NDI 2014 Elections Disadvantage1NC Shells

1NCGOP Good DADevelopment

The GOP will earn a Senate majority in November midtermsa weak economy is the most important issue for voters, but theres still time to gain momentum for DemocratsDorning 6/26/14 Mike, reporter for Bloomberg News, "Obamas Economic Rebound Doesnt Boost Democratic Allies", June 26 2014, www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-26/economic-rebound-seen-undercut-by-weak-pay-as-vote-winnerSluggish improvement in living standards among Democrats core voters threatens to hurt the partys candidates in this years congressional elections. Median household income among all Americans is still lower than before the recession, which ended five years ago, according to economic consultant Sentier Research. Key Democratic constituents -- blacks, Hispanics, single women and young people -- have been especially hard-hit, and analysts say that could make them less energized about going to the polls. The economic reality is dampening enthusiasm among some of the voter groups Democrats need most, said Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. To create the kind of oomph Democrats need, youd want back-to-back gains of 400,000 jobs a month. Companies arent coming close to that figure, adding an average of 231,000 jobs the last four months. And the economys lingering weakness was underlined yesterday when the government said the gross domestic product contracted at a 2.9 percent rate in the first three months of the year, its worst performance since the lowest point of the recession. Even though forecasters project growth of better than 3 percent for the rest of the year, some political damage has already been done. Dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama, the economy and the direction of the country is burdening Democrats as control of the U.S. Senate is at stake in the November elections, when Republicans would win the majority if they gain six seats. Folks Struggling Obama touched on the discontent at a town meeting today in Minneapolis, saying theres still a lot of folks struggling out there, and weve seen wages and incomes sort of flatline. Still, he said, on just about every economic measure, we are significantly better off than we were when I came into office. Though the economy isnt as much the centerpiece of this campaign as it was in 2012 and 2010, Americans still consider it the most important issue confronting the nation. Forty-four percent said so in a Gallup poll taken June 5-8, compared with 68 percent in June 2012 and 57 percent the same month in 2010. Should growth strengthen over the coming months, it will give Democrats a little momentum going into September, November, said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster. Echoing 2010 Yet disapproval of Obamas handling of the economy is running higher than on the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, which the president called a shellacking that cost his party control of the House. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said theyre unhappy with Obamas economic stewardship in a June 6-9 Bloomberg National Poll compared with 51 percent in October 2010. Almost two-thirds think the country is on the wrong track. Public malaise driven by the economy works as an anchor to presidential approval, said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. Other issues such as Obamas health-care law are more visible in the campaign. Health care has been mentioned in 41 percent of television commercials this election cycle while 24 percent have mentioned unemployment or jobs, according to data compiled by New York-based Kantar Medias CMAG. Negative Stories Still, the economys impact on the election is contributing to an environment that makes it harder for the president to move beyond negative stories such as the scandal over veterans hospitals, the backlash over the Taliban prisoner exchange, and the crises in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, McInturff said. If the economy is booming, it can cover a lot of sins, he said. When youre in this sort of economy, you get bogged down in every story. History is already working against the Democrats. The presidents party typically loses seats in midterm elections, and more of the Senate seats being contested this year are held by Democrats than Republicans, making the party vulnerable. Many of those Democratic seats are in unfriendly territory: Six are in states that 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won by 14 percentage points or more. Only one Republican senator, Maines Susan Collins, is running in a state Obama won.

Increasing ocean development is popular with the publicthe plan highlights the interconnection between a blue economy and wellbeingBugel 12 Jamie, Annual Plant Specialist at Merrifield Garden Center, "What is the Blue Economy?: Healthy Oceans as an Economic Driver", June 29 2012, publictrustproject.org/blog/environment/2012/what-is-the-blue-economy-healthy-oceans-as-an-economic-driver/The Center for American Progress (CAP) has introduced a new project, The Foundations of a Blue Economy, to promote strong and sustainable ocean industries. Led by Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy, the project will focus on sustainable fisheries, renewable energy, tourism and recreation, and coastal restoration. A blue economy, as conceived by CAP, centers on the value that healthy oceans provide to the welfare of all Americans. This value is difficult to quantify, because it encapsulates not only the financial impact of marine jobs, but also the biological, cultural, and spiritual importance of oceans and coastal areas. From an employment perspective we have good salary data, but in other areas the results are more environmentally sensitive and harder to quantify. For example, what are our fisheries capable of producing if they are rebuilt to sustainable levels? Michael Conathan asked earlier this week at the projects launch event in Washington D.C. At the event, a panel of distinguished guests discussed the strengths and challenges of building a blue economy. Panelists included Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans, Miranda Ballentine, director of sustainability for Wal-Mart, and Jim Moriarty, CEO of Surfrider Foundation. The panel was moderated by Eric Roston, sustainability editor at Bloomberg News. The panelists agreed that the intangible impacts of the oceans are often hard for the public to understand. It can take a crisis like the Deepwater Horizon oil disaster for people to realize how relevant the ocean is to their lives. One of the things that became strikingly obvious during Deepwater Horizon was just how dependent communities were on the health of the Gulf. Those were striking lessons, Dr. Lubchenco said. The disaster drove home the how interconnected coastal communities and their economies, and psychological health and wellbeing are to a healthy ocean, she continued. Those connections, she argued, are critical when engaging people on the importance of healthy, sustainable marine environments. People love the coast, people love seafood, she said. Its the job of ocean advocates and communicators to provide information that helps them make smart decisions. That information must be based on sound science, the panelists stressed. Miranda Ballentine told the audience that Wal-Mart relies on sound science to instruct its buyers and make decisions about suppliers. But she added that sound science doesnt always exist, and that Wal-Mart is committed to working with scientists to develop better, clearer information that looks at the life cycle of the product. Wal-Mart has a goal of 100 percent sustainably certified seafood; Ballentine says the company is now at 76 percent. A whopping 85 percent of all seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. There is not enough seafood caught or farmed in the U.S. to supply all the demand, Dr. Lubchenco noted. NOAA has a strong focus on developing sustainable aquaculture. We have strongly regulated fisheries, and thats not true of many other parts of the world. We dont always know the social or economic or environmental conditions under which [foreign] fish were caught, she added. Three billion people around the world depend on seafood as their primary source of protein. In 2008, Americans consumed 16 pounds of fish per person. Even more significant, more than half of all Americans now live in coastal watershed counties. The complex impacts of the oceans on their lives are difficult to quantify. Jim Moriarty, of the Surfrider Foundation, works with surfers and beach-combers who are impassioned by ocean issues. Something in their life shifts, he says. They go down to the beach and its different. Theyve noticed a slow motion decline. They realize that theres a problem here and they need to engage. Personally, Moriarty said, Im sick of surfing in trash. The farther you go away from the civilized world, the worse it is. Perhaps its those passionate people, together with sound science, that will change minds. As hard as it is to put a price tag on the oceans and their impacts, CAPs Blue Economy project aims to do just that. At the Public Trust Project, were eager to see what they come up with. Its an innovative approach: a focus on the value that healthy oceans provide to society, not just the combined worth of resources extracted from them.

A Republican majority in the Senate would overturn Obamas EPA regulationsWallbank 6/5/14 Derek, Bloomberg, "Republicans Cant Block EPAs Greenhouse Gas Rules, Says Hoyer", June 5 2014, www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-05/republicans-can-t-block-epa-s-greenhouse-gas-rules-hoyer.htmlDemocrats in Congress will be able to keep Republicans from overturning the Obama administrations rules to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, said second-ranking House Democrat Steny Hoyer. The overwhelming majority of our party is going to support it and the Senates not going to pass a repeal, Hoyer of Maryland said in an interview yesterday with Bloomberg News reporters and editors in New York. Democrats control the Senate 55-45. Nor will the president sign it, Hoyer said. And if it got to him, wed sustain his veto. The Environmental Protection Agencys rule, proposed June 2, seeks to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels. The reduction would be equal to eliminating carbon pollution from two-thirds of all cars and trucks in the U.S. Republicans in Congress oppose the plan, saying it would cost jobs and raise electricity prices. A number of Democrats from energy-producing states have expressed concern about the proposed rules or said they want to see changes. House Republican leaders are considering whether to push legislation to reject the emissions rules or try to block the EPA from spending money to implement them. The House voted in August 2013 to allow either chamber of Congress to veto major U.S. rulemaking, including emissions rules. Democrats held their defections to just six lawmakers who voted with Republicans to pass the bill. Energy Dollars Hoyer knows Democrats may have to contend with one of their own -- Nick Rahall ofWest Virginia -- proposing legislation to block the rules. We may lose some; the coal states are very concerned about coal, he said, though he predicted losses of Democratic votes would be limited. U.S. energy companies have increased giving to Republicans over Democrats ahead of the November election, betting that a Republican-led Senate would be more resistant to regulations that may harm energy producers. Republicans need to gain a net six seats to take majority control of the Senate. Coal-industry political action committees have given 93 percent of contributions to Republicans in the 2013-2014 election cycle so far, compared with 68 percent in 2010. Oil and gas company PACs gave 83 percent of donations to Republicans, while electric utilities gave 63 percent to members of the party. Blocking Standards Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he plans to introduce legislation to block the EPA standards.

EPA regulations would collapse the economy-jobs-electricity costs-lowering incomes-threatened power gridInhofe 5/31/14 Jim, former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. R-Okla, USA Today, "Inhofe: President plays politics with climate change", www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/31/jim-inhofe-climate-change/9732121/Cap-and-trade proposals have been explicitly rejected in Congress no fewer than four times over the last 15 years, but President Obama and his administration will be announcing Monday his plans to charge full steam ahead, leaving the American majority behind. President Obama's announcement will likely rehash the normal fear-tactic talking points about the theory of man-made climate change. Then he will shift his tone and use rosy words to share about his aggressive new Environmental Protection Agency proposal that will force existing power plants to regulate carbon emissions and will set the stage for states to create cap-and-trade systems in order to regulate these plants. What's not so rosy are the numbers. Each past cap-and-trade plan rejected by Congress was estimated to cost Americans roughly $400 billion a year in de facto tax hikes. Now the president is once again looking to do through regulation what he couldn't accomplish through legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities. On May 27, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report saying that climate change regulations for new and existing power plants would result in an average loss of 224,000 American jobs each year and an increase in electricity costs of $289 billion while lowering overall household incomes by more than $500 billion. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. More EPA regulations like the one that will be proposed Monday threaten the reliability and affordability of our power grid, will weaken our economy, and drive more people into the unemployment lines. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on May 14, committee witness, Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified that EPA regulations are "shutting down the backbone of our electricity system." Other inexpensive domestic energy producers, many of whom had to fill the gap in electricity demand during this year's polar vortex, have also warned that these regulations will force them to close their operations in the next few years. What happens for areas of our nation who face a long heat wave or cold snap in future years? It is no wonder recent polls, such as Gallup's on March 12, show that the majority of Americans are least interested in climate change policy issues when compared to other, more important issues like the economy, job creation and even available and affordable energy. That the president is willing to follow through on climate change policies, despite the widespread unpopularity, underscores the real motivation behind his actions: pleasing a donor base. Billionaire Tom Steyer joined the likes of Al Gore, Michael Moore and others, earlier this year when he hosted high-profile Democrats at a fundraiser and promised a $100 million war chest if they keep climate change a priority. With each speech, media interview, and EPA regulation, President Obama and others are making good on their promises. The Obama administration's proposal must be seen for what it is: a move motivated solely by politics with little regard for the American consumer or the economy. The president will boast of the flexibility his proposal will provide, but there is no way around the fact that it could amount to the largest tax increase in American history. The big question is how the American people will respond and that decision can only be made by them at the polls this November.

History proves that a volatile economic environment risks conflictradical terrorist groups and tension over shared energy resources could unintentionally result in a pre-emptive nuclear strikeMathew Harris and Jennifer Burrows, National Intelligence Council, in 2009 [Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge,particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.1NCGOP Good DAExploration

The GOP will earn a Senate majority in November midtermsa weak economy is the most important issue for voters, but theres still time to gain momentum for DemocratsDorning 6/26/14 Mike, reporter for Bloomberg News, "Obamas Economic Rebound Doesnt Boost Democratic Allies", June 26 2014, www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-26/economic-rebound-seen-undercut-by-weak-pay-as-vote-winnerSluggish improvement in living standards among Democrats core voters threatens to hurt the partys candidates in this years congressional elections. Median household income among all Americans is still lower than before the recession, which ended five years ago, according to economic consultant Sentier Research. Key Democratic constituents -- blacks, Hispanics, single women and young people -- have been especially hard-hit, and analysts say that could make them less energized about going to the polls. The economic reality is dampening enthusiasm among some of the voter groups Democrats need most, said Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. To create the kind of oomph Democrats need, youd want back-to-back gains of 400,000 jobs a month. Companies arent coming close to that figure, adding an average of 231,000 jobs the last four months. And the economys lingering weakness was underlined yesterday when the government said the gross domestic product contracted at a 2.9 percent rate in the first three months of the year, its worst performance since the lowest point of the recession. Even though forecasters project growth of better than 3 percent for the rest of the year, some political damage has already been done. Dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama, the economy and the direction of the country is burdening Democrats as control of the U.S. Senate is at stake in the November elections, when Republicans would win the majority if they gain six seats. Folks Struggling Obama touched on the discontent at a town meeting today in Minneapolis, saying theres still a lot of folks struggling out there, and weve seen wages and incomes sort of flatline. Still, he said, on just about every economic measure, we are significantly better off than we were when I came into office. Though the economy isnt as much the centerpiece of this campaign as it was in 2012 and 2010, Americans still consider it the most important issue confronting the nation. Forty-four percent said so in a Gallup poll taken June 5-8, compared with 68 percent in June 2012 and 57 percent the same month in 2010. Should growth strengthen over the coming months, it will give Democrats a little momentum going into September, November, said Peter Hart, a Democratic pollster. Echoing 2010 Yet disapproval of Obamas handling of the economy is running higher than on the eve of the 2010 midterm elections, which the president called a shellacking that cost his party control of the House. Fifty-seven percent of Americans said theyre unhappy with Obamas economic stewardship in a June 6-9 Bloomberg National Poll compared with 51 percent in October 2010. Almost two-thirds think the country is on the wrong track. Public malaise driven by the economy works as an anchor to presidential approval, said Republican pollster Bill McInturff. Other issues such as Obamas health-care law are more visible in the campaign. Health care has been mentioned in 41 percent of television commercials this election cycle while 24 percent have mentioned unemployment or jobs, according to data compiled by New York-based Kantar Medias CMAG. Negative Stories Still, the economys impact on the election is contributing to an environment that makes it harder for the president to move beyond negative stories such as the scandal over veterans hospitals, the backlash over the Taliban prisoner exchange, and the crises in Ukraine, Iraq and Syria, McInturff said. If the economy is booming, it can cover a lot of sins, he said. When youre in this sort of economy, you get bogged down in every story. History is already working against the Democrats. The presidents party typically loses seats in midterm elections, and more of the Senate seats being contested this year are held by Democrats than Republicans, making the party vulnerable. Many of those Democratic seats are in unfriendly territory: Six are in states that 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won by 14 percentage points or more. Only one Republican senator, Maines Susan Collins, is running in a state Obama won.

Ocean exploration is popularfederal spending on scientific research has overwhelming public supportBowen et al 13Ray M., Chairman, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University and Visiting Distinguished Professor, Rice University, along with Esin Gulari, Mark R. Abbott, Dan E. Arvizu, Bonnie Bassler, Camilla P. Benbow, National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Science and Engineering Indicators 2012", last updated Feb 13 2013, www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/seind12.pdf?utm_source=SSTI+Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=67757af5a2-Week_of_January_18_20121_19_2012&utm_medium=emailFederal Funding of Scientific Research U.S. public opinion consistently and strongly supports federal spending on basic research. Since 1985, NSF surveys have asked Americans whether, "even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the federal government." In 2010, 82% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement; 14% disagreed. Agreement with this statement has ranged from a low of 76% in 1992 to a high of 87% in 2006 (figure 7-12; appendix tables 7-24 and 7-25). The 2009 Pew Research Center Survey found that nearly three-quarters of Americans express support for federal spending on S&E. Asked whether government investments "usually pay off in the long run," or are "not worth it," 73% said spending on basic scientific research "usually pays off in the long run"; 74% said the same about engineering and technology. Furthermore, six in ten Americans said "government investment in research is essential for scientific progress," 29% said "private investment will ensure that enough scientific progress is made, even without govern- ment investment," and the remainder gave no response. Another indicator, the proportion of Americans who thought the government was spending too little on scientific research, increased from 1981 to 2006, fluctuating between 29% and 34% in the 1980s, between 30% and 37% in the 1990s, and between 34% and 41% in the 2000s. In 2010, 36% of respondents said government spending on scientific research was "too little," 47% said it was "about right," and 12% said it was "too much" (figures 7-13 and 7-14; appendix table 7-26). Support for increased government spending is greater for a number of other program areas, with the highest support for spending on education (74%). About six in ten Americans say government should spend more on developing alternative energy sources (61%), assistance to the poor (61%), health (58%), and environmental protection (57%). Support for increased spending in other areas is lower. Support for increased spending on scientific research (36%) is roughly comparable to that for spending on improving mass transportation (40%) and parks and recreation (32%). Still, based on the proportion of the U.S. population favoring increased spending, scientific research garners more support than spending in national defense (25%), space exploration (16%), and assistance to foreign countries (8%).31A Republican majority in the Senate would overturn Obamas EPA regulationsWallbank 6/5/14 Derek, Bloomberg, "Republicans Cant Block EPAs Greenhouse Gas Rules, Says Hoyer", June 5 2014, www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-05/republicans-can-t-block-epa-s-greenhouse-gas-rules-hoyer.htmlDemocrats in Congress will be able to keep Republicans from overturning the Obama administrations rules to lower greenhouse-gas emissions, said second-ranking House Democrat Steny Hoyer. The overwhelming majority of our party is going to support it and the Senates not going to pass a repeal, Hoyer of Maryland said in an interview yesterday with Bloomberg News reporters and editors in New York. Democrats control the Senate 55-45. Nor will the president sign it, Hoyer said. And if it got to him, wed sustain his veto. The Environmental Protection Agencys rule, proposed June 2, seeks to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by an average of 30 percent from 2005 levels. The reduction would be equal to eliminating carbon pollution from two-thirds of all cars and trucks in the U.S. Republicans in Congress oppose the plan, saying it would cost jobs and raise electricity prices. A number of Democrats from energy-producing states have expressed concern about the proposed rules or said they want to see changes. House Republican leaders are considering whether to push legislation to reject the emissions rules or try to block the EPA from spending money to implement them. The House voted in August 2013 to allow either chamber of Congress to veto major U.S. rulemaking, including emissions rules. Democrats held their defections to just six lawmakers who voted with Republicans to pass the bill. Energy Dollars Hoyer knows Democrats may have to contend with one of their own -- Nick Rahall ofWest Virginia -- proposing legislation to block the rules. We may lose some; the coal states are very concerned about coal, he said, though he predicted losses of Democratic votes would be limited. U.S. energy companies have increased giving to Republicans over Democrats ahead of the November election, betting that a Republican-led Senate would be more resistant to regulations that may harm energy producers. Republicans need to gain a net six seats to take majority control of the Senate. Coal-industry political action committees have given 93 percent of contributions to Republicans in the 2013-2014 election cycle so far, compared with 68 percent in 2010. Oil and gas company PACs gave 83 percent of donations to Republicans, while electric utilities gave 63 percent to members of the party. Blocking Standards Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he plans to introduce legislation to block the EPA standards.

EPA regulations would collapse the economy-jobs-electricity costs-lowering incomes-threatened power gridInhofe 5/31/14 Jim, former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Sen. R-Okla, USA Today, "Inhofe: President plays politics with climate change", www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/31/jim-inhofe-climate-change/9732121/Cap-and-trade proposals have been explicitly rejected in Congress no fewer than four times over the last 15 years, but President Obama and his administration will be announcing Monday his plans to charge full steam ahead, leaving the American majority behind. President Obama's announcement will likely rehash the normal fear-tactic talking points about the theory of man-made climate change. Then he will shift his tone and use rosy words to share about his aggressive new Environmental Protection Agency proposal that will force existing power plants to regulate carbon emissions and will set the stage for states to create cap-and-trade systems in order to regulate these plants. What's not so rosy are the numbers. Each past cap-and-trade plan rejected by Congress was estimated to cost Americans roughly $400 billion a year in de facto tax hikes. Now the president is once again looking to do through regulation what he couldn't accomplish through legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm of how the president's plan will be dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities. On May 27, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report saying that climate change regulations for new and existing power plants would result in an average loss of 224,000 American jobs each year and an increase in electricity costs of $289 billion while lowering overall household incomes by more than $500 billion. These numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. More EPA regulations like the one that will be proposed Monday threaten the reliability and affordability of our power grid, will weaken our economy, and drive more people into the unemployment lines. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on May 14, committee witness, Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified that EPA regulations are "shutting down the backbone of our electricity system." Other inexpensive domestic energy producers, many of whom had to fill the gap in electricity demand during this year's polar vortex, have also warned that these regulations will force them to close their operations in the next few years. What happens for areas of our nation who face a long heat wave or cold snap in future years? It is no wonder recent polls, such as Gallup's on March 12, show that the majority of Americans are least interested in climate change policy issues when compared to other, more important issues like the economy, job creation and even available and affordable energy. That the president is willing to follow through on climate change policies, despite the widespread unpopularity, underscores the real motivation behind his actions: pleasing a donor base. Billionaire Tom Steyer joined the likes of Al Gore, Michael Moore and others, earlier this year when he hosted high-profile Democrats at a fundraiser and promised a $100 million war chest if they keep climate change a priority. With each speech, media interview, and EPA regulation, President Obama and others are making good on their promises. The Obama administration's proposal must be seen for what it is: a move motivated solely by politics with little regard for the American consumer or the economy. The president will boast of the flexibility his proposal will provide, but there is no way around the fact that it could amount to the largest tax increase in American history. The big question is how the American people will respond and that decision can only be made by them at the polls this November.

History proves that a volatile economic environment risks conflictradical terrorist groups and tension over shared energy resources could unintentionally result in a pre-emptive nuclear strikeMathew Harris and Jennifer Burrows, National Intelligence Council, in 2009 [Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NICs Long Range Analysis Unit Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorisms appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the worlds most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Irans acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge,particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as Chinas and Indias development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.UQ

2NC UQGOP WinOv

Republicans will gain a Senate majority in the midtermsprefer evidence speaking to the publics opinion of the economy because its the most important issue in upcoming electionsthats Dorning 6/26/14

1. Turnoutkey democratic constituents (blacks, Hispanics, single women, youth) have been hard hit by the economy and are less energized about voting

2. Obamas approval ratingits tied to his partys success and is crashing with public dissatisfaction over living standards

3. Distraction from scandalsa booming economy is the best way to move beyond negative stories like the VA, Bergdahl, and foreign policy crises

More evThe economy is the most important issue in midtermsSteinhauser 5/2/14 Paul, CNN Political Editor, "6 factors that will influence the midterms", May 2 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/politics/six-factors-midterms/Say what you want about other issues, but the economy remains the top concern of Americans when it comes to their vote. "The economy is stronger than it's been in a very long time," Obama said at a news conference at the end of last year. By many metrics, he's right. The stock market has been in record territory again, unemployment's at a five-year low, auto sales are at a seven-year high and the housing sector, which dragged the country into recession five years ago, is rebounding. But many people just don't feel that good about things. National polling indicates most people don't feel nearly as optimistic about the economy and their personal plight. And a key economic indicator out earlier this week is helping. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 0.1% annual pace in the first quarter of this year. While the numbers are probably just the winter weather effect, they add to the perception that the recovery is tepid. And a sluggish economy prevents Democrats from highlighting the issue in the midterms. "Because the recovery has been relatively modest, moderate in its strength, there's this psychology among people that it's just not getting better out in America," said CNN Chief Washington Correspondent John King. The economy remains the top issue on the minds of voters. Economic realities, as well as perceptions, will influence voters in 2014.

2NC UQGOP WinBattleground States

GOP wins midterms nowbattleground states show low approval ratings for Obama and support for Republican policiesRhodan 6/26/14 Maya, politics reporter for TIME magazine, "More Bad News for Democrats in 2014 Battleground States", June 26 2014, time.com/2927942/midterm-elections-2014-democrats/A new survey of likely voters in 12 key Senate races shows the electorate continues to skew Republican A new survey has more bad news for Democrats running in key battleground states this November. The poll by Resurgent Republic and Democracy Corps, Republican and Democratic research firms, respectively, found that President Barack Obamas approval rating in 12 states with the most competitive Senate races is only 38%3 points lower than his national approval number. Recent headlines surrounding the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner swap, the Veterans Affairs and IRS scandals, and the initially botched rollout of the health care reform law havent helped: 57% of voters consider them to be real problems that raise serious doubts about the competence of the Obama Administration. That is a problem for the Obama Administration, Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster who worked on the survey, told reporters Thursday. But it is a problem for the Democrats running for reelection in these battleground states because the reputation of the President always overshadows midterm elections. While the slew of scandals may not drive voters to the poll, Ayres said, the results make it difficult for incumbent Democrats to stand with the President on key issue. And Republicans have the upper hand when it comes to party trust on key issues, according to the survey: 50% of all voters favor Republicans handling of foreign policy, 16 percentage points higher than their trust in Democrats. The split is less dramatic on the economy, with 47% of voters trusting Republicans, compared to 37% trusting Democrats. Among independents, who often cast the key swing votes in close races, 48% say they trust Republicans handling of the economy while only 28% trust Democrats. Even on health care, Republicans are favored, albeit slightly: 45% of all voters trust Republicans to handle health care and 41% of voters trust Democrats. The problem for Democrats is more their weakness than Republicans strength. There is enormous frustration for Congress in general, Ayres said. But the Republican leaders in the House are not on the ballot in these battleground states. The playing field, Ayres added, looks more promising for Republicans than any time in recent memory.

2NC UQGOP WinBergdahl

GOP wins midterms nowbipartisan disapproval of the Bergdahl swap Preston 6/10/14 Bryan, a military veteran, worked for NASA, was a founding blogger and producer at Hot Air, was producer of the Laura Ingraham Show, "Polls: Will the Bergdahl Swap Impact the Mid-Term Elections?", June 10 2014, pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/06/10/polls-will-the-bergdahl-swap-impact-the-mid-term-elections/There are a couple of new polls out on what Americans think about President Obamas decision to trade five Taliban commanders for Army SGT Bowe Bergdahl, the only American POW in Afghanistan. The decision to trade the five Taliban for Bergdahl has been greeted with more anger than praise in Washington, as Democrats and Republicans in Congress criticize the Obama administration because it did not consult with them or notify them of the release of the five detainees from Gitmo. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has gone on the record saying that if Obama does that again, there will be calls for his impeachment. There are no more POWs for the administration to trade away, though there are dozens of captured terrorists remaining at the facility on Cuba. Anger with the presidents decision has been bipartisan, with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) stating that she doesnt believe the Obama administrations rationale for doing the trade. The American people are divided over the swap, but the division cuts along party lines, suggesting that however dangerous the decision proves to be, Obamas base will stick with him. A CBS News Poll finds that 45% of Americans disapprove of the deal, while 37% approve of it. A majority of Americans 56% say the US paid too high a price for Bergdahl. Fully 65% of veterans believe the US paid too high a price for the soldier, who his squad mates accuse of desertion prior to his capture. A majority of Democrats approve the deal, while a majority of Republicans oppose it. A large majority 58% of independents also believe that the US paid too high a price for Bergdahl. Independents split against the deal overall, 47% to 33%. A Pew poll gets similar results 43% of Americans reject the swap, while 34% say it was the right thing to do. Most Republicans disapprove; most Democrats approve. A heavy majority of veterans 68% say Obama made the wrong decision in trading the Taliban commanders for Bergdahl. Overall, 64% of Americans say that the president must inform Congress in advance of decisions like the Bergdahl trade, while 30% believe that he should not be required to do so. 44% of independents in the Pew poll say they believe that the deal was the wrong thing to do, versus 32% who believe it was the right thing to do. The current National Defense Authorization Act law requires the president to notify Congress 30 days before releasing any prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. President Obama knowingly broke that law. The bottom line is, Republicans seem to be adding the Bergdahl swap to the pile of actions taken by Obama that anger them and are driving them to the polls this fall. Democrats by and large are sticking with the president, who broke the law and set the precedent of negotiating with terrorists. Independents have broken against the Obama administration on a number of issues going back into his first term, and they are breaking against him on this issue too.

GOP wins midterms nowBergdahl Johnson 6/5/14 O'Ryan, journalist for the Boston Herald, "Panicky Dems abandon Obama", bostonherald.com/news_opinion/us_politics/2014/06/panicky_dems_abandon_obamaAs President Obama reels from widespread, bipartisan criticism of a prisoner swap with Taliban forces in Afghanistan with even Sgt. Bowe Bergdahls hometown canceling its welcome the growing scandal is emerging as just the latest political problem for Democrats facing tough re-election fights in November, with possible ramifications for the 2016 presidential race. The town of Hailey, Idaho, population 8,000, swamped with hate mail and angry calls over Bergdahl after his fellow soldiers accused him of desertion, yesterday canceled its plans for a big welcome-home rally. If you had 10,000 people, 5,000 on one side and 5,000 on the other, then just due to the national attention, we dont know what to expect, Hailey Police Chief Jeff Gunter said. U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, publicly rebuked the Obama administration over the Bergdahl deal, saying, It comes to us with some surprise and dismay that the transfers went ahead with no consultation, totally not following law. And in an issue with this kind of concern to a committee that bears the oversight responsibility, I think you can see that were very dismayed about it. Ford OConnell, a Republican operative in Washington, D.C., suggested growing Democratic criticism is linked to election fears. Their fortunes are tied to his approval rating. Thats only going to benefit Republicans. Like us or not, a lot of Americans feel its time for new management.

2NC UQGOP WinDataGOP wins midterms nowbest stats proveSilver 6/8/14 Nate, editor-in-chief for FiveThirtyEight, statistician and writer that analyzes political elections, in 2012 correctly predicted all 50 states in the presidential election and 31 out of 33 Senate races that year, "FiveThirtyEight Senate Forecast: Toss-Up or Tilt GOP?", June 8 2014, fivethirtyeight.com/features/fivethirtyeight-senate-forecast-toss-up-or-tilt-gop/We last issued a U.S. Senate forecast in mid-March. Not a lot has changed since then. The Senate playing field remains fairly broad. There are 10 races where we give each party at least a 20 percent chance of winning, so there is a fairly wide range of possible outcomes. But all but two of those highly competitive races (the two exceptions are Georgia and Kentucky) are in states that are currently held by Democrats. Furthermore, there are three states South Dakota, West Virginia, and Montana2 where Democratic incumbents are retiring, and where Republicans have better than an 80 percent chance of making a pickup, in our view. So its almost certain that Republicans are going to gain seats. The question is whether theyll net the six pickups necessary to win control of the Senate. If the Republicans win only five seats, the Senate would be split 50-50 but Democrats would continue to control it because of the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Joseph Biden. Our March forecast projected a Republicans gain of 5.8 seats. Youll no doubt notice the decimal place; how can a party win a fraction of a Senate seat? It cant, but our forecasts are probabilistic; a gain of 5.8 seats is the total you get by summing the probabilities from each individual race. Because 5.8 seats is closer to six (a Republican takeover) than five (not quite), we characterized the GOP as a slight favorite to win the Senate. The new forecast is for a Republican gain of 5.7 seats. So its shifted ever so slightly by one-tenth of a seat toward being a toss-up. Still, if asked to place a bet at even odds, wed take a Republican Senate. Of course, it can be silly to worry about distinctions that amount to a tenth of a seat, or a couple of percentage points. Nobody cares all that much about the difference between 77 percent and 80 percent and 83 percent. But this race is very close. When you say something has a 47 percent chance of happening, people interpret that a lot differently than if you say 50 percent or 53 percent even though they really shouldnt.3 Its important to clarify that these forecasts are not the results of a formal model or statistical algorithm although its based on an assessment of the same major factors that our algorithm uses. (Our tradition is to switch over to fully automated and algorithmic Senate forecasts at some point during the summer.) The political landscape We usually begin these forecast updates with a broad view of the political landscape. Not all that much has changed over the past couple of months. President Obama remains fairly unpopular with an approval rating of about 43 or 44 percent. His numbers havent changed much since March (perhaps theyve improved by half a percentage point). It may be that modestly improved voter perceptions about the economy are being offset by increasing dissatisfaction of his handling of foreign policy. The generic congressional ballot remains very close between Democrats and Republicans and also has not changed much since March. Note, however, that many generic ballot polls are conducted among registered voters; a tie among registered voters usually translates to a small Republican advantage among likely voters. Both Democratic and Republican voters report lower levels of enthusiasm today than they did in 2010 (perhaps for good reason). But Republican voters are more enthusiastic than Democrats on a relative basis. That will potentially translate to an enthusiasm gap which favors the GOP, but not as much as it did in 2010. Republicans recruiting of viable candidates is going better than in 2010 and 2012 although not uniformly so: they face potential issues in Mississippi and Oregon, for instance. The quality of polling is somewhat problematic. Much of it comes from firms like Public Policy Polling and Rasmussen Reports with dubious methodologies, explicitly partisan polling firms or new companies that so far have little track record. As a potential bright spot for Democrats, polling firms that use industry-standard methodologies seem to show slightly better results for them, on average. However, these high-quality polls are mostly reporting results among registered voters only, rather than likely voters. Thus, they arent yet accounting for the GOPs potential turnout advantage.

GOP will take control of the Senate and Housenewest data proves it will be closeLewis & Roberts 6/10 Paul & Dan-reporters @ The Guardian- US midterm elections: Republicans could triumph but it's not a sure thing- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/10/midterm-elections-republicans-senate-racesThis could be a transformative election year for the Grand Old Party. If Republican candidates across the country perform as well during midterm elections as political forecasters believe they might, their party will be in line to regain its majority in the Senate. Such a scenario would be a disaster for president Barack Obama. If Democrats are defeated in November the White House will be left isolated. Republicans already control the House of Representatives; if they capture the Senate, too, Obama will be left all but powerless to affect change through Congress during his last two years in office. For that to happen, Republicans will need to win six seats, and lose none. As the battle lines have been drawn, eight key Senate races have, political analysts believe, emerged as the most likely to lost by the party that currently holds the seat. Those eight Senate elections, more than any others, will probably be crucial in determining the balance of power in the upper chamber. The Guardian is launching a series of reports from those states, beginning with a dispatch from Georgia on the battle for the states growing African American population. Every week for the next two months the Guardian will report from the scene of another competitive Senate race. Each state is different, and each Senate race is already revolving around a unique set of political dynamics, policies and personalities. With more than five months to go until polling day on November 4, it is also too soon to make firm predictions. But right now, things do not look good for Democrats vying to hold onto a crucial lever of power. Most of the political forecasters who combine up-to-date polling analysis with other predictive modelling data agree the Republicans are likely to gain seats. Whether the GOP will gain the six net seats they are aiming for is more difficult to predict. Each forecaster gives different weight to different factors, and each might use slightly different data. Unsurprisingly, there are differences between the most recent predictions from the top forecasters, including statistics guru Nate Silver, of FiveThirtyEight fame, Larry Sabatos Crystal Ball, and the rival election forecasting labs at the New York Times and Washington Post. But they all essentially agree on the big question about control of the Senate: it is too close to call. In selecting the eight states that will form part of this series the Guardian opted for those that, pollsters and analysts agree, are among the most competitive. Senators are re-elected every six years, so of the 100 seats in the upper house, only 33 are up for grabs in November. Most of the so-called toss-up Senate races are seats currently held by Democrats. Three of those, it seems, are highly likely to switch into Republican control: Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia. However there are six other Democrat-held seats that are more competitive and, as a result, will be a focus of the Guardians reporting: North Carolina, Louisiana, Colorado, Alaska, New Hampshire and Arkansas. The remaining two races are both Republican-held seats that Democrats believe they have a chance of winning: Georgia and Kentucky. Taken together, the races in these eight states are expected to shape the balance of power in the Senate. Of course, elections are unpredictable and political forecasters are sometimes wrong prospects of one or party or the other in a campaign can change overnight. Any number of other states could come into play. The potential nomination by the GOP of a Tea Party candidate in Mississippi could make that deeply conservative state one that Democrats have an outside chance of winning. Republicans are also targeting some long-shot seats currently held by Democrats like Iowa and Michigan. November will also see elections for all 435 seats of the House of Representatives, where Republicans already have a strong majority, as well as 46 elections in state legislatures and 36 state gubernatorial elections. The story in the House is somewhat less compelling, though that could change. As things stand, only around 60 House districts are considered competitive races, of which perhaps around a dozen are close toss-ups. Democrats would need to pick up 17 seats to switch the balance of power and there are few if any analysts who expect that to happen. The Guardian will cover many of the Senate, House, state legislature and gubernatorial races in the weeks and months ahead. But weve decide to to kickstart our campaign coverage with a deep dive into those Senate races that, at this stage, look like theyll matter most.2NC UQGOP WinEcon

GOP win nowtheyre ahead on the most important economic indicatorsMataconis 5/20/14 Doug, Senior Editor at Outside the Beltway, holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law, currently practicing law in Northern Virginia, "The Midterms And The Economy: Bad News For Democrats?", May 20 2014, www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-midterms-and-the-economy-bad-news-for-democrats/A new Gallup poll presents some potentially bad news for Democrats headed into the 2014 midterms: Nearly nine out of 10 voters say the economy will be extremely or very important to their vote for Congress in the midterm elections, a good sign for Republicans who have slight advantage over Democrats on the issue, a new Gallup poll shows. Forty-eight percent of voters say they think Republicans in Congress would do a better job of dealing with the economy, while 43 percent favor Democrats. Eighty-nine percent of voters say the economy will be extremely or very important in their midterm vote for Congress. According to the poll, the next four issues considered important by voters are the budget deficit, taxes, health care reform, and income inequality. Democrats have the upper edge with voters when it comes to health care and income inequality, but Republicans have the advantage on taxes and the deficit. This isnt entirely surprising, of course. Exit polls for pretty much every Presidential and midterm election going back decades shows that, outside of odd years in which a foreign policy issue of some sort has dominated the headlines, the issue on the top of voters minds when they enter the voting booth is the economy and the myriad of issues related to it such as taxes and the budget deficit. The party deemed by voters to have better ideas on that issue is the one that ends up with the polling advantage heading into the election and, more often than not, the one that ends up winning the election. If that holds up as we head toward November, then 2014 could end up being a problematic year for Democrats. Additionally, as this chart shows, the issues where Republicans have the advantage are considered more important by voters at this time than the issues on which Democrats the advantage: Perhaps most significantly, the issues that many, myself included, have stated numerous times are trouble spots for Republicans immigration, marriage equality, and global warming are very far down the list when it comes to issues that voters are saying will be important to them when they decide who theyre going to vote for in November. This suggests a few things. First of all, poll results like this make it less likely that Republicans in Congress will feel compelled to act on immigration reform before the midterm elections. Second, it seems unlikely that Democrats will be successful in using issues such as these as wedge issues against Republicans in close races for the House or Senate. Finally, poll results like this tend to make the arguments of those who argue that the GOP has to change its position these issues weaker, at least in the short term. As has almost always been the case in national elections, it is the economy thats going to drive the narrative in 2014, and if this poll is to be believed then that poses a potential problem for Democratic candidates.

GOP win noweconomyGary Langer, founder of Langer Research Associates, 4/29/2014"Public Preference for a GOP Congress Marks a New Low in Obamas Approval", April 29 2014, abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/public-preference-for-a-gop-congress-marks-a-new-low-in-obamas-approval/Weary of waiting for an economic recovery worth its name, a frustrated American public has sent Barack Obamas job approval rating to a career low with a majority in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll favoring a Republican Congress to act as a check on his policies. Registered voters by 53-39 percent in the national survey say theyd rather see the Republicans in control of Congress as a counterbalance to Obamas policies than a Democratic-led Congress to help support him. It was similar in fall 2010, when the Republicans took control of the House of Representatives and gained six Senate seats. See PDF with full results and charts here. Obamas job approval rating, after a slight winter rebound, has lost 5 points among all adults since March, to 41 percent, the lowest of his presidency by a single point. Fifty-two percent disapprove, with strong disapproval exceeding strong approval by 17 percentage points. Hes lost ground in particular among some of his core support groups. Economic discontent remains the driving element in political views in this survey, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates. Americans rate the condition of the economy negatively by 71-29 percent the least bad since November 2007, but still dismal by any measure. Only 28 percent think the economys improving, down by 9 points since just before Obama won his second term. He gets just 42 percent approval for handling it. Economic views are strongly related to political preferences. Among people who see the economy improving, 65 percent prefer Democratic control of Congress, while among those who see the economy as stagnant or worsening, 62 percent favor Republican control. Notably, economic views are linked with preferences for control of Congress regardless of peoples partisan affiliation.

2NC UQGOP WinForeign Policy

Obamas unpopular foreign policy decisions will cost Democrats the Senate in the November electionscritics of the Bergdahl exchange, Benghazi, and the Ukraine crisis are riling up the Republican base while dispiriting Democrat voters. Zelizer 6/9/14 Julian, professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University, contributed to CNN, "Will Democracts pay a price for Bergdahl deal?", June 9 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/opinion/zelizer-bergdahl-democrats-midterms/(CNN) -- Critics of President Barack Obama's foreign policy are getting louder by the day, and that poses risks for Democrats this fall and even in 2016. According to previews of Hillary Clinton's memoirs, "Hard Choices," the former secretary of state distances herself from Obama on certain decisions, such as on the question of whether to arm Syrian rebels. She wanted to be more aggressive; he did not. Democrats have grown more nervous about foreign policy as Obama has been working hard to respond to critics who say hasn't taken a tough-enough line. The controversy over the deal to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban prisoners has flared into an extraordinarily heated debate. Obama has watched as his approval rating for handling international affairs has fallen to 41%. Last month, Obama had to stand by as Republicans launched another round of congressional investigations into the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Russia's aggressive moves into the Ukraine stirred talk of a new Cold War and concern that the President didn't really have a viable response to this kind of aggression. More recently, the controversies shifted to the President's broader vision or lack thereof. Republicans found a lot to dislike in his address at West Point, where Obama indicated that the nation should step back from using military power as freely as it has done in the past. Soon after came the news about the release of Bergdahl, in exchange for the release of five notorious Taliban prisoners. Republicans were quick to accuse the President of negotiating with terrorists. They have also accused him of violating the law by failing to inform Congress of the impending deal. Even though Democrats point to a number of huge accomplishments during the Obama presidency -- the killing of Osama bin Laden, the drawdown of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and diplomatic initiatives to bring nuclear disarmament in Iran without bloodshed -- the critics have upped their volume. All of the recent stories add up to the potential for foreign policy to emerge as a potent issue in the midterm campaigns this fall. Congressional Democrats could suffer as a result of the unhappiness with the administration's policies. Even though midterm elections generally focus on bread and butter questions about the health of the economy, as well as local concerns, there are times when foreign policy can hurt the party of the president. In 1966, for instance, Republicans campaigned against Lyndon Johnson's policies in Vietnam. GOP officials such as former Vice President Richard Nixon said that Johnson was not unleashing enough force against the North Vietnamese Communists and leaving U.S. troops in a quagmire. In 1978, Republicans railed against President Jimmy Carter for his alleged weakness in foreign policy, claiming that he gave away too much in the Panama Canal Treaties and that he was pursuing a dangerous policy of dtente with the Soviet Union. In 1982, Democrats, who were generally focused on the recession, also spoke in favor of a nuclear freeze and warned that President Ronald Reagan's embrace of the military was bringing the nation close to war. More recently, Republicans blasted Democrats in 2002 for being weak on defense after having not supported the administration's homeland security bill. And in 2006, Democratic candidates returned the favor by criticizing the president's war in Iraq as a reckless, unnecessary and extremely costly operation that had actually undermined the war on terrorism. While foreign policy carried different levels of weight in these midterms, in some of these contests, such as 1966 and 2006, the administration's actions overseas dismayed voters. Will foreign policy play a factor in the 2014 midterms? It is unlikely that it will be a major issue but there are ways it could have an indirect effect on the ballot box and cause trouble for Democrats when Americans turn out to vote. At the most immediate level, the foreign policy controversy has already distracted the news media from other kinds of stories upon which congressional Democrats were hoping to focus. The foreign policy controversy intensified just as there was evidence that the economy was picking up steam and that the Obama's health care program was gaining strength. Both signs of accomplishment were put on the back burner, overshadowed by the Bergdahl debate. The stories also feed the perception of some voters who feel that Democrats have not done a good job managing government. This is a White House that once prided itself on competence. Obama, a well-educated politician who surrounded himself with bright staff, vowed to avoid the kind of mismanagement that had been on display with Hurricane Katrina during President George W. Bush's term. But that reputation has slowly been undercut, especially after the botched health care website rollout and the VA scandal. Some of the coverage of the foreign policy, including recent reports on how the deal with the Taliban was handled, have played into these kinds of criticism. The New York Times published a lengthy piece about the diminishing returns that Obama was able to obtain over the past several years in exchange for the release of the Taliban 5 and evidence of how his team had mishandled the process. The Berghdal deal is also becoming a way to question the veracity of Democratic promises. Members of Congress, in both parties, have alleged that Obama violated the law by ignoring a federal statute that says the president must inform Congress one month before such a deal is completed. They have said he is acting exactly like Bush, whom he had accused of discounting legislative intent through sweeping notions of executive power. The foreign policy debate puts into focus the argument that Obama, as well as the party he leads, lacks a bold vision. This is something that has even frustrated many Democrats who feel that the President is too much of pragmatist and not enough of a visionary. The speech at West Point fell flat for some Americans because it almost seemed focus on excusing what he couldn't do rather outlining what he wants to do. During his visit to the Philippines, the President explained his outlook on foreign policy by saying, "You hit singles, you hit doubles; every once in a while you may be able to hit a home run." The debate over foreign policy helps Republicans by riling up the party's base at an opportune time, five months before the election, while at the same time dispiriting the Democrats. Yes, voters are thinking primarily about how they're faring in today's economy, but on the margins, their perception of their local candidate's views on foreign policy could be a factor in November.

Foreign policy swings the midterms---perception of a weak Obama internationally makes it impossible for the Democrats to win. Rothenberg 4-22Stuart, non-partisan political analyst/handicapper who has been a Roll Call columnist for more than 20 years (Stuart, "Obamas Foreign Policy Impacts 2014 Elections Really," blogs.rollcall.com/rothenblog/how-obamas-foreign-policy-impacts-2014-elections/?dcz=) But foreign policy could have an indirect yet significant impact on the midterm elections, making the issue more relevant than you otherwise might assume. The growing perception that President Barack Obama over-promised and has under-delivered on international issues could add to the already hardening perception that his presidency has not been an unadulterated success. And thats not good for vulnerable Democrats as the elections approach. For most partisan Democrats, the suggestion that the president has failed on foreign policy is simply mistaken. They will note that he ended two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, has taken steps to address the nuclear threat from Iran, and has tried to mobilize international opinion, and action, against military force used by Syria and Russia. But even some Democrats have been critical of President Obamas approach. Its been a mixed record, said former Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta to the New York Times, and the concern is, the president defining what Americas role in the world is in the 21st century hasnt happened. Whatever you think about the Affordable Care Act, the presidents performance on jobs and the administrations efforts to raise the minimum wage, extend unemployment insurance and enact equal pay legislation, the White Houses approach to foreign policy most recently on Syria, Ukraine, Russia and Middle East peace has too often seemed nave. In April of 2007, during his race for the White House against Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama told an audience at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, The disappointment that so many around the world feel toward America right now is only a testament to the high expectations they hold for us. We must meet those expectations again, not because being respected is an end in itself, but because the security of America and the wider world demands it. Almost two years after that Chicago speech and a little more than two months into his presidency, Americans did believe that the new president had improved the United States image abroad. But those numbers have slipped noticeably since then. In February of 2009, according to the Gallup Poll, more than two out of three Americans surveyed (67 percent) said that leaders of other countries around the world have respect for Barack Obama. One year later, only 56 perfect answered the same way, and a year after that a bare majority, 51 percent, said that the president was respected by other countries leaders. That figure remained virtually unchanged in polling conducted in early 2012 and 2013, but this year, Gallup found only 41 percent of Americans believing that Obama was respected by leaders of other countries, while 53 percent said that those leaders dont have much respect for Obama. Democrats and independents are mainly responsible for the slide in Obamas ratings, concluded Gallups Jeffrey M. Jones in a Feb. 24 post on the companys website. Obamas poll numbers are still better than George W. Bushs throughout most of his presidency, and Gallup found that even now, a narrow majority of Americans believe the United States rates favorably in the eyes of the world. But the presidents declining job performance numbers on foreign policy in NBC News/Wall Street Journal surveys over the past few years is impossible to ignore. (See question No. 6 in the March 5-9 survey, here. It includes historical data.) In May 2011, Obamas net job approval as president was +11, while his job approval on handling the economy was a -21. But on his handling of foreign policy, the presidents job performance was a stunning +22 (57 percent approve/35 percent disapprove). One year later, Obamas net job approval was +2, while his job approval on his handling of the economy was -9. Once again, his job rating on foreign policy was measurably higher than both, with a net of +9 (51 percent approve/42 percent disapprove). The same trend held in December of 2012 and April of 2013 NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls, though the differences in Obamas net job approval on his overall performance, the economy and foreign policy were narrowing. This March, the presidents performance in all three areas was almost identical. In fact, an identical 41 percent of respondents approved of his performance in his overall job, his handling of the economy and his handling of foreign policy. Obamas net approval as president was -13, while his net approval in handling the economy was -15 and his handling of foreign policy was -12 (41 percent approve/53 percent disapprove). Are voters increasingly unhappy with the presidents foreign policy actions, or is the publics general dissatisfaction with Obamas performance poisoning their view of his foreign policy performance? It doesnt really matter. Public dissatisfaction with the presidents handling of foreign policy is another problem for Democrats who need to generate a strong base turnout and also convince swing voters that the president and his party deserve their support in November. The less happy voters (particularly Democrats and Independents) are about the Obama presidency, the more difficult it will be for Democratic strategists to achieve the results they want in the midterm elections.

2NC UQGOP WinObama Approval

GOP win nowhistorical correlation with job approval proves Democrats are behind in the midtermsBenson 6/18/14 Guy, Townhall.com's Senior Political Editor, "Polls: Obama Approval Drops to Fresh Low, Major Midterm Impact", June 18 2014, townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/06/18/reuters-poll-obama-approval-drops-to-fresh-low-n1852723In the fresh NBC/WSJ poll (see updates below on Hillary), Obama's approval slides to (41/53) -- which is tied for his lowest approval level ever in that series. He's at (41/54) on the economy, and a dreadful (37/57) on foreign affairs. A 54-percent majority say Obama is "no longer able to lead the country." For the umpteenth time, the president may have already attained effective lame duck status, but that doesn't make his polling irrelevant. Far from it. I've routinely pointed to political data analyst Sean Trende's formula that suggests a strong historical correlation between flagging presidential approval ratings and substantial Congressional gains for the opposition party: [It] isnt a perfect relationship, but presidential job approval is still the most important variable for how his party fares in midterm elections, explaining about half of the variance. The relationship is highly statistically significant: For every point in job approval the president loses, his party loses 0.6 percent of its caucus. (The chart doesnt measure drop in job approval; just job approval.) So, at 60 percent, the president should lose 5 percent of his caucus; at 50 percent, it is around 12 percent of his caucus lost; at 40 percent, its about 18 percent of his caucus lost -- which would be 36 seats. Now the latter is highly unlikely to happen...As Ive said before, this election isnt going to be about sixth-year itches or any such electoral mumbo-jumbo. Its going to be about presidential job approval, supplemented by the state of the economy (which also affects job approval to a degree) and how overexposed or underexposed the presidents party is. Right now, the second factor provides a drag beyond the presidents job approval, while the third factor will work heavily to Democrats advantage on Election Day...It is still far too early to speculate about how many seats Democrats will lose (or perhaps gain) in the 2014 elections. But if Obamas job approval is 40 percent on Election Day, gains would be unlikely, and Democratic losses in the low double digits...would be plausible.

GOP wins midterms now scandal surrounds demsJudis 6/12 John B. Judis, News Republic, 6/12/14, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118108/senate-2014-why-democrats-will-probably-loseBarring something entirely unforeseen, the Republicans will retain control of the House of Representatives in November, and in the wake of Eric Cantors ouster, will be even less inclined to compromise with the White House. The key battle will be for the Senate, and at this pointgiven the unpopularity of President Obama and his programs in the states that could decide the outcomethe Republicans are a good bet to regain the Senate. The recent scandal involving Bowe Bergdahl and the older scandal about Benghazi wont decide the outcome, but they are certainly not going to help the Democrats. Its not 1998, when Republican exploitation of a White House sex scandal actually cost them seats in the House. The Senate is currently divided between 55 Democrats (counting two independents who caucus with the Democrats) and 45 Republicans. Thirty-six senate seats are up for grabs this November. Of these, 21 are unlikely to change hands. Two Democratic seats in West Virginia and South Dakota are very likely to go Republican. Thirteen (assuming Chris McDaniel wins the runoff in Mississippi) could conceivably go either way, and of them, ten are held by Democrats. So if the Republicans were to hold their seats in Mississippi, Kentucky and Georgia, then they would have to win only four of the remaining ten seats in order to take back the Senate. Thats not a tall mountain to climb. If you look at the 13 races, they are almost all in states where Obama and his signature programs, including the Affordable Care Act, gun control, and the plan to restrict carbon emissions from power plants, are very unpopular. That goes without saying in Southern states where Democrats are running for re-election. In Louisiana, Obamas approval rating is at 41 percent and support for the ACA at 33 percent. In Arkansas, Obamas approval is at 34 percent and Obamacares is at 31 percent. In North Carolina, Obamas approval is at 41 percent. Fifty-two percent of registered voters in Arkansas, 58 percent in Louisiana, and 53 percent in North Carolina would not vote for a candidate who does not share their view of Obamacare. Its likely that most of these are opponents of the presidents program. But Obama and his programs dont fare much better in Eastern, Midwestern, and Rocky Mountain states where Democrats are defending seats. In Iowa, Obamas approval rating is at 42 percent and only 30.7 percent of Iowans think the country is on the right track. In Colorado, Obamas approval is at 38 percent, Obamacares at 39 percent, and 73 percent think the shape of the national economy is either not so good or poor. In Michigan, 53 percent oppose Obamacare, and in New Hampshire 57.6 percent. Obamas climate initiative may help Democrats in 2016 and is popular in some states that the president carried in 2012, but it will probably not be popular in some of the crucial swing states this November. As the National Republican Senate Committee has noted, Arkansas, Colorado, West Virginia, Michigan, Iowa, Kentucky and Montanaall except Kentucky with Democratic incumbentsdepend on coal for more than half their energy needs. Obamas other initiatives are also not popular in some swing states. In Colorado, 56 percent of voters now oppose the states strict gun control laws. In Michigan, a plurality opposed Obamas gun control proposals. Obama and the Democrats seem poised to suffer from the six year itch that the presidents party has usually suffered during midterm elections of a second term. Ronald Reagans Republicans lost the Senate in 1986, and George W. Bushs Republicans lost it in 2006. The exception was Bill Clintons Democrats in 1998, who broke even in the Senate and won five House seats. That was because Clinton remained very popular, thanks to a booming economy. His job approval in the weeks before the election was in the low 60 percent range. The impeachment inquiry, which Republicans had hoped would discredit the president and the Democrats, actually helped the Democrats. Southern black voters, who enthusiastically backed Clinton and believed he was being unfairly targeted, turned out in large numbers. But the Democrats situation this year is very different. The economy is still in the doldrums, Obama is unpopular, and Republican scandal-mongering is unlikely to generate a backlash. In 1998, many Democrats took offense at the Republican impeachment efforts because they were aimed not merely at censuring Clinton, but at unseating him. To date, the Republicans have not used the Benghazi and Bergdahl scandals to call for Obamas removal. Instead, they have merely called for investigations. And as recent polls have shown, many Democrats and Independents, as well as Republicans, favor an investigation into Benghazi and are critical of the administrations deal with the Taliban for Bergdahls release. That probably means that the scandals will be a small, and probably temporary, net plus for the Republicans. They will cast a pall over the White House and, with an assist from Fox News, fire up the Republican base. The Democrats have not developed a national themecomparable, say, to the Reagan administrations staying the course in the 1982 electionto rally voters to their cause. Many of the Democratic candidates are trumpeting the partys support for boosting the minimum wage and for womens rightstwo issues that are popular with votersbut few of the embattled Democrats are running on the White Houses record. With Obama and his programs so unpopular in the key election states, the Democrats in these states are desperately trying to distance themselves from the national party. Congressman Travis Childers, who is likely to face Tea Party favorite McDaniel in Mississippis senate race, actually has a very small chance of winning only because he voted against the Affordable Care Act. In Kentucky, Democrat Allison Grimes promised to fiercely oppose the presidents climate change plan. While the Republicans are seeking to nationalize the campaign, Democrats like Grimes or Mary Landrieu in Louisiana or Mark Pryor in Arkansas want to make the election all about themselves and not about their party or the President. If these Democrats can pull this off, they might able to hold off the Republican challenge in November. Certainly, polls suggest that candidates like Landrieu, Pryor or Kay Hagan in North Carolina have a chance of winning. But at this point, it seems likely that Obama will have to face a Republican House and Senate next year. Thats a recipe for two more years of gridlock.Obamas low approval rating affects midtermsJones 6/16/14Jeffrey M., Gallup Politics polls, "Key Midterm Election Indicators at or Near Historical Lows", June 16 2014, www.gallup.com/poll/171671/key-midterm-election-indicators-near-historical-lows.aspxObama Approval Rating at 2010 Level Although the president is not a candidate in midterm election years, his standing with voters is usually a significant predictor of election outcomes. When presidents are unpopular, their party typically loses a substantial number of seats in the House of Representatives. Conversely, in the 1998 and 2002 elections, when Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush had approval ratings above 60%, their parties gained House seats, providing rare exceptions to the historical trend of midterm seat losses for the president's party. President Barack Obama's job approval rating from Gallup Daily tracking has averaged 44% thus far in June. That is the same as his approval rating at the time of the 2010 elections, when Democrats lost more than 60 seats in the House. Only two presidents have had lower job approval ratings in recent midterm elections -- George W. Bush in 2006 and Ronald Reagan in 1982. In those years, the president's party lost more than 20 seats, suggesting seat loss is not always proportional to presidential job approval, but underscoring the peril the president's party faces when his approval rating is below 50%.

GOP win noweconomic cycles, Obamas failures, independentsAlan Caruba 6/3/14 Alan, political commentator and veteran public relations counselor, former fulltime journalist, author of two recent books, "Will the midterm elections repreat history?" RenewAmerica, an independent grassroots media source, www.renewamerica.com/columns/caruba/140603As Americans go to the polls in primary elections to select the candidates that will run in November, the question is how many Tea Party candidates will be among the winners. If there are a significant number among them, my feeling is that the November midterm elections are going to be a bloodbath for the Democratic Party. There is a point at which even Democrats realize that their President, their party and their policies are harming the economy in general and themselves in particular. Very few families in America do not have someone who is out of work because of what Obama has done at this point. What