. We protest, and our UN ambassador is
photographed berating their UN ambassador — while Putin is celebrated in Moscow with a massive parade that gives off a May-Day-in-the-Communist-SovietUnion vibe. Syria isn’t dismantling its chemical weapons, as it promised Russia and the United States it would do by this week to avoid an American airstrike last
September. Why should it? The last rebel stronghold has fallen to the regime, because Syria understood it could act with utter impunity once the September deal
had been struck. Syria has effectively won its civil war, at a cost of perhaps hundreds of thousands of lives, in part because it used chemical weapons and got
away with it. Now it’s going to keep them, too. Oh, and it’s started attacking border towns in Lebanon for good measure. On another front, we’ve gone back into
talks with Iran on its nuclear program again, only a day after a senior State Department official told Reuters that Iran is “very actively trying to procure items for
their nuclear program and missile program and other programs” — a clear violation of the agreement that started the talks and of existing UN resolutions.
Meanwhile, the president has spent two days meeting with the head of the Palestinian Authority begging the man to
accept a simple trade — thousands of square miles for a Palestinian state in exchange for his signature on a piece of
paper that says, yes, Israel is a Jewish state. The president won’t get it. Who knows what hell there will be to pay
after these “framework” talks on which our secretary of state has labored relentlessly for seven months break down.
Even the haunting confusion over the missing Malaysian aircraft, for which no rational person could hold our
president responsible, is surely contributing to a general sense that the world is coming unglued — and that the
president is hunting around under his desk for a glue stick he hopes one of his predecessors might have left there for
him.
Midterms are a referendum on the president, Obama takes the blame.
Steinhauser 2014 (Paul Steinhauser, CNN Political Editor, Eight things to watch in the eight months till Election
Day April 7, 2014 http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/04/politics/eight-months-till-election/)
The President -- poll numbers and fundraising: There's
no denying that 2013 was a tough year for Obama. And with an approval rating
elections are often a
referendum on a sitting president, so expect to see Obama's approval ratings in the spotlight right until the Election
Day While some Democrats facing tough re-elections in red or purple states are not inviting the President to join
them out on the campaign trail, they do need his help raising money. When it comes to fundraising, Obama remains the
Democratic party's top rainmaker, and he's picking up the pace this year in helping his party bring in the bucks,
especially when compared with his efforts in the 2010 midterms. 8. Outside money: As it was in 2010 and 2012, outside money will
hovering in the low 40s in most national opinion polls, the question is: How will he impact Democrats in November? Midterm
continue to shape elections from groups on both sides of the aisle. As of now, the pro-Republican groups have outspent pro-Democratic groups. The biggest
spender to date is the conservative Americans for Prosperity, which is backed by the deep pockets of the billionaire industrialist brothers, David and Charles
Koch. The group has shelled out nearly $30 million to run ads since October, almost entirely focusing on health care, that attack Democrats and praise
Republicans. Last week, in a pep talk to Democratic party leaders, Vice President Joe Biden said the Koch Brothers' spending is one of his party's biggest
concerns this year. But Biden went on to say that, "I'm still one of these guys who believes money can't buy an election when you're selling a bad set of goods."
Obama’s approval sways midterms voting activity.
Cook 2014 (Charlie Cook, American political analyst who specializes in election forecasts and political trends,
National Journal February 10, 2014, The Path to Victory in 2014 http://www.govexec.com/oversight/onpolitics/2014/02/path-victory-2014/78542/)
The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza created something of a stir recently with his column headlined, “2014 Senate races may be a referendum on Obama; if so,
Democrats should worry.” Cillizza (a former Cook Political Report staffer) linked
to the Gallup Organization’s just-released aggregation
of all of its 2013 polling data, with President Obama’s job-approval and disapproval numbers broken down by state.
Cillizza observed that Obama has disapproval ratings over 50 percent in 10 of the 21 states where Democrats are
defending Senate seats this year. The disapprovals were over 55 percent in open Democratic Senate seat states in West Virginia (67.3 percent),
Montana (60.9 percent), and South Dakota (59.3 percent). These disapproval numbers can also be seen in the two states
represented by the most-endangered Democratic incumbents: Arkansas (57 percent), where Mark Pryor is facing the stiffest of all
challenges, and Alaska (55.4 percent), where Mark Begich is fighting for reelection. While Cillizza’s point is hardly earth-shattering, it is very important and worth
keeping in mind. As much as anything, midterm
elections tend to be a referendum on the incumbent president. When voters are
unhappy, they tend to vote to punish the president’s party’s candidates. If voters are satisfied, they generally find
some other basis on which to decide their vote. It may be unfair, but that’s the way it is. As of late, Obama’s numbers have been
languishing in the low 40s, occasionally dipping below 40 percent, while at other times reaching as high as 45 or 46 percent. The president’s disapproval
numbers generally bounce around the 50 percent mark, half the time slightly higher, the other half a bit lower. Obama’s approval numbers are almost precisely
tracking those of George W. Bush at this point in his presidency. But he is trailing far behind those of Ronald Reagan, who at this point had approval numbers in
the low 60s, and Bill Clinton, who was in the high 50s. Given this
situation, the challenge for Democratic candidates is to ensure that
the focal point of their campaigns is something other than Obama (and, one might add, the Affordable Care Act).
Voter turnout’s key to a democratic victory.
Tomasky 2014 (Michael Tomasky The Daily Beast special correspondent, editor of Democracy: A Journal of
Ideas, Democrats’ Best Weapon for Midterms: Fear of a Red Senate, 02.21.14,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/21/democrats-best-weapon-for-midterms-fear-of-a-red-senate.html)
Control of the Senate depends on turnout in November. Democrats need to tap what scares their base most: fear of
an unrestrained GOP. We’ve known for a long time now that the Democrats have a lot of Senate seats to defend in red states where Barack Obama’s
approval numbers aren’t much higher than George Zimmerman’s—indeed, in these states, surely lower. But I feel like the fear has just set in here in the last
couple of weeks; that is, Democrats
coming to terms with the possibility-to-likelihood that they might lose the Senate this
November, and after that, the utter bleakness of a final Obama two years with both House and Senate in GOP
hands, saying no to anything and everything except, of course, any remote whiff of an opportunity to bring
impeachment charges over something. Republicans need a net pickup of six seats. Democrats are trying to defend incumbent status in six red
states (North Carolina, Louisiana, Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia, and Alaska); also in two blue ones (Michigan and Iowa). They’re hoping for upsets in two
red states (Georgia and Kentucky). You’ll read a lot about Obamacare and the minimum wage and the War on Women and everything else, and all those things
will matter. But only one thing really, really, really matters: turnout. You know the lament: The
most loyal Democratic groups—young people,
black people, single women, etc.—don’t come out to vote in midterms in big numbers. You may dismiss this as lazy
stereotyping, but sometimes lazy stereotyping is true, and this is one of those times. So how to get these groups energized?
Because if core Democratic voting groups turn out to vote in decent numbers, the Democrats will hold the Senate. Two or
three of the six will hold on, the Democrats will prevail in the end in Michigan and Iowa, and either Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky or Michelle Nunn in
Georgia will eke out a win. Or maybe both—if Democratic voters vote. And if not? Republicans could net seven, eight. The other side will be motivated: They’re
older, white, angry that Obama continues to have the temerity to stand up there and be president, as if somebody elected him. This will be their last chance to
push the rage button (well, the Obama-rage button; soon they’ll just start pushing the Hillary-rage button). But what will motivate the liberal side? I call this the
vampire-slayer election. I’ll explain that farther down. But first, let’s hear from Matt Canter, deputy executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee, making his team’s most plausible case for why 2014 isn’t destined to be a repeat of 2010. If the
Republicans control the Senate, will
they even give a mildly left-of-center Supreme Court nominee a hearing? Canter acknowledges that the Democrats
talk about “field” in every off-year election. But now, he vows, “This is the year we’re going to say it and mean it.” In the 10 states I mention above,
Canter says, the goal is to spend $60 million on field operations alone, with an aggregate 4,000 paid staff in those states. It’s called the Bannock Street Project,
after the street that housed the campaign HQ of Michael Bennet, the successful Democratic Senate candidate in that state in 2010. Bennet, you might recall, was
one of the few Democrats not running against witches who held on to beat a Tea Party GOPer. The effort will be to quasi-nationalize what happened in Colorado
then. Look also, Canter says, at what happened in Montana and North Dakota in 2012. In both of those states, Obama was getting walloped by Mitt Romney—by
14 and 20 points, respectively. And yet, Democratic Senate candidates won in both states. Turnout was much higher in these two states: It was 53.4 percent
nationally, but 59.4 in North Dakota and 61.5 in Montana. In both cases, Jon Tester and Heidi Heitkamp ran well ahead of Obama and are senators today. Canter
says the operations in those 10 states will look like this. Every voter in those states—yes, every single voter in those 10 states, he says—will be given two scores
on a scale of 1 to 100: a support score and a turnout score. So if Molly Jones in Paducah is a 58 likely to support the Democrat and 38 likely to turnout, she can
expect a lot of contacts from field operatives this fall. But… contact her saying what? This is where I was a little less impressed by the things Canter had to say. I
think he makes a plausible logistical argument. The Colorado, Montana, and North Dakota examples are real things. So are 60 million simoleons and 4,000
operatives. But they still need a compelling, unifying message. This is where we get to Buffy. One of the all-time great Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes was
Season 3’s “The Wish,” when a female demon grants Cordelia, the classic senior-class Queen Bee-beeyatch, one wish. Cordelia wishes instantly that Buffy
Summers—who makes her life far more complicated than she wishes it to be—had never come to Sunnydale. The wish is granted. The next thing you see is,
indeed, what would have happened to Sunnydale if Buffy, the vampire slayer, had never hit town. The high-school population is reduced by more than half.
There’s a 6 p.m. curfew. Those who remain live in fear. The vamps have taken over. It’s a death town. See where I’m going here? That’s Washington if the
Republicans get the Senate. Vamp town. Imagine if Ruth Bader Ginsberg retires. If the Republicans control the Senate, will they even give a mildly left-of-center
Supreme Court nominee a hearing? What
about less high-profile federal judgeships across the country? How many of those
are going to go vacant? If a Cabinet official or high-ranking sub-Cabinet member resigns, will they even permit the
position being re-filled? Remember—41 of the 45 current GOP senators voted against confirming Chuck Hagel as
defense secretary. And he was a former senator. And a Republican one at that! Picture the mad Darrell Issa having a counterpart in the Senate
to launch baseless investigations. It’s one thing for the House to be banging on about phony IRS and Benghazi scandals, but
the Senate doing it is another matter entirely—far more serious. You really think a Republican Senate won’t? And I
haven’t even gotten to regular policy. You think a GOP House and Senate combined won’t try every trick in the book
to pressure Obama to fold on Social Security and Medicare? The unique 2008 election aside, fear is a much better motivator in politics
than hope. Democrats need to make their base voters see vividly the potential consequences of a GOP Senate majority
and live in mortal fear of it. That and $60 million just may stem the tide.
Obama’s a Velcro president, approval of his actions significantly sways voting for
midterms.
Nicholas and Hook 2010 (Peter Nicholas and Janet Hook, correspondents for the LA times, Tribune
Washington Bureau, July 30, 2010, Obama the Velcro president http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/30/nation/la-navelcro-presidency-20100730)
Reporting from Washington — If Ronald
Reagan was the classic Teflon president, Barack Obama is made of Velcro. Through
two terms, Reagan eluded much of the responsibility for recession and foreign policy scandal. In less than two years,
Obama has become ensnared in blame. Hoping to better insulate Obama, White House aides have sought to give other Cabinet officials a higher
profile and additional public exposure. They are also crafting new ways to explain the president's policies to a skeptical public. But Obama remains the
colossus of his administration — to a point where trouble anywhere in the world is often his to solve. The president is on the
hook to repair the Gulf Coast oil spill disaster, stabilize Afghanistan, help fix Greece's ailing economy and do right by Shirley Sherrod, the Agriculture Department
official fired as a result of a misleading fragment of videotape. What's
not sticking to Obama is a legislative track record that his recent
predecessors might envy. Political dividends from passage of a healthcare overhaul or a financial regulatory bill have
been fleeting. Instead, voters are measuring his presidency by a more immediate yardstick: Is he creating enough jobs? So far
the verdict is no, and that has taken a toll on Obama's approval ratings. Only 46% approve of Obama's job performance, compared with 47% who disapprove,
according to Gallup's daily tracking poll. "I think the accomplishments are very significant, but I think most people would look at this and say, 'What was the plan
for jobs?' " said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "The
agenda he's pushed here has been a very important agenda, but it hasn't
translated into dinner table conversations." Reagan was able to glide past controversies with his popularity largely
intact. He maintained his affable persona as a small-government advocate while seeming above the fray in his own
administration. Reagan was untarnished by such calamities as the 1983 terrorist bombing of the Marines stationed in Beirut and scandals involving
members of his administration. In the 1986 Iran-Contra affair, most of the blame fell on lieutenants. Obama lately has tried to rip off the Velcro
veneer. In a revealing moment during the oil spill crisis, he reminded Americans that his powers aren't "limitless." He told residents in Grand Isle, La., that he
is a flesh-and-blood president, not a comic-book superhero able to dive to the bottom of the sea and plug the hole. "I can't suck it up with a straw," he said. But
as a candidate in 2008, he set sky-high expectations about what he could achieve and what government could accomplish. Clinching
the Democratic
nomination two years ago, Obama described the moment as an epic breakthrough when "we began to provide care
for the sick and good jobs to the jobless" and "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to
heal." Those towering goals remain a long way off. And most people would have preferred to see Obama focus more narrowly on the "good
jobs" part of the promise. A recent Gallup poll showed that 53% of the population rated unemployment and the economy as the nation's most important problem.
By contrast, only 7% cited healthcare — a single-minded focus of the White House for a full year. At every
turn, Obama makes the argument
that he has improved lives in concrete ways. Without the steps he took, he says, the economy would be in worse
shape and more people would be out of work. There's evidence to support that. Two economists, Mark Zandi and Alan Blinder,
reported recently that without the stimulus and other measures, gross domestic product would be about 6.5% lower. Yet, Americans aren't apt to
cheer when something bad doesn't materialize. Unemployment has been rising — from 7.7% when Obama took office, to 9.5%. Last month,
more than 2 million homes in the U.S. were in various stages of foreclosure — up from 1.7 million when Obama was sworn in. "Folks just aren't in a mood to
hand out gold stars when unemployment is hovering around 10%," said Paul Begala, a Democratic pundit. Insulating
the president from bad news
has proved impossible. Other White Houses have tried doing so with more success. Reagan's Cabinet officials often took the
blame, shielding the boss. But the Obama administration is about one man. Obama is the White House's chief spokesman, policy pitchman, fundraiser and
negotiator. No Cabinet secretary has emerged as an adequate surrogate. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is seen as a tepid public speaker; Energy
Secretary Steven Chu is prone to long, wonky digressions and has rarely gone before the cameras during an oil spill crisis that he is working to end.
So,
more falls to Obama, reinforcing the Velcro effect: Everything sticks to him. He has opined on virtually everything in
the hundreds of public statements he has made: nuclear arms treaties, basketball star LeBron James' career plans;
Chelsea Clinton's wedding. Few audiences are off-limits. On Wednesday, he taped a spot on ABC's "The View," drawing a rebuke from
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, who deemed the appearance unworthy of the presidency during tough times. "Stylistically he creates some of
those problems," Eddie Mahe, a Republican political strategist, said in an interview. "His favorite pronoun is 'I.' When you position
yourself as being
all things to all people, the ultimate controller and decision maker with the capacity to fix anything, you set yourself up
to be blamed when it doesn't get fixed or things happen." A new White House strategy is to forgo talk of big policy
changes that are easy to ridicule. Instead, aides want to market policies as more digestible pieces. So, rather than tout the healthcare package as a
whole, advisors will talk about smaller parts that may be more appealing and understandable — such as barring insurers from denying coverage based on
preexisting conditions. But
at this stage, it may be late in the game to downsize either the president or his agenda. Sen.
man came in promising change. He has a higher profile than some presidents because of
his youth, his race and the way he came to the White House with the message he brought in. It's naive to believe he
can step back and have some Cabinet secretary be the face of the oil spill. The buck stops with his office."
Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) said: "The
Popular Opinion of Presidential Policy is key to midterm success, enthusiasm empirically
generates better midterm results
Cushman 2014 (Jackie Gingrich Cushman, graduated cum laude from Presbyterian College in Clinton, S.C. She
received her MBA from Georgia State University | May 15, 2014, Turn Out
http://townhall.com/columnists/jackiegingrichcushman/2014/05/15/turn-out-n1838195/page/full, bs)
It's spring, an election off year, and primaries are in full swing across the country. In my home state of Georgia, the primary is less than a week
away, and the ballot is chock full of hotly contested primaries.¶ ¶ In the race for the open U.S. Senate seat, a slew of Republican candidates are vying for one of
the two spots for the July 22 runoff. These candidates include three sitting congressmen — Paul Braun, Phil Gingrey, and Jack Kingston. The top three
candidates in this primary are David Perdue, Jack Kingston, and Karen Handel; only one of the sitting congressmen is in this group.¶ ¶ Many of the polls so far
have been based on total population or on registered voters, but they may not give an accurate picture of what will happen. That's
because, in offseason elections, the opinion of those who bother to go to the polls may not reflect the opinion of the universe of
voters who are eligible to do so.¶ ¶ This is true not only in Georgia but across the country.¶ ¶ President Obama is not up for re-election,
but his approval/disapproval ratings will have an effect on those running on the Democratic ticket. The Republicans in
the House are expected to retain the majority and more than likely pick up seats.¶ ¶ The real excitement this year is on
the national Senate race. The Senate is currently held by the Democratic Party. There is a very good chance that the
Republicans will take over the Senate in the fall.¶ ¶ Based on Real Clear Politics rankings, there are 45 safe (or not up) Democratic Seats, 46
safe (or not up) Republican seats and nine seats that are in the toss-up category. Only two of those seats — Kentucky and Georgia — are currently held by
Republicans. The toss-up seats in the other states — Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan and North Carolina — are all held by Democrats.¶ ¶
The races in these nine states are going to garner national attention, both from the news media and from donors. As is
the case in Georgia, Iowa and Michigan are open races.¶ ¶ Here's what a Gallup poll released Monday has concluded: "A majority of U.S. registered voters, 53
percent, say they are less enthusiastic about voting than in previous elections, while 35 percent are more enthusiastic." (April 24-30, 1,336 registered voters, 95
percent confidence level, sampling error plus or minus 3 points.)¶ ¶ It also found a big difference in enthusiasm between the parties: "42 percent of Republicans
and Republican-leaning independents currently say they are more enthusiastic than usual about voting, while 50 percent are less enthusiastic, resulting in an
eight-point enthusiasm deficit." Democrats are less enthusiastic; only 32 percent are more enthusiastic about voting vs. 55 percent who are less enthusiastic.¶ ¶
Of course, elections
are determined not by polls or opinions, but by counting the votes of those who bothered to go to
the polls. Turnout is key, especially in an off-year election.¶ ¶ "Typically, the party whose supporters have an
advantage in enthusiasm has done better in midterm elections," noted Gallup.¶ ¶ "Republicans had decided advantages in enthusiasm in
1994, 2002, and especially 2010 — years in which they won control of the House of Representatives or expanded on their existing majority. Democrats had the
advantage in 2006, the year they won control of the House. Neither party had a decided advantage in 1998, a year Democrats posted minimal gains in House
seats."¶ ¶ In hotly contested primaries such as Georgia, negative ads often have a way of making their way to the forefront, especially in the final days of the
primary when candidates and their staffs may become desperate to make it into the run-off. The challenge with negative ads is that they might lead some
prospective voters to decide not to vote at all. While this might be a plan to win — voter suppression never works for a democracy in the long run.¶ ¶ Elections
should be won by candidates who offer a better path and vision to a brighter future, who engage and energize voters rather than repel them.¶ ¶ This
the midterm elections will be about turnout. Let's drive turnout based on voter enthusiasm.
GOP Midterm win cements Obama’s ineffectiveness.
Geraghty 2014 (Jim Geraghty, Heck Yeah, the 2014 Midterm Elections Matter!
year,
May 14, 2014, http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/377965/heck-yeah-2014-midterm-elections-matter-jimgeraghty, bs)
Nate Silver contends the 2014 midterms are the “least important” election in years.¶ Okay, sure, depending upon how
many years he means. The stakes in a midterm election cycle are lower than in a presidential cycle. Because of the makeup of the House, redistricting,
the particular states that have Senate elections this cycle, and other factors, the range of possible outcomes appears to go from a slightly smaller GOP House
majority and a slightly smaller Democratic Senate majority, or a slightly larger GOP House majority and a slim GOP Senate majority.¶ (I can hear you now:
“Okay, Democrats, if they’re so unimportant, then go ahead and concede them!”)¶ Our Charlie Cooke noted earlier this year that the
difference between
a Republican Senate and a Democratic one is the difference between two more years of the status quo and
President Obama’s winding down with two years of hellacious time with confirmation fights, a slew of unpopular
vetoes of GOP bills calling for the Keystone pipeline, lower tax rates, increased military spending, repealing
unpopular provisions of Obamacare, and so on.¶ By some measures, Obama is already a lame duck; he’s extremely unlikely to get any major
bills passed with a GOP-controlled House and the press increasingly more interested in Hillary Clinton and the potential GOP contenders. But another GOP
wave election would accelerate the sense that Obama’s just running out the clock.¶ Another drubbing of the
Democrats in the midterms would cement Obama’s reputation as a rather overrated political force; while he effectively sold
himself in two presidential campaigns, he couldn’t sell his agenda or his allies when he wasn’t on the ballot. Historians who aren’t already in the tank for Obama
may conclude that he soared because of his personal charisma and inspiring life story, not a broadly popular agenda or vision.¶ Beyond
that, winning
begets winning. Silver writes near the end “this year’s federal elections are mostly in how they’ll set up 2016” — and that
sure as heck is important! Republicans are largely persuaded that if they lose in 2016, the American Republic is doomed. If the Democratic nominee
loses in 2016, the party may be forced to reevaluate their confidence that demographic changes represent an ever-stronger wind at their back.
Impacts
Democrats Good - EPA Regulations
1NC
GOP controlled Senate blocks a push for EPA regulations. Those are key to cut emissions
to respond to climate change.
Sarlin 2013 (Benjy Sarlin,Political reporter at MSNBC, Dems win filibuster fight as John McCain defuses ‘nuclear
option’ 07/16/13 ,
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9gS1Lh50cPUJ:www.msnbc.com/hardball/dems-winfilibuster-fight-john-mccain-defu+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)
The partisan standoff was the result of years of growing tensions over the GOP’s unprecedented levels of obstruction and Obama’s use of executive power, the
latter of which is heavily influenced by the former.
In Obama’s first term, Senate Republicans stymied the president’s legislative
priorities with record use of the filibuster, nearly derailing health care reform and preventing serious movement on
either a climate or immigration bill. Because the House GOP today won’t pass even routine bills without apocalyptic
threats of their own, the Senate GOP’s legislative roadblocks are no longer as relevant. But they’re still holding up judicial picks
and presidential appointees at high rates, both of which become even more important in the absence of a functioning legislature. Democrats considered
reforming the rules governing filibusters at the start of the new Senate, but ultimately backed off any major changes
for fear of antagonizing the GOP. But as the situation grew more dire, Reid reopened the discussion and even apologized to colleagues for not
doing so sooner. Two things kicked the fight into overdrive. First, Senate Republicans decided to start blocking presidential nominees
for key positions out of hand. That means they didn’t just filibuster individual appointees because they didn’t like their
qualifications, they announced plans to block any nominee for their position, either because they thought the
agencies shouldn’t exist or because they wanted to undermine their ability to function. This might have been tolerable
until a federal appeals court ruled early this year that President Obama could not fill the positions with recess
appointments. Democrats now had to either fix the Senate procedure or leave crucial agencies’ rudderless for an
indefinite period. “It’s the only way, in many cases, the president can have any impact on policies he cares deeply about,” Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at
the Brookings Institute and prominent critic of GOP obstructionism, told msnbc. Take one prominent nominee addressed by the McCain-Reid deal: Richard
Cordray. Obama chose him to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the new agency long championed by Senator Elizabeth Warren. The CFPB was
created by the Wall Street reform law that both the Senate and House passed in 2010. But Republicans announced they would block Cordray and anyone else
unless Democrats agreed to revisit the law and weaken the bureau’s authority. In another critical case, the court’s decision to void recess appointees threatened
to leave the National Labor Relations Board without a quorum to make decisions. That’s an outcome many Republicans would likely prefer after tangling with the
NLRB over a dispute (since resolved) over whether Boeing was retaliating against unions in Washington by opening an assembly line in South Carolina. The
most important nominee included in the deal, however, is probably Obama’s choice to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy. Climate
change remains a growing threat, but Republicans are so united in denouncing the science behind it as a hoax that
one Congressional staffer felt compelled to use a pseudonym just to argue the opposing view. With no hope for
meaningful legislative action in the near future, environmentalists are counting on EPA regulations on power plants to
help turn the tide, a process made easier by having an actual appointed leader at the agency. Adding to the urgency:
if the EPA fails to act before the 2014 elections, a Republican-led Senate could block any new rules.
New EPA regulations are key to send an international signal to resolve impacts of climate
change.
Martinson 2014 (Erica Martinson, Regulatory reporter for Politico, "Obama's agenda: EPA leading the charge on
climate change," http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3BE87317-0921-4B01-A3B5-C39AEF6CDDC3)
President Barack Obama’s
environmental regulators will spend the rest of this year writing climate rules that would reshape the
take the biggest stride ever in throttling the nation’s greenhouse
nation’s electricity supply, throw a cloud over the future of coal power and
gas pollution.¶ And that’s just the beginning.¶ While the EPA takes on carbon pollution from thousands of power plants, the State Department is moving to
carry out Obama’s orders to cut off funding for many coal projects overseas. The president’s agencies are also financing giant solar farms in the Mojave desert,
working on doubling the federal government’s own reliance on green electricity and coming up with ways to help states gird their roads and bridges against
severe storms and rising seas.¶ This is hardly a secret agenda. Obama has spoken of it proudly, most recently in Tuesday night’s State of the Union address,
when he said: “Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable
world with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”¶ But some of the administration’s climate work is taking place under the radar, in ways
few Americans would notice until the impacts ripple through the economy. One example: Last year, the administration quietly rejiggered a wonky calculation
known as the “social cost of carbon” in a way that will make it easier to justify the economic burdens of a wide range of climate regulations.¶ The
regulators
are racing the calendar to get the rules in shape to take effect before Obama leaves office. That will be no easy feat, especially
with the opponents in industry and coal-friendly states already fighting in the courts and Congress to thwart the new regulations.¶ But Obama and his
“green Cabinet” — the secretaries and administrators in charge of energy, the environment and public lands — also have their eyes on 2015.
That’s when the U.S. and other countries face a deadline to craft a legally binding agreement committing the world to
reducing carbon dioxide emissions.¶ The president’s team is convinced that the U.S. must lead by example if it hopes to get
China, India and Russia to follow suit, but the only hope of doing that is through the executive branch’s actions.
By showing that his administration has taken concrete action, Obama can wipe out some of the embarrassment the U.S.
suffered in international climate circles after rejecting the 1997 Kyoto climate accords.¶ The president made it plain in last year’s State of the Union
that he wouldn’t wait for lawmakers to tackle climate change, proclaiming that “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.” But in fact, the
administration’s climate efforts have been in motion since the start of his first term.¶ The
administration’s major climate effort is a pair of EPA
regulations aimed at cutting carbon pollution from power plants. The EPA proposed the first rule, aimed at future plants, in September
and must finish writing it by January 2015. This June, it’s due to release the draft of a rule for the nation’s thousands of existing power plants — the agency’s
main target and the
single largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution.
Warming causes extinction
Ahmed 2010 (Nafeez Ahmed, Executive Director of the Institute for Policy Research and Development, professor
of International Relations and globalization at Brunel University and the University of Sussex, Spring/Summer 2010,
“Globalizing Insecurity: The Convergence of Interdependent Ecological, Energy, and Economic Crises,” Spotlight on
Security, Volume 5, Issue 2, online)
Perhaps the most notorious indicator is anthropogenic global warming. The landmark 2007 Fourth Assessment Report
of the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which warned that at then-current rates of increase of fossil fuel emissions,
the earth’s global average temperature would likely rise by 6°C by the end of the 21st century creating a largely uninhabitable planet – was a
wake-up call to the international community.[v] Despite the pretensions of ‘climate sceptics,’ the peer-reviewed scientific literature has
continued to produce evidence that the IPCC’s original scenarios were wrong – not because they were too alarmist, but on the
contrary, because they were far too conservative. According to a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, current
CO2 emissions are worse than all six scenarios contemplated by the IPCC. This implies that the IPCC’s worst-case sixdegree scenario severely underestimates the most probable climate trajectory under current rates of emissions.[vi] It is often presumed that a 2°C rise in global
average temperatures under an atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gasses at 400 parts per million (ppm) constitutes a safe upper limit – beyond which
further global warming could trigger rapid and abrupt climate changes that, in turn, could tip the whole earth
climate system into a process of irreversible, runaway warming.[vii] Unfortunately, we are already well past this limit, with the level
of greenhouse gasses as of mid-2005 constituting 445 ppm.[viii] Worse still, cutting-edge scientific data suggests that the safe upper limit is in fact far lower.
James Hansen, director
of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, argues that the absolute upper limit for
CO2 emissions is 350 ppm: “If the present overshoot of this target CO2 is not brief, there is a possibility of
seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.”[ix] A wealth of scientific studies has attempted to explore the role of positivefeedback mechanisms between different climate sub-systems, the operation of which could intensify the warming process. Emissions beyond
350 ppm over decades are likely to lead to the total loss of Arctic sea-ice in the summer triggering magnified
absorption of sun radiation, accelerating warming; the melting of Arctic permafrost triggering massive methane
injections into the atmosphere, accelerating warming; the loss of half the Amazon rainforest triggering the
momentous release of billions of tonnes of stored carbon, accelerating warming; and increased microbial activity in
the earth’s soil leading to further huge releases of stored carbon, accelerating warming; to name just a few. Each of these
feedback sub-systems alone is sufficient by itself to lead to irreversible, catastrophic effects that could tip
the whole earth climate system over the edge.[x] Recent studies now estimate that the continuation of business-asusual would lead to global warming of three to four degrees Celsius before 2060 with multiple irreversible, catastrophic impacts;
and six, even as high as eight, degrees by the end of the century – a situation endangering the survival of all life on earth.[xi]
Dems key to EPA Regs
GOP midterm victory crushes EPA regulations.
NY TIMES 2014 (By THE NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARDJAN. 27, 2014, The House Targets Superfund
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/28/opinion/the-house-targets-superfund.html)
Earlier this month, the House approved a package of bills that could undercut an environmental law that has helped
clean some of the most polluted places in the nation. The measures would allow states to apply their own standards
to the cleanup of hazardous waste sites — standards that in most cases are likely to be considerably weaker than those governing the federal
Superfund program, the 1980 program that has identified thousands of toxic waste sites and cleaned up many of them. The program has always
required companies responsible for the pollution to clean it up; when responsibility could not be determined, a fund
underwritten by special corporate taxes paid for the cleanup. But when Congress refused to renew those taxes in
1995, that part of the program became wholly dependent on annual appropriations, an increasingly dicey proposition.
The Environmental Protection Agency would like to renew the corporate contributions, but the House legislation
would restrict its ability to do so. Other provisions would make it harder to clean up Superfund sites by requiring the agency to follow state regulations
even when they are weaker than federal rules, and the federal government would be restricted from adding new sites to the Superfund list without the consent of
the states they are in. The package
is the latest House Republican proposal designed to undermine environmental
protections. The House has tried to cut the E.P.A.’s budget substantially, attempted to strip the agency of its ability to
regulate greenhouse gases and sought to prevent the government from enforcing energy efficiency standards for
ceiling fans and other household appliances. Thankfully, the Superfund measure, like the others, is expected to stall
in the Senate. House Republicans know this. Their legislation is mainly intended to signal that they stand ready to do
the bidding of polluters if the party manages to take control of the Senate.
GOP midterm victory wrecks Obama’s agenda
Raju and Brown 2014 (Manu Raju senior congressional reporter at POLITICO.and Carrie Budoff Brown, hite
House reporter who focuses on the intersection of policy and politics in the administration and on Capitol Hill.
Obama’s plan to save the Senate January 15, 2014, http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=7B9BF296-178548D8-8163-13551359E367)
President Barack Obama has a plan to save the Senate’s tenuous Democratic majority: Sell a populist message, try to make Obamacare work better and raise
lots of cash. And unlike previous years when Senate Democrats were mostly left to fight on their own, the
White House is wasting no time
coordinating its political and policy agenda with congressional leaders and vulnerable lawmakers. The 55-member Senate
Democratic Caucus will meet with Obama on Wednesday at the White House, the first such session since October. (PHOTOS: 10 tough Senate races for
Democrats) White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer and legislative director Katie Beirne Fallon have already briefed Senate leadership aides on the outlines of
proposals Obama is considering for the Jan. 28 State of the Union address, and they’re expected to do the same with House Democratic leadership aides. A
Republican-controlled Senate and House would be a nightmare for the president, likely reducing him to full lameduck status as the GOP works to block what’s left of his agenda, including a minimum wage hike and climate change,
as official Washington looks ahead to 2016. At a low point in the Obamacare rollout in November, at-risk Democrats
visited the White House and made clear that the final two years of Obama’s presidency would be a disaster if he
were to lose the Senate this fall, according to attendees. Obama made clear he shared their fears about the challenges to his agenda and
his nominees if Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) rises to majority leader, and he vowed to do whatever he could to keep control of the Senate, said sources familiar
with the meeting. “Particularly at a time when Washington is so polarized, if we do not have at minimum a Democratic Senate, it is very hard to see how we can
make some of the advances that we need to make on work that is still undone,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser that month. “And I’ve got three years left
in this office.” (Also on POLITICO: The GOP's Obama obsession) The electoral map this year favors the GOP, which has to win a net of six seats to take back
the majority, including in red states like Montana, West Virginia, South Dakota, Louisiana, Arkansas and North Carolina. Democrats hope messy GOP primaries
in North Carolina and Georgia and McConnell’s own difficult reelection will imperil the Republican drive to the majority. But
the president’s sagging
popularity will burden Senate Democrats, particularly in red states, something the White House and top Democrats
will have to grapple with as they try to use the bully pulpit against the GOP. Republicans, meanwhile, are making
clear their November strategy will be all about the president. The election-year agenda under discussion is a mix of
initiatives designed to energize the Democratic base of women, students and blue-collar workers, and to attract
independent voters. The aim is to highlight differences with the GOP and provide fodder for Democrats along the
campaign trail — even though those measures stand little chance of winning approval in Congress.
EPA Regulations K 2 Warming
New EPA regulatiosn are key to reduce US GHG Emissions
Hayes 2013 (Sara Hayes, Senior Manager and Researcher, Policy and Utilities, Still in the Game: A Big U.S.
Comeback for Regulation of Greenhouse Gases http://www.aceee.org/blog/2013/06/still-game-big-us-comebackregulation)
Yesterday the president unveiled a new Climate Action Plan for the United States. The
president called on the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants. This
sounds like an opportunity for real progress toward addressing climate change in the U.S., but what can we really do to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from a power plant that’s already built? One of the least expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases from
the power sector is by reducing the amount of energy we waste. The potential for low-cost energy efficiency is
massive and it exists in every state in the nation. I’m not advocating that we ignore other options such as renewables and carbon capture, but
by including end-use energy efficiency in the mix we can substantially reduce the costs of meeting our clean energy goals. It appears the president agrees. In a
discussion of how we can reduce carbon pollution from the power sector he notes that more than 25 states have already set an energy efficiency target, often
referred to as an energy efficiency resource standard. The president
proposes to build on the leadership of state and local
governments to ensure continued progress. Energy efficiency isn’t the only option for reducing carbon dioxide
emissions from power plants. We could switch to renewables and cleaner fuels and shut down those old plants.
Alternatively, we could require installation of carbon capture and sequestration. As a society that wants to keep its coastlines and
minimize the risk of future visits from devastating storms like Katrina and Sandy that is a direction we should consider. But carbon capture technology is
expensive and is still largely in the research and development stage. And it’s expensive to build renewable facilities. The
EPA is required to consider
such cost in its rulemakings, and it should. What is really promising about this new rule is that it allows for so much
flexibility. The EPA doesn’t need to mandate renewables, carbon capture, or anything else. It just needs to set a
performance standard for existing power plants and let American ingenuity determine what is the cheapest way to get
the clean energy we all want. The best way to do that is by: setting a standard that is stringent enough to motivate
action; and establishing a compliance regime that is flexible enough to allow creativity and the market to determine
the cheapest route to meeting that standard. In order to achieve this, a compliance regime must allow for end-use
energy efficiency. Recognizing the important role energy efficiency could play in EPA’s efforts, ACEEE has jointly released a new report outlining some of
the key considerations that are likely to come up if energy efficiency is included as an option in a rule for reducing greenhouse gases from existing power plants.
The paper looks to past EPA rulemakings that have included energy efficiency in order to highlight ways it might be handled in this new rule. Given
the
decades of experience the EPA has with energy efficiency as an air pollution reduction strategy, its future as a
greenhouse gas mitigation strategy looks bright.
New EPA regulations are key to cut emissions on coal power plants.
AP 2013 (Associated Press in Washington theguardian.com, Tuesday 30 July 2013, EPA chief: preventing climate
change the opportunity of a lifetime, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/30/epa-chief-climate-changespeech)
President Barack Obama's top environmental official wasted no time Tuesday taking on opponents of the
administration's plan to crack down on global warming pollution. In her first speech as the head of EPA, Gina McCarthy told an audience
gathered at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, Massachusetts, that curbing climate-altering pollution will spark business innovation, grow jobs and strengthen
the economy. The message
was classic Obama, who has long said that the environment and the economy aren't in
conflict and has sold ambitious plans to reduce greenhouse gases as a means to jumpstart a clean energy economy.
McCarthy signaled that she was ready for the fight, saying that the agency would continue issuing new rules,
regardless of claims by Republicans and industry groups that under Obama the EPA has been the most aggressive
and overreaching since it was formed more than 40 years ago. "Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs? Please.
At least for today?" said McCarthy, referring to one of the favorite talking points of Republicans and industry groups. "Let's talk about this as an opportunity of a
lifetime, because there are too many lifetimes at stake," she said of efforts to address global warming. In Obama's
first four years, the EPA has
issued the first-ever limits on toxic mercury pollution from power plants, regulated greenhouse gases for the first time,
and updated a host of air pollution health standards. McCarthy acknowledged the agency had been the most
productive in its history. But she said Tuesday that "we are not just about rules and regulations, we are about getting
environmental improvement". But improvement, she said, could be made "everywhere". That optimistic vision runs counter to
claims by Republican lawmakers and some industry groups that more rules will kill jobs and fossil fuel industries. The EPA under Obama has
already put in place or proposed new rules to reduce carbon pollution from cars and trucks, large smokestacks, and
new power plants - regulations that McCarthy helped to draft as head of the air pollution office. Next on its agenda is
the nation's existing fleet of coal-fired power plants, the largest single source of carbon dioxide left. Obama in a June speech
gave the agency until June 2014 to draft those regulations. "It is not supposed to be easy. It is supposed to be hard," McCarthy said of the road ahead. "I don't
think it is my job out of the gate to know what the path forward is. It is my obligation to let those voices be heard and listen to them." A
panel in the
Republican-controlled House recently signed off on a plan to cut the agency's budget by a third and attached a series
of measures that McCarthy said "do everything but say the EPA can't do anything." Yet, last week, in a victory, a federal court
dismissed challenges brought by Texas and power companies to EPA's plans to regulate the largest sources of heat-trapping gases. "Climate change will not be
resolved overnight," she added. "But it will be engaged over the next three years – that I can promise you."
GOP midterm victory effectively ends Obama’s legislative agenda
Kurtz 2014 (Howard Kurtz, Fox News analyst , February 12, 2014 Why a Republican Senate would be horrible
news for Obama http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/12/why-republican-senate-would-be-horrible-news-forobama/)
Why a Republican Senate would be horrible news for Obama It’s looking like the
Republicans have an increasingly strong shot at taking
the Senate this fall. That would be a huge setback for President Obama, and don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. Now November is a
long way off. Politico may run the headline “GOP Confident of Senate Takeover,” but when have you ever heard party officials say they have no shot? Whether
Republicans can pick up the necessary six seats depends on a variety of local factors, such as whether Shirtless Scott Brown runs in New Hampshire. Brown,
who has done no organizing, told the Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty that he moved there for family reasons and “to just jump in and say I’m going to run for
the United States Senate against a popular incumbent, it takes a little bit more than just winging it” against Jeanne Shaheen. But along comes the American
Conservative to declare that Obama shouldn’t fear a GOP Senate. Among the arguments made by Scott Galupo: “His agenda is dead anyway… “Things may
actually improve slightly under a unified GOP Congress. Look at it this way: if
Republicans win the Senate, their next prize, obviously, will
be the White House. That’s a different ballgame altogether—a bigger, browner electorate. Suddenly the imperative to
obstruct the Obama agenda begins to recede. A different incentive structure will take shape: the party will have to
govern, or at least appear as though it’s trying.” He quotes the New York Times as saying some Republicans “believe it would be smarter to wait
until after the midterms and pursue immigration in 2015 leading up to the presidential election, when Republicans will be more motivated to increase their appeal
to Hispanic voters. If the midterm goes their way, they will be strengthened in Congress.” Finally, “'Republican Congress’ will make for a juicy target in ’16. In
1996, President Bill Clinton had great fun turning the moderate Sen. Bob Dole into the sidecar villain of Speaker Newt Gingrich. There’s little reason to think the
next Democratic nominee, whoever he or, ahem, she turns out to be, won’t be able to repeat the trick.” Here’s why that’s all wrong. Republicans
are
highly unlikely to be passing immigration reform in 2015 even if they win the midterms. The base hates it, and more
important, we’ll be in the opening innings of a presidential campaign in which the party’s contenders will be pulled to
the right, as Mitt Romney (he of “self-deportation”) was in 2012. Two years of a Republican Congress won’t be much of a 2016
target, if things aren’t going well, compared to eight years of the Obama administration. As a bogeyman, John Boehner is no
Newt Gingrich. But it’s more than that. If they control the Senate machinery, Republicans will be able to launch twice as many
investigations as they can now by holding just the House. They will be able to block Obama nominees, creating a
sense of dysfunction. They will be able to bring bills to the floor, while Harry Reid watches helplessly, solely for the
purpose of forcing Democrats to cast politically dangerous votes that can be used in attack ads. They can cut the
budget in the name of deficit reduction. They may even be able to force Obama to veto legislation that suits their
purposes. In short, the White House will lose the bulwark of a Senate that ensures all conservative legislation dies in
the House. An all-Republican Congress can make life miserable for Obama and, by extension, for Hillary Clinton if
she runs. The notion that the GOP will suddenly function as a cooperative partner totally underestimates the poisonous atmosphere in Washington. Christie
ad infinitum If Chris Christie does indeed run in 2016, he will have one advantage: already having undergone a presidential-level vetting by the media. Despite
little movement in what some are calling Bridge-gazi, except for a new batch of subpoenas, the New Jersey governor continues to get pounded by the press. The
Washington Post has a lengthy examination of his record as U.S. attorney (which is illuminating) and reports that he was laying the groundwork for a future
political run (hardly shocking — anyone remember Rudy Giuliani?). I prefer this to the last Post effort on what he was like in high school. Meanwhile, MSNBC
patrols the Christie beat so relentlessly it is turning some New Jersey reporters and ex-officials into national figures. Yesterday’s “Morning Joe” spent 15 minutes
debating whether Christie should step down as head of the Republican Governors Association. Joe Scarborough insisted that Christie should step aside and that
this was in his own best interest, not a “betrayal” of the governor who has frequently been a guest. Question: How many people can name the last head of the
RGA? I’m all for covering this story aggressively, but there are many days when it feels like an attempt to keep it alive.
A2 Regs before Midterms
Vote on new regulations won’t happen until after midterms.
Harrington 2014 ( Elizabeth Harrington, April 29, 2014, EPA Delayed Climate Change Regulation Until After
Midterms, http://freebeacon.com/issues/epa-delayed-climate-change-regulation-until-after-midterms/)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) delayed issuing a final regulation limiting greenhouse gas emissions for
new power plants until after the midterm elections. The agency pushed back publishing the rule for two months,
allowing vulnerable Senate Democrats to avoid a vote on the measure six weeks before voters go to the polls. President
Obama directed the EPA to issue a proposal requiring new power plants to reduce their carbon pollution by “no later than” Sep. 20, 2013. The EPA posted the
proposal on its website that day, but did not submit the rule to the Federal Register until Nov. 25, 2013. The rule was then published in the Federal Register on
Jan. 8. Once
a rule is published in the Federal Register, agencies are required to finalize it within one year. As a result,
the EPA does not have to finish the regulation until Jan. 8, 2015, instead of this September, just weeks before the
midterms.
GOP Good – Trade Promotion Authority
1NC
GOP winning the Senate is key to TPA passage and future free trade negotiations.
Financial Times 2014 (5/27/14 "Fate of Obama's 'fast track' authority rests with the Oregon Democrat,"
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/74ebaf84-e4bf-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3347p74GH)
The power may be fleeting. Prognosticators
such as Nate Silver, the influential psephologist who predicted President Barack
Obama’s 2012 re-election with uncanny accuracy, say Republicans have a good chance of regaining control of the
Senate in this November’s midterm elections.¶ But Mr Wyden holds in his hands the fate of the “fast track” authority Mr
Obama needs from Congress in order to conclude deals with the EU, trading partners in the Pacific Rim and the two
dozen economies the US is working with to update the global rules for the $4.6tn annual trade in services. Without the Senate’s
assent the White House’s ambitious second-term trade agenda is likely to go nowhere and Mr Wyden’s support is
critical.¶ That backing is conditional, Mr Wyden says, on an effort to at least partially reverse one of the biggest trends in US politics of the past 20 years. Since
the early 1990s and a bitter debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement the majority of congressional Democrats, urged on by labour unions, have
voted against trade agreements.¶ Mr Wyden
says he wants to use the debate over granting the president Trade Promotion
Authority, as it is formally known, to soak up Democratic concerns and build a “new and enduring bipartisan coalition
for expanded trade”.¶ His predecessor, Max Baucus, who left this year to become ambassador to China, spent months last year working with Dave Camp,
the Republican chair of the House ways and means committee, to draft a “fast track” bill.¶ But Mr Wyden says that bill lacked broad support in
Congress and he wants to push for a “smart track” bill that will win over more Democrats to the cause of trade.¶ To do
so, he argues, will mean addressing concerns over the lack of transparency that plague negotiations. He also wants
to make sure any TPA bill, which traditionally sets US objectives for trade deals as well as limiting Congress’s ability
to amend them, addresses modern sectors such as the trade in digital goods.¶ In a move that will cause concern with some US
negotiating partners such as Brunei and Vietnam, Mr Wyden says he would also like to see trade agreements address human rights, something advocated by
fellow Democrats.¶ “I think it’s the responsible thing to do and I think it will bring more support for the cause of trade expansion,” Mr Wyden says.¶ I continue to
believe it is absolutely critical for us to grow things here, make things here, and add value to them here and ship them somewhere¶ - Ron Wyden¶ All of those
issues need to be addressed, he says, in order to convince fellow Democrats and many middle-class Americans worried about the direction of the US economy
that trade is not the bogeyman it often is portrayed to be.¶ Many
Democrats remain sceptical. Too many among the party’s base still
blame trade agreements and globalisation for the hollowing out of the US manufacturing sector and rising inequality,
they point out. And when Harry Reid, the top Democrat in the Senate, rebuffed Mr Obama’s requests for a speedy
vote on the Baucus-Camp version of TPA in January it was with an eye on the base and the midterm elections.¶ All of
Mr Wyden’s efforts to build his “enduring coalition” for trade may be moot if the Republicans win control of the Senate
in November. Orrin Hatch, the Utah senator likely to take Mr Wyden’s place at the head of the finance committee
should that happen, was a vocal backer of the Baucus-Camp bill.¶ Republican trade experts also point out that the
bill was the result of months of negotiations and therefore finely balanced. Adding anything to it to win Democratic
support may well result in losing Republican backing.¶ Few in Washington expect any trade bill to be voted on before
the midterm elections with many predicting the issue will be left until January 2015, when a new Congress is sworn
in.
TPA’s key to the economy and global trade
Kennedy and McLarty 2/12/14 (Mark and Mack, director of George Washington University's Graduate School
of Political Management + White House chief of staff and Special Envoy for the Americas under President Bill
Clinton, "Expand trade, improve economy: Column," http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/12/tradepromotion-authority-obama-economic-growth-column/5340989/)
After struggling with anemic growth for the last six years, the
nation now finds itself with an opportunity to renew its vitality through the
most powerful economic elixir: expanded trade.¶ This benefit cannot be achieved without giving our partners the confidence
that the United States is negotiating in good faith, free from last minute changes and additions. This requires giving President Obama Trade Promotion Authority
(commonly known as TPA or "fast track") to present trade agreements for an up or down vote in Congress.¶ Passing TPA is distasteful to both Republicans who
do not the trust the president and Democrats who believe the benefits of free trade are overstated. Yet before they added cherry flavors, many medicines with
powerful cures had a bitter flavor. For
the sake of America's economic health, Congress must come together in a bipartisan fashion to
give President Obama fast track authority, a power granted to every chief executive since 1974.¶ The Obama Administration, led ably
by United States Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman, has engaged the European Union and nations in
the Pacific in serious negotiations for high standard trade agreements. These two accords would increase ties with
historic allies, make us more competitive, increase job opportunities, enhance incomes and allow American
businesses to effectively sell to the fast growing Asian region.¶ Critics would have you believe that somehow these agreements would
weaken environmental and labor standards, but most partner countries in question are already high-income nations that embrace strong worker and
environmental protections.¶ Ambassador Froman attempted to assuage those fears saying, "We have made clear that we're committed to negotiating a highstandard, ambitious comprehensive deal." The
TPA bill introduced by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,
already incorporates new protections to ensure that all partner countries meet rigorous guidelines.¶ As President
Clinton's chief of staff when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was passed and one of the
deciding votes the last time Congress granted Fast Track authority, we know how hard it is to move a significant
trade accord. We also know how the dire predictions of skeptics are often shown to be illusory.¶ The only sucking sound induced by NAFTA was the gasps
of trade skeptics whose economic chimeras failed to materialize. NAFTA has instead exceeded expectations.¶ It launched Mexico on a path to strengthen its
democratic institutions and progressively open its economy. A more democratic and competitive Mexico, along with a more tightly integrated supply chain
between the three North American economies, makes each member of the NAFTA trio more competitive in world markets. Similar benefits await if we proceed
with the proposed Asian and European accords.¶ Passing TPA will require significant attention and effort from President Obama
and Congress. Over 500 advocacy groups have written to lawmakers urging a vote against it. To date, 49 more House Democrats are on record opposing fast
track than supported NAFTA in 1994.¶ Advocating
for free trade will require the president to stand up to members of his own
party to further his economic agenda.¶ It will take courage to forcefully advocate for an issue that splits one's party, but the benefits
to the nation will far outweigh any intra-party strife. That is what presidential leadership is all about.¶ There has never been an
economic golden age without trade. It has been the driving force behind new innovation. Its expansion has allowed countless
people the chance to achieve financial prosperity and advance civilization.¶ Trade has a wonderful history, but we believe its best
days are still ahead. Every trade liberalization advance has enhanced the well being of mankind. The United States has arrived at a
monumental opportunity to craft landmark trade agreements with the world. Let us not fail to build accords that will spark economic
growth, create a better future for our children and launch a new golden era of trade.
Free trade solves multiple extinction scenarios.
Panzner 8 (Michael, faculty at the New York Institute of Finance, 25-year veteran of the global stock, bond, and currency markets who has worked in New
York and London for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN Amro, Dresdner Bank, and JPMorgan Chase “Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic
Collapse,” pg. 136-138)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew
forth protectionist legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a
series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn
into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next
collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment,
and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border
movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential
travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other countries exceedingly difficult. As
desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on
foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets
on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to
ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this
will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any
link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management,
or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise
facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly. The rise in
isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous confrontations over
shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of necessity, be
acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and
energy, efforts to secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes
over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace.
Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In
some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and
religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling
frustration and populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning
threat of American retribution, terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks,
bringing the threat of random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency.
China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt
colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around
the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even
speculated that an “intense confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out
to be almost wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to
battles soaked in blood. Long-simmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human
instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional
forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up
conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
GOP K 2 TPA
GOP control of the Senate is key to TPA passage, avoids democratic backlash
Luce and Froman 2014 (Edward and Michael, Financial Times chief US commentator + US Trade
Representative, 3/18/14 "Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman at The Atlantic's 2014
Economy Summit," Federal News Service, lexis)
MR. LUCE: So
realistically, what are the chances of getting TPA before midterm elections?¶ AMB. FROMAN: Well, look, there's a -there's a process underway on Capitol Hill. As you know, a bill was introduced in January. There's been a transition at the Finance
Committee. Chairman Wyden has now stepped into that position, and he's going to want to take the time necessary
to confer with the Democrats as well as the Republicans on that committee as well as his colleagues in the House to
try and build support for -- broad as possible support for TPA going forward, and we're very much engaged with the
Hill in that process.¶ And we're engaged -- you know, I'll talk personally; I'm personally engaged up there on the Hill mostly walking through what it is we're
doing in TPP and TTIP so that people understand what the value of these trade agreements are, what's at stake in these negotiations in the hopes that that helps
people get comfortable with that agenda and as a result to support what's necessary to move the agenda forward.¶ MR. LUCE: Of course,
what's
exercising everybody's minds is the midterm elections, whether Democrats can hold onto the Senate. But from the
point of you within the -- of USTR within the administration, the Senate going Republican isn't necessarily bad news,
is it? Because you be – you{d} be much higher probability of getting TPA through it.
Democratic backlash kills new TPA passage, that decks future free trade agreements.
Postmedia 2014 (Postmedia Breaking News, national news agency with correspondents in Canada, Europe, and
the United States 2/20/14 ("Democrats grind gears in Obama's attempt to update NAFTA," lexis)
President Barack Obama admitted as much during a news conference with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts
Wednesday, when he made a glancing reference to his failure to get congressional fast-track authority to negotiate
the 12-country TPP.¶ Unlike most cases of gridlock in Washington, in this instance, it's mostly Democrats who are
resisting the president and mostly Republicans who are supporting his trade efforts.¶ "I've said this to some of my own
constituents who are opposed to trade," Obama said.¶ "Those who are concerned about losing jobs or outsourcing need to
understand some of the old agreements put us at a disadvantage; that's exactly why we've got to have stronger
agreements."¶ He said future trade pacts would provide better protection for intellectual property; more open markets
for U.S. agricultural products; and more opportunities for government procurement contracts.¶ Some of his aides have
also said he would make good on a 2008 campaign promise to improve the labour and environmental standards in
NAFTA.¶ Obama's trade secretary raised some eyebrows earlier this week by suggesting that the process would reopen NAFTA - something Obama
famously, and quite controversially, promised to do in his first presidential campaign.¶ Another Obama ally has since shed some light on what that meant.¶ Ben
Rhodes suggested that the TPP, which would include Canada and cover 40 per cent of the world's economy, would finally provide the redress that the president
was talking about.¶ "We see this as an opportunity to introduce elevated standards on issues like labour and the environment that were not in NAFTA," said Ben
Rhodes, the deputy national security advisor, aboard Air Force One en route to this week's Three Amigos summit.¶ Not all Democrats were convinced.¶
"Nonsense," Rep. Louise Slaughter of New York told Politico this week.¶ "In all the time I've been in Congress, I have never seen a trade bill that benefited the
American producer or the American worker. It's all been giveaway, and we really can't afford that anymore," she said. "People are sick and tired of the one-way
trade deal."¶ Past polls have suggested that, unlike in Canada, NAFTA is unpopular in the U.S. The survey numbers, at the same time, have shown support for
the idea of more trade with Canada and Mexico.¶ Fans and foes of free trade point to different aspects of the NAFTA legacy.¶ Under
the pact, all three
countries have had positive GDP growth nearly every single year, and have seen a boost in trade and in the
manufacturing index.¶ At the same time income inequality has deepened - most significantly in the U.S., and to a
lesser degree in Canada. The gains in the economy are being claimed by a smaller segment of society.¶ Facing
headwinds in Congress, the Obama administration now seems poised to enter the upcoming round of TPP talks
without fast-track authority.¶ That means that any pact could be tossed into disarray at the 11th hour, with Congress
rejecting or amending parts of it. The Democratic-controlled Senate has all but extinguished any hope that it might
relinquish its constitutional right to amend and revise trade agreements via a fast-track bill.
WASHINGTON — Usually, the rap on Washington is that Democrats and Republicans are so polarized, they can’t
agree on much.
But as President Obama met Wednesday with the leaders of Mexico and Canada to talk trade, it was Mr. Obama’s
top Democratic allies in Congress who were making life difficult. Republican leaders, normally his adversaries, have
been his allies, goading him to make the pro-trade argument more forcefully.
Both Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D) of Nevada and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D) of California
oppose giving the president “trade-promotion authority” – also known as “fast track” – to allow international trade
deals to pass Congress with no amendments and on a simple majority vote. Labor leaders, too, oppose fast track,
saying big international trade deals threaten American jobs. Conservationists worry such deals may not contain
adequate environmental protections. Both movements are crucial to Democrats’ chances in the November midterms.
And it is those midterms that make congressional Democrats especially wary of the emerging trade deals with
Europe and Asia.
Americans have conflicting views of international trade generally, but a negative view of NAFTA – the North
American Free Trade Agreement, which the United States entered into 20 years ago with Mexico and Canada.
As a presidential candidate, Obama promised to fix NAFTA. Now as president, he is hoping to amend NAFTA as part
of the larger Trans-Pacific Partnership, which links countries in Asia, North America, and South America. To do that,
he says, he needs fast track.
“We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our
environment, and open new markets to new goods stamped 'Made in the USA,' ” Obama said last month in his State
of the Union address. “China and Europe aren’t standing on the sidelines. Neither should we.”
The next day, Senator Reid – presiding over a precarious Democratic majority in the upper chamber – threw cold
water on fast track. “Everyone would be well advised just to not push this right now,” he said.
At a House Democratic retreat last Friday, Obama didn’t bring up trade, which sparked taunting from Senate minority
leader Mitch McConnell (R) of Kentucky.
“You have to wonder how serious he is about these jobs since he didn’t even mention it at all when he spoke to
House Democrats today,” Senator McConnell said in a statement. “The jobs they seem to care most about are
Democrats’ in Congress – not families across the country eager to join the ranks of the employed.”
Complicating matters are Republican tea party members who oppose fast track – creating a realignment of sorts, at
least on trade, with the populist left and populist right joining forces.
Late last year, 151 House Democrats – about three-quarters of the caucus – sent Obama a letter opposing fast track,
saying it usurps Congress’s authority on trade matters. About two dozen House Republicans also sent the president
a letter opposing fast track.
Any eventual agreement on fast track will have to be bipartisan, probably with mostly Republican votes, and it may
have to wait until the lame-duck period after the midterms -- or beyond -- to get a vote. Administration officials
express confidence that fast track will pass, though they don’t offer a timeline.
Some say Obama could be doing more to talk up the benefits of trade.
“The president probably needs to make a better case to show how trade benefits the average American,” says
Stephen Kelly, a visiting public policy professor at Duke University in Durham, N.C.
One of the problems with NAFTA is that when a factory employing 300 people closes down and moves to Mexico,
“that’s news,” Professor Kelly says. But, he adds, in North Carolina’s region known as the Research Triangle, “if each
[company] hires five more people, because they have new contracts to sell goods to Canada or Mexico, that’s not
news.”
TPA K 2 Trade
TPA is key to new global trade negotiations
McKenna 2014 (Barrie, correspondent and columnist in The Globe and Mail's Ottawa bureau., Globe and Mail
(Canada), 2/10/14 ("Washington's tangled politics could slow Trans-Pacific Partnership," lexis)
But to the world's traders and policy makers, TPA
stands for trade promotion authority - U.S. legislation that holds the key to
almost every major trade deal in play right now.¶ The Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade deal? It might not happen
at all if the U.S. Congress fails to pass a new TPA bill in coming months.¶ The same goes for U.S.-European free
trade, as well as global trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization.¶ The TPA is pivotal because of a quirk in
the U.S. political system. Constitutionally, it is the job of Congress to regulate trade. But that's not practical in the real world. So,
since the 1970s, Congress has periodically granted the president trade-negotiating authority. This allows the
administration to make deals, confident the legislative branch won't later rip them apart.¶ The most recent TPA expired in 2007,
leaving President Barack Obama in an awkward spot. He, along with trading partners such as Canada, have no certainty that Congress will sanction what he
negotiates.¶ The
doubt over Congress approval is doubly problematic with complex modern trade deals such as the TPP
that go far beyond tariff reductions to encompass regulatory regimes and intellectual property.¶ The Trans-Pacific
Partnership and other negotiations will meander along, but countries aren't likely to bring their best offers to the table
until they know that Congress and Mr. Obama are on the same page.¶ A new TPA bill is now before Congress but the
odds of it being approved don't look good. Mr. Obama's popularity has been dented by the Obamacare debate and
its troubled implementation. It's tougher for him to get what he wants.¶ Many key Democrats in Congress, including Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid, along with a key slice of Mr. Obama's voter base - environmentalists and labour unions are opposed to the legislation.¶ Free-trade advocates and political watchers say Mr. Obama has been slow to use his
political muscle to push the TPA bill.¶ "
Presidential push with GOP support is key to TPA passage, that’s key to international trade
McLarty 2014 ( Thomas F. McLarty was chief of staff to President Bill Clinton during the NAFTA ratification fight.
Nelson W. Cunningham was also a Clinton White House aide , 2/2/14 (“A Critical Test of Leadership” Huffington
Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-f-mclarty/a-critical-test-of-leader_b_4705623.html)
In his State of the Union address last week, President
Obama took a good first step in asking Congress to provide the tools he
needs to close two of the most ambitious trade deals in U.S. history. But he faces an immediate challenge from within
his party that could imperil negotiations, with huge stakes for the U.S. globally and for our economy at home.¶ At
issue is Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which allows the president to send a trade agreement to Congress for an
up-or-down vote, without amendments. Many Republicans reflexively oppose granting any request from the administration. But the biggest
opposition is coming from Democrats skeptical of the value of free trade.¶ The day after the president's address,
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he opposed "fast track" authority. His remarks revealed the depth of a gulf
among Democrats over trade, and sparked new criticism from Republicans as a sign that the president's party
couldn't be lined up behind a major administration initiative.¶ For President Obama, this is a critical test of his leadership. Can he muster
enough support for his trade agenda within his own party, and then assemble a bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress? Failure would be a
great setback for U.S. prestige internationally, and a dismal signal for the president's remaining three years in office.¶
We've seen this movie before -- and it didn't end well. The last Democratic president to seek fast track authority on trade was Bill Clinton in
1997. The effort collapsed when then House Speaker Newt Gingrich was unable to marshal his Republican majority. It was an opportunity lost, ending a period of
bipartisan cooperation on trade and stalling momentum created a few years earlier by the North American Free Trade Agreement.¶ Repeating this history would
be a mistake, especially as our economy struggles to create good jobs at high wages. But the president
faces an uphill battle. Now is the
moment for Democrats to pause and take full measure of the stakes involved in opposing fast track. It's time for
Republican supporters of trade to rally. And it is essential that the president and his cabinet exert persistent, focused
leadership to persuade the skeptics.¶ President Obama deserves much credit for advancing the most far-reaching trade agenda in a generation.
The administration is nearing the finish line in negotiations of the Trans Pacific Partnership, an agreement with 11
Pacific Rim nations, including Japan and perhaps South Korea and others. Simultaneous talks are underway
between the United States and the European Union over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership -creating an economic NATO and the largest liberalized trade zone in the world.¶ Together, the agreements would lower barriers in
markets accounting for more than 60 percent of the global economy.¶ Neither negotiation would survive a failure to renew Trade
Promotion Authority, which expired in 2007. TPA reassures our negotiating partners that they will not agree to difficult
concessions only to see Congress later force unilateral changes. Under TPA, Congress establishes negotiating goals
and must be regularly consulted by the president. In exchange, Congress promises an up-or-down vote without amendment. No major trade
legislation has passed Congress in decades without it.¶ President Clinton knew that because trade was so hard, its support had to be bipartisan. To push for
NAFTA, he assembled a high-profile war room in the White House, led by a prominent Democrat, Bill Daley, and former Republican Congressman Bill Frenzel.
The president worked members tirelessly. The bill eventually passed with 102 Democratic and 132 Republican votes, and a similarly bipartisan total in the
Senate. By contrast, the 1997 effort to renew fast-track authority lacked that high-profile White House push -- helping seal its doom.¶ Over
the last
decades, global trade has proven essential to building employment and reducing inequality at home. One of every
five jobs in the United States is tied to exports. More significantly for the long run, 95 percent of the world's customers
live outside our borders. While many Americans have concerns about free trade, they say the benefits of U.S.
involvement in the global economy outweigh the risks (by a 2-1 margin in a poll last month by the Pew Research Center).¶ Even so, last fall
151 House Democrats signed a letter expressing their opposition to granting President Obama Trade Promotion Authority. Almost three dozen House
Republicans followed suit. When the bill to renew TPA was introduced earlier this month, a number of Democratic Senators announced their opposition. They
have now been joined by Sen. Reid.¶ The
warning signs are clear, but so is the path forward. Now is the time for a full-court
press from the White House. President Obama should be clear about the imperative of TPA and make the strong
case for trade as a catalyst for job growth. Then he must press his cabinet to the task. Ambassador Froman is a skilled negotiator and advocate.
His cabinet colleagues include many effective proponents of free trade and international engagement, including Secretary of State John Kerry, Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew, and Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker.¶ Without
a concerted effort, TPA may well fail, embarrassing us
abroad, casting a shadow on the president's second term and hurting our economy in the long run. Why not instead
show America and the world that the president and Congress, including leaders of his own party, can work together?
TPA’s key to US involvement in global trade and strengthening domestic economic sectors.
Riley and Kim 2013 (Bryan Riley, Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy and Anthony B. Kim,
Senior Policy Analyst, Economic Freedom, Advancing Trade Freedom: Key Objective of Trade Promotion Authority
Renewal, April 16, 2013 http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/advancing-trade-freedom-key-objective-oftrade-promotion-authority-renewal)
Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) has been a critical tool for advancing free trade and spreading its benefits to a
greater number of Americans. TPA, also known as “fast track” authority, is the legislative power Congress grants to
the President to negotiate reciprocal trade agreements. Provided the President observes certain statutory obligations under TPA, Congress
agrees to consider implementing those trade pacts without amending them. More than a decade has passed since TPA was last renewed
in 2002, and its authority expired in 2007. Reinstituting TPA may well be the most important legislative action on trade
for both Congress and the President in 2013 given the urgency of restoring America’s credibility in advancing open
markets and securing greater benefits of two-way trade for Americans. As the case for timely reinstallation of an effective and practical
TPA is stronger than ever, the quest for renewing TPA should be guided by principles that enhance trade freedom, a vital component of America’s economic
freedom. Emerging TPA Renewal Debates Both House Ways and Means Committee chairman David Camp (R–MI) and Senate Finance Committee chairman
Max Baucus (D–MT) have announced plans to pursue TPA legislation. However, many lawmakers have correctly pointed out that a proactive push from
President Obama is critical, given that trade bills have been a thorny issue for many Democrats in recent years. Historically, it has been common practice,
although not formally required, to have the President request that Congress provide renewed TPA. In fact, except for President Obama, every President since
Franklin Roosevelt has either requested or received trade negotiating authority.[1] After
four years of informing Congress it would seek TPA
at “the appropriate time,” early this year the Obama Administration finally indicated its interest in working with
Congress to get TPA done. The President’s 2013 trade agenda offered the Administration’s most forward-leaning language yet, specifying that “to
facilitate the conclusion, approval, and implementation of market-opening negotiating efforts, we will also work with Congress on Trade Promotion Authority.”[2]
In the 2002 Bipartisan Trade Promotion Authority Act, Congress—whose role in formulating U.S. trade policy includes defining trade negotiation objectives—
made it clear that [t]he expansion of international trade is vital to the national security of the United States. Trade is critical to the economic growth and strength
of the United States and to its leadership in the world. Stable trading relationships promote security and prosperity.… Leadership
by the United
States in international trade fosters open markets, democracy, and peace throughout the world.[3] Foster Trade
Liberalization, Not Protectionism The Obama Administration often seems to regard trade as a zero-sum game of capturing
value that would otherwise go elsewhere. However, trade liberalization is about creating and adding value,
capitalizing on competitive advantages, and further harnessing the power of freedom and choice. Trade has been an
integral part of America’s extraordinary economic progress over the past decades. Since 1929, trade volume has
increased from less than 9 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) to around 30 percent, while real U.S. GDP
per person increased from $8,000 to more than $43,000. This progress faces continuing threats, mainly from specialinterest groups that malign free trade in an attempt to seek protection from competition at the expense of everyone
else. Some lawmakers have even viewed TPA legislation as a vehicle to address the perceived costs of free trade for the U.S. economy. However, using TPA
renewal to redress the suspected costs of trade is an ill-advised idea. TPA is an instrument that not only enables America to secure
increased access to overseas markets but also provides the unique opportunity for the U.S. to reduce its own barriers
and advance economic freedom. Congress and the President can help the American economy by removing barriers
that limit its competitiveness. With open trade and investment ensured, the interplay of low tax rates and efficient
regulations could effectively enhance America’s economic freedom. Entangling TPA with a protectionist agenda, on
the other hand, would not serve America’s interests in the global market. Imports Do Support American Jobs The TPA renewal debate
in Congress should reflect the fact that both exports and imports are job-supporting activities. In other words, the debate should focus on how to deliver greater
trade freedom to Americans that advances the benefits of trade in both directions. It is
a common misperception that importing goods to
America comes at the cost of American jobs. In fact, imports contribute to job creation on a large scale. The
increased economic activity associated with every stage of the import process helps support millions of jobs in the
U.S. As shown by a recent Heritage Foundation study, for instance, over half a million American jobs—in fields such as transportation, wholesale, retail,
construction, and finance—are supported by imports of clothes and toys from China alone.[4] Highlighting the dynamic and value-adding role
played by imports in the U.S. economy, an empirical analysis published in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
Review presents strong evidence that “policies to bolster exports at the expense of imports would significantly harm
U.S. manufacturing,” adding that “imports have played a critical positive role in boosting manufacturing output in the
United States—much more so, in fact, than exports.”[5] Indeed, intermediate goods imports and capital goods imports
are the lifeblood of U.S. manufacturing. Without them, manufacturing output is impossible. What Congress Should Do in
Reauthorizing TPA While working constructively with the Obama Administration, Congress should: Grant long-term (at least five years or
even permanent) renewal of TPA so that America’s credibility in pursuing free trade can be effectively restored; Insist on
negotiating parameters that promote actual increases in international trade flows and guarantee reductions in tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and investment;
Oppose any emphasis in TPA legislation on the promotion of exports over imports in recognition of the importance of both in increasing American jobs and
prosperity; and Resist imposing any special sectoral or industry-specific requirements on negotiators, including in areas such as environmental and labor
standards. A Unique Opportunity The threat
to U.S. prosperity comes not from free trade but from the decline in economic
freedom. In the process of working on TPA reauthorization, Congress has the unique opportunity to become an
effective advocate for advancing economic freedom and help America reap the rewards that accrue from such
policies. It should not let the opportunity pass.
TPA’s key to credibility on trade agreements, that’s key to pass future free trade
agreements.
Spulak and Byers 2/12/14 (Thomas and Bonnie, partner + consultant in King and Spalding’s Washington, D.C.
office, "Expect Trade Promotion Authority Bill To Pass," http://www.law360.com/articles/509435/expect-tradepromotion-authority-bill-to-pass)
Considering the strident opposition voiced by Senate and House democratic leaders, one might ask: Is trade
promotion authority necessary, or can a trade agreement be negotiated and passed without it? There are not many instances
of this occurring as all major multilateral trade agreements including the North America Free Trade Agreement, Dominican
Republic-Central America-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and recent bilateral agreements have been passed under
fast-track procedures. Most trade advocates believe such procedures are essential believing our trading partners will
not be willing to negotiate final agreements if there is a possibility that Congress will unravel them under normal
amendment and voting procedures.
2NC Impact Add-On - Competitiveness
TPA’s key to pass trade deals, those are key to boost United States economic
competitiveness
Brilliant 2/18/14 (Myron, executive vice president and head of international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce, Wall St Journal, "Why Harry Reid Must Reconsider on Trade,"
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304558804579377022295253420
President Obama in his State of the Union address called for Congress to grant him Trade Promotion Authority to
"open new markets to new goods stamped 'Made in the USA.' " The next day Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned that "Everyone
would be well-advised not to push this right now." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said last Wednesday that the bipartisan TPA bill introduced in January
was "out of the question."¶ TPA,
often referred to as "fast-track," requires the executive and legislative branches to work
together on trade agreements. Under TPA, Congress sets negotiating objectives, the administration consults
frequently with legislators, and any agreement is subject to an up-or-down vote.¶ The opposition to TPA is
unfortunate, as new agreements like those being negotiated with European and Asia-Pacific countries would help
American workers, farmers and companies. Freer trade would also be a boon to economic productivity, creating
more jobs at good wages.¶ Imported manufactured goods face U.S. tariffs averaging a mere 2%, with a few exceptions for protected industries such as
apparel, footwear and sugar. But U.S. manufacturers and farmers often face far higher tariffs and other steep trade barriers
when entering foreign markets, beginning every game a dozen points behind.¶ Take the U.S. auto industry, which has made a
comeback after the recession. Automobiles made in the U.S. face a 35% import tariff in Malaysia, shutting American manufacturers out of the market. Though the
U.S. is the largest agricultural exporter in the world, Vietnam levies double- and triple-digit duties on U.S. farm goods. The country recently raised taxes on a
number of products ranging from walnuts to tomato sauce. Express shippers, insurers and banks are at a major disadvantage in Japan, where regulations prop
up a state-owned company called Japan Post Holdings.¶ The interference damages
the U.S. economy. In 2010, the Commerce
Department estimated that foreign tariffs reduce the earnings of U.S. factory workers by as much as 12%. The impact
spreads to other sectors such as agriculture due to non-tariff barriers including unscientific sanitary requirements.
The way to fix these inequalities? New trade agreements that demand accountability and fairness.¶ Free trade agreements
have eliminated disadvantages in the past. America's 20 trade-agreement partners represent 10% of the global economy, but they buy nearly half of our exports.
Citizens of these countries purchase 12 times more U.S. exports per capita than citizens of countries without trade agreements. The U.S. boasts a trade surplus
in manufacturing, agriculture and services with these 20 partners, unlike the trade deficit it runs with the rest of the world.¶ American workers reap the benefits.
Earnings are 18% higher for workers in factories that export than in those that don't, according to a 2010 Commerce Department report.¶ Small
businesses
also stand to gain from freer trade. Large firms often find a way to work around foreign trade barriers, but tariffs are
often a deal-breaker for small companies. Creating new trade agreements would significantly help the U.S.'s 300,000
small exporters.¶ TPA would give the administration the ability to finish the job in two ongoing trade negotiations. In
Asia, the U.S. is taking part in talks for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which includes 11 other Asia-Pacific countries. If ratified, the agreement could help upend
barriers in Malaysia, Vietnam and Japan. Furthermore, the TPP would unleash economic growth for U.S. exports. Two billion Asians joined the middle class in
the past 20 years, and another 1.2 billion will do so by 2020, according to International Monetary Fund projections. The
TPP will allow U.S. goods
and services to be sold freely in these booming markets.¶ In Europe, the U.S. is talking with the European Union to
negotiate a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Trade between the U.S. and the EU reaches $1 trillion
annually and employs 15 million Americans and Europeans. Even eliminating the relatively modest tariffs on U.S.-EU
trade would boost our combined GDP by $180 billion within five years, according to a 2010 study by the European Centre for
International Political Economy.¶ But to tackle any of these inequalities, Congress must first approve TPA. The Constitution
grants Congress the authority to regulate international trade, but it gives the executive the authority to forge
agreements with foreign governments. TPA allows each branch to perform its constitutional role.¶ Without TPA, U.S.
exports will remain at a profound disadvantage. Renewing TPA would help restore fair competition in trade—and put
economic growth in the U.S. ahead of partisan politics.
2NC Impact Add-On - Protectionism
Fast Track’s key to TTIP passage, the alternative is a return to protectionism
The Economist 2014 (The Economist, How to make the world $600 billion poorer, Feb 22nd 2014
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21596934-barack-obamas-unwillingness-fight-free-trade-expensivemistake-how-make-world)
IN JULY 2008 Barack Obama, then a candidate for the presidency, declared before an adoring crowd in Berlin that “true partnership and true progress [require]
constant work and sustained sacrifice.” So it is with free trade.
If not championed by leaders who understand its broad benefits, it will
constantly be eroded by narrow economic nationalism. Mr Obama now appears to be surrendering to protectionists
within his own party. If he cannot drag Democrats back to their senses, the world will lose its best opportunity in two
decades for a burst of liberalisation. It will also be a signal that America is giving up its role as defender of an open
global economy in the same way that Mr Obama has retreated in foreign policy. Mr Obama did little to promote free trade during his
first term, but has seemed bolder in his second. He launched America into ambitious new deals with large Pacific economies and the European Union, breathing
new life into global trade talks. Momentum built up; the “constant work and sacrifice” paid dividends. Members of the World Trade Organisation agreed on a
package of trade reforms in December—the first truly multilateral deal in the organisation’s 20-year history. Diplomats
credit the White House’s
new resolve for helping to bring stubborn parties to the table. Progress suddenly seemed possible in other areas,
such as liberalising trade in services and information technology, and reducing barriers to the exchange of
“environmental goods and services”, which would make it cheaper to curb carbon emissions. First, shoot yourself in the foot.
Then repeat… The hitch is that Congress must approve trade agreements. Previous presidents had the advantage of
“fast-track” trade promotion authority, which let them present deals to Congress for a simple yes or no vote. Without
it, lawmakers can wreck carefully negotiated deals with toxic amendments. No country would engage in serious talks
with America under such circumstances. Fast-track is therefore essential—and elusive. Congress last granted it in 2002; it
expired in 2007. The Obama administration blithely asserted that Congress would renew it, but many lawmakers, primarily Democrats, have signed letters
opposing it. Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, has all but ruled out a vote this year. And on February 14th Joe Biden, the vice-president, told a gathering of
Democratic leaders that he understood their opposition. The White House appears to have given up with scarcely a fight. A fast-track
vote before November’s mid-term elections seems unlikely (see article). Why panic about this? Tactically, it could just be another piece of Washington politicking:
some optimists claim that Congress will return after the mid-terms ready to back fast-track, providing Mr Obama allows some boilerplate language in the bill
chiding China for allegedly manipulating its currency. Others wonder whether the trade deals are really so vital. Indeed, the idea that they will not do much to help
the economy is one excuse for Democrats undermining their president. In fact, the deals on the table are big. Reasonable
estimates say that the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could boost the
world’s annual output by $600 billion—equivalent to adding another Saudi Arabia. Some $200 billion of that would
accrue to America. And the actual gains could be even larger. The agreements would clear the way for freer trade in services, which
account for most of rich countries’ GDP but only a small share of trade. Opening up trade in services could help reduce the cost of
everything from shipping to banking, education and health care. Exposing professional occupations to the same
global competition that factory workers have faced for decades could even strike a blow against the income inequality
that Mr Obama so often decries. Tactically, even a short delay could prove fatal to both deals. Pacific negotiations have been
extended while America and Japan hammer out compromises on agriculture. Why should Japanese politicians risk infuriating their farmers when any agreement
can be torn up on Capitol Hill? The deal with the EU was meant to be done swiftly—perhaps in as little as two years—to keep politics from mucking it up.
Europe’s leaders will now doubt America’s commitment, given how feebly Mr Obama has fought for fast-track. Trade sceptics, such as French farmers, are
drooling. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, who is already furious about American spying, may decide that a trade deal is not worth battling for. The
greatest risk of all is that the political momentum in America, having swung against free trade, will be hard to reverse.
Some Tea Party Republicans oppose fast-track because they are loth to grant Mr Obama the authority to do
anything. Democrats, keen to brand themselves as the anti-inequality party, may find economic nationalism an easy
sell on the campaign stump: and, once pledged to that cause in November, candidates will not vote for the opposite
in Congress. And for this Mr Obama deserves some blame. He is far more ardent in bemoaning inequality than in
explaining why an American retreat from the world would be the wrong way to address it. He seldom mentions, for example,
that cheap imports help the poor by cutting their shopping bills, and so reduce inequality of consumption. It’s not a zero-sum world There is nothing
inevitable about globalisation. Governments have put up barriers before—with disastrous consequences during the
1930s—and could do so again. So it is alarming when America, the mainstay of an open global economy, gives off
isolationist signals. Only recently Congress childishly refused to honour an agreed-upon increase in America’s financial commitment to the International
Monetary Fund. The Federal Reserve is pushing forward with new banking regulations that could penalise foreign banks and further Balkanise global finance
(see article). Mr Obama continues to delay approval of a critical oil pipeline from Canada, and is slow to grant permits to export American natural gas. “America
cannot turn inward,” the Obama of 2008 said in Berlin. The Obama of 2014 is now responding: “Yes we can.”
Turns Case - Free trade’s key to global quality of life, the alternative increases the likelihood
for conflict and poverty.
Hillebrand 10 (Evan E., Visiting Professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy – University of Kentucky,
Deglobalization Scenarios: Who Wins? Who Loses? Global Economy Journal, Vol. 10 [2010], Iss. 2, Art. 3
http://83.143.248.39/students/MCA100/Senior%20Thesis/who%20wins%20who%20loses.pdf)
Deglobalization in the form of reduced trade interdependence, reduced capital flows, and reduced migration has few
positive effects, based on this analysis with the International Futures Model. Economic growth is cut in all but a handful of countries, and is cut more in the
non-OECD countries than in the OECD countries. Deglobalization has a mixed impact on equality. In many non-OECD countries,
the cut in imports from the rest of the world increases the share of manufacturing and in 61 countries raises the share
of income going to the poor. But since average productivity goes down in almost all countries, this gain in equality
comes at the expense of reduced incomes and increased poverty in almost all countries. The only winners are a small number
of countries that were small and poor and not well integrated in the global economy to begin with—and the gains from deglobalization even for them are very
small. Politically,
deglobalization makes for less stable domestic politics and a greater likelihood of war. The likelihood
of state failure through internal war, projected to diminish through 2035 with increasing globalization, rises in the
deglobalization scenario particularly among the non-OECD democracies. Similarly, deglobalization makes for more
fractious relations among states and the probability for interstate war rises. These are dramatic results and have strong implications
for policy. For the United States and other OECD countries, deglobalization might economically benefit a small fraction
of citizens and companies, but it would cut overall economic growth and reduce average living standards. It would
seem far better to deal with the negative aspects of globalization directly by improving trade adjustment assistance,
providing more secure access to health care, by upgrading the skills of the workforce, and by refocusing academic
research toward areas that will spur productivity growth. For the non-OECD countries, deglobalization has even
worse results, suggesting that those countries need to reengage in global trade negotiations and seek compromises
that can benefit all participants.
2NC Impact Add-On - War
Free trade’s key to decreasing intensity and frequency of war
Griswold 2007 (Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies, 4/20/2007, Trade, Democracy
and Peace, http://www.freetrade.org/node/681)
A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm
International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the
early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The
Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact.
The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point
in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Current
estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s,
and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the
Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a
major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing
commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in
three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago, trade
and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and
democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's
countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less
likely to fight wars. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence
for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that as more countries turn to
democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. A second and even more potent way that
trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more
intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means
human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization
has dramatically raised the economic cost of war.
Misc
A2 Youth vote saves Democrats
Young people don’t vote in midterms, and even if they do this time they’re leaning away
from Obama
Enten 2014 (HARRY ENTEN, senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight., Young Voters in 2014 May Be
Less Democratic-Leaning Than in 2010 And 2012, 5/07/2014, http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/young-voters-in-2014may-be-less-democratic-leaning-than-in-2010-and-2012/)
Republicans have had a problem with young voters over the past few elections. Mitt Romney lost 18- to 29-year-olds by 26
percentage points in 2012 (after adjusting the exit polls to match the actual result). Romney lost among all voters by just 4 points. In 2010 — a great year for the
GOP — House Republicans lost 18- to 29-year-olds by 14 points. They won among all voters by 7 points. That’s why Democrats are hoping to get more young
people — who are less likely to vote in midterm elections – to vote in midterm elections. Yet,
early polling suggests that even if Democrats are
successful in 2014, the payoff would be less than it would have been in either of the past two election cycles. We
know this by looking the national generic House ballot, as good an indicator as there is of the national political mood.
Most generic ballot surveys only have somewhere between 100 and 300 respondents between 18 and 29 years old, which makes for a large margin of sampling
error. But by taking an average across a number of surveys, we can get a good idea of how young voters are feeling. In the past six months, eight generic ballot
polls have been released with an 18- to 29-year-old cross tab. Together, they add up to well over 1,000 respondents. Democrats clearly hold a lead among
young voters. Across the eight surveys from Marist, the Pew Research Center and Quinnipiac, Democrats
hold an average lead of 14.3
percentage points and a median lead of 12.5 points. The median may be a better indicator because of the outlier
Marist poll from February, though both results are close to each other. A 14.3-point win among 18- to 29-year-olds for Democrats would
match their 2010 election performance, while 12.5 points would be a little worse. But keep in mind, these polls show Democrats — among
all voters — up by an average of 0.1 percentage points and down by median 0.5 points. In other words, young voters
are less Democratic in comparison to the rest of the electorate than they were in the prior two elections. In fact,
they’re about a third less Democratically inclined in comparison. Voters ages 18 to 29 were 22 points more Democratic-leaning than all
voters in 2012, and 21 points more Democratic-leaning in 2010. These polls show young voters just 14 points, on average, more Democratic-leaning. Polling
young voters is difficult. Even averaging across a number of surveys leaves room for error. Also, the likely voter
electorate will almost certainly be more Republican than the registered voter electorate, though so, too, will likely
younger voters. Younger voters in 2010, like all voters, were more likely to be white than in 2012. Put it all together
and, at least at this point, it looks like younger voters in 2014 may be closer to all voters than in the prior two
elections
A2 Democrats don’t vote in midterms
Low democratic voter turnout is over-emphasized and lacks empirical data status quo voter
turnout is sufficient
Sides 2014 (JOHN SIDES, Can turnout save the Democrats in 2014? June 3
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/03/can-turnout-save-the-democrats-in-2014/, bs)
A popular theory about elections today goes like this: Democrats can’t win midterm elections because Democrats
don’t vote in midterm elections. Certainly Barack Obama seems to buy this theory. But how much is lower turnout a factor in the
challenges facing Democrats? Maybe less than you think.¶ A significant challenge in judging the validity of the “Democrats
don’t vote in midterms” theory is finding good data. For example, recently, 538′s Harry Enten critiqued a New Republic piece by Sasha
Issenberg by questioning how much midterm electorates really differ from presidential electorates. Drawing on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey,
Enten argued that turnout may have hurt the Democrats, but not that much. Enten estimated what might have
happened if the 2010 election had been run with the 2012 electorate. Democrats would have won at most 14
additional seats — a fraction of the number they lost in 2010.¶ In reaction, Clarity Campaign Labs‘ Tom Bonier, who had partnered with
Issenberg, wrote this rebuttal. Part of Bonier’s response is that his data, which come from actual voter files, are superior to the Current Population Survey. The
voter files allow Bonier a closer look not just at the demographic composition of the electorate, but which members of different demographic groups actually
voted.¶ So here’s where I step in. My notion was this: What if we had a survey asking people how they planned to vote in their House race, and we knew from the
voter file whether they had voted in 2010 and 2012? This would exploit the voter file data that Bonier prefers and allow us to conduct a hypothetical like Enten’s
— that is, what if we re-ran an election with the electorate from a different election?¶ Thanks to Bonier and David Margolis of Greenberg Quinlan Rosner
Research, I have the precise data. The data come from a September 2012 GQRR poll conducted in 54 competitive congressional districts. The poll asked
whether respondents planned to vote for the Democrat or Republican running in their House race. But unlike in most pre-election polls, the vast majority of poll
respondents (89 percent) were ultimately matched to voter file data that indicated whether they voted in 2010 or, several weeks after the poll was taken, in 2012.¶
Among respondents who voted in 2012, 48 percent supported the Democratic House candidate and 46 percent supported the Republican House candidate.
That’s the Democratic advantage that we might expect in a presidential election. What about respondents who voted in 2010? This group does not include voters
who turned out only in the presidential but not the midterm election. Among 2010 voters, the generic ballot results were reversed: 46 percent supported the
Democratic House candidate and 48 percent supported the Republican candidate. In other words, switching from the 2012 electorate to the 2010 electorate
shifted the generic ballot from a 2-point Democratic advantage to a 2-point Republican advantage.¶ What would this have meant in terms of House seats? In
2012, the Democrats had a 1.2-point edge in the national House vote and ended up controlling 201 seats. If the electorate had resembled 2010 and Republicans
had had a 2-point advantage in the national House vote, there would have been 3-point swing to the GOP overall. A simple votes-seats curve from 2012
suggests that a 3-point swing in Republicans’ favor would have left the Democrats with 181 seats, or 20 fewer than they controlled after the 2012 election.¶
Twenty seats is not nothing, of course. But it suggests that simply shifting from midterm to presidential electorates, or vice-versa, can’t explain all, or even most,
of the differences in outcomes between these two types of elections. Turnout is not going to explain a 63-seat gain for Republicans in 2010.¶ So here is where I
come down in this debate. No one disagrees that “turnout matters,” and of course Democrats should work hard at turning out Democratic voters in 2014. This is
what made Issenberg’s piece and Bonier’s analysis so interesting.¶ The
question is how much turnout matters. My sense is that
commentators still put too much emphasis on it. That is, there is not enough grappling with what changes in the
electorate do not explain — such as, perhaps, the majority of Republican seat gains in 2010. There is not enough
grappling with how Democrats did so well in 2006 despite a midterm electorate, as political scientist Michael McDonald has noted.
For more, see Mark Mellman’s four excellent columns on this, and especially political scientist Seth Hill’s research.
A2 Cantor Losing Changes Everything
Cantor’s replacement will be nearly identical
Klein 2014 (Ezra Klein on June 11, 2014, Whoever replaces Eric Cantor will be just like Eric Cantor
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/11/5801434/whoever-replaces-eric-cantor-will-be-just-like-eric-cantor, bs)
"Truly, what divides Republicans pales in comparison to what divides us as conservatives from the Left and their
Democratic Party," Eric Cantor said in his speech announcing his intention to step down as House Majority Leader.¶ ¶ Cantor's right about that. And it's
¶
why his surprising defeat won't change Washington much at all.¶ ¶ When the conservative columnist Ramesh Ponnuru dove deep into polls of tea party
supporters, he was comforted by what he found. "Tea
party advocates already believed the same things that regular Republicans
did. They basically were regular Republicans, just, if you will, more so. The differences between the tea party and
'establishment Republicans' have largely concerned style and attitude rather than program and ideology."¶ ¶ Cantor's
fall doesn't leave the Republican Party facing a fight over whether to raise taxes or cut spending or repeal
Obamacare. It's not even facing a real fight over whether to pass immigration reform. The Republican Party has its
internal arguments, but with Democrats controlling both the White House and the Senate, it has few divisions. Cantor
will be replaced in the House Republican leadership by a different politician but not by a different policy platform.¶ ¶
Even the GOP's tactical differences are overstated. Tea party conservatives tend to be more confrontational than
their establishment brethren. But their establishment brethren are pretty confrontational, too. Robert Draper reported on a
dinner top Republicans, including Cantor, had on the eve of Obama's inauguration where they settled on a strategy of relentless opposition:¶ ¶ The dinner lasted
nearly four hours. They parted company almost giddily. The Republicans had agreed on a way forward:¶ ¶ Go after Geithner. (And indeed Kyl did, the next day:
‘Would you answer my question rather than dancing around it-please?')¶ ¶ Show united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies. (Eight
days later, Minority Whip Cantor would hold the House Republicans to a unanimous No against Obama's economic stimulus plan.)¶ ¶ Begin attacking vulnerable
Democrats on the airwaves. (The first National Republican Congressional Committee attack ads would run in less than two months.)¶ ¶ Win the spear point of the
House in 2010. Jab Obama relentlessly in 2011. Win the White House and the Senate in 2012.¶ ¶ Read that again. During the worst economic crisis since the
Great Depression, mere months after the election of a hugely popular new president, Cantor kept even a single House Republican from voting for the stimulus
bill. This was before the tea party. Grassroots
conservatives didn't need to convince Cantor and the rest of the House
Republican leadership to oppose Obama. They were already there.¶ ¶ Cantor and Boehner continued this strategy
even after it didn't result in a Republican president in 2012. They continued it even after a handful of Senate
Republicans joined with Senate Democrats to pass an immigration reform bill in the hopes of strengthening the GOP
brand for 2016. And Cantor's successor will continue it too, because in order to be elected majority leader of the
House Republican Conference, you have to want to continue it.¶ ¶ As Cantor says, the Republican Party doesn't
disagree on very much — and that goes for tactics, too. The question is whether the voters buy into their consensus.
A2 Coal Country Key
Coal Country isn’t key to the midterms
MacGillis 2014 (Ignore the Pundits: "Coal Country" Doesn't Decide Elections Like It Used To By Alec MacGillis,
JUNE 3, 2014, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117984/coal-country-backlash-over-obama-rules-wont-swingmidterm-elections, bs)
Missing from some of this analysis and punditry, though, is crucial context. Quite simply, coal country isn’t what it
used to be. Employment in the coal industry has been in decline for so long in states such as Kentucky and West
Virginia that the number of jobs directly at risk from any clampdown on coal is far smaller than the sweeping rhetoric
about “coal country” would have one assume.¶ Take Kentucky, the focus of much of the punditry, given the close race between Republican
Senate leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic challenger Alison Lundergan Grimes. Coal-mining employment in the Bluegrass State has plunged by more than
half in the past three decades, from 38,000 in 1983 to under 17,000 in 2012, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. (Nationally, there are 78,000 people
employed in coal mining—well less than half as many as are employed in oil and gas extraction, and not much more than the number of people employed in
logging.) To put that in perspective: the
auto manufacturing industry in Kentucky employs three times as many people as the
coal industry does today. When is the last time you heard pundits making grand predictions about how new autoindustry regulations would affect Kentucky “Car Country”? ¶ Now, there’s no question coal’s grip on politics in
Kentucky extends beyond actual employment figures—it is part of the state’s cultural identity, part of the holy trinity
that also includes horses and bourbon. That explains why, as the Times notes, a Republican congressional candidate recently savaged his
opponent for being anti-coal in a Kentucky district that has not a single coal-mining job in it. And in coal country, the economic impact of the
rules will reach beyond the mines themselves to all the residents and businesses who have come to rely on the
cheap electricity provided by coal (though it should be noted that the new rules give Kentucky and West Virginia more lenient targets for emissions
reductions than other states).¶ Still, we should not be surprised if the political fallout from the new rules proves less than
overwhelming. Just ask Mitt Romney. In 2012, he invested heavily in ads attacking Barack Obama as anti-coal as
part of his effort to win the swing states of Ohio and Virginia. This came to naught—perhaps because only a sliver of
people in either states are actually employed by the coal industry, about 3,000 in Ohio and 5,000 in Virginia. And it’s
not just the industry itself that’s underpopulated—“coal country” as a whole makes up a vanishingly small portion of
those states, as residents of southwestern Virginia and southeastern Ohio (never densely settled to begin with) have moved
elsewhere for work. As Slate's Dave Weigel notes, in 2012, Mitt Romney won Dickinson County in Virginia’s coal country by 24 points. But Dickinson
County voters cast fewer than 7,000 ballots. Meanwhile, Obama won by 44 points in the city of Norfolk, which has good reason to be more favorable toward
regulations intended to address climate change. And Norfolk cast nearly 77,000 votes. (The anti-Obama forces may have figured out the limits of coal-based
appeals: a robo-call attacking Democratic senator Mark Warner that is going up in Virginia attacking the new rules says, “Tell Mark Warner higher gas prices and
new EPA regulations just don't make sense for Virginia.” The new rules have nothing to do with gas prices, but hey, why let the facts stand in the way?)¶ None of
this is meant to minimize the economic pain that new limits on coal will inflict on Appalachian coal country. It’s just to note that the decline has been underway for
a very long time, driven by a combination of automation, the rise of easier-to-access Western coal in Wyoming and Montana’s Powder River Basin, restrictions
on mountaintop mining, and most of all, the new surge in cheap natural gas. “It’s not Obama’s war on coal. It’s reality’s war on coal. Natural gas turns out to be
better than coal in the marketplace,” Michael Lynch, an energy consultant, told the Times.¶ These
trends have left a part of the country that
was never well-off to begin with in seriously dire straits, and we should be doing everything we can to help it adjust.
But to do that will require recognition from the media and political elites that glib declarations about “coal country”
don’t apply the way they used to, because that coal country is gone.¶ Addendum, 1:30 p.m.: Over at The Upshot, Nate Cohn makes a
key related point: given how much Democratic support has declined in coal country in the past couple decades, the party has little left to lose with the new coal
rules.
A2 Obama Thumps
Democrats are shifting re-election strategies to avoid anti-Obama backlash
Parkermay 2014 (Democrats, to Counter G.O.P., Turn Their Focus to Local Issues for Midterms By ASHLEY
PARKERMAY 28, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/us/politics/senate-democrats-turn-focus-to-local-issuesfor-midterms.html?_r=0, bs)
WASHINGTON — In Senator Jeanne Shaheen’s first television ad of her re-election campaign, a Vietnam War veteran talks about how Ms. Shaheen, a
Democrat, “cut through the red tape” to help open a veterans clinic in Keene, N.H.¶ “Jeanne Shaheen,” the veteran concludes, in a thick New England accent,
“gets the job done for New Hampshire.”¶ A commercial for another Democratic senator, Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, features a Republican shipbuilder from
Lockport, La., talking about how the state cannot afford to lose Ms. Landrieu. “She’s chairman of the Energy Committee, the most powerful position a person can
have for Louisiana,” the builder says.¶ And Senator Mark Pryor, Democrat of Arkansas — where 57 percent of those who voted in the 2010 Senate race were
white evangelical or born-again Christians — ran an ad that opened with him holding the Bible as he said, “I’m not ashamed to say that I believe in God, and I
believe in his word.Ӧ If Republicans
are trying to nationalize the 2014 midterms, tying Democrats to President Obama and
his signature health care law, Democrats considered vulnerable are countering by going local, doubling down on
state-specific issues that are more typically the province of Republicans. Facing a hostile national climate — with Mr.
Obama’s approval rating stalled below 50 percent and that of Congress barely in double digits — Democrats say they
believe their path to victory hinges on a series of individual contests rather than a referendum on the president and
his policies. ¶ “The only people that can vote for me are people in Louisiana,” Ms. Landrieu said, “and I never forget that and try to come up here and work on
the issues they care about.”¶ In a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the “six-year itch,” the party that holds the White
House historically loses seats during the midterm elections of a president’s second term. For Democrats to perform
well in 2014, said Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, they will need to make the election about their particular
candidates, rather than the overall political environment. (The playbook is similar to the one Democrats ran in 2010, when control of the
Senate was also in play.)¶ “In red states, if this election is a referendum on the Democrats, we don’t do well,” Mr. Mellman said. “The people in these red
states have already made the party choice, and it’s not with us. But if our candidates can make it a personal choice
about them and their opponents, then we can win that.Ӧ In 2006, Democrats tried to nationalize the election, focusing on the unpopular Iraq
War under President George W. Bush. (“2006 was Iraq, Iraq, Iraq and nothing but Iraq,” said Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political
Report.) And in 2008, Democrats again seized on national issues, trying to ride Senator Barack Obama’s wave of hope and change while simultaneously
highlighting what they saw as the failures of Mr. Bush’s presidency.¶ But now, Democrats are going local. In Arkansas, for instance, Mr. Pryor has taken the
Democrats’ push for a federal minimum wage of $10.10 by 2015 and applied it to his state. While he does not support an increase in the federal minimum wage
to $10.10, he has supported an Arkansas ballot initiative that would increase the state’s minimum wage to $8.50 by 2017.¶ “He found that happy place,” Ms.
Duffy said, where he can back a more modest minimum wage increase in Arkansas and “say no to the president at the same time.”¶ In Kentucky, Alison
Lundergan Grimes, the Democratic Senate nominee, is painting her Republican opponent, Senator Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, as a figure of
entrenched Washington interests, having served in the Senate for nearly three decades. “I think the theme of our race certainly is Kentucky versus Washington,
and our ads reflect that,” said Jonathan Hurst, Ms. Grimes’s campaign manager. Mr. Hurst said that even many of the national Democratic issues — the
minimum wage, pay equity, violence against women — “are all things we’ve localized, and we’ve talked about how they affect the 120 counties across
Kentucky.”¶ Democrats’
internal research has found that one way to tell a compelling local story is through testimonials,
which are increasingly popping into their ads. The first commercial for Senator Al Franken’s re-election bid in Minnesota focuses on Elizabeth
Abraham, the owner of a small manufacturing business in the state who extols Mr. Franken’s work to help companies like hers.¶ “People are more
inclined to believe these individual stories than they are to believe big statistics,” said Geoff Garin, a Democratic
pollster. “Because there’s such a level of skepticism that has developed around political advertising, the power of a
personal testimonial is even greater now than in previous cycles.Ӧ
A2 Too Early
It’s not too early to affect midterm results
Cohn and Katz 2014 (MIDTERM CALCULUS¶ It’s Not Too Soon to Pay Attention to Senate Polling¶ JUNE 6,
2014¶ By Nate Cohn and Josh Katz, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/07/upshot/its-not-too-soon-to-pay-attention-tosenate-polling.html, bs)
Just five months until November’s midterm elections and already early polling results have countered some
expectations. In Arkansas, the Democrat Mark Pryor is showing surprising strength in a red state, and in North Carolina, Kay Hagan is trailing as an
incumbent in a battleground state. We won’t know how accurate polling is until after the election, so for now, the very relevant
question is, How much should we care about early polls?¶ The conventional wisdom holds that at this stage the so-called fundamentals of a
race, like the partisanship of a state and incumbency, are more predictive than the polls. That assumption is based on data from presidential election cycles, but
political scientists have not found, to our knowledge, any analogous research in Senate elections.¶ An
analysis of Senate contests since 1992
suggests, surprising as it may seem, that polls are at least as accurate as the fundamentals at this point in the cycle.
That’s because the fundamentals influencing Senate elections are already shaping public opinion .¶ In 114 Senate races
since 2004, 83 percent of the candidates leading in the polls at this point have gone on to win , compared with 80 percent of
candidates leading in the fundamentals alone. A full 92 percent of candidates ahead by 5 or more points in the polling averages
go on to win, compared with 82 percent ahead on the fundamentals.¶ For Forecasting Senate Elections, the Fundamentals Matter...¶ In Senate elections
since 2004, forecasts derived from the race fundamentals — non-polling variables like incumbency and fund-raising — account for 64% of the variation in the
final vote margin.¶ That doesn’t mean the fundamentals are useless, particularly in sparsely polled races. But the fundamentals contribute very little additional
information in highly polled Senate races. That’s one reason, in
states with a large number of polls, that The Upshot’s Senate
forecasting model relies almost exclusively on polling data rather than fundamentals.¶ ... but the Polls Matter Even More¶ In
Senate elections since 2004, the early June polling averages account for 77% of the variation in the final vote margin.¶ That might seem like a counterintuitive
finding. You’d
think, for instance, that early polls would be extremely unreliable, or that the fundamentals might be more
predictive than the early polls. Political scientists theorize that the campaigns draw voters toward the fundamentals
by pushing partisans into their respective corners, or, as often happens in presidential elections, reminding
undecided voters of national economic conditions.¶ But there are big differences between the fundamentals used in
state-level Senate predictions and those for national presidential campaigns. Those differences make it easy to
imagine why the polls would be more useful at this stage of a Senate race.¶ Forecasting a Senate race depends
heavily on information about the state or the candidates, like incumbency, fund-raising and candidate experience.
Those variables already influence the polls at this point of the race. You would see the benefits of incumbency, for instance, already
reflected in the polls, since the incumbent ought to enter the race with higher name recognition and popularity.¶ This helps explain why the
fundamentals add so little additional value: If an incumbent is underperforming the fundamentals, for instance, he or
she probably just isn’t popular or well known enough to take advantage of any benefits of incumbency.¶ There’s not much
reason to think that Ms. Hagan, the Democrat from North Carolina, will leap to an 8-point lead against Thom Tillis, as the fundamentals project she should if
voters suddenly remember that she’s the incumbent.¶ It’s possible to imagine that the polls might eventually move closer to some of the fundamentals, like the
partisan preferences of a state. But then again, a candidate doing better than what his or her party usually gets in a presidential election in that state might have
unusual cross-party appeal perhaps by breaking from the national party on important issues. That might be especially true in states with different voting patterns
in presidential and senatorial elections.¶ The
time frame of the data sets might be another explanation for the usefulness of early
Senate polling. The Upshot’s Senate model is based on Senate elections since 1992; the political science studies on presidential elections are usually
based on elections since 1948. It is possible that early polls are more predictive in today’s increasingly polarized political environment than in earlier years. In
presidential elections since 2004, polls from around June 1 have been fairly close to the eventual outcome.¶ And there is one more reason not to dismiss findings
from Senate elections in favor of presidential contests.
There have been 114 Senate races with polling since 2004, compared
with three presidential elections over that period. There have been a mere 17 presidential elections since 1948.
Senate contests represent a richer and more recent data set. Given what we’re learning about Senate forecasting, it
raises the possibility that early polls in presidential races are also more useful than commonly thought.
Aff Stuff
Midterms Don’t Matter
The 2014 Midterms won’t change anything, will just cause political stagnation
Silver 2014 (3:24 MAY 13 By NATE SILVER The 2014 Election Is the Least Important in Years
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-2014-election-is-the-least-important-in-years/, bs)
A Gallup poll released Monday found that just 35 percent of registered voters are more excited than usual about voting in November’s midterm
elections. That’s well down from 2010 and somewhat down from most other midterm years when Gallup has asked this question. Midterm
elections
normally generate less voter enthusiasm than presidential years, so this isn’t all that high a bar to clear.¶ It would be
easy to blame voters for their apathy, but perhaps they could use a breather. The past 14 years have featured a number of
exceptionally exciting elections with control of the federal government at stake. This year, it probably isn’t.¶ It’s extremely unlikely Democrats will
win back the U.S. House in November. The party that’s in the White House very rarely gains seats in midterm
elections, and Democrats also face headwinds because there are far fewer swing districts than there used to be. It
would take a very strong Democratic year for them to win back the House, and the political climate for Democrats
appears to be somewhere between fair and middling (with some chance that could turn into an outright poor year for them).¶ Of course,
President Obama will control the White House through 2016. So, there will be a Democratic president and, almost certainly, a Republican check on Obama’s
power in the Congress. The Senate is very much in play. But a GOP-controlled
Senate would be somewhat redundant. Republicans
already exercise a “veto” on Obama’s power in the House and, with party-line voting and political polarization near
their all-time highs, this suffices to make Obama a lame duck except on initiatives he can pass through the executive
branch alone.¶ That isn’t to say that Senate control doesn’t matter at all. It certainly matters in the long run. In 2016, the Senate landscape isn’t
favorable to Republicans, as they’ll have to defend seats in a number of blue states they won in the GOP wave year
of 2010. Unless they make considerable gains this year, they’re unlikely to have much of a shot of controlling the
Senate after 2016.¶ Furthermore, the Senate has the sole authority in Congress to approve Supreme Court nominations, along with Cabinet appointments
and treaties. There’s the prospect of Ruth Bader Ginsburg or another justice retiring within the next two-and-a-half years.¶ Nor does this say anything
about the races in states and localities, which account for about 40 percent of all government spending in the U.S.,
and which provide the farm systems that allow parties to develop future presidential and congressional candidates.
The gubernatorial races in a number of large states, including Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, appear to be very competitive.¶ This is not
an election without consequences. It’s just that the consequences are a little lower than the ones that we may be used to.¶ The table below documents the
disposition of the federal government after each election since 1980: which party controlled the White House, and whether the opposition party exercised a check
on power by holding at least one branch of Congress.¶ silver-fed-control¶ Seven of the past 11 federal elections have featured changes in power: 1992, 1994,
2000, 2002, 2006, 2008 and 2010.¶ The exceptions were 1996, 1998, 2004 and 2012. But in 2012, it was plausible for Republicans to win the presidency; the
FiveThirtyEight forecast model gave them about a 40 percent chance of doing so in May 2012. It was also plausible the GOP would win the Senate, until the
party faded late in the race.¶ The 2004 election was parallel to 2012 in some ways. The presidential election was close, and the Republican edge in the Senate
was thin heading into the election year. It’s less clear whether Democrats had much of a chance of taking the House in 2004, but they had reasonable odds of
winning a check on George W. Bush’s power in some way.¶ The late-1990s elections were duller. As the economy gained steam in the mid-1990s, Bill Clinton
became a fairly clear favorite to retain the presidency in 1996. Democrats gained a couple seats in the House, but not nearly enough to retake the majority. And
they lost a net of two seats in the Senate, despite Clinton’s re-election.¶ In 1998, after the Republican Party grew unpopular in the wake of the Clinton
impeachment trial, Democrats had some hope of winning the House. Democrats wound up gaining a few seats — far better than parties usually do in midterm
years — but that may have been toward the upper bound of their plausible performances. The Senate, where the Democrats needed to gain five seats while
defending more seats than the GOP, was another problem.¶ But relatively sleepy election years like 1996 and 1998 were fairly common in the past. The parties
were in a long stalemate between 1980 and 1992, with Republicans controlling the presidency and Democrats retaining a large edge in the House.¶ Back then, at
least, the parties behaved in a more bipartisan fashion. So the outcomes were less binary, and the margins of control in the House and the Senate mattered
more. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush were far from being lame ducks at this time in their tenures.¶ The caution, of course, is that all of this is easier with
the benefit of hindsight. In 1994, voter enthusiasm was initially fairly low. But it proved to be a monumental year as Republicans regained the House for the first
time since 1955. Even
then, however, polling showed the GOP with a chance to win the House fairly early in the year, so
its win didn’t come out of nowhere.¶ Perhaps the polls are missing a Democratic wave that will make the House
competitive in November. Otherwise, the consequences of this year’s federal elections are mostly in how they’ll set
up 2016, and not how they’ll affect Washington in the interim.¶ By all means, go out and vote! Just be skeptical if you
hear that 2014 is the most important election of your lifetime, as parties, pundits and politicians almost always claim
sooner or later. This election isn’t so special.
A2 EPA Regulations
New Regulations don’t resolve climate change.
Kappenberger 2014 (Paul C. Knappenberger, assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the
Cato Institute, June 03, 2014, EPA’s Regulations Will Not Mitigate Climate Change,
http://www.insidesources.com/epas-regulations-will-not-mitigate-climate-change/)
On Monday, the EPA announced a set of ambitious, and potentially onerous new regulations aimed at reducing the
carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants in the U.S. by 30% by the year 2030. The regulations are part of
President Obama’s plan to “lead by example” when it comes to tackling climate change. But there is an underlying
scientific truth that the EPA and President Obama do not want to reveal. The effort, no matter how large, to restrict
carbon dioxide emissions from the U.S. will have no scientifically detectable impact of the future course of the
weather and climate at any scale, global, regional, or local. So it doesn’t matter whether the EPA proposes
regulations to reduce power plant emissions by 30% by 2030, or by 50%, or even 100% by tomorrow. Aside from the
varying degrees of economic and social chaos that will arise, the impact on the climate will be the same. None. The
same is true for the impact on the weather. The future will still hold all manner of extreme events like tornadoes,
hurricanes, droughts floods, heat waves and blizzards. And nobody will be able to detect any change in their
characteristics resulting from the EPA actions to restrict carbon dioxide emissions. This is not because carbon
dioxide emissions from human activities don’t add a pressure for the earth’s temperature to rise; they do. But it is
because the level of natural noise in the climate system is high, and because the relative U.S. contribution to the
global carbon dioxide emissions total is meager and in rapid decline. The days of carbon dioxide emissions from the
U.S. and other developed countries dominating the world’s total are behind us. Going forward, it is the developing
nations like China and India and their efforts to bring improved energy access to their large populations that have the
greatest impact on future climate change. For example, mainstream projections of climate change between now and
the end of the century are for the earth’s average surface temperature to increase by about 2.5°C. Of that rise, about
2.2°C is expected to come from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from the developing world. Of
the remaining 0.3°C of projected temperature rise, the U.S. portion is expected to be about half of that, or about
0.15°C. That’s it. That’s all the warming that the President and the EPA are able to thwart. But they are not keen on
telling you that. They avoid talking about how much future climate change the new regulations will avert, and instead,
throw out some impressive-sounding numbers about aspects other than the climate. For example, in introducing the
new regulations, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said that by 2030, the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions
resulting from the regulations would be “like cancelling out annual carbon pollution from two-thirds of all cars and
trucks in America.” What she didn’t tell you was that according to the EPA’s own models, two-thirds of all the cars
and trucks in America contribute much less than one one-thousandth of a degree of global warming per year. This
number is impressive as well—impressively tiny. So much so, that you begin to wonder as to the overall net result of
the EPA regulations. With such an insignificant impact on the climate, they certainly will not lead to safeguarding the
“health of our kids” through climate change mitigation, as President Obama likes to say. In fact, I am pretty sure that
we’ll do this job whether or not the climate is changing. They certainly will lead to higher energy prices—which drives
the price of everything else up. Job losses will almost assuredly follow. And there is the potential for increasing the
risk to the reliability of our energy supply—which would increase the risk for negative health consequences. In fact,
as far as most analysts can see (aside from those in the EPA), the risk for negative outcomes from these regulations
exceeds positive ones. There is a subtle distinction between setting an example and being made an example of. By
pursuing the former, the President and the EPA are liable to achieve the latter.
Thumpers
Only the economy matters – everything else is at the bottom of the list (+GOP favored)
Mataconis 5-20 (2014, Doug, Senior Editor, Outside the Beltway, private practice attorney, concentrating civil
litigation and commercial debt collection “The Midterms and the Economy: Bad News for Democrats?”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-midterms-and-the-economy-bad-news-for-democrats/)
A new Gallup poll presents some potentially bad news for Democrats headed into the 2014 midterms: Nearly nine out
of 10 voters say the economy will be “extremely” or “very” important to their vote for Congress in the midterm
elections, a good sign for Republicans who have slight advantage over Democrats on the issue, a new Gallup poll shows.
Forty-eight percent of voters say they think Republicans in Congress would do a better job of dealing with the economy, while 43 percent favor Democrats.
Eighty-nine percent of voters say the economy will be “extremely” or “very” important in their midterm vote for Congress. According to the poll, the
next four
issues considered important by voters are the budget deficit, taxes, health care reform, and income inequality.
Democrats have the upper edge with voters when it comes to health care and income inequality, but Republicans have the advantage on taxes and the deficit.
This isn’t entirely surprising, of course. Exit polls for pretty much every Presidential and midterm election going back decades shows that, outside of odd years in
which a foreign policy issue of some sort has dominated the headlines, the issue on the top of voters minds when they enter the voting booth is the economy and
the myriad of issues related to it such as taxes and the budget deficit. The party deemed by voters to have better ideas on that issue is the one that ends up with
the polling advantage heading into the election and, more often than not, the one that ends up winning the election. If that holds up as we head toward
November, then 2014 could ends up being a problematic year for Democrats. Additionally, as this chart shows, the
issues where Republicans have
the advantage are considered more important by voters at this time than the issues on which Democrats the
advantage: Perhaps most significantly, the issues that many, myself included, have stated numerous times are trouble
spots for Republicans — immigration, marriage equality, and global warming — are very far down the list when it
comes to issues that voters are saying will be important to them when they decide who they’re going to vote for in
November. This suggests a few things. First of all, poll results like this make it less likely that Republicans in Congress will feel compelled to act on
immigration reform before the midterm elections. Second, it seems unlikely that Democrats will be successful in using issues such as these as “wedge issues”
against Republicans in close races for the House or Senate. Finally, poll results like this tend to make the arguments of those who argue that the GOP has to
change its position these issues weaker, at least in the short term. As has almost always been the case in national elections, it
is the economy that’s
going to drive the narrative in 2014, and if this poll is to be believed then that poses a potential problem for Democratic
candidates.
Jobs, the economy and debt supercede environmental issues in elections.
Harsanyi 5/9 (2014, David, senior editor at The Federalist, Real Clear Politics, “Environmentalists Have Lost the
Climate Change Debate”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/05/09/environmentalists_have_lost_the_climate_change_debate_1225
83.html)
Now, you can try to guilt trip everyone into compliance. You can batter people with distressing hypothetical scenarios. You can "educate" them on the issue from
kindergarten onward. You can mainstream an array of Luddite ideas. You can browbeat society so no one ever utters a word of skepticism. But we still want to
drive our cars everywhere. Yes, when asked, Americans perfunctorily tell pollsters that climate change matters to them. A recent Pew Research Center poll
found that 40 percent of Americans believe that climate change is a major threat. A Gallup poll survey found that about a third of Americans personally worry
about climate change. But when
they're not asked specifically about global warming, voters never bring the topic up. Their
most important concerns are the economy, jobs and debt. There is always strong support for the abstract idea of
environmental regulation and "clean energy," but when it comes to some concrete policy, it is nearly always unpopular. Few
people want to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Few people support new emissions regulations. And I doubt that another scaremongery study will change that
reality.
Obama’s foreign policy goofs will tank democrats at the Midterms
Zelizer 2014 (Will Democrats pay a price for Bergdahl deal? By Julian Zelizer, CNN Contributor, 06/09/2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/opinion/zelizer-bergdahl-democrats-midterms/, bs)
More recently, the controversies shifted to the President's broader vision or lack thereof. Republicans found a lot to dislike in his
address at West Point, where Obama indicated that the nation should step back from using military power as freely as it has done in the past.¶ Soon after came
the news about the release of Bergdahl, in exchange for the release of five notorious Taliban prisoners. Republicans
were quick to accuse the
President of negotiating with terrorists. They have also accused him of violating the law by failing to inform Congress
of the impending deal.¶ Hillary, Obama and "Mean Girls" Has Bergdahl impacted the Obama 'brand'? Obama reaffirms US support for Ukraine¶ Even
though Democrats point to a number of huge accomplishments during the Obama presidency -- the killing of Osama bin Laden, the drawdown of the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and diplomatic initiatives to bring nuclear disarmament in Iran without bloodshed -- the critics have upped their volume.¶ All
of the
recent stories add up to the potential for foreign policy to emerge as a potent issue in the midterm campaigns this fall.
Congressional Democrats could suffer as a result of the unhappiness with the administration's policies. Even though
midterm elections generally focus on bread and butter questions about the health of the economy, as well as local
concerns, there are times when foreign policy can hurt the party of the president.¶ In 1966, for instance, Republicans campaigned
against Lyndon Johnson's policies in Vietnam. GOP officials such as former Vice President Richard Nixon said that Johnson was not unleashing enough force
against the North Vietnamese Communists and leaving U.S. troops in a quagmire. In 1978, Republicans railed against President Jimmy Carter for his alleged
weakness in foreign policy, claiming that he gave away too much in the Panama Canal Treaties and that he was pursuing a dangerous policy of détente with the
Soviet Union.¶ In 1982, Democrats, who were generally focused on the recession, also spoke in favor of a nuclear freeze and warned that President Ronald
Reagan's embrace of the military was bringing the nation close to war. More recently, Republicans blasted Democrats in 2002 for being weak on defense after
having not supported the administration's homeland security bill. And in 2006, Democratic candidates returned the favor by criticizing the president's war in Iraq
as a reckless, unnecessary and extremely costly operation that had actually undermined the war on terrorism.¶ While foreign policy carried different levels of
weight in these midterms, in some of these contests, such as 1966 and 2006, the administration's actions overseas dismayed voters.¶ Will
foreign policy
play a factor in the 2014 midterms? It is unlikely that it will be a major issue but there are ways it could have an indirect effect on
the ballot box and cause trouble for Democrats when Americans turn out to vote.¶ At the most immediate level, the foreign
policy controversy has already distracted the news media from other kinds of stories upon which congressional
Democrats were hoping to focus. The foreign policy controversy intensified just as there was evidence that the
economy was picking up steam and that the Obama's health care program was gaining strength. Both signs of
accomplishment were put on the back burner, overshadowed by the Bergdahl debate.¶ The stories also feed the
perception of some voters who feel that Democrats have not done a good job managing government. This is a White
House that once prided itself on competence. Obama, a well-educated politician who surrounded himself with bright staff, vowed to avoid the
kind of mismanagement that had been on display with Hurricane Katrina during President George W. Bush's term. But that reputation has slowly
been undercut, especially after the botched health care website rollout and the VA scandal. Some of the coverage of
the foreign policy, including recent reports on how the deal with the Taliban was handled, have played into these
kinds of criticism. The New York Times published a lengthy piece about the diminishing returns that Obama was able to obtain over the past several years
in exchange for the release of the Taliban 5 and evidence of how his team had mishandled the process.¶ The Berghdal deal is also becoming a way to question
the veracity of Democratic promises.¶ Members of Congress, in both parties, have alleged that Obama violated the law by ignoring a federal statute that says the
president must inform Congress one month before such a deal is completed. They have said he is acting exactly like Bush, whom he had accused of discounting
legislative intent through sweeping notions of executive power.¶ The
foreign policy debate puts into focus the argument that Obama, as
well as the party he leads, lacks a bold vision. This is something that has even frustrated many Democrats who feel that the President is too
much of pragmatist and not enough of a visionary. The speech at West Point fell flat for some Americans because it almost seemed focus on excusing what he
couldn't do rather outlining what he wants to do.¶ During his visit to the Philippines, the President explained his outlook on foreign policy by saying, "You hit
singles, you hit doubles; every once in a while you may be able to hit a home run."¶ The debate over foreign policy helps Republicans by riling up the party's base
at an opportune time, five months before the election, while at the same time dispiriting the Democrats. Yes, voters
are thinking primarily about
how they're faring in today's economy, but on the margins, their perception of their local candidate's views on foreign
policy could be a factor in November.
National Politics Aren’t Key
National Policies aren’t key to senate races – local issues outweigh
WSJ 5/12 (2014, Wall Street Journal writer Gerald F. Seib “For Democrats, Midterm Peril Lies in the Public's Mood”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB100014240527023038518
04579557700794550322)
Also, the race for control of the Senate isn't a national election. It consists of 12 to 14 key statewide races, each with
its own dynamic in which national sentiments matter but aren't definitive. National mood tends to heavily influence
House races in swing districts, but Senate contests are more self-contained campaigns in which the personalities and
strengths of individual candidates matter more.
Obama not key to Senate races – state issues trump
Jackson 2/12/14 (David, USA Today, "Obama might be Democrats' biggest burden," lexis)
Matt Canter, deputy executive director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said the 2014 races will
be decided at the state-by-state level. "Senate races are not a referendum on the president, or on any one
single issue," Canter said. "Each of these races are a choice between the two people on the ballot."¶ As November
approaches, Republicans are widely considered heavy favorites to retain control of the House, where they now enjoy
a 232-200 advantage.¶ Most of the attention is on Senate races. Democrats enjoy a 55-45 advantage, including two
Independents who caucus with them. Republicans would have to win a plurality of six seats in order to claim a
majority.
Single Issues Won’t Affect Midterms
Single issues aren’t key – Obama needs a series of fortunate events
LATimes 14 (May 9, Maeve Reston and Kathleen Hennessey “Obama hopes to win over voters with renewed
focus on climate change” http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-environment-20140510-story.html#page=1)
The White House said it believes its climate push speaks to voters across the spectrum. "For voters, any time you're taking an action that cuts pollution, it is as
close as you can come to a position that has broad and deep appeal across the board," said one White House official, who would not be named talking about the
politics of what the administration said was a policy effort. The
official said the message resonated with some of the groups that
Democrats are most worried may sit out the election — particularly young people, who view acceptance of climate
change as a threshold issue. A number of pollsters and political scientists said, however, that the approach has its limits. Many noted that
the voters who would be most excited by Obama's renewed focus on climate change formed a sliver of the
electorate. "There is a group of people who are intensely interested in climate change, but as a percentage of the American population, they're pretty small,"
said Arthur Lupia, a political science professor at the University of Michigan. Only 29% of Americans believe global warming should be a top priority for the
president and Congress, and it ranked second to last on a list of 20 issues, a Pew Research Center survey found this year. But a Gallup poll in March found that
about 70% of 18- to 29-year-olds said they either worried a "fair amount" or a "great deal" about climate change. Though young people tend to care more about
the issue, John
Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard University Institute of Politics, noted that their "mood is
so sour when it comes to politics and voting, frankly for both parties right now, that it's unlikely that one issue
will make a significant difference." At the same time, Della Volpe said, "There could be a series of these kinds of events
between now and October where [the president] re-establishes a connection with this generation" and reinforces the
notion "that there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans."
Environment Not Key
No link – voters don’t care about environmental policies
Lowery 3/13 (2014, Wesley, The Washington Post, Political Reporter, “Voters aren’t (really) all that worried right
now about climate change” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/13/voters-arent-really-all-thatworried-right-now-about-climate-change/)
A new Gallup poll, however, illuminates yet another reason why the Senate Democrats climate change push failed to catch
on: Right now, voters just aren't that worried about the environment. In the survey, conducted March 6-9, only 24 percent of
Americans say that climate change is something they worry about "a great deal" — ranking it near the bottom of the list of 15
political issues. As has been consistently been the case in recent years, voters say that the issues most important to them are the economy,
federal spending and health care. Also included in the survey was a question about how worried Americans are about the environment, and just 31
percent of those polled said that they are worried "a great deal" — the lowest level of worry about the environment since
Gallup began asking about it in 2001. "Concerns about the environment typically rank low among all Americans, but the current level of
worry is even lower than in the past," Gallup wrote in its analysis of the poll results. "It is unclear whether or to what extent the senators' actions
Monday will raise Americans' concern about climate change or the environment. But unless Americans' concern increases, the likelihood of
the public's support for significant legislative action on environmental matters is small."
No link - Plan can’t invigorate dems - Environmental policy doesn’t get votes
Mead 2/24 (2014, Walter Russell and Staff, James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at
Bard College and Editor-at-Large of The American Interest magazine, The American Interest, “Politics Out of Focus:
Congress & America’s Diverging Priorities” http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/02/23/congressamericas-diverging-priorities/)
It is particularly interesting that the
previously hot button issues of the environment and energy policy both fall under the “low
priority” category. Here is the clearest reason why the Green policy is such a botch: Americans don’t care, and to the extent that they do care,
they’re mostly fine with the status quo. This is further evidence of the greens’ utter failure to craft a message that appeals to votersCertainly, the
Greens won’t be too happy to hear that.