Elections Disadvantage Table of Contents



Download 0.6 Mb.
Page1/25
Date conversion12.05.2016
Size0.6 Mb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   25

Elections Disadvantage




Table of Contents





Elections Disadvantage 1

Table of Contents 2

Strategy Guide 4

1NC Shell: Obama Good – EPA Regulations 5

***Obama Good Disad*** 5

2NC Overview – Obama Good 7

2NC New Impact Scenario: October Surprise – Iran Strikes 9

2NC Uniqueness Wall – Obama Winning/Close Race 11

2NC Link Wall – Plan Unpopular 14

***Specific Links*** 19

Link – Railroads Unpopular 20

Link – Infrastructure Bank Unpopular 21

***Election Internal Links*** 21

Small Shifts are Significant 22

Obama’s Popularity Key to the Election 23

Romney Will Eliminate EPA Regulations 24

***Impact Internal Links*** 24

EPA Regulations Solve Warming 25

Impacts: AT: Too Far Gone 29

***Impact Extensions*** 29

*EPA Regulations* 30

Impacts: Military Readiness 31

Impacts: Leadership/Economy 32

Impacts: Warming—Extinction 33

Impacts: All AFF Impact Turns are Empirically Denied 34

AT: EPA Regs Hurt Economy 35

AT: Can’t Solve Russia/China 41

*Iran Strikes/October Surprise* 43

October Surprise Internal Link Extension 44

Iran Strikes Bad – Nuclear Wars/Terrorism 45

Escalation 47

AT: Highway Bill Thumper 49

***2NC Answers To*** 49

AT: Too Soon 50

AT: Too Late/Only Economy Matters 52

AT: Election is Rigged 54

AT: Plan is Bottom of the Docket 56

***Affirmative Answers*** 56

2AC Frontline – Obama Good: EPA Regulations 58

1AR Ext. – Too Early 62

1AR Ext. – No Link: Not a Key Issue 64

1AR Ext. – Only the Economy Matters 65

1AR Ext – Highway Bill Thumper 66

1AR Ext. – Obama Lose Now/Romney Winning 67

***Link Turns*** 69

Generic Link Turns – Plan Popular Wall 70

*Specific Link Turns* 78

Infrastructure Bank – Popular 79

Airports – Popular 80

***Impact Turns*** 82

*EPA Regulations* 83

1AR Ext. – EPA Regs Don’t Solve Warming 85

Turn: Economy 86

Turn: Natural Gas 89

*Iran Strikes* 91

Iran Strikes Good – Heg/War 93

A2: US-Russian Relations 96

A2: US-China Relations 97





Strategy Guide



The thesis of this disadvantage is that Obama is going to win the election for President of the U.S. now, but the race is close and could swing either way. The plan triggers a massive backlash and controversy over wasteful spending. This blow to Obama’s popularity makes Romney win the election. While an Obama win preserves environmental regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – Romney would eliminate those protections. EPA regulations prevent climate change, because they cause businesses to pollute less greenhouse gasses. Climate change results in extinction via global warming.
The affirmative can either link turn (argue that the Aff helps Obama win the election because it is popular) or impact turn (argue that EPA regulations are bad and a Romney win is good) –there are cards in the file to execute either strategy.
Good luck!


***Obama Good Disad***


1NC Shell: Obama Good – EPA Regulations
Obama is ahead in the presidential election race now but it’s really close

West 6-29

(Paul, LA Times, “Romney, Obama dividing U.S. along fault lines”, http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-obama-dividing-us-along-fault-lines-20120629,0,546981.story)



Nationwide, the Obama-Romney matchup has been a statistical dead heat for months. But in the battlegrounds, where the election will actually be decided, the president has opened up a slight—though by no means decisive—edge. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll this week had Obama leading Romney by just three percentage points nationally, the same as the latest Gallup tracking poll. But when the NBC/Journal pollsters separated out responses from a dozen battleground states, Obama’s lead widened, to eight percentage points. A new partisan analysis by Democracy Corps, a group headed by former Clinton strategist James Carville and Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg, reflects similar findings. The group’s polling showed that Obama’s most recent gains have come disproportionately in battleground states and entirely from what they term the “rising American electorate,” made up of younger voters, unmarried women, Latinos and African Americans—in other words, Obama’s base. “These voters are beginning to come back,” the Democratic group reports, based on national polling from June 23-27. Obama’s support from voters under age 30 has improved by 15 percentage points since January but remains “still well short of 2008,” while Romney is losing ground among younger whites. In noting gains for Obama in battleground states, Democracy Corps said that “the shifts there may reflect the sharp attacks on Romney’s record” in Obama’s campaign ads, as well as “better than average economic performance in key states.”
The plan is massively unpopular – it’s perceived as a wasteful spending

Orski 12

Ken Orski is editor and publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, an influential and widely read transportation newsletter, now in its 20th year of publication. Orski has worked professionally in the field of transportation for close to 40 years. He served as Associate Administrator of the Urban Mass Transportation Administration under President Nixon and President Ford. He is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard College and holds a J.D. degree from Harvard Law School. NewGeography – 02/05/2012 – http://www.newgeography.com/content/002662-why-pleas-increase-infrastructure-funding-fall-deaf-ears



Finding the resources to keep transportation infrastructure in good order is a more difficult challenge. Unlike traditional utilities, roads and bridges have no rate payers to fall back on. Politicians and the public seem to attach a low priority to fixing aging transportation infrastructure and this translates into a lack of support for raising fuel taxes or imposing tolls. Investment in infrastructure did not even make the top ten list of public priorities in the latest Pew Research Center survey of domestic concerns. Calls by two congressionally mandated commissions to vastly increase transportation infrastructure spending have gone ignored. So have repeated pleas by advocacy groups such as Building America’s Future, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. Nor has the need to increase federal spending on infrastructure come up in the numerous policy debates held by the Republican presidential candidates. Even President Obama seems to have lost his former fervor for this issue. In his last State-of-the-Union message he made only a perfunctory reference to "rebuilding roads and bridges." High-speed rail and an infrastructure bank, two of the President’s past favorites, were not even mentioned. Why pleas to increase infrastructure funding fall on deaf ears There are various theories why appeals to increase infrastructure spending do not resonate with the public. One widely held view is that people simply do not trust the federal government to spend their tax dollars wisely. As proof, evidence is cited that a great majority of state and local transportation ballot measures do get passed, because voters know precisely where their tax money is going. No doubt there is much truth to that. Indeed, thanks to local funding initiatives and the use of tolling, state transportation agencies are becoming increasingly more self-reliant and less dependent on federal funding Another explanation, and one that I find highly plausible, has been offered by Charles Lane, editorial writer for the Washington Post. Wrote Lane in an October 31, 2011 Washington Post column, "How come my family and I traveled thousands of miles on both the east and west coast last summer without actually seeing any crumbling roads or airports? On the whole, the highways and byways were clean, safe and did not remind me of the Third World countries. ... Should I believe the pundits or my own eyes?" asked Lane ("The U.S. infrastructure argument that crumbles upon examination"). Along with Lane, I think the American public is ske ptical about alarmist claims of "crumbling infrastructure" because they see no evidence of it around them. State DOTs and transit authorities take great pride in maintaining their systems in good condition and, by and large, they succeed in doing a good job of it. Potholes are rare, transit buses and trains seldom break down, and collapsing bridges, happily, are few and far between.
Obama’s popularity is key to the election and it can still swing

Cook 12

Charlie, Cook Political Report, National Journal, 4/12, http://cookpolitical.com/node/12364)



When a president runs for reelection, his job-approval ratings are more significant than the trial heats. Voters who approve of the job a president is doing are very likely to vote to reelect him. Voters who disapprove are very likely to support the president’s opponent. Obama’s job ratings have ranged in recent weeks from as low as 44 percent to as high as 50 percent. The RealClearPolitics average and the Huffington Post/Pollster.com trend estimate show Obama’s approval rating at 48 percent and his disapproval score at 47 percent.


A Romney win will remove EPA regulations

Kendall 6-26

(Brent, “Court Backs EPA on Warming” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303640804577490572237074442.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

A spokeswoman for Atlanta-based Southern Co., SO +0.71% owner of four electric utilities, said the company "continues to believe that the Clean Air Act is ill-suited to handle issues like greenhouse gases, and that Congress should be the policy maker in this area." The court's ruling is likely to echo in this year's elections, where Republicans, including presidential candidate Mitt Romney, are charging the Obama administration with undermining job growth through tighter environmental rules. Mr. Romney's camp this month unveiled a television ad in Ohio, a major coal-mining state, that envisions the first months of a Romney administration and says, "By day 100, President Romney repeals regulations that are strangling our energy industry and costing us jobs." Mr. Romney has said that he wants to amend the Clean Air Act to strip the EPA of its authority to regulate carbon dioxide. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the decision was "a strong validation" of the agency's approach. The court held that "EPA followed both the science and the law in taking common-sense, reasonable actions to address the very real threat of climate change by limiting greenhouse-gas pollution from the largest sources," she said.
EPA regulations are key to solve climate change

Parenti 10

(Christian Parenti, a contributing editor at The Nation and a visiting scholar at the Center for Place, Culture and Politics, at the CUNY Grad Center, 4-20-10, “The Nation: The Case for EPA Action,” http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126129216)



On April 1 the Environmental Protection Agency established rules restricting greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, starting in 2012. This is the first of what could become a sweeping series of regulations stemming from the agency's conclusion that greenhouse gases harm human health. If the EPA were to act robustly, it could achieve significant and immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions using nothing more than existing laws and current technology. Doing so would signal to a waiting world that America is serious about addressing climate change. But a dangerous assault on the agency is gathering momentum in Congress, corporate boardrooms, the media and the courts. The swarm of counterattacks all seek to strip the EPA of its power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources like coal-fired power plants. Some legislative proposals would even undo the EPA's finding that greenhouse gases are hazardous, taking the EPA out of the climate fight altogether. Wonkish at first glance, the fight over EPA rulemaking may be the most important environmental battle in a generation. The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says rich countries like the United States must cut emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020—only ten years away—and thereafter make precipitous cuts to almost zero emissions. If we don't act now, average global temperatures will likely increase by more than 2 degrees Celsius and trigger self-compounding runaway climate change, resulting in a massive rise in sea levels, devastated agriculture and attendant social chaos. Not one of the climate change bills up for discussion meets this threshold, and it is looking increasingly unlikely that Congress will be able to pass any comprehensive climate change legislation this session. The failures of Congress and the harrowing facts of climate science mean that aggressive and immediate EPA action is essential. From a legal perspective, the EPA has all the tools it needs to respond adequately to the climate crisis. In fact, "the United States has the strongest environmental laws in the world," says Kassie Siegel, an attorney with the Center for Biological Diversity. The center specializes in suing the government when it violates green laws. "We don't need new legislation. The Clean Air Act can achieve everything we need: a 40 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels by 2020." The two most important things the EPA can do are to halt any permitting of new coal-fired power plants—about fifty new plants are seeking approval—and to force all existing coal-fired facilities to make the technologically feasible switch to natural gas. If this "fuel switching" happened, total nonvehicle US emissions would be reduced by 13 percent or more in a matter of a year or two, say various experts. Natural gas is generally half as polluting as coal. But in the case of old, inefficient coal-fired plants, switching to gas can reduce emissions by as much as two-thirds. And there is plenty of natural gas: discoveries have glutted the market, and prices are down more than 60 percent from their recent peak. Gas is not a solution; it merely offers a realistic "bridging fuel" as we move toward power generated from wind, solar, geothermal and hydro sources. Perhaps the most far-reaching impact of EPA regulation would be to put a de facto price on carbon by leveling fines on greenhouse gas polluters. Such penalties could reach thousands per day, per violation. If targets for emissions reductions are tough enough, few coal plants will be able to meet them and will instead pay fines—what amounts to a carbon tax. Then a cheap source of energy would become expensive, which would drive investment away from fossil fuels toward carbon-neutral forms of energy. At first, President Obama seemed ready to use executive power to do an end run around a sclerotic Congress, when he authorized the EPA to start regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Obama was merely complying with the law: the EPA has been mandated to act since 2007, when the Supreme Court ruled, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that the agency should determine whether greenhouse gases threaten our health. The Bush administration refused to use this authority, but when Obama took office he allowed the EPA to do its job again.
Extinction is inevitable without action to stop climate change

Tickell 8

[Oliver, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction]



We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Gurdian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   ...   25


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page