*** Midterms DA ***
TOC
*** Midterms DA *** ...................................................................................................................... 1
TOC .................................................................................................................................................. 2
1NC Shell.......................................................................................................................................... 3
*** Uniqueness Extensions *** ...................................................................................................... 7
UQ: Reps will win senate now ......................................................................................................... 8
UQ: Democrats Enthusiasm Low Now........................................................................................... 12
*** Link Extensions *** ................................................................................................................ 15
L: Plan is popular with the public ...................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
*** Internal Link Extensions *** ................................................................................................... 23
IL: Popular policies mean Dems win midterms ............................................................................. 24
IL: Republicans will block regulations ............................................................................................ 26
IL: Small issues are key .................................................................................................................. 27
IL: Environmental Lobby Key ......................................................................................................... 29
General .................................................................................................................................. 30
Donations .............................................................................................................................. 31
IL: Obama’s approval ratings key .................................................................................................. 33
IL: Young Voters Key .......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
IL: Voter Turnout Key .................................................................................................................... 35
IL: Obama will bargain with republicans ....................................................................................... 37
IL: Republican senate = good immigration reforms ..................................................................... 45
*** Impact Extensions *** ............................................................................................................ 39
Impact Overview ........................................................................................................................... 40
Impact: EPA regulations kill econ .................................................................................................. 42
Impact: Leadership ........................................................................................................................ 45
2NC/1NR Answers ......................................................................................................................... 59
AT: Obamacare kills democrats ..................................................................................................... 60
AT: EPA regulations solve global warming. ................................................................................... 62
*** 2AC Answers *** .................................................................................................................... 66
1NC Shell
a) Republicans likely to regain control of the Senate now
Zachary A. Goldfarb – 5/9 (staff writer) WASHINGTON POST. May 9, 2014.
Retrieved May 17, 2014
from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-warns-democrats-that-midterms-could-imperilhis-agenda--and-america/2014/05/09/0b37c6ae-d655-11e3-95d3-3bcd77cd4e11_story.html
Left dangling at the end of each of his fundraisers was a basic question: How are he and the Democrats going to pull it off this
Polls and forecasting models show Democrats at high risk of losing control of the
Senate, and with almost no chance of capturing the House.
November?
b) The public overwhelmingly supports protecting the oceans.
Alex Brylske - 2006 (Oceans for Youth Foundation). 2006. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.oceansforyouth.org/whats-that/ftr1201.html
In all the recent focus on public awareness, there are also some hopeful signs. Another marine advocacy and information group
A
growing consensus among marine experts is that the most important and effective step that
we can take in marine conservation is setting aside 10-20 percent of the sea as fully protected,
no-take reserves (or what many are now calling "marine wilderness areas"). Clearly, to make this ambitious goal a reality
will require public support. Perhaps the best news of all is that there appears to be
widespread support for such a policy. Here's what Seaweb found out. First, 87 percent of those surveyed
considered the health of the ocean "somewhat to very important" (almost 60 percent said
"very"). And almost six in 10 viewed the health of the oceans as negative (although, alarmingly, more than one-fourth responded
affiliated with the Pew Charitable Trust, Seaweb, studied attitudes toward establishing marine protected areas (MPAs).
that ocean health was good to excellent).
c) The plan will create a rallying effect for the Democrats:
Leigh Ann Caldwell – 4/16 (CNN reporter) Apr. 16, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.kcra.com/politics/2014-midterms-What-s-at-stake/25496204
Democrats looking for something to rally around: Democrats are working to do everything
possible to motivate their base. A March CBS News poll found that while 70% of Republicans
are excited to vote only 58% of Democrats are. The enthusiasm gap doesn't bode well for
Democrats who are well aware that Democratic voters are less likely to vote in nonpresidential election years.
d) A Republican Senate will block Obama’s EPA regulations.
CORAL DAVENPORT – 1/14 (staff writer) Apr. 14, 2014. NEW YORK TIMES.
Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/us/politics/political-rifts-slow-us-effort-on-climatelaws.html?_r=0
In the absence of action from Congress, Mr. Obama has taken controversial measures to
counter climate change; he has already used his executive authority under the Clean Air Act to
create Environmental Protection Agency regulations that will slash greenhouse gas pollution
from cars and coal-fired power plants.¶ During this year’s midterm election campaigns,
Republicans have used carbon-control policies as a political weapon, calling Mr. Obama’s
E.P.A. rules a “war on coal.” The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, who is running
for re-election in the coal-heavy state of Kentucky, has vowed to use every legislative tactic
available to block, repeal or delay those rules if Republicans win control of the Senate this fall.
f) EPA regulations won’t work and will wreck the economy
Richard W. Rahn - 2011 (senior fellow at the Cato Institute) WASHINGTON TIMES, JAN. 25, 2011.
Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from Lexis/Nexis.
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, as a result, has been holding
will cause a significant drop in U.S.
economic growth and job creation, yet it will have no measurable benefit. China, India and
many other countries are rapidly increasing CO2 emissions, overwhelming whatever actions
the United States may take. Even if all new CO2 emissions were stopped globally, it would be
decades before there would be even a minor effect on global temperatures. Now, new
research is indicating that sunspot activity is much more important than CO2 when it comes to
influencing the earth's temperature. The EPA ban is nothing more than national economic suicide. Let us
up the permitting of new power and manufacturing plants. If this continues, it
see if Mr. Obama has the courage to tell the EPA to stop.
g) Economic decline undermines US leadership and causes a nuclear war
Khalilzad ’11 Zalmay was the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the United
Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush and the director of policy planning at the
Defense Department from 1990 to 1992, “ The Economy and National Security”, 2-8-11,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/259024, MCR
economic and fiscal trends pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as
global leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are developing rapidly. The
continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar
global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great
Today,
powers . The current recession is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was
preceded by the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP — and the development of
credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The
decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S. government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent
of GDP in three years. Without faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If interest rates were
to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out other spending or require substantial tax increases that
the United States
would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations, precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis
that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally.
would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt,
Such scenarios would reshape the international order . It was the economic devastation of Britain and France
during World War II, as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s,
British leaders concluded that they lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev,
contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to fragment. If the U.S. debt problem
the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding
international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though
countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing
faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long
term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a
goes critical,
question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The closing of the gap
could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers , increase
incentives for local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to
preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of escalation . The
between the United States and its rivals
stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has been the
era of U.S. leadership . By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive
dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of
multi-polar international systems produced both world wars . American retrenchment could
have devastating consequences . Without an American security blanket, regional powers
could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a
heightened possibility of arms races , miscalc ulation, or other crises spiraling into all-out
conflict . Alternatively, in seeking to accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift
their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile states would be emboldened
to make aggressive moves in their regions.
*** Uniqueness Extensions ***
UQ: Reps will win senate now
Extend the Goldfarb 5/9 evidence – there is a very high risk that democrats lose
the Senate now
Republicans are favored to win back the Senate now – democrats on defense
Leigh Ann Caldwell – 1/16 (CNN reporter) Apr. 16, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.kcra.com/politics/2014-midterms-What-s-at-stake/25496204
Republicans have their best chance of winning back
the majority since they lost it in the 2006 elections.¶ Democrats hold a 55-45 seat majority (53
Democrats and two independents who caucus with them) and could lose control of the
chamber if they drop six seats.¶ That matters because Republicans would then likely control
the House and the Senate. Government would be truly divided with President Barack Obama,
a Democrat, still in the White House. Republicans would likely pass more legislation through
Congress and the President would be forced to either allow GOP priorities to go through or
stop them in their tracks with a veto.¶ Democrats face a difficult task of maintaining their
Senate majority. Of the 36 Senate races this year (a third of the Senate is up for election every
two years), Democrats hold 21 seats. In other words, they are forced to play major defense.
Control of the Senate: That's the big story of the year.¶
Republicans are favored to re-take the Senate now – Obama’s approval is down
Nate Silver – 3/23 (political commentator for New York Times) Mar. 23, 2014. Retrieved Apr.
28, 2014 from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/
When FiveThirtyEight last issued a U.S. Senate forecast — way back in July — we concluded the race for Senate control was a tossup. That was a little ahead of the conventional wisdom at the time, which characterized the Democrats as vulnerable but more likely
Republicans are now slight
favorites to win at least six seats and capture the chamber. The Democrats’ position has
deteriorated somewhat since last summer, with President Obama’s approval ratings down to
42 or 43 percent from an average of about 45 percent before. Furthermore, as compared with
2010 or 2012, the GOP has done a better job of recruiting credible candidates, with some
exceptions.
than not to retain the chamber.¶ Our new forecast goes a half-step further: We think the
Republicans will win the senate now – numbers and experience agree
John Sides – 5/16 (Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington
University)
WASHINGTON POST, May 16, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/16/republicans-have-a-77-chance-of-takingthe-senate/
Our earliest forecast showed that Republicans were already heavily favored due to the
national landscape and the partisan complexion of the states holding Senate elections this
year. We then showed that incorporating a measure of the "quality" of the candidates -- prior
experience in elective office -- made things even more favorable to Republicans. Chris Cillizza
and I discussed that forecast here. As we would expect, Republicans are recruiting and
nominating relatively experienced and therefore more electable candidates.
Republicans have the lead in Congressional elections now but there is still room
for democrats to hold on
Larry Sabato – 1/3 (prof. political science @ University of Virginia) CHRISTIAN POST. Apr. 3, 2014.
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://www.christianpost.com/news/midterm-2014-elections-wherethings-stand-now-117356/
For the Senate, the combination of 2014's good environment and concentration of contests in
conservative territory leaves them sitting pretty. The only remaining question appears to be
whether they can gain the full six or more seats needed to capture control. In a sense,
Democrats are paying a delayed price for their 2008 sweep of key races in the upper chamber
It is very likely the Republicans will win back the Senate now.
Gene Marks – 1/8 (small business management columnist) Apr. 8, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-marks/so-what-if-the-republican_b_5109541.html
It's still very early, but that's not stopping many pundits from making their mid-term election
predictions. All 435 House seats are up for grabs and 35 seats in the Senate are in play. Most
experts agree that the Republicans will maintain a majority in the House. The big battle is in
the Senate. The race is tight. In fact, one report this week put the chances at "80 percent" that
the Republicans would win back the Senate from the Democrats this year.
Republicans have a 77% chance of winning a Senate majority now.
John Sides – 5/16 (Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington
University)
WASHINGTON POST, May 16, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/16/republicans-have-a-77-chance-of-takingthe-senate/
Our new Senate forecast gives the Republicans a 77 percent chance of a Senate majority.
That's down slightly from our previous estimate, which pegged the GOP's chances of a takeover
at 82 percent. So, what's changed?
Projections indicate the Republicans will re-take the Senate.
Nate Silver – 3/24 (political commentator for New York Times) Mar. 23, 2014.
Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/
One advantage of looking at the races on a probabilistic basis is that we can simply sum the
probabilities to come up with a projection of how the new Senate will look. That method
projects that Republicans will finish with 51 seats, a net gain of six from Democrats, and
exactly as many as they need to win control of the chamber. (Democrats will hold the Senate in
the event of a 50-50 split because of the tiebreaking vote of Vice President Joe Biden.)
Democrats are slight underdogs in the competitive Senate races now
John Sides – 5/16 (Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington
University)
WASHINGTON POST, May 16, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/16/republicans-have-a-77-chance-of-takingthe-senate/
At the same time, our forecast in the key competitive races is less optimistic for Democrats.
The model still sees Democrats as slight underdogs in Arkansas, Alaska, and Michigan. But
"slight" is the operative word.
The GOP has the advantage now
Dan Nowicki – 5/11 (staff writer) ARIZONA REPUBLIC.
May 11, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/11/democrats-face-tough-landscapemidterms/8962725/
An April 23-27 USA TODAY-Pew Research Center Poll out last week offered even better news
for Republicans. The survey's traditional midterm indicators suggest that the GOP is in its best
position in more than two decades, even better than in the 1994 midterms when the party won
both houses of Congress.
The national environment is bolstering the GOP’s chances to retake the Senate.
Seth McLaughlin – 1/23 WASHINGTON TIMES, Apr. 23, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/23/senate-races-are-close-southern-states-pollshows/
With six months to go before the 2014 midterm elections, a new poll shows that the national
political environment is working in the GOP’s favor in crucial Senate races in the South that
could decide which party controls the Senate, but that Democrats are still keeping the races
close.¶ The New York Times/Kaiser Family Foundation Southern States Poll found that
President Obama’s approval rating is in the tank in Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana and North
Carolina — four states that the GOP presidential nominee carried in the 2012 election.
Democrats are at a disadvantage in the upcoming elections.
Dan Balz – 1/21 (staff writer) THE WASHINGTON POST, Apr. 21, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/04/21/Democrats-Midterm-Challenge-Get-Out-Vote
David Nickerson, a political science professor at the University of Notre Dame who ran
experiments for Obama’s 2012 campaign, said Democrats are at a disadvantage for two
reasons. First, younger voters tend to be more mobile and harder to track. Second, many of
those who vote in presidential elections pay little attention to politics. “There is an entire
industry of generating interest in elections,” Nickerson said. “That industry is a whole lot
louder in presidential elections than midterm elections.”
Structural factors benefit the Republicans in the Senate.
Larry Sabato – 1/3 (prof. political science @ University of Virginia) CHRISTIAN POST.
Apr. 3, 2014.
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from http://www.christianpost.com/news/midterm-2014-elections-wherethings-stand-now-117356/
The same structural factors that benefit Republicans in the House also benefit them in the
Senate: The president is a Democrat, and he's not that popular. There's an added GOP bonus
for the upper chamber: arguably the best map in at least a generation. Almost all Republican
seats are reasonably safe, mainly because they are in solidly Red states, and there are some
shaky Democratic incumbents and open seats on the ballot in distinctly Red states.¶ A few weeks
ago, we wrote that the 10 Senate seats likeliest to change parties were controlled by Democrats. That analysis pre-dated, by mere
hours, the entry of Scott Brown into the New Hampshire Senate race against Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH). So now, the
Senate seats likeliest to flip are controlled by Democrats.
11
UQ: Democrats Enthusiasm Low Now
Democrats’ enthusiasm is low now – national security failures
Dan Nowicki – 5/11 (staff writer) ARIZONA REPUBLIC. May 11, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/11/democrats-face-tough-landscapemidterms/8962725/
But Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., a two-term incumbent who so far hasn't drawn a challenger
in his safe GOP district, said Democrats' worries go beyond the health-care law. An array of
issues, from the National Security Agency privacy scandal to the Obama administration's
drone policy and failure to close, as promised, the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,
have dampened the enthusiasm of the Democratic base, he said.
Democrats’ enthusiasm is down now.
Dan Nowicki – 5/11 (staff writer) ARIZONA REPUBLIC.
May 11, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/11/democrats-face-tough-landscapemidterms/8962725/
Jaime Molera, a Phoenix political consultant and strategist, said the combination of historical trends and recent developments have
"In the second term of a president, there's a lot of
fatigue," Molera, a Republican, said. "You combine a lot of the foreign-policy problems
Obama has been dealing with and the body blows that 'Obamacare' has been getting, and the
Democrats are not very fired up. And, conversely, the Republicans are very fired up.
convinced him that 2014 is shaping up as a GOP year.¶
Democrats face an enthusiasm gap now.
Rebecca Kaplan - 5/12 (staff writer) CBS NEWS,
May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-voters-less-fired-up-about-midterm-elections/
The disparity between Democratic and Republican voter excitement echoes a March CBS
News poll that found that 70 percent of Republican voters said they were enthusiastic about
voting in November, including 27 percent who said they were very enthusiastic, versus just 58
percent of Democrats who said the same. Half of all independents and four in 10 voters overall
said they were not excited.¶ That CBS News poll also found that 81 percent of Republicans said
they definitely planned to vote in November, versus just 68 percent of Democrats who gave
the same response.
Republicans’ stronger enthusiasm will give them an advantage at the polls.
Rebecca Kaplan – 5/12 (staff writer) CBS NEWS, May 12, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014
from
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-voters-less-fired-up-about-midterm-elections/
There's even a gap for Republicans, despite the possibility of taking back the Senate and putting Congress entirely under GOP
control. Just 42 percent of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning voters said they were more enthusiastic than usual, with
50 percent saying they were less enthusiastic.¶
Democrats had a much larger enthusiasm gap: Just 32
percent are more enthusiastic, and 55 percent are less.¶ Gallup notes that Republicans
benefitted from an enthusiasm advantage in 1994, 2002 and 2010, years when they either
won control of the House of Representatives or expanded their existing majority. Still, in each of
those years there were a greater percentage of voters more excited about voting than less excited.
*** Link Extensions (Plan Popular) ***
Ocean Protection
Extend the Brylske 2006 evidence – surveys indicate that American’s know the
oceans need to be protected and support doing so
Americans support ocean protection
Alex Brylske - 2006 (Oceans for Youth Foundation).
2006. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.oceansforyouth.org/whats-that/ftr1201.html
While Americans may not have a full understanding of the functions of the oceans, the
majority at least believes that they're vulnerable and can be damaged by humans. Few people
buy into the old fallacy that the sea is too vast to be harmed. A full 80 percent of Americans
reject the idea that the oceans are so large, it is unlikely that humans will cause lasting
damage to them. In fact, a majority (56 percent) disagrees strongly with this idea. Equally
encouraging is that 81 percent reject the idea that we don't need to worry about the health of
the oceans because we'll develop new technologies to keep them clean (55 percent disagree
strongly). And more than seven in 10 (72 percent) disagree that the oceans are able to clean
themselves.
More than 90% of Americans support ocean protection.
Alex Brylske – 2006 (Oceans for Youth Foundation). 2006. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.oceansforyouth.org/whats-that/ftr1201.html
Yet the most important message from Seaweb's effort is the public's resounding support for
ocean protection . More than nine out of 10 agreed that because "no one owns the sea, we
have the responsibility to preserve it and it is appropriate to restrict the activities of
individuals and companies in the ocean." The sad news is that only half of the respondents knew that the United
States even has marine sanctuaries. But when they were informed that such protected areas exist, 75 percent supported an increase
respondents supporting outlawing activities that result in
pollution, deplete marine life or damage important habitat (although more than 70 percent thought that
on restrictions within them. Specifically,
diving and snorkeling should be allowed). More than 60 percent believe more sanctuaries should be established, while only 3
percent thought that we have too many.
American support ocean conservation efforts.
Alex Brylske – 2006 (Oceans for Youth Foundation). 2006.
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.oceansforyouth.org/whats-that/ftr1201.html
the take-home message is quite clear: While Americans lack a fundamental understanding of
how the oceans operate, and exactly why they're so important, they nonetheless recognize and support ocean
conservation. Therefore, divers can serve an important role as ambassadors of the ocean, and as conduits for information.
It seems that
First, encourage your family and friends to try diving or snorkeling. The best way to create an ocean advocate is to get someone to
put on a mask. But realistically, not everyone, and not even a majority, will go to that length. Fortunately, increasing one's
knowledge and appreciation of the ocean doesn't require getting wet. There are lots of resources available to help you do an
effective job at getting the message out to the uninformed, but supportive, masses whose only association with the marine life
might be their next visit to a seafood restaurant.
Ocean protections are popular in America:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Sep. 8, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://eponline.com/articles/2011/09/08/public-opinion-research-shows-american-interest-inliving-green.aspx?admgarea=News
A new report offers insight into public opinion about the environment, including the need to
conserve and safeguard the health of our ocean.¶ "The latest research indicates that most Americans
want to be seen as 'being green'," said Bill Mott, director of The Ocean Project, the lead organization on a collaborative
market research initiative that is now the most extensive such effort ever undertaken on any environmental issue. "Americans are
looking for meaningful ways to reinforce and express this self-perception of 'green-friendliness,'
especially true among youth."
something that is
Climate change
Voters support anti-climate change initiatives and it determines their votes.
Monika Bauerlein & Clara Jeffery – 2012 (staff writers) MOTHER JONES. Dec. 3, 2012. Retrieved
May 17, 2014 from http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/12/obama-climate-congress-jobs
In a 2011 Stanford University study,
77 percent said they'd support a candidate who said climate change is real, humans are the
cause, and cleaner energy is needed. In a Yale/George Mason University poll last March,
independent voters were almost as likely as Democrats to say climate change was a key issue
in determining their vote (58 percent and 63 percent, respectively)—and even 43 percent of
Republicans felt that way. And just before Election Day, 68 percent of likely voters told
pollsters that climate change was a "serious" or "very serious" issue. In exit polls, 41 percent said
In fact, Americans are well ahead of the Savvy when it comes to climate change.
Obama's response to Sandy was an "important" or "very important" factor in their vote. Coincidence? Perhaps not: 60
percent of voters told pollsters that climate change "made Sandy worse."
Environmentalists will rally around anti-greenhouse gas initiatives.
Timothy Cama - 2014 (staff writer) Apr. 22, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/203999-earth-day-highlights-envionmental-concerns
Tuesday’s Earth Day agenda also reflects a broader shift in the environmental movement.¶ The first Earth Day in 1970 focused
largely on removing air and water pollutants such as lead, sulfur and phosphates that could directly harm humans or animals.¶
Now the focus is on the hot-button issue of climate change, a shift that advocates say reflects
the movement’s successes.¶ “We got rid of the phosphate pollution, we got rid of e coli
bacteria,” Hamilton said.¶ The science behind climate change has also grown significantly,
advocates say, causing environmentalists to rally behind reducing greenhouse gases as their
main priority.¶ “There has been a huge amount of positive change,” Gaby said.
Oil Spills
83% of the public supports actions to solve oil spills
Alex Brylske – 2006 (Oceans for Youth Foundation). 2006. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.oceansforyouth.org/whats-that/ftr1201.html
the Seaweb survey pointed out the lack of understanding of marine pollution. For example, while 83 percent
rated the relatively inconsequential problem of oil spills as a "very serious" threat to the
oceans, fewer than half (48 percent) felt that the enormous problem of commercial overfishing was as serious. Similarly, less
Again,
than half rated the serious decline of coral reefs as "very serious." As might be expected, more rated as "very serious" contaminated
seafood and trash on beaches than destructive fishing practices. (A primary reason for the rapid disappearance of coral reefs is
fishing with explosives; and an area more than twice the size of the United States is dredged each year, often destroying enormous
expanses of sensitive sea bottom.)
Alternative Energy
Dems likely to lose the Senate and alternative energy is popular with the public
Leigh Ann Caldwell – 4/16 (CNN reporter) Apr. 16, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.kcra.com/politics/2014-midterms-What-s-at-stake/25496204
"Democratic control of the Senate is at considerable risk, with the party at no better than
even money to retain control in November," wrote Stuart Rothenberg, editor and publisher of the nonpartisan
Rothenberg Political Report, one of the top political handicappers.
Alternative energy is popular with the American public:
Alternative energy overwhelmingly popular with the public
John M. Broder – 2011 (staff writer) NEW YORK TIMES, June 16, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 29,
2014 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17drilling.html
And while the public appears to support exploiting domestic oil and gas resources, there is also
skepticism about the economic and environmental costs of America’s continued reliance on oil.
A New York Times/CBS News poll taken in March asked how important it was for the United
States to develop an alternative to oil as a major source of energy. Fully 94 percent of
respondents said it was very or somewhat important to do so.
Renewable energy is popular and will surface as an issue in the midterms:
Steven Mufson & Tom Hamburger – 2014 (staff writers). WASHINGTON POST. Apr. 25, 2014. Retrieved Apr.
29, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-battle-is-looming-over-renewable-energy-and-fossil-fuel-interests-arelosing/2014/04/25/24ed78e2-cb23-11e3-a75e-463587891b57_story.html
The measures, which have been introduced in about 18 states, lie at the heart of an effort to expand to the state level the battle
over fossil fuel and renewable energy. The new rules would trim or abolish climate mandates — including
those that require utilities to use solar and wind energy, as well as proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules that would
But the campaign — despite its backing from powerful groups
such as Americans for Prosperity — has run into a surprising roadblock: the growing political clout of
renewable-energy interests, even in rock-ribbed Republican states such as Kansas.¶ The stage
has been set for what one lobbyist called “trench warfare” as moneyed interests on both sides
wrestle over some of the strongest regulations for promoting renewable energy. And the
issues are likely to surface this fall in the midterm elections , as well, with California
billionaire Tom Steyer pouring money into various gubernatorial and state and federal
legislative races to back candidates who support tough rules curbing pollution.
reduce carbon emissions from power plants.¶
Offshore Drilling
Offshore drilling is popular with the American public
John M. Broder – 2011 (staff writer) NEW YORK TIMES, June 16, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 29,
2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17drilling.html
Throughout that time, the American public’s attitudes toward domestic oil and gas
development have been remarkably consistent: Americans are in favor of it, though
Democrats and those on the coasts are much less likely than Republicans and those in the
South and Southwest to be supportive.¶ National support for offshore drilling and for
domestic oil and gas development generally dipped for a time after the BP disaster — from a
strong majority to a bare majority — but quickly rebounded.¶ A Gallup poll taken
immediately after the gulf spill showed that 50 percent of Americans supported offshore
drilling while 46 percent opposed it. By March of this year, public support had risen to 60
percent versus 37 percent.
Offshore drilling is popular despite BP oil spill
John M. Broder - 2011 (staff writer) NEW YORK TIMES, June 16, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 29,
2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/business/energy-environment/17drilling.html
Conversely, unease about the effects of offshore drilling peaked after the BP accident, which
killed 11 rig workers and spewed nearly five million barrels of crude into the gulf.¶ “News of
that incident has faded, possibly lessening Americans’ resistance to coastal area drilling,”
Gallup said when releasing its poll in March that showed 60 percent of Americans supportive.
*** Internal Link Extensions ***
IL: Popular policies mean Dems win midterms
Extend the Caldwell 4/16 evidence – Democrats are looking for something to
rally around and they need to motivate their base
A new popular issue will stir the democratic base and bolster their chances to
win the congressional elections.
Dan Balz – 4/21 (staff writer) THE WASHINGTON POST, Apr. 21, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/04/21/Democrats-Midterm-Challenge-Get-Out-Vote
Obama hopes to stir his base to action and in the past two weeks has been trying to push all
the buttons. He invoked the slaying of civil rights workers in the 1960s to implore a largely African
American audience in New York to take advantage of their right to vote. At the White House a few days before
that, he pushed the issue of pay equity for women. Around the country, he and other Democrats have seized on
raising the minimum wage to draw a contrast with Republicans. He chastised House Republicans in a statement this past week for
not moving on immigration reform.
The race is tight and can easily revert to the Democrats:
Nate Silver 3/23 (political commentator for New York Times) Mar. 23, 2014. Retrieved Apr.
28, 2014 from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/
There are 10 races that each party has at least a 25 percent chance of winning, according to our
ratings. If Republicans were to win all of them, they would gain a net of 11 seats from Democrats, which would give them a 56-44
majority in the new Senate. If Democrats were to sweep, they would lose a net of just one seat and hold a 54-46 majority.¶ So our
forecast might be thought of as a Republican gain of six seats — plus or minus five. The
balance has shifted slightly
toward the GOP. But it wouldn’t take much for it to revert to the Democrats, nor for this year to
develop into a Republican rout along the lines of 2010.
Enthusiasm will be critical for democrats in the midterm elections
Nate Silver – 3/23 (political commentator for New York Times) Mar. 23, 2014. Retrieved Apr.
28, 2014 from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/
A tie on the generic ballot might not sound so bad for Democrats. But it’s a misleading signal, for two reasons. First, most of the
generic ballot polls were conducted among registered voters. Those do not reflect the turnout advantage the GOP is likely to have in
Especially in recent years, Democrats have come to rely on groups such as racial
minorities and young voters that turn out much more reliably in presidential years than for
the midterms. In 2010, the Republican turnout advantage amounted to the equivalent of 6 percentage points, meaning a tie
on the generic ballot among registered voters translated into a six-point Republican lead among likely voters. The GOP’s edge
hadn’t been quite that large in past years. But if the “enthusiasm gap” is as large this year as it
was in 2010, Democrats will have a difficult time keeping the Senate.
November.
A significant issue will increase voter enthusiasm and turnout for the
Democrats.
Dan Balz – 1/21 (staff writer) THE WASHINGTON POST, Apr. 21, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/04/21/Democrats-Midterm-Challenge-Get-Out-Vote
A recent college graduate, she works for a state environmental agency. Like
has only voted in presidential elections. What would motivate her to vote in
November? “If there is some major issue or something . . . that would directly affect me or
that I was really passionate about,” she said.¶ Devries considers herself a Democrat because she thinks some
Carly Devries, also 23, lives in Michigan.
Anderson, she
Republicans have views that “make me angry and are irrational and don’t follow my belief set.” But she likes Republican Gov. Rick
Snyder, who is running for reelection this fall. “He doesn’t really have those kinds of extreme views,” she said.
IL: Republicans will block regulations
Extend the Davenport 1/4 evidence – Republican’s are using the EPA
regulations as a weapon in the midterm race and will do everything they can to
block them if they win
New EPA rules threaten to undermine the economic recovery – republicans
want to block it
Ben Geman - 2010 (staff writer) Dec. 23, 2010.
Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from”
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/134989-upton-vows-fight-against-epa-climate-rules-forpower-plants-and-refineries)
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan to set greenhouse gas emissions standards
for power plants and refineries drew a quick threat from Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the
incoming chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. "We will not
allow the administration to regulate what they have been unable to legislate — this Christmas
surprise is nothing short of a backdoor attempt to implement their failed job-killing cap-andtrade scheme,” Upton said in a statement. “Today's announcement marks a crescendo in the EPA's long regulatory assault
against America's energy producers. The EPA has its foot firmly on the throat of our economic recovery,” he said.
IL: Small issues are key
Even small differences increase the odds of democrats retaining a senate
majority.
John Sides - 5/16 (Associate Professor of Political Science at George Washington University)
WASHINGTON POST, May 16, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/16/republicans-have-a-77-chanceof-taking-the-senate/
A central reason our model gives the Republicans such a good chance of taking the Senate is
the midterm penalty. Based on elections from 1980-2012, we estimate the midterm penalty to
be 3 percentage points of the vote, on average. This penalty captures the well-known
historical tendency for the president's party to lose seats in midterm years. The main
question is how big the penalty will be in 2014. If the Democrats were to get lucky and only
suffer a 1 percentage point midterm penalty, then we estimate that they would have about
even odds (53 percent) of retaining a majority.
National issues matter at the margins in Senate races.
Chris Cillizza – 5/12 (staff writer) WASHINGTON POST. 5/12/1014
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/nation-world-news/don-t-write-democrats-chances-holding-senatejust-yet
To be clear: You’d still rather be Senate Republicans than Senate Democrats right now.
Although the national environment will be far less decisive in Senate races than in House
contests, it is still likely to matter at the margins — and often those margins are where close
contests are decided. And the states in which the Senate majority will be decided — including
Alaska, Arkansas and Louisiana — lean heavily toward Republicans.
Fundraising means even early issues matter.
John Sides - 5/16 (Associate Professor of Political
Science at George Washington University)
WASHINGTON POST, May 16, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/16/republicans-have-a-77-chance-of-takingthe-senate/
Because so many states have not had primaries, we measure fundraising by summing up all
the fundraising by Senate candidates in each party. We expect that many donors to primary
candidates who lose will likely end up supporting the candidate who wins, as will donors who
didn't contribute in the primary. For example, between January 2013 and the middle of April, North Carolina Sen. Kay
Hagan (D) raised about $11 million. Her opponent, Thom Tillis, raised $3.2 million. Is Hagan likely to out-raise Tillis nearly 4-1 until
November? Most likely not. In fact, our analysis of past elections suggests that at this stage party fundraising is a better predictor
than fundraising by the primary candidates that go on to compete in the general election.
Conditions on the ground can change the election.
John Sides – 5/16 (Associate Professor of Political Science
at George Washington University)
WASHINGTON POST, May 16, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/16/republicans-have-a-77-chance-of-takingthe-senate/
As always, the model's predictions could change -- as indeed they should, if conditions on the
ground change. What we're giving you is a sense of where things stand today based on the factors in the model. We will
continue to update the model as primary elections occur and as new fundraising numbers come in. We'll also build in polling
numbers as more general election candidates become known. Stay tuned!
A Republican Senate majority is far from certain.
Dan Nowicki – 5/11 (staff writer) ARIZONA REPUBLIC. May 11, 2014.
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/11/democrats-face-tough-landscapemidterms/8962725/
Legislating has all but ground to a halt on Capitol Hill as Republican and Democratic lawmakers focus on what promise to be bruising
congressional midterm elections this fall that could shift control of the Senate to the GOP.¶ Democrats, counting the two
Republicans would have to win
at least six seats to secure the majority, an outcome that is far from certain despite
Republican momentum early in the year and President Barack Obama's clumsy health-care
rollout that put Democrats under pressure.
independents who caucus with them, hold a 10-seat advantage in the upper chamber.
It is still an open question whether the Republicans can get a majority in the
Senate.
Dan Nowicki – 5/11 (staff writer) ARIZONA REPUBLIC. May 11, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/11/democrats-face-tough-landscapemidterms/8962725/
"Between the usual midterm effect and the Republican advantage in congressional districts, it seems like a pretty good bet that the
Republicans will maintain their majority in the House," said John J. "Jack" Pitney Jr., a political
scientist at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California who has written extensively
about Congress. "The open question is whether they can get a majority in the Senate."
The Republicans don’t have Senate control in the bag.
Chris Cillizza – 5/12 (staff writer) WASHINGTON POST.
Retrieved
May 17, 2014 from
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/nation-world-news/don-t-write-democrats-chances-holding-senatejust-yet
But, assuming that simply because Republicans are poised to easily hold the House this fall
means they also have in the bag the six seats needed to retake the Senate suggests a lack of
understanding of how different the races for the two chambers are.
IL: Environmental Lobby Key
General
a) Democrats are heavily dependent on environmentally conscious constituents
RON ELVING – 4/21 (NPR Correspondent) Apr. 21, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/04/21/elving-politics-obama
They want to see the fossil fuel energies encouraged. Mark Udall has been kind of ambivalent
about it, though, because he also has a large constituency from the environmental side, which
is enormously important to the national Democratic constituency, the national Democratic
coalition. It depends on environmental enthusiasm and also on a lot of the major donors who
come from that particular part of the political world.
Donations
b) Climate change issues could majorly increase midterm donations to the
democrats
William Yeatman - 4/23 (staff writer) Apr. 23, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.globalwarming.org/2014/04/23/breaking-news-shocker-billionaire-influencepeddler-tom-steyer-doesnt-embrace-koch-comparison/
STEYER – I’M NOT THE KOCHS: Liberal billionaire Tom Steyer insisted Tuesday that he’s not the
left’s version of the Koch brothers. “That is not something I embrace. I think there are real
distinctions between the Koch brothers and us,” Steyer said in an interview with POLITICO and
The Washington Post taped for C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers,” which will air on Sunday. Steyer, who
hopes to use his vast personal fortune to make climate change a top priority in the upcoming
midterm elections, said he’s not entering politics for personal gain. Charles and David Koch’s
priorities “line up perfectly with their pocketbooks – and that’s not true for us,” Steyer said.
c) Increased donations mean increased turnout
David Keating – 4/16 (president of the Center for Competitive Politics) Apr. 16, 2014.
Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/examining-the-record-moneyhitting-the-midterm-elections/
DAVID KEATING: It’s definitely a plus when we have more debate about where our country
should be headed.¶ And political scientists that have studied spending in elections, they find
that when there is more spending, there’s more message and more people are paying
attention, voters are better informed, and they turn out in higher numbers. I think these are all
positive things for our democracy across the board.
Young Voters
b) Young voters are environmentally conscious and are increasingly influential
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION – 2011 Sep. 8, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://eponline.com/articles/2011/09/08/public-opinion-research-shows-american-interest-inliving-green.aspx?admgarea=News
Three core findings from the new report, America and the Ocean, emphasize the importance
of engaging youth: ¶ Adults are united in their support for teaching younger generations how
to care for our blue planet, even while they themselves are divided on issues such as climate
change.¶ Young Americans not only possess significantly higher levels of concern about the
problems facing the world's ocean, and are most open to new information, but also are the
most confident in their ability to make a difference.¶ Young Americans may not be the
decision-makers in the household but they are increasingly major "influencers" when it comes
to making choices related to our ocean and the environment and becoming more "green."¶
"This study continues to provide valuable insight into public audiences' understanding and
behaviors toward the ocean and our coasts," said Louisa Koch, Director of Education at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). "We at NOAA are pleased to support
this ongoing research and have found these data useful in the carrying out our own educational
programs related to the ocean and climate change."
c) Young voters will be critical in the midterms
Geoffrey Skelley – 3/27 (associate editor) Mar. 27, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/putting-their-eggs-in-the-wrong-midtermbasket/
However, one aspect of this trend is anything but rosy for Democrats: Since the first national exit poll was taken for a midterm
election in 1978, only once (in that first survey) has the 18-to-29 age group made up a larger portion of a midterm electorate than
voters who were 60 or older. And not only have young people almost always been the smallest part of midterm electorates in this
With Democrats more reliant
on young voters to win elections, drop-off among that group could make it harder for
Democrats to find success in midterm cycles.
period, their participation has usually been much smaller compared to presidential years.
IL: Obama’s approval ratings key
The environment and Obama’s approval ratings are key for the midterms
Mark Silva – 1/14 (staff writer) CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Apr. 14, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-senate-gop1420140414,0,6771981.story
Obama's approval rating has run at an average of 42.9 percent in eight national opinion polls
conducted since March 20, matching former President George W. Bush's standing in early 2006,
when Republicans lost control of both the House and Senate in midterm elections that he called
"a thumpin'."¶ Jennifer Duffy, senior editor at the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in
Washington, has raised her estimate of Republicans taking control of the Senate from a 25
percent chance last fall to 50 percent today. The tilted turnout of midterm elections is only part
of her calculation.¶ "We are weighting environment much higher — the president's approval
ratings, the generic congressional ballot, just basically what Americans are thinking," Duffy
said in an interview. "The Republicans have been able to expand their own playing field, putting
races on the map that weren't there."
Midterms are referendum’s on the times - Obama’s approval ratings are critical
Mark Silva – 1/14 (staff writer) CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Apr. 14, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-senate-gop1420140414,0,6771981.story
White voters will account for almost 80 percent of this year's midterm electorate, according to
Andrew Kohut, founding director of the Washington-based Pew Research Center. And public
opinion of Obama's performance poses the biggest challenge for his party, Kohut says.¶ When
the public isn't "satisfied with the way things are going for the nation or the way the economy
is going, the vote tends to become a referendum on the times," Kohut said in an interview.
Independents vote in midterms solely based on their opinion of the president
and the direction of the country
Leigh Ann Caldwell – 4/16 (CNN reporter) Apr. 16, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.kcra.com/politics/2014-midterms-What-s-at-stake/25496204
Gonzales said that independents voting in midterm elections tend to decide who to vote for
based on their feelings about the direction of the country and their approval of the President
rather than on specific issues.
Obama’s approval ratings are key to the election.
Dan Balz – 1/21 (staff writer) THE WASHINGTON POST, Apr. 21, 2014.
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/04/21/Democrats-Midterm-Challenge-Get-Out-Vote
But the president, hobbled by weak approval ratings, may be a drag on Democrats in some of
the places his party will be fighting hardest this fall. And Republicans appear more motivated,
spurred by their opposition to the Affordable Care Act.
Obama’s approval ratings are key to the elections
Dan Nowicki (staff writer) ARIZONA REPUBLIC. May 11, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/11/democrats-face-tough-landscapemidterms/8962725/
"The general consensus and feeling out there is there's a possibility that we could lose the
Senate," said Van Ornelas, a Democratic political consultant in Phoenix. "I've heard a lot of folks mention it in various capacities.
They're definitely concerned."¶ History is on Republicans' side this election season, at least generally, because the president's party
almost always loses seats in Congress during midterm elections. Without Obama on the ballot, Democrats will have a tougher time
getting the party's successful 2008 and 2012 coalitions of voters to the polls. And
midterm House elections
traditionally are heavily influenced by presidential approval and the economy, with lesspopular presidents tending to lose more seats. Obama's disapproval rating has exceeded 50
percent in most recent polls.
IL: Voter Turnout Key
Turnout is key to keep democrats in charge
Mark Silva – 1/14 (staff writer) CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Apr. 14, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-senate-gop1420140414,0,6771981.story
Obama's 2012 re-election benefited from voter turnout operations in states such as Virginia,
where canvassers made repeated door-to-door visits to his backers. A similar effort helped Democrat
Terry McAuliffe win the state's governorship last November.¶ Arkansas is not Virginia, though. It's not a state that Obama carried in
Democrats with their intensive organizing efforts "have to go into
states this time where they've never worked — Arkansas, Louisiana — and try to make a
difference there," Duffy said.¶ In a difficult political environment, Democrats acknowledge,
they need to produce a stronger vote than they did in 2010.¶ "If we don't do it, we get wiped
2008 and 2012, as he did Virginia.¶
out ," Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., told Bloomberg editors and reporters in an interview. "If we
do it, we get back in charge. It's just that simple."
Turnout is key to a Democratic victory in the Congressional elections.
Dan Balz – 1/21 (staff writer) THE WASHINGTON POST, Apr. 21, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/04/21/Democrats-Midterm-Challenge-Get-Out-Vote
Democrats have a problem and everyone knows it. President Obama calls it a “congenital
disease.” If they can’t control it, Obama could spend the final years of his presidency battling
not only a Republican House but also a Republican Senate.¶ Democrats don’t vote in midterm
elections. That’s an exaggeration, of course, but the core of the Democratic coalition is made
up of many people who turn out to vote only in presidential elections. The Republican
coalition — older and whiter — suffers less from midterm falloff.
Good turnout is especially critical to democrats in the midterms
Mark Silva – 1/14 (staff writer) CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Apr. 14, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-senate-gop1420140414,0,6771981.story
A fall-off in turnout is the biggest threat Democrats face in the 2014 midterms when the
electorate will trend older and whiter, two constituencies their party hasn't won in recent
elections.
Turnout is critical and possible for democrats
Mark Silva – 1/14 (staff writer) CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Apr. 14, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-senate-gop1420140414,0,6771981.story
It draws its name from the Denver campaign headquarters for Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet's
2010 campaign, when he was seeking a full term after being appointed to his seat in 2009. He
believes he won a close contest in part by rallying a higher- than-predicted voter turnout and,
as current DSCC chairman, he is putting his Colorado model to work for the party.¶ "This is
going to be a turnout election," Bennet said.
Turnout is key to democratic success
Mark Silva – 1/14 (staff writer) CHICAGO TRIBUNE, Apr. 14, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-wp-blm-news-bc-senate-gop1420140414,0,6771981.story
David Plouffe, architect of Obama's first presidential campaign and author of ''The Audacity to Win," has called the Florida results "a
In the 2010 elections, 45.5
percent of those Americans eligible to vote did so, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The
youngest voters, those 18 to 24, turned out the least, at 21.3 percent. The oldest turned out
the most, with 62.1 percent of those aged 65 to 74 voting. Among the age groups, only the
youngest voted Democratic, exit polling showed.¶ Turnout among white voters was 47.3
percent, versus blacks at 43.5 percent and Hispanics at 31.2 percent. Whites voted Republican
by a margin of 62 to 38 percent, while blacks voted Democratic by 9-to-1, Hispanics by about
2-to-1.¶ In the 2012 presidential election, the Census Bureau reported, eligible-voter turnout was 61.8 percent. For younger
screaming siren that the same problems that afflicted us" in 2010 "could face us again."¶
voters, the figure was 41.2 percent -- almost twice as high as in 2010. Turnout by those between the ages of 65 and 74 rose by more
than 10 percentage points, to 73.5 percent.
IL: Obama will bargain with republicans
Both Obama and Republicans have incentives to work together after midterms
DARREN SAMUELSOHN and MANU RAJU – 1/17 (staff writers) POLITICO, Apr. 17, 2014.
Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/democrats-fearpresident-obama-could-give-in-106078.html
Washington’s current gridlock may seem destined to last forever, but divided government has
produced strange bedfellows before. President George W. Bush switched teams on some key
issues in his final two years after Democrats took the House and Senate, becoming a cap-andtrade convert who bailed out Wall Street. President Bill Clinton partnered with the same
Republicans who impeached him to overhaul welfare and balance the budget. And President
Ronald Reagan and House Speaker Tip O’Neill found common ground reforming the Tax Code
and Social Security.¶ While tackling anything comprehensive with legislation sounds far-fetched before the next president is
sworn in, that doesn’t mean there won’t be moments starting after November when Obama would be tempted to
negotiate with Republicans following four years of stalemate. After all, the GOP would have
greater leverage. And with the White House on the line in 2016, Republicans will also want to
prove they aren’t just against Obama but actually capable of governing again.
Obama is likely to bargain with republicans
DARREN SAMUELSOHN and MANU RAJU – 1/17 (staff writers) POLITICO, Apr. 17, 2014.
Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/democrats-fearpresident-obama-could-give-in-106078.html
But it’s the prospect of what Obama might bargain on with Republicans that has Democrats
really riled up.¶ “I’m not going to create nightmares where none exist right now. But certainly
for the paranoid there’s plenty to fear, and maybe even just for the fearful there’s plenty to
fear,” Blumenthal said, while adding that he still had a “basic trust in [Obama’s] commitments
and his instincts.”
*** Impact Extensions ***
Impact Overview
The Disad outweighs and turns the case – EPA regulations are “economic
suicide” – that’s the Rahn 11. And, collapse of the U.S. economy leads
withdrawal from security commitments which prompts proliferation and
aggressive behavior by rogue regimes that leads to nuclear war – that’s the
Khalilzad 11 evidence
Economic collapse independently creates multiple scenarios for nuclear war
Geoffrey Kemp – 2012 (Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center) , The
East Moves West: India, China, and Asia’s Growing Presence in the Middle East. 2012, 2032.
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
Proliferation independently risks a nuclear catastrophe
Below, 2008 - Wing Commander for the Royal Air Force, Master of Arts degree in Defence Studies from Kings College
London, (Tim, “Options For US Nuclear Disarment: Exemplary Leadership or Extraordinary Lunacy?,”)//AA
Waltz can
not escape the fact that the chances of an explosive accident or an unauthorized or
inadvertent launch increase as the number of nuclear states increases. However, he retains his
Despite his relative optimism that proliferation may not present the dangers that other commentators fear,
optimism, arguing against the notion that unstable and bordering states necessarily present higher risks than other
nations. Ivan Oelrich contends that the real threat is not something external that needs to be countered. Rather, it is
something internal that the United States is self-generating through its retention of nuclear weapons, and is worsened
by maintaining high states of alert. He is particularly concerned that “we [the United States] are not looking at the risks
which nuclear weapons create.”In his view, nuclear weapons are the only thing that today poses an existential threat to
the United States, and the perpetuation of their existence simply prolongs that threat. Meanwhile, Barry Blechman and
Cathleen Fisher view the specific dangers of nuclear accident or inadvertent use as the greatest short term threat.
Scenario: EPA regulations kill econ
Uncontrolled EPA regulations will devastate the US economy
Mark Clayton – 2010 (staff writer) CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR. DEC. 23, 2010.
Retrieved Apr. 29,
2014 fromhttp://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/1223/EPA-presents-plan-on-greenhouse-gases.Can-next-Congress-stop-it)
'Costs but no benefits' But congressional opponents and business groups representing big
business and fossil fuel interests slammed the timetable as anything but reasonable, declaring it
to be damaging to jobs and the economy. “EPA’s proposals would carry tremendous costs but
no benefits for the American people – all pain and no gain," Charles T. Drevna, president of the
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association, said in a statement. "Regulations can’t create
technology that doesn’t exist or change the laws of physics and economics, so the only way to
comply with EPA’s proposals would be to inflict massive increases in energy costs and
massive increases in unemployment on families across our nation."
The EPA regulations will be the most costly rule in regulatory history
Jeffrey Bossert Clark - 2010 (staff writer) Apr. 26, 2010. Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubid.1854/pub_detail.asp)
On December 7, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") promulgated a final rule commonly known as the
"Endangerment Rule."[i] In that finding, EPA determined that greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions endanger the public health and
welfare, and that motor vehicle emissions in particular are contributing to such harmful effects. The Endangerment Rule was issued
pursuant to EPA's authority under Clean Air Act Section 202(a),[ii] which itself deals exclusively with the regulation of emissions from
The
implications of the Endangerment Rule are likely to be much more far-reaching than simply
initiating the regulation of GHG emissions from mobile sources alone. Importantly, EPA's final rule has
new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines (often known collectively in Clean Air Act parlance as "mobile sources").
been challenged in the D.C. Circuit under Clean Air Act Section 307(b)(1)'s[iii] judicial review provision. But if it withstands review,
the Endangerment Rule will not only mandate the regulation of GHG emissions from mobile sources, it will potentially trigger the
regulation of such emissions from stationary sources as well, and could well then be asserted as support by States, environmental
groups, and a federal Indian tribe in several pending tort suits they have already brought against industrial emissions sources. EPA
argues that this rule is purely a scientific finding that "do[es] not impose any requirements," and on that basis found that the rule
But the statutory
consequences of the Endangerment Rule could well make this the most costly rule in
regulatory history, penetrating more deeply into the national economy than the Clean Air Act
ever has before.
"will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities."[iv]
EPA regulations will stifle the economy and threaten the recovery
John Myers - 2010 (staff writer) Dec. 23, 2010.
Retrieved Apr.
29, 2014 from
http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/event/article/id/187169/)
The EPA is
committing “the country to an unrealistic timetable for the regulation of global greenhouse
gases from refineries and power plants,” Scott Segal, an attorney for utilities, said. “By singling
Critics said the regulations will stifle the economy, especially in areas heavily dependent on coal for electricity.
out the energy sector, the (EPA) puts the nation’s fragile economic recovery at risk and stifles
job creation. Small businesses, schools, hospitals, and energy-intensive manufacturers are
particularly at risk from high energy prices.”
EPA regulations will cause massive economic damage.
Lachlan Markay – 2011 (Heritage Foundation) July 9, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/09/epa-set-to-implement-economically-ruinous-regulations-on-powerplants/
The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it has finalized a pair of new
regulations on power plants expected to produce massive economic damage and
unemployment in coming years. The regulations aim to reduce pollution in down-wind states, and replace similar
regulations created by George Bush’s EPA in 2005 and struck down by a federal court.
EPA regulations will cause massive damage to the economy.
Lachlan Markay – 2011 (Heritage Foundation) July 9, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/09/epa-set-to-implement-economically-ruinous-regulations-on-powerplants/
The EPA’s move to implement the Clean Air Transport Rule and the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology, both of which
the release of a high-profile study showing the
extent of the regulations’ damage to the energy sector – and, consequently, to the American
economy generally, and the country’s employment situation.¶ The study, conducted by the National
will hit coal power plants hardest, comes less than a month after
Economic Research Associates and commissioned by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, found that the
regulations will increase electricity rates by nearly 12 percent nationwide in the next five
years, and by more than 23 percent in certain regions. The regulations will add an average of $17.8 billion to
the nation’s electricity costs every year for the next 20 years, NERA found.¶ The employment picture will not be
pretty, either: NERA estimated that the regulations would cost the American job market 1.88
million job-years. Those losses more than offset the 450,000 job years the study anticipates
will be created by the new regulations.
The EPA regulations will cause harmful ripple effects throughout the economy.
Lachlan Markay – 2011 (Heritage Foundation) July 9, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/09/epa-set-to-implement-economically-ruinous-regulations-on-powerplants/
“American households will be hit hard, as will American businesses,” wrote Heritage
Foundation Policy Analyst Nicolas Loris of the regulations’ effects. Their economic ripples will
not be confined to the energy sector, Loris predicted. “Producers everywhere will try to cover
their higher production costs by raising product prices. As a result, consumer demand will fall,
and income and employment will drop.”¶ As the Associated Press reported:¶ While the EPA says the suite of
regulations will not cause the power to go out, almost everyone agrees that it will help close down some of the oldest, and dirtiest,
coal-fired facilities. At the remaining plants, operators would have to use existing pollution controls more frequently, use lower-
“The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new
regulations will cause,” said Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for
Clean Coal Electricity, a pro-coal industry association. Along with other pending regulations,
Miller said they “are among the most expensive ever imposed by the agency.”
sulfur coal, or install additional equipment.¶
The EPA regulations have wide ranging adverse effects on the economy
Lachlan Markay – 2011 (Heritage Foundation) July 9, 2011. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/07/09/epa-set-to-implement-economically-ruinous-regulations-on-powerplants/
Most regulations have adverse effects on the economy. These are likely to be especially
destructive, given the wide range of industries affected by energy prices. Yet Obama’s EPA is
going ahead with their implementation, even in the midst of a sputtering economic recovery.
Scenario: Immigration reform key to
econ
a) GOP Senate take-over means both Obama and the GOP want immigration to
pass
Scott Galupo – 2/7 (staff writer) Feb. 7, 2014.
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/why-obama-shouldnt-fear-a-gop-senate-takeover/
Things may actually improve slightly under a unified GOP Congress. Look at it this way: if
Republicans win the Senate, their next prize, obviously, will be the White House. That’s a
different ballgame altogether—a bigger, browner electorate. Suddenly the imperative to
obstruct the Obama agenda begins to recede. A different incentive structure will take shape:
the party will have to govern, or at least appear as though it’s trying. As Hulse writes in the
Times, some Republicans “believe it would be smarter to wait until after the midterms and
pursue immigration in 2015 leading up to the presidential election,¶ when Republicans will be
more motivated to increase their appeal to Hispanic voters. If the midterm goes their way,
they will be strengthened in Congress.¶ The Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP
desperately wants an immigration bill. Obama desperately wants an immigration bill. With
control of both the House and Senate, the GOP could write a bill that’s more to its liking than
the dead-in-the-water bill the Senate passed last summer. And Obama will have no choice but
to sign it. It’s the last feather in the cap of his legislative legacy, with the White House now set to pursue
the Podesta strategy on unilateral executive action.¶ If it takes losing the Senate to pass immigration, Obama should welcome it.
Come 2017, he’ll be working on his memoirs and running a foundation.
a) A Republican Senate will pass immigration – there would be incentive for
both parties
Gene Marks 1/8 (small business management columnist) Apr. 8, 2014. Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-marks/so-what-if-the-republican_b_5109541.html
a Republican controlled Congress will have some common ground with
the president. It's to everyone's best interest to show the voting public that they at least can
get something done. And that something will likely be two things: immigration and tax reform.¶ Despite
their differences, both parties have agreement on most of the main points of immigration
reform and recognize the need to do something -- in fact, the latest version of the bill was
drafted by a Senate bi-partisan committee (notoriously called the "Gang of 8" but don't get scared because they're
However, and believe it or not,
mostly just politicians in suits and not really gang members). And something will be done, I predict, so if your business is a startup
with immigrant founders, does work with green card holders who are seeking education here or hires non-citizens this may impact
you. There will be more opportunities, and likely more paperwork that may benefit both the business owner and employee alike.
b) Immigration reform is key to the economy.
Lauren Fox – 10/29/2013 (staff writer, “Immigration Reform Boosts Economic Recovery,”
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/10/29/immigration-reform-boosts-economic-recovery,
Accessed 11/1/2013, rwg)
Immigration reform should boost economic growth by 4.8 percent and reduce the country's
deficits by $1.2 trillion during the next two decades, according to a new Bipartisan Policy
Center study.¶ As a comprehensive immigration reform bill hangs in the balance on Capitol Hill, a new Bipartisan Policy Center
study shows an aggressive overhaul could boost the country's anemic economic recovery.¶ The report found that during
the next 20 years, immigration would bolster the country's economic growth by 4.8 percent.
The report shows that immigration reform would reduce the country's deficits by $1.2 trillion
during this time, as young, working immigrants take jobs and pay taxes.
Scenario: Free trade key to econ
a) A Republican Senate will allow Obama to pass fast-track trade authority:
DARREN SAMUELSOHN and MANU RAJU – 4/17 (staff writers) POLITICO, Apr. 17, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 29,
2014 from http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/democrats-fear-president-obama-could-give-in-106078.html
Democrats are mindful of how toxic some of Obama’s other proposed deals have been with the party’s base, such as the 2010 law to
extend Bush-era tax cuts or his international trade deals. Indeed, Rep. Gary Peters, a Democrat running for Senate in Michigan, is
if a Republican Congress
makes entitlement cuts and free trade a priority, it could put them in a bind.¶ “If a Republican
Congress establishes a goal of working with the president on trade, it will certainly facilitate”
passing fast-track trade authority, said Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.). But he also cautioned that Republicans will have
openly campaigning against the president’s free-trade agenda. Others know full well that
some work to do since they’ve been split on trade issues as well as on issues like reforming entitlement programs.
b) Trade promotion authority is key to the economy
Stephen DeMaura – 3/6 (president of Americans for Job Security) DAILY CALLER. Mar. 6, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/06/trade-promotion-authority-for-the-tpp-and-ttip-is-a-vital-step-for-our-economy/
free trade has been a boon to the American economy, injecting capital into our
markets and spurring job creation. But amidst negotiations for two major trade deals, known as the Trans-Pacific
For decades,
Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), there are a select few who are seeking to obstruct
any progress on expanding free trade and growing our economy. The most recent example comes in the form of an op-ed written by
Brian O’Shaughnessy in the Daily Caller, which, while well-intentioned, mischaracterizes just about every aspect of the debate.¶
O’Shaughnessy argues that free trade is harming the American people, but his reasoning does not stand up to the facts. He goes to
great length to besmirch free trade, but conveniently forgoes any mention of how intertwined it is with the American economy.
Just imagine the impact in the marketplace if our country reverted to isolationist policies that
restricted U.S.-based employers from freely and easily engaging in commerce with foreign
allies. Free trade is the lifeblood of our economy — more than 38 million jobs in the United
States depend on trade, roughly one in five jobs.
c) Trade promotion authority is key to US leadership
Stephen DeMaura – 3/6 (president of Americans for Job Security) DAILY CALLER. Mar. 6, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
from http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/06/trade-promotion-authority-for-the-tpp-and-ttip-is-a-vital-step-for-our-economy/
an overwhelming majority of Americans support free trade precisely
because they understand its immense benefit. Given the state of the economy, it is imperative
that we allow for trade promotion authority and pass these individual agreements, so that our
country can continue to remain the world’s preeminent economic superpower. If we fail to
act, then China surely will, stealing coveted opportunities from American businesses resulting
in less employment opportunities and greater hardship.
It isn’t just conservatives, though;
Extra Trade Card
Obama would cave to a Republican majority on issues like trade:
DARREN SAMUELSOHN and MANU RAJU – 4/17 (staff writers) POLITICO, Apr. 17, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 29,
2014 from http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/democrats-fear-president-obama-could-give-in-106078.html
Democrats have something else to fear after the November midterms besides just an all
Republican-controlled Congress: President Barack Obama.¶ With Obama’s political career
winding down and poll numbers continuing to languish, his party brethren fret that their own
president — forced to work with GOP majorities — would give away the store on key policy
issues ranging from the budget to energy and trade . It’s a concern congressional Democrats have voiced every
time Obama and Vice President Joe Biden tried to cut big fiscal deals with Republicans — and the panic is now more palpable with
the growing prospect of a Senate GOP majority.
Impact: Econ Collapse = Nuclear War
U.S. Economic collapse dooms the global economy, our leadership, and risks
nuclear war
Aaron Friedberg and Gabriel Schoenfeld – 2008 (prof. of politics @ Princeton & Senior editor of
the Wall Street Journal) WALL STREET JOURNAL. Oct. 21, 2008.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html.
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
Then there are the dolorous consequences of a potential collapse of the world's financial
architecture. For decades now, Americans have enjoyed the advantages of being at the
center of that system . The worldwide use of the dollar, and the stability of our economy, among other things,
made it easier for us to run huge budget deficits, as we counted on foreigners to pick up the tab by buying
dollar-denominated assets as a safe haven. Will this be possible in the future? Meanwhile, traditional foreign-policy challenges are
multiplying. The threat from al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist affiliates has not been extinguished. Iran and North Korea are continuing
on their bellicose paths, while Pakistan and Afghanistan are progressing smartly down the road to chaos. Russia's new militancy and
China's seemingly relentless rise also give cause for concern.
If America now tries to pull back from the world
stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum . The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia,
our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle
East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk. In such a scenario there are shades of the
1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers
led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that
rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys , just at our
moment of maximum vulnerability. The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal
strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the
fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China
is
perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign
markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a
country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity. None of this is good news if the authoritarian
leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.
Impact: Leadership Collapse = Nuclear
War
Proliferation
U.S. leadership solves proliferation and conflicts in East Asia and the Middle
East
Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, & William C. Wohlforth – 2013 (associate
professor of government at Dartmouth, professor of politics @ Princeton & professor of
government @ Dartmouth) FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Jan/Feb. 2013. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-john-ikenberry-andwilliam-c-wohlforth/lean-forward
But that outlook is too sanguine. If Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South Korea
would likely expand their military capabilities and go nuclear, which could provoke a
destabilizing reaction from China. It's worth noting that during the Cold War, both South
Korea and Taiwan tried to obtain nuclear weapons; the only thing that stopped them was the
United States, which used its security commitments to restrain their nuclear temptations.
Similarly, were the United States to leave the Middle East, the countries currently backed by
Washington -- notably, Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia -- might act in ways that would intensify
the region's security dilemmas.
Leadership solves proliferation in East Asia that threatens the U.S.
Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, & William C. Wohlforth – 2013 (associate
professor of government at Dartmouth, professor of politics @ Princeton & professor of
government @ Dartmouth) FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Jan/Feb. 2013. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-john-ikenberry-andwilliam-c-wohlforth/lean-forward
If Washington got out of East Asia, Japan and South Korea would likely expand their military
capabilities and go nuclear. ¶ The benefits of deep engagement, on the other hand, are legion.
U.S. security commitments reduce competition in key regions and act as a check against
potential rivals. They help maintain an open world economy and give Washington leverage in
economic negotiations. And they make it easier for the United States to secure cooperation for
combating a wide range of global threats. Were the United States to cede its global leadership
role, it would forgo these proven upsides while exposing itself to the unprecedented
downsides of a world in which the country was less secure, prosperous, and influential.
Regional insecurity creates cascades of nuclear proliferation – deterrence won’t
solve
Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, & William C. Wohlforth – 2013 (associate
professor of government at Dartmouth, professor of politics @ Princeton & professor of
government @ Dartmouth) FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Jan/Feb. 2013. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-john-ikenberry-andwilliam-c-wohlforth/lean-forward
Greater regional insecurity could also produce cascades of nuclear proliferation as powers
such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan built nuclear forces of their own.
Those countries' regional competitors might then also seek nuclear arsenals. Although nuclear
deterrence can promote stability between two states with the kinds of nuclear forces that the
Soviet Union and the United States possessed, things get shakier when there are multiple
nuclear rivals with less robust arsenals. As the number of nuclear powers increases, the
probability of illicit transfers, irrational decisions, accidents, and unforeseen crises goes up.
Great Power Wars
Leadership solves great power wars
Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, & William C. Wohlforth – 2013 (associate
professor of government at Dartmouth, professor of politics @ Princeton & professor of
government @ Dartmouth) FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Jan/Feb. 2013. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-john-ikenberry-andwilliam-c-wohlforth/lean-forward
Of course, even if it is true that the costs of deep engagement fall far below what advocates of
retrenchment claim, they would not be worth bearing unless they yielded greater benefits. In
fact, they do. The most obvious benefit of the current strategy is that it reduces the risk of a
dangerous conflict. The United States' security commitments deter states with aspirations to
regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and dissuade U.S. partners from trying to
solve security problems on their own in ways that would end up threatening other states.
Global Economy
U.S. Leadership promotes stability in many regions and underpins the world
economy
Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, & William C. Wohlforth – 2013 (associate
professor of government at Dartmouth, professor of politics @ Princeton & professor of
government @ Dartmouth) FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Jan/Feb. 2013. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-john-ikenberry-andwilliam-c-wohlforth/lean-forward
Should America come home? For many prominent scholars of international relations, the answer is yes -- a view that seems even
There is little
evidence that the United States would save much money switching to a smaller global
posture. Nor is the current strategy self-defeating: it has not provoked the formation of
counterbalancing coalitions or caused the country to spend itself into economic decline. Nor
will it condemn the United States to foolhardy wars in the future. What the strategy does do is
help prevent the outbreak of conflict in the world's most important regions, keep the global
economy humming, and make international cooperation easier. Charting a different course
would threaten all these benefits.
wiser in the wake of the disaster in Iraq and the Great Recession. Yet their arguments simply don't hold up.
Terrorism, Climate Change, and Pandemics
Plus, American leadership is key to international cooperation and solves a host
existential threats
Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, & William C. Wohlforth – 2013 (associate
professor of government at Dartmouth, professor of politics @ Princeton & professor of
government @ Dartmouth) FOREIGN AFFAIRS. Jan/Feb. 2013. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138468/stephen-g-brooks-g-john-ikenberry-andwilliam-c-wohlforth/lean-forward
What goes for the global economy goes for other forms of international cooperation. Here, too,
American leadership benefits many countries but disproportionately helps the United States.
In order to counter transnational threats, such as terrorism , piracy, organized crime, climate
change, and pandemics , states have to work together and take collective action. But
cooperation does not come about effortlessly, especially when national interests diverge. The
United States' military efforts to promote stability and its broader leadership make it easier
for Washington to launch joint initiatives and shape them in ways that reflect U.S. interests.
After all, cooperation is hard to come by in regions where chaos reigns, and it flourishes
where leaders can anticipate lasting stability.
(--) Terrorism causes extinction
Hellman 8 [Martin E. Hellman, Professor @ Stanford, “Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence”
SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf]
The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article
focuses primarily on the latter. An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a nuclear
weapon would be a catastrophe of immense proportions: “A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a
typical work day would likely kill some half a million people, and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life
The likelihood of such an attack is also significant. Former Secretary
of Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist incident within the next decade to be
roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than one
would be changed forever.” [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix].
percent, but notes, “We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A
nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event, but we can’t live in a world where it’s anything but extremely low-probability.” [Hegland 2005]. In
a survey of 85 national security experts, Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the
“probability of an attack involving a nuclear explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next
10 years,” with 79 percent of the respondents believing “it more likely to be carried out by
terrorists” than by a government [Lugar 2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but
that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism is one of the potential trigger mechanisms for a
full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one component of the
overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever
risk(s) warrant attention. Similar remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article
would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are
unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact, society’s
almost total
neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more important.
The cosT of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3 This section
explores the cost of a failure of nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this
article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be
termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World War. World War II’s fatalities were double or triple that
number—chaos prevented a more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the
horror of those two wars. Many people therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapola- tion of the
effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something that humanity may just have to face and from which it will
then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint session of
the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, “Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. … If you lose, you are
annihilated. If you win, you stand only to lose. No
longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel.
It contains now only the germs of double suicide.” Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar
view: “If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization
will be destroyed” [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those
concerns when they quoted President Reagan’s belief that nuclear weapons were “totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing,
possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.” [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the horrendous
toll that World War III would exact: “The resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch
calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-160 million dead) … a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20
million and 30 million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days. Additional millions would be
injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care … millions of people might starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter,
but it is not possible to estimate how many. … further millions … might eventually die of latent radiation effects.” [OTA 1979, page 8] This OTA report
also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS
1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous nuclear
explosions and their resultant fire- storms could
usher in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the earth, much as many
scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or
comet striking Earth. The TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow
a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that even
a limited nuclear exchange or one between
newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could have devastating long-lasting climatic
consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how
destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from
collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that
preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option.
(--) Warming means extinction if nothing is done
Graciela Chichilnisky – 2013. (Professor of Economics and of Statistics Director, Columbia Consortium for Risk Management
(CCRM) Columbia University, 6th Annual Distinguished Lecture Chautauque Series on International StudiesKeynote Address for
Women’s History MonthEastern Kentucky University, “Avoiding Extinction,” at least 2010, http://www.chichilnisky.com/wpcontent/uploads/2013/01/Avoiding-Extinction-EKU-revised-Jan-23-2013.pdf, Accessed 8/16/2013, WSH)
For the first time ever, humans dominate Planet Earth. We are changing the basic metabolism
of the planet: the composition of gases in the atmosphere, the integrity of its bodies of water,
and the complex web of species that makes life on Earth. What comes next? The changes we are
precipitating in the atmosphere are fundamental and can lead to disruptions in climate and
global warming. Signals abound: in the Southern hemisphere alpine glaciers and Antartic ice
sheets are melting; in the Northern hemisphere Alaska’s permafrost is melting, sinking entire
towns whose inhabitants are being relocated at a cost of $140,000 per person. Greenland's ice
sheet is gone, creating hostile climate conditions for a number of species that are now close to
extinction such as the polar bear. In Patagonia and the Alps we observe mountains without ice
or glaciers, reducing the ability of these regions to store water needed for human
consumption. In the Caribbean seas 50% of corals are already extinct. Desertification has
overtaken 25% of China's land mass. Climatic instability has led to Australia’s longest draught
on record, followed by the worst floods in that continent’s history. We observe disappearing
summer ice in the Arctic Seas and soil erosion and storm surges in Alaska. Where is all of this coming
from? The rapid industrialization of wealthy nations during the last century is responsible for most of the changes and for the risks
they entail. Historically the industrialized nations in the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) originated
70% (now still 60%) of all global emissions of carbon, emissions that most scientists in the world, including those in the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, believe to cause climate change. China’s relentless industrial growth over the
last two decades is a sign of things to come: it accelerates the risk of climate change and underscores the fact that in 20 or 30 years
into the future most emissions could come from today's poor nations as they assume their turn to industrialize. Water expands
when it warms. Since the seas are warming they are rising all over the world. This irrevocable upward trend is well documented:
slowly but surely the rising waters will sink the Maldives and most other island states – there are 43 island states in the United
Nations representing about 23% of the global vote and most or all could disappear soon under the warming seas. The current shift in
climate patterns has led to habitat changes for many insect species and therefore vector illnesses, for example new outbreaks of
malaria in Africa. 25 million people are reportedly migrating due to drought and other climate change conditions, and the numbers
are increasing rapidly. In the US the consequences are less extreme but they stack up: the mighty Colorado River is drying up, its
basin under stress prompts orders to turnoff farm water. Lake Mead’s waters in Nevada exhibit record lows threatening the main
supply of water to Las Vegas, and arid areas are spreading quickly as Vegas’ new sites double water use. Wild fires from drought
conditions have multiplied and spread rapidly around the region, including California since 2006.The world is aware of the
connection that scientists postulate between climate change and the use of fossil energy. The largest segment of carbon emissions,
45% of all global emissions of CO2, originate in the world’s power plant infrastructure, 87% of which are fossil fuel plants that
produce the overwhelming majority of the world's electricity. This power plant infrastructure represents $55 trillion according to the
International Energy Agency, about the size of the world's economic output. New forms of clean energy are emerging such as wind
farms in Scotland and solar farms in Spain in an attempt to forestall carbon emissions. But the process is necessarily slow since the
world’s fossil power plant infrastructure is comparable to the world’s entire GDP, and therefore changing this infrastructure will take
decades. But this timeframe - several decades - is too slow to avert the potential catastrophes that are anticipated in the next 10 20 years. What, then, is the solution? Below we propose a realistic plan that involves market solutions in both industrial and
developing nations, simultaneously resolving the problems of economic development and climate change and the global climate
negotiations. But the climate change issue is just one of several global environmental areas that are in crisis today. Biodiversity is
climate warming threaten ecosystems. Endangered species include seamammals, birds such as cockatoos, polar bears, and marine life such as coral, sawfish, whales,
sharks, dogfish, sea-turtles, skates, grouper, seals, rays, and bass; the survival even of
primates, our cousins in evolution is at risk. Scientists know that we are in the midst of the 6th
largest extinction of biodiversity in the history of Planet Earth, and that the scope of
extinction is so large that 75% of all known species are at risk today. The UN Millennium
Report documents rates of extinction 1,000 times higher than is found in fossil records. The
current 6th largest extinction event follows the dinosaurs’ extinction, which took place 65
million years ago. But today's extinction event is unique in that it is caused, created, by
another: industrialization and
human activity. And it puts our own species at risk.
There is a warning signal worth bringing up: all major
recorded planetary extinctions were related to changes in climate conditions. Through industrialization we have created
environmental conditions that could put our own species’ survival at risk. 99.9% of all species that ever existed are now
extinct. Are we to be next? Will humans survive?
The issue now is how to avoid extinction .
(--) Diseases risk extinction:
The Scotsman, 9/11/1995 (“The mega death,” Lexis)
plagues, viruses and killer microbes are the arsenal
of the future. Together with the sarin gas which it released on the Tokyo underground in April, the Japanese Ohm cult had
stockpiled a lethal bacterium which it chose not to unleash. Crippling continents by using killer infectious
diseases is no far- fetched idea of sci-fi novels. But the scientists' inability to distinguish between naturally emerging and
Bullets and bombs may be the weapons of the present, but
synthetic disease outbreaks means whole areas could be laid waste before anyone realised what was happening, warns Laurie
Garrett, author of a ground-breaking book on the burgeoning of infectious disease. All this on top of the fact that new
diseases
are emerging naturally at an alarming rate - representing a real threat to the survival of the
human species - says The Coming Plague. Meticulously researched over the past decade, Garrett's
book charts the history of our age-old battle against the microbes, and concludes that we are beginning to cede
the advantage to the disease-carriers. The optimism born out of defeating smallpox in the Sixties was dangerously
premature. Everything from overuse of antibiotics to increased promiscuity have helped smooth the path for the microbes ever
since. "The survival of the human species is
Nobel Laureate Joshua Lederberg in The Coming Plague.
not a pre- ordained evolutionary programme," warns
2NC/1NR Answers
AT: Obamacare kills democrats
Obamacare will not cost the Democrats the election.
Dan Nowicki – 5/11 (staff writer) ARIZONA REPUBLIC. May 11, 2014.
Retrieved May 17, 2014 from
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/11/democrats-face-tough-landscapemidterms/8962725/
Others said House Republicans may have miscalculated by focusing so heavily on Obama's
troubled health-care rollout at the expense of other issues such as immigration reform. While
the health-care technical embarrassments and other problems have given Republicans a lift,
the administration has taken steps to recover and it's unclear how the issue will play over the
summer.¶ "Putting all their eggs in that 'Obamacare' basket might be a mistake," said David
Berman, an Arizona State University professor emeritus and senior research fellow at the
school's Morrison Institute for Public Policy. "They hit 8 million (sign-ups), and it's working.
Even though a majority of the people disapprove of it, a majority also want to see it fixed, so I
can see that sort of fading as an issue."
Obamacare will not cost the democrats the election – it may help them
Danny Vinik – 4/21 (staff writer) NEW REPUBLIC, Apr. 21, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117466/2014-midterm-odds-republicans-chances-takingsenate-are-falling
Republicans want to make the midterms a referendum on Obamacare, but that is easier said
than done. As Brian Beutler has documented, the law’s recent success has hamstrung
Republicans' ability to use it for political gain. Readers and reporters alike seem to be tiring of
the story, as you can see from Google's headline trends for “Obamacare” over the past year:
The law was front-page news throughout October and November due to the disastrous launch
of Healthcare.gov, the controversy surrounding the Obama's “if you like your plan, you can keep
it” promise, and health-care plan cancellations. But then the administration fixed the website
and people began signing up for the law, and the number of headlines dropped. For
Obamacare to have an impact this fall, Republicans need to maintain the media and public's
interest in the law for a long time—and they need that interest to be negative. Millions of
people now have insurance because of the law. Millions more have received it through the
Medicaid expansion, and the refusal of many Republican governors and legislators to expand
it in their states could offer Democrats another political advantage.
Public opinions about Obamacare are too entrenched to move
Leigh Ann Caldwell – 4/16 (CNN reporter) Apr. 16, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.kcra.com/politics/2014-midterms-What-s-at-stake/25496204
"This data pretty clearly shows that even though attitudes regarding the ACA are 'baked in'
with voters (68% feel strongly one way or another about the issue), the intensity is clearly on
the negative side, as GOP voters clearly dislike the new law more than Democrats are in love
with it," said GOP pollster Neil Newhouse, a co-founder of Public Opinion Strategies.
AT: EPA regulations solve global
warming.
The EPA regulations won’t solve warming: multiple reasons.
Richard W. Rahn - 2011 (senior fellow at the Cato Institute) WASHINGTON TIMES, JAN. 25, 2011.
Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from Lexis/Nexis.
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ruled that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and, as a result, has been holding up
the permitting of new power and manufacturing plants. If this continues, it will cause a significant drop in U.S. economic growth and
China, India and many other countries are rapidly
increasing CO2 emissions, overwhelming whatever actions the United States may take. Even if
all new CO2 emissions were stopped globally, it would be decades before there would be even
a minor effect on global temperatures. Now, new research is indicating that sunspot activity is
much more important than CO2 when it comes to influencing the earth's temperature. The EPA
ban is nothing more than national economic suicide. Let us see if Mr. Obama has the courage
to tell the EPA to stop.
job creation, yet it will have no measurable benefit.
The EPA regulations can’t be successfully implemented.
Peter Alpern - 2011, (staff writer) INDUSTRY WEEK. Jan. 7, 2011.
Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from
http://www.industryweek.com/articles/epas_emissions_regulations_the_dog_that_didnt_bark_23596.as
px)
Jay Timmons, president of the National Association of Manufacturers, warned that the EPA's
efforts would only raise energy costs for manufacturers and crush economic growth. "It's
questionable whether the EPA has the resources or the capacity to implement these
burdensome and complicated regulations," says Timmons.
EPA regulations don’t solve warming – four reasons
Jonathan Strong - 2010 12/29/2010 (staff writer) DAILY CALLER.
Dec. 29, 2010. Retrieved Apr. 29,
2014 from “http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/29/thedc-analysis-epa-global-warming-regulations-no-endrun-around-congress/)
In fact, there are many problems the EPA faces in using the Clean Air Act. First , the law was
designed for pollutants like smog that accumulate in a given city or region. The law is actually
implemented by states, who can individually fail to meet pollution reduction goals, thus
becoming “out of attainment,” facing penalties. Greenhouse gases are essentially evenly
distributed across the globe. It hardly makes sense to hold individual states accountable for
their greenhouse gas levels when every pollution source across the entire planet is
contributing to that level. Second , another major lever in the law is to require the best
pollution-control technology on any newly built or upgraded facilities like factories and power
plants. No technology currently exists to “scrub” greenhouse gasses from emissions, so
requiring the best technology is inherently limited, even illogical . Third , enforcing the Clean
Air Act typically means ensuring permanent pollution control technology is installed at a
facility and properly working. For climate change pollutants, since there is no control
technology, the amount of pollution is basically a factor of how much output there is by a
facility. This creates a huge, unique financial incentive for any given facility to cheat on a
greenhouse gas cap, since more production is more revenue. It will be much harder to track
for EPA agents than typical air pollutants. Fourth , the EPA has already had to significantly
bend the letter of the law to avoid bureaucratic Armageddon. The Clean Air Act says a given pollution
source comes under EPA oversight if it is emitting more than 100 or 250 tons per year. To avoid capturing over six million new
facilities under regulation, including nearly four million single-family homes (a 40,594 percent increase that would presumably
ensnare Al Gore’s mansion), the EPA issued a regulation which puts the threshold at 100,000 tons of pollution per year. Whether
that rather sizable legal leap withstands judicial scrutiny is an open question. If it does not, the result would be complete meltdown,
as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has admitted, the EPA regulations
will have little or no impact on global average temperatures. There are no Clean Air Act
regulations on India or China, and greenhouse gas-emitting manufacturing can be outsourced.
as the EPA freely concedes. Fifth,
In April, the EPA estimated its climate change regulations for automobiles and other “mobile” sources would reduce the average
global temperature by 0.006 to 0.0015 degrees Celsius over the next 90 years.
China and India aren’t on board for new EPA regulations.
Fred Singer - 2010 (professor emeritus of environmental sciences at
the University of Virginia)
WASHINGTON
TIMES,
Dec.
29,
2010.
Retrieved
Apr.
29,
2014
from
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/28/no-proof-man-causes-global-warming/
International climate negotiations collapsed in December 2009 in Copenhagen (soon dubbed "Flopnhagen") - and the justcompleted round in Cancun, Mexico, achieved little. Basically, the public no longer trusts the science being dispensed by the United
Also, major developing countries, including China and India, refuse to sacrifice
economic growth for an uncertain goal.
Nations.
Outsourcing to third world countries prevents regulations from solving
warming.
PR Newswire, DEC. 23, 2010. Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from http://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/npra-says-epa-proposed-ghg-regulations-bad-for-america-112380854.html)
"EPA's proposals would carry tremendous costs but no benefits for the American people – all
pain and no gain. Regulations can't create technology that doesn't exist or change the laws of
physics and economics, so the only way to comply with EPA's proposals would be to inflict
massive increases in energy costs and massive increases in unemployment on families across
our nation. This is exactly the opposite of what President Obama rightly called for when he said economic recovery and job
creation should be our nation's top priorities. "Exporting American industries, jobs, cash and prosperity to
other nations – and then importing greenhouse gases and manufactured goods from those
countries – makes no sense environmentally or economically. It's the wrong action at the wrong time, as
our nation struggles to recover from high unemployment and a devastating recession.
EPA regulations aren’t nearly enough to solve global warming.
William S. Becker - 2010 (staff writer) HUFFINGTON POST. Oct. 28, 2010. Accessed Apr. 29, 2014
from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-s-becker/climate-action-part-4---o_b_775633.html)
President Obama has been justifiably criticized for failing to exert his full force to move a climate bill through Congress, a goal that
may be deferred for several years as a result of the November election. The goal Obama set for reducing U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions -- just 3 percent by 2020 compared to the 25-40 percent cuts the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says are
needed from industrial economies -- is embarrassingly low for the nation that has put more carbon in the atmosphere than any
other.
Assuming they are not repealed, weakened or starved of resources by Congress, the
"chunks" the Administration has implemented or announced so far will achieve 70 percent of
Obama's 3 percent goal, according to the World Resources Institute. But that's still 70 percent
of an inadequate aspiration.
EPA regulations won’t solve global warming.
CORAL DAVENPORT – 2014 (staff writer) Apr. 14, 2014.
from
laws.html?_r=0
NEW YORK TIMES. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/us/politics/political-rifts-slow-us-effort-on-climate-
Ten countries are responsible for 70 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas pollution. While the report makes clear that all
The
authors of the report say Mr. Obama’s E.P.A. regulations represent a significant first step to
cutting United States carbon pollution — but not enough to avert the worst effects of a
warming world.
major economies must act, the actions of China and the United States, the top two carbon polluters, will be most crucial.¶
*** 2AC Answers ***
Turn: OMB study says EPA Regulations help the economy
Jeff Spross – 2013 (Reporter; ThinkProgress; “New Study: The Economic Benefits of EPA Regulations Massively Outweigh
the Costs,” 5/3/2014, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/03/1955891/new-omb-study-the-economic-benefits-of-eparegulations-massively-outweigh-the-costs/, Accessed 6/21/2014, WSH)
Republicans have railed against the regulations of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “job-killing,” as a threat to freedom, and as a drag
on economic growth. The claim has never comported with evidence , but like a zombie it just refuses to
From the 2012 Presidential campaign onwards,
die.¶ The latest effort to kill it comes via a new study from the White House’s
O ffice of M anagement and B udget,
which found that the benefits EPA regulations bring to the economy far outweigh the costs.¶
The way this works is pretty straight-forward. Environmental regulations do impose compliance costs on
businesses, and can raise prices, which hurt economic growth. But they also create jobs by requiring
pollution clean-up and prevention efforts. And perhaps even more importantly, they save the
economy billions by avoiding pollution’s deleterious health effects. Particles from smoke
stacks, for example, are implicated in respiratory diseases, heart attacks, infections and a host
of other ailments, all of which require billions in health care costs per year to treat. Preventing
those particles from going into the air means healthier and more productive citizens, who can
go spend that money on something other than making themselves well again. Another
example is carbon emissions, which will impose costs on the economy in the form of future
disruption to food supplies, destruction from extreme weather, and other upheavals if they’re
not curbed. Researchers generally put those costs at around $20 to $25 per ton of carbon, but estimates vary widely. Other
regulations are actually aimed at reducing red tape, improving communication between
agencies, and facilitating the flow of information.¶ The OMB study looked at a range of
regulations across the economy, and found their benefits outweighed their costs across the
board. The blue and red bars below represent the range of estimates for what the respective costs and benefits of regulations
were. In very few instances was even the very upper limit of cost estimates equal to the very lower limit of benefit estimates.¶ But
than with EPA regulations themselves. Over the last decade, they
imposed as much as $45 billion in costs on the economy, but they also drove as much as $640
billion in benefits:¶ The OMB found that a decade’s worth of major federal rules had
produced annual benefits to the U.S. economy of between $193 billion and $800 billion and
impose aggregate costs of $57 billion to $84 billion. “These ranges are reported in 2001 dollars and reflect the
no where was the effect greater
uncertain benefits and costs of each rule,” the report noted.¶ Rules from the EPA added significantly to both sides of the ledger. “It
should be clear that the rules with the highest benefits and the highest costs, by far, come from the Environmental Protection
Agency and in particular its Office of Air and Radiation,” the OMB study said. EPA regulations accounted for between 58% and 80%
of the benefits the study found as well as 44% to 54% of the costs. Air regulations accounted for nearly 99% of EPA rule benefits,
according to the report.¶ Getting
into the numbers, the single biggest effect from any of the EPA’s
rules came from the recently enacted Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which
Republicans have vociferously opposed. MATS also brought the biggest effect of any of the 14 rules issued in fiscal
year 2012 — resulting in an estimated cost of $8.1 billion annually, but also offsetting benefits of $28 to $77 billion annually. The
runner-up, which along with MATS made up the vast majority of 2012′s costs and benefits,
were the vehicle fuel efficiency standards jointly issued by the EPA and Transportation
Department.¶ Since this is a study by the executive branch that endorses policies preferred by the executive branch, it’s worth
similar findings have been regularly dug up by other researchers. In 2011, an
analysis by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that job loss due to increased energy
prices from MATS would be swamped by new jobs in pollution abatement and control. It also
found that for each major EPA rule finalized by the Obama Administration at the time, annual
benefits exceeded costs by $10 to $95 billion a piece. EPI even returned to the question in 2012, and found net
pointing out that
job gains from MATS would reach 117,000 to 135,000 in 2015. The San Francisco Federal Reserve even ran an analysis of regulations
more broadly, and found that in states where businesses expressed more concern about regulations over time, employment actually
went up slightly.¶ Surveys
of small businesses routinely fail to find compelling evidence that firms
view taxes and regulations as a major impediment to hiring, an EPA-mandated clean-up of the Chesapeake
BAY is anticipated to create 35 times as many jobs as the proposed construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and jobs in the coal
industry actually increased by 10 percent after the EPA cracked down on mountaintop-removal mining in 2009.
Election results are still up in the air – any number of news events could effect
the political climate
Nate Silver – 3/23 (political commentator for New York Times) Mar. 23, 2014. Retrieved Apr.
28, 2014 from http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast/
In plain language: sometimes one party wins most or all of the competitive races. If we had
conducted this exercise at this point in the 2006, 2008 or 2012 campaigns, that party would
have been the Democrats. In 2010, it would have been the Republicans. There are still more
than seven months for news events to intervene and affect the national climate.
Election outcome is far from certain – democrats may be in better shape then
most think
Danny Vinik – 1/21 (staff writer) NEW REPUBLIC, Apr. 21, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117466/2014-midterm-odds-republicans-chances-takingsenate-are-falling
The Washington consensus right now is that Republicans are slight favorites to take control of
the Senate in the midterms. FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver put the odds at 60 percent. Other
prognosticators agree. That may be true right now, but there are signs that the calculus could
change in the coming months. Democrats may be in better shape than anyone realizes.
Republicans will use Obamacare heavily in the upcoming midterms – it
damages Obama’s approval ratings
Leigh Ann Caldwell – 1/16 (CNN reporter) Apr. 16, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.kcra.com/politics/2014-midterms-What-s-at-stake/25496204
The deadline to enroll in the Affordable Care Act for the year has come and gone, but
Republicans think voter anger over the law is here to stay and they've made it a campaign
priority to highlight it as the President struggles with dismal approval ratings.¶ Republicans
point to the only test case they have: Florida's 13th Congressional District where David Jolly beat
Democrat Alex Sink in a special election in March.¶ The deep-pocketed third-party group
Americans for Prosperity is all in, playing in dozens of races using the sole weapon of
Obamacare.¶ "We do want to make sure that Obamacare is the No. 1 issue in the country," Tim
Phillips, president of AFP, said in a recent interview.
Equal pay and minimum wage outweigh other concerns
Leigh Ann Caldwell – 1/16 (CNN reporter) Apr. 16, 2014. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2014 from
http://www.kcra.com/politics/2014-midterms-What-s-at-stake/25496204
While Republicans have vitriol over Obamacare to motivate their base, Democrats think
they've found their go-to: equal pay and minimum wage.¶ Those are two issues that speak to
voters personal pocketbooks, especially those of women and people of color -- groups that are
more likely to work a minimum wage job and get paid less than a white male. Oh, and two
groups that vote less often in midterms.¶ "It's extremely potent," Democratic pollster Celinda
Lake said recently. "It's the No. 1 issue that gets single women out to vote, but it also unites
men and women."
Climate change is a low priority
CORAL DAVENPORT – 1/14 (staff writer) Apr. 14, 2014. NEW YORK TIMES. Retrieved Apr.
28, 2014 from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/15/us/politics/political-rifts-slow-us-efforton-climate-laws.html?_r=0
Many members of the Republican Party question the established science that carbon pollution
contributes to climate change — and hundreds have also signed on to a pledge promising never
to raise taxes.¶ But there has not been a huge public outcry to endorse new climate change
policy. Polls consistently show that while a majority of Americans accept that climate change
is real, addressing it ranks at the bottom of voters’ priorities.
Fossil fuel industry is still more powerful than clean energy supporters
Steven Mufson & Tom Hamburger – 1/25 (staff writers). WASHINGTON POST. Apr. 25,
2014. Retrieved Apr. 29, 2014 from
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/a-battle-is-looming-over-renewableenergy-and-fossil-fuel-interests-are-losing/2014/04/25/24ed78e2-cb23-11e3-a75e463587891b57_story.html
“Clean energy is beginning to become mainstream,” said Gabe Elsner, executive director of the
Energy and Policy Institute, a clean-energy think tank in Washington. “Renewable energy is
popular and has increased political power now,” but, he added, “that power is still eclipsed by
the resources of the fossil fuel industry.”