1NC
The GOP is winning now—key issues swing the election
Enten July 18 (Harry; voters are rational in midterm elections; fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/voters-arerational-in-midterm-elections/; kdf)
There are currently only four issues listed as “most important” by at least 10 percent of Americans:
general dissatisfaction with government, the economy, jobs and immigration. On these issues, voters are fairly split
per the latest polling. Some surveys show Democrats ahead, and some favor the GOP. For example, the most recent CBS News Poll found that
more people thought Republicans would do a better job on the economy, and the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll asked the same
question but had Democrats ahead. Will voters be rational this year? It seems so. If
the current numbers on trust hold through
the election, it would imply nearly a 3 percentage-point advantage for Republicans in the national House
vote. That nearly matches the vote implied by congressional and presidential approval ratings. The generic ballot gives Democrats a 1-point
edge, though, as I have pointed out, the generic ballot generally moves against the president’s party over an election year. The most
important issues question does not suggest that Republicans will have a huge wind at their back in 2014,
but it matches other indicators showing the GOP will have a somewhat favorable environment. That
could make a difference in close Senate races.
[Insert Link]
GOP Victory key to stable Asia Pivot
Keck ‘14
Zachary is the Managing Editor of the Diplomat, “The Midterm Elections and the Asia Pivot,”
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-midterm-elections-and-the-asia-pivot/ , kk
There is a growing sense in the United States that when voters go to the polls this November, the Republican Party will win enough Senate
seats to control both houses of Congress. This would potentially introduce more gridlock into an already dysfunctional American political
system.¶ But it needn’t be all doom and gloom for U.S. foreign policy, including in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, the
Republicans wrestling
control of the Senate from the Democrats this November could be a boon for the U.S. Asia pivot. This is true for
at least three reasons.¶ First, with little prospect of getting any of his domestic agenda through Congress, President Barack Obama will naturally
focus his attention on foreign affairs. Presidents in general have a tendency to focus more attention on foreign policy during their second term,
and this effect is magnified if the other party controls the legislature. And for good reason: U.S. presidents have far more latitude to take
unilateral action in the realm of foreign affairs than in domestic policy. Additionally, the 2016 presidential election will consume much of the
country’s media’s attention on domestic matters. It’s only when acting on the world stage that the president will still be able to stand taller in
the media’s eyes than the candidates running to for legislative office.¶ Second, should
the Democrats get pummeled in the
midterm elections this year, President Obama is likely to make some personnel changes in the White House
and cabinet. For instance, after the Republican Party incurred losses in the 2006 midterms, then-President George W. Bush quickly
moved to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the less partisan (at least in that era) Robert Gates. Obama followed
suit by making key personnel changes after the Democrats “shellacking” in the 2010 midterm elections.¶ Should the
Democrats face a similar fate in the 2014 midterm elections, Obama is also likely to make notable personnel changes. Other aides, particular
former Clinton aides, are likely to leave the administration early in order to start vying for spots on Hillary Clinton’s presumed presidential
campaign. Many of these changes are likely to be with domestic advisors given that domestic issues are certain to decide this year’s elections.
Even so, many nominally domestic positions—such as Treasury and Commerce Secretary—have important implications for U.S. policy in Asia.
Moreover, some
of the post-election changes are likely be foreign policy and defense positions, which
bodes well for Asia given the appalling lack of Asia expertise among Obama’s current senior advisors.¶ But
the most important way a Republican victory in November will help the Asia Pivot is that the GOP in Congress are actually more
favorable to the pivot than are members of Obama’s own party. For example, Congressional opposition to granting
President Trade Promotional Authority — which is key to getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership ratified — is largely from Democratic legislators.
Similarly, it is
the Democrats who are largely in favor of the defense budget cuts that threaten to
undermine America’s military posture in Asia.¶ If Republicans do prevail in November, President Obama will
naturally want to find ways to bridge the very wide partisan gap between them. Asia offers the perfect
issue area to begin reaching across the aisle.¶ The Republicans would have every incentive to reciprocate
the President’s outreach. After all, by giving them control of the entire Legislative Branch, American voters will be expecting some
results from the GOP before they would be ostensibly be ready to elect them to the White House in 2016. A Republican failure to
achieve anything between 2014 and 2016 would risk putting the GOP in the same dilemma they faced in
the 1996 and 2012 presidential elections. Working with the president to pass the TPP and strengthen America’s military’s posture in Asia
would be ideal ways for the GOP to deliver results without violating their principles.¶ Thus, while the president will work tirelessly between now
and November to help the Democrats retain the Senate, he should also prepare for failure by having a major outreach initiative to
Congressional Republicans ready on day one. This initiative should be Asia-centric.
Asia Pivot Key to Asian stability- key presence
Munoz 13
Carlos, “Donilon: US remains 'all in' on shift to Asia, March-11, “http://thehill.com/blogs/defconhill/policy-and-strategy/287377-donilon-us-remains-all-in-on-shift-to-asia-#ixzz2YD4zH0FP ///cmf
The Obama administration remains fully committed to seeing though the Pentagon's proposed strategic
shift from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Asia-Pacific region, a top White House official
said this week. ¶ "President Obama has been clear about the future that the United States seeks . . .
when it comes to the Asia-Pacific, the United States is 'all in,'" National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon said
during a speech at the Asia Society in New York on Monday. ¶ President Obama announced the strategic shift to Asia last February, as
part of the administration's realignment of national security priorities for a post-Afghanistan and post-Iraq world. ¶ However, the
recent rise of Islamic extremists groups in North and West Africa have prompted some inside the beltway to question whether a
strategic shift to the Pacific is the right move. ¶ On Monday, Donilon pushed back on such assertions, arguing Asia's influence on the
world stage will only increase in the coming years. ¶ According to Donilon, nearly half of all economic growth and subsequent global
politicall influence will emanate from regional Pacific powers over the next five years. ¶ That growth, he added, "is fueling powerful
geopolitical forces that are reshaping the region" including China’s ascent as a world power, North Korea's continued pursuit of nuclear
weapons and India's expanding influence in South Asia and beyond. ¶ "These changes are unfolding at a time when Asia’s economic,
diplomatic and political rules of the road are still taking shape," he added. "The stakes for people on both sides of the Pacific are
profound." ¶ Recognizing that sea change of global influence based in the Asia-Pacific region, the
Obama administration
has taken great strides to solidify the United States' position in that corner of the world, according
to Donilon.¶ "Perhaps most telling [of] this rebalance is reflected in the most valuable commodity in
Washington, the President’s time ," he said. ¶ The Obama administration officials have held bilateral talks with each
regional partner in the Pacific, as well as fully participated in the multilateral summits held by the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations. ¶ Specifically, the White House has engaged "at an unprecedented pace" with Washington's counterparts in China, holding
formal and informal talks with Beijing on a slew of regional security issued, according to Donilon. ¶ "The United States welcomes the
We do not want our relationship to become defined by rivalry and
confrontation," Donilon said, reiterating the administration's line on the Asian powerhouse. ¶ "There is nothing
preordained about such an outcome," he said regarding a possible boiling over of tensions
between Washington and Beijing. ¶ China took a step forward toward that burgeoning relationship with the United
rise of a peaceful, prosperous China.
States, backing Washington on new United Nations sanctions against North Korea's nuclear program.¶ In response, Pyongyang on
Monday officially nullified the 1953 armistice deal with the United States that ended the Korean War. Since North and South Korea are
still technically at war, it remains to be seen if the decision will result in conflict breaking out on the peninsula. ¶ However tensions
continue over Beijing's continued efforts to launch cyberattacks against American government and commercial networks. ¶ In
February, security firm Mandiant released a report on Chinese cyberwarfare capabilities, claiming elite military unit of Chinese hackers
have been working to break into U.S. networks from their headquarters in Shanghai. ¶ Weeks after the Mandiant report, Senate
intelligence committee chair Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said classified intelligence documents supported the claims made by the
security firm. ¶ Despite those reports, Donilon said the
United States continued cooperation with Beijing and
its influence in Asia is and will be key to maintaining stability among the regional Pacific
powers. ¶ "The region’s success . . . and the United States’ security and prosperity in the 21st century,
still depend
on the presence and engagement of the United States in Asia," he said. " We are a resident
Pacific power, resilient and indispensable."
Asian instability escalates to global nuclear war
Landay, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, 2K
(Jonathan S., “Top administration officials warn stakes for U.S. are high in Asian conflicts”, 3-10, Knight
Ridder/Tribune News) Accessed on LexisNexis 12-29-09
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan
are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt
the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear
weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations,
negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in
Cold War Europe. "Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile," said
Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "We see the convergence of
great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements
for potential disaster." In an effort to cool the region's tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National
Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia's capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There
are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States
would instantly become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked
South Korea. While Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a
conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and
demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has
made a stable Asia _ with its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources _
indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that
totaled $600 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.
Uniqueness
86% GOP Win
Best data shows that there is an 87 percent chance that the GOP wins the Senate
Sides July 15 (John; New election lab forecast suggests 86 percent chance that GOP wins Senate;
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/15/new-election-lab-forecast-suggests-86percent-chance-that-gop-wins-senate/; kdf)
Election Lab, our midterm elections forecast, has been updated with a host of new features, including —
most importantly — an updated forecast. Our model currently gives Republicans an 86 percent chance
of winning a Senate majority. Among Election Lab’s new features are a new balance-of-power bar that
compares the forecast to the current Senate make-up, a view of both the House and Senate map that
isolates seats expected to change hands, drop-down menus that take you to any race, and the ability to
share individual races via social media.
GOP Wins- Generic
GOP wins Senate- field and demographics ensure
Cook 6-23
Charlie is Director of the Cook Political Report and a National Journal Columnist, “In No Mood for
Trophies,” kk http://cookpolitical.com/story/7473 , kk
In politics and polling, as in real estate, underwater or “upside down” approval ratings are not a good thing for an elected
official. Moreover, in the case of a president heading into a midterm election, with the midterm often said to be a referendum on the
incumbent president, this is a bad thing for the president’s party.
Every point decline creates just a bit more headwind
against Democratic candidates facing difficult races across the country. Specifically, this makes the challenge even more onerous for the
Democratic candidates where the party is defending U.S. Senate seats in the six states that Mitt Romney
carried by 14 points or more in 2012: incumbents Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and
appointed Sen. John Walsh in Montana, along with Democratic candidates in open seats in South Dakota and West Virginia. While that is
somewhat self-evident—a
lot of people talk about the Democratic challenge in holding onto their Senate
majority—it seems that this problem is often understated. Persuading people who disapprove of a sitting president to
still vote for a Senate candidate of that president’s party is a real challenge in a midterm election.¶ Compounding this problem for Democrats is
the makeup of the midterm electorate. This midterm-voting group is older, whiter, more conservative, and more
Republican than those who turn out in a presidential election. Young and minority voters who flocked to the polls in 2008 and 2012 are very
difficult to motivate for a Democratic candidate who very clearly isn’t Barack Obama. They got revved up for Obama in a presidential election
year, but can endangered Democrats now get these voters excited for them in a midterm as well? The opposition is galvanized, but getting
these more sporadic voters to turn out is far harder.¶ Those
on a level playing field, are
badly mistaken.
who seem to think that this election is a fair fight, taking place
GOP Wins-Upshot Model
GOP wins- upshot model agrees
The Upshot 6-25
The Upshot is the New York Times Quantative Election forecast and website, “Who Will Win the
Senate,” http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/ , kk
Who Will Win The Senate?¶ According to our statistical election-forecasting machine, the Republicans have a slight edge,
with about a 58% chance of gaining a majority.
Upshot model is best- combines fundamentals and polls
Wang 5-27
Sam is Associate Professor of Microbiology at Princeton and runs Princeton’s Election Consortium, “The
War of the Senate Models,” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-war-of-the-senatemodels-107132.html#.U6i-9fldWGn , kk
Type 2: Polls only. Once we have a sufficient amount of polling data, fundamentals lose their importance for prediction purposes. All the
fundamentals are naturally baked into the polling data. Even today, about 160 days before the election, polls are fairly predictive, and are
enough by themselves to form a clear snapshot of the current state of play. The
Upshot is closer to a Type 2 model. It focuses on
polling data, using fundamentals about candidate quality and national trendsto set expectations for how
voter sentiment might change between now and the election. (This is an excellent approach to combining polls with
fundamentals, one that was pioneered by Drew Linzer’s Votamatic.) The Upshot’s method is likely to be more accurate
than the others, though the Monkey Cage does plan to update its model to reflect new polling data.
GOP Wins-Silver
GOP wins the Senate
Silver 6-8
Nate is the founder of fivethirtyeight, “Toss up or Tilt GOP,”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast-toss-up-or-tilt-gop/ , kk
We last issued a U.S. Senate forecast in mid-March. Not a lot has changed since then.¶ The Senate playing field remains fairly broad. There are
10 races where we give each party at least a 20 percent chance of winning,1 so there is a fairly wide range of possible outcomes. But all but two
of those highly competitive races (the two exceptions are Georgia and Kentucky) are in states that are currently held by Democrats.
Furthermore, there
are three states — South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana2 — where Democratic incumbents
are retiring, and where Republicans have better than an 80 percent chance of making a pickup, in our view.¶
So it’s almost certain that Republicans are going to gain seats. The question is whether they’ll net the six pickups
necessary to win control of the Senate. If the Republicans win only five seats, the Senate would be split 50-50 but Democrats would continue to
control it because of the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Joseph Biden.¶ Our March forecast projected a Republicans gain of 5.8 seats. You’ll
no doubt notice the decimal place; how can a party win a fraction of a Senate seat? It can’t, but our forecasts are probabilistic; a gain of 5.8
seats is the total you get by summing the probabilities from each individual race. Because 5.8 seats is closer to six (a Republican takeover) than
five (not quite), we characterized the GOP as a slight favorite to win the Senate.¶ The
new forecast is for a Republican gain of
5.7 seats. So it’s shifted ever so slightly — by one-tenth of a seat — toward being a toss-up. Still, if asked to place a bet at even
odds, we’d take a Republican Senate.¶
Silver is the best
Terdiman ’12
Daniel is a Senior Writer at CNET, “Among the Top Election Quants, Nate Silver Reigns Supreme,”
http://www.cnet.com/news/among-the-top-election-quants-nate-silver-reigns-supreme/ , kk
While there's already been whole swimming pools of ink devoted to the Election Day prediction performance of polling aggregators like
FiveThirtyEight blogger Nate Silver, CNET is ready to hand out one more round of kudos to the king of the quants.¶ By now, anyone following
the presidential election knows that Silver
successfully predicted the winner in the race between President Barack Obama and
former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in all 50 states. That performance was one for the ages , earning him
worldwide admiration and validating a polling aggregation model that had drawn mockery and ire from many pundits.
GOP Wins- Candidates
GOP Wins Senate- Quality candidates and environment
Davis 6-4
Susan is a Columnist for USA Today, “2014 Senate Landscape Tilts in GOP’s Favor,”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/04/primaries-mississippi-iowa-gopsenate/9976487/ , kk
Contests are set in nearly half the states for November's elections, and with few contested primary elections remaining on the calendar,
Republicans are enjoying clear advantages in their quest for a Senate takeover.¶ "The environment is
really good right now, and the quality of candidates is superior," said Scott Reed, a veteran GOP strategist and senior
political aide at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "These are the best candidates I've seen in 32 years. With a good environment
and good candidates, it's a good combination. We like where we are."¶ Five months out from Election Day, Republicans have largely
avoided the same mistakes of the two previous election cycles in which the party nominated lackluster candidates who
cost the party winnable seats in Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Missouri and Nevada.
GOP wins- New Issues
GOP wins- new issues going against Presidnet
Podhoretz 6-24
John is a Columnist for Commentary and the New York Post, “Donkey’s Disaster? Obama’s Policies May
Doom Dems,” http://nypost.com/2014/06/24/donkeys-disaster-obamas-policies-may-doom-dems/ , kk
Are we seeing a full-scale Democratic Party meltdown? We might be.¶ The most recent polling
shows the president at all-time
lows. This matters because presidential approval has, in the past, been a key factor in the results of midterm
elections.¶ The Democratic Party is using every bit of Big Data at its disposal to neutralize that presidential drag. This might help, but Big
Data isn’t magic.¶ It might be able to tell Democrats where they’re hurting, but it can’t heal the wounds it diagnoses. Only good policy decisions
can.¶ The president is backing his party into a corner. The health-care rollout has cast a permanent shadow on the 2014
election.¶ If Democrats in competitive races try to separate themselves from it, they will look weak and vascillatory. Even worse, they may get
liberal donors angry.¶ Those same Democrats are going to have to explain their views on unfolding administration scandals like the supposedly
missing and destroyed IRS emails that would tell the story of how conservative groups came to be targeted for their views.¶ If they carry water
for the administration, they will not only be defending the indefensible but will be defending the IRS — never a smart-money move in a close
race even when the tax man isn’t behaving in what appears to be a criminal fashion.¶ But if they attack, they will hear about it from the White
House, from their leaders on Capitol Hill and from those same donors.¶ Then
there’s foreign policy. It rarely plays a role in
midterm elections.¶ But a general impression of chaos, incompetence and bad judgment certainly does,
and that is what foreign policy has become for President Obama and the Democrats.¶ The disaster in Iraq
caught Obama and his team flat-footed and very likely incapable of serious response.¶ Given that the president has spent two years
praising his administration for pulling our forces out of Iraq, he has constructed a nearly impregnable barrier to a significant effort to reverse
the gains of the combined terrorist-Saddamist onslaught.¶ The president clearly considers the removal of American forces from harm’s way a
signal achievement of his administration, and would resist any policy that would alter his reputation as a war-ender.¶ He also acknowledges
that Iraq’s collapse would be dangerous to our national interests and should be prevented. The problem is that he may not be able to have it
both ways.¶ He and his party know voters don’t want Americans back on the ground in Iraq. Voters also don’t want to lose Iraq. So what does
he have?¶ Apparently, he thinks he has an Iran card to play.¶ That is why he and his team are talking openly about making common cause with
Iran to stabilize Iraq — even as Iran helped foment the political crisis that helped strengthen the insurgency and has been a signal contributor to
fomenting the hellish chaos in Syria.¶ Not to mention, of course, the Iranian rush toward a nuke, out of which the Obama administration
mysteriously believes it can seduce the mullahs through protracted negotiations.¶ These suggestions that we can and should play international
footsie with Iran may not have a role in the polling that suggests a near-national panic about the collapse of American foreign policy.¶ After all,
the public doesn’t follow the ins and outs of these matters that closely.¶ But over the past 35 years, Iran has been America’s most consistent
ideological foe, and the public does not view that country or its leaders with favor, to put it mildly.¶ It is true that a great many Americans do
not remember the 1979-80 hostage crisis, but a great many also do — and nearly everyone is old enough to remember former Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly threatening Israel with literal annihilation during his eight-year presidency.¶ Add to that the fact that
Vladimir Putin recently swallowed another country’s province whole while the West watched helplessly, China toying with Japan in the Pacific
and tens of thousands of children pouring over our southwestern border — and you have a portrait of the most important and popular
Democrat of the 21st century turning into the portrait of Dorian Gray before our eyes.¶ Then there are the self-inflicted wounds of his putative
successor. Hillary Clinton has now spent two weeks on the book-publicity trail making gaffe after gaffe about her wealth and power.¶ Clinton
has not only revealed herself to be a significantly less formidable candidate for 2016 than anyone thought just six weeks ago.¶ She has
inadvertently exposed a truth about the present-day Democratic Party — which is that its aristocratic ruling class is, if anything, even more out
of touch with the everyday lives of Americans than the Republicans are.¶ None of this is to say the GOP is in good shape. Except there are only
two parties, and the
away.
Democrats are vastly worse off with Election Day only a little more than four months
GOP Win-Playing Field
GOP wins Senate- Playing field
Sabato ‘14
Larry is Professor of Political Science at Virginia, “Nationalization of Senate Elections Poses Danger to
Democrats in 2014,” http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/nationalization-of-senateelections-poses-challenge-to-democrats-in-2014/ , kk
Democrats face several challenges in trying to maintain their majority in the U.S. Senate in the 2014 midterm election. In
addition to the normal tendency of the president’s party to lose seats in midterm elections, Democrats are
defending 21 of the 36 seats that are up this year including seven seats in states that were carried by Mitt Romney in the 2012
presidential election. Moreover, six of those seats are in states that Romney carried by a double-digit margin.¶
Given this math, Republicans are almost certain to make at least some gains in this year’s Senate elections, and the six seats they need
to regain control of the upper chamber appear to be within reach. The Crystal Ball’s most recent Senate ratings predict
a GOP pickup of between four and eight seats in November, and several statistical forecasting models, including my own,
have given Republicans at least a 50-50 chance of gaining six or more seats this year.
GOP Win-Approval Rating
GOP will win- Obama’s approval is low
NPR 6-19
“In Senate Battleground States, Obama Ratings Lag,”
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/06/19/322933791/npr-poll-in-senate-battleground-statesobama-ratings-lag , kk
In the key battleground states that will decide control of the Senate this November, President Obama's
approval numbers are lower than they are nationally — but not much lower.¶ That's the key finding in a
new poll, conducted by Democrat Stan Greenberg of Democracy Corps and Republican Whit Ayres of
Resurgent Republic, that sampled likely voters for NPR.¶ In the 12 states with competitive Senate races
this fall, only 38 percent of likely voters said they approved of the way the president is handling his
job. An index of all national polls shows the president's approval rating about 4 percentage points higher
nationwide.
GOP Wins- Issues and Polls
GOP wins the Senate- Issues and Polls prove
The Hill 6-19
“Republicans Lead Democrats on Key Issues in Senate Battlegrounds,” http://thehill.com/blogs/ballotbox/senate-races/209919-poll-republicans-lead-democrats-on-key-issues-in-senate , kk
A new poll shows Republicans leading on nearly every prominent issue in 12 Senate battleground states,
a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the final stretch of a tough election cycle.¶ The survey, conducted by North Star
Opinion Research for NPR, also shows Obama’s approval rating lower in these 12 states than it is nationally, by about 4 points.¶ The survey
polled 1,000 respondents in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North
Carolina and West Virginia — 12 states that will be critical in deciding which party controls the Senate this fall.¶ Democrats are fighting to hold
onto a fragile six-seat majority, and Republicans are optimistic at their chances because their path to victory winds through a handful of red
states where the president is deeply unpopular.¶ According to the survey, Obama is seen more negatively overall in these 12 states than he is
nationwide. Only 38 percent of likely voters in the battleground states say they approve of his job performance; according to the
RealClearPolitics average of polls, Obama wins the approval of 42 percent of Americans nationwide. ¶ The survey also shows that respondents in
these 12 states trust Republicans more than Democrats on the economy, healthcare and foreign policy, while they’re split on who they trust on
the future of the middle class.¶ That
complicates Democrats' election-year strategy to focus on economic issues
that they believe are popular with the middle class. A May Washington Post/ABC News nationwide poll out in early May
showed Americans trusted Democrats more than Republicans to handle the economy, healthcare and, by a large margin, helping the middle
class.¶ NPR’s poll of battleground states tells a different story, however, and
winning the policy argument this fall.
suggests Democrats may have a tougher time
GOP Wins- Demographics
GOP wins Senate- field and demographics ensure
Cook 6-23
Charlie is Director of the Cook Political Report and a National Journal Columnist, “In No Mood for
Trophies,” kk http://cookpolitical.com/story/7473
In politics and polling, as in real estate, underwater or “upside down” approval ratings are not a good thing for an elected
official. Moreover, in the case of a president heading into a midterm election, with the midterm often said to be a referendum on the
incumbent president, this is a bad thing for the president’s party.
Every point decline creates just a bit more headwind
against Democratic candidates facing difficult races across the country. Specifically, this makes the challenge even more onerous for the
Democratic candidates where the party is defending U.S. Senate seats in the six states that Mitt Romney
carried by 14 points or more in 2012: incumbents Mark Begich in Alaska, Mark Pryor in Arkansas, Mary Landrieu in Louisiana, and
appointed Sen. John Walsh in Montana, along with Democratic candidates in open seats in South Dakota and West Virginia. While that is
somewhat self-evident—a
lot of people talk about the Democratic challenge in holding onto their Senate
majority—it seems that this problem is often understated. Persuading people who disapprove of a sitting president to
still vote for a Senate candidate of that president’s party is a real challenge in a midterm election.¶ Compounding this problem for Democrats is
the makeup of the midterm electorate. This midterm-voting group is older, whiter, more conservative, and more
Republican than those who turn out in a presidential election. Young and minority voters who flocked to the polls in 2008 and 2012 are very
difficult to motivate for a Democratic candidate who very clearly isn’t Barack Obama. They got revved up for Obama in a presidential election
year, but can endangered Democrats now get these voters excited for them in a midterm as well? The opposition is galvanized, but getting
these more sporadic voters to turn out is far harder.¶ Those
on a level playing field, are
badly mistaken.
who seem to think that this election is a fair fight, taking place
GOP Wins Arkansas
GOP Wins Arkansas
Bland, Drusch Roarty 6-25
Scott Bland, Andrea Drusch and Alex Roarty, National Journal. “The Senate Seats Most Likely to Flip:
Hotline's Race Rankings” Caroline 6/26/2014. http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/the-senateseats-most-likely-to-flip-hotline-s-race-rankings-20140625
Republicans once dreamed of putting away Pryor by summer. Instead, the
two-term senator has shed his label as "the nation's most endangered
incumbent" thanks to a strong early campaign rooted in his defense of Social Security and Medicare.
If anything, more questions have been raised about Tom Cotton's
aptitude as a candidate—his stiffness as a retail politician and hard-Right
voting record have caused him a few headaches. But with all of that said, Democrats
shouldn't get too carried away. This is still a deeply red state, Cotton is still
a credible candidate, and well-funded groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth will still pump millions
more into the race. Arkansas remains a good pickup opportunity for the GOP, just like
Louisiana and North Carolina; in these rankings, the trio are close to interchangeable.
GOP Holds House
GOP holds House- institutional advantages
Milbank ‘14
Dana is a Columnist for the Washington Post, “Special Elections really aren’t Special Predictors for
Midterm Elections?” http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-special-elections-reallyarent-special-predictors-for-midterm-elections/2014/03/12/969b6c54-aa23-11e3-9e828064fcd31b5b_story.html , kk
The prospect of Democrats regaining control of the House was never a real possibility. Democratic House
candidates won 1.7 million more votes than Republicans in 2012, beating the GOP by a full percentage point, but
they still remain 17 seats shy of the majority. Because of gerrymandered districts and population
concentrations, Democrats would need to win the popular vote by seven percentage points, by some estimates, to retake the House. And
this certainly isn’t going to be the year for such a landslide: The president’s party usually loses seats in a midterm election, particularly in a
second term.
A2: Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link
Small shift enough to flip several seats
Wang 5-27
Sam is Associate Professor of Microbiology at Princeton and runs Princeton’s Election Consortium, “The
War of the Senate Models,” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-war-of-the-senatemodels-107132.html#.U6i-9fldWGn , kk
A shift in public sentiment of even a few points nationally could change the picture significantly. When
Senate races move, they tend all to move in the same direction. Currently, Senate races in Kentucky and Louisiana
lean slightly toward the Republican candidate—but that could change if Democrats surged in the event that,
say, congressional Republicans come close to staging another government shutdown. Conversely, the races in Arkansas, Colorado and Georgia
lean slightly Democratic—but this could be reversed in a matter of weeks if President Obama’s approval ratings, now on the uptick, go back into
decline. Using today’s polls as a starting point, I re-calculated the possible Senate outcomes in the event that the polls in those nine races were
to shift by a given number of percentage points in the Democratic or Republican direction. As you can see, a 1 percent increase in the
Democratic vs. Republican vote margin would yield, on average, about 0.8 more Democratic seats, and the same is true in the Republican
direction.
A swing of two points toward the Democrats would put their odds at controlling the Senate at
19-1, far better than the current 2-1 odds in their favor. A swing of two points in the Republican direction puts that party’s odds of control at
3-1 in the GOP’s favor, up from 2-1 against them.
Dems could easily comeback- lots of opportunities
Davis 6-4
Susan is a Columnist for USA Today, “2014 Senate Landscape Tilts in GOP’s Favor,”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/04/primaries-mississippi-iowa-gopsenate/9976487/ , kk
Still, hope
is not lost for Democrats. "They have incumbents who are running good campaigns, they have
strong profiles in their state, they are good fundraisers and they have good teams," said Gonzales. "Their
incumbents are structurally in good shape." Historically, incumbents have also consistently proved tough to beat.¶ Justin
Barasky, a spokesman for the Senate Democrats' campaign operation, noted that Democratic candidates have yet to unleash their campaign
war chests, and the party has put two traditionally conservative seats in Kentucky and Georgia in contention. A victory in either state would
provide a potent firewall against a GOP takeover.¶ "We feel really good. We know there are going to be a lot of close races, but we feel like
we're winning them, and I don't see six states for Republicans because we have expanded the map in a real way," he said.¶ Democrats may also
have a new prospect in Mississippi, where GOP Sen. Thad Cochran heads to a June 24 run-off against state Sen. Chris McDaniel after failing to
secure 50% in Tuesday's primary.
A2: Generic Ballot
Generic ballot off this year- too many uncompetitive seats
Kopicki 6-26
Allison writes for the Upshot, the New York Times Political Quantitative Data Analysis site, “Challenges
are Many in Predicting House Races,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/challenges-aremany-in-predicting-house-races.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 , kk
In the months leading up to midterm elections, pollsters have a limited number of tools to explain what could happen to the composition of the
House of Representatives. And this year, their tools may be more blunt than usual.¶ Pollsters
can’t afford to survey each of the
435 House races. Instead they partly rely on a “generic ballot” question, which asks respondents whether they will vote for the unnamed
Republican candidate for the House of Representatives in their district, or for the unnamed Democratic candidate.¶ While individual polls using
the generic ballot question can vary greatly, an average of those results usually provides a fairly accurate preview of how the national vote for
Congress will break down on Election Day. But the generic ballot question may be less predictive this year, said Joe
Lenski, executive vice president at Edison Research, the company that conducts national and state exit polls for the National Election Pool. By
his count there
are 38 congressional districts with no Democratic candidate and 39 districts with no
Republican candidate. The generic ballot question does not apply to them. While noncompetitive races are not uncommon, those
77 districts are the most he has seen in more than 25 years of polling.
Arkansas
GOP wins Arkansas- fundamentals
Rothenberg 6-9
Stuart is a Columnist for Roll Call and created and runs the Rothenberg Political Report, “Mark Pryor: Still
this Cycle’s Most Vulnerable Senator,” http://blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/stu-rothenberg-arkansassenate-race/?dcz= , kk
More than a year ago, I called Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., this cycle’s most vulnerable senator. That hasn’t changed.¶
The longer I do this, the more transparent I try to be about my thinking about each race. So, this column sets out my view of the Arkansas
Senate race, which has been different from the thinking of many.¶ The Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call, rates it as a Tossup/Tilts
Republican contest, while many (probably most) others now see the race as a pure tossup, or possibly even view Pryor having a small
advantage.¶ Those who see Pryor in good shape point to two public polls conducted during the spring showing the Democrat holding a
significant lead over his challenger, Rep. Tom Cotton, the GOP nominee.¶ An NBC News/Marist poll conducted from April 30 to May 4, showed
Pryor leading by double digits, 51 percent to 40 percent. That followed an April 8-15 New York Times/Kaiser Foundation survey that found Pryor
with a 10-point lead, 46 percent to 36 percent.¶ Those results, and the results of other surveys showing a tight race but with Pryor leading, has
led some to remark that Cotton is weak, that Arkansas is different than other Deep South states, or that Pryor can survive even in a bad year
because of his moderate record and the state’s affection for his father, David Pryor, a former governor and senator.¶ For example, National
Journal’s Ron Fournier called Cotton “an overrated candidate,” adding that “he is not a strong retail politician in a state that values handshaketo-handshake combat.”¶ My own assessment of Cotton is a bit different. While he was a little stiff when I interviewed him, I found him
thoughtful and personable. He certainly isn’t a back-slapper, but back-slapping probably isn’t as important these days as it once was.¶ I’m not at
all sure that I would call Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., a great retail politician, and yet he annihilated the very personable Blanche Lincoln in 2010.
Party and ideology have become more important these days than they once were.¶ Of course, I’m not suggesting
that Pryor and Lincoln started their re-election in the same place. Lincoln had a primary, her voting record made her more vulnerable from the
start, and she was not in nearly as good shape in polling as Pryor is this cycle.¶ Polls, including early polls, certainly matter to me. But, since I
am concerned with the November outcome and not with where a race is at any given point in an
election cycle, my ratings are based on more than the latest public polling.¶ At this point in an election cycle, I still have a working
assumption about how the race will end up. That assumption is based on an assessment of the candidates, the dynamics of the particular
election cycle and the past performance of candidates (and parties) in the state.¶ If the NBC/Marist and New York Times/Kaiser Foundation
polls show Cotton trailing Pryor badly and the senator at or near 50 percent of the vote in the fall, and if they are supported by other polls, I’ll
certainly move the Arkansas race out of its current category and into one that suggests better prospects for Pryor.¶ But at
this point in
the cycle, I’m simply not convinced that voters in Arkansas are evaluating the contest the same way that
they will evaluate it in the fall, so I remain skeptical of the senator’s prospects. (I should note that I have used this approach for
years, and there have been occasions when early poll numbers did and did not end up having predictive value.)¶ In my view, the
fundamentals favor Pryor’s opponent so heavily that I would need dramatic new information to move
the race at this point toward the incumbent in my ratings. President Barack Obama drew just 37 percent of the vote in
Arkansas in 2012, so Pryor would need to run at least 13 points ahead of the president to win re-election later
this year. That’s possible but incredibly difficult.¶ At the moment, the president’s job approval isn’t merely poor in the state; it’s horrible
(35 percent in a recent Public Opinion Strategies survey). Democratic performance in federal races in Arkansas hasn’t been
merely bad; it has been horrendous. The president isn’t merely involved in the current political narrative; he is at the center of it —
with the problems at the Department of Veterans Affairs, his proposed carbon regulations, and a very controversial prisoner swap that
developed after yet another Susan E. Rice screw-up.¶ Not all is bad for the president, of course. Recent job numbers are good, and there is a
sense among many economists that the economy finally is picking up steam.¶ The question, of course, is whether voters believe that and feel
more optimistic about the future. So far, there is little evidence of that.¶ Three recent polls — by GOP firms POS and OnMessage, Inc., and a
third by Rasmussen — show Cotton ahead and Pryor sitting in the low 40s. Some will discount those surveys because of their partisan nature,
and because Republican polls were not as accurate as Democratic ones in 2012. But in 2010, GOP polls were more accurate than Democratic
surveys, and some partisan polls are better than some non-partisan ones.¶ With public polling divided and the political environment strongly
favoring Republicans in so-called red states, early polls showing Pryor with a lead aren’t enough to force me to change my expectations about
the trajectory of the race. Not yet, at least.
A2: Cantor Loss changes game
Cantor’s loss irrelevant- local conditions caused
Kondik and Skelly 6-12
Kyle and Geoffrey are Columnists for the Crystal Ball- a University of Virginia Political Science
Publication, “Cantor’s Fall,” http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/cantors-fall/ , kk
In the wake of such an unexpected result, it would be tempting to give in to hyperbole, like this Roll Call headline — “Stunner: Cantor Upset
Changes Everything.” But what has actually changed? True, the identity of the House majority leader is about to change, although that person
might end up being someone quite similar to Cantor, like his friend and fellow “young gun” Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California.
Incumbents
will almost certainly continue to win reelection at a very high rate in the House and Senate, even if the Cantor
loss paired with a potential Cochran defeat in two weeks will make it seem like voters are actually making good on their often hollow threat to
“throw the bums out.” American voters almost always renominated their members of Congress in the years before
the seemingly epochal Smith/Robertson defeats in 1966, and they continue to do so. On a policy front, the prospects for immigration reform
have probably worsened — but they were bad already. The House Republican rank and file just does not see eye to eye with party leaders on
this one, and the voters who put them in office largely feel the same way. Looking ahead to November, Brat should not have much trouble
holding this district, so it’s not as if a weak general election candidate is about to throw a seat to Democrats (we’re keeping the district’s rating
of Safe Republican for the general election).¶ And in a larger sense, Cantor’s
loss doesn’t have much to do with the real
battleground of 2014: the Senate.¶ The point here is that yes, Cantor’s loss was shocking and notable. It’s the political story of the
year, so far. But take a deep breath: These things sometimes happen.
A2: Kentucky and Georgia
GOP wins Kentucky and Georgia- structural advantages
Sabato ‘14
Larry is Professor of Political Science at Virginia, “Nationalization of Senate Elections Poses Danger to
Democrats in 2014,” May 22nd http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/nationalization-ofsenate-elections-poses-challenge-to-democrats-in-2014/ , kk
Despite the difficult task that they face in defending so many Senate seats in Red states this year, Democrats have some hope of offsetting
expected losses by taking back two seats currently held by Republicans — the Kentucky seat held by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
and the Georgia seat being vacated by retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Based on recent polls, the Senate contests in both of these states appear
to be highly competitive. In the Bluegrass State, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D) has been running even with or slightly
ahead of McConnell, and in Georgia, non-profit executive Michelle Nunn (D) has been running even with or slightly ahead of businessman David
Perdue (R) and Rep. Jack Kingston (R), the two finalists facing off for the Peach State’s GOP nomination.¶ Picking up one or both of these seats
would obviously make it much easier for Democrats to maintain control of the Senate. Republicans would then need to flip seven or eight seats
currently held by Democrats instead of just six in order to get to 51 seats. But what are the chances of Democrats winning either one of these
contests?¶ Despite the results of recent polls, there
are several reasons to be skeptical about Democrats’ chances of
winning either the Kentucky or the Georgia seat in November. Kentucky hasn’t elected a Democrat to
the Senate since 1992, and Barack Obama lost the state by 16 points in 2008 and 23 points in 2012. Georgia hasn’t been
quite as unfriendly to Democratic candidates in recent years. Still, no Democrat has won a Senate contest in the state since Zell
Miller in 2000, and the last Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state was Bill Clinton in 1992. Obama
lost Georgia by five points in 2008 and eight points in 2012.
A2: Mississippi
GOP wins Mississippi
Cohn 6-25
Nate is a Columnist for the New York Times Upshot- a quantitative Political forecasting group, “Big Jump
in Turnout is Key in Thad Cochran’s Victory,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/upshot/big-jump-inturnout-is-key-in-thad-cochrans-victory.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 , kk
Pre-election polls did not show Mr. Cochran with the advantage. But Mr. McDaniel did not advance beyond 50 percent in most surveys,
suggesting that his lead might have been the result of the reluctance of Cochran supporters to disclose their support after his defeat in the
initial primary. There is a long record of victory bias in public polling, with respondents less likely to say they supported a losing candidate.¶
Republican primary polls also have a poor record in the South, where polls systematically underestimated Rick Santorum’s standing in 2012,
and where Eric Cantor’s recent primary defeat was largely undetected. The increase in turnout, particularly among black voters, made this
primary even more challenging for pollsters.¶ Mr. Cochran’s
victory eliminates whatever slight chance Democrats
would have had if Mr. McDaniel had been the Republican nominee. Mr. Cochran is all but assured of
winning re-election in Mississippi, one of the most Republican states in the country.
Louisiana
Landrieu loses now- structural factors
Cohn 5-7
Nate writes for the Upshot, the New York Times Quantitative election analysis, “Mary Landrieu’s very
Difficult Reelection,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/upshot/mary-landrieus-very-difficult-reelection.html?_r=1 , kk
The deterioration of Democratic strength among Louisiana’s white voters is also evident in voter registration
figures and presidential election results. Between 2002 and 2008, the Democratic advantage in Louisiana white voter registration slipped to 4
percentage points from 17. On Election Day in 2008, registered white Democrats outnumbered white Republicans by a mere 1 percentage
point, down from 16 points in 2002. The shift is just as striking in the presidential election results. In 1996, President Clinton
received
percent of Louisiana’s white vote. But that number has steadily declined: Al Gore received 27 percent, John
Kerry received 24 percent, and President Obama won less than 14 percent in 2012.¶ Compared with these figures, Ms. Landrieu’s slight
about 37
decline still suggests an impressive base of support. But Ms. Landrieu suffered huge losses in some rural counties, performing more than 10
points worse among white voters. Statewide, these losses were largely canceled by an increase in Ms. Landrieu’s support in the New Orleans
area, where there are more moderate voters.¶ The anti-Democratic trend is, if anything, gaining speed. Soon after the 2010
midterms, Republicans seized a voter registration advantage among whites, and it has steadily grown to a 7-point edge today. In 2010,
Republicans reduced the Democratic congressional delegation to a single seat, the majority-minority district representing New Orleans.¶
Despite confessing to participating in a prostitution ring, Senator David Vitter, a Republican, won re-election
with 58 percent of the vote. In 2011, Republicans seized every statewide office for the first time in the
state’s history. And on Election Day 2012, registered white Republicans outnumbered white Democrats by a 10-point margin.¶ Continue
reading the main story¶ Louisiana Whites Shift Republican¶ In one decade, a double-digit Democratic advantage turned into a double-digit
deficit.¶ Net Democratic advantage¶ 15¶ 10¶ 5¶ 0¶ -5¶ -10¶ Registered Voters¶ Voters¶ ’02¶ ’04¶ ’06¶ ’08¶ ’10¶ ’12¶ ¶ To win in 2014, with lower
black turnout likely, Ms. Landrieu cannot afford any additional decline in her support among white voters. But 2014
promises far more
challenging conditions, and her losses among white voters could easily surpass those from 2008, especially
if one assumes that she was near her ceiling in the New Orleans area. Holding onto her territory will be hard enough. For instance, Ms. Landrieu
easily won Jefferson Parish, encompassing most of New Orleans’s suburbs, which never voted for Mr. Clinton or President Carter, and which
never previously came close to supporting Ms. Landrieu.¶ All considered, it
is unclear whether there is still a path for her to
reach 50 percent — and while a third-party candidate might allow her to squeak by in another state, Louisiana’s runoff system requires
her to clear 50 percent to win re-election.¶ The limited polling data confirms that 2014 is not 2008. The only live interview surveys contacting
voters with cellphones are from Southern Media and Opinion Research, which found Ms. Landrieu with just 41 percent of the vote in
November, and from The New York Times/Kaiser Family Foundation, which found Ms. Landrieu at 42 percent.
If there’s still a way for
Ms. Landrieu to win, she has a long way to go.
Approval key to LA Senate race
Tyrgstad 6-19
Kyle Covers House and Senate Elections for Roll Call and previously did so for RCP,
“Senate Majority Might not be Decided Until Decemer,” http://atr.rollcall.com/senate-races-2014louisiana-runoff/
, kk
For all the money spent on the November elections, control of the
Senate might not be decided until a Saturday three
weeks before Christmas.¶ Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., hopes to win re-election outright on Nov. 4 in a jungle primary against a
handful of challengers. But winning a majority of the vote in a multi-candidate field would be a significant feat, and the campaigns of both
Landrieu and her leading Republican opponent, Rep. Bill Cassidy, are undoubtedly preparing for an extended, one-on-one race.¶
If a Dec. 6
runoff coincides with a 50-49 Republican advantage in the Senate, consultants in and out of the state warn of an
unprecedented onslaught of spending from party committees and outside groups in a race that could become
more about the national parties than the two candidates on the ballot.¶ “Mary kind of becomes a pawn in a much, much bigger game,” said
Dane Strother, a Democratic media consultant and Baton Rouge native who’s worked on previous Landrieu campaigns. “The entire force of
national politics will land on Louisiana. They’ll buy every radio ad, every TV ad, inundate with direct mail. It will be a war.”¶ Republicans like
their odds in a runoff — especially if the majority is on the line — but Landrieu has won in overtime before. The Democrat won her first two of
three elections for the Senate after advancing beyond a jungle primary. In her first victory, in 1996, Landrieu finished second in the primary, and
the Democratic candidates on the all-party ballot totaled just 44 percent.¶ But if
the majority is still on the line after Election
Day, the race could transform into a referendum on President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid. For all the focus and money Landrieu has spent highlighting her influence in the Senate and on catchy and clutter-cutting ads featuring her
father — former New Orleans Mayor Moon Landrieu — to
win the race in November, those could inevitably become
secondary thoughts for voters deciding the balance of power in Washington.
Polls Best
Polls are the best- accurate this far out
Wang 5-27
Sam is Associate Professor of Microbiology at Princeton and runs Princeton’s Election Consortium, “The
War of the Senate Models,” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-war-of-the-senatemodels-107132.html#.U6i-9fldWGn , kk
Once polls become available, they can capture the same ballpark range of November performance that fundamentals do—and with much less
uncertainty. Years of polling have shown that what voters say they want “right now” is a strong starting point for predicting, give or take a few
points, how they will vote in the fall. Because of that—no matter the race—the most accurate predictions are made using polling data, when
enough of it is available.¶ The bottom line: Even
at this early stage, polls are our best way to predict November
outcomes. In the 2012 election, for instance, polling data available in July and knowledge of how far
presidential polls tend to move in the months leading up to the election were enough to give President
Obama’s reelection a probability of 91 percent. That crept up to nearly 100 percent as the election approached. However,
predicting the partisan control of the Senate in 2015 is a far harder problem.
3 Seat Guarantee
GOP wins 3 seats for sure- SD, WV, MT
Davis 6-4
Susan is a Columnist for USA Today, “2014 Senate Landscape Tilts in GOP’s Favor,”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/04/primaries-mississippi-iowa-gopsenate/9976487/ , kk
This year GOP nominees in Democratic-held seats in South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana have
consistently led in polls and are favored in November. Victory in the trio of states would provide half of the six seats Republicans
need to net gain for a takeover.
A2: Other Issues(Generically)
The plan would become key- candidate focus ensures
Aldrich, Griffin & Rickershausser ‘05
John is an Endowed Professor of Political Science at Duke University and wrote the article with his 2 students, “The Presidency and the Election
Campaign: Altering Voters’ Priorities in the 2004 Election,” The Presidency and the Political System, Congrsesional Quaterly Press
, kk
We first compare by month the percentage of the electorate that identified an issue as the nation's most important problem and the
percentage of each of the candidate's speeches in that month that addressed that issue.¶ Looking first at the war in Iraq, voters of all partisan
stripes appear to have responded to variations in the candidates' emphasis on this issue (see Figure 4). For example, President Bush
focused much less on Iraq in July than in June; Kerry also emphasized Iraq less. As a result, there was a
sharp drop in voters’ identification of Iraq as the nation's most important problem from July to
August. Then, in September, both candidates focused more on Iraq than they had in August, and the
voters also became more concerned about Iraq. ¶ As for the war on terrorism, Bush generally increased his attention to this
concern as the year unfolded. Except in September, Kerry spoke about it less. Among the public, there was fairly low but slowly increasing
concern about this issue until the end of the campaign. ¶ Turning to health care, John Kerry emphasized health care issues much more in August
than he had in July, and President Bush emphasized health care issues more in September than he had in August (See Figure 5). Among
voters, a sharp increase in their identification of health care as the nation's most important problem
occurred in September, following the candidates’ increased emphasis on the issue. In October and November, the
candidates emphasized health care less than they has in September, and voters, too, cared less about this issue.¶ The economy is a special case.
If the incumbent campaigns on the economy, it is to claim that all is well – and therefore it should not be considered an “important problem.”
When the challenger addresses the economy, it is to claim that it’s in trouble. The challenger’s speeches therefore should increase expressions
of public concern, the incumbent’s should decrease it. This pattern is evident in Figure 6, in which Bush's increased emphasis on the economy in
the late fall reduced Republicans’ concern. In contrast, Kerry's somewhat erratic effort to persuade voters that the economy was poor was only
modestly effective among Democrats. ¶ An alternative interpretation of these results is that candidates' desire to emphasize issues in response
to voters' rising concerns, rather than the other way around. But as we have seen, changes
in the candidates' issue emphases
in 2004 generally preceded, rather than followed changes in voters' concerns. The voters were responding to the
candidates. ¶ A final possibility is that both the voters' concerns and the candidates’ emphases may have been caused by events such as
casualty counts in Iraq or changes in the unemployment rate. To be sure, events give the candidates the raw material with which to make
credible claims. But the events themselves rarely affect the voters’ choices directly. Events
affect elections only when the
candidates incorporate them into their appeals.¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ ¶ The more time Bush and Kerry spent discussing an issue, the greater
the percentage increase in the public’s identification of that issue as important. Issues that were largely ignored by the
candidates – education, for example – actually declined in voters’ identification of them as the most
important problem. The time the candidates invested discussing Iraq and health care, conversely, significantly increased the public’s
concern about them. Note that, in the case of Iraq, external events and media coverage reinforced the attention the candidates gave the issue,
while in
the case of health care, the increase in public concern can be attributed almost exclusively to
the actions of the candidates, because there were few prominent health care related external events.
Proximity theory means the plan makes the Democrats less likely to win
Lacy & Paolino ‘09
Dean is Professor of Government at Dartmouth and Philip is Associate Professor of Political Science at
the University of North Texas, “Testing Proximity versus Directional Theory Using Experiments,”
Electoral Studies, Volume 29, Issue 3, September 2010, Pages 460-471, accessed via Science Direct , kk
Beyond our results, there are other reasons to doubt that directional theory is a potent explanation of issue voting in the United States.
Globetti’s (2002) analysis of Senate ads from 1988 to 1996, for example, shows that candidates use ideological labels most often to attack their
opponents for being too extreme, never for being too moderate. This does not prove that voters necessarily evaluate candidates based on
proximity theory because directional theory does predict that voters will evaluate candidates on the other side of issues more negatively as the
more intensely they are perceived as holding that position. Globetti, however, finds almost no positive references to liberals in these ads,
something directional theory does predict, at least in states with liberal majorities.7 These data suggest that candidates do believe that
voters will often evaluate more highly candidates who are closer to the median voter over those who
are intense committed to ideological positions. This is consistent with our findings that Republicans risk losing the
votes of moderate conservatives when they nominate extreme candidates.¶ ¶ Other recent experimental tests of
proximity and directional voting reach conclusions similar to ours, even with different experimental formats. In separate experiments
conducted by Tomz and van Houweling (2009) and Claassen (2007), subjects were asked their position on medical insurance and general
ideology, respectively, and then given a choice between two abstract candidates defined only by their numerical position on the same scale.
Tomz and van Houweling also presented the candidates’ party in one version of the experiment. Candidate
positions were
manipulated in the experiment, and subjects were asked to rate the candidates or choose between
them in a mock election. Both experiments, like ours, find less support for directional than for proximity
voting.¶ ¶ These experiments complement our results. Our approach attempts to maximize external validity in an experimental setting by
producing realistic advertisements and interviews with candidates that subjects believe are real. The issues and content of the ads and
interviews resembled those from real-world elections, though placed in obscure elections in other states. The external validity comes at the
cost that we do not tell subjects the positions of the candidates on the issues scales; instead, our subjects are asked to place the candidates on
issue scales. Where our study focuses on life-like candidates and campaigns, we sacrifice some control over subjects’ understanding of the
precise positions of the candidates. The studies by Tomz and van Houweling (2009) and Claassen (2007) gain precise control over subjects’
understanding of the different alternatives to choose between on an issue scale, but they sacrifice external validity by not associating these
positions with real candidates. Real-world candidates do not state their positions on seven-point scales. This creates a risk that the alternatives
are little more than numbers on a scale that, without context, do not activate directional considerations among voters and are, therefore,
biased in favor of proximity theory. Our experiments find stronger evidence for proximity than for directional theory in a context that is more
likely to activate directional voting among subjects and that provides greater external validity than previous experiments. The studies each have
complementary strengths and weaknesses, yet it is remarkable that all three point to the same conclusion.
A2: Too Early
Not too early
Not too early- Polls really accurate this far out
Enten ‘14
Harry is fivethirtyeights Political Columnist, “Early Senate Polls have Plenty to Tell Us About November,”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/early-senate-polls-have-plenty-to-tell-us-about-november/ , kk
¶ The average error between the
early polls and the final results was 6.4 points.5 For comparison, in the 2012 Senate race, polls taken in the
final month before the election still had an average error of 4.8 points.6 Overall, the
president’s party’s candidate won 83
percent of the time he or she led in the early poll average and lost 88 percent of the time when he or she
trailed.
A2: Black Swan
Environment is the same now, plan reverses
Cook 6-23
Charlie is Director of the Cook Political Report and a National Journal Columnist, “In No Mood for
Trophies,” http://cookpolitical.com/story/7473 , kk
With the midterm elections less than six months away, it's a good time to take stock of things and even venture a few assumptions. But first, we
need to acknowledge that when we talk about public attitudes, we are talking about human behavior and unexpected national events, which
can cause close races to tip one way or the other, or to make less competitive contests even more so.¶ Having said that, it
appears that
the political environment, national economy, and issue agenda are unlikely to change significantly
before November. At this point, this election is what it is, and it will be fought on terrain pretty much like
what we see today.
Internal Links
A2: Angry Dems Still Vote GOP
Angry Democrats either won’t vote or will vote Republican- protest voter theory
confirms
McGregor ’12
Robert is Assistant Professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies at Bishop's
University, “Voter Sincerity and the time-of-voting-decision,” Volume 31, Issue 4, Electoral Studies,
Pages 715-725, accessed via Science Direct , kk
There also is the question of the motivation behind a protest vote. Scholars generally agree that the goal of protest voters is to express their
dissatisfaction, rather than to influence the outcome of an election. Kselman and Niou (2011) posit that protest
votes can be meant
as a signal of dissatisfaction towards one's most preferred party in order to see downstream changes
within the party, while Carter and Guerette (1992) describe protest voting as a type of “expressive voting.” The theory of expressive
voting, developed by Brennan and Buchanan (1984), states that voters not only have a preference for realizing one outcome over another, but
they also have preferences for expressing support for one outcome over another—these two goals do not always result in a vote for the same
party or candidate. For instance, a
candidate from Party X may have experienced some recent scandal, and while
the voter still wants Party X to win, he or she may vote for Party Y to express disapproval of the scandal.
6 To Carter and Guerette (1992), therefore, protest voters do not actually want the party they vote for to win. Rather, the motivation for
casting a protest vote is to make a statement of political dissatisfaction. Regardless of the intended target of this statement, however, the
aim of protest voters is not to influence an election's outcome. In contrast to strategic voters, protest voters are
not motivated by the desire to see the party they vote for emerge victorious, and because they do not
actually wish to influence an election's outcome, they will only support parties which are uncompetitive ( Bowler and Lanoue,
1992 only consider votes for the NDP to be protest votes if the party was not competitive at the district level). Protest votes are cast in
order to send a message to a traditional party or parties, not to elect a non-traditional party.
Lobbies
Environmentalists Key
Environmentalists gaining power – influence over elections proves
Eilperin ‘12
Juliet has covered the environment for the national desk, reporting on science, policy and politics in
areas including climate change, oceans, and air quality with the Washington Post since 2004,
“Environmentalists play huge role in 2012 races” Washington Post 6/26/14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/environmentalists-play-key-role-in-2012races/2012/11/09/67c1fd78-29bc-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html , HR
For years, environmentalists have been seen as marginal players in presidential and congressional
elections. That may have changed last week. The environmental community scored a string of successes
Tuesday in New Mexico, Montana, Texas and other states, winning seven of eight targeted Senate races
and at least threetargeted House races. Although plenty of outside groups poured money into these contests, even some
representatives of the fossil-fuel industry said that environmentalists had invested their resources wisely in 2012.
“There is evidence that the environmentalists have become a more mature political force,” said Scott
H. Segal, who lobbies for utility companies at the firm Bracewell & Giuliani. “Environmentalist spending was up
considerably this cycle, and they seemed to resist the frequent trap of supporting third-party or crank candidates in ways that would
have siphoned off votes from mainstream Democrats,” Segal said. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) spent more
than $14 million this year, more than it had in the past three election cycles combined, and groups including
the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, Defenders of Wildlife Action Committee, Environment America and Natural Resources
Defense Council Action Fund also devoted money and volunteers to key contests. Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America, said
activists decided to focus on several Senate races in order to ensure that House Republicans’ efforts to reverse some of President Obama’s
policies curbing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change would die in the Senate. “We knew we would have to
defend the actions he’s taken this year, and in past years, against rollbacks from coal, from oil and their allies in Congress,” Alt said at a news
conference Wednesday. In a handful of contests, environmentalists’ money, time and targeting played a critical role. Earlier this year, both
parties viewed the Senate contest in New Mexico between Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) and former congresswoman Heather Wilson (R) as highly
competitive. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and two conservative super PACs, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, spent heavily on
television ads attacking Heinrich. Environmentalists spent nearly $2 million on phone, mail and ads attacking Wilson for her unwillingness to
hold oil companies liable for contaminating New Mexico’s water supply with MTBE, a fuel additive. The narrator of one ad rattled off Wilson’s
campaign contributions from oil and gas firms before declaring, “It makes you wonder, who’s Heather Wilson with? Not us.” By the end of the
summer, GOP-affiliated groups pulled back from the race after polls showed Heinrich with a significant lead. Heinrich, who came under fire for
his support for climate legislation and opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, said the environmentalists’ ads helped ensure his victory
Tuesday. “They were really strategic and showed a political sophistication that has only emerged in the last few years,” Heinrich said. “They
were able to dig down and do some extensive polling to figure out where a candidate’s positions don’t line up with the constituents’ and bring
that out.” Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg, who had rated the New Mexico Senate contest as a tossup/tilt Democrat at the start of the
summer, questioned whether environmentalists were decisive, given the state’s Democratic leanings. “I’m not doubting that they did
something,” Rothenberg said of environmentalists. “If they hadn’t done anything, I think Wilson still would have lost.” Environmentalists did
suffer one major loss on the state level: Despite spending more than $10 million to support a constitutional amendment requiring Michigan to
source 25 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2025, the initiative failed by a wide margin. Elsewhere in the country,
environmentalists made an impact through get-out-the-vote operations. LCV had the largest field
operation of any independent group in Montana’s race between Sen. Jon Tester (D) and Rep. Denny
Rehberg, (R) spending $1.1 million to register nearly 30,000 Tester supporters to vote by mail. A
Democratic-leaning state environmental group, Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund, also
influenced the race by running last-minute ads urging sportsmen to support Libertarian candidate Dan Cox. Cox received 6.5
percent of the vote Tuesday, at least 2.5 percentage points higher than Libertarians running for either governor or the House. Tester won his
race by 3.9 percent. The group had used money from LCV earlier this year to attack Rehberg. Navin Nayak, LCV’s senior vice president for
campaigns, said none of LCV’s money was used to finance the pro-Cox ads. He said LCV Action Fund did rank as the largest fundraiser for Tester,
Heinrich and two other Democratic Senate candidates — Timothy M. Kaine (Va.) and Richard Carmona (Ariz.) — through its bundling program.
Kaine won, while Carmona lost. Environmental
groups also helped defeat GOP Reps. Francisco R. Canseco (Tex.) and Ann
Marie Buerkle (N.Y.), whom they targeted for denying the connection between human activity and climate change. Some
environmentalists say the election provides a mandate for aggressive action on climate change, although
oil and gas industry officials warned against over-interpreting the results because the economy ranked as the dominant issue this year.
Oil Lobby Key
Oil lobby outspends environmentalists by eight times
Durando ‘10
Jessica Durando is a news editor on USA TODAY's Nation Now team, “Oil lobby's spending blows away
environmental groups”, USA TODAY 6/25/14
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/08/climate-change-environmentgroups/1#.U6uJOPldWSo ,HR
The oil and gas industry outspent environmentalists nearly eight-fold last year in federal lobbying on
climate change legislation, which has failed to pass Congress, a recent report shows. Environmental
groups spent a record $22.4 million lobbying for a bill backed by President Obama to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan,
non-profit research group that tracks money in U.S. politics. The amount was double their lobbying
expenditure from 2000 to 2008. Still, it paled in comparison to the $175 million spent by the oil and gas
industry, which opposed the pollution caps that would be required in a bill by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass.
and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn. ExxonMobil alone spent $27.4 million. "In other words, Goliath whipped
David," the center's Evan Mackinder wrote. The bill has languished in the Senate. Despite industry
opposition, similar legislation passed the House of Representatives last year.
Money
Money Key
Money wins elections- History Provs
Communication ‘11
Journalist for opensecrets, “Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S.
Election Ever,” 6/23/14, Open secrets, https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-whitehouse-and/ , CD
WASHINGTON – The
historic election of 2008 re-confirmed one truism about American democracy: Money
wins elections. ¶ From the top of the ticket, where Barack Obama declined public financing for the first time since the system’s
creation and went on to amass a nearly two-to-one monetary advantage over John McCain, to
congressional races throughout the nation, the candidate with the most money going into Election
Day emerged victorious in nearly every contest.¶ In 93 percent of House of Representatives races and
94 percent of Senate races that had been decided by mid-day Nov. 5, the candidate who spent the most money
ended up winning, according to a post-election analysis by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The findings are based on
candidates’ spending through Oct. 15, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. ¶ Continuing a trend seen election cycle
after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32
settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98
percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.
A2: Money Key
Money is irrelevant- correlation isn’t causation
Levitt & Dubner ‘12
Steven is the author of Freakonomics and an Economics Professor at the University of Chicago, “Does
Money Really Buy Elections,” http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/does-money-really-buy-elections-anew-marketplace-podcast/ , kk
In a paper that tried to isolate the effect of spending in campaigns, here’s what Steve Levitt found:¶ LEVITT: When
a candidate
doubled their spending, holding everything else constant, they only got an extra one percent of the popular vote.
It’s the same if you cut your spending in half, you only lose one percent of the popular vote. So we’re talking about really large swings
in campaign spending with almost trivial changes in the vote.¶ What Levitt’s study suggests is that money doesn’t necessarily cause a
candidate to win — but, rather, that the kind of candidate who’s attractive to voters also ends up attracting a lot
of money. So winning an election and raising money do go together, just as rain and umbrellas go
together. But umbrellas don’t cause the rain. And it doesn’t seem as if money really causes electoral victories either, at least
not nearly to the extent that the conventional wisdom says. For every well-funded candidate who seems to confirm that money buys elections
(paging Michael Bloomberg), you can find counterexamples like Meg Whitman, Linda McMahon, Steve Forbes, and Tom Golisano.¶ And take a
look at the Iowa caucuses last week. Rick Perry was the top spender, buying $4.3 million worth of ads — which got him only 10 percent of the
vote. Santorum, meanwhile, spent only $30,000 on ads (the least of any candidate) and practically tied Romney — who spent $1.5 million this
time around on Iowa ads, versus $10 million in 2008.
Presidential Approval
Presidential Approval Key
Presidential approval key- huge correlation
Sabato ‘14
Larry is Professor of Political Science at Virginia, “Nationalization of Senate Elections Poses Danger to
Democrats in 2014,” March 22nd http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/nationalizationof-senate-elections-poses-challenge-to-democrats-in-2014/ , kk
Beyond these recent election results, Democrats would have
to overcome another obstacle in order to take back the Kentucky
or Georgia Senate seats in 2014 — the increasing nationalization of U.S. Senate elections. Table 1 displays the results of an
analysis of voting in U.S. Senate elections since the 1970s, using data from the American National Election Studies. The data in this table show
that over this time period, voting
decisions in these contests have become increasingly influenced by opinions of
the incumbent president’s performance. This relationship set a new record in 2012. Ninety percent of voters who
approved of President Obama’s job performance voted for a Democratic Senate candidate while 82% of voters
who disapproved of the president’s performance voted for a Republican Senate candidate.
Presidential Approval Important
Approval is a key factor, even if some structural factors matter
Erikson ‘10
Robert is Professor of Political Science at Columbia University, “Explaining Midterm Loss:
The Tandem Effects of Withdrawn Coattails and Balancing,” Prepared for the 2010 American Political
Science Association, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920 ,
kk
The result of this exercise should now be evident. On the one hand, coattails
and balancing account for the existence of
midterm loss. Call this the “structural” source of midterm loss. One can anticipate the actuality of the structurally-induced midterm loss
immediately upon the determination of the presidential winner from the size of the presidential victory and the degree of surprise in the
outcome. On the other hand, the
degree of midterm loss is largely shaped by unanticipated political variables
reflected in the change in partisanship and the president’s approval at midterm. Call this the referendum effect.
Referendum theory cannot account for the presence of midterm loss but it can account its magnitude.
A2: Presidential Approval-Not Key
Presidential approval not key- history proves
Erikson ‘10
Robert is Professor of Political Science at Columbia University, “Explaining Midterm Loss:
The Tandem Effects of Withdrawn Coattails and Balancing,” Prepared for the 2010 American Political
Science Association, http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-polisci-032211-212920 ,
kk
The challenge is not simply to explain why the presidential party loses seats in most elections but why the phenomenon occurs with nearperfect regularity. One’s
first temptation might be to invoke “referendum theory,” or the idea that midterm
loss signifies a protest against unpopular presidents (Tufte, 1975). Certainly low presidential approval can lead to a harsh
midterm loss. But for referendum theory to account for the regularity of midterm loss requires that
presidents must almost always be embattled at the midpoint of their election cycle, and this is decidedly untrue.
For the 16 post-WWII midterm years (1946-2006), one can consult the extensive Gallup Poll data bank on presidential approval. In October
of 16 midterm years 1946-2006, the average approval of the president is 53 percent, with the president exceeding
the 50 percent threshold in 10 of 16 instances. While unusually high presidential popularity can explain the 1998 and 2002 exceptions of
midterm gain,
a pattern of persistent presidential unpopularity cannot account for the midterm loss in the
remaining cases. Even excluding 1998 and 2002, presidents averaged 51 percent approval in the October before the midterm election.
To understand the regularity of midterm loss, we must look elsewhere. However, as shown below, referendum
theory can account for the severity (including the rare revoking) of the rule of midterm loss.
Presidential Approval not key this far out
Enten ‘14
Harry is fivethirtyeights Political Columnist, “Early Senate Polls have Plenty to Tell Us About November,”
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/early-senate-polls-have-plenty-to-tell-us-about-november/ , kk
The average error between the early polls and the final results was 6.4 points.5 For comparison, in the 2012 Senate race, polls taken in the final
month before the election still had an average error of 4.8 points.6 Overall, the president’s party’s candidate won 83 percent of the time he or
she led in the early poll average and lost 88 percent of the time when he or she trailed.¶ A
president’s approval rating isn’t as
strongly tied to the ultimate result. There is a link — just a weaker one. Note how much more scattered the data points are in the
chart below compared to in the chart above.7¶ enten-early-approval-prediction¶ Of the 58 races in my sample where the
president’s statewide approval rating was less than 43 percent (as it is for Obama now, nationally), the president’s
party’s candidate lost 72 percent. On the other hand, when a president’s approval rating was greater than 43
percent, the president’s party’s candidate lost 35 percent of races. In other words, a president’s approval
rating is far from a perfect predictor of how Senate races will turn out.
A2: Presidential Approval-Fixed
Presidential approval is fixed- Obama’s unique
Cook 6-23
Charlie is the Director of the Cook Political Report and a National Journal Columnist, “Democrats Face
Unfair Fight in Midterms,” http://www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/democrats-face-unfairfight-in-midterms-20140623 , kk
Generally speaking, the
further into a U.S. president’s tenure in office one gets, the less volatility there is in
that president’s job-approval rating.¶ It’s pretty logical that 1,979 days into Barack Obama’s presidency, the
number of people most inclined to approve of his performance has stabilized, as has the number of those disposed
to disapprove of him. Given that Obama tends to evoke particularly strong emotions with bedrock supporters and equally adamant opponents,
arguably more
people than usual have locked in their opinions. And those who are undecided by this point are
the folks who have pretty much checked out of politics and are unlikely to come down on one side or the
other. Simply put, there are few people left who are ambivalent about Obama’s performance. We see large
variances at this point only when we compare the results of one pollster to another. These variances are likely the result of
individual firms’ unique methodologies and sampling idiosyncrasies; they do not represent the genuine
changing of minds.
A2: Distance from President
Distance from President still costs election
Thiessen ‘14
Marc is a Washington Post Columnist and Former Chief Speechwriter to President Bush, “The
Democrats’ Obama Trap,” http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/elections/thedemocrats-obama-trap/ , kk
Thanks to Obamacare, Democrats just lost a special election in a Florida House district that President Obama won in 2012. So what do you think
vulnerable Democrats in states and districts Obama lost in 2012 are thinking today?¶ Answer: Run away!¶ The problem is Democrats
can’t run from Obama or Obamacare. Yes, the president is electoral kryptonite in 2014. But Democrats are caught in the
Obama trap — unable to either embrace or repudiate their unpopular president and his unpopular
health law.¶ This is precisely the position vulnerable Republicans were in during the 2006 midterm elections, when Democrats retook
control of Congress thanks to George W. Bush’s sinking poll numbers. Like vulnerable Democrats today, many vulnerable
Republicans wanted to run from Bush in 2006. But they couldn’t, because no matter how low the president dropped
in the polls, a solid 25 percent of the electorate stayed intensely loyal to him. Republicans needed that pro-Bush base
to turn out in big numbers to avert disaster in the fall.¶ If they criticized Bush — or were seen as distancing themselves
from the president — they would alienate those hard-core conservative voters. But if they did not
distance themselves from Bush, they had no chance of winning over the independents they needed to
squeak out a narrow victory.
Healthcare makes distancing impossible
Newsmax ‘14
“Democrats Breaking with Obama on Key Issues,” February 3rd
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-distance-unpopular-obama/2014/02/03/id/550545/ ,
kk
A number of Democrats have for months been attempting to distance themselves from the president on
Obamacare, aware that the GOP is likely to highlight the program's failures throughout the 2014 campaign. But as Blunt put it, it may be an
uphill battle.¶ "The White House and the Senate leadership understand the need of senators in states where the president is not popular to
differentiate themselves from the president when they can," Blunt told Politico. ¶ "On
the healthcare bill, it's going to be
particularly difficult because all of them voted for it, all of them supported it. And it's not going to get
better between now and Election Day."
Distance impossible- voted on other controversial issues
Thiessen ‘14
Marc is a Washington Post Columnist and Former Chief Speechwriter to President Bush, “The
Democrats’ Obama Trap,” http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/elections/thedemocrats-obama-trap/ , kk
A similar dynamic is in play with red- and purple-state Senate Democrats on the confirmation of some of Obama’s more radical left-wing
nominees. Seven Democrats sided
with the Fraternal Order of Police and their Republican colleagues to oppose the
nomination of Debo Adegbile to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, due to his advocacy on behalf of copkiller Mumia Abu-Jamal. Interestingly, Sens. Mary Landrieu (La.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Mark Begich
(Alaska) — all vulnerable Democrats running for reelection — were not among them. They stuck with Obama and the base. Next up is
Obama’s nominee for surgeon general, who is being strongly opposed by the National Rifle Association for his activism on gun control.
Vulnerable Democrats in pro-gun states need to decide whether they will stick with Obama and risk alienating independents, or buck the
president and risk alienating the base.
Red State Dems already attached to Obama
CNN ‘14
“Inside Politics Speed Read: Red State Democrats Rethinking Obama,” April
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/09/inside-politics-speed-read-red-state-democratsrethinking-obama/ , kk
Obama to view tornado damage with him in his home state.¶ ¶
Related: Disaster Politics – How Obama’s Arkansas visit could hurt Democrats¶ ¶ Then, the White House announced that
Landrieu would appear with Michelle Obama for an event in with veterans in New Orleans on Saturday. Landrieu was unable to
appear with the President when he visited Louisiana late in 2013.¶ ¶ Finally, Sen. Kay Hagan, the North Carolina Democrat, indicated
support for expanding Medicaid as part of Obamacare in her state. Hagan voted for the health law but along with other
¶ First,
Sen. Mark Pryor, the Arkansas Democrat, invited
conservative Democrats has put it on the backburner since. No more. In an interview with North Carolina-based McClatchy newspapers, she
defended the Medicaid expansion, a key feature of the law that has been rejected by many states, including North Carolina. Hagan’s Republican
opponent, Thom Tillis, was state House speaker when the Medicaid expansion there was rejected.¶ ¶ Don’t look for these Democrats to start
sounding like Nancy Pelosi and Obama, but it is evidence that conventional wisdom can oversimplify things.
Swing Voters/Base/Public Popularity
Swing Voters Key
Swing voters are key- large group and takes away votes
Gourevitch ‘14
Nick is Senior Vice President and Director of Research at the Global Strategy Group, “Whither the
Midterm Swing Voter? Not so Fast,” May 7th http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nick-gourevitch/whitherthe-midterm-swing-voter_b_5282209.html , kk
That chart presents a much different story. Instead of a nearly 5-to-1 ratio between those Democrats who "stayed home" and those who
"switched party", we are now looking at a less than 2-to-1 ratio of "possible midterm voters" to those who "switched party." For Republicans,
the ratio is about 1-to-1.¶ Additionally, when
a campaign persuades a swing voter, they are taking a vote away
from their opponent -- adding two votes to their vote margin. When a campaign mobilizes a base voter -- they
are only adding one vote to their vote margin. Therefore, a campaign needs to mobilize two base voters to provide the same
impact as persuading one swing voter -- a fact that further changes the calculus for campaigns.¶ This is a simplistic analysis -- campaigns and
committees use turnout scoring and persuasion scoring based on a more rigorous series of variables to more precisely define these categories
(for more on that, read Sasha Issenberg's latest which goes into these methods in much greater detail) -- but it shows that the decision facing
many campaigns is not so cut and dry.¶ Professor Vavreck is right -- there are
very few swing voters and it is hard to persuade them.
But there are also not very many mobilization target voters -- and it is hard to activate them. The
techniques to get voters to the polls are improving, but it's still hard and it's still just moving turnout rates around at the margins. And as a
campaign decides how to allocate its resources, other factors also need to be considered, including the costs and conversion rates of
persuasion vs. mobilization in their locale and in their race. In sum, it's not all about swing voters and it's not all about base mobilization -- it's
about both.¶
Swing voters matter- effect key states
Mellman ‘14
Mark is President of the Mellman Group, a leading consulting firm on elections, current clients include
Harry Reid and the House Majority Leader “Persuading Voters Plays a Role,”
http://thehill.com/opinion/mark-mellman/206723-mark-s-mellman-persuading-voters-plays-a-role , kk
A future column will bring it all together, but here I’ll focus on the impact of persuasion, as last week focused on the effects generated by
turnout efforts. Those who denigrate persuasion make two kinds of arguments: first, that there are not many persuadables, and second, that
they cannot really be persuaded.¶ Emblematic of the former was a post on The New York Times’s The Upshot site, which communicated its
thrust in its title, “The Myth of Swing Voters in Midterm Elections,” and noted that fewer than 6 percent of 2008 presidential election voters
cast ballots for a congressional candidate from the other party in 2010. That’s one definition of persuadables, though it fails to distinguish the
persuadable from the persuaded. ¶ No doubt, most of the time, the number persuaded is small. But in
the unusual races, the
upsets, the ones that run counter to presidential type, those persuadables exert a huge influence. President Obama
garnered 38.9 percent of the vote in North Dakota while our client, now senator, Heidi Heitkamp, got 50.5
percent. Sadly there was no exit poll in North Dakota (tsk, tsk, National Election Pool!), but it’s clear Heitkamp won not by bringing additional
Democrats to the polls but by persuading some voters for GOP nominee Mitt Romney to split their tickets. Absent persuasion, Heitkamp would
have lost. ¶ In
Indiana, where exit polls reveal a clearer picture, 21 percent of Romney voters defected from the GOP
Senate nominee, while just 5 percent of Obama voters failed to support now-Sen. Joe Donnelly. Had he not persuaded those defectors,
he too would have lost. More dramatically, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin did 35 points better than Obama on the same
day in West Virginia. He persuaded a good many voters. ¶ Are there enough voters to persuade? Certainly not everywhere and always, but
where tough races are won, there often are.
Swing voters outweigh turnout- studies prove
Mellman ‘14
Mark is President of the Mellman Group, a leading consulting firm on elections, current clients include
Harry Reid and the House Majority Leader “Persuading Voters Plays a Role,”
http://thehill.com/opinion/mark-mellman/206723-mark-s-mellman-persuading-voters-plays-a-role , kk
The second line of argument against persuasion suggests that even if there are persuadable voters, they cannot actually be persuaded. As The
New Republic contended, “Mobilization is the only proven way for a campaign to close that gap [between the number of votes Democrats have
and the number they need to win].” Unless you buy unproven pigs-in-pokes, no one following the magazine’s advice would invest in
persuasion. ¶ But
it turns out the writer is demonstrably wrong on the facts. In addition to the strong
evidence from exit polls and election results, a series of communication experiments reveals that
persuasion does take place. ¶ Persuasion experiments are hard to conduct and are far outnumbered by those testing get-out-thevote (GOTV) strategy. No one has done the kind of meta-analysis of data that I cited on GOTV, but I calculated a simple mean of
the effects recorded in 26 studies I located and found an average impact of 3.87 percentage points
added to the Democrats’ vote. While some of these experiments revealed a short half-life for persuasion, others yielded more
persistent effects. Of course, some studies showed zero impact, as did some of the GOTV experiments. Some also suggested much greater
impacts, as did some of the GOTV studies. But on average, the persuasion experiments added more votes to the bottom line than did the
turnout experiments.
Turnout irrelevant to midterms- all about switchers
Enten ‘14
Harry is fivethirtyeight’s Senior Political Analyst and Writer, “Midterm Election Turnout isn’t so Different
from Presidential Election Turnout,” May 8th http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/midterm-electionturnout-isnt-so-different-from-presidential-year-turnout/ , kk
Spend enough time around pundits and you’ll hear somebody say, “It’s all about turnout.” Who shows up to vote, and those voters’
demographics, is the great mystery of any election. The conventional wisdom is that the demographics of the voting pool are friendlier to
Democrats in presidential years than they are in midterm years, and that it’s the other way around for Republicans. Sasha Issenberg had a
recent piece in The New Republic arguing that the Democrats may be doomed in this year’s midterm elections because they can’t find a way to
bring midterm turnout closer to what it is in presidential years. Peter Wehner, meanwhile, wrote in Commentary in February that Republicans
are doomed in presidential years because of the change in the electorate’s racial demographics.¶ But turnout
isn’t nearly as
important as D.C. wags make it out to be. The demographics of who voted in 2012 vs. 2010 were different,1 but that difference
didn’t make much of a difference. The reason Republicans won more votes in 2010 — and likely will in 2014 — is
that voters wanted Republicans in office, not that minorities and young people didn’t turn out to
vote.¶ First, let’s sort out the differences between people who voted in 2010 and 2012, according to the government’s Current Population
Survey.¶ enten-voters-table-1¶ Note how all minority groups but “others” made up a larger share of voters in 2012 than in 2010. Notice, too,
how young voters decreased as a percentage of all voters, regardless of race. The
share of voters who were whites over the
age of 30, the most Republican group, was 6 points higher in 2010 than in 2012.¶ But if the two voting
pools somehow magically switched places, 2012′s demographics wouldn’t have swung control of the House in
the 2010 election. I transposed the 2012 demographics onto the 2010 vote tallies2 and Republicans still won the national vote by about 3.3
percentage points in the midterms.¶ enten-voters-table-2¶ In 2010, Republicans actually won the national vote by 6.7 points — a safer margin.
According to a 2010 seat curve3 put together by FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver, each point in the national House vote was worth
about four seats. In our counterfactual demographic swap, Republicans would have earned 3.4 fewer points and won 14 fewer seats, for a total
of 228 seats.¶ But it’s not as simple as that. Even this model overstates the difference between midterm and presidential years. To assume that
the electorate would have looked the same in 2010 as it did in 2012 is, among other things, to assume that the country was as white in 2012 as
it was in 2010. That, of course, isn’t true. The electorate gains more minorities every year, while the number of white voters is growing at a
significantly smaller rate.¶ To standardize for changes in population, I applied each demographic’s 2012 turnout rate among voting-age citizens
to its population size in 2010,4 which remade the 2010 voters to look like this:¶ enten-voters-table-3¶ Once all that’s done, the gaps between
midterm turnout and presidential year turnout are even smaller. In this hypothetical 2010, Republicans would have won the national House
vote by 4.1 points and taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 232 seats, good enough for a 53-seat gain. The more robust the math, the
more solid the GOP’s lead.¶ The same thing works in reverse, when we take 2010’s turnout rates and apply them to 2012. With just midterm
voters casting a ballot, President Obama would have won the national vote in 2012 by 1.2 points. That’s 2.7 points less than his actual margin in
2012, but it’s more than enough to have carried the election.5¶ It’s not that the demographic splits of voter turnout don’t matter. They worked
in Republicans’ favor in 2010 and in Democrats’ favor in 2012; demographics just weren’t
the reason either party won.6¶
What really mattered was that voters changed their minds about which party they wanted to vote for .
Look at the voting patterns of each group. Republican congressional candidates won white voters who were at least
30 years old by 25.9 points in 2010, but Mitt Romney won them by only 20.2 points in the presidential race in
2012. Obama’s margin among black voters 30 and older was 89.4 points in 2012, while House Democrats’ margin for this group was 79.1
points in 2010.¶ These aren’t turnout figures — they’re voting figures. The percentage of voters who were black, white or Latino didn’t matter.
Votes were what counted.¶ Some of this is attributable to the “midterm penalty,” the historical trend showing voters tend to reject the
president’s party in midterm elections. The White House’s party lost seats in all but three of the past 26 midterm elections.¶ Chances are the
midterm penalty will strike again in 2014. Democrats and Republicans are currently tied in national House ballot polls among registered voters,
and over time the party not in the White House usually gains support. Add to this the fact that even in 2012 Democrats did worse among likely
voters and you can see why the national tide will probably go against them once again. Perhaps the cliché should be, “It’s all about turnout,
except for when it isn’t.”
A2: Swing Voters
Not enough swing voters- base is key
Vavreck ‘14
Lynn is Professor of Political Science at UCLA, “The Myth of Swing Voters in Midterm Elections,” April 22
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-myth-of-swing-voters-in-midtermelections.html?rref=upshot , kk
Although the president’s party almost always loses seats in midterm elections, the size of the 2010 “shellacking,” to borrow President
Obama’s description, created
the impression that many voters had changed their minds about the president,
a small percentage of
voters actually switched sides between 2008 and 2010. Moreover, there were almost as many John McCain voters who voted for a
Democratic House candidate in 2010 as there were Obama voters who shifted the other way. That may be a surprise to some, but it comes
from one of the largest longitudinal study of voters, YouGov’s Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project (C.C.A.P.), for which
his policy goals or his ability to get the country back on the right track between 2008 and 2010.¶ But only
YouGov interviewed 45,000 people at multiple points during 2011 and 2012.¶ The results clearly show that voters in 2010 did not abandon the
Democrats for the other side, but they did forsake the party in another important way: Many stayed home.¶ Fewer than 6 percent of
2008 voters in the presidential election voted for a congressional candidate from the other party in 2010, with the switchers roughly evenly
divided across the parties, according to the C.C.A.P. It’s worth noting, however, that these switchers are not evenly distributed around the
country, with North Dakota’s single district having very few cross-party voters (under 3 percent) and some Pennsylvania districts, for example,
having upward of 10 percent switching between 2008 and 2010.¶ On average, across districts, roughly 6 percent of Obama voters switched and
just under 6 percent of McCain voters switched; because there were more Obama voters than McCain voters in 2008, this means — as you’d
expect — that more voters swung to the Republicans than to the Democrats. An additional 1.5 percent switched to third-party candidates.¶
This analysis is missing those who didn't vote for president in 2008 who did vote for House races in 2010, including newly-registered voters...¶
Bob 22 April 2014¶ "The results clearly show that voters in 2010 did not abandon the Democrats for the other side, but they did forsake the
party in another...¶ John D. 22 April 2014¶ Those stay-at-homes in 2010 doomed this country for an entire decade. The R's got the upper hand
in redrawing the districts for state...¶ SEE ALL COMMENTS WRITE A COMMENT¶ But on turnout, the numbers were not evenly balanced for
Democrats and Republicans. Only 65 percent of Obama’s 2008 supporters stuck with the party in 2010 and voted for a Democrat in the House.
The remaining 28
percent of Mr. Obama’s voters took the midterm election off. By comparison, only 17 percent
of McCain’s voters from 2008 sat out the midterms.¶ Turnout in midterm elections is always down from presidential
elections, and Democrats routinely fight to return more of their voters to the polls than the Republicans. More Democrats come from groups,
such as young people and Latinos, that typically vote at lower rates in midterm elections than other groups. But this 11-point difference in
holding on to 2008 voters is larger than normal. It probably stemmed from a gap in enthusiasm between the parties’ voters in 2010, as survey
data indicated.¶ It may seem hard to believe that the shellacking was more about who turned up than about who changed their minds between
2008 and 2010, but it lines up with a lot of other evidence about voters’ behavior. Most
identify with the same political party
their entire adult lives, even if they do not formally register with it. They almost always vote for the presidential candidate from that
party, and they rarely vote for one party for president and the other one for Congress. And most voters are also
much less likely to vote in midterm elections than in presidential contests.¶ These stable patterns of American politics reveal a clear path for
both parties in 2014: Get
your 2012 voters to the polls. Of concern to Democrats right now is that Republicans once again have the
upper hand on enthusiasm going into November.¶ The 2014 fight is not over swing voters. It’s for partisans.
A2: Independents Key
Independents aren’t swing voters
Abramowitz ‘14
Alan is the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory, “The Partisans in the Closet,”
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/independent-voters-partisans-in-the-closet101931.html#.U6xpF_ldWGk , kk
According to the latest Gallup Poll, last year a record 42 percent of Americans considered themselves political independents. That’s the largest
percentage of independents Gallup has recorded since the polling firm began doing interviews by telephone 25 years ago. Moreover, the
percentage of independents rose to 46 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013.¶ Based on these results, Gallup’s managing editor, Jeffrey Jones,
concludes that the increase in independent identification “adds a greater level of unpredictability to this year’s congressional midterm
elections.” Jones goes on to argue that, “with Americans increasingly eschewing party labels for themselves, candidates who are less closely
aligned to their party or its prevailing doctrine may benefit.”¶ Don’t count on it. Despite Gallup’s findings, you won’t see a large number of
successful independent candidates next November, nor will many Democratic or Republican candidates distance themselves from their own
party on major issues. That’s because, despite the apparent rise in independent identification, Americans
are actually becoming
more rather than less partisan in their behavior. Yes, even “independents.”¶ There are good reasons to be skeptical about Gallup’s claims
of declining partisanship in the American electorate. For one thing, other national polls have not found an exceptionally high percentage of
independent identifiers in recent months. In fact, according to the Huffington Post Pollster website, the average percentage of independent
identifiers was substantially higher in late 2011 and early 2012 than it is today. And we know what happened in November of 2012—the most
partisan election in modern times, with record levels of party loyalty and straight-ticket voting (for reams of evidence, see The Gamble, the
excellent new book on the 2012 election by political scientists John Sides and Lynn Vavreck).¶ Another major problem with Jones’s claims is the
well-known fact that, when pressed, the
vast majority of Americans who initially identify themselves as political
independents acknowledge that they lean toward one party or the other. Almost three-fourths of
independents surveyed by Gallup during 2013 indicated that they leaned toward one of the two major parties.¶
Why so many independents, then? Millions of Americans today are attracted to the independent label. Parties have
a bad reputation—both major parties are viewed unfavorably by a majority of Americans—and there’s something appealing about the idea of
thinking independently rather than blindly supporting a party. But in fact, the
large majority of independents are “closet
partisans” who consistently support only one party’s candidates. They call themselves independents and many of them register as
independents when given an opportunity, but they vote like partisans. That was certainly true in the last election cycle.
A2: We Cause People to Swing
Democrats won’t swing- other issues
Isenberg ‘14
Sasha is a Fellow at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs and Author of: “the Victory Lab: the Science of
Winning Campaigns,” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117520/how-democrats-can-avoid-goingdown-2014-midterm-election , kk
A trope of 2014 campaign coverage is that Democrats are embracing
progressive concerns—a minimum-wage hike,
contraception, immigration reform, the villainy of the Koch Brothers—to boost turnout in this year’s midterms. Little
of the research informing Democratic tactics supports that explanation. Gerber and Green note that, while traditional messaging
about candidates, parties, issues, and policies can change opinions, it does little to influence a person’s
likelihood of actually voting, which is of course what matters.No experiments since have challenged that finding, says
Green, now at Columbia.¶ The real reason Democrats have embraced a progressive agenda has not been to
energize their own base but to lure Reflex voters from the other side. Obama and his party’s candidates talk about the minimum
wage in the hope that working-class whites skeptical of Democrats on other matters will become more ambivalent about voting Republican.
Democrats’ renewed interest in women’s issues—including a defense of Planned Parenthood and embrace of equal-pay standards—is also
designed with defections in mind. In 2012, the Obama campaign’s entire direct-mail program on women’s issues was targeted at reliable voters
who leaned Republican: Field
experiments in the first half of that year had showed that the messages were
most persuasive among voters whose likelihood of voting for Obama previously sat between 20 and 40
percent.
A2: Enthusiasm
Enthusiasm is irrelevant- elections prove
Isenberg ‘14
Sasha is a Fellow at UCLA’s Luskin School of Public Affairs and Author of: “the Victory Lab: the Science of
Winning Campaigns,” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117520/how-democrats-can-avoid-goingdown-2014-midterm-election , kk
Such results undercut the popular belief that Unreliable voters are driven to the polls by passion—either about a given candidate or the general
political climate. Pollsters imbue this so-called intensity gap with near-prophetic powers: In
mid-October 2012, for instance, the
led Democrats by a ten-point margin
among those calling themselves “extremely likely” to turn out. But that didn’t prevent Obama’s
reelection, of course. Similar findings about this year’s midterms (Battleground has Republicans up by seven points in the enthusiasm
category now) will likewise reveal little about the returns come November.People cast ballots for reasons that have nothing
to do with their excitement level. For Unreliable voters, specifically, it often takes a psychologically potent
encounter to jolt them out of complacency.
Politico–George Washington University Battleground Poll reported that Republicans
A2: Public Popularity
Public popularity irrelevant- midterm electorate different
Nyhan ‘14
Brendan is associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth, “Democrats have advantage on Issues, but
it won’t save them in November,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/upshot/democrats-haveadvantage-on-issues-but-it-wont-save-them-in-november.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0 , kk
Why haven’t these issue advantages translated into electoral success? First, the midterm
electorate is not representative of
the American public. The public’s preferences for Democrats on the issues may diminish or disappear
once you look at registered voters or those who claim they are “absolutely certain” to vote, as Jaime Fuller of The Washington Post
has noted. The Democrats’ edge on the issues is likely to dissipate further among the older, whiter group of Americans most likely to vote in
November.¶
Links
A2: Thumpers
Nothing else happens before the elections
Todd 6-26
Chuck is NBC News’ Political Director and White House Correspondent, “Stick a Fork in This Congress: It’s
Done until Midterms,” http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/stick-fork-congress-its-done-untilmidterms-n141481 , kk
Mark yesterday, June 25, on your calendars: It was the day Congress all but closed up shop to focus on the midterms -after House Speaker John Boehner announced he would introduce legislation next month to authorize a lawsuit against President Obama over
his executive actions in office. “President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing
himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce,” he wrote. Tellingly, Boehner’s letter didn’t cite a specific example of illegal or
unconstitutional executive action, but his aides say the suit will likely focus on the health-care laws and energy regulations. But how
do you
expect Congress to get anything done for the rest of the year when the House has decided to sue the
president? Immigration reform? Forget about it (and it was already on life support). Any other big items? Done. Of course, there’s
always the possibility that SOMETHING might take place during the lame duck. But only the stuff that HAS to get done to avoid operational
shutdowns. Yet for now, House Republicans have signaled they’re done working with the White House and Democrats. And the White House
and Dems are pretty much saying the same thing. “I’m not sure an announcement that House Republicans are preparing a taxpayer-funded
lawsuit against the president for doing his job is going to be warmly received by the American public,” White House Press Secretary Josh
Earnest said yesterday.
A2: Link Turns
A2: Steyer/Liberal Money
Liberal money doesn’t affect red states
Geraghty ‘14
Jim writes the Campaign Spot for National Review, “The Green’s Malleable Principle’s,” March 19th
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373664/greens-malleable-principles-jim-geraghty/page/0/1 , kk
Steyer’s expensive crusade may prove to be a surprise factor in the midterm elections. Or it may become another version of
Mike Bloomberg’s extravagantly self-funded efforts to promote gun control — another case where a
billionaire and his high-priced consultants convinced themselves that running a lot of television ads could change the
minds of voters who view the world quite differently and who go about their lives far removed from the elites’ luxurious
bubble. Last summer, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, concluded that Bloomberg “didn’t help a bit with his ads.” In fact, Leahy
lamented, Bloomberg “actually turned off some people that we might have gotten for supporters.” Senator Chuck Schumer,
Democrat of New York, said he didn’t “think Bloomberg’s ads [were] effective,” and Schumer, Senate majority leader Harry Reid, and former
president Clinton reportedly asked Bloomberg to stop attacking pro-gun Democrats. Steyer seems to have learned that lesson.¶ Some political
concerns, voters seem to agree, are luxury items.
Generic
Economic growth
Good economic news swings the election for Democrats
Calmes 2014 (Jackie; Democrats are hopeful improving job numbers will sway voters in fall; Jul 3;
www.nytimes.com/2014/07/04/us/politics/democrats-are-hopeful-improving-job-numbers-will-swayvoters-in-fall.html?_r=0; kdf)
WASHINGTON — While the
jobs report for June released on Thursday sent stock markets soaring as investors celebrated
another sign of a rebounding economy, voters are hardly so easily moved. Yet for President Obama and congressional
Democrats, the numbers kindled hopes of a lift to their party’s downbeat prospects in this fall’s midterm
elections. Even as international crises dominate the news and the attention of the White House and Congress, the economy
continues to be the main concern of most voters, polls show. So Mr. Obama, who struggles daily to balance the two
imperatives, on Thursday appeared at a local hub for technology innovators and hailed the hiring report as evidence of a positive trend. On the
eve of Independence Day at a firm called 1776, the president appealed to Republicans’ “economic patriotism” to work with him to strengthen
the economy. But his main audience was voters: Mr. Obama expressed hope that “the American people look at today’s news and understand
that, in fact, we are making strides. We
have not seen more consistent job growth since the ’90s.” In effect, Mr.
Obama is trying to do within months what he has not been able to do in the five years since the
recession officially ended: persuade most Americans of the economy’s comeback from the near collapse
of the global financial system. The June jobs report — showing 288,000 new hires, the unemployment rate down to 6.1
percent and positive revisions to the April and May jobs numbers — gave the White House and congressional Democrats
grounds for optimism.
1NC Energy
Expanded energy is the one policy Dems can win on
Ford ‘14
Harold is a Former Tennessee Congressman, teaches at NYU’s Wagner School, and is an NBC News
Contributor, “This is the Only way Democrats can Hold onto the Senate,” May 29th
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/05/29/this-is-the-only-way-democrats-canhold-onto-the-senate/ , kk
Halfway through President Obama’s first term, Democrats lost 63 seats in the House and six in the Senate, reaffirming the widely held belief
that a sitting president’s party almost always suffers losses in Congress during midterm elections. But Democrats
have an
opportunity to defy history this time around.¶ If there is a single issue that can help Democrats avoid
the midterm curse and even gain ground this election, it is the energy renaissance that the president has
quietly helped engineer by supporting the most diverse energy portfolio in history. As a result of these efforts, millions of new jobs have been
created across the energy sector, a trend that allows Democrats to play offense in the upcoming election instead of simply having to deflect
Republican criticism over the state of the economy.¶ Yes, there are factions within our party that have long been wary of the energy industry.
But Democrats would be wise to avoid the all-or-nothing approach of ideologues. Instead, Democrats should take the lead in championing
strategies that attempt to build upon the energy sector’s successes, including long-overdue policies that would help transform America into a
major global energy supplier. , including long-overdue policies that would help transform America into a major global energy supplier.¶
Consider what is happening in the area of natural gas development. Since 2007, there has been a 50 percent increase in U.S. shale oil and gas
production. Prices have dropped and stockpiles have grown; and entire regions of the country have been revitalized. It has shored up the U.S.
economy at a critical moment, putting Americans back to work, powering industry and drawing manufacturing back to domestic soil.¶ Hundreds
of American companies—including household names like Ford, GE, and Whirlpool—whose business was once considered lost to more
competitive markets have begun to re-shore their operations here at home. Now as we look to broaden the benefits of our energy renaissance,
exporting excess supplies of natural gas would help continue this streak of innovation and expansive job growth.¶ But sadly, this growth
threatens to stall, largely because of the bureaucratic apathy of regulators in Washington. Only seven permits to export liquefied natural gas
(LNG) have been approved by the Department of Energy; and of them, only one site has received the green light to begin construction. Twentyfour applications still await review at the agency, where they have sat for months—and in some cases years. If we simply expand our access to
export markets, this abundant resource can help the United States create more jobs, incentivize additional growth and even foster greater
stability in global markets.¶ Why hold back on this historic moment? The jobs that natural gas has already created—1.7 million, by some
estimates—are reviving the heart of small town America. States like Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are rapidly expanding production.
Industries like steel and shipbuilding, dormant only a few years ago, are growing again. Experts predict LNG exports will generate as much as
$73 billion in GDP, which, under the right policies, can be sustained for decades.¶ Domestically, we are relying less and less on the whim of
other nations for energy. The United States was 87 percent self-sufficient for energy needs in the first half of 2013. President Obama said
himself that energy independence is within reach, thanks to natural gas. There is no lack of global demand. In the wake of the turmoil in
Ukraine, for example, many of our European allies have pleaded for increased energy support. We should not bottle up these resources at
home when we can use them as strong diplomatic leverage abroad, where Russia’s thinly veiled regional ambitions have put this issue center
stage.¶ Democrats should take the lead in driving legislation that has already been introduced in Congress to expedite energy exports. This
would allow the party to achieve a notable accomplishment in advance of the elections: a sound strategy for job growth, energy development,
and foreign policy After all, many Democrats,
primarily electorally vulnerable ones from energy-producing
states, are under pressure to demonstrate that they can deliver energy projects that produce jobs,
particularly after the administration delayed its decision on the Keystone XL Pipeline.¶ America is now an
energy power player. However, we have yet to fully realize the expansive benefits of this new reality. But we can place ourselves on that path.
We can start with energy exports—for the good of our party and, more important, our country.
Distance from President
Distance on national issues is key
Kraushaar 6-24
Josh is the Political Editor of the National Journal, “The Travis Childers Test,”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/the-travis-childers-test-20140624 , kk
In his re-election to the seat that November, he ran 16 points ahead of President Obama in the district. He carried Republican-friendly Lee
County (Tupelo) with the support from some conservative white voters, while also running up the score in heavily-African American rural
counties.¶ The challenge for Childers, as a statewide candidate, is to distance himself from the national issues that are currently battering the
Democratic Party's image. Childers knows that lesson firsthand, losing his seat in the 2010 Republican wave that swept his party out of control
despite voting against the president's health care law.¶ He succeeded in his initial election by focusing on local issues,
raising the fear that his Republican challenger, a mayor who represented a Memphis suburb, would be more concerned about representing
voters in Tennessee than Mississippi. Against the Republican nominee, the race wouldn't hinge on geography but ideology — and that's an area
where even moderate Democrats face problems connecting in the deep South.¶ Childers' ability to win over enough crossover votes is a crucial
test not only in Mississippi but for Democrats across the country. The dynamic of the Mississippi electorate isn't all that different from those in
several critical Southern Senate battlegrounds. In Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina, the
formula is similar: win over enough
white voters while exciting an African-American base without Obama on the ballot.¶ For a veteran senator like
Mary Landrieu, that means breaking with the president on energy issues but continuing to support the
president's health care law with fixes. For Sen. Kay Hagan, the formula is to rally the base by painting Republican Thom Tillis as
racially insensitive while focusing on the persuadable white voters, particularly single women and suburbanites. Without a Republican nominee
chosen yet in Georgia, Democrat Michelle Nunn is downplaying her partisan identification while highlighting her connections to George H.W.
Bush. For Childers, it simply means running as a conservative Democrat while casting his opponent as out-of-touch.
Plan is necessary for Landrieu- shows she can use energy perch to help Louisiana
Lewis 6-23
Paul is the Washington Correspondent for the Guardian, “Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu Faces Bumpy
Ride on the Bayou,” kk, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/louisana-senator-marylandrieu-midterms
It is rare for Democratic senators to be so explicit in their criticism of Barack Obama, but Landrieu
makes no secret of her
opposition to the president, particularly over energy policy.¶ Privately, sources close to Landrieu's campaign
concede she is effectively running against Obama, whose low approval ratings and reputation for partisanship are a greater
drag on her re-election prospects than Cassidy.¶ The central tenet of Landrieu's campaign is her recent promotion to the chair of the Senate
energy committee, a position of power from which, she claims, can reward her oil-rich state.¶ Landrieu was in Toledo Bend last month to
convey that point. Technically, it was was not a campaign event, but an off-site committee hearing on the future of a hydroelectric dam facility
that has applied for a license renewal.¶ But the electioneering was plain to see. Landrieu made it clear to those gathered at the meeting, on a
golf course on banks of the reservoir, that the federal energy regulatory commission, which grants licenses to dams, and which now falls under
her purview as committee chairman, would grant the maximum 50-year license or face her wrath.¶ “It is a gavel we don’t often get,” she aid of
her control of the committee. “I’ve got it now. It is really important for me to wield it on behalf of communities like these.” The event near the
town of Many, in Sabine Parish, was deep in Republican territory – Mitt Romney soaked up 77% of the vote there in the 2012 presidential
election.¶ Louisiana's political map can be roughly split three ways. New Orleans, which has a large, mixed population, and dances to its own
tune, is Landrieu's home territory.¶ The rest of so-called Cajun country – the stretch of swampy, coastal bayou along the south, which also
includes the capital, Baton Rouge, and has large numbers of Catholic voters – is more difficult to parse, with areas evenly split between the
parties.¶ Finally, the central and northern parts of the state including parishes like Sabine are, with a few exceptions, largely rural, Protestant
and white, and lean Republican.¶ Adam Sullivan, Landrieu's well-regarded campaign manager, said she will need do well in each of those areas
to triumph, and cannot merely rely on activating a Democratic base, a strategy employed by the party elsewhere. “It is not a natural coalition,”
he said. “It is a Landrieu coalition.”¶ He is directing a campaign with a strong, local focus, emphasising Landrieu’s commitment to touchstone
issues that transcend party politics, such as securing federal support to lower flood insurance rates, tackle coastal erosion and share the
proceeds of oil from the Gulf of Mexico.¶ In Toledo Bend, a Republican state senator, Gerald Long, who happens to be a close friend of
Cassidy's, surprised the senator's campaign aides by pouring praise on her rise to energy chair. “I want to publicly say how appreciative I am
that senator Landrieu has brought government to the people,” Long said, imploring the room to give her a round of applause.¶ That moment
made the Toledo Bend event an unusually easy ride for Landrieu. Plugging a license of a hydro-electric damn was also an easy win for Landrieu.
As she well knows, renewable energy is vastly overshadowed by the oil and gas boom in Louisiana.¶ Landrieu, a cheerleader for the fossil fuels
industry, has outpaced Cassidy in the fundraising race, with contributions from major energy corporations. She is an unapologetic enthusiast for
shale gas and offshore drilling, and responded angrily to the Obama administration’s momentous decision earlier this month to impose carbon
emission cuts on coal-fired power stations to help arrest climate change.¶ But it is the contest over approval of the Keystone XL pipeline where
Landrieu, as head of the energy committee, is positioning herself as the fiercest critic of her own administration.¶ The Obama administration
has repeatedly postponed a decision over whether to approve an extension of the pipeline that would allow crude oil to be transported from
the vast tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to oil refineries on the Gulf coast of Texas.¶ Privately, environmentalists and energy lobbyists alike
concede the battle over Keystone is a red herring. It is a routine pipeline – there are already 2.3m miles of oil and gas pipeline that criss-cross –
and in the wider scheme, not hugely consequential.¶ But the fight of Keystone has become a hugely proxy battle between environmentalists
and the energy lobby, and nowhere is the symbolism more potent that Louisiana.¶ The pipeline will not not pass through Louisiana and it is
unlikely the state’s refineries will receive its oil without expensive modifications. But Landrieu has made her efforts to get the pipeline
approved a cornerstone of her campaign. She tried and failed to get a bill authorising Keystone onto the Senate floor last month, and last week
ensured the bill passed out of her committee – a move Cassidy's dismissed as a pointless "show vote".¶ Given reluctance on the part of the
Democratic leadership in the Senate to put the bill to a wider vote, it is unlikely to be passed before November. The
notion that – for all
Republican-controlled Senate would be better for Louisiana's energy interests than an
upper chamber in Democratic hands is difficult for her campaign to counter.¶ Landrieu's response has
been to walk a tightrope, extolling the virtues of her newfound influence in Washington, but cautioning
that it might not be enough to overcome her Democratic colleagues, not least Obama.¶ Speaking shortly after her
Landrieu's bluster – a
bold promise to Toledo Bend residents that the energy committee gavel will be waved in their interests, for example, the senator told the
Guardian that, on issues such as Keystone, her influence should not be exaggerated.¶ “There are no fairy godmothers up here,” she said. “I
don’t have a magic wand – that is not the power you get from the gavel. What you get is the power to call hearings, continue to raise the issue
– and press the president to do the right thing.”
Landrieu Influence
Landrieu is stymied now and is stymied on water- needs wins to show her influence
E&E Daily 6-24
Energy and Environment Daily, “Senate Dysfunction Stymies Landrieu’s Narrative as she Battles for reelection,” http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060001819
Mary Landrieu just can't
seem to catch a break these days.¶ A flurry of activity last week in the Senate highlighted
the limits of her Energy and Natural Resources gavel and the extent to which the Senate's poisonous political atmosphere is
preventing her from scoring political wins as she struggles to persuade Louisiana voters to re-elect her.¶
The high-profile committee vote on the Keystone XL pipeline -- which Republicans had earlier requested -- was just as quickly dismissed by
some of those same Republicans as a "show vote." And even though his leadership post could depend on Landrieu's political survival, Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) chuckled at the suggestion of bringing up the bill again, saying its time had passed.¶ Early
in the
week, it looked like a pending energy and water spending bill would offer Landrieu a chance for a
cleaner argument in favor of her experience in the Senate. She secured language in the bill meant to steer more federal
dollars to Louisiana's energy ports and bragged during a subcommittee markup that one of the few new Army Corps of Engineers construction
projects authorized in the bill would take place in her home state.¶ But the spending bill, too, was dashed on the rocks of senatorial gridlock.
Appropriations Committee leaders canceled plans to mark up the bill after the White House threatened to veto it over fears that Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would successfully attach an amendment designed to undermine the Obama administration's regulation of
greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.¶ Canceling the markup also prevented Landrieu from demonstrating her opposition to the U.S.
EPA power plant rule by voting in favor of the McConnell amendment. A Landrieu spokesman said after the fact that she would have supported
the amendment. Her opposition to the rule puts her in line with Louisiana voters, who oppose the EPA regulations by a margin of 51 percent to
32 percent, according to a recent poll from Republican firm Magellan Strategies conducted a few days after its release. The same poll gave
Landrieu's likely fall challenger, Rep. Bill Cassidy (R), a 50 percent to 44 percent edge over the incumbent.¶ A senior member of the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, Landrieu spoke at length during a subcommittee markup earlier last week of the provisions
she had secured for her state in the bill. One provision would have directed the Army Corps to give more weight to products shipped from
energy ports when deciding what projects to fund; another would have provided construction funding for a coastal restoration project in the
state, "one of the only new starts" in the bill, she said. It also included funding for southeast Louisiana flood control programs, which would
keep New Orleans "from ever going underwater again," Landrieu said.¶
"It really is a challenge for her when it proves to be
difficult to get anything accomplished in the Senate," said Kirby Goidel, director of public policy research at Louisiana State
University.¶ The fate of all of those programs is now in limbo with the spending bill on hold indefinitely. It is unlikely to be considered again in
the Senate before the election. A companion House bill -- which does not include any Army Corps new starts or the energy port language -- is
scheduled to come to the House floor the week of July 7. Cassidy said he may offer amendments to the bill but declined to discuss details last
week.¶ Landrieu is nonetheless touting her efforts to deliver -- while downplaying or ignoring the myriad obstacles she cannot control. Just
yesterday, her Senate office distributed a press release pointing to positive reports from Louisiana newspapers on "Landrieu's work to build a
prosperous future for Louisiana," including the Keystone XL vote and energy ports provisions in the spending bill.¶ The email also linked to an
editorial that praised her advocacy for the state's Poverty Point historic site, which was just designated a World Heritage site by the United
Nations, and a letter to the editor praising her work on college affordability.¶ After the KXL vote last week, Cassidy's campaign accused Landrieu
of convening a "show vote" meant only to bolster her re-election. The Landrieu campaign reminded Cassidy that he and the rest of Louisiana's
congressional delegation last month wrote Landrieu a letter requesting that she move a KXL-approval bill through the Senate and noting that
the committee markup is a key step in that process.¶ Still, there is no clear path to the floor. Reid said Republicans had their chance but blew it
by blocking a bipartisan energy efficiency bill earlier this spring. Asked about the bill during his weekly briefing last Tuesday, Reid chuckled and
said, "I agreed to give them a vote. They, the Republicans, they wouldn't take it."¶ N. Hunter Johnston, a partner at Steptoe & Johnson LLP who
tracks Louisiana and energy issues, said Republican criticism of the KXL vote was out of bounds, given that moving a bill out of committee is the
best any committee chair could do on his or her own.¶ "It was really unfair criticism, but it does seem to be an unprecedented moment in
Senate politics and in energy politics when ... the [energy] agenda is so closely controlled by the majority leader," Johnston said.¶ Compare that
to when Johnston's father, then-Sen. Bennett Johnston (D-La.), chaired the Energy Committee and Sen. George Mitchell (D-Maine) was majority
leader. When the Energy Policy Act of 1992 was being crafted, the committee chairman and majority leader "didn't see eye to eye, but anything
coming out of the committee generally got floor time," Hunter Johnston said.¶ Johnston
said he would not be surprised to see
Landrieu break more forcefully with Reid between now and the election, perhaps by Senate floor maneuvering in a
bid to secure a vote on KXL or another of her priorities.
LNG
Environmentalists Like Exports
Environmentalists support exports
Bloomberg ‘14
“LNG Exports Gain Growing Support,” http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-04-30/lngexports-gain-growing-suport/ , kk
There are some peculiarities among that overall support: Those 65 and older, who lived through the 1970s oil embargo, are more skeptical of
exports. While environmental groups such as the Sierra Club are trying to stop approval for liquefied natural gas facilities, those
who call
themselves active environmentalists support exports by 45 to 25 percent.
Environmentalists gaining power – influence over elections proves
Eilperin ‘12
Juliet has covered the environment for the national desk, reporting on science, policy and politics in
areas including climate change, oceans, and air quality with the Washington Post since 2004,
“Environmentalists play huge role in 2012 races” Washington Post 6/26/14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/environmentalists-play-key-role-in-2012races/2012/11/09/67c1fd78-29bc-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html , HR
For years, environmentalists have been seen as marginal players in presidential and congressional
elections. That may have changed last week. The environmental community scored a string of successes
Tuesday in New Mexico, Montana, Texas and other states, winning seven of eight targeted Senate races
and at least threetargeted House races. Although plenty of outside groups poured money into these contests, even some
representatives of the fossil-fuel industry said that environmentalists had invested their resources wisely in 2012.
“There is evidence that the environmentalists have become a more mature political force,” said Scott
H. Segal, who lobbies for utility companies at the firm Bracewell & Giuliani. “Environmentalist spending was up
considerably this cycle, and they seemed to resist the frequent trap of supporting third-party or crank candidates in ways that would
have siphoned off votes from mainstream Democrats,” Segal said. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) spent more
than $14 million this year, more than it had in the past three election cycles combined, and groups including
the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation Action Fund, Defenders of Wildlife Action Committee, Environment America and Natural Resources
Defense Council Action Fund also devoted money and volunteers to key contests. Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America, said
activists decided to focus on several Senate races in order to ensure that House Republicans’ efforts to reverse some of President Obama’s
policies curbing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change would die in the Senate. “We knew we would have to
defend the actions he’s taken this year, and in past years, against rollbacks from coal, from oil and their allies in Congress,” Alt said at a news
conference Wednesday. In a handful of contests, environmentalists’ money, time and targeting played a critical role. Earlier this year, both
parties viewed the Senate contest in New Mexico between Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) and former congresswoman Heather Wilson (R) as highly
competitive. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and two conservative super PACs, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, spent heavily on
television ads attacking Heinrich. Environmentalists spent nearly $2 million on phone, mail and ads attacking Wilson for her unwillingness to
hold oil companies liable for contaminating New Mexico’s water supply with MTBE, a fuel additive. The narrator of one ad rattled off Wilson’s
campaign contributions from oil and gas firms before declaring, “It makes you wonder, who’s Heather Wilson with? Not us.” By the end of the
summer, GOP-affiliated groups pulled back from the race after polls showed Heinrich with a significant lead. Heinrich, who came under fire for
his support for climate legislation and opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, said the environmentalists’ ads helped ensure his victory
Tuesday. “They were really strategic and showed a political sophistication that has only emerged in the last few years,” Heinrich said. “They
were able to dig down and do some extensive polling to figure out where a candidate’s positions don’t line up with the constituents’ and bring
that out.” Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg, who had rated the New Mexico Senate contest as a tossup/tilt Democrat at the start of the
summer, questioned whether environmentalists were decisive, given the state’s Democratic leanings. “I’m not doubting that they did
something,” Rothenberg said of environmentalists. “If they hadn’t done anything, I think Wilson still would have lost.” Environmentalists did
suffer one major loss on the state level: Despite spending more than $10 million to support a constitutional amendment requiring Michigan to
source 25 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2025, the initiative failed by a wide margin. Elsewhere in the country,
environmentalists made an impact through get-out-the-vote operations. LCV had the largest field
operation of any independent group in Montana’s race between Sen. Jon Tester (D) and Rep. Denny
Rehberg, (R) spending $1.1 million to register nearly 30,000 Tester supporters to vote by mail. A
Democratic-leaning state environmental group, Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership Fund, also
influenced the race by running last-minute ads urging sportsmen to support Libertarian candidate Dan Cox. Cox received 6.5
percent of the vote Tuesday, at least 2.5 percentage points higher than Libertarians running for either governor or the House. Tester won his
race by 3.9 percent. The group had used money from LCV earlier this year to attack Rehberg. Navin Nayak, LCV’s senior vice president for
campaigns, said none of LCV’s money was used to finance the pro-Cox ads. He said LCV Action Fund did rank as the largest fundraiser for Tester,
Heinrich and two other Democratic Senate candidates — Timothy M. Kaine (Va.) and Richard Carmona (Ariz.) — through its bundling program.
Kaine won, while Carmona lost. Environmental
groups also helped defeat GOP Reps. Francisco R. Canseco (Tex.) and Ann
Marie Buerkle (N.Y.), whom they targeted for denying the connection between human activity and climate change. Some
environmentalists say the election provides a mandate for aggressive action on climate change, although
oil and gas industry officials warned against over-interpreting the results because the economy ranked as the dominant issue this year.
Export terminals are a key victory for Dem Senators
Strassel ‘14
Kimberly is on the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, “The Democratic Civil War over Energy,” March
20th http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303802104579451693067746208 , kk
This new demand could not come at a more awkward time for the party. Under fire for ObamaCare and the economy, scores of vulnerable
Democrats are rushing to natural gas and drilling as political safe harbors. Supporting fracking allows them to claim they are in favor of more
jobs, cheaper energy and rising incomes. Supporting
natural-gas exports allows them to look responsive to the
Ukraine crisis, or at least more responsive than their unpopular president. It helps, too, that this puts them
on the same page as the significant majority of Americans who support more drilling (and pipelines).¶ Red-state
senate Democrats like Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.) are these days fighting for pro-energy airtime with colleagues like Colorado's
Mark Udall. Mr. Udall, who can usually be found pushing a federal renewable energy mandate, now finds himself facing a likely challenge from
Rep. Cory Gardner —as pro-energy a Republican as they come. When the Ukraine crisis began, Mr. Udall suddenly couldn't move quickly
enough to introduce a bill to expand the number of countries to which the U.S. can export natural gas. A Udall spokesman publicly bragged that
they'd got their own bill introduced before Mr. Gardner introduced his own.¶ Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, who just loves solar, wind and
biofuels, but who is also facing an electoral threat from Republican Ed Gillespie, materialized on Wednesday to demand that the Obama Energy
Department greenlight more gas export terminals. New Mexico's Tom Udall has embraced more exports, tying it directly to his state's drilling
jobs. With all this Democratic love for natural gas, Ms. Landrieu was hard pressed to get attention for her own announcement that she is
devoting her first hearing as new chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee to the benefits of more oil and gas exports.¶
Louisiana is the key race and is a referendum on Landreiu’s ability to deliver for the
state
York 4-2
Byron is a Columnist for the Washington Examiner, “Louisiana Senate race a battle of pork, policies and
political legacies,” http://washingtonexaminer.com/louisiana-senate-race-a-battle-of-pork-policies-andpolitical-legacies/article/2546656 ,kk
The conventional wisdom is that the Senate race between three-term Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy will be about
Obamacare. Will Landrieu's vote for the president's national health care scheme -- the decisive vote, as Republicans often point out -- finally
end a storied Louisiana political career?¶ There's no doubt Obamacare will play a big role in the campaign. It's hugely unpopular here in
Louisiana — 33 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove in a recent poll — and Landrieu, as much as any other Democrat, is responsible for it.
Cassidy and outside conservative groups are pounding her on the issue every day.¶ But even more
than Obamacare, the
Louisiana Senate race will be a test of the old proposition that elections are won by bringing home the
bacon. Landrieu has always argued that she "delivers" for Louisiana, and in the coming campaign she'll cite the
millions and millions of federal dollars she has brought to the state. On the other side, Cassidy believes the political debate has moved into
what one aide called a "post-pork paradigm" — an era in which voters choose lawmakers based on policy, not goodies from Washington. In
Cassidy's view, Louisianans are eager to move the Senate beyond the old D.C. way of doing things.¶ Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!¶
More than Obamacare, more than anything else, that is the fight — plain old pork vs. the post-pork paradigm — that will determine who is the
next senator from Louisiana, and possibly which party controls the Senate in 2015 and beyond.¶ Forgive us our debts¶
One key test could come in St. Tammany Parish, the New Orleans suburb on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. It's mostly white and heavily
Republican, but Landrieu managed to pull nearly 37 percent of the vote in her last election in 2008, the year of the Obama sweep. Before that,
in 2002, she could only manage about 32 percent. This time around, a lot of politicos will be watching Landrieu's performance in the parish, and
in the larger area known as the Northshore, as a critical indicator of whether Landrieu can pull enough suburban votes to go along with the
margin of victory she will undoubtedly rack up in New Orleans, where her brother Mitch Landrieu was recently re-elected mayor with strong
African-American support.¶ It's no accident that St. Tammany is feeling a lot of Landrieu love these days. "The St. Tammany Parish school
district is getting $67.8 million in disaster loans and accumulated interest for Hurricane Katrina forgiven by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Sen. Mary Landrieu's office announced Monday," the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported last December. "The announcement
follows FEMA's earlier decision to cancel a $9.9 million loan for the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office and a $14.5 million loan to the St.
Tammany Parish government." Landrieu, it turns out, inserted a loan forgiveness provision into the 2013 Homeland Security Appropriations bill
-- a move that will likely mean future forgiveness for even more Katrina loans.¶ When I stopped by the office of St. Tammany Parish President
Pat Brister at the government center in Mandeville recently, she was thankful — very thankful — for Landrieu's help. Brister, who is not only a
Republican but a former chairman of the Louisiana GOP, was so grateful that a few months ago she introduced Landrieu at a fundraiser. "I
thanked her profusely for it," Brister recalled. "I was happy to do it, because I think she's done a lot."¶ And not just on loan forgiveness. "She
has gotten us quite a bit of road money, the RESTORE Act," Brister added, referring to another piece of post-Katrina legislation. "It really does
help us. I thanked her for it; it was her efforts that led to that."¶ Brister is a conservative Republican who has a lot of good things to say about
the state's Democratic senator. In fact, she said so many good things about Landrieu that I asked directly: "Do you support her?"¶ Brister
paused. "I support her," she said of Landrieu. "I'm not endorsing her. There's a big difference. I am not endorsing her, but I support her effort
on behalf of citizens that I represent." Brister said she also supports Cassidy's efforts, but added, "I'm not endorsing him, either."¶ So the
Republican president of a very Republican parish — and a former state party chief, too — is not going to endorse the Republican candidate in a
hugely important statewide race? "That is what I anticipate," Brister said. "As parish president I don't think I can do that. We have voters that I
represent who would find that offensive, on either side."¶ Brister also said a number of critical things about Landrieu, hitting not just the
Obamacare vote but Landrieu's support of President Obama's far-reaching regulatory proposals, as well as his judicial nominees. "He calls on
her, and she votes," Brister said of the president and Landrieu. With a president as unpopular as Barack Obama is in Louisiana, that's a
problem.¶ And that makes Brister's decision not to endorse Landrieu's Republican opponent all the more striking. A
solid majority of
Brister's constituents will vote against Landrieu; it would be easy for her to side with them. But she
won't, and that is a big plus for Landrieu. And it's all the power of bringing home the bacon.¶ Brister isn't the
only example. One of Louisiana's more powerful economic players is Bollinger Shipyards, run by CEO Boysie Bollinger, who has for years been a
major Republican donor. In 2014, however, Bollinger has decided to endorse Mary Landrieu. And it is perhaps no accident that last fall the
Coast Guard awarded Bollinger a $250 million contract to build six new cutters. Landrieu got that into the 2013 Homeland Security bill, too.¶
And then there is the energy industry. Any Louisianan who follows politics even a little knows Landrieu has recently become chairman of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. While Republicans hope to use the new position against Landrieu — is she going to cave in to
the environmental extremists in her party? — the fact is, the chairmanship offers her the chance to grant tax breaks and all sorts of other favors
to business in her state.
Shipping and natural gas Key industry one of the key industries in Louisiana
Info Louisiana ‘14
“Louisiana Economy,” http://doa.louisiana.gov/about_economy.htm kk
The main elements of the Louisiana economy are: the production of minerals, particularly oil and natural
gas, but also sulphur, lime, salt and lignite; petroleum refining; chemical and petrochemical manufacturing; tourism; forestry; pulp, plywood
and papermaking; agriculture and food processing; commercial fishing; shipping and international trade; shipbuilding, and general
manufacturing
A2: Export Now
Few exports and it’s not public
WSJ 6-24
“U.S. Ruling Loosens Four Decade Ban on Oil Exports,” http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-ruling-wouldallow-first-shipments-of-unrefined-oil-overseas-1403644494 , kk
In separate rulings that haven't been announced, the Commerce Department gave Pioneer Natural Resources Co. and Enterprise Products
Partners LP permission to ship a type of ultralight oil known as condensate to foreign buyers. The buyers could turn the oil into gasoline, jet fuel
and diesel.¶ The
shipments could begin as soon as August and are likely to be small, people familiar with the matter
said. It isn't clear how much oil the two companies are allowed to export under the rulings, which were issued since the start of this year. The
Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security approved the moves using a process known as
a private ruling.
GOP Solves the Aff
GOP control solves the Aff
Reuters 6-16
“Republicans Gains in November May Boost Chances of U.S. Trade Deals,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/16/us-usa-election-trade-analysis-idUSKBN0ER0ET20140616 ,
kk
A change in control of the Senate could smooth the way toward passage of a broad trade agreement
with 11 Asia-Pacific nations and another pact with the European Union, said political strategists advising Wall Street firms. The trade
deals could benefit exporters of agricultural produce, chemicals and auto parts, among other products and services.¶ The Republicans
could also help get approvals for more exports of U.S. energy products, in abundance because of the shale oil and
gas boom, to Europe and Asia.¶ “A unified Congress in one party could lead to a compromise" on trade, said Daniel Clifton, head of policy
research at Strategas Research Partners in Washington.¶ The Obama Administration's desire for fast-track negotiating powers, which Democrat
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes, could be granted in a Republican-controlled chamber. Fast-track authority sets objectives for U.S.
trade negotiators in exchange for an up-or-down vote in Congress on trade deals, with no amendments allowed. Without this any deal Obama
negotiated could be subject to amendments that could destroy it. The Obama Administration's desire for fast-track negotiating powers, which
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes, could be granted in a Republican-controlled chamber. Fast-track authority sets
objectives for U.S. trade negotiators in exchange for an up-or-down vote in Congress on trade deals, with no amendments allowed. Without
this any deal Obama negotiated could be subject to amendments that could destroy it.¶ Many trade experts say this would aid talks on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is now in its fifth year of negotiations. Central to Obama's strategic shift toward Asia, the TPP would
connect many countries, including the U.S. and Japan, by cutting trade barriers and harmonizing standards in a deal covering a third of global
trade.
Aquaculture
1nc
Landrieu loses now- structural factors
Cohn 5-7
Nate writes for the Upshot, the New York Times Quantitative election analysis, “Mary Landrieu’s very
Difficult Reelection,” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/upshot/mary-landrieus-very-difficult-reelection.html?_r=1 , kk
The deterioration of Democratic strength among Louisiana’s white voters is also evident in voter registration
figures and presidential election results. Between 2002 and 2008, the Democratic advantage in Louisiana white voter registration slipped to 4
percentage points from 17. On Election Day in 2008, registered white Democrats outnumbered white Republicans by a mere 1 percentage
point, down from 16 points in 2002. The shift is just as striking in the presidential election results. In 1996, President Clinton
received
about 37
percent of Louisiana’s white vote. But that number has steadily declined: Al Gore received 27 percent, John
Kerry received 24 percent, and President Obama won less than 14 percent in 2012.¶ Compared with these figures, Ms. Landrieu’s slight
decline still suggests an impressive base of support. But Ms. Landrieu suffered huge losses in some rural counties, performing more than 10
points worse among white voters. Statewide, these losses were largely canceled by an increase in Ms. Landrieu’s support in the New Orleans
area, where there are more moderate voters.¶ The anti-Democratic trend is, if anything, gaining speed. Soon after the 2010
midterms, Republicans seized a voter registration advantage among whites, and it has steadily grown to a 7-point edge today. In 2010,
Republicans reduced the Democratic congressional delegation to a single seat, the majority-minority district representing New Orleans.¶
Despite confessing to participating in a prostitution ring, Senator David Vitter, a Republican, won re-election
with 58 percent of the vote. In 2011, Republicans seized every statewide office for the first time in the
state’s history. And on Election Day 2012, registered white Republicans outnumbered white Democrats by a 10-point margin.¶ Continue
reading the main story¶ Louisiana Whites Shift Republican¶ In one decade, a double-digit Democratic advantage turned into a double-digit
deficit.¶ Net Democratic advantage¶ 15¶ 10¶ 5¶ 0¶ -5¶ -10¶ Registered Voters¶ Voters¶ ’02¶ ’04¶ ’06¶ ’08¶ ’10¶ ’12¶ ¶ To win in 2014, with lower
black turnout likely, Ms. Landrieu cannot afford any additional decline in her support among white voters. But 2014
promises far more
challenging conditions, and her losses among white voters could easily surpass those from 2008, especially
if one assumes that she was near her ceiling in the New Orleans area. Holding onto her territory will be hard enough. For instance, Ms. Landrieu
easily won Jefferson Parish, encompassing most of New Orleans’s suburbs, which never voted for Mr. Clinton or President Carter, and which
never previously came close to supporting Ms. Landrieu.¶ All considered, it
is unclear whether there is still a path for her to
reach 50 percent — and while a third-party candidate might allow her to squeak by in another state, Louisiana’s runoff system requires
her to clear 50 percent to win re-election.¶ The limited polling data confirms that 2014 is not 2008. The only live interview surveys contacting
voters with cellphones are from Southern Media and Opinion Research, which found Ms. Landrieu with just 41 percent of the vote in
November, and from The New York Times/Kaiser Family Foundation, which found Ms. Landrieu at 42 percent.
If there’s still a way for
Ms. Landrieu to win, she has a long way to go.
Louisiana is the key state and referendum on Landreiu’s ability to deliver for the state,
plan ensures she can
York 4-2
Byron is a Columnist for the Washington Examiner, “Louisiana Senate race a battle of pork, policies and
political legacies,” http://washingtonexaminer.com/louisiana-senate-race-a-battle-of-pork-policies-andpolitical-legacies/article/2546656 ,kk
The conventional wisdom is that the Senate race between three-term Democrat Mary Landrieu and Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy will be about
Obamacare. Will Landrieu's vote for the president's national health care scheme -- the decisive vote, as Republicans often point out -- finally
end a storied Louisiana political career?¶ There's no doubt Obamacare will play a big role in the campaign. It's hugely unpopular here in
Louisiana — 33 percent approve, 53 percent disapprove in a recent poll — and Landrieu, as much as any other Democrat, is responsible for it.
Cassidy and outside conservative groups are pounding her on the issue every day.¶ But even more
than Obamacare, the
Louisiana Senate race will be a test of the old proposition that elections are won by bringing home the
bacon. Landrieu has always argued that she "delivers" for Louisiana, and in the coming campaign she'll cite the
millions and millions of federal dollars she has brought to the state. On the other side, Cassidy believes the political debate has moved into
what one aide called a "post-pork paradigm" — an era in which voters choose lawmakers based on policy, not goodies from Washington. In
Cassidy's view, Louisianans are eager to move the Senate beyond the old D.C. way of doing things.¶ Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!¶
More than Obamacare, more than anything else, that is the fight — plain old pork vs. the post-pork paradigm — that will determine who is the
next senator from Louisiana, and possibly which party controls the Senate in 2015 and beyond.¶ Forgive us our debts¶
One key test could come in St. Tammany Parish, the New Orleans suburb on the north shore of Lake Pontchartrain. It's mostly white and heavily
Republican, but Landrieu managed to pull nearly 37 percent of the vote in her last election in 2008, the year of the Obama sweep. Before that,
in 2002, she could only manage about 32 percent. This time around, a lot of politicos will be watching Landrieu's performance in the parish, and
in the larger area known as the Northshore, as a critical indicator of whether Landrieu can pull enough suburban votes to go along with the
margin of victory she will undoubtedly rack up in New Orleans, where her brother Mitch Landrieu was recently re-elected mayor with strong
African-American support.¶ It's no accident that St. Tammany is feeling a lot of Landrieu love these days. "The St. Tammany Parish school
district is getting $67.8 million in disaster loans and accumulated interest for Hurricane Katrina forgiven by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Sen. Mary Landrieu's office announced Monday," the New Orleans Times-Picayune reported last December. "The announcement
follows FEMA's earlier decision to cancel a $9.9 million loan for the St. Tammany Parish Sheriff's Office and a $14.5 million loan to the St.
Tammany Parish government." Landrieu, it turns out, inserted a loan forgiveness provision into the 2013 Homeland Security Appropriations bill
-- a move that will likely mean future forgiveness for even more Katrina loans.¶ When I stopped by the office of St. Tammany Parish President
Pat Brister at the government center in Mandeville recently, she was thankful — very thankful — for Landrieu's help. Brister, who is not only a
Republican but a former chairman of the Louisiana GOP, was so grateful that a few months ago she introduced Landrieu at a fundraiser. "I
thanked her profusely for it," Brister recalled. "I was happy to do it, because I think she's done a lot."¶ And not just on loan forgiveness. "She
has gotten us quite a bit of road money, the RESTORE Act," Brister added, referring to another piece of post-Katrina legislation. "It really does
help us. I thanked her for it; it was her efforts that led to that."¶ Brister is a conservative Republican who has a lot of good things to say about
the state's Democratic senator. In fact, she said so many good things about Landrieu that I asked directly: "Do you support her?"¶ Brister
paused. "I support her," she said of Landrieu. "I'm not endorsing her. There's a big difference. I am not endorsing her, but I support her effort
on behalf of citizens that I represent." Brister said she also supports Cassidy's efforts, but added, "I'm not endorsing him, either."¶ So the
Republican president of a very Republican parish — and a former state party chief, too — is not going to endorse the Republican candidate in a
hugely important statewide race? "That is what I anticipate," Brister said. "As parish president I don't think I can do that. We have voters that I
represent who would find that offensive, on either side."¶ Brister also said a number of critical things about Landrieu, hitting not just the
Obamacare vote but Landrieu's support of President Obama's far-reaching regulatory proposals, as well as his judicial nominees. "He calls on
her, and she votes," Brister said of the president and Landrieu. With a president as unpopular as Barack Obama is in Louisiana, that's a
problem.¶ And that makes Brister's decision not to endorse Landrieu's Republican opponent all the more striking. A
solid majority of
Brister's constituents will vote against Landrieu; it would be easy for her to side with them. But she
won't, and that is a big plus for Landrieu. And it's all the power of bringing home the bacon.¶ Brister isn't the
only example. One of Louisiana's more powerful economic players is Bollinger Shipyards, run by CEO Boysie Bollinger, who has for years been a
major Republican donor. In 2014, however, Bollinger has decided to endorse Mary Landrieu. And it is perhaps no accident that last fall the
Coast Guard awarded Bollinger a $250 million contract to build six new cutters. Landrieu got that into the 2013 Homeland Security bill, too.¶
And then there is the energy industry. Any Louisianan who follows politics even a little knows Landrieu has recently become chairman of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. While Republicans hope to use the new position against Landrieu — is she going to cave in to
the environmental extremists in her party? — the fact is, the chairmanship offers her the chance to grant tax breaks and all sorts of other favors
to business in her state.
Aquaculture huge industry in Louisiana
Ohio Aquaculture Task Force ‘09
A Report Prepared by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, “Ohio Aquaculture Plan,”
http://www.agri.ohio.gov/public_docs/forms/Aquaculture/Ohio%20Aquaculture%20Plan%20Final%201
2.10.pdf , kk
Mississippi led the nation in sales of aquaculture products, with nearly $250 million ¶ dollars in 2005. Arkansas,
Alabama and Louisiana were the other states with sales ¶ topping $100 million. Louisiana had the largest
number of aquaculture farms. The state’s ¶ 873 farms were more than double the number in any other state. These tend to be very
¶ large producers,
unlike the variety of large and small farms in Ohio. Currently, most ¶ facilities in Ohio are family owned and operated and
raise fish for high-value market.
Arkansas Link
Agriculture Key issue in Arkansas
Trygstad ‘14
Kyle covers the House and Senate for Roll Call, “Farm Bill Provides Wedge Issues for Pryor,” January 29 th
http://atr.rollcall.com/farm-bill-vote-provides-wedge-issue-for-pryor/ , kk
Agriculture is a crucial component of the economy in Arkansas, which was ninth on the list of states
receiving the most federal subsidies from 1995 to 2012, according to the Environmental Working Group. Pryor noted the
importance of the bill’s passage earlier this month when the two candidates spoke to hundreds of voters at a raccoon supper in southeastern
Arkansas.¶ Cotton was one of 63 House Republicans to oppose the hard-forged farm bill compromise, which was supported by his party’s
leadership. In a statement from his official office, Cotton called it a “food-stamp bill,” noted that only half a percent of the overall cost went to
Arkansas, and said the bill “imposes unfair regulations on livestock producers.”¶ In response to Pryor, Cotton campaign manager Justin Brasell
called the senator “a lifelong politician” and said Pryor opposed critical changes to the food stamp program.¶ “Tom Cotton has listened to the
concerns about this bill from cattle, pork, and poultry producers for the past eight months, and he will continue to fight for Arkansas farmers
and taxpayers,” Brasell said.¶ The farm bill is unlikely to be a wedge issue in Louisiana, host to the only other Senate race featuring two
members of Congress from opposite parties. GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy supported it on Wednesday, and Democratic Sen. Mary L. Landrieu is likely
to back it as well when the Senate holds a vote. The measure is expected to pass that chamber in the coming days.¶ The farm bill is not the only
piece of legislation expected to be at the forefront of the Arkansas Senate race, which is essentially a must-win for Republicans to have any
chance of adding a net of six seats needed for the majority. The race is rated Tossup/Tilt Republican by Rothenberg Political Report/Roll Call.
Oil
Landreiu Link
Oil action key to Landrieu win- shows she can get things done
Anchorage Daily News ‘14
“Begich, other incumbent Senate Democrats in Spotlight,” February 13th
http://www.adn.com/2014/02/13/3324964/begich-other-incumbent-senate.html , kk
Landrieu's position atop the energy panel is viewed as a key enticement for oil- and gas-minded voters in
Louisiana, but if she fails to live up to their expectations, they could abandon her on Election Day.¶ It's also unclear
how much latitude Landrieu will have. Some Republican colleagues will be unwilling to help Landrieu score legislative successes, lest it
undermine the GOP's chance of winning her seat. Meanwhile, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid is unlikely to advance controversial energy
legislation that could anger environmentalists.¶ That
would make it impossible for Landrieu, Pryor and Begich to "escape
friends in Senate leadership and the administration really do not mean Louisiana, Arkansas and Alaska
well," said GOP strategist Michael McKenna. "That is why all three of them either have or will try mightily to get
some distance from the sinking ship."
the fact that their
Alaska Link
Oil production key to Begich win- key issue in Alaska
Anchorage Daily News ‘14
“Begich, other incumbent Senate Democrats in Spotlight,” February 13th
http://www.adn.com/2014/02/13/3324964/begich-other-incumbent-senate.html , kk
Perhaps no one outside of Shell had more riding on the company's Arctic drill bits than Sen. Mark Begich, an Alaska Democrat fighting for his
political life.¶ Representing a state that lives and dies by the oil industry -- and quite literally is funded by it -- Begich has pledged to be a bridge
to President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill, working to ensure more oil drilling in the region and the prospect of more
state revenues tied to the activity.¶ But a federal court ruling undermining the government's 2008 sale of drilling leases in the Chukchi Sea and
Shell's subsequent decision to hold off on Arctic exploration another year have dealt a serious political blow to the first-term senator.¶
Similarly, the politics of oil will play a big part in other critical midterm races, as a Democratic administration loved by
neither industry nor environmentalists struggles to keep its political allies in Congress.¶ Begich is one of a trio of vulnerable Senate Democrats
running for reelection in conservative states -- the others are Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas -- who are distancing
themselves from the White House on energy issues. In the narrowly divided Senate, their seats are critical to deciding whether Democrats keep
their hold on the chamber. Republicans would retake the Senate if they pick up just six seats.¶ In 2012, Obama lost Alaska, Lousiana and
Arkansas by 14, 17 and 24 points respectively.¶ With Landrieu, Begich and Pryor breaking with the national Democratic Party on energy issues,
the oil industry has a chance to win a critical vote on Keystone XL. A bipartisan coalition -- with Landrieu the leading Democrat and Begich and
Pryor as members -- is trying to find 60 votes of support for legislation that could endorse the controversial oil pipeline or force a deadline for
the Obama administration's final decision on the project.¶ The oil industry can also expect Landrieu and Begich to fight any moves to remove
tax deductions valued at $40 billion over 10 years. Pryor has supported removing those tax breaks in the past.¶ And as chairwoman of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a role she is expected to assume as soon as Thursday, Landrieu will be able to leverage oil
industry priorities, including her legislation to give states a greater share of royalties for offshore oil and gas production near their coastlines.¶
Her support for exporting natural gas -- in contrast to the skepticism of the outgoing committee chairman, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. -- also could
spur the Energy Department to move more quickly to approve foreign sales of the fossil fuel.¶ And on offshore drilling, both Begich and
Landrieu have roundly criticized the Obama administration's approach, complaining of limited access and slow permitting.¶ Begich's positions
fit with the oil politics of Alaska, where natural resource issues reign supreme, said University of Alaska-Fairbanks professor Gerald McBeath.¶
Residents of the Last Frontier are acutely aware that crude flowing through the Trans Alaska Pipeline System has been slowing down, along
with oil revenue paid into the state's permanent fund. In addition
to paying for an annual dividend check to Alaskans,
the fund supports schools and essential services across the state. More oil development -- be it in the
walled-off Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve or the U.S. Arctic -- could
reverse the trend and keep the crude and money flowing.¶ Begich has "been right to cast himself as an
outlier in the national political system -- as an independent who is Alaska's advocate and an independent voice in the Senate for
Alaska," McBeath said.¶ It's key for Begich to "distance himself from a Democratic national agenda, showing his
relevance to Alaska's development needs and how he is best prepared to deal with the continuation of
Democratic control of the Senate and the last years of the Obama administration," McBeath added. "These are
things he can do."
Wind
Public
Public supports offshore wind
Caperton 12
(Richard W. Caperton is the Director of Clean Energy Investment, Michael Conathan is the Director of
Ocean Policy, and Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant for the Energy Opportunity team at American
Progress. , "Encouraging Investment Is Key to U.S. Offshore Wind Development" 1/12/12
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/01/offshore_wind.html)//BB
According to a nationwide survey conducted by the Civil Society Institute, about 7 in 10 Americans (71 percent) support “a shift of federal
support for energy away from nuclear and towards clean renewable energy such as wind and solar.” In the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states,
In the early
days of offshore wind, the obstacles to development in the United States were largely borne of ignorance—
undeveloped land is difficult to find. That means renewable energy developers have to look further afield—in this case, to sea.
concerns that offshore turbines visible on the horizon would destroy property values; that noise, or safety, or storage of lubricating fluid for the
turbines would pose unacceptable risks. As
other countries around the world have moved ahead with offshore wind development
and seen no ill effects from those factors, however, such concerns have dramatically abated. Support from coastal residents is
fundamental to the potential success of offshore wind projects. After all, these wind farms will effectively be built in their backyards. And
recently, poll after poll has shown that coastal residents are highly supportive of offshore wind energy.
According to a poll of New Jersey residents, offshore wind production is extremely popular among voters and its support cuts across party and
geographic lines. The analysis demonstrates that 78
percent of all New Jersey voters and 77 percent of the state’s shore residents
the development of wind power 12 to 15 miles off their coast. Public support is strong in Delaware as
well. According to a University of Delaware poll, general statewide support for offshore wind in Delaware is 77.8 percent,
compared with an opposition of only 4.2 percent. In Maryland The Baltimore Sun reported in October 2011 that 62 percent of
Marylanders favor wind turbine construction off the coast of Ocean City and would be willing to pay up
to $2 more per month on electricity bills. Mike Tidwell, head of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, said, “Marylanders
surveyed support
understand that the benefits of offshore wind are more than worth a modest initial investment.”
Public loves it
Higgins 9 - Research Counsel, Rhode Island Sea Grant Legal Program and Marine Affairs Institute at
Roger Williams University School of Law
(Megan, “Symposium: Is Marine Renewable Energy a Viable Industry in the United States?: Lessons
Learned from the 7th Marine Law Symposium,” 14 Roger Williams U. L. Rev. 562)//BB
A survey conducted in Delaware revealed that 77.8% of respondents support the development of a wind
farm six miles offshore. 105 A project proposed by Bluewater Wind will be developed approximately twelve miles offshore. 106
Those in support of wind power favored the development of renewable energy because of high
electricity rates (but were willing to pay approximately $ 1-30 more per month for wind energy versus oil or coal),
air quality, environmental impacts, aesthetics, and fishing impacts/boating safety. 107 Another survey
conducted in Rhode Island used photo-simulations, site selection drawings, wind measuring, and a
PowerPoint presentation on wind energy to [588] determine the public's perception of wind energy projects,
located both onshore and offshore. 108 The Rhode Island study found that the community's "overall stance on wind
turbine power" was 99% in favor. 109
Turnout irrelevant to midterms- all about switchers
Enten ‘14
Harry is fivethirtyeight’s Senior Political Analyst and Writer, “Midterm Election Turnout isn’t so Different
from Presidential Election Turnout,” May 8th http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/midterm-electionturnout-isnt-so-different-from-presidential-year-turnout/ , kk
Spend enough time around pundits and you’ll hear somebody say, “It’s all about turnout.” Who shows up to vote, and those voters’
demographics, is the great mystery of any election. The conventional wisdom is that the demographics of the voting pool are friendlier to
Democrats in presidential years than they are in midterm years, and that it’s the other way around for Republicans. Sasha Issenberg had a
recent piece in The New Republic arguing that the Democrats may be doomed in this year’s midterm elections because they can’t find a way to
bring midterm turnout closer to what it is in presidential years. Peter Wehner, meanwhile, wrote in Commentary in February that Republicans
are doomed in presidential years because of the change in the electorate’s racial demographics.¶ But turnout
isn’t nearly as
important as D.C. wags make it out to be. The demographics of who voted in 2012 vs. 2010 were different,1 but that difference
didn’t make much of a difference. The reason Republicans won more votes in 2010 — and likely will in 2014 — is
that voters wanted Republicans in office, not that minorities and young people didn’t turn out to
vote.¶ First, let’s sort out the differences between people who voted in 2010 and 2012, according to the government’s Current Population
Survey.¶ enten-voters-table-1¶ Note how all minority groups but “others” made up a larger share of voters in 2012 than in 2010. Notice, too,
how young voters decreased as a percentage of all voters, regardless of race. The
share of voters who were whites over the
age of 30, the most Republican group, was 6 points higher in 2010 than in 2012.¶ But if the two voting
pools somehow magically switched places, 2012′s demographics wouldn’t have swung control of the House in
the 2010 election. I transposed the 2012 demographics onto the 2010 vote tallies2 and Republicans still won the national vote by about 3.3
percentage points in the midterms.¶ enten-voters-table-2¶ In 2010, Republicans actually won the national vote by 6.7 points — a safer margin.
According to a 2010 seat curve3 put together by FiveThirtyEight editor-in-chief Nate Silver, each point in the national House vote was worth
about four seats. In our counterfactual demographic swap, Republicans would have earned 3.4 fewer points and won 14 fewer seats, for a total
of 228 seats.¶ But it’s not as simple as that. Even this model overstates the difference between midterm and presidential years. To assume that
the electorate would have looked the same in 2010 as it did in 2012 is, among other things, to assume that the country was as white in 2012 as
it was in 2010. That, of course, isn’t true. The electorate gains more minorities every year, while the number of white voters is growing at a
significantly smaller rate.¶ To standardize for changes in population, I applied each demographic’s 2012 turnout rate among voting-age citizens
to its population size in 2010,4 which remade the 2010 voters to look like this:¶ enten-voters-table-3¶ Once all that’s done, the gaps between
midterm turnout and presidential year turnout are even smaller. In this hypothetical 2010, Republicans would have won the national House
vote by 4.1 points and taken somewhere in the neighborhood of 232 seats, good enough for a 53-seat gain. The more robust the math, the
more solid the GOP’s lead.¶ The same thing works in reverse, when we take 2010’s turnout rates and apply them to 2012. With just midterm
voters casting a ballot, President Obama would have won the national vote in 2012 by 1.2 points. That’s 2.7 points less than his actual margin in
2012, but it’s more than enough to have carried the election.5¶ It’s not that the demographic splits of voter turnout don’t matter. They worked
in Republicans’ favor in 2010 and in Democrats’ favor in 2012; demographics just weren’t
the reason either party won.6¶
What really mattered was that voters changed their minds about which party they wanted to vote for.
Look at the voting patterns of each group. Republican congressional candidates won white voters who were at least
30 years old by 25.9 points in 2010, but Mitt Romney won them by only 20.2 points in the presidential race in
2012. Obama’s margin among black voters 30 and older was 89.4 points in 2012, while House Democrats’ margin for this group was 79.1
points in 2010.¶ These aren’t turnout figures — they’re voting figures. The percentage of voters who were black, white or Latino didn’t matter.
Votes were what counted.¶ Some of this is attributable to the “midterm penalty,” the historical trend showing voters tend to reject the
president’s party in midterm elections. The White House’s party lost seats in all but three of the past 26 midterm elections.¶ Chances are the
midterm penalty will strike again in 2014. Democrats and Republicans are currently tied in national House ballot polls among registered voters,
and over time the party not in the White House usually gains support. Add to this the fact that even in 2012 Democrats did worse among likely
voters and you can see why the national tide will probably go against them once again. Perhaps the cliché should be, “It’s all about turnout,
except for when it isn’t.”
Cost
Offshore Wind farms unpopular-cost
Bergenson ‘14
Angie Bergenson is a staff writer for Hydrogen Fuel News, Three states have plans to
support wind power, 09 May 2014, http://www.hydrogenfuelnews.com/offshore-windenergy-revolution-underway-us/8517729/, Posted By: Daniel Birzer
Oregon, Virginia, and New Jersey may soon play a leading role in the advancement of wind power in the
U.S. These three states have begun to show an aggressive interest in offshore wind energy. Offshore wind
farms offer a wide range of benefits over their onshore counterparts. These wind farms can take
advantage of the strong wind currents that exist as sea and can produce larger quantities of electrical
power more efficiently. Because these wind farms are built out at sea, however, they are more expensive
to develop and manage, which has made them relatively unpopular.
Environmentalists
Environmentalists angry at offshore wind farms
Bastasch ‘14
Michael Bastasch is a staff writer for The Daily Caller, Feds Fund 12 Offshore Wind
Turbines… At $12 Million Each, The Daily Caller, 05/09/2014,
http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/09/feds-fund-12-offshore-wind-turbines-at-12-millioneach/, Found by: Daniel Birzer
The Obama administration has announced funding for three offshore wind power projects off the New
Jersey, Oregon and Virginia coastlines. The administration has pledged up to $47 million for each project to bring a total of 67 megawatts (MW) of green power
online.¶ The price tag for all this green power: a staggering $11.75 million per wind turbine. In terms of energy, the twelve offshore wind turbines will cost $2.1 million per MW. But the high
price tag has not deterred the Obama administration from funding the costly wind projects.¶ “Offshore wind offers a large, untapped energy resource for the United States that can create
thousands of manufacturing, construction and supply chain jobs across the country and drive billions of dollars in local economic investment,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.¶ According to
Windustry, a utility scale wind turbine cost from $1.3 million to $2.2 million per MW. Most “commercial-scale turbines installed today are 2 MW in size and cost roughly $3-$4 million installed.”¶
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that the costs of offshore wind power are still high at $204 per megwatthour (MWh) — compared with the costs of onshore wind power at $80
per MWh.¶ Each of the projects can get up to $47 million in federal funding. Dominion Virginia Power will get funding to construct two 6-MW offshore wind turbines that could produce enough
energy to power 3,000 homes, according to the Energy Department.¶ Five 5-MW wind turbines will be built off the cost of Atlantic City, New Jersey that will act as a laboratory for researchers
who wish to study the impacts of offshore wind. Coos Bay, Oregon will get six 5-MW that will be built 18 miles off the coast in 1,000-foot deep water. The Energy Department says that over 60
percent of U.S. offshore wind resources are in deep waters, in particular on the West Coast.¶ “The Energy Department is working with public and private partners to harness this untapped
resource in a sustainable and economic manner. The offshore wind projects announced today further this commitment — bringing more clean, renewable energy to our homes and businesses,
diversifying our energy portfolio, and reducing costs through innovation.”
Environmentalists and many Republicans have hammered the Obama administration for its support of wind
power. Republicans argue that the wind industry has benefited from subsidies and green energy mandates for decades and federal funding for such projects are wasteful.
Environmentalists are angry with the administration for not holding wind power companies accountable for
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of birds every year. One study from 2013 said that 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats were killed by wind
turbines every year, many of these birds are even federally
protected.
Environmentalists gaining power – influence over elections proves
Eilperin ‘12
Juliet has covered the environment for the national desk, reporting on science, policy and politics in
areas including climate change, oceans, and air quality with the Washington Post since 2004,
“Environmentalists play huge role in 2012 races” Washington Post 6/26/14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/environmentalists-play-key-role-in-2012races/2012/11/09/67c1fd78-29bc-11e2-96b6-8e6a7524553f_story.html , HR
For years, environmentalists have been seen as marginal players in presidential and congressional
elections. That may have changed last week. The environmental community scored a string of successes
Tuesday in
New Mexico, Montana, Texas and other states, winning seven of eight targeted Senate races
and at least threetargeted House races. Although plenty of outside groups poured money into these contests, even some representatives of
the fossil-fuel industry said that environmentalists had invested their resources wisely in 2012. “There is evidence
that the environmentalists have become a more mature political force,” said Scott H. Segal, who
lobbies for utility companies at the firm Bracewell & Giuliani. “Environmentalist spending was up considerably this
cycle, and they seemed to resist the frequent trap of supporting third-party or crank candidates in ways that would have siphoned off votes from mainstream
Democrats,” Segal said. The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) spent more than $14 million this year, more
than it had in the past three election cycles combined, and groups including the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation Action
Fund, Defenders of Wildlife Action Committee, Environment America and Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund also devoted money and volunteers to key
contests. Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America, said activists decided to focus on several Senate races in order to ensure that House Republicans’
efforts to reverse some of President Obama’s policies curbing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change would die in the Senate. “We
knew we would have to defend the actions he’s taken this year, and in past years, against rollbacks from coal, from oil and their allies in Congress,” Alt said at a
news conference Wednesday. In a handful of contests, environmentalists’ money, time and targeting played a critical role. Earlier this year, both parties viewed the
Senate contest in New Mexico between Rep. Martin Heinrich (D) and former congresswoman Heather Wilson (R) as highly competitive. The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce and two conservative super PACs, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, spent heavily on television ads attacking Heinrich. Environmentalists spent
nearly $2 million on phone, mail and ads attacking Wilson for her unwillingness to hold oil companies liable for contaminating New Mexico’s water supply with
MTBE, a fuel additive. The narrator of one ad rattled off Wilson’s campaign contributions from oil and gas firms before declaring, “It makes you wonder, who’s
Heather Wilson with? Not us.” By the end of the summer, GOP-affiliated groups pulled back from the race after polls showed Heinrich with a significant lead.
Heinrich, who came under fire for his support for climate legislation and opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, said the environmentalists’ ads helped ensure his
victory Tuesday. “They were really strategic and showed a political sophistication that has only emerged in the last few years,” Heinrich said. “They were able to dig
down and do some extensive polling to figure out where a candidate’s positions don’t line up with the constituents’ and bring that out.” Political analyst Stuart
Rothenberg, who had rated the New Mexico Senate contest as a tossup/tilt Democrat at the start of the summer, questioned whether environmentalists were
decisive, given the state’s Democratic leanings. “I’m not doubting that they did something,” Rothenberg said of environmentalists. “If they hadn’t done anything, I
think Wilson still would have lost.” Environmentalists did suffer one major loss on the state level: Despite spending more than $10 million to support a
constitutional amendment requiring Michigan to source 25 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2025, the initiative failed by a wide margin.
Elsewhere in the country, environmentalists
made an impact through get-out-the-vote operations. LCV had the
largest field operation of any independent group in Montana’s race between Sen. Jon Tester (D) and
Rep. Denny Rehberg, (R) spending $1.1 million to register nearly 30,000 Tester supporters to vote by
mail. A Democratic-leaning state environmental group, Montana Hunters and Anglers Leadership
Fund, also influenced the race by running last-minute ads urging sportsmen to support Libertarian candidate Dan Cox. Cox
received 6.5 percent of the vote Tuesday, at least 2.5 percentage points higher than Libertarians running for either governor or the House. Tester won his race by
3.9 percent. The group had used money from LCV earlier this year to attack Rehberg. Navin Nayak, LCV’s senior vice president for campaigns, said none of LCV’s
money was used to finance the pro-Cox ads. He said LCV Action Fund did rank as the largest fundraiser for Tester, Heinrich and two other Democratic Senate
candidates — Timothy M. Kaine (Va.) and Richard Carmona (Ariz.) — through its bundling program. Kaine won, while Carmona lost. Environmental
groups also helped defeat GOP Reps. Francisco R. Canseco (Tex.) and Ann Marie Buerkle (N.Y.), whom they targeted for denying the
connection between human activity and climate change. Some environmentalists say the election provides a mandate for
aggressive action on climate change, although oil and gas industry officials warned against over-interpreting the results because the economy
ranked as the dominant issue this year.
Impacts
Asia Pivot
GOP Key to Pivot
GOP Victory key to stable Asia Pivot
Keck ‘14
Zachary is the Managing Editor of the Diplomat, “The Midterm Elections and the Asia Pivot,”
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-midterm-elections-and-the-asia-pivot/ , kk
There is a growing sense in the United States that when voters go to the polls this November, the Republican Party will win enough Senate
seats to control both houses of Congress. This would potentially introduce more gridlock into an already dysfunctional American political
system.¶ But it needn’t be all doom and gloom for U.S. foreign policy, including in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, the
Republicans wrestling
control of the Senate from the Democrats this November could be a boon for the U.S. Asia pivot. This is true for
at least three reasons.¶ First, with little prospect of getting any of his domestic agenda through Congress, President Barack Obama will naturally
focus his attention on foreign affairs. Presidents in general have a tendency to focus more attention on foreign policy during their second term,
and this effect is magnified if the other party controls the legislature. And for good reason: U.S. presidents have far more latitude to take
unilateral action in the realm of foreign affairs than in domestic policy. Additionally, the 2016 presidential election will consume much of the
country’s media’s attention on domestic matters. It’s only when acting on the world stage that the president will still be able to stand taller in
the media’s eyes than the candidates running to for legislative office.¶ Second, should
the Democrats get pummeled in the
midterm elections this year, President Obama is likely to make some personnel changes in the White House
and cabinet. For instance, after the Republican Party incurred losses in the 2006 midterms, then-President George W. Bush quickly
moved to replace Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with the less partisan (at least in that era) Robert Gates. Obama followed
suit by making key personnel changes after the Democrats “shellacking” in the 2010 midterm elections.¶ Should the
Democrats face a similar fate in the 2014 midterm elections, Obama is also likely to make notable personnel changes. Other aides, particular
former Clinton aides, are likely to leave the administration early in order to start vying for spots on Hillary Clinton’s presumed presidential
campaign. Many of these changes are likely to be with domestic advisors given that domestic issues are certain to decide this year’s elections.
Even so, many nominally domestic positions—such as Treasury and Commerce Secretary—have important implications for U.S. policy in Asia.
Moreover, some
of the post-election changes are likely be foreign policy and defense positions, which
bodes well for Asia given the appalling lack of Asia expertise among Obama’s current senior advisors.¶ But
the most important way a Republican victory in November will help the Asia Pivot is that the GOP in Congress are actually more
favorable to the pivot than are members of Obama’s own party. For example, Congressional opposition to granting
President Trade Promotional Authority — which is key to getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership ratified — is largely from Democratic legislators.
Similarly, it is
the Democrats who are largely in favor of the defense budget cuts that threaten to
undermine America’s military posture in Asia.¶ If Republicans do prevail in November, President Obama will
naturally want to find ways to bridge the very wide partisan gap between them. Asia offers the perfect
issue area to begin reaching across the aisle.¶ The Republicans would have every incentive to reciprocate
the President’s outreach. After all, by giving them control of the entire Legislative Branch, American voters will be expecting some
results from the GOP before they would be ostensibly be ready to elect them to the White House in 2016. A Republican failure to
achieve anything between 2014 and 2016 would risk putting the GOP in the same dilemma they faced in
the 1996 and 2012 presidential elections. Working with the president to pass the TPP and strengthen America’s military’s posture in Asia
would be ideal ways for the GOP to deliver results without violating their principles.¶ Thus, while the president will work tirelessly between now
and November to help the Democrats retain the Senate, he should also prepare for failure by having a major outreach initiative to
Congressional Republicans ready on day one. This initiative should be Asia-centric.
A2: Pivot Causes War
Pivot avoids conflict- not provocative
Campbell & Ratner ‘14
Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a Senior Fellow in and Deputy Director of the AsiaPacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, “Far Eastern Promises,” Foreign
Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May, pages 106-116 , kk
A similar desire to realign U.S. priorities in the region helps explain the changes the Pentagon has made to its military posture there. Although
U.S. military bases in Northeast Asia remain central to Washington's ability to project power and fight wars, they are increasingly vulnerable to
disabling missile attacks, and they lie relatively far from potential disasters and crises in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. Meanwhile,
with countries in Southeast Asia expressing growing interest in receiving American military training and assistance with disaster response, the
United States has diversified its military footprint in the region, stationing hundreds of U.S. marines in Darwin, Australia, and deploying a pair of
Littoral Combat Ships to Singapore.¶ Those changes
to the U.S. military's posture have been criticized as either
provocative or meaningless. Both charges are off the mark. These efforts hardly signal aggression; they contribute
primarily to peacetime activities, such as responding to natural disasters, and not to U.S. war-fighting
capabilities. And the seemingly modest number of marines and ships involved masks the significant
benefits they offer to the militaries of U.S. partners, who gain unparalleled opportunities for joint
exercises and training with U.S. forces.
A2: Causes China Conflict
Pivot doesn’t cause China conflict
Campbell & Ratner ‘14
Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a Senior Fellow in and Deputy Director of the AsiaPacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, “Far Eastern Promises,” Foreign
Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May, pages 106-116 , kk
Opponents of the pivot have raised three main objections. First, some
worry that the pivot will unnecessarily antagonize
China. This misperception ignores the fact that deepening engagement with Beijing has been a central and irrefutable feature of the
rebalancing policy. Examples of the new approach include the establishment of the annual U.S.-China
Strategic and Economic Dialogue, a comprehensive set of meetings chaired by the U.S. secretaries of state and the
treasury and their Chinese counterparts, and the Strategic Security Dialogue, through which the two countries have held unprecedented highlevel discussions on such sensitive matters as maritime security and cyber-security. Tensions
might rise due to the increased
U.S. military presence in Asia and Washington's more robust outreach to China's neighbors. But bilateral
ties are developing in such a way that any disagreements produced by the pivot will be addressed in the
broader context of a more stable and cooperative U.S.-Chinese relationship.
A2: Middle East Tradeoff
Pivot isn’t zero-sum if we do it, no tradeoff with Middle East
Campbell & Ratner ‘14
Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a Senior Fellow in and Deputy Director of the AsiaPacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, “Far Eastern Promises,” Foreign
Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May, pages 106-116 , kk
A second critique stems from the argument that it would be unwise or unrealistic to shift Washington's focus from the Middle East to Asia given
the conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria, the instability in Egypt and Iraq, and the long-running confrontation between Iran and the Western
powers. But this criticism relies on a caricature of the rebalancing strategy. According to this view, the Middle East and South Asia have sapped
U.S. power and prestige and the pivot is really an attempt to cut and run by turning to the more peaceful and profitable shores of the AsiaPacific. It is certainly true that the Obama administration has tried to reduce the U.S. footprint in the Middle East. But even though resources
are finite,
foreign policy is not a zero-sum game, and the criticism that paying more attention to Asia is
somehow an admission of strategic defeat in the Middle East misses a crucial reality: during the past decade,
the very Asian countries to which Washington wants to pay more attention have quietly built a
substantial stake in the furtherance of peace and stability across the Middle East and South Asia and very
much want the United States to preserve its influence in those regions.
A2: Austerity makes Impossible
Budget cuts irrelevant, it’s a question of focus and deals
Campbell & Ratner ‘14
Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a Senior Fellow in and Deputy Director of the AsiaPacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, “Far Eastern Promises,” Foreign
Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May, pages 106-116 , kk
A third argument against the pivot concerns the sustainability of the approach during a time of budget cuts: as defense spending falls, skeptics
wonder how the United States will be able to invest the resources necessary to reassure its Asian allies and dissuade would-be provocateurs,
especially as China's power and influence continue to grow. The answer is that rebalancing
toward Asia will not require
dramatic new funding; rather, the Pentagon will need to be more flexible and find better ways to spend.
For example, as the United States reduces the overall size of its army, it should sustain its military presence in Asia and invest in naval and air
capabilities better suited to the region's security environment. And
given that U.S. defense spending is unlikely to
increase significantly anytime soon, Washington should do more to improve the capacity of Asian
militaries by conducting more educational and professional exchanges, enhancing multilateral military exercises,
passing along equipment that U.S. forces no longer need, and engaging in more joint planning.
A2: Pivot just rhetoric
Pivot is an actual event- huge rebalance
Evans ’13
Michael is the General Sir Francis Hassett Chair of Military Studies at the Australian Defence College in
Canberra, “American Defence Policy and the Challenge of Austerity: Some Implications for Southeast
Asia,” Journal of South East Asia Economics, Volume 30, Issue 2, August, Pages 164-178, accessed via
proquest , kk
The United States is currently engaged in its most important strategic activity in the Asia-Pacific region since the Vietnam War era. Faced by a
rising China and by an array of increasingly nervous allies from Seoul to Canberra, Washington
has formally announced a
"pivot" towards the Asia-Pacific to reinforce its role in the region. It is a policy that requires the
repositioning of some 60 per cent of American naval and aerospace power in the Asia-Pacific by 2020.
Yet, this rebalance of U.S. strategy is occurring at a time when there is much speculation on "American decline". Such speculation is driven by
a combination of: unprecedented fiscal austerity; a staggering gross national debt of US$16 trillion; legislative political paralysis; and the impact
of two long ground wars in the greater Middle East that have exhausted the all-volunteer military and created a weariness among many
Americans over the efficacy of overseas commitments. As the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen (2010) stated,
it is national debt with its ominous domestic and foreign policy implications that constitutes America's "biggest security threat".1
Impact-Economy
Effective Asia pivot key to the global economy
Richard N. Haass 11, former director of policy planning in the US State Department, is President of the
Council on Foreign Relations, November 14, 2011, “Re-Orienting America,” online:
http://www.cfr.org/us-strategy-and-politics/re-orienting-america/p26490
Something akin to this mistake has befallen American foreign policy. The
United States has become preoccupied with
the Middle East – in certain ways, the wrong Orient – and has not paid adequate attention to East Asia and
the Pacific, where much of the twenty-first century's history will be written.¶ The good news is that this focus is
shifting. Indeed, a quiet transformation is taking place in American foreign policy, one that is as
significant as it is overdue. The US has rediscovered Asia.¶ "Rediscovered" is the operative word here. Asia was one of the
two principal theaters of World War II, and again shared centrality with Europe during the Cold War. Indeed, the period's two greatest
conflicts – the wars in Korea and Vietnam – were fought on the Asian mainland.¶ But, with the end of the Cold War and the demise of
the Soviet Union, Asia receded from American interest. In the first decade of the post-Cold War era, the US trained much of its
attention on Europe. American policymakers focused primarily on enlarging NATO to encompass many of the former Warsaw Pact
countries, and on contending with the post-Yugoslav wars.¶ The second phase of the post-Cold War era began with the 9/11 terror
attacks. What followed was a decade of US focus on terrorism and the large-scale commitment of American military forces to Iraq and
Afghanistan. The two conflicts have claimed more than 6,000 American lives, cost more than $1 trillion, and consumed countless hours
for two presidents and their senior staff.¶ But now this phase of American foreign policy is ending. President Barack Obama has
announced that US armed forces will be out of Iraq by the end of 2011. In Afghanistan, US force levels have peaked and are declining;
the only questions concern the pace of withdrawal and the size and role of any residual US military presence after 2014.¶ This is not to
argue that the Middle East is irrelevant or that the US should ignore it. On the contrary, it is still home to massive oil and gas reserves.
It is a part of the world where terrorists are active and conflicts have been common. Iran is moving ever closer to developing nuclear
weapons; if it does, others may well follow suit. And it is a region now experiencing what could prove to be historic domestic political
upheavals. There is also the unique American tie to Israel.¶ Nevertheless, there
are grounds for the US doing less in
the greater Middle East than it has in recent years: the weakening of al-Qaeda; the poor
prospects for peacemaking efforts; and, above all, the mounting evidence that, by any measure, massive
nation-building initiatives are not yielding returns commensurate with the investments.¶ At the same time,
there are strong arguments for greater US involvement in the Asia-Pacific region. With its large
populations and
fast-growing economies , it is difficult to exaggerate the region's economic
importance. American companies export more than $300 billion in goods and services to countries in the region each year.
Meanwhile, Asian countries are a critical source of investment for the US economy.¶ Maintaining
regional stability is thus critical for US (and global) economic success . The US has multiple
alliance obligations – with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, and Thailand – which are needed, in part, to
deter North Korean aggression. Moreover, US policy must create an environment in which a rising
China is never tempted to use its growing power coercively
– within or outside the region. For this reason,
recent US efforts to strengthen ties with India and several Southeast Asian countries make good sense.¶ The
US is right to
shift its focus from the Middle East to the Far East . The good news is that this conclusion seems to be
shared across the US political spectrum. Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee for president, pledges to increase
the rate of shipbuilding – a commitment linked to an increased US presence in the Pacific. And US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
speaks of America pivoting away from the greater Middle East: "The world's strategic and economic center of gravity is shifting east,
and we are focusing more on the Asia-Pacific region."¶ Regardless of whether the twenty-first century will be another "American
century," it is certain that it will be an Asian and Pacific century. It is both natural and sensible that the US be central to whatever
evolves from that fact.
Decline causes war
Kemp 10
Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant
to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff,
Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India,
China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The
world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major
reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of
fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on
expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups,
including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more
“failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by
Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of
war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and
weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and
the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a
further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major
disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population.
Impact-Asia Stability
Obama’s attention and continued pursuit of engagement and presence in Asia key to
credible pivot and stability
Munoz 13
Carlos, “Donilon: US remains 'all in' on shift to Asia, March-11, “http://thehill.com/blogs/defconhill/policy-and-strategy/287377-donilon-us-remains-all-in-on-shift-to-asia-#ixzz2YD4zH0FP ///cmf
The Obama administration remains fully committed to seeing though the Pentagon's proposed
strategic shift from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the Asia-Pacific region, a top White
House official said this week. ¶ "President Obama has been clear about the future that the
United States seeks . . . when it comes to the Asia-Pacific, the United States is 'all in,'" National
Security Adviser Thomas Donilon said during a speech at the Asia Society in New York on Monday.
¶ President Obama announced the strategic shift to Asia last February, as part of the
administration's realignment of national security priorities for a post-Afghanistan and post-Iraq
world. ¶ However, the recent rise of Islamic extremists groups in North and West Africa have
prompted some inside the beltway to question whether a strategic shift to the Pacific is the right
move. ¶ On Monday, Donilon pushed back on such assertions, arguing Asia's influence on the
world stage will only increase in the coming years. ¶ According to Donilon, nearly half of all
economic growth and subsequent global politicall influence will emanate from regional Pacific
powers over the next five years. ¶ That growth, he added, "is fueling powerful geopolitical forces
that are reshaping the region" including China’s ascent as a world power, North Korea's continued
pursuit of nuclear weapons and India's expanding influence in South Asia and beyond. ¶ "These
changes are unfolding at a time when Asia’s economic, diplomatic and political rules of the road
are still taking shape," he added. "The stakes for people on both sides of the Pacific are
profound." ¶ Recognizing that sea change of global influence based in the Asia-Pacific region, the
Obama administration has taken great strides to solidify the United States' position in that
corner of the world, according to Donilon.¶ "Perhaps most telling [of] this rebalance is reflected
in the most valuable commodity in Washington, the President’s time ," he said. ¶ The Obama
administration officials have held bilateral talks with each regional partner in the Pacific, as well as
fully participated in the multilateral summits held by the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. ¶
Specifically, the White House has engaged "at an unprecedented pace" with Washington's
counterparts in China, holding formal and informal talks with Beijing on a slew of regional security
issued, according to Donilon. ¶ "The United States welcomes the rise of a peaceful, prosperous
China. We do not want our relationship to become defined by rivalry and confrontation,"
Donilon said, reiterating the administration's line on the Asian powerhouse. ¶ "There is nothing
preordained about such an outcome," he said regarding a possible boiling over of tensions
between Washington and Beijing. ¶ China took a step forward toward that burgeoning
relationship with the United States, backing Washington on new United Nations sanctions against
North Korea's nuclear program.¶ In response, Pyongyang on Monday officially nullified the 1953
armistice deal with the United States that ended the Korean War. Since North and South Korea
are still technically at war, it remains to be seen if the decision will result in conflict breaking out
on the peninsula. ¶ However tensions continue over Beijing's continued efforts to launch
cyberattacks against American government and commercial networks. ¶ In February, security firm
Mandiant released a report on Chinese cyberwarfare capabilities, claiming elite military unit of
Chinese hackers have been working to break into U.S. networks from their headquarters in
Shanghai. ¶ Weeks after the Mandiant report, Senate intelligence committee chair Sen. Dianne
Feinstein (D-Calif.) said classified intelligence documents supported the claims made by the
security firm. ¶ Despite those reports, Donilon said the United States continued cooperation with
Beijing and its influence in Asia is and will be key to maintaining stability among the regional
Pacific powers. ¶ "The region’s success . . . and the United States’ security and prosperity in the
21st century, still depend on the presence and engagement of the United States in Asia," he
said. " We are a resident Pacific power, resilient and indispensable."
Asian instability escalates to global nuclear war
Landay, National Security and Intelligence Correspondent, 2K
(Jonathan S., “Top administration officials warn stakes for U.S. are high in Asian conflicts”, 3-10, Knight
Ridder/Tribune News) Accessed on LexisNexis 12-29-09
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan
are spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt
the global economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear
weapons, and North Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations,
negotiations and diplomatic relationships that helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in
Cold War Europe. "Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and relationships so fragile,"
said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a
Washington think tank. "We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering
confrontations with no institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for
potential disaster." In an effort to cool the region's tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary
William S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia's capitals
this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia
committed to defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly
become embroiled if Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While
Washington has no defense commitments to either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the
two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons and demolish the already shaky
international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia _ with
its massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources _ indispensable to the U.S. economy.
Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600
billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.
Impact-Allied Prolif
Asia pivot key to assure allies and prevent adventurism and prolif
Greitens 13
Sheena Chestnut Greitens, “U.S.-China Relations and America’s Alliances in Asia” june-13,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/06/11-us-china-relations-asia-alliances-greitens ///
cmf
Less fear and more trust are indeed likely to contribute to a constructive U.S.-China relationship.
But the principal foreign policy challenge facing the United States in Asia today is not the
creation of strategic trust between Barack Obama and Xi Jinping, or between the United States
and China. It is the challenge of alliance management : to reassure America’s allies without
emboldening them toward unnecessary adventurism, and to use those alliances to deter
potential adversaries without provoking them into spirals of conflict. Wise and steady
management of U.S. alliances in Asia will make America’s interests and commitments clear, and
help shape the level of conflict or cooperation in the U.S.-China relationship for years to come.
Allied prolif causes nuclear war
Lee 93
Steven Lee, Professor, Ethics, Hobart and Smith College, Morality, Prudence, and Nuclear Weapons,
1993, p. 299.
First, nuclear war could result from the behavior of other states, especially those that had
formerly seen themselves as receiving protection from the nation's opponent under the nuclear
umbrella. Some of theses states might well seek to acquire nuclear weapons, or to enlarge their
arsenals if they were already nuclear powers, in order to provide better protection of their own
against the opponent. Were such armament to occur, the uncertainties on all sides may make
major nuclear war more likely that it was prior to the nation's unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Impact-Indo/China War
The Asia Pivot will encourage stronger relations between India and China, preventing
future conflict between the two countries
Franz-Stefan Gady, (military analyst and world affairs commentator), 3/18/13, Huffington Post,
"consequences of obama's asia pivot," http://www.huffingtonpost.com/franzstefan-gady/obama-chinaindia_b_2853600.html
In the kaleidoscopic world of power politics in Asia, the United States' pivot to that region may
yield the unintentional consequences of fostering closer strategic ties between the two Asian
giants -- China and India -- which could result in a strategic alliance ostensibly hostile to Western
interests in the region.¶ Analysts will be quick to point out that the 'all weather friendship'
between the two countries, has hit a natural ceiling due to the strategic competition between
the (re)emerging powers. For example, China is deepening its ties with Pakistan militarily (both
countries signed a military cooperation agreement in September 2012), provides nuclear support,
and has finally taken over management of the port of Gwadar on Pakistan's Makran coast. India
on the other hand is trying to counter China's influence in Asia by fostering closer ties with the
countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), especially in the field of naval
cooperation, which adversely affects China's position in the Indian Ocean and South China Sea.
Both countries' increasing energy demands also put the two giants on a collision course.¶ Yet, a
'diplomatic revolution' may be in the making should the United States decide to overplay its
hand during President Obama's second term. The United States assigns a key role to India in its
turn towards Asia, which in almost its entirety is aimed at balancing China's influence in the
region. Nevertheless, as India's former Foreign Secretary, Kanwal Sibal, points out: "India is
already distancing itself from the pivot by the notable friendly discourse towards China." The
reasons for this are complex, yet they are in large part based on the gradual waning of U.S.
influence in the region and the fact that geographical proximity between India and China
mandates some sort of rapprochement for the sake of both countries' economic development.¶
The original 'diplomatic revolution' occurred in 1756 on the eve of the Seven Year's War between
France and the Austrian Empire. In a reversal of alliances, Austria abandoned its long-term ally,
Great Britain, for its most formidable continental rival, France, thereby breaking with its
traditional foreign policy doctrine. The principal reason was Austria's gradual realization that
Britain, primarily a sea power, could or would not adequately be able to support its ally militarily
in a new European war. Great Britain's real diplomatic ambitions were overseas.¶ The AustroFrench alliance was in many ways counterproductive and an unhappy experience for both
countries. Because of their divergent interests and continuing rivalry, both parties paralyzed each
other, and they could not effectively cooperate during the Seven Years War (1756-1763). Dr.
Marco Cesa in his book "Allies Yet Rivals - International Politics in 18th Century Europe" referred
to the Austro-French alliance as a "deadlocked alliance," in which both parties decided to
"preserve their union, since their alliance gave each a means with which to control the other, and
also because without such an alliance they would probably have ended up fighting each other."
Paul W. Schroeder called this a "pact for management and mutual restraint of one's partner, not
for capability aggregation and aggrandizement."¶ Similar to Austria's realization in 1756, India
may think that she is better off seeking closer ties to a continental military power and a
neighbor, rather than an Asia Pacific sea power such as the United States, which may not have
the stomach to compete with China's power projection capabilities on mainland Asia. However,
should China and India move closer together, the result in all likelihood will be a form of a
deadlocked alliance in which both countries, similar to Austria and France, will be at loggerheads
with each other.¶ Yet, there are very good strategic reasons for both countries to move closer.
As D.S. Rajan points out: "Beijing and New Delhi share the same views on two key factors forming
the basis for partnership -- multilateralism and economic cooperation." Both are interested in
peace in their respective peripheries and a 'peaceful rise.' Both depend on each other for
economic development. For example, 80 percent of China's total oil import passes in proximity to
India's southern coast through the straits of Malacca. More importantly in the short run are
China's deteriorating relations with Japan and the United States' grand strategy for Asia during
President Obama's second term, both of which will weigh heavy on Beijing's motivation to create
a Indo-Sino alliance. Already in 2005, China and India have formed a "strategic and cooperative
partnership for peace and prosperity" and held various bilateral discussions on their future
strategic partnership. In January 2013, during the fifth annual Indo-Sino defense dialogue both
countries agreed to resume joint military exercises.¶ There are a host of issues that could
undermine closer Indo-Sino relations in the years to come such as unresolved border issues,
China-Pakistan relations, energy security, cyber-espionage, Tibet, India's eastward expansion of
its economic ties and Myamar just to name a few examples, where both countries' interests are
at variance. For the sake of stability, the United States should encourage closer Indo-China ties .
Austria and France were at peace between 1756 to 1792, not a small achievement given the
volatility of European power politics at the time. Once the alliance dissolved in 1792 both
countries were involved in a life and death struggle, which lasted until 1815. Closer Indo-Sino
ties mean a more stable Asian security environment based on mutual restraint, and - because of
the inherent nature of a deadlocked alliance -- little growth of both Indian and Chinese power.
Sino-Indian war is the highest risk for nuclear conflict.
Sullivan 10 – research fellow @ AEI
Tim Sullivan, research fellow and program manager at the American Enterprise Institutes Centre for
Defence Studies. “The next nuclear arms race”. Pakistan Observer. 9/29/10. Lexis.
India and Pakistan are the two countries most likely to engage in nuclear war or so goes the
common wisdom. Yet if recent events are any indication, the worlds most vigorous nuclear
competition may well erupt between Asias two giants: India and China. Both countries already
house significant and growing arsenals. China is estimated to have approximately 450
warheads; India, roughly 100. Though intensifying as of late, Sino-Indian nuclear competition
has a long history: Indias pursuit of a weapons program in the 1960s was triggered in part by
Chinas initial nuclear tests, and the two have eyed one anothers arsenals with mounting
concern ever since. The competition intensified in 2007, when China began to upgrade missile
facilities near Tibet, placing targets in northern India within range of its forces. Yet the stakes
have been raised yet again in recent months. Indian defence minister A.K. Antony announced
last month that the military will soon incorporate into its arsenal a new intermediate-range
missile, the Agni-III, which is capable of reaching all of Chinas major cities. Delhi is also reportedly
considering redeploying survivable, medium-range Agni-IIs to its northeastern border. And just
last month, India shifted a squadron of Su-30MKI fighters to a base just 150 kilometers from the
disputed Sino-Indian border. An Indian Air Force official told Defence News these nuclear-armed
planes could operate deep within China with mid-flight refueling. For its part, China continues to
enhance the quality, quantity and delivery systems of its nuclear forces. The Pentagon reported
last month that the Peoples Liberation Army has replaced older, vulnerable ballistic missiles
deployed in Western China with modern, survivable ones; this transition has taken place over
the last four years. Chinas Hainan Island naval base houses new, nuclear-powered ballistic-missile
submarines and affords those boats easy access to the Indian Ocean. Chinas military is also
developing a new, longer range submarine-launched ballistic missile which will allow its subs to
strike targets throughout India from the secure confines of the South China Sea. No single event
has stoked this rise in tensions. China, already concerned about Indias growing strength and its
desire to play a greater role in Asia, is even less enthused about the burgeoning strategic
partnership between Delhi and Washington. While Beijing has learned to live with American
forces on its eastern periphery, the possibility of an intimate US-India military relationship has
generated fears of encirclement. The ongoing Sino-Indian border dispute, as well as Indias
position astride Chinas key maritime shipping lanes, has made the prospect of a Washington-Delhi
axis appear particularly troubling. India likewise feels encircled by Chinas so-called string of pearls:
a series of Chinese-built, ostensibly commercial port facilities in the Bay of Bengal, Indian Ocean
and Arabian Sea. Beijings military ties to Pakistan, interference in the Kashmir dispute and
references to Arunachal Pradesh, an Indian state, as Southern Tibet have done little to reassure
New Delhi of Chinese intentions. The rapid growth of Chinas conventional military might in recent
years: between 2000 and 2009, Chinas military spending more than tripled: and the lack of clarity
as to its intentions, has spurred India to pursue its own military modernization. These shifts in
Indias and Chinas nuclear force postures thus represent only the latest and most serious efforts
to constrain and convey dissatisfaction with the others perceived regional ambitions. But they
are more troubling than conventional redeployments. There is a point at which efforts to
enhance deterrence can foster an arms race. Any attempt on the part of China to increase its
own defenses necessarily weakens, or is perceived to weaken, the security of India, thus
spurring further defence build-ups; the opposite is true as well. Shifts in nuclear force posture
can be particularly disruptive, and have been known to precipitate crises. Upon the discovery of
Soviet efforts to deploy missiles to Cuba in 1962, for example, the US responded militarily with a
naval quarantine of the island, bringing Washington and Moscow as close as they have ever come
to a nuclear war. Finally, the redeployments of Indias and Chinas nuclear forces suggest that there
is deep-seated and growing discord between the two Asian giants. This is troubling news for a
region whose future peace and prosperity depends heavily on continued comity between Delhi
and Beijing. It is only a matter of time before the China-India military competition begins to affect
neighboring states. Chinas nuclear force modernization, for instance, stands to threaten not only
India, but also Korea, Japan and other US partners in Asia. A dramatic defence build-up in India,
meanwhile, will no doubt leave Pakistan feeling less secure. Tensions are unlikely to ease any time
soon. The two countries appear much closer to the brink of an all-out arms race than they do to
any resolution of their differences. While each profits from the others economic growth, it is that
very growth: which finances military modernization and which is so dependent on potentially
vulnerable overseas trade: that creates the conditions for heightened insecurity.
TPP
Key to TPA-Compromise
GOP win causes TPA-Compromise
Dickerson ‘14
John is CBS News’ Political Director and a Slate Columnist, “The Best Shot at Ending Gridlock in
November,”
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/republican_control_of_congress_w
hy_that_would_be_better_than_the_status.html , kk
Perhaps the pressure
on Republicans in the Senate will lead to legislation that the president, conscious of his
legacy, can sign. The first easy score would be Trade Promotion Authority, which would give President Obama the
tools to complete and sign trade agreements in Asia and Europe. That is a key domestic priority for the president
because he believes it would boost the economy and assist his foreign policy, too. Democrats have blocked it.
Education legislation promoting charter schools would pass. (It might even pass before November). And you could also imagine a pathway to
immigration reform of some kind if those Republicans who think passing something in 2015 is key to the party’s long-term survival came
together with a president thinking about his legacy.¶
Key to TPP-Reid Blocking
GOP win causes TPA and TPP- Reid blocking
Reuters 6-16
“Republicans Gains in November May Boost Chances of U.S. Trade Deals,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/16/us-usa-election-trade-analysis-idUSKBN0ER0ET20140616 ,
kk
A change in control of the Senate could smooth the way toward passage of a broad trade agreement
with 11 Asia-Pacific nations and another pact with the European Union, said political strategists advising Wall Street firms. The trade
deals could benefit exporters of agricultural produce, chemicals and auto parts, among other products and services.¶ The Republicans
could also help get approvals for more exports of U.S. energy products, in abundance because of the shale oil and gas
boom, to Europe and Asia.¶ “A unified Congress in one party could lead to a compromise" on trade, said Daniel
Clifton, head of policy research at Strategas Research Partners in Washington.¶ The Obama Administration's desire for fast-track
negotiating powers, which Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes, could be granted in a Republicancontrolled chamber. Fast-track authority sets objectives for U.S. trade negotiators in exchange for an up-or-down vote in Congress on
trade deals, with no amendments allowed. Without this any deal Obama negotiated could be subject to
amendments that could destroy it. The Obama Administration's desire for fast-track negotiating powers, which Democrat Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid opposes, could be granted in a Republican-controlled chamber. Fast-track authority sets objectives for U.S. trade
negotiators in exchange for an up-or-down vote in Congress on trade deals, with no amendments allowed. Without this any deal Obama
negotiated could be subject to amendments that could destroy it.¶ Many trade
experts say this would aid talks on the Trans-
Pacific Partnership (TPP), which is now in its fifth year of negotiations. Central to Obama's strategic shift toward Asia, the TPP would connect
many countries, including the U.S. and Japan, by
a third of global trade.
cutting trade barriers and harmonizing standards in a deal covering
TPP Key to East Asia Influence
TPP key to East Asia Influence- cements alliances
Campbell & Ratner ‘14
Kurt is Chair and CEO of the Asia Group. From 2009 to 2013, he served as U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs and Ely is is a Senior Fellow in and Deputy Director of the AsiaPacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security, “Far Eastern Promises,” Foreign
Affairs, Volume 93, Issue 3, May, pages 106-116 , kk
In Asia, economics and security are inextricably linked, and the United States will not be able to sustain
its leadership there through military might alone. That is why the successful conclusion of the TPP -- which will
require intense negotiations overseas and on Capitol Hill -- is a cardinal priority. The agreement would immediately
benefit the U.S. economy and would create a long-term trade system in Asia that could not be dragged
down by protectionism. To give the United States added leverage in the negotiations, Congress should quickly reinstate fast-track
trade promotion authority Under that system, after negotiating the TPP and other free-trade agreements, the White House could present them
for up-or-down votes in Congress, which would not be able to amend or filibuster the deals. The Obama administration should also leverage the
U.S. energy boom and accelerate the export of liquefied natural gas to Asia to enhance the energy security of its allies and partners there and
to send a strong signal of U.S. commitment to the region's development.
U.S. leadership in Asia solves multiple scenarios for war
Goh 8
(Evelyn, Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of Politics and International Relations at
the Univ of Oxford, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, “Hierarchy and the role of the United
States in the East Asian security order,” 2008 8(3):353-377, Oxford Journals Database)
This is the main structural dilemma: as
long as the United States does not give up its primary position in the Asian
regional hierarchy, China is very unlikely to act in a way that will provide comforting answers to the two questions. Yet, the East
Asian regional order has been and still is constituted by US hegemony, and to change that could be
extremely disruptive and may lead to regional actors acting in highly destabilizing ways. Rapid Japanese
remilitarization, armed conflict across the Taiwan Straits, Indian nuclear brinksmanship directed toward
Pakistan, or a highly destabilized Korean peninsula are all illustrative of potential regional disruptions. 5
Conclusion To construct a coherent account of East Asia’s evolving security order, I have suggested that the United States is the central force in
constituting regional stability and order. The
major patterns of equilibrium and turbulence in the region since 1945
can be explained by the relative stability of the US position at the top of the regional hierarchy, with
periods of greatest insecurity being correlated with greatest uncertainty over the American commitment
to managing regional order. Furthermore, relationships of hierarchical assurance and hierarchical deference explain the unusual
character of regional order in the post-Cold War era. However, the greatest contemporary challenge to East Asian order is
the potential conflict between China and the United States over rank ordering in the regional hierarchy, a
contest made more potent because of the intertwining of regional and global security concerns. Ultimately, though, investigating such
questions of positionality requires conceptual lenses that go beyond basic material factors because it entails social and normative questions.
How can China be brought more into a leadership position, while being persuaded to buy into shared strategic interests and constrain its own in
ways that its vision of regional and global security may eventually be reconciled with that of the United States and other regional players? How
can Washington be persuaded that its central position in the hierarchy must be ultimately shared in ways yet to be determined? The future of
the East Asian security order is tightly bound up with the durability of the United States’ global leadership and regional domination. At
the
regional level, the main scenarios of disruption are an outright Chinese challenge to US leadership, or
the defection of key US allies, particularly Japan. Recent history suggests, and the preceding analysis has shown, that
challenges to or defections from US leadership will come at junctures where it appears that the US commitment
to the region is in doubt, which in turn destabilizes the hierarchical order. At the global level, American geopolitical over-extension will
be the key cause of change. This is the one factor that Hierarchy and the role of the United States in the East Asian security order 373lead to
both greater regional and global turbulence, if only by the attendant strategic uncertainly triggering off regional challenges or defections.
However, it is notoriously difficult to gauge thresholds of over-extension. More positively, East Asia is a region that has adjusted to previous
periods of uncertainty about US primacy. Arguably, the regional consensus over the United States as primary state in a system of benign
hierarchy could accommodate a shifting of the strategic burden to US allies like Japan and Australia as a means of systemic preservation. The
alternatives that could surface as a result of not doing so would appear to be much worse.
Asian wars go nuclear
Landy 2k
National Security Expert @ Knight Ridder, 3/10
(Jonathan, Knight Ridder, lexis)
Few if any experts think China and Taiwan, North Korea and South Korea, or India and Pakistan are
spoiling to fight. But even a minor miscalculation by any of them could destabilize Asia, jolt the global
economy and even start a nuclear war. India, Pakistan and China all have nuclear weapons, and North
Korea may have a few, too. Asia lacks the kinds of organizations, negotiations and diplomatic relationships that
helped keep an uneasy peace for five decades in Cold War Europe. “Nowhere else on Earth are the stakes as high and
relationships so fragile,” said Bates Gill, director of northeast Asian policy studies at the Brookings Institution, a
Washington think tank. “We see the convergence of great power interest overlaid with lingering confrontations with no
institutionalized security mechanism in place. There are elements for potential disaster.” In an effort to cool the
region’s tempers, President Clinton, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger all will hopscotch Asia’s
capitals this month. For America, the stakes could hardly be higher. There
are 100,000 U.S. troops in Asia committed to
defending Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, and the United States would instantly become embroiled if
Beijing moved against Taiwan or North Korea attacked South Korea. While Washington has no defense commitments to
either India or Pakistan, a conflict between the two could end the global taboo against using nuclear weapons
and demolish the already shaky international nonproliferation regime. In addition, globalization has made a stable Asia _ with its
massive markets, cheap labor, exports and resources _ indispensable to the U.S. economy. Numerous U.S. firms and millions of American jobs
depend on trade with Asia that totaled $600 billion last year, according to the Commerce Department.
TPP Key to Asian Influence
TPP key to Asian influence- economic and security influence with Japan key
Stein and Vassilev ‘14
Andre and Miro are principals of Cryptos Global Investments, a New York-based Global Macro Fund.
Stein is a New York Fellow at the Foreign Policy Initiative, and Vassilev is a Fellow at the Truman National
Security Project, “The TPP, Abenomics and America’s Asia Pivot,” http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/thetpp-abenomics-and-americas-asia-pivot/ , kk
Japan’s entrance into the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade treaty negotiations is arguably the most
important event in U.S. relations with the Asia-Pacific in the last decade. This is because the sustainability of longterm American strategic power in Asia and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s attempts to resuscitate the Japanese economy are entirely codependent. Without
an economically resurgent Japan, Asia will be increasingly sucked away from the U.S.
and into the Chinese economic and strategic orbit. Washington’s Asia pivot is not complete without a
Japan-powered TPP, which both supports its growing Asia-Pacific political and security alliance and acts as an economic containment
treaty against China.¶ Just as the Soviet Union relied on a massive military arsenal for its power, Chinese influence derives overwhelmingly from
its economy. Until now, the U.S. has had relatively few economic levers in its Asia pivot, with the exception of free trade agreements (FTAs)
with its firmest friends: Australia, Singapore and Korea. Instead, Washington has focused mainly on political and military efforts, whether
improving frosty relations with former foes such as Vietnam or deploying additional regional ballistic missile defense resources.¶
If
implemented, the TPP including Japan fixes this economic gap in America’s Asia policy by increasing
trade flows among its members, making them less dependent on trade with China and thereby
strengthening their economic position relative to their giant neighbor. Importantly, Japan’s participation as the largest Asian
economy in the TPP multiplies the treaty’s economic network effects. It also gets the U.S. back in the free-trade game,
given that China has already signed, or is pursuing, FTAs with a number of TPP member-countries including
Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Chile.¶ The TPP also complements Washington’s security relationships. TPP
countries are predominantly close U.S. military allies that share concerns about – and often bear the brunt of – China’s aggressive regional
military swagger. Tokyo’s reliance on shipping lanes for hydrocarbon imports provides a fulcrum for coordinated efforts on regional energy and
security policies, including
blunting ongoing Chinese attempts to intimidate TPP members on maritime
boundary claims and the valuable oil and gas that lies beneath the seabed.¶ U.S. strategy in Asia relies on the
economic rejuvenation of Japan, which in turn relies on Abe’s three-pronged economic program. The first two elements of Abenomics, fiscal
and monetary, are already in place and are set to continue for the foreseeable future. This is the easy stuff of economic policy which sweetens
the patient for the bitter medicine to follow. The Bank of Japan’s massive monetary easing (which is bigger than that of the U.S. Federal
Reserve’s efforts), record deficit spending and rising inflation expectations are the first caffeine boosts to the Japanese economy. Like double
espressos on an empty stomach, the java fix is powerful at first, but eventually fades. This is why Abe intends to implement domestic structural
reform to permanently waken Japan from its two-decade economic slumber.¶ Politically, Abe
is relying on the TPP negotiations
as a vehicle to drive this structural reform agenda. The central plank of these reforms is improving Japan’s competitiveness
and regaining its export edge. The TPP will lead to lower costs for imported goods, increased regional access for
Japanese exporters and reduced Japanese reliance on trade with China. However this export boost requires the successful execution of
contentious domestic initiatives, including raising the consumption tax rate, lifting workforce participation, lowering electricity prices through
deregulation, and encouraging foreign direct investment. The biggest challenge for the Prime Minister is cutting Japanese tariff and non-tariff
barriers on key staples such as rice, given the LDP’s rural voting base and resulting opposition within his own party. Not surprisingly, Abe has
already indicated that he will partially protect key agricultural sectors in order to persuade his MPs to support the rest of his agenda.
Cements American influence in the region
Johnston ‘14
Christopher is a Fellow at Georgetown University’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, “Trans-Pacific
Partnership: Time for Some American Hustle,” April 3rd http://thediplomat.com/2014/03/trans-pacificpartnership-time-for-some-american-hustle/ , kk
The TPP not only offers clear economic advantage to the U.S., but also complements the grand strategy of American
rebalancing towards the Asia-Pacific. It will enable the Obama administration to help draft the blueprints
for increased Asian integration and economic growth, cementing American leadership in the region. This
is not a matter of choice, but an economic and strategic necessity. The ETP would doubtless help streamline U.S. – EU trade. But in a highly
contested legislative environment, where the ratification of major trade agreements requires the investment of precious political capital, that
capital is better invested in the TPP. After decades of trimming her sails across the Atlantic, it is time for the United States to unfurl the
spinnaker and make haste for the Asia-Pacific.
TPP Prevents Economic Collapse
TPP prevents economic collapse- prevents Japanese default
Stein and Vassilev ‘14
Andre and Miro are principals of Cryptos Global Investments, a New York-based Global Macro Fund.
Stein is a New York Fellow at the Foreign Policy Initiative, and Vassilev is a Fellow at the Truman National
Security Project, “The TPP, Abenomics and America’s Asia Pivot,” http://thediplomat.com/2013/08/thetpp-abenomics-and-americas-asia-pivot/ , kk
Japan’s entrance into the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade treaty negotiations is arguably the most important event in U.S. relations with the
Asia-Pacific in the last decade. This is because the sustainability of long-term American strategic power in Asia and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s
attempts to resuscitate the Japanese economy are entirely co-dependent. Without an economically resurgent Japan, Asia will be increasingly
sucked away from the U.S. and into the Chinese economic and strategic orbit. Washington’s Asia pivot is not complete without a Japanpowered TPP, which both supports its growing Asia-Pacific political and security alliance and acts as an economic containment treaty against
China.¶ Just as the Soviet Union relied on a massive military arsenal for its power, Chinese influence derives overwhelmingly from its economy.
Until now, the U.S. has had relatively few economic levers in its Asia pivot, with the exception of free trade agreements (FTAs) with its firmest
friends: Australia, Singapore and Korea. Instead, Washington has focused mainly on political and military efforts, whether improving frosty
relations with former foes such as Vietnam or deploying additional regional ballistic missile defense resources.¶ If implemented, the TPP
including Japan fixes this economic gap in America’s Asia policy by increasing trade flows among its members, making them less dependent on
trade with China and thereby strengthening their economic position relative to their giant neighbor. Importantly, Japan’s participation as the
largest Asian economy in the TPP multiplies the treaty’s economic network effects. It also gets the U.S. back in the free-trade game, given that
China has already signed, or is pursuing, FTAs with a number of TPP member-countries including Singapore, Australia, New Zealand and Chile.¶
The TPP also complements Washington’s security relationships. TPP countries are predominantly close U.S. military allies that share concerns
about – and often bear the brunt of – China’s aggressive regional military swagger. Tokyo’s reliance on shipping lanes for hydrocarbon imports
provides a fulcrum for coordinated efforts on regional energy and security policies, including blunting ongoing Chinese attempts to intimidate
TPP members on maritime boundary claims and the valuable oil and gas that lies beneath the seabed.¶ U.S. strategy in Asia relies on the
economic rejuvenation of Japan, which in turn relies on Abe’s three-pronged economic program. The first two elements of Abenomics, fiscal
and monetary, are already in place and are set to continue for the foreseeable future. This is the easy stuff of economic policy which sweetens
the patient for the bitter medicine to follow. The Bank of Japan’s massive monetary easing (which is bigger than that of the U.S. Federal
Reserve’s efforts), record deficit spending and rising inflation expectations are the first caffeine boosts to the Japanese economy. Like
double espressos on an empty stomach, the java fix is powerful at first, but eventually fades. This is why
Abe intends to implement domestic structural reform to permanently waken Japan from its two-decade
economic slumber.¶ Politically, Abe is relying on the TPP negotiations as a vehicle to drive this structural
reform agenda. The central plank of these reforms is improving Japan’s competitiveness and regaining its export edge.
The TPP will lead to lower costs for imported goods, increased regional access for Japanese exporters and reduced
Japanese reliance on trade with China. However this export boost requires the successful execution of contentious domestic
initiatives, including raising the consumption tax rate, lifting workforce participation, lowering electricity prices through deregulation, and
encouraging foreign direct investment. The biggest challenge for the Prime Minister is cutting Japanese tariff and non-tariff barriers on key
staples such as rice, given the LDP’s rural voting base and resulting opposition within his own party. Not surprisingly, Abe has already indicated
that he will partially protect key agricultural sectors in order to persuade his MPs to support the rest of his agenda. Domestic Japanese politics
will increasingly determine the success or otherwise of the TPP. U.S. and its allies’ policymakers, while recognizing their own national economic
interests, should make every effort to support Abe in his reform program. Japan should be allowed a slow tapering of its agricultural tariffs over
a long period of time – which will both encourage long-term domestic agricultural reform while preventing a wholesale revolt within the LDP
that could effectively end Japanese involvement in the TPP. Maintaining a constructive silence on the devaluation of the yen, particularly in the
great unknown of the post-Bernanke era, would also help bolster Japanese exports and serve as an analgesic while the pain of structural
reforms hit.¶ The
failure of Abenomics, including the structural reforms driven by Japanese TPP
negotiations, may pose severe global stability risks. If Abe fails at home, structural reforms will stall and
with these, any hope for a Japanese recovery. There are two worrying scenarios – both bad for Japan and its friends. First,
without reform implementation, Abe’s massive monetary easing program combined with aggressive deficit stimulus may lead to stagflation, a
terrible mix of high inflation, stunted growth and rising unemployment.¶ Second, given Japan’s enormous debt burden at 230% of GDP, a mere
2% increase in interest rates on Japanese Government Bonds will lift debt service costs to 100% of the government budget. This scenario is a
real possibility given Japan’s persistent trade deficits and sluggish growth. In the worst case this
may lead to a run on Japanese
bonds – as they lose their safe haven status for foreign investors, with declining numbers of Japanese
savers to pick up the slack.¶ Either of these scenarios would edge Japan towards default with massive
global ramifications that would dwarf the Eurozone crisis, let alone trashing the TPP negotiations. Worst of
all, an economically desperate Japan would likely turn inwards with virulent nationalism, while ironically
falling deeper into the arms of China, wrecking America’s Asia strategy.
TPP Key to Free Trade
TPP Failure collapses future free trade
Ferguson et al ‘13
Ian is a Specialist in International Trade and Finance and writes for the Congressional Research Service,
“The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Issues for Congress,”
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R42694_20130821.pdf , kk
Another issue for possible consideration is: What
would be the impact on U.S. trade policy if the ¶ TPP negotiations
are not completed successfully or are delayed indefinitely? Some could argue ¶ that such an outcome would indicate
that it is not feasible to negotiate a comprehensive set of ¶ rules with a diverse group of countries and
that the United States would have to tailor its ¶ ambitions. In addition, some might assert that such an outcome would
signify a temporary, if not ¶ permanent setback to the notion of a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific? (FTAAP). Still others ¶ may conclude that
such result could force the United States to retreat from negotiating trade ¶ agreements altogether.
Japan Agrees
Japan agrees to Trans-Pacific Partnership
IP Watch ‘14
Intellectual Propert Watch “US, Japan agree to “Inject New Momentum” In TPP Talks” International IP
Policy 6/28/14 http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/04/25/us-japan-agree-to-inject-new-momentum-intotpp-talks/ ,HR
Japan and the United States today announced their renewed commitment to an ambitious TransPacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The statement from the bilateral leaders’ meeting followed reports
that bilateral talks toward the TPP were stalling. The White House statement reads: “The United States
and Japan also coordinate closely in multilateral financial and economic fora to advance trade
liberalization and promote economic growth. Our joint efforts are grounded in support for an
international economic system that is free, open, and transparent, and embraces innovation. In order
to further enhance economic growth, expand regional trade and investment, and strengthen the rulesbased trading system, the United States and Japan are committed to taking the bold steps necessary
to complete a high-standard, ambitious, comprehensive Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.
Today, we have identified a path forward on important bilateral TPP issues. This marks a key milestone
in the TPP negotiations and will inject fresh momentum into the broader talks. We now call upon all TPP
partners to move as soon as possible to take the necessary steps to conclude the agreement. Even with
this step forward, there is still much work to be done to conclude TPP.”
Immigration
Key to Immigration
GOP win causes immigration reform- have to govern
Dickerson ‘14
John is CBS News’ Political Director and a Slate Columnist, “The Best Shot at Ending Gridlock in
November,” May 22nd
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/05/republican_control_of_congress_w
hy_that_would_be_better_than_the_status.html , kk
A more substantive change would come from Republicans having to prove that they can govern. For the moment, partisanship provides an
excuse and impediment to action. House Republicans pass legislation, but their views never have to be sharpened or reconciled with those of
their Senate colleagues. Control of both houses could force clarity in the GOP on issues like immigration , which
leaders have ducked so far, claiming they didn’t have a trusted partner in the president. That is a dodge to keep from starting a fight in the
party over a contentious issue. When
you control both houses, this kind of inaction can’t be allowed if the goal is
to be taken seriously as a governing party. Republicans would also have to provide more concrete votes on issues like health
care, tax reform, and implementing portions of Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget. Republican strategists know the GOP has to shake the “Party of No”
label, which means producing actual accomplishments—that is, unless you want the governors in the GOP 2016 field using you as a foil. (Of
course they’re already doing that anyway). Republicans in the Senate face a terrible landscape in 2016 with 24 incumbents up for re-election.
Many of them—such as Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—will be in states where
increased Democratic turnout in the presidential year will imperil their chances for re-election to the Senate. Those
GOP senators
can’t run on having done nothing, and there will be pressure to pass legislation that will appeal to a
broad swath of voters. There will also be pressure not to launch extended show trials that might make voters think the party is so
obsessed with partisan point scoring that they don’t have any answers to the problems that confront people in their daily lives. Perhaps the
pressure on Republicans in the Senate will lead to legislation that the president, conscious of his legacy, can sign. The first easy score would be
Trade Promotion Authority, which would give President Obama the tools to complete and sign trade agreements in Asia and Europe. That is a
key domestic priority for the president because he believes it would boost the economy and assist his foreign policy, too. Democrats have
blocked it. Education legislation promoting charter schools would pass. (It might even pass before November). And
you could also
imagine a pathway to immigration reform of some kind if those Republicans who think passing
something in 2015 is key to the party’s long-term survival came together with a president thinking about
his legacy.
GOP Congress passes immigration reform
Bolton 5/15
Alexander, Reporter, The Hill, “GOP: We'll move immigration reform if we take back Senate”, CC
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/206177-gop-well-move-immigration-reform-if-we-take-backsenate
Senate Republicans say they'll try to pass immigration reform legislation in the next two years if they
take back the Senate in November. ¶ The Republicans say winning back the Senate will allow them to
pass a series of bills on their own terms that have a better chance of winning approval in the House. ¶
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a central member of the coalition that passed a comprehensive reform bill
in the Senate last year, said he would craft a better legislative approach if Republicans control the
upper chamber in 2015.¶ That would give his party a chance to pass immigration legislation before the
presidential election, when Hispanic voters will be crucial to winning the White House.¶ But Democrats
are threatening that if the House does not pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year the
issue will be dead in 2015 and 2016, sinking the GOP brand among Hispanics ahead of the 2016
election.¶ “I certainly think we can make progress on immigration particularly on topics like modernizing
our legal immigration system, improving our mechanisms for enforcing the law and I think if you did
those things you could actually make some progress on addressing those who are illegally,” Rubio said
Wednesday evening of the prospects of passing immigration reform in 2015. ¶ He said the Senate next
year should pass immigration reform through a series of sequential bills that build upon each other to
enact comprehensive reform. This approach would be more palatable in the House, he said. ¶ Rubio said
he was not fully satisfied with the comprehensive bill that passed the Senate last year, adding
Republicans would “absolutely” pass better legislation if they pick up six or more seats in the midterm
election. ¶ Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who is poised to take over as chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, said he will vote to pass immigration legislation in the next Congress if Republicans
ascend to the majority.¶ “We’d start over again next year,” Grassley said, when asked about the next
steps if Congress does not pass immigration reform by September.¶ “I’d make a decision about whether
you could get more done by separate bills or a comprehensive bill,” he said.¶ Grassley said he may have
supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill if it had tougher border security and interior enforcement
provisions. ¶ “For that reason, not for the legal immigration stuff that’s in it,” he said, explaining why he
voted against it.¶ Some Republicans, such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), strongly oppose increasing legal
immigration.¶ “Washington can’t rewrite the law of supply and demand: we can’t rebuild our middle
class if we continue to bring in record numbers of new workers for companies to hire at the lowest
available wage,” he said.¶ Only 14 Republicans voted for the Senate bill, which conservative critics
panned for giving too much discretion to the Obama administration in deciding how its border security
requirements would be met. ¶ Senate Republicans believe that House Republicans would be more likely
to pass immigration reform if the midterm election shifts control of the upper chamber because it
would be easier to negotiate a Senate-House compromise.¶ House conservatives have opposed
bringing immigration legislation to the House floor because they fear even a narrow bill could be used
as a vehicle to jam the sprawling Senate bill through the House. That threat would be less dire if the
Senate passed a series of smaller immigration reform bills.¶ “It could pass if we break it down into
smaller pieces,” said Senate Republican Whip John Cornyn (Texas). “[The House] has always been
amenable to passing smaller bills on a step-by-step basis.Ӧ Once Congress passes legislation to tighten
border security and interior enforcement, it could pave the way for a deal legalizing an estimated 11
million illegal immigrants, expanding work visas and enlarging the flow of legal immigration, Senate
Republicans argue.
Immigration Key to Economy
Immigration key to economy- boosts all sectors
Klein 1-29
Ezra is a Bloomberg and Washington Post Columnist, “To Fix the U.S. Economy, Fix
Immigration,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/to-fix-the-u-s-economy-fiximmigration.html , kk
¶ Washington tends to have a narrow
view of what counts as “economic policy.” Anything we do to the tax code is in. So is any stimulus we
pass, or any deficit reduction we try. Most of this mistakes the federal budget for the economy.¶ The truth is,
piece of economic policy we pass -- or don’t pass -- in 2013 may be
economic policy at all:
immigration reform.¶
the most important
something we don’t think of as
¶ Congress certainly doesn’t consider it economic policy,
at least not officially.
Immigration laws go through the House and Senate judiciary committees. But consider a few facts about immigrants in the American economy:
About a tenth of the U.S. population is foreign-born. More
than a quarter of U.S. technology and engineering
businesses started from 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born owner. In Silicon Valley, half of all tech startups had a
foreign-born founder.¶ Immigrants begin businesses and file patents at a much higher rate than their native-born counterparts, and while there
are disputes about the effect immigrants have on the wages of low-income Americans, there’s
little dispute about their
effect on wages overall: They lift them.¶ The economic case for immigration is best made by way of analogy. Everyone
agrees that aging economies with low birth rates are in trouble; this, for example, is a thoroughly conventional view of Japan. It’s even
conventional wisdom about the U.S. The
retirement of the baby boomers is correctly understood as an
economic challenge. The ratio of working Americans to retirees will fall from 5-to-1 today to 3-to-1 in 2050. Fewer workers and more
retirees is tough on any economy.¶ Importing Workers¶ There’s nothing controversial about that analysis. But if that’s not controversial, then
immigration shouldn’t be, either. Immigration is essentially the importation of new workers. It’s akin to raising the birth rate, only easier,
because most of the newcomers are old enough to work. And because living in the U.S. is considered such a blessing that even very skilled, very
industrious workers are willing to leave their home countries and come to ours, the U.S. has an unusual amount to gain from immigration.
When it comes to the global draft for talent, we almost always get the first-round picks -- at
least, if we want them, and if we make it relatively easy for them to come here.¶ From the vantage of naked self-interest, the wonder isn’t that
we might fix our broken immigration system in 2013. It’s that we might not.¶
Few economic problems wouldn’t be
improved by more immigration . If you’re worried about deficits, more young, healthy workers
paying into Social Security and Medicare are an obvious boon. If you’re concerned about the
slowdown in new company formation and its attendant effects on economic growth, more
immigrant entrepreneurs should cheer you. If you’re worried about the dearth of science and engineering majors in our
universities, an influx of foreign-born students is the most obvious solution you’ll find.
¶ Politicians of both parties recognize
this. “Our goal is to advance policies that make a difference in peoples’ lives, and that means we want to
advance pro-growth reforms that are good for the economy,” Republican Representative Paul Ryan said at a recent Wall Street Journal
breakfast. The first pro-growth reform he named? Immigration.¶ Many immigration opponents object to “amnesty” -- allowing people who
broke the law to reap the benefits of legal status. That’s a moral question, and while I prefer not to stand on principle when we have 11 million
people already living in the shadows in the U.S., it’s beyond the scope of this column. The main economic concern about allowing more
immigration or legalizing the status of those who are already here is that immigrants will undermine the wages of the least-skilled Americans. In
reality, it’s not clear that will happen.¶ Complementary Skills¶ In addition to growing the size of the national pie, unskilled immigrants tend to
have what economists call complementary skills to U.S. workers. If one worker speaks English and another doesn’t, for example, they generally
don’t pursue the same job.¶ In that way, it’s useful again to compare immigration with native birth rates. Increasing the number of native-born
workers leads to more direct competition, because two native-born workers are probably more similar than an immigrant and a native worker.
Yet most everyone cheers if they hear that the U.S. birth rate has ticked up.¶ Some workers are hurt by immigration, but they are typically
already struggling. The best way to help them is with more training, better health care, a more generous earned income tax credit and so on.
Those benefits are easier to provide in a growing economy with more young workers than in a sluggish one with chronic budget deficits.
Immigration isn’t what really ails them, and it isn’t what stands in the way of aiding them.¶ Will immigrants use those same social services, as
some immigration opponents contend, adding to the cost of the nation’s welfare state? Yes, but not as often as they’ll pay into it. In 2007, the
Congressional Budget Office analyzed the issue while assessing President George W. Bush’s proposed immigration reforms. It found that
legalizing undocumented immigrants would increase federal revenue by $48 billio n while costing
only $23 billion in increased public services -- and that’s before accounting for the broader economic benefits of immigration.¶ There are few
free lunches in public policy. But taking advantage of our unique position as a country where the world’s best, brightest and hardest-working
desperately want to live is surely one. In the end, economies
aren’t mainly about budgets and tax codes, though
Congress occasionally pretends otherwise. They’re about workers and business owners. Immigration reform
is a way to get more of both.
Decline causes war
Kemp 10
Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House under Ronald Reagan, special assistant
to the president for national security affairs and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff,
Former Director, Middle East Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2010, The East Moves West: India,
China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The
world economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major
reduction in their growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of
fossil fuels plummets, leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on
expansion programs and social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups,
including, but not limited to, Islamic extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more
“failed states.” Most serious is the collapse of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by
Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of nuclear weapons. The danger of
war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about an extremist Pakistan, expands and
weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, with Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear terrorism increases, and
the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states may lead to a
further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this scenario, major
disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planet’s population.
Woman’s Rights
Immigration reform key to women’s rights
LJ World 3-27
Lawrence Journal World, “Sandra Fluke Says Immigration Reform Crucial to Women’s Movement,”
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2013/mar/27/sandra-fluke-says-immigration-reform-crucial-women/ ,
kk
Sandra Fluke took a different-than-expected tack in her speech at Kansas University on Wednesday night, by making the case that women's
rights and immigrant rights are one and the same.¶ The women's rights advocate said that all Americans must, citing the
name of her speech, "make their voices heard" to stand up for the often underrepresented group.¶ “Our immigrant brothers’ fight and our
immigrant sisters’ fight is our fight too,” she said. “I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to be an ally.”¶ Fluke, who rose to prominence last year
after testifying before a U.S. House panel about the need for contraception access and subsequently being called a "slut" and "prostitute" by
conservative talker Rush Limbaugh, gave the 2013 Emily Taylor and Marilyn Stokstad Women's Leadership Lecture in the Woodruff Auditorium
at the Kansas Union before a crowd of hundreds. She chose to focus on immigration reform because of Congress' current focus on the issue.
“This is our generation’s chance to get this right," she said.¶ She contended that the U.S. has an “employment-based” immigration system. Four
out of five job visas go to men, she remarked, while women can wait as long as 20 years to reunite with their families in the States. Same-sex
couples are unable to immigrate together because, thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, their unions aren’t recognized by the federal
government. Federal-immigration reform, she said, must focus on “family unity,” or “the right of all families to stay together regardless” of the
circumstances. A new immigration system must also allow for stay-at-home mothers, she said.¶ Immigrant
women are also at an
increased risk for violence, Fluke asserted, whether because of smugglers, human traffickers or exploitative
partners. Many are “trapped in modern-day slavery,” she said. Domestic-abuse victims are less likely to
call the police because of the threat of deportation. U Visas prevent that problem by giving crime
victims a path to citizenship; that policy must be expanded, Fluke said.¶ Women are also more likely to lack health
insurance because they work at jobs that don’t offer it, she said, so they end up turning to emergency rooms for care.¶ For the 11 million
undocumented immigrants in the U.S., more than half of them women, “Their voices are not strong
enough on their own,” Fluke said. “They need the rest of us” — Americans, or as Fluke called them, the “U.S.-born
descendants of immigrants.”¶ “I fervently hope we don’t miss our chance to make our voices heard,” she said, “to make
women’s history for the next women’s history month.”
Immigration Key to Hegemony
Reform’s key to heg
Nye 12 Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US
National Intelligence Council, is University Professor at Harvard University. “Immigration and
American Power,” December 10, Project Syndicate, http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/obama-needs-immigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strengthby-joseph-s--nye
CAMBRIDGE –
The United States is a nation of immigrants. Except for a small number of Native Americans, everyone is originally from somewhere else, and even recent
immigrants can rise to top economic and political roles. President Franklin Roosevelt once famously addressed the Daughters of the American Revolution – a group that prided itself on the early arrival of its
In recent years, however, US politics has had a strong anti-immigration slant, and the issue
But Barack Obama’s re-election demonstrated the electoral power of Latino voters, who rejected Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney by a 3-1 majority, as did Asian-Americans.¶ As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now
urging their party to reconsider its anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform
will be on the agenda at the beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be
an important step in preventing the decline of American power .¶ Fears about the impact of immigration on
ancestors – as “fellow immigrants.”¶
played an important role in the Republican Party’s presidential nomination battle in 2012.
national values and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century “Know Nothing” movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were singled
out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of 1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades.¶ During the twentieth century, the US recorded its highest
percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later, according to the 2010 census, 13% of the American population is foreign born. But, despite being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are
skeptical about immigration than are sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US
public favored allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008.¶ Both the number of immigrants and their origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on American culture. Demographers portray a
country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics will comprise 25% of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and 8%, respectively.¶ But mass
communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new immigrants to learn more about their new country
beforehand than immigrants did a century ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as quickly as their predecessors.¶ While too rapid a rate of immigration can
immigration strengthens US power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries and
territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their population
constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as the century progresses, America is one of the few that may avoid
demographic decline and maintain its share of world population.¶ For example, to maintain its current population size, Japan would
cause social problems, over the long term,
have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census Bureau projects that the US population
Today, the US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from
now it is still likely to be third (after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power :
whereas nearly all other developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the
older generation, immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.¶
In addition, though studies suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled
immigrants can be important to particular sectors – and to long-term growth . There is a strong
correlation between the number of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the
beginning of this century, Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of
Silicon Valley’s technology businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to start one-quarter of all US technology startups during the previous decade. Immigrants or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune
500 companies.¶ Equally important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power. The
fact that people want to come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is
attractive to people in other countries. The US is a magnet , and many people can envisage
themselves as Americans, in part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover,
connections between immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey
accurate and positive information about the US.¶ Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of connection with other countries, it
helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views of the world in an era of globalization. Rather
than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances both .¶ Singapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an
astute observer of both the US and China, argues that China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first
will grow by 49% over the next four decades.¶
century, precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of the world and melds them into a
diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from domestically, but, in Lee’s view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US.¶ That is a view that Americans should take
If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration reform in his second term, he will have
gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain the strength of the US.
to heart.
Key to Military Primacy solves hegemony
Paarlberg 04
[Prof. of Poli. Sci. at Wellesley, and Assoc.at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard
Science, Military Dominance, and U.S. Security, Robert L. Paarlberg, International Security 29.1 (2004)
122-151]
Military primacy today rests on scientific primacy, and the scientific primacy ofthe United States rests on a remarkably durable
foundation. Rather than threatening U.S. primacy in science, globalization has strengthened it. Yet science-based military primacy on the battlefield is
clearly not a guarantee of security. Determined adversaries
can innovate increasingly asymmetric tactics against an endless list
of soft targets, and the more domination and resentment they feel under U.S. conventional military hegemony, the
more incentive they will have to move toward these unconventional responses. Conventional victories that make new enemies may
encourage a dangerous shift toward asymmetry, and if the United States then responds by indiscriminately denying
foreigners access to the homeland, U.S. primacy in science could itself be critically weakened. The war against international
terror should be fought with science, rather than at the expense of science. The homeland security strategy of the United States should
include much larger science investments in disciplines such as chemistry, physics, biotechnology, nanotechnology, and
information technology, where promising new counterterror applications are sure to be found. Smart
societies can develop not only smart new weapons for conventional use abroad, but also smart new capabilities for threat detection and
soft target protection [End Page 150] at home. For example, nanofabrication may hold the key to a timely detection system for some terror bombing
threats. Silicon
polymer nanowires 2,000 times thinner than a human hair can cheaply detect traces of TNT and piric acid in both water and
air, and might someday be developed and deployed into "smart" cargo containers, to protect against terrorist bombs. New
information technologies using powerhouse terascale computing capabilities may soon be able to help in tracking and anticipating the behavior of
terror networks.90 New systems capable of detecting dangerous amounts of radiation are increasingly affordable and unobtrusive, and the
Department of Homeland Security has proposed development of a fully networked national sensor system to
monitor the air continuously for pathogens, dangerous chemicals, and other public hazards. One line of defense already in place in
thirty cities is a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory-designed system for monitoring the air for biological attack.
U.S. Key to Global Economy
US Economy Key to Global Economy
Lagarde, 13
Christine is the Managing Director, International Monetary Fund U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “The Interconnected
Global Economy: Challenges and Opportunities for the United States—and the World”, International Monetary
Fund, June 27, 2014 https://www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2013/091913.htm NA
This brings me to my second main theme: the critical role of the United States, and American business in particular, in our increasingly interconnected world. The recovery gaining strength
here is good news for America—and good news for the world. Admittedly, U.S. growth will be more modest this year than we would want—still well below 2 percent. Even so, it should
accelerate significantly next year, by about one percentage point. Indeed, the fundamentals of the U.S. economy have been improving gradually. Households are in better shape—they have
lowered their debt and benefited from the recovery in house prices and the strong performance of the stock market. The housing sector is looking brighter, with ample potential for
construction activity to pick up further. The private sector is yet again proving to be the primary engine of growth and job creation—and the main reason for weak growth this year is the very
large ongoing fiscal adjustment, a theme I will return to shortly. Job creation is the key ingredient of any economic recovery, domestic or global. The latest U.S. jobs data present a mixed
picture. The unemployment rate has declined to 7.3 percent in August, but the participation rate has continued to decline, and employment remains well below pre-crisis levels. So the issue of
jobs remains paramount. Jobs and growth is an increasingly important component of the IMF’s policy advice. I know that it is very much on your minds here at the Chamber too. Business—
including the people in this room—have a key role to play. At the same time, policymakers also have an important responsibility to help shape the environment in which businesses and
citizens can thrive—and jobs can be created. So what should U.S. policymakers do? Here are a few points from our most recent assessment of the U.S. economy in July: First, fix public finances.
I have characterized this as a case of “slow down, but hurry up.” While we think it would have been more advisable to have a slower pace of fiscal consolidation in the short run—without using
the blunt instrument of sequester—more action is needed to reduce long-run pressure on the budget. This includes addressing entitlement spending and higher revenues. In addition, the
ongoing political uncertainty over the budget and the debt ceiling does not help. It is essential to resolve this—and the earlier the better—for confidence, for markets, and for the real
economy. Second, appropriately calibrated monetary policy, our advice is that exit from unconventional monetary policies should be gradual, linked to progress in the recovery and
employment, and that it should be clearly communicated and in a dialogue. Third, finish reforming the financial sector. There has been progress on this agenda— for example, the new capital
and liquidity requirements for banks under Basle III—but the system is still not safe enough. Policymakers need to turn their attention to the outstanding danger zones, especially derivatives
and shadow banking. The ultimate goal is clear: to have a financial system that is less prone to instability and better able to serve the real economy. Financial sector reform, of course, is not
the sole responsibility of the United States. It needs to be tackled in many countries and regions, ideally in a coordinated and consistent way to ensure the healthy function of the entire global
. The United
States plays a unique role in the global economy. I am thinking, for instance, of global trade—of which
the U.S. accounts for 11 percent. The U.S. also represents 20 percent of global manufacturing valueadded. I know that you recognize the potential of an even bigger market. Tom and others at the
Chamber have often referred to 95 percent of your potential customers living “outside the U.S.”
America’s global financial ties are even deeper. Foreign banks hold about $5½ trillion of U.S. assets,
while American banks hold about $3 trillion of foreign claims. Meanwhile, close to half of the
S&P500’s sales originate from foreign operations. These interconnections have great benefits for the
United States. But they are not without risks—two-way risks—and we saw some of these play out
during this crisis. We all remember, five years ago, how the collapse of one U.S. bank ushered in a harsh
new reality across sectors, across countries, and across the world. As those tensions traveled across the
Atlantic, for example, they exposed tensions in Europe. Considering that 20 percent of U.S. exports are
destined for Europe, and that more than half of U.S. overseas assets are held in Europe, you clearly
have a large stake in the recovery there. And yet, despite the risks, I know that you are also deeply
aware of how much can be gained from engaging with the rest of the world. President Taft, who helped
establish the Chamber, captured this when he said: “I am in favor of helping the prosperity of all
countries because, when we are all prosperous, the trade with each becomes more valuable to the
other.” What was true in President Taft’s day is even more true in today’s interconnected world: a
strong U.S. economy and a strong global economy are two sides of the same coin.
financial system. I am thinking here for instance of the resolution of international financial institutions. This brings me back to the point of global connections
LNG Exports
GOP Causes
GOP control causes LNG exports
Reuters 6-16
“Republicans Gains in November May Boost Chances of U.S. Trade Deals,”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/16/us-usa-election-trade-analysis-idUSKBN0ER0ET20140616 ,
kk
Republican congressional control would also open the door to more natural gas exports to Asia and
Europe. Japan is the biggest importer of liquefied natural gas, though it does not currently import from the U.S.¶ "My gut would be that
they’d (Republicans) be more pro-energy which would probably have a positive impact on natural gas," said
Gary Bradshaw, portfolio manager at Hodges Capital Management, which has more than $2 billion in assets.¶ Hodges owns shares in Cheniere
Energy, which is currently turning its LNG import terminal in Cameron Parish, Louisiana into an export terminal. Other potential beneficiaries
are Sempra Energy and Dominion Resources, that have approvals to develop export terminals at existing sites.¶ A
Republicancontrolled Senate could raise the pressure on federal agencies to approve more LNG exports, particularly to
Europe so that it doesn't have to be so reliant on energy supplies from Russia, a major issue given the Ukraine crisis. But environmental reviews
and the time needed to build facilities means speeding up that process would be difficult.
A2: Some bad arguments people could make
A2: Obamacare
GOP win doesn’t lead to Obamacare repeal
Tomasky ‘14
Michael is a columnist at the Daily Beast, “Here’s what Happens when the GOP Takes Over the Senate,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/30/here-s-what-happens-when-the-gop-takes-overthe-senate.html , kk
And speaking of Obamacare, what about that?
It’s not clear Senate Republicans would even waste their time on
repeal. That, they know Obama would veto in an instant. Don Stewart, of McConnell’s office, says they’ll go after specific
items like doing away with the medical device tax, which appears to have 60 votes in the Senate right now.¶ AEI’s Nick Eberstadt muses: “The
tactical opposition would be to starve the ACA by budgetary means. What happens if Congress doesn’t pass the health budget the president
requests? That would be clarifying.”¶ It’s not clear just yet the extent to which that would be possible. The big-money portions of Obamacare—
the Medicaid expansion, most notably—would have to be changed via legislation, which won’t happen as long as a Democrat is president. But
smaller parts of the bill are subject to the appropriations process. “My
gut sense is that the GOP won’t be able to truly
destroy ACA,” says Harold Pollack, a health policy expert at the University of Chicago who had input into the law. “But they will have some
success in cutting expenditures required to properly implement ACA and in generally making things nasty for the administration.”
A2: GOP Repeal
Obama would veto or Dems in the Senate would filibuster
Cooke 3/18
Charles C., National Review Online, “Why Taking Over the Senate Would Do Republicans a Lot of Good”,
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/373627/why-taking-over-senate-would-do-republicans-lotgood-charles-c-w-cooke , CC
No, a Republican Congress can’t unilaterally repeal the Obama years and start over. But it can
continue to hammer the president and whomever picks up the torch for the Democratic party from a
position of power – much as the united Democratic Congress did between 2006 and 2008. At the
moment, Harry Reid can ensure that nothing difficult ever reaches Obama’s desk. If the GOP takes the
Senate, however, this dynamic changes completely. Bills to approve Keystone XL, make popular
changes to Obamacare, and do anything else that polls well will be up for a signature or a veto (or a
filibuster) – all backed up with a serious PR campaign. What will Obama do? And what will an aspiring
2016 candidate do? If Obama vetoes Keystone, does Hillary back him? Or does she snipe from the
sidelines?
A2: Uniqueness
2AC- UQ: It’s too early
It’s too early to determine who will win—too many game changers in the months
ahead
Clift July 16 (Eleanor; The looming political game changers;
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/16/the-looming-political-game-changers.html; kdf)
Yet some things
could happen between now and November that might alter the public mood, says Galston. An
historic agreement to derail Iran’s nuclear program would be a diplomatic achievement on the scale of Camp
David, and would disrupt the current narrative that Obama can’t do anything right. Even more important
to voters could be an improving economy, especially if unemployment drops below 6 percent, which it is
likely to do. Alternatively, a sudden oil shock stemming from the turbulent events in the Middle East is also
possible, and would counter any good economic news. Midterm races generally crystallize in mid-summer, and the House
is expected to stay firmly in GOP hands. Political handicapper Charlie Cook points out that 96 percent of Democrats are in seats Obama won,
and 93 percent of Republicans are in districts Mitt Romney won, leaving very few competitive swing districts. The Senate is the big prize, and
Republicans can gain the majority just winning seats in red states that Romney carried. “What happens in the Senate is less about the
environment than where the races are,” says Cook. Democrats, he says, are facing “an ugly map.” Obamacare
is still a big driver,
but it’s not the unalloyed gift Republicans had banked on. A survey last month for NBC and the Wall Street Journal
conducted by Republican pollster Bill McInturff and Democratic pollster Peter Hart found the biggest liability for Democrats is a lack of time to
alter the negative impression about the health care law, which is taking hold with millions of happy enrollees. For Republicans, the biggest
liability is that voters aren’t buying the GOP’s “repeal and replace” message, preferring “fix and keep” instead. The
Supreme Court’s
Hobby Lobby decision giving closely-held family corporations veto power over contraceptive coverage
jump-starts the Democrats’ “war on women” theme and could help turn out single women who, when they
vote, support Democrats. House Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit against the president, a proxy for impeachment, gets Democratic
activists revved up, but most analysts dismiss it as a political stunt that’s going nowhere.
2AC- UQ: Dems win-Hobby Lobby
The Hobby Lobby decision swings the election for the dems
Cassata July 16 (Donna; Democrats try to capitalize on contraception ruling, motivate female voters
for midterm races; www.newser.com/article/6992ff9706e14d7fbf9df3ce296fb4e8/democrats-try-tocapitalize-on-contraception-ruling-motivate-female-voters-for-midterm-races.html; kdf)
Democrats see a political winner in the stinging defeat they suffered when the Supreme Court ruled that
businesses with religious objections may deny coverage for contraceptives under President Barack Obama's health
care law. A four-term senator — Washington state's Patty Murray — and a vulnerable freshman — Mark Udall of Colorado — have pushed
legislation that would counter last month's court ruling and reinstate free contraception for women who are on health insurance plans of
objecting companies. The Senate was expected to vote Wednesday on moving ahead on the bill, which backers have dubbed the "Not My Boss'
Business Act." The White House expressed its strong support for the measure in a statement, saying it "believes that women should make
personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their employers deciding for them." Republicans who have endorsed the court's
decision as upholding the constitutional right of religious freedom are expected to block the measure. The GOP has dismissed the bill as an
election-year political stunt, designed to boost struggling incumbents. The contraception bill, Republicans say, has no chance of becoming law.
That hasn't stopped Democrats from trying to use the issue to motivate female voters, crucial to the
party's hopes of keeping its tenuous Senate majority, in typically low-turnout midterm elections in
November. "Women across the country are watching," Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters on Tuesday,
leaving no doubt that GOP opposition will be part of an upcoming campaign ad or news release.
2AC- UQ: Landrieu wins
Landrieu wins—too many republican candidates
Cohn July 10 (Nate; How to read the polls in this year's
midterms;www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/upshot/how-to-read-the-polls-in-this-years-midterms.html
A different problem plagues polls in Louisiana. The Nov. 5 election is a so-called jungle primary, when
multiple Republican candidates will appear on the ballot. To win outright, a candidate must receive at
least 50 percent. Otherwise, the state will hold a December runoff between the two candidates
receiving the most votes. The sheer number of Republican candidates increases the number of
undecided voters. Some Republicans don’t know which Republican they’ll support. Some persuadable
voters open to supporting Mary Landrieu, the Democratic senator, might wait to make up their mind
until they’ve surveyed a vast field.
Dems Win- RCP
Dems win- RCP Average
RealClearPolitics 6-23
“Senate No Toss Ups,”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2014/senate/2014_elections_senate_map_no_toss_ups.html ,
kk
SENATE NO TOSS UPS¶ Current Senate: 55* Democrats | 45 Republicans¶ SENATE MAP · SENATE NO TOSS
UPS · HOUSE MAP · GOVERNORS MAP · GOVERNORS NO TOSS UPS¶ 50 Democrats *¶ NET CHANGE¶ GOP
+5 ¶ Republicans 50
Real Clear Politics aggregation was top-notch last midterm
American Research Group ‘10
American Research Group conducts investigations into the accuracy of media, “2010 Pollsters and
Aggregators Rating Summary,” http://americanresearchgroup.com/ratings/2010/summary/ , kk
The following table lists the average accuracy of pollsters and polling aggregators based on 2010
Primary, Senate, Governor, and House races using the measure of polling accuracy proposed by Martin,
Traugott, and Kennedy. A minimum of nine polls/races were required to be included in the table. ¶
Average¶ Accuracy¶ YouGov/Polimetrix 0.072¶ SurveyUSA 0.077¶ RealClearPolitics.com 0.084¶
FiveThirtyEight.com 0.098¶ Pollster.com 0.100¶ Public Policy Polling 0.101¶ Fox News 0.105¶ Quinnipiac
0.107¶ CNN/Time 0.120¶ The Hill 0.123¶ Rasmussen 0.143¶ The only difference at the 95% confidence
interval is between the average accuracy for YouGov/Polimetrix and The Hill.¶ The trend estimates of
Pollster.com and the prediction models of FiveThirtyEight.com did not out-perform the simple averages
used by RealClearPolitics.com and all three polling aggregators did not out-perform pollsters conducting
nine or more polls.¶ YouGov/Polimetrix did not just lead in average polling accuracy. Its prediction of
Republican gains in the House out-performed the FiveThirtyEight.com House prediction model.
Dems Win- Wang Model
Dems win- Wang Model
Wang 5-27
Sam is Associate Professor of Microbiology at Princeton and runs Princeton’s Election Consortium,
“Schroedinger’s Senate,” http://election.princeton.edu/ , kk
In 2015, who will control the Senate? Warring models point in opposite directions. The NYT’s “The Upshot” looks at polls and other factors, and
has Democrats favored. The Monkey Cage favors the Republicans. Who’s right?¶ For now, here’s the
snapshot (following my past
methods): in an election today, Democrats would retain control of the Senate with about 67% probability. Think of the
Senate in 2014 as Schroedinger’s Cat: in that closed box, it’s currently 1/3 dead*. That will change over time. We open the box on November
4th.
Wang’s model is the best
Hickey ’12
Walter Covers Politics for Business Insider, “You Think Nate Silver Was Impressive? A Princeton
Neuroscientist PERFECTLY Nailed The Popular Vote,” November 7
http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-sam-wang-the-neuroscientist-who-beat-even-nate-silver-in-hiselection-prediction-2012-11 , kk
Neuroscientist Sam Wang
at the Princeton Election Consortium made a bold call last night.¶ Wang indicated that his model
found that Obama would close with 332 Electoral votes.¶ Wang also called the following popular vote spread:¶ Final predicted
popular-vote margin: Obama +2.2 +/- 1.0%.¶ Two-candidate vote share: Obama 51.1%, Romney 48.9%.¶ This morning, what did we find? Well,
if Florida goes to Obama, he'll close out with a strong showing of 332 electoral votes. And
as for the popular vote, here's what
Wang says in his "morning after" post:¶ The popular vote is Obama 51.1% to Romney 48.9%. Again, this
exactly matches my prediction, which was state polls with a little Bayesian help from national polls.¶ So even if Silver's magnum
opus of prediction wasn't convincing enough to convince people that polls are fair, accurate and analytical, Wang's similar performance should
do the trick. ¶ All together, Wang's
relative beat of Silver on this one shows that, if anything, not only are aggregation models
here to stay, but the business is bound to get a lot more diverse in the years to come.
Dems Lead Money
Dems have more money
Washington Post 6-20
“Fundraising roundup: Democratic House and Senate Committees win May,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/20/fundraising-roundup-democratichouse-and-senate-committees-win-may/ , kk
The House and Senate Democratic campaign arms won the month of May, with each outpacing its
Republican counterpart in the money chase.¶ The Democratic committees have been boosted by
fundraising help from President Obama throughout the 2014 election cycle. Here's a breakdown of the
May numbers:¶ — The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee outraised the National Republican
Senatorial Committee $8.3 million to $5.8 million. The DSCC ended the month with $28.2 million in the
bank, while the NRSC had $22.1 million.¶
A2: Econ Tanks Dems
Economy doesn’t affect approval
Bump 6-25
Philip writes about Politics for the Fix- the Washington Post’s Political Journalism platform, “The New
GDP Numbers are Terrible. Here’s Why President Obama isn’t Worried about Them,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/25/two-reasons-president-obama-likelyisnt-overly-worried-about-the-terrible-new-gdp-figure/ , kk
The markets don't seem to be particularly concerned either. As of writing, the Dow Jones industrials, Nasdaq and Standard and Poor's 500 are
all up for the day, after dipping earlier this morning. If the markets aren't worried and if economists think that the number is an aberration,
temperatures in Washington aren't likely to increase too much. But the real reason Obama in particular probably isn't concerned is that there
isn't any apparent link between GDP data and presidential approval. This one comes with a lot of caveats, too. But
the biggest drivers of approval tend to be political. The attacks of 9/11 did more for Bush's approval than the big
spike in GDP that year. The increase in approval at the beginning of 2009 was about the new president,
not the stumbling economy.¶ However. In 2012, Gallup found that Obama's presidential approval was linked to America's economic
confidence. That link has grown weaker since, but it's clear that the president is judged against the economic strength of the country. That said,
economic confidence isn't driven directly by a percentage change in the GDP; it's driven by a much
looser set of perceptions that drive response to questions about how people think the economy is
doing.¶
A2: Nate Silver
Nate Silver wrong this far out all the time
TPM ‘14
Talking Points Memo, “Senate Dems: Nate Silver Isn’t Always Right,” March 24
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/senate-democrats-nate-silver-forecast , kk
The campaign arm for Senate Democrats have a new memo out carefully pushing back against polling guru Nate Silver's recent analysis that
Senate Republicans are looking more likely to take control of the chamber in 2014.¶ The Monday memo, written by Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee executive director Guy Cecil, is full of praise for Silver but also picks
out four Senate races where
Democrats won even though Silver said Republicans would claim the seats: Montana and North Dakota
in 2012 and Colorado and Nevada in 2010.¶ Cecil writes:¶ All four are senators today because they were superior candidates
running superior campaign organizations who made their elections a choice between the two candidates on the ballot. Only three
Democratic incumbent senators have lost reelection in the last ten years, and our incumbents are once again
prepared and ready¶ We don't minimize the challenges ahead. Rather, we view the latest projection as a reminder that we have a challenging
map and important work still to do in order to preserve our majority.¶ A day earlier Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com released a new forecast saying
that Republicans had a roughly 60 percent chance of winning the six seats they need to take control of the chamber.¶ It's still early in the
election cycle but Republicans feel that President Barack Obama's approval ratings, Democrats up for re-election in red states, and serious
spending by conservative-leaning outside groups will tip the scales in their favor. According to National Journal, Democratic strategists have
privately been saying that there's a serious possibility Democrats could lose control of the Senate in 2014.
Landrieu Wins
Landrieu wins- structural factors
York 4-2
Byron is a Columnist for the Washington Examiner, “Louisiana Senate race a battle of pork, policies and
political legacies,” http://washingtonexaminer.com/louisiana-senate-race-a-battle-of-pork-policies-andpolitical-legacies/article/2546656 , kk
As far as the polls are concerned, there haven't been many, but a survey released in early February by the Democratic polling firm Public Policy
Polling showed the race virtually tied, with Landrieu at 45 percent and Cassidy at 44 percent. That was a significant weakening of Landrieu's
position from last October, when PPP showed her leading Cassidy 48 percent to 41 percent. In the most recent survey, Landrieu's job approval
number was 37 percent, which was worse even than Obama's, at 39 percent.¶ Democrats say Landrieu may look troubled now, but apart
from everything else she still has
two formidable assets: her name and her turnout machine. Landrieu is a pretty
legendary political name in Louisiana. Her father Moon Landrieu, now in his 80s, was for eight years mayor of New Orleans
and later a cabinet secretary under Jimmy Carter. Her brother Mitch has been mayor of New Orleans since
2010. And she has been in the Senate since first winning office in 1996. The Landrieus have been turning out the vote for a
long time.¶ "That's the biggest thing … who can get their vote out," said Keith Villere, chairman of the St. Tammany Democratic Party, over
lunch in Covington. "Because she's had a lot of experience statewide, she, her brother, her family, and the fact that I think she's done a good
job for Louisiana, I think she'll be able to get that vote out." When I asked whether there is family political machine, Villere demurred. "I don't
think I would categorize it as a Landrieu machine. I just think that she is well connected in Louisiana."¶ That she is. During several days in the
state, I asked a lot of Louisiana Republicans — not officials, just politically interested citizens — who they think will win. They inevitably
responded that they knew who they wanted to win. That was easy; they were Republicans. But I asked again: Not who you want to win, who do
you think will win? And then, most said they just didn't know. It's close, they said, not sounding terribly optimistic. Mary Landrieu has always
been a very tough opponent.¶ She is now, too. While Cassidy talks about better ideas, Landrieu is going about her campaign the old-fashioned
way, bringing money to her state and using her influence on its behalf. Does that guarantee re-election? No. But there
reasons to think she'll be able to win one more time.
are a lot of
A2: Models
Models fail- not accurate this far out
Krausshar 4-29
Josh is the Political Director at the National Journal, “Why I don’t Agree with Nate Silver,”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/why-i-don-t-agree-with-nate-silver-20140429 , kk
I'm a numbers guy. As a baseball fan, I pore over box scores, regularly second-guess managers who use old-school tactics, and was probably one
of Nate Silver's first readers and an early subscriber to the sabermetric reference book Baseball Prospectus, where he made a name for himself
projecting player outcomes. In reporting on and analyzing politics, I rely greatly on fundraising reports and polling data to inform the trajectory
of key races.¶ But count me underwhelmed by the new wave of Senate prediction models assessing the probability
of Republicans winning the upper chamber by one-tenth of a percentage point. It's not that the models aren't effective at what they're
designed to do. It's that the
methodology behind them is flawed. Unlike baseball, where the sample size runs in the thousands of
at-bats or innings pitched, these models overemphasize a handful of early polls at the expense of on-theground intelligence on candidate quality. As Silver might put it, there's a lot of noise to the signal.¶ The models also
undervalue the big-picture indicators suggesting that 2014 is shaping up to be a wave election for Republicans, the type of
environment where even seemingly safe incumbents can become endangered. Nearly every national poll,
including Tuesday's ABC News/Washington Post survey, contains ominous news for Senate Democrats. President Obama's job approval is at an
all-time low of 41 percent, and public opinion on his health care law hasn't budged and remains a driving force in turning out disaffected voters
to the polls to register their anger. Public opinion on the economy isn't any better than it was before the 2010 midterms when the
unemployment rate hit double-digits. Democrats hold only a 1-point lead on the generic ballot in the ABC/WaPo survey—worse positioning
than before the GOP's 2010 landslide.¶ These macro-indicators don't square with targeted Democratic senators—such as Jeanne Shaheen of
New Hampshire, Al Franken of Minnesota, Mark Warner of Virginia, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon—being rated heavy favorites to near locks for
reelection, as the Silver and Upshot models show. The models
are great at concluding the obvious—red-state Democrats are
in trouble!—but blind to anticipating future outcomes, given their dependence on limited public polling and
quarterly fundraising figures, and other lagging indicators. This far out from an election, their predictive value is
limited.
A2: Monkey Cage Model
Monkey Cage model fails- fundamentals focus is wrong
Wang 5-27
Sam is Associate Professor of Microbiology at Princeton and runs Princeton’s Election Consortium, “The
War of the Senate Models,” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/the-war-of-the-senatemodels-107132.html#.U6i-9fldWGn , kk
Type 1: Fundamentals only. Type 1 models, which rely on no polling data at all, have the advantage that they can be created before the
campaign even starts. The Monkey Cage model is currently pure Type 1, relying on a large number of fundamentals, from
candidate “quality” to economic growth. This year, the most important fundamental is that, in midterm elections, national public opinion tends
to go against the president’s party. That gives us some idea of the range of possible outcomes: Basically, Democrats are going to lose seats.¶
Interestingly, because of this reliance on national public opinion, as a general rule, with a Democratic president in power, the more a model
relies on non-poll-based assumptions, the more it will favor the Republicans. Note that the probability of a GOP takeover is higher in the
Monkey Cage model than it is in the others.¶ READ MORE¶ HISTORY DEPT.¶ The Real Origins of the Religious Right¶ By RANDALL BALMER¶
LETTER FROM NEVADA¶ Who is Adam Laxalt?¶ By JON RALSTON¶ President Barack Obama returns a salutes as he follows Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric Shinseki to the podium on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Wednesday, April 17, 2013, to welcome
participants in the Wounded Warrior Project’s Soldier Ride to the White House, on the seventh annual Soldier Ride. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)¶
POLITICS¶ The Politics of White House Firings¶ By LARRY J. SABATO¶ When it comes to extremely close races, though, Type
1 models are
of limited use. Modelers put in lots of factors that have been shown to affect election outcomes (“signals,”
in engineering parlance), such as the economy and incumbency. But each factor you add also contributes “noise”—
accumulating uncertainties that, once added, cannot be taken out. For example, during a midterm election year, the generic
congressional poll (Would you rather vote for a Democrat or a Republican?) tends to move against the president’s party—but the range of
actual outcomes on Election Day ranges from an 11 percentage-point loss to a 4 percentage-point gain in the national popular vote margin.¶
Fundamentals can be national factors, such as the generic congressional ballot, which captures a general national mood. Or they can be local,
such as whether an incumbent is in the race, a factor that attempts to capture how well known a candidate is. But these are simplifications.
From a reader’s standpoint, probabilities in Type 1 models should never be read with more certainty than, say, the National Weather Service’s
numbers.Rain forecast probabilities are good enough to help us plan our weekend outings—and even they are uncertain enough always to be
rounded to the nearest 10 percent.¶ Rather, Type 1 models are hypotheses about where a campaign is naturally headed. You can think of them
as asking, “Do our assumptions about how politics works give the correct prediction?” They tend to be of most use after the results are in.In
2012, Type
1 presidential models ranged from predicting a Romney win to an Obama landslide—and
everything in between.¶ If past history is any guide, FiveThirtyEight comes up with a more exact model, it will have a strong Type 1
component but will also include some polling data. That probably explains why FiveThirtyEight’s state-by-state win
probabilities seem to give Democrats a better shot than the Monkey Cage does.¶
Obamacare O/W
Obamacare outweighs the plan
Cook 6-23
Charlie is Director of the Cook Political Report and a National Journal Columnist, “In No Mood for
Trophies,” http://cookpolitical.com/story/7473 , kk
In terms of the issue agenda, attitudes
toward the Affordable Care Act have not significantly changed and are
unlikely to between now and November. Obamacare overshadows any other specific issue; no improvement on
the public's attitudes toward it is another tough blow to the party.
Econ O/W
The economy is comparatively the most important issue to voters
-more important than foreign policy, anti-terrorism policy and immigration
Pew Research Center 5/5
Staff Report, “Chapter 1: The 2014 Midterm: Congressional Vote, Top Issues”, http://www.peoplepress.org/2014/05/05/the-2014-midterm-congressional-vote-top-issues/
Amid a sluggish economic recovery, the job situation is the top midterm issue for voters , with health
care and the budget deficit following closely behind.¶ Nearly half (48%) of voters say the job situation
is the most important or second most important issue to their vote, 42% say health care is a top voting
issue, 38% name the budget deficit and 31% name education. Security and anti-terrorism policy (19%)
and immigration (14%) are seen as less important midterm issues, out of the six tested in the survey.¶
Jobs are the top issue for voters who plan to vote Democratic. More than half of Democratic voters
(55%) cite jobs as their most important issue or second leading issue. Republican voters give about equal
importance to three leading issues: the budget deficit (46%), health care (44%) and the job situation
(42%). Republican voters who agree with the Tea Party are more likely than those who do not to cite the
budget deficit as a top voting issue (54% vs. 44%).
Economy is the top concern for voters, overwhelms other issues
Steinhauser 5/2
Paul, CNN Political Editor, “6 factors that will influence the midterms”,
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/politics/six-factors-midterms/
The economy¶ Say what you want about other issues, but the economy remains the top concern of
Americans when it comes to their vote. ¶ "The economy is stronger than it's been in a very long time,"
Obama said at a news conference at the end of last year.¶ By many metrics, he's right. The stock market
has been in record territory again, unemployment's at a five-year low, auto sales are at a seven-year
high and the housing sector, which dragged the country into recession five years ago, is rebounding.¶ But
many people just don't feel that good about things. National polling indicates most people don't feel
nearly as optimistic about the economy and their personal plight.¶ And a key economic indicator out
earlier this week is helping. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at
a 0.1% annual pace in the first quarter of this year. While the numbers are probably just the winter
weather effect, they add to the perception that the recovery is tepid. And a sluggish economy prevents
Democrats from highlighting the issue in the midterms.¶ "Because the recovery has been relatively
modest, moderate in its strength, there's this psychology among people that it's just not getting better
out in America," said CNN Chief Washington Correspondent John King.¶ The economy remains the top
issue on the minds of voters. Economic realities, as well as perceptions, will influence voters in 2014. ¶
October 3 could be a crucial date. That's when the Labor Department releases the September
unemployment report, the final jobs numbers before midterm elections. Just as the final jobs report
before the 2012 presidential election was in the spotlight, this report will also face a lot of scrutiny.
North Carolina Key
North Carolina critical tipping state in Midterms
Silver ‘13
Silver is an American statistician and writer who analyzes elections. He is currently the editor-in-chief of
FiveThirtyEight blog. “Senate Control in 2014 Increasingly Looks Like Toss Up” New York Times 7/15
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-atossup/ ,HR
North Carolina is the closest thing to the tipping point state in the Senate battle. If Republicans avoid
losing any of their own seats (other than New Jersey), and win the races that favor them in Montana,
West Virginia and South Dakota and the tossup races in Louisiana and Arkansas, then North Carolina
would represent their best option to go from a 50-50 tie to a 51-49 Senate majority. Republicans have
also not yet identified a top-tier challenger in North Carolina. But the approval ratings of the Democratic
incumbent, Kay Hagan, are no better than break-even, which means that a merely decent Republican
nominee could make the race very competitive. Although North Carolina is increasingly purple in
presidential election years, the coalition of African-Americans and college-aged voters that Democrats
depend upon to win races in the state is less likely to turn out for midterm elections.
A2: Links
Generic
2AC- AT: Econ Link
The economy has no impact on midterms- empirics
Roarty July 13 (Alex; Think the Economy Can Save Democrats? It Won't;
www.nationaljournal.com/politics/think-the-economy-can-save-democrats-it-won-t-20140713; kdf)
This month's surprisingly strong jobs report elicited fresh optimism that at long last, the economy was poised to recover its full strength. And in
Washington, naturally, the question quickly became: Would Democratic
candidates receive an unexpected boost from
a late-in-the-election-cycle economic surge? The short answer? Don't count on it. Even if job gains do spike—
and there's plenty of reluctance to predict an accelerating recovery after years of stop-and-start growth—it's unlikely voters will feel
demonstrably better about the economy in time for November. Ultimately, how voters feel about the economy
and their own financial situation is what matters when they step in the polling booth—not abstract economic data.
But there's another, more surprising reason a late-developing recovery wouldn't help Democrats. A plethora of political-science
research suggests the economy, except in extreme circumstances, doesn't matter much in midterm elections
anyway. A boost in growth certainly wouldn't hurt, but its effect on candidacies would be indirect and minor. In other words, to twist James
Carville's famous line, in this midterm election, it's not the economy, stupid. The notion that the state of the economy would register only a
small impact overturns one of the most entrenched beliefs about politics in America—there's a reason, after all, that Carville's dictum of the
1992 presidential campaign is so indelible. But research shows that while the economy's impact on presidential elections is unquestionable,
there's much less evidence it is determinative in off-year races. One
study, from Robert Erickson at the University of Houston,
examined 11 House midterm elections from 1946 to 1986. When controlling for the party's performance in the previous
presidential election, it found no relationship between per capita income growth and a party's perform ance. Other studies, like one
conducted in part by then-State University of New York (Stony Brook) professor Alan Abramowitz, have argued the economy affects November
outcomes only insofar as it informs voters' views of presidential popularity and each party's competence.
Thermostatic Turn
Even if the plan is popular now, the public backlashes once it happens
Sides ‘13
John is Assistant Professor of Political Science at George Washington University, “The Public is a
Thermostat,” http://themonkeycage.org/2010/06/22/the_public_is_a_thermostat/ , kk
But there is another possibility:
the public is simply a thermostat. When government spending and activism increases,
the public says “too hot” and demands less. When spending and activism decreases, the public says “too
cold” demands more. Here is Christopher Wlezien in a 1995 paper (gated):¶ We observe that the signals the public sends to
policymakers, in the form of preferences for “more” or “less” spending, react to changes in policy…[T]here is negative feedback of spending
decisions on the public’s relative preferences, whereby the public adjusts its preferences for more spending downward when appropriations
increase, and vice versa.¶ Erikson, MacKuen, and Stimson, writing in chapter 9 of The Macro Polity, refer to “the governing system as a
thermostat.” Erikson et al. show that the public’s “mood”—a general measure of the policies it desires—moves in the opposite way as policy:¶
The correlation between policy innovation in one administration and before-after mood change is a strongly negative -0.76…The
more
liberal the policy stream, the more conservative is the change in mood. Notably, the most liberal
presidency (Johnson’s full term ending in 1968) is associated with the greatest public reaction in the conservative
direction. Similarly, the conservative presidencies of Reagan and Eisenhower moved the public in a liberal direction.¶ Brooks is wrong to
assume that the public’s reaction to Democratic policies indicates a enduring ideological disjuncture or a failure of public relations. The public
may not be more conservative. It may simply be saying “too hot.” As Matt put it in his email to me:¶ Current trends would not show that
Democrats have been unusually unsuccessful in moving public opinion but that policy ideology in public opinion typically moves against the
direction of policymaking. The
public requests liberal policies, gets them, and then moves in the other direction;
they then get more conservative policies and move against them.¶ Brooks wants to score this moment as a victory or defeat for someone—in
this case, a defeat for liberalism and the Democrats. But If policy and thermostatic public opinion is cyclical, then any victory or defeat is
temporary. The ebb and flow is the more important dynamic.
Takes Issue Off Table
Independents vote based on what can be done, the plan takes the issue off the table
Tomz & Houeling ‘07
Michael is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and Robert P. Van is Assistant
Professor of Political Science at the University of California at Berkley, “The Misfoundations of Voting,”
http://www.stanford.edu/~tomz/working/TomzVanHouweling-2007-08a.pdf , kk
We contribute to existing theoretical and empirical analyses in three ways. First,
we¶ formally derive the complete set of
conditions under which the theories lead to distinct predictions about how people vote. Second, we use the
formal results to develop a statistical¶ 1model for estimating the prevalence of each voting rule in the electorate. Finally, we systematically test
all three theories by conducting experiments that are tailored to our statistical¶ model. The experiments, embedded in public opinion surveys,
avoid problems of endogeneity¶ and measurement that have impeded previous research.¶ We estimate the proportion of a nationally
representative random sample of adults whose¶ choices about federal health care policy are consistent with each of the three issue-voting¶
logics. We Önd that voters typically employ proximity-based decision rules; they either choose¶ the closest candidate or select the one who, in
their estimation, will bring policy nearest to¶ their ideal point. More precisely, 57.7 percent of respondents in our study behave as if¶ they they
are following a pure proximity rule. Another signiÖcant proportion, 27.6 percent,¶ discount the announced positions of candidates by taking
into account the location of the¶ status quo when voting. Finally, 14.7 percent of respondents appear to follow directional¶ logic.¶ We also
found that
discounting is more common, and directionalism less common, among¶ ideological centrists and nonpartisans. This suggests that centrist voters, who often found¶ themselves choosing between polarized
candidates (Fiorina 1995), make relatively sophisticated judgments aimed at bringing policy outcomes in
line with their preferences. Overall,¶ our study both supports and qualiÖes the foundational assumptions in models of democratic¶
politics. It also demonstrates the promise of combining formal analysis, statistical modeling,¶ and experiments to answer previously intractable
questions about democracy.
Energy
Never Popular
No risk the plan is popular- People are stupid sound bites will sway
Aol Energy 8-8
“What Voters Don’t Know About Energy,” http://energy.aol.com/2012/08/08/what-voters-dont-know-about-energy/ , kk
"We are having all of these big political debates over fossil fuels and a good portion of the
population doesn't even know what they are talking about," said Jean Johnson, a senior fellow
at Public Agenda and author of the book, "Who Turned Out the Lights?"¶ It's not surprising
really; voters are distracted and few have the time or interest to delve into energy
complexities. The ailing economy looms as a larger preoccupation.¶ "They have busy lives. They
are not sitting over EIA [US Energy Information Administration] books looking at statistics," said
Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute, which has a
Vote4Energy media campaign underway.¶ As energy becomes politicized this lack of
understanding makes the electorate increasingly malleable to the sound bite and easily
swayed on issues that have significant economic and environmental ramifications, according
to Public Agenda, which recently published a citizens energy guide. This tendency to waffle
comes at a particularly bad time. The energy industry is undergoing vast changes that will affect
the country for decades; it wants consistent policy and direction before making large
investments – and for good reason.¶ "With energy decisions, it takes a long, long, long time to
see a result. A power plant lasts 40 to 50 years. They are huge and expensive. You don't build
them every day. Even in terms of oil exploration – you don't just find it in Alaska, and we have it
in our car tomorrow," Johnson said.¶ ¶ The problem is further exasperated by the tendency of
political parties and special interest groups to reduce energy to simple black and white
arguments that draw passion. Those who propose complex solutions find it difficult to be
heard above the din.¶ ¶ Forget Nuance¶ ¶ Former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter discovered this
firsthand when his administration embraced both renewable energy and natural gas. During
Ritter's campaign for Governor, he appeared in a commercial with a wind farm, so therefore
was perceived as anti-fossil fuel – even though he wasn't.¶ ¶ "What we were trying to do was
promote a variety of resources. Wind was probably the biggest beneficiary, but our agenda was
about clean energy broadly, including natural gas," said Ritter, who served as governor from
2007 to 2011 and is now director of the Center for the New Energy Economy at Colorado State
University.¶ ¶ His image as anti-fossil fuel grew as he pushed for stiffer extraction rules for the
natural gas industry. But later, when Ritter signed a bill that expanded the market for natural
gas by shutting down coal-fired plants, people did not know how to peg him.¶ ¶ "We had said all
along that we were in favor of this industry [natural gas] surviving and even thriving. But
because we were stubborn about the extraction process being environmentally sound, we got
slotted into another place," Ritter said. "It became very difficult to communicate a message
that people understood. The mindset is that you are either an environmentalist or an industry
person."
Clean Energy unpopular- no constituency
Schiarch ‘12
Paolo is lectures on US politics, economics, security issues, Europe, international affairs and
global trends to American and international audiences. Recent lectures include presentations at
Fudan University in Shanghai, “Grim Prospects For Renewable Energy In The US – Subsidies
Politically Unpopular – Natural Gas A Much Cheaper Alternative – USG Should Focus On R&D,”
http://schirachreport.com/index.php/2012/05/11/grim-prospects-for-renewable-energy-inthe-us-subsidies-politically-unpopular-natural-gas-a-much-cheaper-alternative-usg-shouldfocus-on-rd/ , kk
WASHINGTON – American
enthusiasm for renewable energy, not too deep to begin with, has gone away. In part
this has to do with loss of interest in “climate change” and its dire consequences . Unfortunately,
climate change has been and is mostly an issue of political belief, rather than upholding science. And as the intensity of the political fervor
somehow waned, in large part replaced by more immediate economic fears, so did political support for all the renewable energy technologies
that were supposed to create, relatively quickly it was thought, workable alternatives to carbon based energy.¶ Unpopular subsidies¶ An
additional reason for waning support is that keeping renewable energy alive means also
subsidizing it for a few more years. And this is less and less politically palatable at a time of
budgetary constraints at every level. Paying more for electricity simply because this kind is clean looks like an unaffordable
luxury, whatever the consequences of burning more (cheaper) fossil fuels may be.¶ Cheap shale gas¶ And if there was reluctance about paying
more for clean energy, the rather sudden and unexpected shale gas revolution provided the knock out punch against renewables. In just a few
years, and thanks to shale gas, America (with dwindling conventional gas reserves in 2008) has turned into the biggest world producer of
natural gas, with ridiculously low prices, now back to their 2001 levels. And now low natural gas prices have become the most potent argument
against subsidized wind or solar. Very
hard to make a case in favor of more subsidized wind farms with
gas so cheap. And we know that the natural gas glut will last for decades; therefore prices most likely will stay low for much longer.¶
Spend money to adapt to climate change¶ Of course, if one could make a truly compelling case about man made climate change theories, than
it would not matter how cheap natural gas and/or coal are. If indeed their use will inevitably lead to planetary destruction, then it would be
criminal to continue using them, even if they were totally free. But, as
strong as the case against fossil fuels may be,
it is not strong enough.¶ Besides, whatever the state of climate change science, the prevailing policy orientation to rising
temperatures is that its is much more cost effective to spend money to adapt to the impact of climate change than on measures aimed at
reversing it. Indeed, many have noted that even massive investments in super efficient renewables would not do the trick fast enough. It would
still take trillions of dollars invested over decades to see even a modest temperature decline. Nobody has this kind of money and this level of
commitment.¶ Regarding renewables, spend on R&D¶ So, what should be done about renewables? Some argue, and I agree, that the public
policy error has been in forcing the adoption of still non cost effective technologies, hoping that a larger demand would help create economies
of scale that would drive down cost. But, while costs are down, they are still too high compared to fossil fuels. Add to this the unexpected head
wind represented by super cheap natural gas made possible by the shale revolution and you have a public policy fiasco.¶ That said, what should
be the way forward for renewable energy in America? The way forward should be in subsidizing basic research and not in imposing the early
adoption of still non competitive systems. Right now renewable energy survives because of mandates that force utilities to produce a
percentage of their electricity from renewable sources and because of subsidies that allow renewable technology producers to survive. This is
not a good way to build a new industrial sector.¶ There is no doubt that over time better technologies will be devised that will drive costs down.
Therefore it is appropriate for the Government to spend money on research. But Government funds should be devoted to non commercially
driven new research that the private sector would not undertake. The moment of renewable energy will come. But it has not not arrived yet.¶
Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel¶ In the meantime, (while trying to be smart about efficiency and conservation measures that will reduce
energy consumption wherever possible), we should consider the significant economic benefits brought about to the US economy by cheap
natural gas. And all those who fear man made climate change should appreciate that natural gas is not just cheaper than renewables. It is also
cheaper than dirty, high emission coal, and so it will displace it. Gas is still a fossil fuel, but it is the cleanest around.
A2: Landrieu Energy Links
Landrieu’s energy distance from Obama is key
Krausshaar 6-5
John is Politics Editor for the National Journal, “Obama is Sabotaging Democratic Senate Hopes,”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/obama-is-sabotaging-democratic-senate-hopes20140605 , kk
The president reportedly has told his close allies that losing the Senate would be "unbearable," but his
administration is doing everything possible to make things difficult for his party's most vulnerable
senators. On energy issues alone, the administration's decisions to impose new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired
plants and indefinitely delay a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline could help burnish his long-term environmental legacy, but at the expense
of losing complete control of Congress.¶ Even as the White House and environmental allies are insisting the regulatory push is a political
winner, Obama is getting pushback from his own party. In Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes took a page out of Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell's playbook, deeming the administration's EPA regulations part of its "war on coal." Other
battleground-state
Democrats have been more circumspect in their reaction, but few have embraced the new regulations
with open arms. And every red-state Senate Democrat up in 2014, whose fates determine whether they hold the majority, criticized the
administration for its latest delay in approving construction of Keystone XL. Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana has even tailored
her campaign messaging around opposition to Obama on energy issues.
LNG Links
Environmentalists Hate LNG Exports
Environmentalists hate LNG exports
Harder ‘14
Amy coves energy and the environment for the National Journal, “Are Natural Gas Exports the Next
Keystone,” March 18th http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/18/are-natural-gas-exports-nextkeystone/ , kk
A coalition of grassroots environmentalists are galvanizing around a fossil-fuel project and urging President Barack Obama to oppose it.¶ Sound
familiar? It’s not the Keystone XL pipeline, but the parameters of the fight—and the arguments—are awfully similar to the fight that’s been
raging in Washington and throughout the country over the proposed pipeline for the last five years.¶ The
two advocacy organizations that have been key in rallying opposition to Keystone, helped
Sierra Club and 350.org,
organize a letter 16 groups sent Tuesday to
the White House urging
Mr. Obama to oppose exporting natural gas on the basis of global warming and are calling out one
proposed project specifically.¶ It’s the first organized letter by environmentalists urging the White House to
oppose such an export policy, which Mr. Obama has so far supported.
Obama’s base hates increased natural gas production
Prandoni 3-30
“Democrat Policies Threaten to Starve American Refiners,” http://m.atr.org/article.php?id=6823
With the 2012 election cycle in full swing, yesterday Obama
took to the stump calling for job-killing tax increases on
nefarious oil companies. Although nothing gets the Democrat base excited like demonizing oil and natural
gas producers—an industry responsible for over 9 million American jobs, mind you—raising taxes on the oil industry will necessarily
stymie American production of our natural resources.¶ What those hoping “Big Oil” topples over don’t realize is that thousands of American
manufacturers rely on the oil and natural gas industry—businesses sell equipment to oil and natural gas producers and also transform crude oil
into fuel and a variety of other useful products. One industry that would be hardest hit from a reduction in oil and natural gas production would
be America’s refiners. Already struggling for a variety of mostly government-induced reasons, further reductions in crude would literally starve
America’s robust refining sector of its lifeblood.¶ I say further reductions because the Obama Administration is
already inhibiting
domestic oil and natural gas production wherever possible. Cancelling lease sales on the Atlantic coast,
delaying lease sales for nearly a year in the gulf, and increasing the amount of time it takes companies to
receive requisite permits have all immediately impacted domestic oil production, and intern, America’s refiners.¶
To learn more, check out the House Natural Resources Committee’s depressing compilation of all the ways Democrats have attempted to
impede domestic energy.¶ Over in the other chamber, the Republican Energy and Natural Resources staff created this great chart illustrating
how difficult it became for job creators to receive an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) under Obama’s tenure:But it doesn’t end there. The
most explicit attack on refiners from the Obama Administration thus far must be the decision to kill the Keystone pipeline. As most people
know by now, the Keystone Pipeline would have delivered around 800,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil to, you guessed it, America’s refiners.
Creating tens of thousands of construction jobs and ensuring that America’s refiners have crude oil to manufacture into other products, the
Keystone pipeline would have been a shot of life for the recession weary construction and refining industries. Unfortunately, Obama’s decision
to kill the pipeline is indicative of the Administration’s antagonistic stance towards anyone involved in the oil and natural gas supply chain.¶ So
while oil production on federal lands will in all likelihood continue to decline as long as Obama is in the White House, America’s refiners will
have to rely on oil production from private lands. Instead of using oil and natural gas companies as an applause line, the Obama Administration
should look to increase American jobs and energy security—it sure would make life for America’s refiners a whole lot easier
Not Key Issue
Tons of people have no opinion on LNG exports
Bloomberg ‘14
“LNG Exports Gain Growing Support,” http://go.bloomberg.com/political-capital/2014-04-30/lngexports-gain-growing-suport/ , kk
Americans support natural-gas exports by 37 to 28 percent, a flip from 39 percent opposition and 28 percent support a year ago,
according to the University of Texas Energy Poll released today. About one third of those surveyed in early to mid-March
had no opinion.
Other reasons unpopular
Exporting LNG unpopular- Energy Independence, Gas Prices & Foreign Profits
Hulbert 8-5
Matthew Covers Energy for Forbes, “Why America Can Make or Break a New Global Gas
World,” http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewhulbert/2012/08/05/why-america-can-makeor-break-a-new-global-gas-world/3/ , kk
It’s Politics Stupid… But How Stupid Are We Talking?Or are they? As dicey as things look for traditional pricing methods right now, it totally fails
to consider the ten tonne elephant in the room: political risk in developed markets. Unless that’s addressed, the kind of liquidity needed for
truly independent gas prices to become dominant is likely to remain absent. America is arguably the number one risk to take the froth out of
the spot market cappuccino. Despite
the very clear economic logic of converting its shale plays into LNG,
Washington will ultimately decide how much gas it allows to leave its shores . The ‘US energy
independence’ narrative has a strong voice in America, while environmental campaigners can
rejoice in significant shifts from dirty coal to cheap gas – clipping US emissions by 450m tonnes over the past five
years. The petrochemicals industry is getting its feedstock close to free by switching to gas – all of
which is good news for broader US economic output. Then you get the gasification of US transportation fleet debate. On paper it looks an
interesting prospect, gas at $2.5/MMbtu is about $15/b in oil terms – converting shale to compressed natural gas, or LNG, or putting it into gas
to liquid form is all possible. Given only 3% of natural gas is being used in the US transport sector, it clearly has ample room for growth. None of
that will do much to lift US prices in the short term, or help to save the 30 or so American states that benefit from hydrocarbon royalties, but it
remains a far easier sell to the US electorate who think America is about to have an energy
inspired ‘re-industrial revolution’, rather than explaining to them why gas prices are
becoming more expensive and energy companies are making overseas profits . What the US has given
the world in terms of freeing up LNG supply, it could now ‘take away’ if it fails to provide serious LNG exports. If the US gas market remains a
dislocated island, with Washington ‘capping’ Henry Hub pries to $5/MMbtu, many of the pricing pressures discussed here in Asia-Pacific will
rapidly abate.
Plan results in massive backlash and Obama isn’t openly pro exports now – he’s
waiting it out so he’ll do the plan post election
Reuters 12 ( “As Congress looks away, U.S. tiptoes toward exporting a gas bounty”, 6/27, 12
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/27/us-usa-lng-exports-idUSBRE85Q05820120627 )
Reuters) - In
a bitterly divided U.S. political environment, there's at least one thing Republicans
and Democrats can agree on: Avoid a public showdown on natural gas exports , arguably the most
important energy policy decision in recent memory. While fluctuating gasoline prices, the Keystone pipeline and the fight over fracking steal
headlines, the
question of how much of the newfound U.S. shale gas bounty should be shared
with the rest of the world goes largely without comment or coverage -- despite holding far wider and
longer-lasting consequences. The reason is clear: unlike the relatively simple, black-and-white issues that
politicians often favor and voters connect to, liquefied natural gas (LNG) is deep, deep gray . It
affects a tangled web of constituents, from Big Oil to international allies such as Japan, pits
free-trade orthodoxy against the domestic economy, and requires an awkward explanation
of why allowing some exports -- inevitably raising U.S. energy prices in the short term, even if at
the margin -- may
ultimately be better for the country in the long run. All the same, this U.S. president or the
next will have to make a tricky decision, and its consequences may only become clear years from now: How much U.S. gas should be sold to
other countries if it means boosting prices for consumers at home? "Right now I don't think this issue is getting anywhere near the attention it
deserves," said Democratic congressman Edward Markey, one of a small number of politicians actively seeking to rein in energy exports.
"Keystone and Solyndra are election-year political sideshows," he said, referring to the bankruptcy of a government-funded solar panel maker.
"This is the main event." But
lobbyists on both sides of the issue say it suits them best to keep the
subject out of the headlines. The gas producers that stand to benefit from higher selling
prices see no upside from a public brawl , while many manufacturers who could benefit from continuing low prices shy
away from anti-export statements. With Congress unlikely to weigh in, the decision falls to a small, obscure unit of the Energy Department, the
Office of Natural Gas Regulatory Activities. The department's statistical branch has been criticized for failing to predict how new drilling
techniques would revolutionize the sector, and how quickly the vast stores of unearthed gas would send domestic prices to unsustainable lows.
So the natural gas office is now awaiting advice from a second and final report on the economic implications of exports -- a report so sensitive
that the government has kept it under wraps, including the identity of the consultants preparing it. SHHHHHHHH, SOFTLY-SOFTLY Not since the
liberalization of power markets in the 1980s have politicians had more sway over future energy costs -- or been less willing to grapple publicly
with the issue. Only one hearing on LNG exports has been held to date in the Senate, and in the House of Representatives, the Energy and
Commerce Committee has no plan to hold hearings at the moment. Markey has struggled to get traction behind legislation that would block
gas exports, a measure almost certain to fail to pass through the divided Congress. Few lawmakers openly oppose exports, though even fewer
vocally advocate a fully open market that would raise prices at home. The Obama administration has said it
will wait until the
gas office releases the final economic analysis of LNG exports to make any decision on eight
pending applications to sell liquefied natural gas to countries with which the United States
has no free-trade agreement -- the most political step of the multiple state and federal approvals needed to send LNG abroad.
The report was due out this spring, but in March the administration pushed back the release until later in the year. A White House official said
on Monday the report could be released in the next few weeks. Overall, the boom in the energy sector, coupled with a slow recovery in
domestic manufacturing, could raise gross domestic product by 2 to 3.3 percent by 2020, according to a recent analysis by Citigroup. But
exports could force politicians to play favorites, effectively choosing between energy
companies and industry. Democrats, often critical of the oil and gas sector, are wary of getting out in front
of an issue that divides even the manufacturers benefitting from low gas prices. Republicans, who
favor free trade and support fossil fuel development, are leery of being accused of raising costs for consumers and industry. " No
politician wants to be accused of raising end-user prices to add to oil companies' bottom
lines ," says Kevin Book, an energy analyst at Clearview Energy Partners. So for most officials willing to take a stand, it is inevitably one of
moderation.
Few are ready to weigh in on the toughest question : How much is too much?
Offshore Wind
Wind unpopular- Not in my backyard
Maxwell ’12
Veery is a third-year law student at UC Hastings, “Wind Energy Development: Can Wind Energy
Overcome Substantial Hurdles to Reach the Grid,” West Northwest Journal of Environmental
Law and Policy, 18 W.-N.W. J. Env. L. & Pol’y323, lexis , kk
A critical barrier to entry for wind energy development is local hostility. While the American
public is very supportive of wind energy in theory, not many people want large turbines in
their neighborhood. n34 This social phenomenon is commonly referred to as NIMBY-ism ("Not In My BackYard"), and is a growing
problem for wind energy developers. Citizens have attempted to block wind farms, complaining the turbines are a visual blight, are too noisy,
and create odd flutter shadows. n35 These complaints have resulted in lawsuits, and at times halted, delayed, or dramatically limited proposed
projects. n36¶ The fundamental grievance with wind farms in the United States is siting. The
turbines are large, the site
construction is invasive, and the projects are often built in relatively rural areas. The turbines look
very [*329] industrial, and therefore present a jarring contrast to the pleasant agricultural landscape they regularly occupy.¶ According to
Robert Kahn, a siting expert, "Americans put a high value on wilderness and open space. Sparks fly when lands seen as public viewscapes (even
if they are not publicly owned) appear threatened. Unfortunately, these lands are where developable renewable resources are to be found."
n37 Renewable resources like wind and solar power tend to be easiest to capture in large open areas, which can overlap with scenic areas and
parklands. In order to lessen local opposition, wind developers have attempted to mitigate the negative impacts of their projects. Some
companies have even gone so far as to hire artists to try and make the turbines look "artsy' instead of industrial. n38
Wind is unpopular- seen as too big
Takashi 6-6
Patrick is Director Emeritus of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute at the University of Hawaii
and co-founder of the Pacific International Center for High Technology Research, “Why is Wind
Power Suddenly Unpopular,” http://planetearthandhumanity.blogspot.com/2012/06/why-iswindpower-suddenly-unpopular.html , kk
In Hawaii, across
the nation and throughout the world, it seems like wind energy conversion systems have
suddenly become an issue on the level of new coal and nuclear facilitie s. In the 50th State, "Big
Wind" is roundly being criticized and even Donald Trump is warning about the evils of windpower, as related to China, tourism
and Scotland. There were protesters about him being a windbag. Hey, give him a break, as he's having other more important problems, like
with Miss Pennsylvania at his Miss USA pageant. Worse, the U.S. Congress, as broken as it is, seems currently negative on the production tax
credit, the one piece of legislation that will make or break this technology. So what is really happening? Nothing much new. For one, when the
Hawaii Natural Energy Institute advocated this form of renewable electricity a third of a century ago, we were criticized by the Audubon Society
(incidentally, they've since gotten smarter about this) for killing birds, resorts (in Kahuku) spoke against this option at hearings for fear their
investment would suffer from image problems, noise protesters were always present, more than a few felt that these ugly machines would
affect their aesthetics and a few more depicted at the left protest (this was in Canada in April). I might add that wind energy (with geothermal
and hydroelectric) is the ONLY "new" sustainable option somewhat competitive with coal and nuclear. Solar PV remains three times the cost of
wind. Let's look at the matter of bird kills, for, apparently, the figure in Massachusetts is 100,000 murdered birds/year. Here is the reality:¶ glass windows: at least 100 million, and, perhaps up to a billion bird deaths/year¶ - house cats: 100 million/year¶ - vehicles: 50 million to 100
million¶ - electric transmission lines: 174 million¶ - hunting: more than 100 million¶ Ever seen any protests against glass windows, cats.....? Oh,
by the way, there could well be around 400 billion birds in the world. Nothing about energy is perfect.
Offshore Renewable Energy Is Unpopular
Kennedy ‘12 ¶
Kristy Kennedy is a Naperville-based free-lance writer, Offshore energy
August 2012, http://illinoisissues.uis.edu/archives/2012/07/offshore.html , Daniel
The wind off Lake Michigan is legendary. It most famously contributes to the “Windy City” image of Chicago, provided a name for an ill-fated 1975 football team called the Chicago Winds and was immortalized as the “hawk wind” in the first line of Steve
Goodman’s song “A Dying Cub Fan’s Last Request.”¶ In fact, the wind blows across a largely uninterrupted expanse of 22,400 square miles of water, Lake Michigan, which is slightly smaller than West Virginia and larger than nine of the United States.¶
“There has always been wonderful wind over the Great Lakes,” says Victoria Pebbles, program director for the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative, a coalition of wind energy stakeholders working to facilitate the sustainable development of wind power in the
Great Lakes.¶ If there was a way to harness all of the wind on the Great Lakes, about 740 gigawatts of energy would be produced, according to a 2011 U.S. Department of Energy report on national offshore wind strategy. With one gigawatt equaling about
3.4 million megawatt-hours of electricity annually and an average home requiring 1.15 megawatt-hours a year (according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration), the potential for wind energy is staggering. Imagine capturing not only all of the wind
energy on the Great Lakes, but also adding the offshore wind along America’s coastlines, in the Gulf of Mexico and around Hawaii. The capacity of the current U.S. electric power system could be close to quadrupled, the U.S. Department of Energy reports.
“That shows the tremendous opportunity for the resource,” says Christopher Long, manager of offshore wind and siting policy for the American Wind Energy Association.¶ Now, it is crazy to think every last offshore breeze could be captured and turned
There are currently no offshore wind farms in
the United States for many reasons. Natural gas is plentiful and cheap. Offshore wind
turbines are extremely expensive and can cost more than five times that of an onshore
turbine, according to industry experts. Also, there is no infrastructure in place to transfer
electricity from offshore wind farms to the power grid. Some people don’t like the looks of
turbines; some fear their impact on the environment; and others don’t think the nation’s
waters should be used to feed our hunger for power.¶
into usable electricity. The issue is far more complicated than looking at it in simple terms of how much energy is available.
Still, the federal government and states such as Illinois are pushing for renewable energy. President Barack
Obama set a goal in his 2011 State of the Union Address for 80 percent of America’s electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035. In March, a Memorandum of Understanding between 10 federal agencies and the governors of Illinois, Michigan,
Minnesota, New York and Pennsylvania was signed to facilitate offshore wind proposals for the Great Lakes. Illinois law, similar to laws in other states, requires 25 percent of the state’s electricity to come from renewable resources by 2025.¶ To ignore the
potential of offshore wind and the push for renewable energy is to miss out. “We think the day is coming pretty quickly when there will be offshore wind farms in the United States,” says Patrick Gilman, wind market acceleration and deployment team
leader in the wind and water power program with the U.S. Department of Energy. “It is a question of when and not if.” He sees wind farms in the Great Lakes as part of that movement.¶ State Rep. Robyn Gabel, a Democrat from Evanston, has been leading
the way in the state’s creation of a permitting process for offshore wind farming in Lake Michigan. Two years ago, Evanston, which is actively seeking ways to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, identified developers interested in pursuing an offshore
wind farm but discovered that no state permit process existed to allow such a farm to be built. “We realized we needed to be clear about how one goes about leasing the lakebed and the process for establishing this kind of renewable energy in the lake,”
Gabel says. And so, Gabel sponsored legislation creating the Lake Michigan Offshore Wind Energy Advisory Council to draft an advisory report for the General Assembly that was released at the end of June. “One reason to set up this task force is to raise all
the questions and the issues we would need answers for before we put an offshore wind farm in the lake,” Gabel says.¶ The council looked at a number of areas such as: what criteria should be used to evaluate applications, how to identify areas favorable
and unfavorable for development, what process should be used for the public to weigh in on development proposals, how the state should be compensated for leasing the lakebed and what others have learned from offshore wind development.¶ “It’s a big
issue, and we have to get it right,” says Todd Main, deputy director for the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. “We’ve got a good sense about where we need to go as a trustee for Lake Michigan and how we protect and evaluate the habitats, wildlife
and navigation of the lake.” The next move is the creation, by the state legislature, of another committee to look at how the generation of offshore electricity gets into Illinois’ electric grid and then what role the Illinois Power Agency and Illinois Commerce
Commission would play. “Where does that happen? How does that impact electricity transfers? Who pays for it?” Main asks. “There needs to be more study.” The findings of the new committee then likely would be meshed with information gathered by
the current advisory council to create permitting and regulatory legislation, he says.¶ While offshore wind farming policy appears to be shaping up in Illinois, other factors are putting a damper on the possibility of wind turbines in Lake Michigan. Just
because Illinois officials are crafting a permitting process doesn’t mean turbines should be allowed in the lake, says Joel Brammeier, president and CEO of Alliance for the Great Lakes, an independent citizens’ organization with a mission to conserve and
restore the Great Lakes. “What I think is essential to this process is [that] legislators enter into any conversation about offshore wind with a clear understanding of the legacy they will be leaving for future generations,” he says. “I’m not comfortable that
offshore wind is the right reason to build on the bottom of the lakebed. To put it simply, if you can build one thing in the lake, why not another?” His concerns can’t be dismissed as they go to the heart of the public trust doctrine, a federal and state court
common law that recognizes that the state of Illinois holds public water resources, including Lake Michigan, in trust for the benefit of and use by its citizens. Court cases historically have allowed the lake to be used for public benefit, such as the expansion
of Lincoln Park, but not for private use, such as the expansion of the University of Loyola’s campus.¶ Besides that philosophical question, Brammeier also has concerns about what happens if a turbine becomes outmoded. He questions who will deconstruct
the wind farm and pay for it. “It forces us to face the reality there is no such thing as a zero footprint energy source,” he says. “We’re choosing whether to put that footprint on the bottom of the Great Lakes.”¶ Other groups concerned with the well-being
of the Great Lakes say that issues ranging from environmental concerns to the high cost of offshore turbines can be addressed. The Sierra Club, for instance, is in favor of appropriately sited wind developments. “Our top organizational priority is climate
change and getting the country off of coal,” says Emily Green, Great Lakes program director for the Sierra Club. “We need to find solutions, replacement energy, and we feel this will be accomplished through a mix of things, including wind and solar. We
believe offshore wind in some places offers the benefit for utilities to have large-scale wind energy close to load centers in areas where we are seeking the retirement of coal-fired plants.” The Sierra Club is working with the Great Lakes Wind Collaborative
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Great Lakes Energy Research Laboratory to gather data to build a smart siting platform. “We’re trying to put the tools in place before major projects come to the drawing board, so they can be sited
appropriately,” Green says. “We have the chance to get it right in the Great Lakes.”¶ Other barriers to wind turbines in Lake Michigan are the need for technological advancements, the high cost to build turbines and the economics of energy. Lake
Michigan’s average depth is too deep to accommodate turbines, and ice is a problem. Research is being done to build floating turbines, to develop turbines that can be anchored at greater depths and to deal with ice, says Pebbles of the Great Lakes Wind
Collaborative. Any successful project will be a balance of cost, public approval and environmental constraints, she says.¶ For wind developers, the high cost of building offshore wind turbines in Lake Michigan, which cost five to six times more than an
onshore turbine, is too much to overcome, says Kevin Borgia, director of the Illinois Wind Energy Coalition. “To say that we would focus on offshore wind that would be several times the cost, the private sector isn’t interested,” Borgia says. “We should
focus our energy on opportunities that are effective.”¶ Instability in Illinois’ wind power market is the biggest thing holding it back, Borgia says. Deregulation of the state’s electric market has created a questionable marketplace for power as consumers are
buying short-term contracts. As a result, wind farm developers have difficulty finding financing for their projects because they can’t guarantee who will buy their power over more than a few years. Long-term renewable contracts would stabilize the market
and give investors the guarantees they need to support wind projects, Borgia says. “You’ve got a very complex power market,” he says. “That uncertain market is the reason we need reform. If lawmakers were to fix that problem, that would build wind
more than anything else.Ӧ Also at issue is the expected expiration at the end of this year of the federal Production Tax Credit subsidizing kilowatt hours for utility-scale wind power producers. The credit is in place to make wind energy competitive with
alternatives. Wind energy supporters say a long-term credit, rather than one in jeopardy of losing funding every few years, also would provide stability to the industry.¶ Despite the market uncertainty, Chicago has emerged as a hub in the wind business.
Illinois is ranked seventh in the United States in wind-powered generating capacity with 2,742 megawatts, according to an Illinois State University report. Illinois’ membership in regional power grids serving eastern and southern states means there is a
demand for power from Illinois, Borgia says. Also, 15 wind companies are based in Chicago, in part because of easy transportation to wind developments nationally and internationally.¶ The cheap cost of natural gas also serves as a barrier to the growth of
wind power in the United States. Meanwhile, wind development overseas has been spurred by the unreliable conveyance of natural gas and Europe’s concern about climate change, says Chris Wissemann, CEO of New Jersey-based Fishermen’s Energy and
managing director of Freshwater Wind, which is working to bring an offshore wind project off Ohio’s Lake Erie shore. He says Europe is 15 to 20 years ahead of the United States in harnessing wind energy. Wind turbines account for about 94,000
megawatts of electricity, supplying more than 6 percent of the European Union’s electricity, according to the European Wind Energy Association. Of that, 4,000 megawatts come from offshore turbines, the first one built in Denmark in 1991. In the United
States, about 3 percent of the nation’s electricity is produced by the wind, the U.S. Department of Energy reports.¶ Until the United States needs energy from sources like the wind, it will be difficult for the market to grow unless it has significant
government support. The DOE has launched the Offshore Wind Innovation and Demonstration initiative to reduce the cost of offshore wind energy and to reduce the timeline for the deployment of offshore wind projects. Streamlining the approval process
for projects is one goal, and another is funding. The department is considering grant requests for $180 million in an effort to get a small project in the water by 2014 and three more projects demonstrating technological advances by the end of 2017. Money
will be awarded this fall, says Gilman of the DOE. “We’re doing a lot of work figuring out what issues need to be overcome to realize [wind power] opportunity,” Gilman says.¶ Job creation is another reason to invest in the industry. In Illinois, according to a
2011 report from the Center for Renewable Energy at Illinois State University, the 17 biggest wind farms:¶ Created about 13,000 full-time jobs during construction periods, paying out about $762 million.¶ Support about 600 permanent jobs in rural Illinois,
paying about $35 million.¶ Pay out about $10 million to landowners in rent from wind farm developers.¶ Generate $22 million annually in property taxes and will generate a total economic benefit of $4.1 billion over the life of the projects.¶ “Wind energy
is an American success story,” says Long of the American Wind Energy Association. He says there are 500 manufacturing facilities supporting the wind industry that employ 30,000 Americans. “It’s anticipated that offshore projects will create thousands
more.”¶ But any growth in offshore wind will be slow-going, says Wissemann, who also lives in Evanston and served on Illinois’ wind advisory committee. He predicts the offshore wind industry will develop here much as it has in Europe. Original projects
began with the development of small installations of fewer than a dozen turbines and then grew to the size of a utility like a coal plant with 50 to 200 turbines. Finally, large wind farms were developed. Projects off the Atlantic coast likely will be the first
offshore farms in the United States.¶ “Until you build a demonstration, no one really knows what these things are all about,” says Wissemann. “Projects are not going to pop up like mushrooms. I think it is a common fear that turbines will be built all over
the place.” Wissemann estimates Illinois is five years away at the earliest from having a demonstration offshore wind project in Lake Michigan, with the possibility of a full-scale project five years later.¶ Whatever the timeframe, Illinois intends to do it right,
Gabel says. “We treasure our lake. We wouldn’t want to do anything that would hurt it. On the other hand, using so many nonrenewable resources is destroying our Earth. We need to find some balance.”
Environmentalists
Environmental groups hate wind- species loss
Maxwell ’12
Veery is a third-year law student at UC Hastings, “Wind Energy Development: Can Wind Energy
Overcome Substantial Hurdles to Reach the Grid,” West Northwest Journal of Environmental
Law and Policy, 18 W.-N.W. J. Env. L. & Pol’y323, lexis , kk
Environmental groups have also been opposed to wind development, particularly in sites inhabited by
threatened or endangered species. It seems paradoxical that environmentalists actively oppose emission-free energy production. This
incongruous conflict is driven by the fact that wind [*330] turbines
have been known to cause species mortality,
and are often sited in rural areas that offer needed species habitat. n44 This has caused
environmental groups to pursue lawsuits under the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Act, and other environmental
protection statutes, in hopes of seeking an injunction against the wind farm construction and operations. n45¶ The Coastal Habitat Alliance
sued a Texas wind developer in 2007, demanding an injunction to halt construction on a wind project adjoining the Laguna Madre, an
environmentally sensitive bay between the Texas mainland and Padre Island. n46 The Coastal Habitat Alliance alleged that the defendant
developer impinged its rights under the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and the Texas Coastal Management Program by not
holding public hearings or conducting appropriate environmental review on the wind farm. n47 A federal court dismissed the case, holding the
statutes did not confer a right of action on private parties. n48 However, the case drew attention to the emerging issue of wind turbine siting in
ecologically fragile areas.¶ In West Virginia, environmental plaintiffs were successful in halting operations of a wind farm sited in an area home
to endangered Indiana bats. n49 After exhaustive presentations by expert witnesses, the federal court found, "there is a virtual certainty that
Indiana bats will be harmed, wounded, or killed imminently by the Beech Ridge Project, in violation of section 9 of the ESA ...." n50 The court
held that until the developer undergoes the Incidental Take Permitting process through the Fish and Wildlife Service, no new turbines could be
approved by the agencies or constructed for the project. n51¶ The Beech Ridge case was the first wind farm conflict decided under the
Endangered Species Act, and demonstrates the need for federal agencies to actively oversee the development of wind farms. n52 In order to
avoid costly litigation at every turn, the Beech Ridge holding shows that the myriad of federal agencies involved in approving wind farms must
develop comprehensive standardized siting and permitting criteria. While the Fish [*331] and Wildlife Service has been spearheading a
collaborative effort to develop wind farm guidelines, only draft voluntary siting guidelines have been published. n53¶ The two most noteworthy
examples of environmental groups opposing wind farms, differ dramatically in terms of location, technology, rationale of opposition, and
timing. However, in both cases the wind developer has continued to press forward with development and operations. The first case involves
the Altamont Pass, located just east of the San Francisco Bay Area, which was a massive experiment in wind energy begun in the 1970s. n54 The
second case involves the Cape Wind project, which is more modest in size, but located in a high-visibility area of Nantucket Sound. n55 The
projects are instructive as to the broad range of claims opponents have levied against wind farms. Both cases have directly and indirectly driven
a host of solutions to the environmental and local problems generated by wind farms.
Oil Link
Obama’s base hates increased oil production
Prandoni ‘12
“Democrat Policies Threaten to Starve American Refiners,” http://m.atr.org/article.php?id=6823
With the 2012 election cycle in full swing, yesterday Obama
took to the stump calling for job-killing tax increases on
nefarious oil companies. Although nothing gets the Democrat base excited like demonizing oil and natural
gas producers—an industry responsible for over 9 million American jobs, mind you—raising taxes on the oil industry will necessarily
stymie American production of our natural resources.¶ What those hoping “Big Oil” topples over don’t realize is that thousands of American
manufacturers rely on the oil and natural gas industry—businesses sell equipment to oil and natural gas producers and also transform crude oil
into fuel and a variety of other useful products. One industry that would be hardest hit from a reduction in oil and natural gas production would
be America’s refiners. Already struggling for a variety of mostly government-induced reasons, further reductions in crude would literally starve
America’s robust refining sector of its lifeblood.¶ I say further reductions because the Obama Administration is
already inhibiting
domestic oil and natural gas production wherever possible. Cancelling lease sales on the Atlantic coast,
delaying lease sales for nearly a year in the gulf, and increasing the amount of time it takes companies to
receive requisite permits have all immediately impacted domestic oil production, and intern, America’s refiners.¶
To learn more, check out the House Natural Resources Committee’s depressing compilation of all the ways Democrats have attempted to
impede domestic energy.¶ Over in the other chamber, the Republican Energy and Natural Resources staff created this great chart illustrating
how difficult it became for job creators to receive an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) under Obama’s tenure:But it doesn’t end there. The
most explicit attack on refiners from the Obama Administration thus far must be the decision to kill the Keystone pipeline. As most people
know by now, the Keystone Pipeline would have delivered around 800,000 barrels of Canadian crude oil to, you guessed it, America’s refiners.
Creating tens of thousands of construction jobs and ensuring that America’s refiners have crude oil to manufacture into other products, the
Keystone pipeline would have been a shot of life for the recession weary construction and refining industries. Unfortunately, Obama’s decision
to kill the pipeline is indicative of the Administration’s antagonistic stance towards anyone involved in the oil and natural gas supply chain.¶ So
while oil production on federal lands will in all likelihood continue to decline as long as Obama is in the White House, America’s refiners will
have to rely on oil production from private lands. Instead of using oil and natural gas companies as an applause line, the Obama Administration
should look to increase American jobs and energy security—it sure would make life for America’s refiners a whole lot easier.
OCS empirically angers environmentalists and the Democratic base
Drennen 10
Kyle is a writer at NewsBusters, “CBS 'Early Show' Hits Obama From Left on Offshore Drilling,”
April 1, http://newsbusters.org/?q=blogs/kyle-drennen/2010/04/01/cbs-early-show-hitsobama-left-offshore-drilling
about President Obama's decision to open up some new areas to
offshore oil drilling, fill-in co-host Jeff Glor warned that some of Obama's "closest allies are especially
unhappy." In a report that followed, White House correspondent Bill Plante noted "Environmental groups are disappointed."
Introducing a segment on Thursday's CBS Early Show
¶ However, Plante also touted the idea that the move could help pass unpopular cap and trade legislation, a long-held liberal goal: "Many in Washington see this as
a strategy to win Republican support for a climate bill aimed at slowing global warming." He later concluded: "The conventional political wisdom is that this is not
the time to have another rancorous nasty debate, like the one over health care, on a climate change bill. But the betting here is that the President's energy policy
President Obama's controversial
offshore drilling proposal is making big waves. Critics say the risks are obvious, but not the
rewards." In a discussion with CBS political analyst John Dickerson after Plante's report, she did little to hide her displeasure with the proposal: "Let's
may make it easier to have that debate." ¶ At the top of the show, co-host Maggie Rodriguez proclaimed: "
establish right off the bat that this will not – not even remotely free us from our dependence on foreign oil." Dickerson agreed: "You're exactly right." ¶ At the same
time, Rodriguez wondered why Republicans were not on board with the decision: "You would think that Republicans, the 'Drill, Baby, Drill' crowd, would be ecstatic
over this. This is something they want. Why didn't they seem too overwhelmed?" Dickerson explained: "this is not a drill everywhere plan, it's quite limited, and
that's why their support for him has been limited." Rodriguez replied: "Still, it's still a step in their direction, a step to the Right." ¶ Rodriguez then fretted if that
"Is he doing that at the risk of alienating his Democratic
base?" Dickerson shared her concern: "You're right, it is a step to the Right and the
Democratic base and progressives are angry with him. Some of the Democratic senators were
quite fulsome in their denunciation of this plan."
supposed "step to the Right" would hurt Obama with the Left:
Natural Gas
Generic-Base
Obama’s base hates natural gas production
Prandoni 3-30
“Democrat Policies Threaten to Starve American Refiners,” http://m.atr.org/article.php?id=6823
With the 2012 election cycle in full swing, yesterday Obama
took to the stump calling for job-killing tax increases on
nefarious oil companies. Although nothing gets the Democrat base excited like demonizing oil and
natural gas producers—an industry responsible for over 9 million American jobs, mind you—raising taxes on the oil industry will
necessarily stymie American production of our natural resources.¶ What those hoping “Big Oil” topples over don’t realize is that thousands of
American manufacturers rely on the oil and natural gas industry—businesses sell equipment to oil and natural gas producers and also transform
crude oil into fuel and a variety of other useful products. One industry that would be hardest hit from a reduction in oil and natural gas
production would be America’s refiners. Already struggling for a variety of mostly government-induced reasons, further reductions in crude
would literally starve America’s robust refining sector of its lifeblood.¶ I say further reductions because the Obama Administration is
already inhibiting domestic oil and natural gas production wherever possible. Cancelling lease sales on
the Atlantic coast, delaying lease sales for nearly a year in the gulf, and increasing the amount of time
it takes companies to receive requisite permits have all immediately impacted domestic oil
production, and intern, America’s refiners.¶ To learn more, check out the House Natural Resources Committee’s depressing compilation of
all the ways Democrats have attempted to impede domestic energy.¶ Over in the other chamber, the Republican Energy and Natural Resources
staff created this great chart illustrating how difficult it became for job creators to receive an Application for Permit to Drill (APD) under
Obama’s tenure:But it doesn’t end there. The most explicit attack on refiners from the Obama Administration thus far must be the decision to
kill the Keystone pipeline. As most people know by now, the Keystone Pipeline would have delivered around 800,000 barrels of Canadian crude
oil to, you guessed it, America’s refiners. Creating tens of thousands of construction jobs and ensuring that America’s refiners have crude oil to
manufacture into other products, the Keystone pipeline would have been a shot of life for the recession weary construction and refining
industries. Unfortunately, Obama’s decision to kill the pipeline is indicative of the Administration’s antagonistic stance towards anyone involved
in the oil and natural gas supply chain.¶ So while oil production on federal lands will in all likelihood continue to decline as long as Obama is in
the White House, America’s refiners will have to rely on oil production from private lands. Instead of using oil and natural gas companies as an
applause line, the Obama Administration should look to increase American jobs and energy security—it sure would make life for America’s
refiners a whole lot easier.
Port Dregeding
A2: Landreiu Influence Link
Landrieu influence inevitable
York 4-2
Byron is a Columnist for the Washington Examiner, “Louisiana Senate race a battle of pork, policies and
political legacies,” http://washingtonexaminer.com/louisiana-senate-race-a-battle-of-pork-policies-andpolitical-legacies/article/2546656 , kk
Democrats scoff at such notions. "That argument is laughable," one state Democratic strategist who asked to remain anonymous told me after
coffee in New Orleans. "As
chair of the Senate Energy Committee that guides domestic policy — the driver of
Louisiana's economy — it's not a question about whether Sen. Landrieu is in a better position to deliver
for Louisiana. It's a fact."¶ There's laughter, too, at the very idea of a post-pork paradigm. "I think they're saying that because it's
Mary," said James Thomas, the 20 year-old chairman of the Lafayette Parish Democratic Party, at a café near the University of Louisiana in
Lafayette, where he is a student. "I think if it was Bill Cassidy in office now, they'd say we love him bringing home the bacon, that's what we
need, we need his seniority in the Senate. And I think secretly a
lot of Republicans who are going to vote for Mary are
doing so because they know she brings home the bacon, and they may work in an industry that she brings home the bacon
for."
Aquaculture
A2: Landreiu Influence Link
Landrieu influence inevitable
York 4-2
Byron is a Columnist for the Washington Examiner, “Louisiana Senate race a battle of pork, policies and
political legacies,” http://washingtonexaminer.com/louisiana-senate-race-a-battle-of-pork-policies-andpolitical-legacies/article/2546656, kk
Democrats scoff at such notions. "That argument is laughable," one state Democratic strategist who asked to remain anonymous told me after
coffee in New Orleans. "As chair of the Senate Energy Committee that guides domestic policy — the driver of Louisiana's economy — it's
not
a question about whether Sen. Landrieu is in a better position to deliver for Louisiana. It's a fact."¶ There's
laughter, too, at the very idea of a post-pork paradigm. "I think they're saying that because it's Mary," said James Thomas, the 20 year-old
chairman of the Lafayette Parish Democratic Party, at a café near the University of Louisiana in Lafayette, where he is a student. "I think
if it
was Bill Cassidy in office now, they'd say we love him bringing home the bacon, that's what we need, we
need his seniority in the Senate. And I think secretly a lot of Republicans who are going to vote for Mary
are doing so because they know she brings home the bacon, and they may work in an industry that she
brings home the bacon for."
A2: Impacts
Abortion
GOP Win restricts abortion
GOP win restricts abortion access
Tomasky ‘14
Michael is a columnist at the Daily Beast, “Here’s what Happens when the GOP Takes Over the Senate,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/30/here-s-what-happens-when-the-gop-takes-overthe-senate.html , kk
This list could go on and on, but let’s look at just one issue area—contraception and reproductive rights. Right now, according to Donna Crane,
the vice president for policy at NARAL-ProChoice America, the GOP
House has passed or could quickly pass four bills that
a Republican Senate would presumably endorse too:¶ *A law that would make it a federal crime for an
adult to accompany a teen across state lines for an abortion and hold doctors liable for knowing that.
“Think about that,” Crane says. “This would be the first time we’ve ever made a person carry their state with them, so to speak.”¶ *A law to
ban abortion coverage in all state health-care insurance exchanges.¶ *A law to ban abortions after 20
weeks with an exception only for the life of the mother. This, Crane notes, has already passed the House.¶ *A law to
end the contraception benefit in the ACA.
Asia Pivot
Slow Pivot Solves
Slow pivot solves
Panda 6-11
Ankit is Associate Editor of the Diplomat, “The Benefits of a Sluggish Asia Pivot,”
http://thediplomat.com/2014/06/the-benefits-of-a-sluggish-pivot-to-asia/ , kk
Strategically speaking however, U.S.
sluggishness and lethargy towards the pivot has had some benefits. Particularly, the
United States may have found a way to remain influential in Asia without allowing its friends and allies in the
region to slump into the moral hazard of relying on the United States for the ultimate guarantee of maintaining the status
quo in the Asia-Pacific. Imagine the alternative: the United States flawlessly and swiftly pivots to Asia,
reallocating its military assets proportionately around the region. Its allies are assured that this massive
U.S. presence in the region will prevent Chinese adventurism in the Asia’s inner seas and give little thought to building up
their own domestic capacities. In such a scenario, even Shinzo Abe might have been less zealous on the issue of
collective self-defense in Japan, content to continue Japan’s post-war trend of fielding a modest SelfDefense Force and relying on the United States for all else.¶ Instead of this odd Twilight Zone-esque picture of Asian security, what we
have instead is skepticism and anxiety about the U.S. commitment to the pivot. From Japan to ASEAN, states recall Clausewitz’s dictum: ”One
country may support another’s cause, but will never take it so seriously as it takes its own.” As a result, states
across Asia are
investing more in their own defense. East Asia’s arms imports, for example, surged by 25 percent in
2013. This surge came from U.S.-aligned states who began to feel that their own militaries should form the first line of defense in any future
conflict in Asia — not U.S. assets.¶
Sequester Kills Pivot
Sequester kills the pivot
Evans ’13
Michael is the General Sir Francis Hassett Chair of Military Studies at the Australian Defence College in
Canberra, “American Defence Policy and the Challenge of Austerity: Some Implications for Southeast
Asia,” Journal of South East Asia Economics, Volume 30, Issue 2, August, Pages 164-178, accessed via
proquest , kk
In the cold light of reality, the
sequester appears to return the U.S. military budget to 2006/7 figures and forces it to function
on a more disciplined budget of some US$500 billion. As Micah Zenko (2012) of the Council of Foreign Relations has
observed, "it is implausible that the entire US military would be unable to function with just under US$500
billion". It is true that even under sequestration conditions, the United States will continue to spend more on defence than the next nine
nations combined and most of these countries are allies. China's rise notwithstanding, there is no peer competitor on the horizon and, in the
words of analyst Richard N. Haass, the United States has the good fortune to face a "strategic respite" in which to put its fiscal house in order
(Haass 2013). Put another away, sequestration takes American spending on defence as a percentage of global military spending from just under
50 per cent in 2010 to just under 40 per cent in 2014. The most likely scenario over the next decade is that U.S. defence spending will fall
steadily from 4.3 per cent of GDP in 2012 to around 2.8 per cent in 2023 (see Singer 2013, Newton 2013).¶ Sequestration
will, however,
force some uncomfortable spending choices on the Pentagon. These choices include: reducing the acquisition
of LHA-6 and LSD (X) amphibious vessels; possible abandonment of the planned construction of nine Virginiaclass attack submarines; and further cuts to naval cruiser and littoral combat ship numbers. As mentioned earlier, the F-35 Joint Strike
Fighter programme may come under yet further pressure in terms of numbers - particularly in its vertical take-off and carrier based categories.
Under a regime of ten year cuts of US$900 billion, the U.S.
Army and the Marine Corps could also face even more
drastic personnel cuts - perhaps being further reduced to 430,000 and 150,000, respectively. Indeed, Army
spending is already expected to drop to US$130 billion annually from 2014 almost half of what it was in 2008 (Bamo, Bensahel and Sharp 2012,
Cordesman and Shelala 2013).¶ The financial austerity measures forced by sequestration will also affect long-term decisionmaking on
recapitalization, modernization, and innovation in the U.S. arsenal. It is likely that cost escalation is also likely to be a complicating factor in the
affordability of acquiring of vital but expensive future precision and networked weapons systems. In short, then, while the U.S. military will
remain a potent force without a near-term peer rival for years to come, the
real effects of fiscal austerity with regard to the
Asia-Pacific rebalance may not be fully known until a regional security crisis tests American political will,
military readiness, and the state of training and maintenance standards. For America's Asia-Pacific allies, Washington's
fiscal woes translate into an uncomfortable strategic situation and one which can only be ameliorated
by realistic U.S. domestic budget reform - what Richard Haass (2013) evocatively calls a doctrine of
"Restoration" - a situation over which no American ally has any influence.
Economic Collapse Turns Pivot
Economic viability is key to the pivot
Evans ’13
Michael is the General Sir Francis Hassett Chair of Military Studies at the Australian Defence College in
Canberra, “American Defence Policy and the Challenge of Austerity: Some Implications for Southeast
Asia,” Journal of South East Asia Economics, Volume 30, Issue 2, August, Pages 164-178, accessed via
proquest , kk
It is important to realize that the
greatest challenge to America's long-term commitment to Asia comes not from
a crisis of confidence in the American spirit due to severe domestic economic
difficulties. Unless economic travails are resolved within reasonable timeframes, the political polarization
and legislative gridlock that has created mammoth debt levels and a deep fiscal crisis may erode the
basic foundations of America's power, thereby making the Asia-Pacific a much more dangerous place.
geopolitical competitors such as China but more from
However, despite these major challenges, it is possible to be guardedly optimistic about the future of America in the Asia- Pacific. This is
because Obama's pivot policy is less about the containment of China than about the reassertion of the United States as a natural Pacific power.
After all, Washington has enduring interests in a region in which it possesses not only national territories such as Hawaii, Guam, American
Samoa, and the Northern Marianas, but in which it also clearly sees its long-term economic future. As the most astute of Asian statesmen, Lee
Kuan Yew, has remarked, "although America is currently facing tremendously difficult times, America's creativity, resilience, and innovative
spirit will allow it to confront its core problems, overcome them, and regain competitiveness" (Allison and Blackwill 2012).
Other Areas Solve Relations
Other agreements solve relations
Aberg and Novak ’14
John is pursuing his doctoral studies in International Relations at Lingnan University under the Hong
Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme. is an eight-year resident of southern Taiwan and a Master’s student at the
Institute of China and Asia-Pacific Studies and the Center for Japanese Studies at the National Sun Yatsen University in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. “The Risk of Asia Pacific Multilateralism,” April 22nd
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-risks-of-asia-pacific-multilateralism/1/ , kk
U.S.
relations with a host of other East Asian nations have been improving as well. Ties with Vietnam have
improved markedly over the past decade. South Korea remains a staunch U.S. ally in the face of North Korean
provocations (despite recent signs of a North-South thaw) and the stir caused by China’s announcement of a new Air Defense
Identification Zone (ADIZ) last November that overlaps with South Korea’s (and Japan’s) own ADIZs. The U.S. and the Philippines
recently reached an Agreement on Enhanced Defense Cooperation, which would grant the U.S. military joint use of
certain military facilities. U.S. troops for the last several years have been deployed on a rotational basis in
Australia, both symbolically and substantively reinforcing the U.S. commitment to that ally’s security. The U.S.-Singapore
relationship remains a strong force in the center of Southeast Asia. The list goes on and on.
Asian prolif inevitable—even a credible Asia pivot isn’t enough to assuage allies fears
Karl 13
David, president of the Asia Strategy Initiative and director of studies at the Pacific Council on
International Policy, “U.S. Strategic Credibility in Asia: An Update,” April-1,
http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2013/04/01/u-s-strategic-credibility-in-asia-an-update/ ///cmf
In a post two weeks ago, I argued that the Obama administration confronts a serious credibility
gap in Asia and cited as one example the small but growing number of influential South Koreans
calling for their country to develop its own nuclear weapons because of renewed doubts about
Washington’s commitment to South Korea’s security. This specific problem involves what is
known in strategic policy circles as “extended deterrence” – that is, the convincing projection of
U.S. nuclear deterrence power over far-flung allies confronted with menacing enemies.¶ Extended
deterrence entails a two-fold challenge: Dissuading hostile states from taking offensive action
while also persuading allies that there is no need to bolster their security through nuclear
proliferation. Washington spent a great deal of treasure and psychic energy during the Cold War
coming to grips with these problems, mainly in Europe as it tried to reassure NATO countries that
America had their back even as Soviet nuclear forces grew in size and capacity. To a much lesser
extent the problems of extended deterrence were also at work in East Asia during the Cold War.
But they are now cropping up again as the regional security order becomes more complex.¶ This
can be seen most clearly in the drama now playing out with North Korea. The United States has
responded to Pyongyang’s increasing bellicosity in a way straight out of the Cold War playbook:
1.) by beefing up missile defense capabilities in Alaska; and 2.) sending nuclear-capable B-2 and B52 bombers on practice runs over the Korean peninsula.¶ As illustrated in a Pentagon press
conference following the bomber runs, the intended audience for these moves is not just
Pyongyang. General Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff made a point of
emphasizing:¶ The reaction to the B-2 that we’re most concerned about is not necessarily the
reaction it might elicit in North Korea, but rather among our Japanese and Korean allies. Those
exercises are mostly to assure our allies that they can count on us to be prepared and to help
them deter conflict.¶ As the mission was being announced in an official statement, Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel was also on the phone with his South Korean counterpart, reaffirming the
United States’ “unwavering” commitment to defend the South.¶ Regardless of how the current
North Korean crisis ends or the Obama administration’s success in dealing with the broader
credibility problems of its “Asia pivot,” Washington’s challenges with extended deterrence will
only grow in the years ahead as nuclear proliferation expands in the region and what some (here
and here) are calling the “Second Nuclear Age” takes more concrete shape.
No Japan Prolif
Timeframe for Japanese prolif is years—no tech or materials
Logan 13
Justin, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, “China, America, and the Pivot to Asia,”
Policy Analysis No. 717, Jan-8 /// cmf
Importantly, however, the time it would take Japan, for example, to go nuclear, is almost
certainly longer than the conventional wisdom, which has generally hovered around six
months.120 There is little indication that Japan has prepared for such a rapid timeframe. Not
only would Japan need to produce weapons-grade fissile material, but a significant amount
more work would need to be done in developing delivery systems. A number of size- able
technical hurdles would put Japan’s time- frame in the realm of years, not months, to be- come
a bona fide nuclear-weapons state.121 If Washington were to insist that Japan carry a heavier
share of the burden for providing for its own defense, Tokyo may look into how it would
overcome these hurdles.122
AT China Rise Bad
Liberal institutions and domestic politics ensure peaceful China rise
Logan 13
Justin, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, “China, America, and the Pivot to Asia,”
Policy Analysis No. 717, Jan-8 /// cmf
Two logics underpin the theory of the optimists, both borrowed from the liberal school of
international relations.11 First is “liberal institutionalist” logic, which holds that China’s political
and military behavior can be constrained in a web of international institutions. These would
allow it to rise into the existing international order—which was shaped by the institutions
created un- der American leadership after World War II—and prevent China from transforming
the rules that govern the order.12¶ For liberal institutionalists, it is hard to understand why China
would have any problems with the status quo. They wonder why, given that China has made
huge strides forward in terms of prosperity and even influence under the existing order, it
would bother to try changing it.13 Liberal institutionalists see international politics as tightly
constrained by international institutions and laws, and argue, as Princeton’s G. John Ikenberry
does, that while “the United States cannot thwart China’s rise, it can help ensure that China’s
power is exercised within the rules and institutions that the United States and its partners have
crafted over the last century, rules and institutions that can protect the interests of all states in
the more crowded world of the future.”14¶ Optimists argue that China can be con- strained
because the expansive and cross- cutting network of international institutions promotes
positive-sum outcomes and renders the American-dominated order “hard to overturn and easy
to join.”15 If Washington plays its cards correctly, Iken- berry writes, it can “make the liberal
order so expansive and institutionalized that China will have no choice but to join and operate
within it.”16¶ The second liberal logic holds that states’ international behavior is induced by the
domestic political structures within them.17 In this view, to the extent that China has foreign
policy objectives that conflict with American interests, these exist because of China’s
undemocratic domestic politics. Accordingly, the argument goes, if China democratized, China
could continue to rise while resigning itself to U.S. preponderance.¶ Advocates of this view place
less emphasis on international institutions. For them, the question is whether China’s domestic
politi cal system can be transformed from one-party rule toward democracy. If it can, there is less
reason to fear that China’s international am- bitions will grow dangerously expansive. This theory
is popular in Washington, where policy is based in part on the belief that continued economic
growth will help transform China’s political system in a democratic direction.¶ If all goes according
to plan, economic growth in China will produce a growing middle class, which should then
demand greater political rights. These demands are expected to generate more democratic
politics.18 Then, these increasingly democratic politics are supposed to plug into a crude version
of democratic peace theory, in which the domestic institutions of democratic countries prevent
them from going to war (or presumably, in this case, even engaging in serious security
competition) with other democracies.¶ What both schools of liberalism agree on is that there is no
iron law that growing Chinese power will create a zero-sum security tradeoff between China
and the United States and its allies. This represents the central disagreement between the
optimists and pessimists.
AT China War
China doesn’t have the military capabilities to start a conflict
Logan 13
Justin, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, “China, America, and the Pivot to Asia,”
Policy Analysis No. 717, Jan-8 /// cmf
The broader problem with U.S. China policy is that it takes as a given that a more powerful and
activist China would be bad for U.S. national security, but no one has detailed precisely how. The
American Enterprise Institute’s Dan Blumenthal and his coauthors write that China is a threat to
the United States because its “ambitions threaten America’s Asian allies, raise questions about
the credibility of U.S. alliance pledges, and imperil the U.S. military strategy that underpins its
global primacy.”84 It is telling how prominently alliances figure in this formulation, but
Blumenthal’s logic is backward. The United States should form alliances with countries when it
needs to fight a common enemy. It shouldn’t litter the globe with alliance commitments during
peacetime, and then threaten war for the sake of those alliances. In the modern era,
Washington’s alliances exist pri- marily to defend the allies and the credibility of other alliances,
not the United States.¶ At the bottom of realist theories of international relations, such as
Mearsheimer’s, is the prospect of being conquered or otherwise losing political sovereignty. Just
as it is terrifically difficult to envision the United States conquering China today, it is similarly
difficult to imagine China conquering the United States, given the Pacific Ocean and the massive
American nuclear arsenal. Even Chinese naval dominance over a good chunk of the Pacific
seems like a fantasy for the foresee- able future. Currently the PLA is struggling to acquire the
ability to control its near seas. Its highly touted first aircraft carrier is, in the apt phrasing of one
analyst, “a piece of junk,”85 and China is decades from having a bona fide blue-water navy, let
alone one that could challenge the United States.¶ Of course, a number of smaller problems are
more likely. A much more powerful China could attempt to use its navy to exclude the United
States from engaging in commerce with states in Asia. If it could overwhelm neighboring states,
China could hold hostage the sea lanes in Asia to extract concessions from other states in the
region. But it bears asking how likely those scenarios are, especially considering the sizable
costs China would incur to achieve such results.
AT Solves Credibility
Asia pivot bad for credibility—forces us into conflict or be seen as a paper tiger
Raine and Miere 13
Sarah and Christian, Transatlantic Fellow @ the German Marshall Fund and Senior Fellow for Naval
Forces and Maritime Security
@ IISS, “Chapter Four: The US in the South China Sea,” Adelphi Series, 53:436-437, 151-178, Taylor and
Francis /// cmf
Another further constraint on US engagement is the limit on alliance-building in Southeast Asia
demanded by US national interests beyond the South China Sea. As Germany and the UK
manoeuvred before the First World War to construct alliances designed to deter conflict, the
dominoes of commitments engendered ended up actually helping to fan the flames of war.34
The danger for the US is that it ends up creating expectations it may not want to meet, taking
on actual or perceived commitments that force it towards a crossroads it might otherwise seek
to avoid: the decision to stand by an ally or partner on principle and risk an escalation on a
matter not of fundamental national interest, or to be seen to have their bluff called, thereby
bringing into question the core credibility of US commitments in the region. This is particularly
the case with regard to the Philippines, with whom the US has a Mutual Defence Agreement,
certainly applicable to the Western Pacific but questionably applicable to the South China Sea. As
the Philippines sent its US-donated cutter to arrest Chinese fisher- men off Scarborough Reef in
April 2012, the US had a delicate balance to strike in the support it proffered. A ‘2+2’ meeting in
May between the foreign and defence ministers of the two coun- tries stressed Washington’s
strategic ambiguity on the issue: while reaffirming the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, US diplomats
also highlighted their country’s neutrality on the South China Sea sovereignty disputes. Whilst
Secretary of State Clinton therefore explicitly stated that the US would protect freedom of
navigation in the South China Sea, she notably neglected to mention whether the defence treaty
extended to disputed areas of the sea. The message sent was clear in its equivocality and is similar
to the US position on Taiwan: while the US will help the Philippines develop its military and will
protect undisputed Philippine territory, it cannot afford to provide a carte blanche for defending
disputed areas claimed by the Philippines.
Asia Pivot Bad- East Asia Influence
Asia pivot kills East Asia influence- forces us to eventually abandon region
Aberg and Novak ’14
John is pursuing his doctoral studies in International Relations at Lingnan University under the Hong
Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme. is an eight-year resident of southern Taiwan and a Master’s student at the
Institute of China and Asia-Pacific Studies and the Center for Japanese Studies at the National Sun Yatsen University in Kaohsiung, Taiwan. “The Risk of Asia Pacific Multilateralism,” April 22nd
http://thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-risks-of-asia-pacific-multilateralism/1/ , kk
Perhaps even more important than the potential pitfalls of the institutionalization process for those already sold on the multilateral approach
are the complications that can arise after institutionalization occurs. If Victor Cha’s perspective is turned on its head, military
multilateralization can very easily become a form of entrapment for the U.S. if its Asian partners act
collectively to pursue exclusively Asian interests at America’s expense. This would not be as problematic for
Washington when the issue is merely a bilateral one. If the Philippines, say, emboldened by its bilateral alliance with the
U.S., were to more assertively towards China or other South China Sea disputant states, and the U.S. elected to
abandon its commitments to the Philippines, the U.S. would risk losing only one ally, albeit an important one. In
a multilateral arrangement, U.S. abandonment of Asian allies would be far riskier in that abandoning
commitments to the group may very well lead to de facto U.S. abandonment of East Asia or, potentially, a de
facto end to Asian engagement of the United States.¶ Moreover, and probably more realistically, this same logic can be applied to situations
that are not as extreme as outright abandonment. Simply put, there
is no reason to assume that multilateral
agreements in the Asia-Pacific will serve American interests. Indeed, in at least some cases they ought not. But ethical
arguments aside, Cha’s perspective suggests that multilateral arrangements will ultimately complicate America’s
pursuit of its goals and national interests in East Asia. The power asymmetries between the U.S. and many of its individual
partners and allies in the region remain vast. However, a large multilateral establishment, short of aggregating
capabilities, at least poses the prospect of giving those allies and partners greater bargaining leverage
vis-à-vis the United States on any range of issues. Certainly, the United States could apply wedge-driving and divide-andconquer tactics in forcing its agenda through, but one would then reasonably question the long-term viability of the organization itself.¶ This
article should not be read as a defense of bilateralism at the expense of multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific. Instead, it aims simply to point out
some of the potential pitfalls of creating and managing such an institution in a diverse region without a history of deep multilateral
cooperation. The fact that many prospective members of a multilateral arrangement share stronger ties with the United States than they do
among each other may benefit Washington, at least in the short to medium term; however, some research suggests that this favorable U.S.
position may depend on how equally it treats members. Equal treatment may be a tall order for American leaders given the different strategic
values they tend to attach to different bilateral relationships. With Asia’s violent history and persistent memories, equal treatment among
members may be necessary, even if difficult. The U.S. must be sensitive to the perceptions of members and careful not to give the appearance
of slighting any one or group of members. This would a tall order, but is possible if U.S. leaders pay attention to the needs and concerns of
member states, are willing to defer to member states on issues of major interest to them, and are willing in a broader sense to share
responsibilities and decision-making authority with allies. The U.S. record in these three categories with bilateral allies has been mixed at best;
more often than not Washington has been more willing to push responsibilities onto its Asia-Pacific allies while reserving the bulk of decisionmaking authority for itself. This must change if any future Asia-Pacific multilateral arrangement that includes the United States is to survive in
the long run.
Asia Pivot Bad—Global Arms Race
Asia pivot triggers global arms race and war
Klare 13
Michael, professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College, “The Cold War redux?,”
Jun-3, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/World/WOR-01-030613.html /// cmf
In March, Russia agreed to sell 24 Sukhoi Su-35 multi-role combat jets and four Lada-class diesel
submarines to China on the eve of newly installed President Xi Jinping's first official visit to
Moscow. Although details of the sale have yet to be worked out, observers say that it will
represent the most significant transfer of Russian weaponry to China in a decade.¶ The Su-35, a
fourth-generation stealth fighter, is superior to any plane now in China's arsenal, while the Lada is
a more advanced, quieter version of the Kilo-class sub it already possesses. Together, the two
systems will provide the Chinese with a substantial boost in combat quality.¶ For anyone who has
followed Asian security affairs over the past few years, it is hard to view this deal as anything but
a reaction to the Barack Obama administration's new Asian strategy, its "pivot" to the Pacific. As
announced by President Obama in a speech before the Australian Parliament in November 2011,
it involves beefing-up the already strong US air and naval presence in the western Pacific - in,
that is, waters off China - along with increased US arms aid to American allies like Indonesia,
Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea.¶ Not surprisingly, China has responded by bolstering its
own naval capabilities, announcing plans for the acquisition of a second aircraft carrier (its first
began operational testing in late 2012) and the procurement of advanced arms from Russia to fill
gaps in its defense structure. This, in turn, is bound to increase the pressure on Washington from
Japan, Taiwan, and other allies to provide yet more weaponry, triggering a classic Cold-Warstyle arms race in the region.¶ On the eve of Secretary of State John Kerry's June 24 visit to India,
that country's press was full of reports and rumors about upcoming US military sales. Andrew
Shapiro, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs, was widely quoted as saying that,
in addition to sales already in the pipeline, "we think there's going to be billions of dollars more in
the next couple of years." In his comments, Shapiro referred to Deputy Secretary of Defense
Ashton Carter, who, he said, was heading up an arms sales initiative, "which we think is making
some good progress and will, hopefully, lead to an even greater pace of additional defense trade
with India".¶ To some degree, of course, this can be viewed as a continuation of weapons sales as
a domestic economic motor, since US weapons companies have long sought access to India's vast
arms market. But such sales now clearly play another role as well: to lubricate the US drive to
incorporate India into the arc of powers encircling China as part of the Obama administration's
new Asia-Pacific strategy.¶ Toward this end, as Deputy Secretary of State William Burns explained
back in 2011, "Our two countries launched a strategic dialogue on the Asia-Pacific to ensure that
the world's two largest democracies pursue strategies that reinforce one another." Arms transfers
are seen by the leaders of both countries as a vital tool in the "containment" of China (though all
parties are careful to avoid that old Cold War term). So watch for Kerry to pursue new arms
agreements while in New Delhi.¶ Repeating History¶ These are just some examples of recent arms
deals (or ones under discussion) that suggest a fresh willingness on the part of the major powers
to use weapons transfers as instruments of geopolitical intrusion and competition. The
reappearance of such behavior suggests a troubling resurgence of Cold War-like rivalries. Even
if senior leaders in Washington, Moscow, and Beijing are not talking about resurrecting some
21st-century version of the Cold War, anyone with a sense of history can see that they are
headed down a grim, well-trodden path toward crisis and confrontation. ¶ What gives this an
added touch of irony is that leading arms suppliers and recipients, including the United States,
recently voted in the UN General Assembly to approve the Arms Trade Treaty, which was meant
to impose significant constraints on the global trade in conventional weapons. Although the
treaty has many loopholes, lacks an enforcement mechanism, and will require years to achieve
full implementation, it represents the first genuine attempt by the international community to
place real restraints on weapons sales.¶ "This treaty won't solve the problems of Syria overnight,
no treaty could do that, but it will help to prevent future Syrias," said Anna MacDonald, the head
of arms control for Oxfam International and an ardent treaty supporter. "It will help to reduce
armed violence. It will help to reduce conflict."¶ This may be the hope, but such expectations will
quickly be crushed if the major weapons suppliers, led by the US and Russia, once again come to
see arms sales as the tool of choice to gain geopolitical advantage in areas of strategic
importance. Far from bringing peace and stability - as the proponents of such transactions
invariably claim - each new arms deal now holds the possibility of taking us another step closer
to a new Cold War with all the heightened risks of regional friction and conflict that entails.¶ Are
we, in fact, seeing a mindless new example of the old saw: that those who don't learn from
history are destined to repeat it?
Asia Pivot Bad—China War
Continued pursuit of China containment policy triggers US-Sino war
Yang 13
Yoa, director of the China Center for Economic Research at Peking University and editor of China
Economic Quarterly, “America’s pivot to Asia will provoke China,” Feb-12, http://blogs.ft.com/the-alist/2013/02/12/americas-pivot-to-asia-will-provoke-china/#ixzz2XuEFkpjX /// cmf
One of the purposes of the pivot is presumably to hedge China’s military encroachment on its
neighbours. It should be noted, though, that the growth of China’s military spending has been
largely a result of its economic growth. Military spending is measured in nominal terms and the
nominal size of China’s economy has been growing by double-digit rates.¶ To the average Chinese,
the US is once again showing its nature as a hegemon that wields its power wherever it likes to,
reinforcing the long-held Chinese view that “being backward is to invite bullies”. If the pivot has
any effect on China, it must be that it has pushed Beijing to accelerate its military build-up. ¶
Americans like to say that the pivot is a response to China’s more aggressive claims on some of
the islands and reefs in the South China and East China Seas. Informed Chinese would not agree
with this view. But regardless of the sequence of the events, the result presented to the world is
that the American pivot has escalated tensions in the region. It has been taken as an
encouragement by China’s neighbours; in the meantime, it has forced China to take more
assertive actions.¶ The more constructive part of the pivot should have been the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. But even on this count, the US has caused more suspicion than goodwill in China. The
TPP was designed for like-minded countries to form, in President Barack Obama’s words, “a
platinum” free-trade agreement for the Asia-Pacific region. It was the result of both America’s
agony with the ineffectiveness of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum and the White
House’s political strategy to please those on both the right and the left – it expands free trade, so
Republicans are happy; but it also requires member countries to meet labour, environmental and
even human rights standards, so Democrats are happy.¶ To most Chinese, however, the TPP is one
of America’s intentional moves to exclude China. For one thing, there is no way for China to meet
its conditions in the medium term. For another, the TPP will not bring significant gains to the US,
precisely because China, the US’s largest trading partner in the region, is not going to join.¶ More
importantly, China was not part of the design process. To China, the TPP is a club set up solely on
American will; China can knock on the door, but can be rejected. Ten years ago, when China
applied to join the World Trade Organisation, this would not be a problem. Today, China feels
differently: it has become reluctant to accept something if it does not feel ownership.¶ In a sense,
all Chinese history since the mid-1800s has involved China trying to become as equal as other
world powers. Today, China’s leaders and the Chinese people are increasingly feeling that point
is coming. Yet the existing powers, noticeably, the US and EU, may have different ideas about
equality. To them, China will only be treated as “one of us” after China is fully transformed
politically and socially. This discrepancy of beliefs will be a major source of tension between
China and existing powers in the coming years.
US-China war goes nuclear
Johnson 1
Chalmers, The Nation, May 14, Wilson OmniFile: Full Text Select
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious
US militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent
against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus
more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of
the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914
assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a
misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that
neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably
end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be
defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear
holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese
attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders
have virtually no deterrent effect.
Asia Pivot Bad—Extensions
Only the pivot risks conflict between the US and China – it stirs up nationalist fervor
and breaks down economic interdependence
John Glaser, 6/24/13, The Washington Times, "The asia pivot: making an enemy of china,"
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/john-glaser-intelligence-foreign-policyworld/2013/jun/24/asia-pivot-making-enemy-china/
But there is one aspect of Obama’s bellicose foreign policy so far removed from the al-Qaeda
threat that he has been unable to conjure it: the so-called Asia Pivot.¶ The “rebalancing” to East
Asia is a confrontational policy that involves surging American military and naval presence
throughout the region ― in the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, Australia, Guam, South Korea,
Singapore, etc. ― and boosting support to China’s neighboring rivals.¶ Washington has been
refurbishing old WWII military bases in the region and building new ones in order to lay the
groundwork for an “air-sea battle” with China. We’ve even deployed surveillance drones near
China’s borders. One wonders how might America react to such gestures in her backyard.¶ What
villainous offense has China committed against American security? Are they supporting
terrorists? Have they threatened us with military attack? Are they amassing weapons of mass
destruction pointed at Washington?¶ No, nothing like that. Obama hasn’t been able to invoke a
monster to destroy in China because there isn’t one. China’s mere existence as a rising economic
and military power is its major transgression. China threatens not the security of Americans, but
the hegemony of Washington.¶ The Asia Pivot harks back to a time when imperial powers didn’t
have to justify military expansionism with tall tales of impending attacks on the homeland. It
more resembles the famed “Great Game” in which the British Empire fought with the Russian
Empire for strategic supremacy in Central Asia.¶ According to Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew
Scobell, writing in Foreign Affairs, “China is the only country widely seen as a possible threat to
U.S. predominance. Indeed, China’s rise has led to fears that the country will soon overwhelm its
neighbors and one day supplant the United States as a global hegemon.Ӧ They add that America
“is the most intrusive outside actor in China’s internal affairs, the guarantor of the status quo in
Taiwan, the largest naval presence in the East China and South China seas, the formal or informal
military ally of many of China’s neighbors, and the primary framer and defender of existing
international legal regimes.Ӧ The U.S. could cut its defense budget in half tomorrow and still
outspend China on its military. But that hasn’t calmed the Obama administration into easing his
approach.¶ This comes with serious risks. Already by 2011, the Center for Strategic International
Studies identified in a report the unintended consequences that could come with Obama’s stern
posture in Asia.¶ The report predicted “a shift in Chinese foreign policy based on the new
leadership’s judgment that it must respond to a U.S. strategy that seeks to prevent China’s
reemergence as a great power.”¶ “The U.S. Asia pivot has triggered an outpouring of antiAmerican sentiment in China that will increase pressure on China’s incoming leadership to
stand up to the United States,” the report added. “Nationalistic voices are calling for military
countermeasures to the bolstering of America’s military posture in the region and the new U.S.
defense strategic guidelines.”¶ Or, in the words of former Chinese diplomat Jia Xiudong: “Don’t
treat China as an enemy. Otherwise you end up with an enemy in China.Ӧ The economic
interdependence between the U.S. and China has risen to unprecedented levels, and that’s a
good thing. Left to their own devices, Americans and Chinese would continue to engage in
peaceful, mutually beneficial trade. Only Washington, going abroad in search of monsters to
destroy, could turn that into a casus belli .
Continuing to contain China risks confrontation—domestic pressures escalate quickly
Glaser 13
Bonnie, Senior Adviser for Asia @ CSIS, Freeman Chair in China Studies and Senior Associate, Pacific
Forum, “Pivot to Asia: Prepare for Unintended Consequences,” April-13,
http://csis.org/publication/pivot-asia-prepare-unintended-consequences ///cmf
The Obama administration’s initial policy in 2009 raised fears in many Asian capitals of a G2
condominium that would make decisions over the heads of others. Those concerns were
unwarranted and short lived. Beijing interpreted the U.S. approach as weakness, which, along
with China’s economic success and America’s struggles, led to a year of Chinese hubris that
manifested itself in a series of intimidating actions in China’s neighborhood. Subsequent
entreaties by regional states to counterbalance China increased U.S. attention to the Asia-Pacific
region. Now, the U.S. Asia “pivot” has prompted Chinese anxiety about U.S. containment and
heightened regional worries about intensified U.S.-China strategic competition.¶ In the run-up to
the leadership transition that will take place at China’s 18th Party Congress this fall, Beijing is
inwardly focused and unlikely to act on its fears. However, 2013 could see a shift in Chinese
foreign policy based on the new leadership’s judgment that it must respond to a U.S. strategy
that seeks to prevent China’s reemergence as a great power.¶ Signs of a potential harsh
reaction are already detectable. The U.S. Asia pivot has triggered an outpouring of antiAmerican sentiment in China that will increase pressure on China’s incoming leadership to stand
up to the United States. Nationalistic voices are calling for military countermeasures to the
bolstering of America’s military posture in the region and the new U.S. defense strategic
guidelines. For example, an article published in China’s Global Times, a jingoistic newspaper
owned by the Communist Party mouthpiece People’s Daily, called for China to strengthen its longrange strike capabilities.¶ Deng Xiaoping’s guideline to keep a low profile in the international
arena, designed more than two decades ago to cope with uncertainty produced by the collapse of
the Soviet bloc, is increasingly seen by China’s elite and public as irrelevant and even harmful to
the task of defending Chinese ever-expanding “core interests.” Some voices are calling for closer
alignment with Moscow and promoting the BRICS grouping (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) as a
new “pole” in the international arena to strengthen the emerging powers against the West.¶ Xi
Jinping, who will assume the helm as China’s new leader later this year, will be under pressure
from many domestic constituencies to more forcefully defend Chinese interests in the
international arena. Seeking to quickly consolidate his power and enhance the legitimacy of the
Communist Party, Xi and his newly installed Politburo Standing Committee colleagues may be
more willing than their predecessors to test drive a policy that is more confrontational.
Immigration
No- 2016 & Poison Pill
GOP win doesn’t cause CIR- poison pills and 2016 ensure
Tomasky ‘14
Michael is a columnist at the Daily Beast, “Here’s what Happens when the GOP Takes Over the Senate,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/30/here-s-what-happens-when-the-gop-takes-overthe-senate.html , kk
This circles us back to immigration. It seems far more likely that rather than pass a bill Obama could
happily sign, Republicans would pass one he’d rather not sign—one without a path to citizenship, say—and
box him in politically. “You could come up with an immigration reform that Obama would have a very hard time vetoing,” Norquist argues.
“DREAMers, border security, STEM, and legal status. If you’re Obama, do you really want to say no to that?”¶ Frank Sharry, executive director of
the pro-immigration reform America’s Voice, thinks that “the Republican dream of passing an immigration bill that puts Democrats in a pickle is
a fantasy,” in large part because there
are too many divisions within the GOP on the issue, divisions that will
only be highlighted as their presidential contenders take center stage. Sharry might be right about that. But
McConnell is nothing if not cagey. If he wins re-election and becomes majority leader, we can be sure he’ll think of plenty of ways to try to force
Obama to accept GOP priorities, especially on budgetary matters, or issue a veto that would be difficult for some red-state Democrats to
defend.
A2: Want to Help Prez Candidate
GOP Senate won’t care about 2016 nominee- self-interest
Tomasky ‘14
Michael is a columnist at the Daily Beast, “Here’s what Happens when the GOP Takes Over the Senate,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/30/here-s-what-happens-when-the-gop-takes-overthe-senate.html , kk
But remember this: Legislators
don’t take votes thinking about their presidential candidate’s career. They take
votes thinking about their own careers, as Third Way’s Jim Kessler observes: “Congressional Republicans will do
what they think is best for them to keep their majority in the House and the Senate. Legislative bodies are selfish, and they
rarely sacrifice for others. They’d like a Republican president, but that’s a luxury.”¶ That’s exactly right. To return to
Gingrich: He decided that passing welfare reform was in his caucus’ interest. Doing so took a big club out
of Bob Dole’s hands. But that’s politics. Now, in the present day, passing immigration reform would probably help a
GOP nominee. But legislators would have to decide: Would it help them? So far they haven’t thought so.
Legislators will do what they think will help them. If it helps the nominee, great. If it doesn’t, too bad. And remember, many of these
legislators represent deep-red districts and states, which probably don’t add up to more than 200
electoral votes—70 shy of what it takes to win.¶
China Decoupled
US is no Longer alone in the Global Economy
Keane, 14
Tom writes regularly for the Globe, “World economy no longer hangs on the US”, The Boston Globe, June 27, 2014,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/12/world-economy-longerhangs/GRC0rfo0QP2YT5q4qpFw8L/story.html NA
When the United States sneezes, the world catches a cold. And when America recovers, the planet has
a spring in its step. Or so it used to be. For decades, that metaphor had seemed an accurate description of the global economy.
The old USSR may have once shared superpower status with the United States, but that was a function of nuclear weapons, a well-armed
military, and a bombastic attitude. When it came to economic matters, however, there had been — at least since World War II’s end — only
one true superpower. If that superpower was doing well, its success lifted the rest of the world. If it hit a recession, the world would suffer. That
shouldn’t surprise. The United States had by far the biggest slice of the global pie. If Americans weren’t buying, then no one else was selling. In
2008, the United States did more than sneeze. As the
Great Recession unfolded and financial markets threatened
collapse, it appeared to some that a near-fatal illness had struck the country. And sure enough, the
rest of the world had it tough, too. Global economic growth fell. Some countries — notably China —
continued to perform well, but most everyone else was hit hard. Now, however, it appears that
America is getting back on its feet, its economy about to surge. Granted, we’ve heard this story before.
The recession officially ended in June 2009, according the National Bureau of Economic Research. But
growth since then has been anemic, with stubbornly high unemployment, tepid job creation, and largely flat
incomes. But — really! — 2014 promises to be different. The March jobs report, for example, showed 192,000 new positions created. The US
economy seems to be emerging from its winter doldrums, shaking off government shutdowns, sequestration, and tax hikes. Economists from all
over the spectrum increasingly agree that this year should be a good year. So now that the United States appears poised to bounce back, does
the world bounce back as well? The International Monetary Fund says yes — it expects the US revival to translate to global revival. The fund’s
World Economic Outlook, just released this month, figures worldwide economic activity will grow in 2014 by 3.6 percent (up from 2013’s 3.0
percent) and in 2015 by 3.9 percent. “Much of the impetus” for that, the IMF says, is “coming from advanced economies” — namely, the United
States. So the metaphor still holds. We matter. We really do matter. But perhaps not as much as we once did.
The US economy is big,
but relatively speaking, not as big as it once was. Thirty years ago, America accounted for one-quarter
of world output. Today it’s down to one-fifth. That’s a meaningful change. Back then we were rich,
and everyone else was much less so. Now those countries — especially China — have gotten better
off. (In fact, China, with a 15 percent share of global output, is now the second biggest economy in the
world.) Some might see this as a sign of failure, of other nations getting the best of America, of the United States in decline. In truth, it’s a
tale of success, a story of nations and people coming out of poverty, being able to live better, longer, and more productive lives. And much of
that can be credited to US efforts to encourage free trade and local economic development through institutions such as the World Bank, the
IMF, and the World Trade Organization. Still, that success has downsides.
As other nations get richer and the world gets
more interconnected, the United States no longer goes it alone. Indeed, that’s already happening —
and sometimes in a negative way. The IMF’s otherwise sunny outlook, for instance, worries about a host of issues that could upend
growth, including Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, global climate change, North Korean war-mongering, and political troubles in Turkey and the
Middle East.
For the United States, once seemingly in control of its own and the world’s destiny, that’s a
novel proposition. The future is no longer solely in our hands.
Econ Collapse No War
Economic decline no war
Jaroslav 10
(Tir Jaroslav, Ph.D. in Political Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and is an Associate Professor in the Department of
International Affairs at the University of Georgia. The Journal of Politics, “Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial
Conflict”, 2010, Volume 72: 413-425, Hopkins)
Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The finding that poor economic
performance is associated with a higher likelihood of territorial conflict initiation is significant only in
Models 3–4.14 The weak results are not altogether surprising given the findings from prior literature. In
accordance with the insignificant relationships of Models 1–2 and 5–6, Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood that a
U.S. President will use force is uncertain, as the bad economy might create incentives both to divert the public’s
attention with a foreign adventure and to focus on solving the economic problem, thus reducing the inclination to
act abroad. Similarly, Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998) find no relation between a poor
economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude that the conflict-initiating
behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is unrelated to economic conditions as do Pickering and Kisangani
(2005) and Russett and Oneal (2001) in global studies. In contrast and more in line with my findings of a significant relationship (in
Models 3–4), Hess and Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions are linked with forceful action by an incumbent U.S.
president. Furthermore, Fordham’s (2002) revision of Gowa’s (1998) analysis shows some effect of a bad economy and DeRouen and Peake
(2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts the public’s attention from a poor economy. Among cross-national studies, Oneal and Russett (1997)
report that slow growth increases the incidence of militarized disputes, as does Russett (1990)—but only for the United States; slow growth
does not affect the behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some significant associations, but they are sensitive to
model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between economic underperformance and increased attacks on domestic
ethnic minorities. While none of these works has focused on territorial diversions, my own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit well
with the mixed results reported in the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong support via the unpopularity variable but only weak
support via the economic growth variable. These
results suggest that embattled leaders are much more likely to
respond with territorial diversions to direct signs of their unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general
background conditions such as economic malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing the
economy would take a more concerted and prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal
territorial confrontations. This implies that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when they are the
most desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule and by more systemic problems plaguing the
country (i.e., an underperforming economy).
A2: Hegemony
Immigration doesn’t solve aging crisis
Krikorian ‘14
Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and an NRO contributor.
“Immigration: The Wrong Way to Address the Challenges of an Aging Society” National Review Online
6/28/14 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381406/immigration-wrong-way-address-challengesaging-society-mark-krikorian , HR
Over on the homepage my colleague Steven Camarota writes about the findings of a new report he coauthored showing the terrible
employment situation among native-born Americans. The key finding is that, in the last 14 years, nearly 17 million immigrants have settled in
the country and yet there has been no net gain in employment for the native-born – the overall number of native-born Americans with jobs is
actually slightly smaller today than in 2000 despite significant population growth. What modest job growth there has been has all — all – gone
to immigrants. This certainly undermines the argument that immigration creates job opportunities for natives. One thing Steve doesn’t mention
immigration doesn’t solve the chief challenge of an aging population, namely
that there will be fewer workers for each non-worker. Steve has made this point before here, here, and here. In the new
in the homepage article is that
report he points out that moving even a relatively modest portion of the enormous number of working-age (16 to 65) people who aren’t
working into jobs is a far more effective way of improving the ratio of workers to non-workers than is new immigration. The report explains:
Because immigrants mostly arrive young and want to work, the argument is often made that
immigration increases the ratio of workers to non-workers, helping to pay for government and
improving economic growth. Of course, for this to be true immigrants have to actually work; simply
being in the country or of working-age does not improve the share of the population that are workers.
In the first quarter of 2014, 46.2 percent (144.3 million) of the nation’s total non-institutionalized population of 312.3 million worked. If we
remove all of the 16.8 million post-2000 immigrants and their 3.8 million U.S.-born children, 46.3 percent of the population is working. This
means that
immigration in the last 14 years has actually slightly reduced the share of the population
that is comprised of workers. One reason immigration over the last 14 years did not improve the share of the population that are
workers is that only 55 percent of post-2000 immigrants actually had a job in 2014. This fact, coupled with the children they had after they
arrived, who are all too young to work, means that immigration increases the number of workers and the number of non-workers in roughly
equal proportions. By comparison, every one million persons already in the country shifted from not working to working, increased the share of
the population that is comprised of workers by 0.3 percentage points. Moving even one million people already here into jobs has a much larger
impact than the last 14 years of immigration because it moves people out of one category (non-worker) to another category (worker) —
thereby increasing the numerator but not the denominator. Immigrants, on the other hand, arrive at all ages, and, as with any human
population, some work and some do not. This is the takeaway: If
we are concerned about not having enough workers to
grow the economy or to pay for government, then moving some of the tens of millions of working-age
people already here who are not working into jobs is a much more effective way of improving the
ratio of workers to non-workers than is immigration.
Aging Crisis Exaggerated
Whitson ‘11
Lucy attended Trinity College and studied Social Sciences. “The ‘ageing crisis’ thesis is exaggerated.
Critically discussed”, Undergraduate Awards/Scribd 6/28/14
http://www.scribd.com/doc/104290973/The-ageing-crisis-thesis-is-exaggerated-Critically-discuss , HR
As alarming as this prospect sounds while it is logical and may present problems this thesis appears to be somewhat exaggerated. There
has
been much research carried out in this area and a considerable body of literature available on
thistopic much of which finds fault with statistical data on which this argument is based and refutes
the main problems which the ‘ageing crisis’ presents while evidence is put forward to show that we
do not need to worry about an ageing crisis
that we may in actual fact benefit from an ageing population. Demographic
Indicators The
first reason why the ‘ageing crisis’ theory is exaggerated is the shaky statistics from which
this argument stems. The ageing crisis is based on transitions in demographic trends from high birth and
death rates to low birth and death rates. This transition is as a result of decreasing mortality rates, lower fertility rates
alongside increasing life expectancy which together result in increasing dependency ratios. Based on these statistics the ageing
crisis is presented as inevitable. However, when you look at the statistics in detail they are based on a
number of unguaranteed assumptions about fertility, mortality and net migration levels which are
only assumptions not guarantees that have proven to be wrong in the past. New diseases may emerge or re-emerge influencing
mortality rates. Fertility rates do not have a great record of accuracy and a small change in fertility rates can have a sizable impact on the pace
of ageing. Fertility rates are viewed as especially hard to predict due to a complex interaction of a number of forces such as family-friendly
policies, laws affecting abortion, contraception or increased nationalism, the effects of which were seen after 9/11 with increases in
fertility(Gee, 2002, p. 751). The same can be said for dependency ratios which depicts the numerical relationship between the number of
people of working age and the number of people assumed to be economically dependent based on their age. This equation assumes that
certain age groups are either productive or dependent leaving out unemployment, illness or those in employment after sixty-five (Timonen,
2008, p. 91). It is argued by some that this assumption creates a false relationship between those who are dependent and those who are not
ignoring the dichotomy of interdependence and reciprocity (Gee, 2002, p. 753).Demographic indicators also leave out some important
elements. The dependency ratio doesn’t take into account the contributions of older people to society. Although a very small minority, some
people over sixty-five do remain in employment after they become eligible for retirement. The vast majority contribute in other ways through
voluntary work, care work grandparenthood, unpaid work or the redistribution of resources to younger family members(Timonen, 2008, p. 92).
In addition, while there is too much emphasis on the old age dependency ratio, the total and youth
dependency ratio also need to be taken into account, as 3 the youth and old age dependency ratios
have a counterbalancing effect on the total dependency ratio. For example, in Canada in 1951 there was a total
dependency ratio of 0.83.By 2041 the old age dependency ratio is expected to increase by .32 whilst the youth dependency ratio is estimated to
drop by .33 resulting in an actual decrease in the total dependency ratio (Gee, 2002, p. 752). In Germany this pattern is expected to lead to a
reduction in social expenditure by 2040 as ‘the rise in the cost of programs for older people is at least partly and may be totally offset by
declines in the cost of supporting fewer children’ (Mulllan, 2000, p. 120). Dependency ratios also fail to take into account growth in the
economy which is linked with the final problem of the influence of non-demographic factors, which is addressed in the next section of this
essay. Non-demographic Factors Non-demographic factors have been shown to take precedence over demographic factors and so the ageing
crisis predictions often p rove to be exaggerated as a result. ‘Non -demographic forces could easily be more important... than demographic
ones in their effects’ (Northcott, 1994, p. 68). Economic growth is seen as the most significant factor which will provide for an older population.
Labour market forces outweigh demographic ones with unemployment and rising economic inactivity being twice more influential even more
so when the shift from full-time to part-time work is factored in (Mullan, 2000, p. 125). Net inward migration, often associated with economic
growth, also influences ageing demographics generally by also increasing the proportion of the working-age population (Vincent, 1996, p.
14).Time bombs Second,
t he ‘ageing crisis’ thesis also seems to be exaggerated when you look at the
major problems of this approaching time bomb in detail. The ‘ageing crisis’ proposes that due to changing demographics
social expenditure will increase dramatically developing into an ‘unaffordable burden’ especially in the areas of pensions and he alth. However,
when this proposition is further analysed, this does not appear to be the case. To begin with, there
is a weak, if any, correlation
between population ageing and social expenditure with research by Castle concluding that there is ‘no apparen t
association between changes in age structure and in total social security spending’ ( cited in Kinnear, 2001, p. 15). This can be clearly seen in the
case of Japan. Although Japan is a prime example of a country with a high proportion of older people, its social expenditure as a proportion of
GDP sits comfortably at only 14.4%. In contrast, in Denmark where population ageing is moderate it has social expenditure is as high as 30.5%
of GDP (Kinnear, 2001, p. 15). Within the social security budget the proportion of spending on the pensions has not risen with the growth in the
numbers of older people (Mullan, 2000, p. 146). Linked with this is the fact already highlighted above that non-demographic factors take
precedence over demographic factors especially in the area of social expenditure. Whilst average pension spending in OECD countries doubled,
only one quarter of this spending is attributed to demographic changes with the remainder being associated with increases in benefits and
widening eligibility (Mullan, 2000, p. 153).Similar to the problems with statistics the link between social expenditure and an ageing population is
based on a number of questionable assumptions. It
is assumed that health care costs increase with age and that an
increasing older population is leading to more expensive health care systems. However, this is untrue.
While a quarter of lifetime healthcare costs are attributed to the last year of life this does not increase
with age if anything this decreases as older people tend to be treated less extensively (Healy, 2004, p. vii). Research in Australia has shown
that it is not a larger ageing population that increases health care costs but numerous other supply side factors such as the expansion of
medical technology and 5 pharmaceuticals, rising consumer demand and escalating prices. Between 1983 and 1995health expenditure in
Australia grew by 2.8%. However, only 0.6% of this was attributed to ageing (Kinnear, 2001, p. vii). These assumptions stem from stereotypical
views of our over sixty-fives as economically dependent, ill or disabled people to whom all our social expenditure is devoted. In reality this is
not the case. T oday’s older population are diverse, while 10% are poor (Gee, 2002, p. 753) many are ‘Woopies’ ‘well off older people’ (Mullan,
2000, p. 139). Elderly people are not only living longer but are staying fit and healthy for longer as a result of morbidity compression. Only one
in twenty of those over sixty five in Britain need to be institutionalised and as many as half of those over eighty-five are fully independent
(Mullan, 2000, p. 183). Older people are also twice more likely to be providers rather than recipients of help
(Healy, 2004, p. 19). It is also important to take note of the effect of the balancing out of any added expenditure on older people by decreases
on expenditure on the young cohorts of our population. Decreases in the younger cohorts of our population diminishes the pool of younger
workers increasing the share of employment held by mature workers while also decreasing the unemployment rate, so savings made on
unemployment benefit balance out any additional spending on our ageing population (Kinnear, 2001, p. vii). In relation to health expenditure
not only are the youngest sectors of our populations decreasing in numbers but they are also healthier than ever, requiring less health care and
expenditure than in previous years (Mullan, 2000).Finally and of utmost importance in the area of social expenditure particularly in the area of
pensions, as societies, we can plan ahead and put measures in place to deal with any increases in our population of older people to ensure
there is no crisis increase in social expenditure. As Timonen (2008) points out, different systems have different ramifications. For example, 6
Australian academics see no concern in the area of pensions as they are prepared ‘Future income retirement needs should not be a major
concern in Australia given that ‘ a sound income system, projected growth of superannuation, assets and accumulation of private savings will
ensure ... adequate retirement incomes’ (Healy, 2004, p. viii). Societies can
reform their pensions system in preparation
for population ageing by, for example, -increasing the size of the labour market, decreasing eligibility
and level of payment encouraging privatisation or changing the type of pension system we use.Ageing is
not only a social expenditure issue but also an economic issue- impinging on all aspects of economic performance affecting ‘the way we work
and produce, spend and save,invest, inherit and bequeath’ (Mullan, 2000, p. 196).
Hegemony Inevitable
U.S. Hegemony inevitable
White ‘13
Thomas White is a Global Academic Fellow at NYU Shanghai, focusing on writing. He has a BA and MA in
politics and international affairs from New York University and plans to attend law school beginning in
the fall of 2014, “Why US Hegemony Is Here To Say” Huffington Post 6/28/14
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-white/why-us-hegemony-is-here-t_b_4258264.html ,HR
Reports foretelling the end of U.S. hegemony rely on raw data, when it is international relationships that truly undergird world superpowers.
No economic, military, and public opinion formula will decide the world's next global hegemon. These components matter--but not without
international legitimacy, as derived from, and defined by, a global coalition of the willing. It
is here that the U.S. reigns supreme.
The U.S. has won over, however begrudgingly, the international community as a whole. And until this
allegiance to the U.S. breaks down, she will remain the absolute world superpower. The U.S. wields a
power of influence, persuasion, and leadership on the international stage that no other state comes
close to. She sets international law, ignores international law, and is accountable to no one. China, while
clearly jockeying for authority and power, does not yet have legitimacy. Still, the dogged sentiment of declining U.S. authority remains. China
predicts its economy will overtake that of the U.S. by 2019. But the likes of the U.K., France, Germany, Japan, etc. will not simply turn around
and support China the moment its GDP crosses some arbitrary threshold. Rich, industrialized nations are not about to live in an international
system dictated by Chinese rule. The U.S. and China will engage in plenty of power struggles in the coming decades--but it is unlikely that China
will challenge U.S. authority and garner support from the world's industrialized nations. The
U.S., regardless of its failings,
rightfully holds firmly its influence over world values, and will do so indefinitely, regardless of its
economic and military strength in relation to China. Amidst economic crises and an embarrassing era of
political dysfunction (See: government shutdown), the U.S. remains the world's only superpower. An upheaval
of the international power dynamic, in this century, requires more than economic or military might. It
requires democratic values, respectable allies, and an appreciation of human rights. And until China can
pass these tests, the U.S. is in no danger of losing its allies or influence.
TPP
A2: TPA Key
TPA irrelevant- trade is partisan either way
Watson ‘13
K. William is a Trade Policy Analyst at CATO, “Stay Off the Fast Track: Why Trade Promotion Authority is
Wrong for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/stayfast-track-why-trade-promotion-authority-wrong-trans-pacific , kk
There are a lot of myths about what fast track is and how it works. A grant of trade promotion authority establishes an
agreement between Congress and the president over how trade agreements should be negotiated and ratified. Both the president and
Congress take on obligations. Congress agrees to hold an up-or-down vote on trade agreements submitted by the president within established
time limits. In exchange for this promise, the president agrees to consult with congressional leaders throughout the negotiations and to adopt a
variety of negotiating objectives dictated by Congress.2¶ After negotiations are completed, the “fast track” component of trade promotion
authority kicks in. Under the 2002 Trade Promotion Act, the president was required to notify Congress 90 days before signing any agreement.
Then the president would submit the agreement to each house of Congress in the form of a bill implementing the treaty’s obligations. The
House and Senate then had a total of 90 days to pass the bill out of committee and hold a floor vote.3 During this time, no amendments could
be attached to the bill, and Senate filibuster rules didn’t apply.¶ Trade promotion authority can be very helpful in securing ratification and
implementation of trade agreements. By simplifying and streamlining the approval process, and by giving congressional leaders influence over
the negotiations from the beginning, trade promotion authority greatly reduces the potential for unhelpful disruption by Congress after an
agreement is completed. The procedural restrictions prevent the agreement from being picked apart by every member of Congress whose
district is home to an uncompetitive business.¶ Indeed many proponents of trade promotion authority claim that fast track is necessary to get
trade agreements through Congress, and with good reason. Trade historian Craig VanGrasstek notes that between 1789 and 1933, the
president submitted 27 tariff reduction treaties to the Senate for ratification, and only five of those were approved.4 Most of those that did not
pass died after the Senate simply refused to hold a vote on them. Trade promotion authority removes that possibility.¶
The benefits of
trade promotion authority, however, come with a substantial cost. Congress generally sees trade
promotion authority as a way not only to expedite the passage of trade agreements but also to
influence their content.5 Any agreement that receives fast track treatment is expected to conform to
demands imposed by Congress in the trade promotion authority statute.¶ The 2002 Trade Promotion Act, in
particular, laid out extensive and detailed negotiating objectives. Topics covered in the objectives included investment protection, intellectual
property laws, administrative law, labor law, and environmental protection.6 These objectives are mostly export-oriented and reflect the
interests of certain U.S. business interests in foreign markets. Their
inclusion may garner additional political support for
the agreement, but they also attract opposition.¶ Most importantly, achieving these negotiating goals will not liberalize trade.
Nevertheless, these non-trade issues are often the most politically contentious aspect of trade agreements.
At the same time, they distract negotiators from the legitimate goal of lowering U.S. trade barriers and fighting protectionism.¶ Trade
Promotion Authority Is Unnecessary ¶ The conventional wisdom, among trade advocates and opponents alike, is that fast track is necessary to
get agreements through Congress. But the most recent experiences with trade promotion authority following the Democratic takeover of the
House of Representatives in 2007 aptly demonstrate how ineffective it can be. At the same time, trade
policy has become
increasingly partisan in recent decades so that trade promotion authority is now neither necessary
nor sufficient to pass free trade agreements.¶ Partisan Congress¶ In theory, trade promotion authority works well to enable
the president to pursue an ambitious trade policy despite a typically trade-skeptic Congress. The negotiating objectives Congress includes in
trade promotion authority serve as politically necessary restrictions on the president’s power to open the U.S. market. According to
conventional wisdom, accepting the need for a watered-down agreement in advance is the only way to avoid having an agreement rejected or
delayed after years of difficult negotiations.¶ But
support for and opposition to free trade agreements has become
especially predictable and partisan over the last few decades. Indeed, the trade policy divide in Congress may be more
partisan now than at any time since the 1920s, when protectionist Republicans imposed high tariffs that helped plunge the country into
economic depression and war. Today, anti-trade
sentiment has become quite powerful within the Democratic
Party. The Republican Party, while certainly not dominated by free traders, is strongly committed to reciprocal liberalization through trade
agreements.¶ The result of this dynamic is that trade agreements are passed largely along party lines, regardless of
what’s in them. For example, the last time there was a Democrat in the White House and Republicans in charge of Congress, controversy
over labor and environment issues prevented Congress from approving fast-track legislation for President Clinton in 1998 despite support from
Republican leadership. But while Republicans opposed including strong labor and environment objectives in a grant of fast track authority to a
Democratic president in 1998, they had no trouble approving three agreements in 2011 that included such provisions.
Democrats will Vote for TPP
Democrats will end up voting for TPP
Watson ‘13
K. William is a Trade Policy Analyst at CATO, “Stay Off the Fast Track: Why Trade Promotion Authority is
Wrong for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” http://www.cato.org/publications/free-trade-bulletin/stayfast-track-why-trade-promotion-authority-wrong-trans-pacific , kk
All in all, the president’s attitude toward trade promotion authority demonstrates a keener interest in trade politics than trade policy. That is,
President Obama sees the trade policy debate and ongoing international negotiations as a tool for managing political constituencies, not as part
of a genuine agenda to liberalize trade. There’s little reason to believe, therefore, that the president will negotiate a TPP agreement that lacks
the support necessary to succeed even without trade promotion authority. ¶ With this political dynamic at work in Washington, trade
promotion authority is simply not as important as its supporters claim it to be. Republicans will vote for
the TPP because it is a free trade agreement. Many Democrats will oppose it for the same reason, but partisanship and
active lobbying from the White House will push plenty of them to support President Obama’s politically
palatable signature trade initiative.
Japan Won’t Agree
No deal- Japan Won’t agree
White 14
Stanley is a correspondent on the Money, Politics and General News team in Japan, “Japan has not
narrowed trade differences with U.S., negotiator says”, Reuters.com, June 25, 2014,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/22/us-japan-usa-trade-talks-idUSBREA3L0HG20140422 NA
Japanese officials said on Tuesday there was still a significant way to go before reaching a broad
agreement on trade with the United States, a day before President Barack Obama visits for a summit. A
U.S.-Japan agreement is critical to the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a 12-nation grouping that
would stretch from Asia to Latin America. A TPP deal is central to Obama's policy of expanding the U.S.
presence in Asia. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has also touted the TPP as a main element of his
economic strategy to increase growth and shake off years of stagnation. As the talks dragged on over
recent days, officials from both sides played down the chance of reaching an agreement before
Obama's visit. But the longer the standoff goes on, the more doubt could grow about prospects for
the trade pact. "We still have a lot of issues left to discuss," Japan's Deputy Chief Negotiator Hiroshi Oe
told reporters. "In these circumstances, I cannot say that we have narrowed our differences." Oe
spoke after talks with U.S. Acting Deputy Trade Representative Wendy Cutler in Tokyo about trade
terms for the TPP. Breaking a U.S.-Japan deadlock over access to Japan's farm and auto markets is seen
as key to finalizing the TPP. The United States wants Japan to open its rice, beef and pork, dairy, and
sugar markets - politically powerful sectors that Abe has vowed to defend. Japan wants a timetable on
U.S. promises to drop tariffs of 2.5 percent on imports of passenger cars and 25 percent on light
trucks. Gaps remain over the size of cuts in tariffs on beef and pork as well, Japanese media have
reported. Japanese Economics Minister Akira Amari also acknowledged that the many hours of
negotiations had not narrowed the gap with the United States. The two countries will likely announce a
strong bond at a summit between Abe and Obama this week, Amari said. Obama is scheduled to be in
Tokyo until Friday. A final deal, however, could be much further off. TPP negotiators are due to
reconvene in Vietnam in mid-May and trade ministers will meet at an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation
gathering in China that month.
A2: GOP Moderates Impacts
A2: GOP Passes Things
GOP win means they pass nothing- makes them think obstructionism works
Tomasky ‘14
Michael is a columnist at the Daily Beast, “Here’s what Happens when the GOP Takes Over the Senate,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/30/here-s-what-happens-when-the-gop-takes-overthe-senate.html , kk
Let’s start with the bleak view. “If
the Republicans win the Senate,” says Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise
Institute, “the conclusion they’re going to draw is ‘obstruction works,’ and they’re going to double down
on it. So they’ll be thinking, ‘Why go out of our way to do stuff and why compromise when in two years we can win it all?’”¶ Ornstein’s frequent
collaborator, Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution, thinks that while it should make sense that Republicans eyeing a 2016 White House
win would want to have some accomplishments to point to, we shouldn’t bet on it. “The
interests of the party in ’16 are clear,
but whether that proves sufficient to produce something positive out of the Republicans in Congress is a
big reach,” says Mann. “They almost have an incentive to keep the economy going at a more tepid rate.”¶
A2: 1994 Analogy
1994 analogy fails- GOP far more conservative
Tomasky ‘14
Michael is a columnist at the Daily Beast, “Here’s what Happens when the GOP Takes Over the Senate,”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/30/here-s-what-happens-when-the-gop-takes-overthe-senate.html , kk
Having such a conversation couldn’t hurt. Bill Clinton is sitting on a library full of good political advice, and Obama should probably call him
more often. But whether
the Clinton-Gingrich model could be so easily transferred to Obama-Boehner—or,
a wide open question. The parties are more dug in now than they were 15, 18 years ago, especially the
Republicans. And they would probably think, as Norm Ornstein noted above, why should they play ball with 2016 coming?
The best thing for them to do—in political terms, that is, albeit not for the country—is dig in, and drag down
Obama’s poll numbers.¶ This would be the most effective way to harm Hillary Clinton, assuming she’s the
Democratic choice in ’16. Says Bill Galston: “The most significant thing they can do to harm Hillary Clinton is to keep
Obama’s approval numbers down. If you are running to succeed a two-term incumbent from your own
party, you are in some sense running for his third term.Ӧ
Lord help us, Obama-Cantor—is