Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Midterms DA
Midterms DA
With a little more than three months left until Election Day, Democrats seem to be strengthening their
position to win control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections. Two data points will suffice to
explain the situation right now: On Tuesday, the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball, one of the nation’s
premier election forecasters, changed its ratings for 17 House districts — and all of them moved in favor
of Democrats. Democrats’ lead in the generic ballot, if you go by the RealClearPolitics polling average,
has quietly doubled (and then some) since the beginning of June, from a mere 3.2 percentage
points to a healthy 7.1 points. That is roughly the margin political science nerds think they need. Real
Clear Politics If you want to add a third point, Democrats have been posting very strong fundraising
numbers, with Democratic challengers outraising GOP incumbents in some of the nation’s most
competitive districts, as Vox’s Tara Golshan recently noted. “Put it all together,
and the Democrats now look like soft favorites to win a House majority with a little more than 100 days
to go,” the Crystal Ball’s Kyle Kondik wrote on Tuesday. He emphasized how reluctant they have been to
move the odds from 50-50, but the indicators for Democrats keep looking better and better. A quick
assessment of the House battleground further supports the case. One GOP-held seat — in now de-
gerrymandered Pennsylvania — is considered a Safe Democratic win; two others are considered Likely
Democratic pickups. Four Republican districts — three of which are open seats with no incumbent — fall
in the Lean Democratic camp, and 33 GOP-held seats are rated as toss-ups, according to the Crystal Ball.
If you added the 16 seats that merely Lean Republican, then the 2018 House battlefield equals around
60 districts. Democrats need to flip 24 Republican seats to take back the House. By the looks of things,
they could win less than half of the competitive districts and still pull it off. Just one Democratic seat is
considered a Safe Republican win (again, a result of the Pennsylvania redistricting) and only two
Democratic-held seats are rated as toss-ups. In other words, almost the entire 2018 campaign will be
fought over GOP-held territory. On the one hand, good Democratic odds shouldn’t be such a shock. The
minority party’s gains in midterm elections are a fact of life in American politics. President Trump, in
spite of relatively strong economic indicators, is pretty unpopular. Issues like health care promise to
dominate the campaign, and voters prefer Democrats to Republicans in key policy debates. But
Democrats are still facing a heavily gerrymandered House map, and the frank reality that their (younger)
supporters have historically been less reliable voters in midterm elections than the GOP’s (older) base.
Recent polling underscored the real risk that millennial voters won’t turn out as hoped. So everything
could still go wrong for Democrats in the 2018 midterms. But with about 100 days left in the
campaign, they havea lot of reasons to be optimistic.
The plan gives the GOP a platform beyond tax reform---that guarantees GOP victory
Bush 6-6-2018 – former presidential candidate (Jeb, “Jeb Bush: Delaying Immigration Reform Is a
Missed Opportunity for Republicans,” TIME, http://time.com/5302970/jeb-bush-daca-immigration-
reform-republicans-midterms/)//BB
Despite the urgency of our nation’s immigration crisis, politicians on both sides of the aisle cynically
employ immigration as a wedge issue, election after election, for their own benefit. Meanwhile, our
inability to fix a broken system has tremendous real world costs, both human and economic. As
Republicans consider whether they will hold off taking up immigration in advance of November, I offer a
cautionary hypothetical: What happens if Congress doesn’t address the issue this year, and Republicans
lose the majority? Do we really want to risk waiting to see what a Democratic House and an
unpredictable White House may do? As opposed to caucus infighting over a vote on the fate of
DREAMers — just one of many issues that must be addressed — why not embrace conservative,
comprehensive immigration reform now? Piecemeal legislative efforts haven’t proved successful to
date, so let’s advance a suite of reforms that will return our immigration system into a functioning and
economically advantageous institution. President Donald Trump — who has displayed a striking lack of
consistency on immigration policy but deserves credit for remaining focused on border security — has
indicated multiple times he is open to a striking a deal, something President Obama failed to do when
his party controlled Congress. The politics of the issue may be tough, but the solutions are far from
elusive. First, it is past time to truly secure our border, and there are new technologies to supplement
physical barriers that can be more effective at a dramatically lower cost than constructing a 2,200-mile
wall— an unrealistic idea that has little chance of coming fully to fruition, regardless of who pays for it.
Considering the latest idea is to “crowdfund” the estimated $21.6 billion project, it would seem
pragmatic to focus on the achievable, including bolstering drone surveillance and improving
infrastructure that will allow for better monitoring of our border. Second, we must end the diversity
lottery — which results in 50,000 visas annually — and narrow family reunification to what every other
country allots for: spouses and minor children. Chain migration accounts for a substantial portion of
immigrant entrances into our country with no respect to merit or prospective benefit to our nation.
Countries like Canada and Australia have prioritized economic-driven factors in their immigration
systems, with substantial benefits for their economies. Based on current research, we already know
legal immigrants are almost twice as likely to start a business than individuals born here, comprise a
quarter of all entrepreneurs in the country and are three times more likely to file patents for
innovations. Dramatically cutting legal immigration isn’t the answer. We need a guest worker program
linked to market demand. We need to make it easier for foreign students gaining valuable college
educations here to obtain work visas. And we must reform the H-1B visa program to help address the
6.7 million job openings that remain unfilled because employers can’t find enough skilled workers. Third,
we must modernize our system, overhaul the bureaucracy and effectively enforce our immigration laws.
The biggest immigration problem we face is the large population of immigrants who overstay their visas,
accounting for a full two-thirds of those here illegally in recent years. Investments in our court system
and law enforcement are critical — currently, there is a backlog of more than 700,000 cases before
immigration judges. E-Verify, a Department of Homeland Security resource that enables businesses to
check if prospective employees are eligible to work in the U.S., must be enhanced and made mandatory
to use; employers who don’t should face sanctions. We also have to improve the William Wilberforce
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act so it no longer provides an unintended incentive for
sending Central American children into the country illegally. Finally — and likely the most difficult
element to achieve consensus on — we need to address the full population of illegal immigrants in our
country today. For all law-abiding DREAMers, there should be a path to citizenship. But the same should
not be extended to their parents or other undocumented immigrants who broke laws to come here.
Rather, we should develop a framework that allows for them to come out from the shadows, apply for a
provisional green card, pay a fine, pay taxes (as many already do) and, over an extended period of time,
earn legal status. Rhetoric aside, our country has no realistic plans to deport millions of people, and it’s
time we address what we actually can do. Refusing to address the status of the majority of illegal
immigrants in the country will only prolong our challenges. Meaningful tax reform was a huge win for
the American people in 2018, but it doesn’t have to be the only one. If congressional Republicans want
to be masters of their own fate on election day, they need to keep working. Tackling immigration and
other issues of high priority to voters — including finally repealing Obamacare, as promised — would
provide conservatives the platform guaranteed to win in 2018.
Dem House win guarantees impeachment and removal
Goldberg 17 (Jonah, 6-14-2017, National Review senior editor, bestselling author and columnist and
fellow of the National Review Institute, Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative
Political Action Conference (CPAC), "Trump Will Probably Be Impeached if Republicans Lose the House"
National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448590/democrats-take-back-house-2018-
trump-probably-impeached)
Unless it steps up soon, Democrats will probably take back the majority in 2018 — and take down the
president. The 1998 midterm election was a debacle for Republicans, particularly then-speaker of the
House Newt Gingrich. Since Reconstruction, no president had seen his party gain seats in the House in a
midterm election six years into his presidency. Gingrich, who made the election a referendum on
impeaching President Bill Clinton, resigned after the loss. Clearly, voters had sent the signal, “Don’t do
it.” The White House thought it had dodged a bullet. But one morning, over Thanksgiving break, then–
White House chief of staff John Podesta was running in Washington’s Rock Creek park when it hit him:
GOP leaders are “not going to let their members off the hook. They’re going to beat and beat and beat
on them until they vote for impeachment.” It fell to Podesta to tell the still-celebrating White House
staff that the midterms meant nothing, that the push to impeach the president in the House was a
runaway train that could not be derailed. “This thing is rigged,” Podesta announced at a Monday-
morning staff meeting. “We are going to lose.” President Trump’s White House could use a John Podesta
about now. Because no one seems to have told Trump’s team that the Democrats are every bit as
committed to impeaching Trump as the GOP was to impeaching Clinton. The difference, of course, is
that the Democrats don’t control the House — yet. If they did, as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York
rightly noted recently, impeachment proceedings would already be underway. And if the Democrats
take back the House in 2018, it won’t matter to most members whether the country as a whole supports
impeachment, because the voters who elected them — and the donors who supported them — will be
in favor of it. (A recent Public Policy Polling survey found that 47 percent of Americans support
impeachment while 43 percent oppose it.) Personally, I think it would be folly to impeach the president
given what we know now. But that’s meaningless. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors”
notwithstanding, the criteria for impeachment have little to do with criminal law and everything to do
with politics. If 218 members of the House think it is right — or simply in their political interest — to
impeach the president, he can be impeached. Whether two-thirds of the Senate decides to remove the
president from office is also an entirely political decision. Given the likely composition of the Senate
after the next election, however, that remains unlikely. Then again, who knows? Given how Trump
responds to criticism and political pressure, would you want to bet that the tweeter-in-chief would be a
model of statesmanlike restraint during an impeachment ordeal? So many of his current problems are
the direct result of letting his ego or frustration get the better of him. What fresh troubles would he
mint when faced with removal from office? What might he say under oath to the special counsel?
Clinton, recall, was impeached and disbarred because he perjured himself in a deposition. The only
hope for the Trump presidency is for the GOP to maintain control of the House. House minority leader
Nancy Pelosi has cautioned against making the midterms a referendum on impeachment. But that is an
electoral strategy, not a plan for when she gets the speaker’s gavel. And even if she declines to go
straight to impeachment hearings on Day One, a Democratic-controlled House would still be a
nightmare for the White House. Any hope of passing a conservative agenda would die instantaneously.
Worse, once Democrats gained the power to subpoena documents and compel testimony from
members of the administration, the Hobbesian internal politics of today’s White House would look like a
company picnic by comparison. In short, the only hope for the Trump presidency is for the GOP to
maintain control of the House. According to various reports, the GOP thinks it can hold on by running
“against the media” in 2018. As pathetic as that would be, it might work. Though I doubt it. A better
strategy would be to actually get things done. And the only way for that to happen is for both houses of
Congress to get their act together. Voting bills out of the House may be enough to justify a Rose Garden
party, but it will do little to sway voters who’ve been told for years that the GOP needs control of all
three branches to do big things. Trump won’t be on the ballot in 2018, but his presidency will hang in
the balance.
Trump foreign policy implodes liberal order and causes global war
Rosendorf 17 – Neal Rosendorf, Associate Professor of International Relations, New Mexico State
University, Ph.D., Harvard University, “ÜBERMAN AMERICA: THE SINISTER SOFT POWER OF TRUMP’S
FOREIGN POLICY”, CPD Blog, 2-27, https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/%C3%BCberman-america-
sinister-soft-power-trump%E2%80%99s-foreign-policy
Hence soft power, undergirded by American values, has correctly been seen as a preponderantly
positive force in international relations, in which transparent, free-market, representative democracies
that are open to the world have a baked-in advantage over repressive autocratic regimes. But what
happens if the U.S. becomes one of the world's leading bad guys? Can the U.S. still maintain soft power
if it is extolling hard-edged nationalism and xenophobia, disdaining longstanding alliances and
fomenting the breakup of the entire post-World War II system that America put in place seven decades
ago? What would it look like? Who would it attract? And where will it take the world? In fact, although a
number of prominent figures have warned against the American abdication of liberal world order
leadership and the related erosion, or even the end, of American soft power, I would argue that in
hewing to the Trump foreign policy line the US will in fact continue to maintain a considerable “ability to
shape the preferences of others”. But it won’t be via the sort of attraction, persuasion, ideas and ideals
that analysts and policy formulators weaned on postwar bipartisan consensus U.S. internationalism (this
writer included) will be remotely comfortable with, nor will they (we) celebrate the sort of leaders,
activists and publics who respond positively to this version of American soft power. They (we) won’t like
the results, to put it exceedingly mildly. With the Trump administration violently casting off U.S. fealty to
such watchwords of the exceptionalist American faith as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,”
“the last best hope of earth,” “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe
free,” or “a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming
with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace,” it can be hard to imagine that the U.S. could still
hold soft power, albeit of a dramatically different cast, attractive to a disturbingly different audience. As
an aid to the (nightmare) imagination-challenged, an apt metaphor for what lies ahead for U.S. soft
power, should the Trump Administration succeed in its radical recasting of American values and policies
at home and abroad, can be found in the Classics—of comedy, that is: Saturday Night Live, and a
hilarious, terrifying sketch featuring “Überman.” No, this has nothing to do with a car ride service.
Überman was the brainchild of Al Franken, an SNL writer-performer before his election to the U.S.
Senate. In 1979 Franken posed the counterfactual question, “What If….Superman Grew Up in Germany
instead of America?” In Franken’s re-imagination of Superman’s origin story, young Kal-El’s rocket lands
during the interwar years in Prussia rather than Kansas, where he is raised by ardent Nazis who, as his
adoptive father reminds him, “taught you how the Fatherland was stabbed in the back at Versailles, how
Jews are parasites, how Germany will one day bring order to the world!” Thus inspired, Klaus Kent, “a
mild-mannered clerk for the Ministry of Propaganda,” becomes Überman, proudly declaring to Adolf
Hitler his fight for “Untruth, Injustice and the Nazi Way,” saving Der Führer from a hidden bomb he
discovers with his X-ray vision, and denouncing Jimmy Olsteyn as a Jew—whose secret he also uncovers
with his X-ray vision (get it?). After depositing the hapless Jimmy at Auschwitz Überman wins the Battle
of Stalingrad in five minutes, singlehandedly rounds up two million Jews, and “Kills Every Person in
England—U.S. Next”, as the headline blares in Der Daily Planet. The longer Donald Trump holds on to
power, and hence the longer the sinister soft power Trumpism manifests is projected around the world,
the greater the encouragement to, and impact on, the unsavory populist nationalist movements and
authoritarian regimes to which America is now perversely offering inspiration. Donald Trump’s
unabashed “America First” foreign policy is the metaphorical equivalent of Überman’s gruesome
reversal of Superman’s biography and principles. Al Franken’s sketch encapsulates the unfolding Up-Is-
Down, Black-Is-White, Good-Is-Evil and Evil-Is-Good disjunction and the global havoc the U.S. is in the
process of wreaking. It isn’t necessary to rehearse at length the list of the Trump administration’s head-
snapping, system-shattering statements and policy shifts that is by now painfully well-known to readers
even as it grows daily like The Blob (Steve McQueen’s, not Ben Rhodes’). The last time influential
Americans and their supporters among the public unapologetically embraced unpalatable policies and
values like immigration restriction, racism and anti-Semitism, the results included Adolf Hitler sending a
fan letter to the anti-immigrant “scientific” eugenicist Madison Grant, a Nazi medal for Henry Ford in
honor of his vicious published attacks on Jews, and the modeling of the Nuremberg Laws on Jim Crow
segregation codes —indeed, there was more than a touch of Überman to the United States even at the
dawn of the Age of Superman. But at least at America’s helm during most of the decade prior to U.S.
entry into World War II was Franklin D. Roosevelt, his wife Eleanor and a host of New Dealers, who
endorsed, if disappointingly imperfectly at times, equality and inclusiveness for African-Americans, Jews
and recent immigrants —rather than far-right incubus counterfactual presidents like Buzz Windrip in
Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here and Charles Lindbergh in Philip Roth’s The Plot Against America.
However, with Donald Trump in the White House there is no presidential moral counterpoise, but rather
a celebration of some of the most disturbing pathologies embedded deep in American politics and
society, raging back in the open after many decades of disreputability. And as Überman doesn’t cease to
be, well, super, because of his malevolent predilections, Trumpian America will not not cease to possess
soft power. But it will be of a dark, sinister cast: Lionizing, legitimating and inspiring populist nationalist
leaders (Austrian far-right party head Harald Vilimsky preened after Trump’s inauguration, “He is a
winner, we are winners: Frauke Petry, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, all of us here are winners”);
Providing moral cover for foreign publics’ xenophobia; Setting an example for would-be strongmen of
delegitimizing the press (“the enemy of the American people”) and demonstrating the efficacy and
impunity of pedaling the most brazen disinformation; Confirming longstanding extreme left- and right-
wing accusations that the U.S. has no special redeeming qualities, even vis-à-vis the autocratic,
sanguinary Putin regime (“We’ve got a lot of killers—you think our country is so innocent?”);
Encouraging and steering the weakening or even the break-up of the European Union, NATO and the
WTO; Legitimating Vladimir Putin’s Russia as a defender of Western values; And stoking a racial-ethnic-
religious Western civilizational antipathy toward Islam in toto and the broader non-Western world. If
you think all of this is dispiriting to read, imagine what it was like to write it—Sad! (Utterly
heartbreaking, actually.) But is all in fact lost? Is American soft power destined to henceforth be a
malign, destabilizing force in the world? Perhaps not. If Donald Trump rapidly falls out of favor with
the bulk of the American electorate—and remember, he’s already rather more than halfway home in
this regard—he could be rendered a political loser in short order and tossed out of the White House,
taking foreign policy Trumpism down with him. The 2018 and especially 2020 elections will be pivotal
in this regard. It would be essential for the speediest possible resuscitation of U.S. soft power that
Trump as a one-termer (or less) be succeeded by a president, whether Republican or Democratic,
dedicated to a firm re-commitment to the traditional American values, ideas and ideals that Trump &
Co. have so blithely cast aside. In this scenario, the U.S. would still be dealing with long-term fallout
from its misadventure in international illiberalism. As Warren Buffett famously noted, “It takes 20 years
to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think about that, you'll do things differently.” Still,
while it would indeed probably take a couple of decades to well and truly live down the damage done
even in four years (or less) by the Trump administration, it would not be the most difficult national
reputation-rebuilding effort ever undertaken—think of what West Germany faced in the years following
World War II. However, if Donald Trump is re-elected in 2020 and is thus given a mandate by the
American public to continue the radical recasting of U.S. foreign policy—and with it the overturning of
the extant international order—then the fundamental shift in the nature and effects of American soft
power is likely to be, in practical terms, permanent for a half-century or more. This will be especially so
if this shift is accompanied by an incremental domestic turn toward authoritarianism and the
concomitant erosion of the political opposition's ability to reclaim power. There's another factor to
reckon with as well: the longer Donald Trump holds on to power, and hence the longer the sinister soft
power Trumpism manifests is projected around the world, the greater the encouragement to, and
impact on, the unsavory populist nationalist movements and authoritarian regimes to which America
is now perversely offering inspiration. Even if the U.S. were to rapidly regain its ideological bearings once
a hypothetical two-term Donald Trump has left office and go back to manifesting its traditional values-
based soft power, it could find itself up against a bevy of formerly pro-liberal internationalist states that
have metastasized into Trumpian soft power-inspired illiberal democracies or cold-out dictatorships
now cleaving to Russia and/or China—which will remain autocracies seeking to undermine U.S. global
power. Thus, a resuscitated Superman America might well end up facing the daunting threat of
Überman World.
1NC---TPS
Next off is the midterms da
Dems win now, but it’s close – midterms forecasters, toss-ups
Scott 7-24 - Dylan Scott, 7-24-2018 ("The odds that Democrats will take the House in the 2018
midterms keep looking better", Vox, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/7/24/17607138/2018-midterm-elections-predictions-generic-ballot-democrats, accessed
7-25-2018, GB)
With a little more than three months left until Election Day, Democrats seem to be strengthening their
position to win control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections. Two data points will suffice to
explain the situation right now: On Tuesday, the University of Virginia’s Crystal Ball, one of the nation’s
premier election forecasters, changed its ratings for 17 House districts — and all of them moved in favor
of Democrats. Democrats’ lead in the generic ballot, if you go by the RealClearPolitics polling average,
has quietly doubled (and then some) since the beginning of June, from a mere 3.2 percentage
points to a healthy 7.1 points. That is roughly the margin political science nerds think they need. Real
Clear Politics If you want to add a third point, Democrats have been posting very strong fundraising
numbers, with Democratic challengers outraising GOP incumbents in some of the nation’s most
competitive districts, as Vox’s Tara Golshan recently noted. “Put it all together,
and the Democrats now look like soft favorites to win a House majority with a little more than 100 days
to go,” the Crystal Ball’s Kyle Kondik wrote on Tuesday. He emphasized how reluctant they have been to
move the odds from 50-50, but the indicators for Democrats keep looking better and better. A quick
assessment of the House battleground further supports the case. One GOP-held seat — in now de-
gerrymandered Pennsylvania — is considered a Safe Democratic win; two others are considered Likely
Democratic pickups. Four Republican districts — three of which are open seats with no incumbent — fall
in the Lean Democratic camp, and 33 GOP-held seats are rated as toss-ups, according to the Crystal Ball.
If you added the 16 seats that merely Lean Republican, then the 2018 House battlefield equals around
60 districts. Democrats need to flip 24 Republican seats to take back the House. By the looks of things,
they could win less than half of the competitive districts and still pull it off. Just one Democratic seat is
considered a Safe Republican win (again, a result of the Pennsylvania redistricting) and only two
Democratic-held seats are rated as toss-ups. In other words, almost the entire 2018 campaign will be
fought over GOP-held territory. On the one hand, good Democratic odds shouldn’t be such a shock. The
minority party’s gains in midterm elections are a fact of life in American politics. President Trump, in
spite of relatively strong economic indicators, is pretty unpopular. Issues like health care promise to
dominate the campaign, and voters prefer Democrats to Republicans in key policy debates. But
Democrats are still facing a heavily gerrymandered House map, and the frank reality that their (younger)
supporters have historically been less reliable voters in midterm elections than the GOP’s (older) base.
Recent polling underscored the real risk that millennial voters won’t turn out as hoped. So everything
could still go wrong for Democrats in the 2018 midterms. But with about 100 days left in the
campaign, they havea lot of reasons to be optimistic.
in international relations, in which transparent, free-market, representative democracies that are open
to the world have a baked-in advantage over repressive autocratic regimes. But what happens if the U.S.
becomes one of the world's leading bad guys? Can the U.S. still maintain soft power if it is extolling hard-
edged nationalism and xenophobia, disdaining longstanding alliances and fomenting the breakup of
the entire post-World War II system that America put in place seven decades ago? What would it look like? Who would it
attract? And where will it take the world? In fact, although a number of prominent figures have warned against the American abdication of liberal world order leadership and the related
in hewing to the Trump foreign policy line the US will in fact
erosion, or even the end, of American soft power, I would argue that
continue to maintain a considerable “ability to shape the preferences of others”. But it won’t be via the sort
of attraction, persuasion, ideas and ideals that analysts and policy formulators weaned on postwar bipartisan consensus U.S. internationalism (this writer included) will be remotely
comfortable with, nor will they (we) celebrate the sort of leaders, activists and publics who respond positively to this version of American soft power. They (we) won’t like the results, to put it
exceedingly mildly. With Trump
the administration violently casting off U.S. fealty to such watchwords of the exceptionalist American faith as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness,” “the last best hope of earth,” “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” or “a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept,
God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace,” it can be hard to imagine that the U.S. could still hold soft
power, albeit of a dramatically different cast, attractive to a disturbingly different audience. As an aid to the (nightmare) imagination-challenged, an apt metaphor for what lies ahead for
U.S. soft power, should the Trump Administration succeed in its radical recasting of American values and policies at home and abroad, can be found in the Classics—of comedy, that is:
Saturday Night Live, and a hilarious, terrifying sketch featuring “Überman.” No, this has nothing to do with a car ride service. Überman was the brainchild of Al Franken, an SNL writer-
performer before his election to the U.S. Senate. In 1979 Franken posed the counterfactual question, “What If….Superman Grew Up in Germany instead of America?” In Franken’s re-
imagination of Superman’s origin story, young Kal-El’s rocket lands during the interwar years in Prussia rather than Kansas, where he is raised by ardent Nazis who, as his adoptive father
reminds him, “taught you how the Fatherland was stabbed in the back at Versailles, how Jews are parasites, how Germany will one day bring order to the world!” Thus inspired, Klaus Kent, “a
mild-mannered clerk for the Ministry of Propaganda,” becomes Überman, proudly declaring to Adolf Hitler his fight for “Untruth, Injustice and the Nazi Way,” saving Der Führer from a hidden
bomb he discovers with his X-ray vision, and denouncing Jimmy Olsteyn as a Jew—whose secret he also uncovers with his X-ray vision (get it?). After depositing the hapless Jimmy at Auschwitz
Überman wins the Battle of Stalingrad in five minutes, singlehandedly rounds up two million Jews, and “Kills Every Person in England—U.S. Next”, as the headline blares in Der Daily Planet.
The longer Donald Trump holds on to power, and hence the longer the sinister soft power Trumpism
manifests is projected around the world, the greater the encouragement to, and impact on, the
unsavory populist nationalist movements and authoritarian regimes to which America is now perversely
offering inspiration. Donald Trump’s unabashed “America First” foreign policy is the metaphorical equivalent of Überman’s gruesome reversal of Superman’s biography and
principles. Al Franken’s sketch encapsulates the unfolding Up-Is-Down, Black-Is-White, Good-Is-Evil and Evil-Is-Good disjunction and the global havoc the U.S. is in the
process of wreaking. It isn’t necessary to rehearse at length the list of the Trump administration’s head-snapping, system-shattering statements and policy shifts that is by now
painfully well-known to readers even as it grows daily like The Blob (Steve McQueen’s, not Ben Rhodes’). The last time influential Americans and their supporters among the public
unapologetically embraced unpalatable policies and values like immigration restriction, racism and anti-Semitism, the results included Adolf Hitler sending a fan letter to the anti-immigrant
“scientific” eugenicist Madison Grant, a Nazi medal for Henry Ford in honor of his vicious published attacks on Jews, and the modeling of the Nuremberg Laws on Jim Crow segregation codes
—indeed, there was more than a touch of Überman to the United States even at the dawn of the Age of Superman. But at least at America’s helm during most of the decade prior to U.S. entry
into World War II was Franklin D. Roosevelt, his wife Eleanor and a host of New Dealers, who endorsed, if disappointingly imperfectly at times, equality and inclusiveness for African-Americans,
Jews and recent immigrants —rather than far-right incubus counterfactual presidents like Buzz Windrip in Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here and Charles Lindbergh in Philip Roth’s The Plot
Against America. However, with Donald Trump in the White House there is no presidential moral counterpoise, but rather a celebration of some of the most disturbing pathologies embedded
deep in American politics and society, raging back in the open after many decades of disreputability. And as Überman doesn’t cease to be, well, super, because of his malevolent predilections,
Trumpian America will not not cease to possess soft power. But it will be of a dark, sinister cast: Lionizing,
legitimating and inspiring populist nationalist leaders (Austrian far-right party head Harald Vilimsky preened after Trump’s inauguration, “He is a
winner, we are winners: Frauke Petry, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, all of us here are winners”); Providing moral cover for foreign publics’
xenophobia; Setting an example for would-be strongmen of delegitimizing the press (“the enemy of the American people”)
and demonstrating the efficacy and impunity of pedaling the most brazen disinformation; Confirming longstanding extreme left- and right-wing accusations that the U.S. has no special
Encouraging and steering
redeeming qualities, even vis-à-vis the autocratic, sanguinary Putin regime (“We’ve got a lot of killers—you think our country is so innocent?”);
the weakening or even the break-up of the European Union, NATO and the WTO; Legitimating Vladimir
Putin’s Russia as a defender of Western values; And stoking a racial-ethnic-religious Western
civilizational antipathy toward Islam in toto and the broader non-Western world. If you think all of this is dispiriting to read,
imagine what it was like to write it—Sad! (Utterly heartbreaking, actually.) But is all in fact lost? Is American soft power destined to henceforth be a
malign, destabilizing force in the world? Perhaps not. If Donald Trump rapidly falls out of favor with
the bulk of the American electorate—and remember, he’s already rather more than halfway home in this regard—he could be rendered a
political loser in short order and tossed out of the White House, taking foreign policy Trumpism down
with him. The 2018 and especially 2020 elections will be pivotal in this regard. It would be essential for the
speediest possible resuscitation of U.S. soft power that Trump as a one-termer (or less) be succeeded by a president, whether Republican or
Democratic, dedicated to a firm re-commitment to the traditional American values, ideas and ideals that Trump & Co. have so blithely cast aside. In this scenario, the U.S. would still be dealing
with long-term fallout from its misadventure in international illiberalism. As Warren Buffett famously noted, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think
about that, you'll do things differently.” Still, while it would indeed probably take a couple of decades to well and truly live down the damage done even in four years (or less) by the Trump
administration, it would not be the most difficult national reputation-rebuilding effort ever undertaken—think of what
West Germany faced in the years following World War II. However, if Donald Trump is re-elected in 2020 and is thus given a mandate by the American public to continue the
radical recasting of U.S. foreign policy—and with it the overturning of the extant international order—
then the fundamental shift in the nature and effects of American soft power is likely to be, in practical
terms, permanent for a half-century or more. This will be especially so if this shift is accompanied by an
incremental domestic turn toward authoritarianism and the concomitant erosion of the political
opposition's ability to reclaim power. There's another factor to reckon with as well: the longer Donald Trump holds on to
power, and hence the longer the sinister soft power Trumpism manifests is projected around the world,
the greater the encouragement to, and impact on, the unsavory populist nationalist movements and
authoritarian regimes to which America is now perversely offering inspiration. Even if the U.S. were to rapidly regain its
ideological bearings once a hypothetical two-term Donald Trump has left office and go back to manifesting its traditional values-based soft power, it could find itself up
against a bevy of formerly pro-liberal internationalist states that have metastasized into Trumpian soft power-inspired
illiberal democracies or cold-out dictatorships now cleaving to Russia and/or China—which will remain autocracies seeking to undermine U.S. global power.
Thus, a resuscitated Superman America might well end up facing the daunting threat of Überman World.
*** Uniqueness
UQ---2nc wall
Dems win now, but it’s not a guarantee
- History
- Top Political Scientists
Cillizza 18 - Chris Cillizza, CNN Politics Reporter and Editor-at-Large ,7-25-2018 ("Every sign is pointing to a Democratic wave in November ",
CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/24/politics/house-2018-midterms/index.html, accessed 7-25-2018, GB)
The 2018 election is in 105 days. And the playing field continues to tilt toward Democrats. On
Tuesday, Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball at the University of Virginia moved 17(!) House seats in Democrats'
favor -- eight of which went from a "leans Republican" rating to a "toss-up." That means that of the 36
races rated as "toss-ups" by the Center of Politics, 34 are held by Republicans. Remember that
Democrats only need a 23-seat pickup to regain the majority they lost in 2010. "Democrats are now a
little better than 50-50 to win the House," concludes Kyle Kondik, the managing editor of UVA professor
Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. "This is the first time this cycle we've gone beyond 50-50 odds on a House
turnover." He adds later: "At this point, we see the Democrats with slightly better odds to get their
required share of the 'toss-ups' based largely on the environment, but also because they appear to have
well-funded and credible challengers in these districts that can capitalize on that environment." LIKE
WHAT YOU'RE READING? Check out the latest analysis from The Point with Chris Cillizza: The President's
Russia distraction game reaches new heights Donald Trump's Iran tweet is a BIG DEAL The definitive
ranking of 2020 Democrats What is 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' -- and do you have it? Why on
earth would Trump invite Putin back for more? Some theories... This week in politics, GIF'd These moves
are broadly consistent with how other non-partisan handicappers see the current state of play. The
Cook Political Report carries 34 seats that are either "toss-ups" or lean toward party that doesn't
currently control the seat; 31 of those are GOP districts. Inside Elections sees 26 Republican-held seats
in serious jeopardy as compared to just 5 for Democrats. In CNN's own ratings, there are 43 Republican-
held seats in serious jeopardy as compared to six Democratic-held seats. It's reflective of polling from
swing districts. Take Pennsylvania's 17th District in the southwestern part of the state where Reps.
Conor Lamb (D) and Keith Rothfus (R) are facing off. Even though President Donald Trump narrowly
carried the seat in 2016, Lamb leads Rothfus 51% to 39% in a new Monmouth University poll. And
national generic ballot polling where -- after a brief Republican resurgence in late spring/early summer --
Democrats' edge on the question is now consistently in the high single digits. The building Democratic
wave is also revealed in fundraising reports filed last week. At least 55 Democratic challengers outraised
their Republican incumbent opponents during the second fundraising quarter which covers April 1 to
June 30. 55! Fundraising is not, obviously, the sole determining factor when it comes to who wins and
who loses, but it does tend to be an expression of passion and energy within the two party bases. When
so many Democratic challengers are outraising so many Republican incumbents, you can't ignore it.
CNN's Chris Cillizza cuts through the political spin and tells you what you need to know. By subscribing,
you agree to our privacy policy. Enter email address Candidate fundraising also matters in another way:
Expanding the playing field. While many of the more than four dozen Democratic challengers who
outraised their GOP incumbent opponents are already in targeted races, others remain on the periphery
of the landscape of what are commonly accepted as competitive districts. But if the horizon continues to
slide toward Democrats, some Republican House members who may not think they are in trouble right
now could find themselves suddenly vulnerable. And if their Democratic opponent already has enough
money in the bank to run ads and ensure voters know they have a choice, it could be curtains for people
who no one is even thinking about possibly losing right now. Add it all up -- and throw in the weight of
history that suggests the President's party loses, on average, 33 seats in midterm elections -- and you
have a devil's brew for Republicans. "Think it's safe to say the odds of a D House takeover have never
been higher this cycle," tweeted National Journal politics editor Josh Kraushaar. "Time is running out for
Rs to turn things around." But 105 days is an eternity in politics, you say! And it is -- sort of. But the
history of midterm elections won't be changing between now and November 6. Fundraising tends to be
momentum driven, meaning that if you don't have a lot of cash, it's harder to just go and get it (unless,
of course, you are independently wealthy). And once the playing field shifts in a particular direction, it
usually takes a cataclysmic event to shift it back in any meaningful way. All of which is to say: The cake
isn't totally baked on the 2018 election yet. But it's getting close to finished and the final product isn't
likely to be to Republicans' liking.
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that he was "very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard
to have an impact on the upcoming Election." But rather than benefit his own party, as Russia sought to
do in 2016, Trump claimed without offering any evidence that Russia "will be pushing very hard for the
Democrats" because, Trump said, "no President has been tougher on Russia than me." Donald J.
Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump I’m very concerned that Russia will be fighting very hard to have an
impact on the upcoming Election. Based on the fact that no President has been tougher on Russia than
me, they will be pushing very hard for the Democrats. They definitely don’t want Trump! 10:50 AM - Jul
24, 2018 97.6K 118K people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy The tweet represented a
new type of rhetorical gymnastics for the president, one where America's greatest geopolitical
adversary is not, in fact, interfering in the election to help Trump, as it did in 2016, but is instead
launching attacks aimed at helping Trump's opponents. The president's tweet followed a two-week
period marked by intense scrutiny of Trump's relationship with the Kremlin and with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. Trump has long insisted that the United States would benefit from a closer relationship
with Russia, an opinion which is not universally shared by U.S. diplomats, intelligence officials or
congressional leaders. A summit between the two leaders in Helsinki this month backfired on Trump,
however, after the president refused to hold Putin accountable for Russia's 2016 election attacks, its
annexation of Crimea or its backing of the Assad regime in Syria. During a joint news conference with
Putin after the summit, Trump also appeared to put more faith in the Kremlin's denial that Russia had
engaged in widespread election interference, than he did in the findings of his own intelligence services,
who concluded that Russia did, in fact, attack the 2016 presidential election. At the same news
conference, when Putin was asked whether he had wanted Trump to win the 2016 election, he said,
"Yes, I did. Because [Trump] talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal." “You do
not want to give Jeff Bezos a seven-year head start.” Hear what else Buffett has to say After Trump's
victory, the newly minted then-president elect tweeted out Putin's criticism of his opponent, Hillary
Clinton. Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump Vladimir Putin said today about Hillary and Dems: "In
my opinion, it is humiliating. One must be able to lose with dignity." So true! 7:13 PM - Dec 23, 2016
104K 61.9K people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy Trump's claim that "no president
has been tougher on Russia" is a phrase that's become his standard response to critics who question
why the president is so reluctant to publicly denounce Kremlin attacks on U.S. infrastructure, U.S.
elections and U.S. allies. As evidence of this toughness, the president often points to sanctions on
Russian oligarchs that he signed into law in August 2017, and to the expulsion of 60 Russian diplomats
from the United States in March 2018, in response to the nearly fatal nerve agent attack on a Russian
former double agent in Britain. What Trump does not say, however, is that he has personally opposed
nearly all of these measures. He only agreed to sign new sanctions into law in 2017 when it was clear
that Congress had a veto-proof majority. And he was reportedly furious in March when he realized the
full scope of his administration's expulsion of Russian diplomats in response to the U.K. nerve agent
attack. Meanwhile, Trump has lavished praise on Putin for years, calling him "a strong leader" and
predicting the two men would have a great relationship. In a memorable exchange with reporters in
August 2017, Trump actually thanked Putin for expelling U.S. diplomats from Russia, a move seen by
experts as an affront to the United States. But not to Trump, who argued that the Russian leader had
actually helped the U.S. government to "cut our payroll" costs. Even as Trump boarded his plane bound
for NATO meetings and then the Helsinki summit, the president said he would likely have an easier time
talking to Russia, which NATO considers its greatest threat --- than he would talking to leaders of
America's NATO allies. President Donald Trump (L) and Russia's President Vladimir Putin shake hands
during a meeting at the Presidential Palace, Helsinki, July 16, 2018. Mikhail Metzel | TASS | Getty Images
President Donald Trump (L) and Russia's President Vladimir Putin shake hands during a meeting at the
Presidential Palace, Helsinki, July 16, 2018. Trump's warm embrace of Putin and Russia is all the more
baffling given the dark cloud that has hung over Trump's entire presidency: Special counsel Robert
Mueller's investigation into whether Trump's presidential campaign colluded with Russia to subvert the
2016 presidential election. In a little over a year, the investigation has uncovered scores of previously
unknown contacts between Russian agents and many of Trump's closest advisors, aides and business
partners. As of Tuesday, the special counsel had issued indictments against 32 individuals and three
Russian companies. But while Trump's affinity for Russia has fostered divisions within the GOP,
Democrats have set aside deep divisions caused by the 2016 primary contest between Hillary Clinton
and Bernie Sanders. Now, the Democrats are unified behind a view that Russia is a mortal foe of the
United States, and that Putin represents the greatest living obstacle to the spread of democracy in
Europe, rule of law and respect for human rights. Practically from the moment Trump took office,
Democrats have called on the Trump administration and Republican leaders in Congress to impose
tougher measures against Russia. The most recent call came last week, when Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer demanded that Republicans in Congress increase sanctions against Russia and
pressure the president to request that the Kremlin extradite 12 Russian spies who were recently charged
with hacking American targets during the 2016 election.
Republicans’ prospects for holding on to the House majority, already dim, have gotten bleaker of late.
Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball notes: “We’re making 17 House ratings changes this week, all in favor of the
Democrats. … One of those comes in OH-12, where the last nationally-watched special House election is
taking place in a couple of weeks.” The report looks at the larger trend: Election Day is getting closer,
and the president’s approval rating is still largely stuck in the low 40s, a big red warning sign that has
bedeviled the party of similarly-situated presidents in past midterms. The House generic ballot, which
has generally been at around a Democratic lead of between six to eight points, is at the higher end of
that range right now. But more importantly for the House battle, for most of this election cycle the
generic ballot has shown a consistent Democratic lead that suggests a very competitive battle for the
majority. A high number of open seats — the highest number of any postwar election save 1992 — give
Democrats many more targets than the GOP (Republicans are defending 41 seats without an incumbent,
while Democrats are defending only 22). Success builds on success. Large turnout in 2017 and 2018
special elections generated more enthusiasm, which in turned opened the campaign donation spigots.
The availability of money and sunny prospects for Democrats encouraged solid Democratic candidates
to run — and Republican incumbents to retire. There are more specific factors as well: the failure of tax
cuts to result in higher wages; economic pain inflicted by President Trump’s trade wars; the #MeToo
movement (which gets energy with each Republican’s misogynistic insult); rising health-care costs
(which in part can be attributed to Republicans’ assault on the Affordable Care Act); Republicans’
continued indulgence of Trump’s erratic, dishonest and unhinged conduct, coupled with a sense that
Trump needs to be checked, not enabled; and the disgust felt by college-educated voters, women and
millennials over Republicans’ assault on human decency (e.g. family separations, “dreamers”). The
Democrat's new platform is a raw deal for minorities, says Global Opinions editor Karen Attiah. (Gillian
Brockell, Kate Woodsome, Karen Attiah/The Washington Post) Republicans insist that they can rely on
the generally strong economy, and to be sure, without it the party and presidency would be in free fall.
But getting Republicans out to vote for “more of the same” — especially when “more of the same” is
not uniformly positive in all sections of the country — is a tougher task than getting highly energized,
angry Democrats out in November. It is not any single issue, then, that will make or break the GOP
majority; it’s the dozens of small and medium factors pushing in Democrats’ favor. “Voters don’t live in
issue silos,” cautions the Cook Political Report’s Amy Walter. “And, they don’t vote that way either. An
election is about the sum, not the individual parts. In 2018, voters will either want Congress to support
Trump’s turn-the-card-table-over style of governing, or they want to see Congress as a check on Trump.”
She finds, “Right now, polls suggest more voters want Congress to provide a check on Trump.” The
caveat that “things can change” itself requires a caveat. “The Nov. 6 election is now 15 weeks away. .
But in the nine midterm elections that I have covered with The Cook Political Report, and a total of 12
midterm elections that I have watched closely, we’ve never seen the dynamics change much after
midsummer,” Charlie Cook writes. “Whatever the trend was by this point was pretty much in place on
Election Day. To the extent that things have changed, it generally has been waves intensifying, growing
larger, not diminishing or disappearing.” Finally, voter intensity may be the most critical factor for
Democrats. With each new perceived outrage (e.g., Trump’s betrayal in Helsinki, insults directed at
Democratic women, the prospect of reversing Roe v. Wade, new lies about the Russia investigation),
members of the Democratic base are reminded how desperately they want to end their Trumpian
nightmare. If they cannot get rid of him in 2018, they can at least rid themselves of many of his enablers
and apologists. For Republicans, the outrage machine seems to have played out. Each “Fake News” or
“Russia hoax” tweet has less impact than the previous one; the inability to come up with new hot-
button issues leads Trump to go back to tired retreads. (NFL players not kneeling!) To put it in TV terms
that Trump would surely appreciate, his presidency has lost its novelty; getting his fans to tune in
becomes a chore — and everyone else would be delighted if the show got canceled.
Blue Wave
Blue wave likely – even if predictions are imperfect, the evidence is there – special
elections,
Schneider 6/15 ---- Christian, political columnist for USA Today, former Senior Fellow at the
Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, former Policy Analyst for the Wisconsin State Legislature, M.A. in
Political Science (Marquette University), B.S. in Political Science (University of Utah), “Losing the
November elections might be the only way to save Republican Party,” 2018,
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/06/15/losing-midterms-save-republican-party-trump-
blue-wave-column/702567002/
Yet while pro-Trump forces dominate GOP primaries, Republicans nationally continue to hemorrhage
seats when those Trumpist candidates run in general elections. Consider the fact that Alabama (!) has a
Democratic U.S. Senator, which seems about as likely as the NAACP electing Roseanne Barr as its next
president.
Granted, there are still signs a “blue wave” may not be imminent, and nobody can predict what’s going to happen in one month,
much less five. But the early returns are disastrous. Just as Trump wore the Republican Party to his political benefit, the party must
now wear Trump to their likely demise.
Dems can roll – Trump unpopularity and Dem strategy
Sargent 5/8 ---- Greg, national politics writer for The Washington Post featured in Talking Points
Memo, New York Magazine, The Denver Post, and Huff Post, “Trump Is a Disaster, and That’s Helping
Democrats. But Not How You Think.,” The Washington Post, 2018,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/05/08/trump-is-a-disaster-and-thats-
helping-democrats-but-not-how-you-think/?utm_term=.11d87b55d882
In other words, Trump is doing part of the work for Democrats without their help, allowing them to focus on things such
as improving health care or fortifying social insurance (as Conor Lamb did) or even on hyper-local issues (as many state
legislative candidates have done). If Democrats are running against Trump, it’s subtle: They are trying to project calm,
stability, decency and respect for tolerance and the rule of law, drawing an implicit contrast with Trump, and are
challenging their Republican foes when they dabble in Trumpist xenophobia and veiled racism, as opposed to
making it overtly all about the president.
These campaigns are unfolding outside of our debates inside the Beltway and on Twitter over how much
Trump’s scandals will matter in the midterms and what Democrats should and should not be doing. Indeed, to find clear evidence of
what Democrats are actually doing, look no further than how Republicans are responding to it. Savvy
Democrats think that Republicans are cycling out of their tax-cut messaging, and that Trump is doubling down
on the xenophobia and attacks on special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, precisely because they are trying to adapt to how these
Democratic candidates are actually being run by falling back on a last-ditch juice-the-base strategy.
“Trump is leaning hard into Mueller and his brand of white nationalism, which is born of the growing GOP
realization that Democrats are running and winning on health care and cleaning up Washington — the things that really matter to
voters,” Democratic strategist Simon Rosenberg told me today.
None of this is to say Democrats will necessarily win the House and/or the Senate, though right now the
former looks very plausible and the latter looks at least possible. But let’s at least get it right on what Democrats are actually doing
to make it happen.
Blue wave now, but it’s not locked-in – Dem enthusiasm, lack of GOP strategy,
structural characteristics of midterms, models, special election trends, momentum and
national favor
Gaillard 6/13 ---- Scott, former Senior Legislative Assistant in the US House of Representatives,
politics correspondent, J.D. (Florida State University College of Law), B.A. in Political Science (University
of Florida), “Democrats Predict Sweeping Elections in November … but Maybe Only They Can Screw It
Up,” Folio Magazine, 2018, http://folioweekly.com/stories/is-the-blue-wave-for-real,19973
Asked about the Blue Wave, local Democratic activist Luis Zaldivar says, "I can answer straight-up; the
Wave is 100 percent for real, especially because Republicans don't have anything going on; they are
deeply divided." Zaldivar, who has knocked on thousands of doors in the last two years, is president of
the local Democratic Progressive Caucus. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez recently
stated, "We are winning everywhere." Democrats are hoping this year's election will resemble the one
in 2006, when they regained majorities in the U.S. House and Senate, and among governorships.
Democrats also won a majority of state legislatures and picked up seven seats in the Republican-
dominated Florida House. There's a lot of enthusiasm among activists, but what do the numbers say?
Democrats need 24 victories to take the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and two victories
to take back the U.S. Senate. This is an off-year, aka mid-term election, in which the presidency is not on
the ballot, which is typically better for the party out of power. Since World War II, the opposition party
has, on average, gained 26 seats in off-year elections. One prediction model suggests Democrats will
gain between 45 and 50 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. It also predicts the Democrats will
flip between 15 and 20 state legislatures. This model accurately predicted big Democratic gains in 2006
and Republican wins in 2010, and has been correct about most elections since 1950. A Swelling Wake
Some of the early races after Trump's inauguration were disappointing, but by November 2017,
Democrats had snapped back, winning gubernatorial elections in New Jersey and Virginia. A political
earthquake sent aftershocks around America when Democrat Doug Jones bested Roy Moore in the
Alabama special election to replace Jeff Sessions in the U.S. Senate. Alabama had not voted for a
Democratic presidential candidate in more than 30 years and was considered among the safest states
for Republicans. Jones' support came from all over the U.S., including from local activist Nathan McKay,
who contacted nearly 10,000 voters urging them to support Jones and to turn out to vote. McKay
explained, "I got inspired to get involved because someone has to do it." He spoke of the danger of
"sitting on the sidelines," mistaking social media posts for genuine activism. Republicans hoped Jones'
victory was simply because they had a weak candidate in the former judge who faced multiple
accusations that he'd sexually preyed on teenaged girls when he was a prosecutor in his 30s. Though
Moore strenuously denied any predatory or inappropriate behavior, many believed the scandal tanked
his candidacy. Three months later, Democrats scored another upset in a Pennsylvania district heavily
favoring Republicans. The district is gerrymandered to elect Republicans-Donald Trump carried it by
nearly 20 percent in 2016—plus their candidate, Rick Saccone, had no such scandal. Nevertheless,
Democratic former Assistant U.S. Attorney Conor Lamb defeated Saccone, a candidate who'd claimed he
was "Trump before Trump was Trump." The Blue Wave appeared to be gaining momentum. In a widely
cited article, FiveThirtyEight's Henry Enten wrote, "You don't see this type of consistent outperformance
unless there's an overriding pro-Democratic national factor." Another special election was held near
Sarasota to elect a new member to the Florida legislature. Republican voters outnumbered Democrats
by 10 percentage points and had carried the district in the last two presidential elections. Yet
Democratic attorney Margaret Good won by a comfortable margin in a race that included appearances
by national figures from both parties. The Democrats also pulled off impressive state legislative
elections in deeply red Oklahoma and conservative Iowa. Trump's former campaign manager Cory
Lewandowski complained, "Fifty seats have already changed hands from Republican to Democrats since
Donald Trump was elected." On April 8, Republican pollster Frank Luntz said the Republicans would lose
the House and Senate if the election were held today. "I think the Republicans are in deep trouble ... ,"
Luntz mused. Locally: Ripples or a Swell? State legislative and Jacksonville City Council seats in Northeast
Florida have been gerrymandered to elect a majority of Republicans and a minority of black Democrats.
This year, a number of candidates are looking to storm the gates of the status quo. Local Democratic
Party Chair Lisa King is excited that the party has fielded candidates for every Florida House seat in Duval
County for the first time in years. Democratic hopefuls Navy veteran Tim Yost and Dr. Tracye Polson are
running for State House seats held by Republicans for many years. Polson leads the race in fundraising
and the polls. A.G. Gancarski recently wrote, "[T]here are early suggestions that a Blue Wave may splash
onto Jacksonville shores." Since November 2016, nationally and locally, the country has seen increased
activism by liberals and other progressives. The Women's March in Washington, D.C. in January 2017
included more than four million participants worldwide. February's mass murder in Parkland galvanized
gun safety advocates, including many progressives. The March For Our Lives events brought many
passionate and dedicated young activists together for a cause that's considered more in tune with
progressives. Inspired by marches and events, many more have joined the ranks of progressive
organizations and election teams. With the wind at their backs, millions of activists lining up to make
dramatic changes, and the president's historically low approval ratings, what could possibly go wrong?
Everything. This is the Democratic Party and it's fully capable of screwing up a one-car parade.
Ideological, racial and gender purity tests are being conducted among members across the nation,
including here in Jacksonville. (See "The Fall Guys," Folio Weekly, April 11.) As political analyst Michael
Kinsley once said, "Conservatives are always looking for converts; liberals are always looking for
heretics." When the Constitution was written, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government it
included. He responded, "A Republic, if you can keep it." Have the Democrats been handed an election
victory? The answer will be clear in November.
Blue Wave---A2: Economics
Economic conditions won’t protect the GOP – most metrics don’t impact voters
Bedford 6/1 ---- Tori, Associate Producer at Boston Public Radio, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren: Democratic
"Blue Wave" Won't Be Stopped by Trump's Economic Claims,” 2018,
https://www.wgbh.org/news/politics/2018/06/01/sen-elizabeth-warren-democratic-blue-wave-wont-
be-stopped-by-trumps-economic-claims
“People say unemployment is down, and boy I’m glad to hear that unemployment is down, except you’ve got to pause for a
minute," she said. "When it’s down because people are working two and three part-time jobs, that’s not such good
economic news. When it’s down because we don’t count all the people who’ve dropped out of the labor
force for a whole host of reasons, that’s not very good economic news.”
Analysts say the Labor Department’s May jobs report shows a strong economy with some of the best employment numbers in almost 20 years, and President
Trump says that he’s driven stock markets and the economy to historic highs.
“The stock market is rising, everyone says, ’Yay, the stock market is up!’ — only, most Americans don’t have any shares of stocks. Fewer than
half of all Americans actually have a share of stock, and that includes in their pension funds,” Warren said. “So a rising stock
market leaves behind at least half of America.”
Some political pundits say robust job growth in May could dull any Democratic wave in the upcoming midterm elections, but
Warren thinks voters will see beyond the numbers.
“I believe in statistics,” Warren said, “You can live your life there, or you can go out and see how people are living it, day-to-day, and ask
them, do you think you’re better off than you were a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago? Do you see a possibility for paying for your kids to go to school? Do you
see a possibility of a retirement where you’ll be able to maintain the life that you’ve built right now? Do you see a possibility when the time will come, where your
mortgage will be paid off and you ... can kick back a little?”
Blue Wave---A2: Generic Ballot
Dems wave possible despite generic ballot results – cool the hot takes!
Zhou citing Murray 6/7 ---- Li, Congressional reporter for Vox, Patrick Murray is the director of the
Monmouth University Polling Institute, “Is the Blue Wave Crashing? 11 Experts on Democrats’ Chances
in 2018,” Vox, 2018, https://www.vox.com/2018/6/7/17427014/blue-wave-democrats-generic-ballot-
midterms
The data has changed for the Democrats — but it could still go either way
Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, says the influx of recent data has, indeed, tempered the
Democratic lead in the generic ballot. He emphasized, however, that a lot more information was likely to
continue affecting the polls in the months to come until Election Day.
“Let’s pour a little water on the hot takes,” he said. “The generic House ballot seems to have improved for
the Republicans … although this average is driven largely by a few polls that have been bouncing around
a lot.”
Murray says this variability is what makes it tough to make any sort of definitive call at this point in the race. “In reality, the generic ballot has been pretty stable
since March but is significantly worse for Democrats than where it was at the start of the year,” he said. “The Democrats
are not in the same
enviable position they were five months ago, but that doesn’t mean we have any idea what the next five months
will bring.”
Dem Wave – Swing Districts
Dems win New Jersey House and Senate – fundraising and Trump approval rating
WNYC 18 – WNYC is America's most listened-to public radio station and the producer of award-
winning radio programs and podcasts, including Radiolab, On the Media, Freakonomics Radio, Here's the
Thing with Alec Baldwin, The Brian Lehrer Show, The Leonard Lopate Show and many others. “This Week
in Politics: New Jersey's Campaign to Flip House,” 2/10/18. https://www.wnyc.org/story/week-politics-
jersey-dems-prepare-assault-house/]//Justin
Will Democrats who are angry with President Trump and Republican control in Washington be able to
take back the majority in Congress in the midterm elections in November? Signs of a potential blue wave
are already being seen - and nowhere more than in New Jersey.
A flood of Democratic candidates have entered races in congressional districts that, for years, were
viewed as shoe-ins for Republicans. November is a long way off. But right now, Democratic candidates in
the Garden State are out-fundraising Republican incumbents in advance of the primaries in June.
Max Pizarro, the Founding Editor of Insider NJ, has been tracking the campaigns at the local level.
Speaking with host David Furst, Max says with Donald Trump's approval rating running so low in New
Jersey, there are "a ton of Democratic candidates running for vulnerable Republican-held seats."
Dems win house seats now but GOP candidates are moderating their position on
family separation – swing districts in Colorado and Pennsylvania prove
Barrow 6/19 – Bill, KXAS-TV, virtual channel 5, is an NBC owned-and-operated television station
licensed to Fort Worth, Texas, United States and serving the Dallas–Fort Worth Metroplex. “'We Are
Talking About American Values': Border Separations Ripple Through Midterm Campaigns,” 6/19/2018.
https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Border-Separations-Ripple-Through-Midterm-Campaigns-
485918151.html]//Justin
Wrenching scenes of migrant children being separated from their parents at the southern border are
roiling campaigns ahead of midterm elections, emboldening Democrats on the often-fraught issue of
immigration while forcing an increasing number of Republicans to break from President Donald Trump
on an issue important to the GOP's most ardent supporters.
Kim Schrier, a Democrat running for a House seat outside of Seattle, said Trump is pushing an
"absolutely unethical, inhumane" policy.
"We are talking about American values, not Democratic values or Republican values, and this is
something that will flip people to a Democrat in this election," Schrier said.
That prospect was enough for House Republicans' national campaign chairman, Ohio Rep. Steve Stivers,
to offer cover Monday to vulnerable GOP members. Stivers said in a statement that he's asking "the
administration to stop needlessly separating children from their parents" and suggested he'd examine
legislative options if Trump doesn't budge.
Children are being separated from their parents at the U.S.-Mexico border. This is what happens once
they're separated.(Published Wednesday, June 20, 2018)
Republican Rep. Mike Coffman, whose suburban Denver district is often a battleground, took the cover
Stivers provided. He didn't mention Trump, but said the border policy "is antithetical to the America I
grew up in." He said he's willing to co-sponsor a House version of a Senate proposal from Sen. Dianne
Feinstein, D-Calif., that would halt the family separations, and he echoed claims Democrats had made
for days: "History won't remember well those who support the continuation of this policy."
Democrat Jason Crow, a leading candidate to unseat Coffman, said the congressman can't run from
his previous support for "zero-tolerance" border security. "This is what that looks like," Crow said,
adding that as "an American and as a father" he finds the border situation "immoral."
With control of the House — and potentially the Senate — up for grabs, the searing images coming from
the border have the potential to scramble midterm politics. Though controversy has dominated Trump's
presidency, the growing furor over the separations struck a deeply emotional chord in both parties that
may not calm anytime soon — even in districts that don't have large immigrant or Hispanic populations.
Pennsylvania's Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, another vulnerable Republican, said he plans to visit the border
"to see what's going on down there with my own eyes." He called the detainees "our planet's children"
and said they shouldn't be punished "for things that their parents do or don't do."
The political reverberations from the separations could last well beyond the midterms. Sen. Kamala
Harris, D-Calif., a potential 2020 presidential candidate, said Monday that Homeland Security Secretary
Kristjen Nielsen should resign. She was joined by House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Sen. Tina
Smith, D-Minn., and several other Democrats.
Dem House
Dems win the house now---Republicans have more toss-up seats, recent polls, Dem
enthusiasm, and Trump blocking GOP immigration efforts
[John Bowden, 6-22-2018, "GOP pollster: Democrats are poised to take back the House,"
http://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/393735-gop-pollster-democrats-are-poised-to-take-
back-the-house-in-the]//Rank
A Republican pollster says Democrats have a "better than ever" chance of taking back the House this fall,
despite President Trump's predictions of a "red wave" in November's midterms. Ed Goeas, president and CEO of The Tarrance Group, a GOP
research and polling firm, told Hill.TV's Joe Concha that the president is poised to lose his majority in the House,
warning that Democrats could take as many as 23 seats in November. "Well, the Democrats have to win 21 seats to take control. I think it's a
better than even chance at this point that that will happen," Goeas said. "Of the 32 seats that are toss-up seats, only four are Democrat, are Democratic
seats," he added. "So I'm going to say 23." President Trump has frequently predicted a "red wave" of GOP victories in November both on Twitter and in media appearances, dismissing Democratic
enthusiasm and recent polls that show Democrats with an edge on generic House ballots. In a tweet earlier this month,
Trump pointed to John Cox's win in California's GOP gubernatorial primary as evidence of a coming red wave, adding that "the Trump impact was really big." "Great night for Republicans! Congratulations to John Cox on a really big
number in California. He can win," he tweeted. "Even Fake News CNN said the Trump impact was really big, much bigger than they ever thought possible. So much for the big Blue Wave, it may be a big Red Wave. Working hard!" In
the president threw a wrench in GOP Congress members' efforts to address immigration
another message,
issues, calling for Republicans to "stop wasting their time" voting on immigration legislation until after what he
expects to be a "Red Wave." "Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in November. Dems are just playing games, have no intention of doing
anything to solves this decades old problem. We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave!" he tweeted.
Dems take the House – fundamentals, popularity, year-long trends, Dem mobilization
– assumes strong economy and foreign policy successes and says structural factors
outweigh “too soon” concerns though uniqueness doesn’t overwhelm the link –
GOP/Trump response possible
Rothenberg 6/13 ---- Stuart, Ph.D. in Political Science (University of Connecticut), former professor of
political science (Bucknell University and Catholic University of America), “Analysis: The House Blue
Wave Is Alive and Well,” Roll Call, 2018, https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/analysis-house-blue-
wave-alive-well
But even
if voters are giving Trump some credit for the economy and North Korea, they could still prefer a
Democratic Congress next year.
After all, there has also been plenty of troubling news from the White House, including Trump’s disturbing attack on Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his
tweets about the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, the administration’s trade and tariffs policies, and the president’s divisive comments on
cultural issues and immigration, to name just a few.
Most voters critical of Trump and his agenda will find plenty of reasons to continue to dislike him and to promise to vote Democratic in the fall.
Of course, given the president’s unpredictability, his likely campaign messaging between now and November, and all of the unknowns, it’s still too
early to be certain where the public will be on control of Congress at election time.
But the fundamentals remain very much with the Democrats, as they have been for more than a year.
Midterms are almost always about the president. Twenty-three Republicans sit in districts carried by Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump’s job approval ratings are mediocre at best.
Democrats are angry and energized, as demonstrated by high-profile recent elections in Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, as well as from many local races around the country.
GOP House retirements mean fewer incumbents who would be best prepared to swim against the tide.
And, voters see the midterms as an opportunity to “check” Trump. That’s a formula for substantial
Democratic House gains and control of the chamber next year. The burden is still on Republicans and the
White House to change the midterms’ dynamics.
California’s primary, generic ballot and special elections
Yglesias 6/6 ---- Matthew, syndicated political correspondent featured in The American Prospect, The
Atlantic, and Slate, degree in philosophy (Harvard University), “California’s Primary Results Suggest
Democrats Are on Track for a House Majority,” Vox, 2018, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/6/6/17433846/california-primary-results-democratic-majority
The Democratic Senate Majority PAC announced Monday it will sink $80 million for TV ads into nine states with
battleground Senate races this fall in an initial wave of spending for the 2018 midterms.
SMP will air ads beginning on Labor Day and continuing to election night on Nov. 7 in races for three Republican-held seats in Nevada, Arizona and Tennessee, and
six Democratically controlled seats in Indiana, Florida, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.
SMP President J.B. Poersch attributed the massive initial TV ad package to “record fundraising” this cycle.
As of April 30, the group had raised more than $50 million to spend on winning back Democratic control of the Senate, per OpenSecrets.org.
“Democrats’ chances in Senate races across the country continue improving because voters see that they are
the candidates fighting for hardworking, middle class families,” Poersch said in a statement.
“We are implementing an aggressive media strategy to combat the Republicans’ baseless, partisan attacks and promote
our candidates that are fighting for higher wages and lower health care premiums,” he said. “ We look forward to building off our existing
momentum with smart, tactical planning to ensure victory in November.”
Inside Elections with Nathan L. Gonzales rates seven of the nine races SMP will target as Toss-ups.
Montana, rated Tilts Democratic, and Tennessee, rated Leans Republican, are the only states where Inside Elections has one party with a slight edge.
Dems can take the Senate – trends, insiders, democratic enthusiasm, and fundraising –
assumes GOP map advantages
Taylor 5/7 ---- Jessica, lead digital political reporter for NPR, “Republican Fears About Holding the
Senate Start To Sink In,” 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/05/07/608649799/republican-fears-about-
holding-the-senate-start-to-sink-in
Democrats are going into the 2018 elections with the wind at their backs, which could even be enough to
flip a Senate map heavily stacked for Republicans come November.
In conversations with several top GOP strategists, nearly all conceded that the overwhelming Democratic
enthusiasm they're facing this November is incredibly worrisome. Most still think it's a better than even chance that they do keep the
Senate — albeit narrowly — but it's no longer out of the realm of possibility that the upper chamber could change hands,
especially given the volatility of the GOP's two-seat majority.
"Generally speaking, close races aren't won by the party with the wind in their face. That's not the way it
works," said one top GOP Senate race veteran. "If we lose 40 to 50 seats in the House, you can't pick up three
to four Senate seats."
"If we hold the Senate, I think it will be close. It will be closer than it should be when the cycle started," said another longtime Republican Senate operative.
"There's
no question it's far more in play than it was a year ago."
Moreover, lackluster fundraising as of late from GOP challengers and stronger-than-expected hauls from
Democratic incumbents has further stoked worry among Republicans.
Many Republicans are already beginning to make the argument in some surprisingly volatile states like
Tennessee that the Senate majority is on the line — hoping to woo voters to the polls by hammering home the implication that something as
important as another Supreme Court vacancy could be left in the hands of Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer.
There is an additional nuance that should be noted, and it gets at how Democrats actually are capitalizing on
Trump’s unpopularity.
What we have seen in the last year of elections, in Virginia, in Alabama, in Pennsylvania’s 18th District and in dozens of
state legislative races, is that Trump’s unpopularity is driving Democratic turnout and Democratic
volunteering, and is turning white, better-educated, suburban swing voters and independents against the
GOP — because alienation from Trump has led such voters to give Democrats more of a hearing. The
intensity of this outpouring against Trump is undoubtedly driven in part by Trump’s scandals and his response
to them, and crucially, it is happening even as Democratic candidates are not particularly focused on Trump
in their own campaigns.
Since November 2016, nationally and locally, the country has seen increased activism by liberals and other
progressives. The Women's March in Washington, D.C. in January 2017 included more than four million participants
worldwide. February's mass murder in Parkland galvanized gun safety advocates, including many progressives. The
March For Our Lives events brought many passionate and dedicated young activists together for a cause that's
considered more in tune with progressives. Inspired by marches and events, many more have joined the ranks of
progressive organizations and election teams
No GOP Turnout
GOP turnout down and Dem increases outweigh
Clement 2/4 ---- Scott, polling director at The Washington Post, B.A. in Political Science (Vanderbilt
University), M.S. in Survey Methodology (University of Maryland), “Early Gauge of 2018 Turnout Shows
Good Signs for Democrats,” 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
fix/wp/2018/04/04/early-gauge-of-2018-turnout-shows-good-signs-for-
democrats/?utm_term=.581f62d74d62
Democrats are just about as likely as Republicans to say they plan to vote in this year’s congressional
elections, a break from the two previous midterm elections, in which Republicans were significantly
more inclined to vote, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted in January.
Democratic congressional leaders hope anti-Trump sentiment can boost the party to regain control of the House and
possibly the U.S. Senate, and the poll finds many fellow partisans feel a similar urgency. Just over half of
Democratic-leaning registered voters, 51 percent, say it is “more important to vote” this year than in previous
elections, compared with 34 percent of Republican-leaning voters who say the same.
In the past two midterm years, Republicans parlayed heightened conservative enthusiasm and
disapproval of President Barack Obama into consecutive victories and control of the House and Senate. Post-ABC polls in 2014 found that,
on average, Republican-leaning voters were 10 points more likely to say they were “absolutely certain to vote” than were voters who leaned toward the Democratic
Party. In 2010, Republicans held a 12-point advantage on this question.
But turnout appears to be shaping up differently this year, with President Trump in the White House and most
Americans disapproving of his performance. Sixty-five percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning
independent voters say they are certain to vote, compared with 63 percent of Republican-leaning voters.
Among Republicans, motivation to vote appears to be down from the past two cycles, while Democrats have
changed less, although this may reflect the fact that the surveys in previous years were conducted later in those election years.
Turnout in midterm elections overall is far lower than turnout in presidential-election years, with fewer than 4 in 10
eligible voters casting ballots in 2014. Enthusiasm to vote this year ranges sharply within each party. The Post-ABC poll finds 54
percent of Americans who say that at the least they will “probably vote” also say it is more important to vote in 2018 than in previous midterm elections, while 44
percent say it is about as important as in the past and only 1 percent say it is less important.
Trump Unpopular
Trump is historically unpopular – don’t be fooled by snapshots
Sargent 5/8 ---- Greg, national politics writer for The Washington Post featured in Talking Points
Memo, New York Magazine, The Denver Post, and Huff Post, “Trump Is a Disaster, and That’s Helping
Democrats. But Not How You Think.,” The Washington Post, 2018,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/05/08/trump-is-a-disaster-and-thats-
helping-democrats-but-not-how-you-think/?utm_term=.11d87b55d882
But this narrative is entirely wrong, and two new pieces this morning help set the record straight. Taken together, they point to a much more accurate version of
what’s happening: Trump’s
unpopularity does in fact remain historically abysmal. This and Trump’s many scandals
are in fact helping Democrats — but not in a way that is immediately apparent and not in a manner that betrays any unhealthy Democratic obsession
with those things.
The first article is by Nate Silver, and it puts Trump’s job-approval numbers in their proper perspective. You
constantly read headlines and punditry claiming that Trump’s approval is rising. But, while Silver agrees that
Trump’s approval has “increased slightly,” the big picture is this:
For the past 66 days, Trump’s approval rating has been somewhere between 40.0 percent and 42.1 percent,
according to our tracker. It’s been toward the higher end of that range recently — but that isn’t much of range. Indeed, over the whole
course of his presidency, the range Trump’s approval ratings travel in has been remarkably narrow.
If Trump’s numbers are rising, they are only doing so inside a very narrow range that remains abysmally
low. And don’t forget the polling that shows strong disapproval of Trump is running higher than strong approval,
which could impact disparities in voter engagement.
GOP Anti-immigrant
Republicans are running on anti-immigrant rhetoric and policy proposals this fall
Zachary Mueller, 7-17-2018, "The Jeff Sessions Campaign Tour: How the AG is Traveling Around the
Country Demonizing Immigrants — And Candidates Are Echoing Him," America's Voice,
https://americasvoice.org/blog/sesssions-campaigns/, DRS)
Since at least April of this year, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has been out across the country giving
speeches that are helping to lay the foundation for an anti-immigrant political strategy in the 2018
midterms. Republicans have already made it clear that this is what they will run on this fall, even though
has already backfired in several elections since November 2017. Sessions, of course, has long been a
“leader” in attacking immigrants, and has been using his role as Attorney General to promote the false
conflation of immigrants with crime. Traditionally, at least since Watergate, US Attorney Generals do not
engage in campaign work, but Sessions has made it a point to advance the anti-immigrant narrative in
upcoming 2018 races across the country. He is developing a pattern spreading anti-immigrant talking
points in speeches made to battleground districts and states — which many Republican candidates then
echo. He has repeatedly called for building the wall, used MS-13 as an immigration bogeyman, claimed
that immigration is a main culprit in the opioid crisis, and repeated misleading talking points about safe
cities. From the middle of April 2018 to this writing, 19 of the 21 speeches Sessions has given while on
the road have had anti-immigrant themes. Sessions was also delivering anti-immigrant speeches in
Northern Virginia and in Philadelphia, right across the river from New Jersey, last October. Many
Republican candidates in the states he’s visited have made a point to show they are onboard with his
strategy and echoed his anti-immigrant talking points.
AT: XO Thumps
Trump’s XO doesn’t thump the DA – wasn’t a complete solution and still leaves the
GOP mired in the immigration crisis.
Voght 6/22 – Kara Voght, editorial fellow in Mother Jones' DC bureau, 2018 (“Democrats Are Going to
Make Family Separation a Big Issue in the Midterms”, Mother Jones, June 23rd,
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/06/democrats-family-separation-immigration-midterms-
congress-trump/, Accessed 6-23-2018 // jk)
Public opinion was not on the side of Republican lawmakers this week. Two-thirds of Americans, and
nearly 60 percent of Republicans, disapproved of the Trump administration’s policy that separated
children from undocumented parents prosecuted for entering the United States. And Democrats, vying to take control of the
House this fall, pounced on that public outcry as they hammered Republicans for their tacit complicity with the
administration’s policy. “House Republicans have seemed to walk away from a piece of legislation that would allow us to address this issue and
to fix it,” Rep. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said on ABC this past Sunday. “I
think this is going to be devastating for House Republicans that made promises to their constituents.” On Wednesday, President Trump
signed an executive order that keeps families together while parents face criminal charges. But the order did not
end the “zero-tolerance” initiative that arrests undocumented parents for crossing the border, nor did it
clarify how long these families would be detained. The order also didn’t reunite families that had already been separated.
And so, while the family separation practice may have ceased, Democrats running for Congress plan to
capitalize on those linger questions in hopes of channeling outrage into votes for the 2018 midterms.
Immigration reform has been a key issue for both parties over the course of primary season. Most Democrats have
campaigned on a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers”—people brought into the country without authorization as
children—while more progressive candidates have called to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement altogether. Until this point,
however, immigration had been a more prominent point of discussion among Republicans: GOP candidates have aired more than
14,000 advertisements that emphasize a need to crackdown on illegal immigration, a quantity that dwarfs
Democratic ad spending on the subject. But a spokesperson for the DCCC says the committee has observed a new visceral reaction
to the subject among voters, one stirred by the images and audio recordings of children in detainment, that pulls
the matter out of a policy frame and makes it real. The DCCC expects to keep the emphasis on the need for a Congress that’s willing to
create permanent laws around the issue, so immigration policy isn’t driven solely through executive branch action. That’s also where
Democrats seeking office kept their focus this week. Jennifer Wexton, who’s seeking to replace Republican Rep. Barbara Comstock in Virginia’s
10th District, took to Twitter to pressure Comstock into condemning the separation, then slammed the Republican’s eventual press release for
“using many words to say nothing.” Jason Crow, who’s hoping to unseat Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), held a protest outside of a US
Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Aurora, Colorado, on Wednesday, where he read Coffman’s voting record alongside what the
Republican has said about family separation in order to contrast his opponent’s political action with his promises to voters. Even as the
executive order defanged the matter to a degree, candidateshave fought to keep the memory of the policy in voters’
minds. Marc Friedenberg, who’s running against incumbent Rep. Tom Marino (R-Penn.), advertised on Facebook an immigration town hall
he’s hosting on June 30 that will seek to remind voters of the more than 2,000 children still separated from their parents. Even with an
executive order, Friedenberg’s ad said, “it
is clear that President Trump’s order is not a comprehensive solution to
the immigration crisis and it cannot make up for the thousands of families that have been torn apart.”
George Franklin, one of the Democrats vying to replace Rep. Mike Bishop (R-Mich.) in what’s viewed as a flippable district, invited voters to sign
a petition “to demand answers and solutions to inhumane policies at our border,” because even though the president issued his executive
order, “he hasn’t touched the issue of reuniting families his policies have torn apart.” Josh Harder, who’s running to replace Republican Rep.
Jeff Denhem in California’s 10th District, notes that the
end of the policy doesn’t actually address the systemic concerns
that could be tackled by comprehensive immigration reform. Immigration bills have languished during this session of
Congress, even when public outcry has reached new heights. “Family separation policy is just one symptom of a much larger disease, which is
that this administration and our current Congress has shown no courage to do comprehensive immigration reform,” Harder tells Mother Jones.
“I’m glad it seems like it may be ended, but it seems like there’s a way bigger problem here.” His campaign began running an
ad on Friday on those lines, one that aligns his Republican opponent with the Trump administration and blames him for “doing nothing in
Washington to solve the problem.”
AT: Future Legislation Thumps
Trump killed any new immigration legislation, but the plan would save Republican
incumbents in swing districts Dems win now
[Chris Cillizza, Cnn Editor-At-Large, 6-22-2018, "How Donald Trump killed the immigration bill with 1
tweet," CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/donald-trump-immigration-
tweet/index.html]//Rank
For weeks, House Republican leaders have been working to thread the needle on an behind closed doors
immigration bill On Friday morning Trump ended all that with a tweet
that could secure the support of the bulk on their conference. , President Donald .
"Republicans should stop wasting their time on Immigration until after November we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in ,"
The so-called
Trump tweeted. "Dems are just playing games, have no intention of doing anything to solves this decades old problem. We can pass great legislation after the Red Wave!" And, boom goes the dynamite. Now.
"compromise" legislation -- constructed by House Speaker Paul Ryan to make moderates and conservative happy -- was already on life support before Trump came in and pulled the plug. A vote on the measure was originally scheduled for
is dead now
Thursday. It was then set for Friday. Then late Thursday, it was postponed until next week as GOP leaders insisted they saw a glimmer of hope to write a bill that might actually pass the House. That hope . Imagine you are a conservative Republican
resistant to the "compromise" bill because it provides a path to citizenship for DACA recipients. You now have every reason in the world not to come to the table and take a tough vote. The President literally said there was no point! The question before Ryan and the rest of his leadership
team is whether there's even any merit in trying to push for a vote on the compromise bill next week -- or even if it's worth making some of the changes on things like E-verify that their members expressed a desire for over the past 48 hours. The problem with pushing for a vote on a bill
that's doomed is you put your members in a very difficult place. Please vote for this legislation -- that includes $25 billion to fund Trump's border wall -- even though it has zero chance of passing in the Senate and the President is on record as saying the fight is pointless. On the other
regarding DACA before November so that they can go back to their constituents and say they are
working hard to address the immigration problem .
AT: Economy Determines Midterms
The economy won’t decide the midterms — political science consensus.
Kilgore 17 — Ed Kilgore, Columnist at New York Magazine, former Senior Fellow at the Progressive
Policy Institute, former Policy Director for the Democratic Leadership Council, former Communications
Director for U.S. Senator Sam Nunn, holds a J.D. from the University of Georgia, 2017 (“Will the
Economy Save Trump and His Party?,” New York Magazine, September 7th, Available Online at
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/09/will-the-economy-save-trump-and-his-party.html,
Accessed 06-23-2018)
But how much help would a healthy economy offer the GOP in the 2018 midterm elections?
It certainly wouldn’t hurt. But the consensus of political scientists is that the performance of the
economy does not have the kind of impact on congressional elections as it has on presidential elections.
Rather, the effect of the economy is indirect: a strong economy increases president’s approval rating,
which in turn brightens the electoral prospects of the president’s party. And it’s worth remembering
that the president’s party almost always loses House seats in midterms (the only exceptions since the
Great Depression, in 1998 and 2002, were at times when the president’s approval ratings were
unusually high—a situation the highly polarizing Trump probably won’t enjoy no matter how well the
economy is doing). But the extraordinarily pro-GOP Senate landscape in 2018 could well insulate
Republicans from Senate losses next year, but a growing or even humming economy won’t necessarily
protect GOP control of the House.
Voters care more about immigration than the economy — latest polling.
Nilsenella 6/20 — Ella Nilsenella, Politics and Policy Reporter at Vox, 2018 (“Poll: immigration has
become the No. 1 issue for voters in 2018,” Vox, June 20th, Available Online at
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/20/17485162/pew-research-center-poll-immigration-issue-2018-
midterms, Accessed 06-21-2018)
Democrats have been hammering home two issues in particular ahead of the 2018 midterms: jobs and
health care.
But between the recent outrage over the Trump administration’s family separation policy and House
Republicans taking up a comprehensive bill aimed at fixing the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
program, one new poll finds that voters thinking about 2018 care most about immigration.
Out of 2,002 Republican and Democratic adults (including 1,608 registered voters) surveyed by the Pew
Research Center from June 5 to 12, immigration emerged as the top issue they most wanted to hear
2018 candidates talk about. In fact, about one in five voters mentioned immigration — more than
mentioned either health care or the economy.
Republican voters or those who lean Republican were slightly more likely to mention immigration as
their most important issue than their Democratic counterparts; 21 percent of Republicans mentioned
immigration as their top issue, compared to 18 percent of Democrats.
Health care was the next most important priority for Democratic voters, while Republicans were focused
on the economy and economic issues. Democratic voters were twice as likely as Republicans to mention
health care as a key issue.
Americans tend to vote pretty reliably on the economy, but polls leading up to the 2018 midterms have
been all over the map with voter issues. In May, a Morning Consult poll found that while the majority of
registered voters identified the economy as their top priority in 2018, Republican voters were more
likely to say they were concerned about national security.
And the Pew poll was conducted just as the family separation issue was starting to blow up, which
shows that voters are responsive to the Trump administration’s most controversial policies.
AT: Gerrymandering
*Note the James card under the “AT: UQ O/W” header also assumes Gerrymandering*
Dems win despite Gerrymandering
[The Economist, 5-26-2018, "We think the Democrats are favoured to take the House," Economist,
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/05/26/we-think-the-democrats-are-favoured-to-take-
the-house]//Rank
America’s mid-term elections in November will be hugely important. Every
ALTHOUGH they lack the intense personal drama of a presidential race,
seat in the House is up for grabs of Representatives , along with 35 out of 100 Senate seats. A Democratic takeover of either chamber would unleash a flurry of investigations into President Donald Trump and wreck his hopes of
Thanks to
expected to be closely fought. gerrymandering, most individual House races are
Americans’ tendency to separate into like-minded communities and to deliberate
one-sided . Historically, control of the lower chamber has been a foregone conclusion as well. In every contest from 1954 to 1992, the Democrats won at least 232 seats, well above the 218 needed for a majority. Since 2002 the winning party has always claimed at least
Because district lines favour the Republicans, most estimates suggest the Democrats could wrest
control of the House if they win 53- % of the total votes cast pollsters have
manage to 54.5 for the two major parties. For most of 2018,
reported that about 53.5% of people who express an opinion intend to vote Democratic . The Republicans appear likely to keep
control of the Senate, but a Democratic wave could also put it into play.
Gerrymandering makes a Dem wave more likely – lowers the threshold to swing GOP
districts
[Conor Sen, Bloomberg View columnist. He is a portfolio manager for New River Investments in Atlanta
and has been a contributor to the Atlantic and Business Insider, 2-17-2017, "Republicans'
Gerrymandering Could Help Democrats," Bloomberg, Available online at
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-17/republicans-gerrymandering-could-end-up-
helping-democrats]//Rank
But drawing districts with the intention of helping
The Tea Party wave of 2010 cost the Democrats the House, and then Republicans gerrymandered congressional districts to remain in power.
your party is an act of statistical modeling, and all models have assumptions, biases and flaws. A
midterm election with an unpopular Republican president will reveal some of the flaws in the
Republican Party's gerrymandering The redrawn lines may even benefit Democrats. The House .
carried all five states in 2008 , yet after the 2010 Census, Republicans in those states drew district maps that were very favorable to their party. Those five states have a combined 73 seats in the House -- currently 52 Republicans and 21
Republican or Democrat relative to the national average If Democrats won a , as measured by an average of the most recent two presidential elections.
national election by two percentage points , a Cook PVI score of D+2 would mean that a district is , as they did in 2016
2 percent more Democratic than the national average If , or a nominal Democratic margin of four points. Drawing districts in such a way that your party benefits is a delicate operation.
you're a Republican and you have 10 districts to work with, you might be tempted to tilt as many of
them as possible toward your party -- say, by creating eight R+1 or R+2 districts But those eight seats .
would be vulnerable If instead you choose to make four of the 10 districts solidly Republican
. -- for instance, R+10 districts --
you give yourself some safe seats but put extra territory in play for Democrats to take advantage of. With
partisanship as entrenched as it currently is, the sweet spot has been around R+4 or R+5, a margin presumed to be safe in normal elections. The five heavily gerrymandered states mentioned above show this in action. Of the 21 Democratic seats, 19 are D+8 or higher, with the other two
Yet the Republican list looks much different Fourteen seats are
being a D+4 and a D+6. Even in a historic Republican landslide, Democrats might only have those two seats at risk. .
R+4 or less, with an additional 10 seats being R+5 or R+6 Trying to distribute their supporters across as .
many districts as possible, Republicans created many weakly Republican districts rather than a few
strongly Republican districts. The party gambled on politics as usual then Donald Trump became . And
Republican-leaning working-
expanded their margin in 2014. Midterm elections tend to have lower turnout than presidential years. We don't yet know what the demographic makeup will be of a Trump midterm election. For all we know,
class white men will stay home while Democratic-leaning women and college-educated voters are
,
enough anti-Trump wave, the R+4 districts intended to favor Republicans could tip toward Democrats.
Its gerrymander could cost it the
After the Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008, the Republican wave of 2010, and Trump's unexpected election, pundits must question their assumptions -- and those of the Republican Party.
House.
AT: UQ O/W
Democrats have a narrow lead in the house race now, but there is enough time for
Republicans to steal back the majority
[W. James, 6-18-2018, "Democrats know their 'blue wave' is no sure thing," Washington Examiner,
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/democrats-know-midterm-blue-wave-is-no-sure-
thing]//Rank
At the beginning of the year, things looked pretty grim for Republicans. Down by double digits in the
generic ballot the Republicans' House majority looked all but gone
— polls that measure which party respondents would like to see control Congress — . The Senate
polling
wasn’t much more secure, as the GOP was reduced to a 51-49 margin after a special election loss in deep-red Alabama. President Trump’s job approval ratings were dismal. An election was coming in November. Then the Republicans’ fortunes began to improve. CNN’s ,
because Democratic voters tend to be concentrated in populous metropolitan areas — and yes, also
gerrymandering — that margin might just barely be enough to win the House . It likely wouldn’t constitute some massive blue wave. Policy Bosses:
Jim Nussle, President and CEO of the Credit Union National Association Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads “I think the blue wave has receded somewhat,” said Pat Caddell, a longtime Democratic pollster and consultant who is now a Fox News contributor. “I still think that as long as this
election remains unclear about how it’s focused, there is an instinct in off years for anybody who disapproves of anything about the incumbent to vote no” on the president’s party. Historically, that has proved true. In 18 out of the last 20 midterm elections, the president’s party has lost
seats. The exceptions were 1998, when congressional Republicans launched an unpopular attempt to impeach President Bill Clinton, and 2002, when President George W. Bush still boasted astronomical approval ratings following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But how many seats are lost
varies. Trump’s approval ratings are hovering between a lower range that would traditionally result in enough losses to cost Republicans control of the House and a higher one in which Democrats would be expected to come up just short. And that’s assuming tradition still applies with
Trump, whose personal approval rating was just 37.5 percent — lower than it is on average right now — on the day he was elected president. Combined with “right track” numbers some pollsters say are higher than tends to be seen in wave elections and a Democratic generic ballot lead
that is lower, the current environment has Republicans feeling pretty good. “Democrats can’t wish themselves into the majority,” said National Republican Congressional Com mittee spokesman Matt Gorman. “The fact is that record low unemployment, record high wage growth, and a
historic summit with North Korea has put Republicans in a position to defy history and hold the House.” “Democrats are using the ‘blue wave’ moniker as a rallying cry because they have no other message to run on,” said Sarah Dolan of America Rising PAC. “The economy is booming
while tax cuts are putting money back in Americans' pockets and running on the issue of impeachment won't sway voters. In the Senat e, the red state Democrats have resoundingly low favorables and the tightening generic ballot shows that Democrats haven't shored up this cycle as
much as they'd like to pretend.” Indeed, Republicans have an opportunity to actually gain seats in the Senate with 10 Democrats running for reelection in states Trump won in 2016 — including several he carried by big margins and where he remains popular. Sen. Joe Manchin, for
instance, is trying to hold onto a Senate seat in West Virginia, where Trump won by 42 points and still has an approval rating in excess of 60 percent. A May Morning Consult poll showed the challenge. In six competitive Senate races — five in states Trump won, the sixth in a state he lost
narrowly with an appointed incumbent — the sitting Democrat fails to register plurality support for “deserves reelection.” Only Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., has an approval rating above 50 percent and even in his case “deserves reelection” and “time for a new person” are evenly split at 43
percent apiece. In every other contest, the poll found plurality support for electing a new person. That option led 46 percent to 31 percent for Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.; 43 percent to 30 percent for Sen. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind.; 30 percent to 25 percent for Al Franken replacement Sen. Tina
Smith, D-Minn.; 49 percent to 35 percent for Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D.; and an amazing 53 percent to 29 percent for Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who is also 7 points underwater in her job approval rating. Karl Rove dismisses the idea of a blue wave even in the House. “Instead, 2018
will be a brutal district-by-district battle,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Each outcome will be determined as much by the quality of candidates and their campaigns as by the national climate.” The intensity gap That doesn’t mean all is well for the GOP, however.
Republican strategists conceded to the Washington Examiner that there is still an “intensity gap” that
favors the Democrats . “Voters are motivated by three things: greed, anger and fear,” said Brian O. Walsh, president of the pro-Trump outside group America First Action and a former NRCC political director. Republicans aren’t greedy because they
special elections dating to last year, even when they have won. And they have lost their share: a Senate seat in Alabama, where Trump won by 27.8 points; a Wisconsin state senate seat where Trump won by 17; a Pennsylvania congressional seat in a district
Trump won by 20. Pennsylvania is a problem because of court-imposed redistricting Democrats say reverses Republican gerrymandering and Republicans contend merely re-gerrymanders the state for the Democrats’ benefit. Either way, it is likely to lead to a net loss in Republican seats in
a year where the party doesn’t have many to spare. “With the majority of primary elections behind us, it’s clear that Democrats have nominated incredibly strong candidates
who uniquely fit their districts and have built top-tier campaigns,” said Tyler Law, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “With a huge pickup in Pennsylvania, highly effective maneuvering of the
California top-two system, and a historically unpopular House Republican agenda on healthcare and taxes, Democrats have all the momentum heading into the midterms. That said, we take nothing for granted given that Republicans will have a massive resource advantage with all of their
dark money outside groups.” California is a good example of the mixed signals this election cycle has sent. Democrats feared their overcrowded primary fields, riven by ideological divisions between factions loyal to 2016 nominee Hillary Clinton and her progressive challenger Bernie
Sanders, would deprive them the opportunity to contest some Clinton-won districts in the state currently represented by GOP congressmen. Because California had adopted a top-two “jungle primary” system regardless of party affiliation, the concern was that Democratic votes would be
so split in some of these districts that none of their candidates would make it to the general election ballot. Instead Democrats advanced in all these districts. “First, we didn’t get locked out of anything,” said Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist. “This gives Democrats an opportunity to
play to November. … Second, if you look at some the Republican incumbents, yeah they finished way ahead of their Democratic opponents, but they ended up in the high 40s. The reality is, they’re going to have to do better than that to win in November. " On the other hand, in most of
the contested districts the combined Republican vote total exceeded that of all the Democrats on the ballot. One exception was the district represented by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., who advanced to November with plurality support. In his race, all the Democrats combined
managed to win 50.6 percent of the vote. Another is in the seat being vacated by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., where the Democrats took 50.9 percent. “In both states where [the top-two system is] used — California and Washington state — the total primary vote for all Republicans versus
the total primary vote for all Democrats has almost always been within a couple points of the November result,” John Fund wrote for Fox News. Then again, maybe this year the resistance and the blue wave materialize in November rather than June. America First’s Walsh believes
Republicans face a “math problem” in the House and a “money problem” in the Senate. Redistricting
and retirements mean that at least seven of the GOP’s 23-seat majority are already gone . Democrats will have Republicans
playing defense in at least 40 districts. “We lose half of them, we lose,” Walsh continued. “If you look since 2009, we’ve gutted the Blue Dogs. There’s almost none of them left. … The House has basically sorted itself where most of the R-plus districts are represented by Republicans and
the D-plus districts are represented by Democrats. We don’t have that much legitimate offense.” Walsh said that when he was at the NRCC during the Tea Party wave, Republicans identified 125 potential pickup opportunities. This year, he thinks the party may have five. “They're going to
have to make a hard run on us and we're going to have to make a hard run on them,” he added. “It’s all going to come down to how people feel in like 20 districts.” On the Senate side, Walsh sees a “big, beautiful red map” that is there for Trump and th e Republicans’ taking. “The biggest
concern there is money,” he said. Can Republicans spread enough of it around to ensure their best challengers and candidates for at-risk seats all have the funding they need to compete — especially with so many expensive media markets involved? “We know we’ve got a legitimate shot
at the Missouri Senate race,” Walsh said, “but in the last filing period Claire McCaskill filed $11.5 million in the bank, [likely Republican nominee] Josh Hawley filed $2.1 million in the bank. Before we can even get to the battle of the titans, we’ve got to close that gap . ... We’ve got great
opportunities in the Senate, we’ve just to make sure we can financially afford them.” The Trump-Pelosi question Republicans also have a conflict in their messaging. Trump is an asset in the Senate races that will decide t he majority but a liability in some of the at-risk congressional
districts. That means different approaches to the president not only for each race, but arguably each legislative chamber. Trump and congressional Republicans are also split on the winning formula. The latter would like to focus almost exclusively on the tax cut. Trump
mentions taxes but also wants to talk tough on immigration , trade, MS-13 and national security, emphasizing his full agenda. Caddell contended the tax cut is still “too controversial” and recommended
“weaponizing the economy, impeachment, raising taxes and [the Democrats'] defense of many things that I think are indefensible. Otherwise, the natural structural tendency is to favor the Democrats.” He also suggested Republicans could sharpen their critique of House Minority Leader
Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., by picking their own successor to House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., before the election. Pelosi has emerged as a powerful GOP counterweight to the Democrats’ use of Trump to motivate voters. Republicans credit anti-Pelosi ads with helping save a seat in Georgia’s
6th Congressional District last year. But some GOP operatives fear their base doesn’t take the threat of a second Pelosi speakership seriously enough to turn them out. “The Democrats can’t have it two ways,” Caddell said. “They can’t say ‘I’m not for her, but I’ll see what happens. Uh-uh.”
Pelosi’s grip on the caucus could be loosened if Democrats win a small majority, amplifying the influence of a small number of defectors, or a particularly large majority where the amount of new blood makes things unpredictable — and she is certainly at risk if her party doesn’t capture
the majority at all. Democrats are going to force a similar choice on Republicans regarding Trump. In Virginia, where as many as three GOP-held House seats may be at risk, that will be magnified by the candidacy of Republican Senate nominee Corey Stewart, who is arguably more prone
to controversy than the president. This isn’t good for vulnerable incumbents such as Rep. Barbara Comstock, who already faces criticism for being insufficiently pro-Trump — an argument her primary challenger made on his way to winning 40 percent of the vote. “Everybody bet against
the guy in 2016,” Walsh said of Trump. “Just because you don’t like his style, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. People ar e over-analyzing and under-appreciating the relationship that he has with the people who cast ballots for him. ... He’s not traditional, he’s not conventional, he’s never
strategists on both
going to be, the American people elected him for that reason, so stop trying to put the guy in a box.” ADVERTISEMENT Even as the primaries rage across the country, it is still very early in the midterm election campaign and
sides of the aisle agree that things could change. There is almost as much time between now and
November as elapsed when Republicans slowly crept back into contention. It is still too early to know definitively whether November will bring a blue wave or just a trickle.
AT: Russia Hacks
Increased DHS efforts solve
[Derek B. Johnson 18, staff writer at FCW, covering governmentwide IT policy, cybersecurity and a
range of other federal technology issues., 1-11-2018, "3 ways DHS is helping states with election
security," FCW, https://fcw.com/articles/2018/01/11/3-ways-dhs-helps-states-voting.aspx]//Rank
A Department of Homeland Security official said the federal government is substantially more prepared
to deal with a nation-state attack on election systems today than it was in the lead-up to the 2016
election. In a Jan. 10 speech to the Election Assistance Commission in Washington D.C., Bob Kolasky, acting deputy under secretary for the National Protection
and Programs Directorate, said the department has worked to expand its communication and outreach to state and local governments, which are primarily
responsible for administering elections. "The
Department of Homeland Security is in a much better position to work
with our interagency partners and the election community to respond to any lingering threats that
emerge going forward," he said. Kolasky said DHS has focused on improving election security assistance
to states and localities in three key areas: establishing sound working partnerships with state and local
governments, boosting information sharing through a mix of declassification and increased security
clearances and dedicating more departmental resources to critical federal election security resources
that states rely on. He likened 2016 efforts to coordinate with states on malicious cyber activity to building relationships "in the middle of a hurricane"
as officials attempted to communicate with intelligence agencies, process classified information, establish relationships with states and provide them tools or
expertise all at the same time. Since
then, the department has worked to establish a pair of councils to ensure
better coordination between every organization involved in the election system. The first consists of
federal, state and local government election officials. The second council, still pending, will be designed
to engage the private sector, namely voting machine manufacturers and software providers. "A lot of
state and local officials buy from the same groups of people," Kolasky said. "We want to make sure
there is an ability for us collectively to have conversations with vendors about security challenges." The
department is also looking to boost information sharing between the federal government and state and local election offices. DHS came under criticism from some
states during the 2016 election for subpar information sharing. Earlier during the summit, Kim Wyman, secretary of state for Washington, recounted the frustration
she felt in 2016 when the department briefed states on an assessment that found Russian hackers had scanned election systems in 21 states, but declined to specify
which states had been targeted. "I mention this not to throw [DHS] under the bus because they're wonderful, it's just they're not used to operating in this world of
transparency like we do," said Wyman. Kolasky
didn't mince words when discussing the department's need to improve
the threat intelligence it shares with state and local governments. The department said it is working on
sponsoring and encouraging election officials in all 50 states to apply for security clearances and will
push intelligence agencies to be more aggressive about declassifying information that can be used by
state and local election officials. "We have improved on that, we will improve on that going forward,"
he said. "We will always prioritize getting security information out to the people who make security
decisions." Finally, Kolasky said DHS has dedicated more departmental resources to programs and tools
designed to assist states. He mentioned one of the most popular tools: risk and vulnerability
assessments that involve deploying federal cyber experts to work with states, gain familiarity with their
systems and make key security recommendations. The department has experienced a backlog of states
requesting the service, so many that it would have prevented DHS from providing assistance to some
states until weeks before the mid-term elections. Kolasky said the department has responded to those
concerns by undergoing a "significant shift in resources," dedicating more personnel to the program.
The department now expects to assist all 14 states with pending requests by April 2018. "We want the
rest of the states to sign up, and if they do, we believe we'll be able to do those on-site assessments
before the mid-term elections," he said.
*** AT: Thumpers
2NC – Immigration Key/AT: Thumpers
Immigration is the top issue among voters
Andrew R. Arthur 7-10-2018, "Poll: Immigration a Leading Issue Heading into
Midterms," CIS.org, https://cis.org/Arthur/Poll-Immigration-Leading-Issue-Heading-
Midterms, DRS)
On July 5, 2018, Reuters reported the results of a Reuters/Ipsos poll showing that immigration was the
top issue for U.S. voters heading into the November 2018 midterm elections, edging out the economy
on the list of Americans' concerns. While this is not surprising given the media attention paid to the
issue of immigration the last few weeks, the poll reveals some interesting facts. In my last post, I wrote
about the "Abolish ICE" movement among certain Democrats who are railing against the president's
policies, and immigration enforcement in the United States itself. The heated rhetoric surrounding
various administration policies, and in particular the so-called "separation of families" at the border
would suggest that this is a significant issue for voters on the liberal end of the spectrum. That poll bears
this out, but not to the degree one would expect. While Reuters reported that 15 percent of registered
voters indicated that "immigration was the top issue determining how they will cast their ballot in
November," the issue did not break down evenly along party lines. Instead, while 26 percent of
registered Republicans "cited immigration as the most important issue likely to determine their vote,"
only 7 percent of Democrats identified immigration as their main concern. In fact, immigration was
number three on the list for Democrats, behind healthcare (16 percent) and the economy (14 percent).
Moreover, immigration appears to be gaining momentum as an issue among Republicans heading into
the midterm elections.
Here is the reality: Democrats are scared to death that a Republican Congress and a Republican president may
actually effect some reform of our flawed immigration system. They have pursued the Hispanic community vigorously for many years,
seeking to solidify their support within the country’s fastest growing demographic. Part of the Democratic strategy has been to demonize the
GOP as racist and anti-immigrant. Trump’s candidacy and his careless comments about Mexicans greased the skids. In their eagerness to curry favor with Hispanics,
Democrats have increasingly abandoned their earlier professed support for secure borders. Though they continue to pay lip service to protecting against illegal immigration, many have
opposed the use of E-verify and other approaches that might reduce the allure of entering the U.S. without authorization. The Democrats have also encouraged
the spread of sanctuary cities, where local governments limit their cooperation with federal officials on the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. And they just hate
Trump’s proposed wall along our southern border. Now many Democrats are insisting they will not vote for a spending bill needed to keep government operating beyond Friday night unless it
includes a lopsided DACA fix proposed by Senators Durbin and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., which allows Dreamers a path to legal status but skimps on border enforcement. Though nearly
everyone supports protecting Dreamers against deportation, Republicans and the White House want to couple that with enhanced border security, to make sure that what some are calling
“amnesty” does not result in great numbers of new people flooding in without permission. Democrats are taking a risk. Most Americans are compassionate and welcoming to immigrants,
recognizing the invaluable contributions of those who have come to the U.S. from other nations legally. But, at the same time, most Americans favor border enforcement. Hillary Clinton found
that out the hard way, when WikiLeaks exposed her making this comment in 2013: "My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future.…”
Those remarks gave candidate Trump the ammunition he needed to paint his opponent as weak on protecting our borders; it didn’t help that the lines came from a paid speech Clinton made
Polling has shown that 65 percent of Americans favor coupling legal status for the Dreamers
to a Brazilian bank.
with tougher immigration enforcement. Some 79 percent of those surveyed think employers should have to verify the legal status of their workers, for
instance. Democrats balking at such a compromise are on the wrong side of this issue. Many in the liberal media argue that the GOP will be blamed for any spending impasse that forces a
government shutdown, since Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress and occupy the White House. But Americans understand that passing a budget requires 60 votes in the
Senate, which Republicans do not have. Republicans will need at least 10 Democratic votes. Democrats are in a pickle. They can anger the nation by blocking a proposed spending resolution
that lacks a DACA fix but that would fund our military and provide a six-year extension of the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program. Or they can infuriate Hispanics by keeping the
federal lights on and working to resolve the Dreamer problem as part of a broader immigration package. Latinos do not look to Republicans to fix this
problem; they expect Democrats to do so. It isn’t the office of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that has attracted a protest demonstration by
immigration activists – it is Chuck Schumer’s. Everyone wants changes to our immigration system, including the White House. And nearly everyone wants to protect the Dreamers. There’s lots
immigration would be another nightmare for Democrats. The optics of President Trump hosting a
signing ceremony in the White House to celebrate passage of an immigration bill, which has eluded the
past several presidents, would be unimaginably valuable for Republicans as we approach the November
elections. A new immigration law would be almost as valuable for Republicans as the millions of workers getting bonuses and wage hikes because of the GOP tax bill that President
Trump signed into law. A few more wins and Democrats are going to have a hard time persuading voters that President Trump and a Republican Congress aren’t indeed Making America Great
Again.
Trump and the Republicans are running on anti-immigration and will lose; Aff plan
allows them to be perceived as pro-immigration
Zachary Mueller, 7-5-2018, ("When Will GOP Candidates Learn that Scapegoating Immigrants Won't
Work?," America's Voice, https://americasvoice.org/blog/scapegoating-immigrants-wont-work/, DRS)
Since the election of Donald Trump a number of other Republicans have tried to mimic his style of anti-
immigrant ugliness to win elected office. But, many of their attempts have failed or backfired, showing
repeatedly that — despite Trump’s election — attacking immigrants is not a path to electoral victory.
After over a dozen electoral losses, the viability of this strategy should be in serious doubt and those
seeking elected office should think twice about using this fraught path. Instead, Trump and his top aide,
Stephen Miller, have vowed to double down on this strategy and infuse it into the 2018 GOP campaigns.
With that in mind, here are a number of the recent elections from around the country where voters
showed the ugly anti-immigrant strategy to be a losing one: Virginia The Virginia’s 2017 governor’s race
is clear case of an anti-immigrant strategy backfiring, as evidenced by the results and election eve
polling conducted by Latino Decisions. Republican Ed Gillespie was pulled to the right during a contested
primary with Corey Stewart (now the GOP candidate for Senate), but in the general election Gillespie
doubled down on the anti-immigrant attacks rather than move to the center. His campaign tried to use
the threat of the international gang MS-13 as the lens to view all Latino immigrants, and tried to claim
that Democratic candidate Ralph Northam was weak on crime. Gillespie pressed the issue attacking
‘sanctuary cities’, of which there are none in the state. This strategy backfired among voters of nearly
every demographic, and Northam won by 9 points. As Matt Barreto from Latino Decisions wrote in a
New York Times op-ed: By a 23-point margin (52 to 29), whites in Virginia also said the MS-13 ads turned
them away from Mr. Gillespie, as did African-American and Asian-American voters by larger margins.
Data speaks louder than punditry, and our regression analysis of survey data paints a clear picture.
Exposure to Mr. Gillespie’s MS-13 ads actually helped drive white college-educated voters away from
the Republicans. When we analyzed findings for white independents and Republicans, voters who were
aware of the MS-13 ads were significantly more likely to vote for Mr. Gillespie’s Democratic opponent.
What made the Virginia gubernatorial race so critical is how political observers and pundits, including
Steve Bannon, believed Gillespie’s strategy would work — and would serve as a model for other
Republicans. The reality was that it didn’t work, but the GOP persists in using it. It wasn’t just the
Governor’s race in Virginia where racist ads were used. A number of the Republican candidates running
for the Virginia state legislature followed Gillespie’s strategy and shared his failures. In HD 93,
Republican Heather Cordasco also attempted to use Virigina’s nonexistent sanctuary cities in a failed
effort to beat Democrat Mike Mullin. Scott Lingamfelter of HD 31 lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth
Guzman after his attempt to equate undocumented immigrants’ ability to obtain a driver’s license with
violent crime. Democrat Jennifer Foy won HD 2 after an attempt to attack her support for in-state
tuition for undocumented students fell flat. Overall, despite the onslaught, Democrats picked up 15
seats, narrowing the GOP’s control from 66-34 to 51-49. Pennsylvania An anti-immigrant strategy did
not even work in the March 2018 special election in Pennsylvania’s 18th District, which went for Donald
Trump by 20 points. Democrat Conor Lamb won the seat after a super PAC connected to Republican
House leadership ran TV ads that said Lamb supports “amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants … Lamb
worked in the Obama administration that encouraged sanctuary cities, which put illegal immigrants who
commit crimes back on the street.” The Republican candidate Rick Saccone’s attempt to pit union
workers against immigrants on jobs did not work either. Florida The anti-immigrant strategy backfired in
the February 2018 special election in Florida’s House District 72. The district went in favor of Trump by 5
points in 2016, but Democrat Margaret Good won by 7 points after her Republican opponent tried to
attack her pro-immigration positions using mailers that said her “very progressive beliefs on
immigration” will be a “danger to us all.” New Jersey In a last-ditch effort to pull out a victory in the
2017 New Jersey governor’s race, Republican Kim Guadagno deployed an aggressive anti-immigrant
strategy. It did not work, and Democrat Philip Murphy won. Guadagno had previously been supportive
of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, but wrongfully believing that attacking
immigrants would turn out the Republican base, and she switched her strategy. She called for a ban on
‘sanctuary cities’ and ran TV ads that attempted to equate all Latino immigration with crime. Alabama
Injecting anti-immigrant ugliness was not a winning strategy in the December 2017 special Senate
election in Alabama either. At the end of his campaign, extremist Republican Roy Moore and right-wing
outlets that supported his campaign attempted to focus on ‘sanctuary cities’ and the Kate Steinle verdict
to save his campaign. It did not work. Doug Jones won, making him the first Democrat to win an
Alabama Senate seat in 25 years. New York Two different failed attempts to attack Democrats on
immigration were made at the county level in New York, in races for Nassau County executive and the
10th Assembly District seat. Democrats Laura Curran and Steve Stern, respectively, won their seats after
mailers were sent using the strategy of MS-13 to scare voters and stir up anti-immigrant sentiment. The
New York Times reported that Curran may have received a boost to her campaign from the backlash to
the ads. One mailer featured a photo of three Latino men covered in tattoos that read “Meet Your New
Neighbors!”, adding that Curran was “MS-13’s choice for county executive!” who would “roll out the
welcome mat” for gangs. Missouri In a June 2018 special election in Missouri’s 17th Senate district,
Democrat Lauren Arthur defeated Republican Kevin Corlew after his anti-immigrant strategy backfired.
“Robin Martinez, a 54-year-old attorney from the Village of Oaks, said that the attack ads against Arthur,
including ones that linked illegal immigration to violence, turned him off Corlew’s candidacy,” the
Kansas City Star reported. Polling Recent polls give additional support that an anti-immigrant political
strategy is not a path to the majority. The Gallup poll: record-high 75% think immigration is a good thing,
up from last year Pew poll: Democrats have 14% advantage over Republicans on issue, up from 6% last
fall CNN Poll: By 83-12%, Americans want dreamers protected Those currently running for office should
remember the above elections as a cautionary tale. The message voters have been sending in these
elections is clear: that anti-immigrant scapegoating is a not a winning strategy.
Aff plan allows Republicans to rally around support of legal immigration which is a
political winner with the electorate
William A. Galston, 6-18-2018, ("As Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policy backfires, Republicans
are in jeopardy," Brookings Institute, William A. Galston holds the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings
Institution’s Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a Senior Fellow. Prior to January 2006 he
was the Saul Stern Professor and Acting Dean at the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland,
director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, founding director of the Center for Information
and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), and executive director of the National
Commission on Civic Renewal, co-chaired by former Secretary of Education William Bennett and former
Senator Sam Nunn. A participant in six presidential campaigns, he served from 1993 to 1995 as Deputy
Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy. Galston is the author of nine books and more than
100 articles in the fields of political theory, public policy, and American politics,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/18/trumps-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy-puts-
republicans-in-jeopardy/, DRS)
This is just one more instance of how the White House hardline posture on immigration is out of step
with the sentiments of the American people. Congressional Republicans haven’t been able to coalesce
around an alternative to it. Most recent public opinion polls on immigration reiterate years of prior
findings. According to a Quinnipiac survey released last week, 76 percent of Americans support allowing
undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children to remain in the country
and eventually apply for citizenship. This figure includes strong majorities of every group, including 60
percent of Republicans, 74 percent of Independents, and 71 percent of whites without college
degrees—the core of the Trump coalition. These sentiments extend to illegal immigrants as a whole: 60
percent of Americans favor allowing them to stay and eventually apply for citizenship, compared to only
26 percent who believe they should be required to leave the United States. Surveys show weak support
for key pillars of President Trump’s agenda. Barely one-third of Americans support the president’s
proposed wall along the southern border; only 17 percent believe that the level of legal immigration
should be decreased; opinion on the “diversity lottery” is mixed and dependent on the way the question
is posed.
Trump’s anti-immigration stance is a political loser as 81% of Americans support path
to citizenship for non-criminal immigrants; Aff gives Republicans a way out from
Trump’s agenda
Eric Levitz, 7-11-2018, ("Abolishing ICE Is About As Popular As Trump’s Immigration Agenda," Daily
Intelligencer, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/abolish-ice-poll-majority-opposes-
unpopular-trumps-immigration-agenda.html, DRS)
American voters have long evinced a tacit belief that deporting law-abiding, longtime U.S. residents is a
cruel and needless enterprise. For years, polls have shown strong majorities of the American public
favoring a pathway to citizenship for non-criminal, gainfully employed undocumented immigrants. Just
last week, a Washington Post–Schar School poll found 81 percent of Americans — including a majority of
Republicans — saying that all undocumented immigrants who pass a criminal background check should
be given legal status.
Republicans are going to lose this fall in the midterms as they are anti-immigrant; Aff
plan gives them someone to run on that wins
Av Press, 7-17-2018, "The GOP’s Failing Strategy to Win Elections By Attacking Immigrants," America's
Voice, https://americasvoice.org/research/gop-failing-strategy-immigrants/, DRS)
---- NOTE: Gillespie, a republican governor candidate, lost to his democrat challenger in Virginia
The Republican attacks on immigration and sanctuary policies are not working, and in some cases, are
backfiring. Still, Republicans are expected to run on xenophobia this fall, in part because they have so
little else to run on. Red state and district Democrats need not take the bait, run for the hills or adopt
hardline positions in the face of these attacks. As Conor Lamb and Doug Jones show, candidates can win
by remaining disciplined on core messaging priorities and maintaining support for common sense, pro-
immigrant policies when asked. Blue and purple state Democrats can and should lean in on immigration,
in recognition that Republican attacks motivate key base voters and alienate swing voters. As we saw in
Pennsylvania this week and in Virginia last year, a bottom-up mobilization efforts that turn out base
voters, combined with persuasion strategies targeting a broader universe of voters, is key to winning—
even in tough “Trump” districts. In Virginia, CASA and other pro-immigrant groups responded to anti-
immigrant attacks by marginalizing Gillespie and mobilizing their new American base. The combined
efforts included a robust field and earned media campaign, including door-to-door canvassing, phone
banking, text messages, radio and television advertisement, mailer program, digital and earned media,
and mobilization events.
Aff plan helps GOP get elected; Only 29 percent of Americans support Trump’s crusade
to reduce legal immigration.
Eric Levitz, 7-11-2018, ("Abolishing ICE Is About As Popular As Trump’s Immigration Agenda," Daily
Intelligencer, http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/abolish-ice-poll-majority-opposes-
unpopular-trumps-immigration-agenda.html, DRS)
Lost in the debate over whether abolishing ICE is a radical, fringe position is the reality that most the
elected government’s current immigration policies poll just as — if not more — poorly. In February, a
CNN poll found that only 12 percent of American voters believe that Barack Obama’s Deferred Action
For Early Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program — which provides temporary legal status and work permits
to Dreamers — should be ended (the Trump administration has officially ended the program, but court
rulings have kept it alive in zombie form). The White House believes otherwise. And Trump’s crusade to
slash legal immigration in half is only marginally more popular than abolishing ICE, according to a recent
Gallup poll, which put support for reducing legal immigration at just 29 percent.
2NC – Immigration big issue
Immigration is the number one issue in the midterms for Dems and Republicans.
Racke 7-19 (Will Racke, reporter at the Daily Caller,7-19-2018, The Daily Caller, "Gallup: Immigration Is
The Top Issue For Voters Heading Into Midterm Elections", http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/19/gallup-
immigration-voters-midterms/, accessed 7-25-2018, GB)
Immigration is the number one answer when Americans are asked what issue is the most pressing
problem facing the country, according to Gallup’s latest poll. In fact, the share of people who say
immigration is the most important issue is higher now than at any time in the past 17 years that Gallup
has been asking the question. The Gallup poll, released Wednesday, found that 22 percent of Americans
said in July that immigration tops their list of concerns, edging out the 19 percent who said
“dissatisfaction with the government.” That is an eight-point bump since June, when just 14 percent put
immigration at the top of the list. The sharp rise comes as the nation is embroiled in a debate over
President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, including a recent crackdown on illegal border crossings
and tighter asylum standards that exclude most Central American migrants. The Trump administration
says the tough approach is needed to deter illegal immigration, but activists and the president’s political
opponents say the policies are cruel and, in some cases, illegal. Rising concern over immigration is a
bipartisan phenomenon, according to the Gallup poll. Among Republicans, Democrats, and self-
described independents, more than twice as many respondents in July said immigration was the top
issue as they did in August 2017. Even so, the share of Republicans citing immigration as the most
pressing issue was about twice as large as the share of Democrats, according to Gallup. Among
Republicans, 35 percent said immigration was their top concern, while 18 percent of Democrats said the
same. The discrepancy could play to the advantage of the GOP as it seeks to retain majorities in both the
House and Senate. GOP candidates who identify with Trump’s immigration policies will likely enjoy
strong support heading into the November elections because Republican voters continue to place a
comparatively high importance on immigration. “If the general immigration focus continues through the
fall, GOP candidates may be able to fire up the enthusiasm of the part of their base highly concerned
about immigration and that in turn favors the Republican approach to this issue,” Gallup noted in an
analysis of its survey. The Gallup poll is based on telephone interviews conducted July 1-11 with a
random sample of 1,033 adults in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. It has a margin of error
of 4 percentage points and a 95 percent confidence level.
Trump has made immigration THE issue – his hardline stance boosts dems margins
Silver et al 6/20
“Can Trump Use Hard-Line Immigration Policies To Turn Out GOP Voters?” June 20, 2018 Nate Silver is
the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight. Clare Malone is a senior political writer for
FiveThirtyEight. @claremalone Perry Bacon Jr. is a senior writer for FiveThirtyEight. @perrybaconjr,
Micah Cohen is the politics editor. @micahcohen
micah: We’re talking about immigration today. There’s a lot going on. The family separation issue, first and foremost, but also some House
votes. There’s reporting that the
White House wants to make immigration the issue for the 2018 midterms,
and that they’re planning further hard-line immigration moves. From Tuesday’s Playbook: “The White House
is making the conscious decision that divisive immigration policy — not a booming economy — should
be the focus of the 2018 midterms. We can’t tell you how dumb many Republican leaders think this is.” So, here’s the
question: Is that dumb? Will a hard-right immigration message and/or policy help the White House/Republicans in 2018?
clare.malone (Clare Malone, senior political writer): In general elections, I think it’s going to hurt them.
The current administration policy just seems miscalibrated — taking this really hard-line approach (separating children from
families) that doesn’t even seem to appeal to the entire ideological base (i.e., most Americans, including about half of Republicans,
think this is a bridge too far). And this issue could engender more anti-Republican sentiment come November. So
there, I just made the Republican leaders’ argument. natesilver: There’s maybe a world in which the White House could use
immigration dexterously as a “wedge issue” to turn out its base, but that’s not the world the White
House inhabits. They’re too clumsy, too indifferent as to whether individual policies are popular and too eager to fight ideological
battles that they might trick themselves into believing are good politics. perry (Perry Bacon Jr., senior writer): Can I briefly reject the premise
here, that the White House has some brilliant strategy or is making a “conscious decision” to make the midterms about immigration? There is
often “Trump-did-something-crazy-so-he-must-have a strategy” coverage that likely overstates Trump’s political planning and understates his
desired policy goals, like stopping NFL players from kneeling or limiting immigration. natesilver: Yeah, I certainly think the Playbook/Axios/NYT
“news analysis” style is too quick to attribute strategic motives instead of ideological ones. Or what may just be people being dumbasses and
faking their way through the strategy. micah: I mean, they’re certainly pursuing a bunch of hard-line immigration policies. perry: I suspect a ton
of Republican candidates will run on the economy in the fall. I have no idea what Trump will say during the fall campaign, but my guess is he
doesn’t either. I doubt he has a message calendar that he’ll be following, like George W. Bush or Barack Obama might have had. natesilver: I
guess one could argue that the economy (and maybe North Korea?) can be used to help Republicans hold ground among swing
voters, but that won’t turn out the base. micah: Yeah … Nate, intentional or not, you said in one of these chats a few weeks ago that if
you were a Republican strategist, you would focus on ginning up base turnout. That, most likely, Democratic base turnout will be
high, and so the best strategy is probably to try to counter that with your own base. clare.malone: I said this on the podcast, but I guess it
makes sense in some way to run all the Trumpy anti-immigrant ads, etc., now, during primary campaigns. But come September, you’d better
have more of a message than that if you’re a Republican. perry: Yeah, I also think that the GOP should run on cultural issues. But I’m not sure
we are seeing that right now, as opposed to an ex post facto explanation for a policy blunder. micah: OK, let’s leave aside intent for the
moment though. natesilver: But that gets to the issue of clumsiness. Like, if you’re laser-focused on sanctuary cities, maybe you could do OK.
Maybe you could use that issue as enough of a dog whistle to your base, without necessarily turning off moderates. But stuff
like
separating families at the border? Curtailing legal immigration ? Shutting down the government over the wall? Those are
extremely unpopular measures. clare.malone: This particular issue seems to have brought the various White House “wings” back
into the foreground, and in the post-Bannon age, we mostly seem to have forgotten about the wings. But some people think this is great
policy/politics (like White House policy adviser Stephen Miller), and a lot of other people (like Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen) are
trying to get their way around a pretty ugly policy while not getting the president mad at them. It just seems sort of like a) bad politics and b)
perhaps a sign of bad internal organization. natesilver: I do wonder how much of it is borne out of a view — from Trump and from other senior
officials in the White House — that the polls are fake and the media outrage is fake and they have their finger on the true pulse of American
opinion. perry: I think that’s closer to where I am. They are doing this because they believe in deterring illegal immigration by basically any
means necessary. But they also believe the backlash is overstated by a press that is often hypercritical of them. micah: OK, I’m going to play
devil’s advocate. clare.malone: Great movie. micah: Forget the separating families — that’s prima facie horrible and seems like bad politics too.
But isn’t the idea that Republicans need something beyond the economy and North Korea actually correct?
clare.malone: Why? Rule of threes? micah: Yup. haha, no… Because
the GOP base isn’t as enthused as the Democratic
one right now. clare.malone: You’re saying they need something that tides over the tribal identity issue. natesilver: So talk about Colin
Kaepernick or some shit. clare.malone: ^^^^ Or just focus on wall funding. You don’t need to do this child separation thing. natesilver: The wall
is pretty darn unpopular, though. clare.malone: I would guess it’s more popular than separating 2,000 kids from their parents. perry: Sanctuary
cities/MS-13/NFL national anthem protests — these are all issues that 1. Trump wants to tweet/talk about instead of reciting boring economic
stats; and 2. play into the negative partisanship stuff that will be used for base turnout. But talking about how terrible San Francisco or Nancy
Pelosi is would do the trick as much as sanctuary cities. I don’t think Republicans need immigration policies necessarily to gin up negative
partisanship, as much as they need reminders to their base that “Democrats are the party of all that stuff you hate.” Republicans know Trump
wants to talk about this kind of stuff anyway, so they have to find a way to make that part of the 2018 strategy. micah: But it’s interesting to me
that some of you — Nate, at least — seem to think that the NFL anthem stuff or Pelosi stuff is maybe a better option than immigration. (Again,
put aside separating families — I feel like they’ll have to retreat on that pretty soon.) perry: There are very few immigration ideas
that unify all Republicans. The national anthem issue, in contrast, is very unifying among Republicans: 86 percent of Republicans say
kneeling during the national anthem is “never appropriate,” according to a Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll earlier this year. So
is anti-Pelosi sentiment: 72 percent of Republicans view her unfavorably, according to a recent Ipsos poll. clare.malone: Couldn’t he talk about
wall stuff or, I don’t know, talk about E-Verify, things like that? I can’t help but think that coming up with a more refined Trumpian take on
immigration could help them through both the primaries and the general. perry: Republicans probably should run on identity issues writ large,
with some anti-immigration rhetoric as a part of that. That kind of messaging is challenging for Democrats. Do Joe Manchin or Claire McCaskill
want to defend sanctuary cities? natesilver: I think when you asked me to put my Republican strategist hat on a few weeks ago, Micah, the
tricky part wasn’t finding something that turns out your base, but something that turns out your base
without simultaneously hurting you among swing voters and also turning out the Democratic base. Lots of
people might think Trump’s NFL stance is sort of dumb, but it’s not likely the sort of thing that’s going to turn out Democrats to vote or that will
greatly influence a swing voter’s decision. micah: I bet the same is true for sanctuary cities, E-Verify, etc. clare.malone: Basically, they picked the
worst possible issue angle to make the story. I know politicians get a lot of shit for poll-testing things but … there’s a reason to do it! micah:
“Should we do terrible shit to children?” Yes No Not sure Yeah, that question could have saved everyone a lot of heartache. perry: Trump
seems to be in some danger of overlearning lessons from 2016. I don’t think he won the general election because of the wall and the Muslim
ban. (The primary, yes.) I do think, in general, that it helped that he was seen as taking on the cultural left. I also think it’s different when you
are the person running the government and implementing policy. I’m not sure people voted for Stephen Miller-ism, even if Miller thinks they
did. clare.malone: Do we attribute any of this to, say, Chief of Staff John Kelly checking out and no one being awake at the wheel when it comes
to this kind of across-the-board strategy stuff? I’m a little curious as to how this actually got this far without the ramifications being thought
through. micah: I tend to ignore most of this kind of reporting, but there have been some stories lately about Kelly basically giving up.
natesilver: Didn’t Kelly mention the child separation policy last year as part of a plan to deter immigration? perry: I think this policy was thought
through. There is a lot of reporting about the administration having long considered it. clare.malone: Yeah, fair point. I take that back. But in
general, who’s doing the political strategy thinking? Miller? If so, yikes. micah: No one? perry: Miller and Trump are driving this. There is some
reporting to indicate that. micah: But Miller is thinking in terms of policy, not politics, right? clare.malone: Right. I mean politics. Who’s driving
that? No one maybe? natesilver: I wonder if the fact that Trump has had a few successes — or at least things he can claim to be successes — is
making him feel as though he can be a little bolder. clare.malone: Yeah, but this was in motion before North Korea. perry: Miller thinks the
politics are fine here. So does Trump. They think they won because of this stuff in 2016 and that they are doing pretty well now and this is a
media storm that will blow over. clare.malone: I think my point is, if Miller is your person running overall political strategy, not just policy, that’s
a problem. He’s an ideologue. perry: Yeah, Clare, you make an important point: Are there are any establishment-style people left at the White
House to say no to this kind of thing? Kelly favors get-tough immigration policies. But even if he opposed this, he could not kill it. He has limited
power, particularly now. natesilver: It would be sort of ironic if Republicans were on track to just barely hold the House — and maybe make
gains in the Senate — because of an improving economy, but Trump blew it over a border wall fight and a trade war with China. Or maybe not
“ironic” — just that I think that’s a plausible course of events. micah: That seems like the likely course of events! perry: To switch this a bit, the
Democrats I talk to really want this campaign to be about health care/tax cuts/cronyism — anything but this race/identity stuff. Their general
view is that every day talking about health care is good for them, and that every day talking about cultural stuff broadly is good for Trump
(minus this exact policy). Are they right? micah: Yeah, I guess I do worry a little bit that we’re underrating how hard-line an immigration policy
Americans will support — Republican in particular, but also white Democrats. I just feel like maybe this is an area where I actually don’t trust
the polling all that much? 😬 clare.malone: Immigration? micah: Yeah. natesilver: I don’t know — maybe the fact that we’re in a Manhattan
office building watching the World Cup and eating food from a fancy falafel place makes us out of touch with Real America™. But maybe that
out-of-touchness manifests itself in applying our own stereotypes to Real America™ instead of trusting the polling. clare.malone: Well,
Democrats seem to be steering clear of immigration stances on the campaign trail beyond “protect Dreamers and kids.” natesilver: Most people
in Real America (where several of us are from, after all!) have fairly nuanced views toward immigration. micah: I’m actually thinking of white
Democrats more than anyone else. clare.malone: What I’m saying is that Democrats are in primary mode on immigration too. They can’t be
seen as being too appeasing to Republicans on the issue because the GOP is popularly viewed as having gone full-throttle ideological/racial on
that issue by a lot of Democratic base voters. perry: The polling is fine. But maybe the questions are not quite framing the right discussion. The
underlying question is really: “Do we have too many immigrants in America?” And I think that question is more contested than, “Should we
separate kids from their parents at the border?” There
is a sliver of Democrats who want to see decreased
immigration levels, although that bloc is declining pretty sharply as immigration has become more an issue dividing the
parties and the Democrats are generally the pro-immigration party now.
2NC – Suburban Voters Link
Hardline anti-immigrant status will kill GOP house chances now – the plan flips that
Martin and Haberman 6/18 (Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, New York Times. “Forget Tax
Cuts. Trump Wants to Rally the G.O.P. Base Over Immigration.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/us/politics/trump-immigration-midterms.html)
The issue of Germany and migrants has resonated for Mr. Trump for more than a year, people close to him say. When he thinks of Chancellor
Angela Merkel, he is reminded of her difficulties with immigration far more than his clash with her at the G-7 or any bilateral issues. The
danger for Republicans is that the political map this year is sharply bifurcated: the most competitive
House and Senate contests are taking place in strikingly different parts of the country. Mr. Trump’s
broadsides against Hispanic migrants, like his criticism of black athletes who will not stand for the national anthem, may
resonate in the deeply red states where the battle for control of the Senate is playing out. But such
culture war attacks will likely alienate voters in the affluent, heavily suburban districts Republicans must
win to keep control of the House. Further, some in the party believe that by pursuing a hard-line approach to families at the border
— a policy that is deeply unpopular among independent voters, according to polls — Mr. Trump is handing Democrats the high ground on
immigration instead of making them defend their support for less popular immigrant protections like sanctuary cities. “Somehow I don’t think
that putting kids in cages is likely to go over very well with suburban moms,” said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster uneasy about running on
the culture wars. Mr. Ayres said his party should campaign on “the concrete accomplishments of a Republican-held government.” “A fabulously
strong economy, a record stock market, ISIS defeated and a world without any major wars that are killing lots of Americans on a weekly basis,”
he said, laying out the case. Republicans
got a lesson last year about the risk of elevating immigration in
campaigns where they depend on suburbanites. In the Virginia governor’s race, the Republican nominee, Ed Gillespie, thought
women in vote-rich Northern Virginia could be won over with a get-tough message on MS-13, the gang with ties to Central America that has
gained a foothold in the Washington, D.C., region. But voters in suburban Fairfax and Loudoun counties overwhelmingly rejected these
appeals, supporting Gov. Ralph S. Northam with landslide margins in large part to send a message about
their disdain for Mr. Trump. The unease with a hard-line approach on immigration is strongest among
House Republicans who hail from diverse districts. Many of these lawmakers signed a discharge petition that would have
forced a vote offering legal status for Dreamers, children brought to the country by undocumented immigrants. And as Liesl Hickey, a veteran
Republican strategist who previously ran the House congressional campaign arm, pointed out, it is Republican lawmakers like Representatives
Carlos Curbelo of Florida, Will Hurd of Texas and Steve Knight of California who face some of the most daunting re-election challenges. “I think
it’s pretty clear that this is not a winning issue in the form that some want to take it,” said Ms. Hickey, alluding to the hard-line approach. In a
sign of the Republican alarm about the family separations at the border, Representative Steve Stivers of Ohio, the chairman of the National
Republican Congressional Committee, said Monday that he would ask the Trump administration “to stop needlessly separating children from
their parents.” Yet some of Mr. Trump’s advisers have told the president he needs to live up to what he promised voters on immigration. These
aides have told him that what he is doing is similar to what President Obama did, and suggested that the news media is cherry-picking images
of children that can be used to portray Mr. Trump’s policy in the harshest of lights. Mr. Trump, absorbing these arguments, has related to allies
that he thinks he is being mistreated by the media and sought to shift the conversation to the broader immigration debate. But Democrats
believe he is making a costly mistake by taking his rhetoric too far. “He has taken an issue that is a
decent wedge in swing places for Republicans and turned it into this preposterous notion that Democrats are
responsible for family separation, Democrats are responsible for all immigrant crime, and Democrats are responsible for MS-13,” said Anna
Greenberg, a Democratic pollster. “Nobody believes that.”
2NC – Dem Turnout Link
Trump policies are producing backlash among independents and democrats; aff plan
takes that away
Sargent 18--- (July 13, Greg, columnist, Education: Hunter College, BA in English, Sargent writes The
Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant — what you might call “opinionated
reporting” from the left. He joined The Post in 2010, after stints at Talking Points Memo, New York
Magazine and the New York Observer, " Trump’s cruelty and hate are creating a defining moment for
Democrats" Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-
line/wp/2018/07/13/trumps-cruelty-and-hate-are-creating-a-defining-moment-for-
democrats/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.50e5076e5001, DRS]
At the same time, Gourevitch says, Democrats also want to stand up firmly against Trump’s immigration
attacks and policies, because they are a “motivator for our side,” and because they are producing a
“backlash” among college-educated Republican-leaning independents and suburban women who “are
uncomfortable with Trump on these issues.” Democratic pollsters found that MS-13 ads produced a
backlash among those voters in the Virginia gubernatorial race. At the center of all this strategizing
should be the fact that Trump’s white nationalism is manifesting itself in cruel policies that are hurting a
lot of people. The explicitly stated rationale for Trump’s family separation policy is that the horrible
prospect of children getting separated from parents will dissuade people from trying to cross the border
— desperate refugees included. We know from three years of public and private statements from
Trump that the desire to keep away desperate people fleeing horrible conditions — and the effort to cut
legal immigration, and the thinly veiled Muslim ban — are rooted in white nationalism, bigotry and hate.
Democrats need to rise to this moment, and it shouldn’t be too hard to get that right.
Hardline immigration policies hurts the GOP – key to mobilizing Dem votes
Taylor 6/5 (Ramon Taylor is a New York-based video journalist for VOA News. His coverage includes
U.S. elections, the 2014 World Cup in Brazil and President Obama’s visit to Cuba. He has also produced
for CNN en Español and Telemundo in Washington. “Will Immigration Get Trump Voters to Midterm
Polls?” https://www.voanews.com/a/will-immigration-get-trump-voters-to-midterm-
polls/4425267.html)
But choosing to focus much of their attention on Trump’s hardline immigration policies this year comes
with risks, explains Diana Mutz, a professor of political science and communication at the University of Pennsylvania, whose research
explores electoral behavior in 2016. “[Trump] is operating on the premise that being extremely anti-immigration
actually won him votes. Our analyses actually suggest just the opposite — that yes, things like trade did
win him votes but things like immigration actually did not,” Mutz told VOA. “They lost him votes because he
was far too extreme.” According to Pew Research Center, 65 percent of Americans say immigrants strengthen the
United States “because of their hard work and talents,” while 26 percent consider them a burden “because they take jobs, housing, and health
care.” Among Republicans, views are more evenly split — 42 percent hold favorable views, 44 percent unfavorable. Trump’s message
on immigration may be problematic in districts with large college-educated populations, says Cox. That
includes those who may have initially supported Trump with reservations and are critical of his more
controversial policies, such as separating families at the border or repealing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — a program
that allows some 700,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children to live and work without fear of deportation. But
in addition to mobilizing moderate and Independent voters, a strong turnout among Hispanics could be
another important factor, given typically low voting rates among the bloc. “Usually in midterms, people
do play to the base because those are the only people who bother turning out … this year may be
different,” Mutz said. “Everything I’ve seen suggests that people may come out in far greater numbers than they
usually do.”
2NC – Racism Link
Dems will win because GOP-leaning and suburban voters are opposing Trump – that’s
the uniquely key demographic
Barrow 18 (Bill Barrow, The Associated Press. “Democrats banking on suburban discontent in 2018
mid-term elections.” 3/23, http://www.delcotimes.com/article/DC/20180323/NEWS/180329828)
From the old steel communities around Pittsburgh to the lakefront communities of Chicagoland, Republicans are facing an
increasingly clear reality: They’ve got trouble in the suburbs. In the last two weeks, Democrats scored an upset
in southwest Pennsylvania and dominated the voting in the Republican suburbs outside Chicago. President
Donald Trump, who never won over suburbia, continues to get poor marks from the educated, upper income
Americans who often call it home. After Democratic victories in state legislative contests in Virginia and special
elections across the country — even a stunning Senate election in Republican-dominated Alabama —
Republicans have plenty of reason to worry that commuter country may be their undoing in the fight for
control of the House in November’s midterm elections. “Across the board, every single indicator points to one
thing: a Republican bloodbath,” said Republican strategist Terry Sullivan. Democrats need to pick up 23 seats to take the majority —
a task made particularly challenging by the way House districts currently are drawn to favor Republicans. Still, any House majority is
built on suburban success. Republicans control most rural and small-town districts, where Trump finds
his strongest political support. Democrats dominate districts anchored in big cities, where Trump
opposition is fiercest. The party in charge will be the one that wins the battle in between, where the
electorate often is the sort of ideological and demographic mix that defines a two-party battleground. In
2014, when Republicans successfully defended their House majority, GOP nominees won 52 percent of
the suburban vote, according to exit polls. Recent polling suggests that support is slipping. An NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll
conducted earlier this month found just 43 percent of suburban residents prefer a Republican-run Congress to a
Democratic majority. Democrats’ target list starts with nearly two dozen Republican-held seats where
Hillary Clinton bested Trump in 2016. The list is heavy on seats in California and the northeast —
suburbs outside Philadelphia and New York — corners of Democratic-leaning states where Trump didn’t
win over wealthier, moderate Republicans. Now the GOP fears that those weaknesses are spreading
further from big-city centers and also into suburban districts around mid-size and smaller metropolitan
areas. Democrat Conor Lamb is the nightmare. He won in a Pittsburgh-area district where Trump won by nearly 20 percentage
points. The Allegheny County portion of the district, the most populated portion just outside of Pittsburgh, had gone to Trump by just 4 points.
Lamb won there by 17 percentage points. The race demonstrated that suburban Republicans, even those who
voted for Trump, will vote for a Democrat, in the right circumstances. Lamb was strong candidate who stayed focused on
economic issues, and didn’t focus on talking down the president. That formula combined with anti-Trump fueled enthusiasm on the left, could
mean trouble for the GOP. “President Trump isn’t on the ballot for us, but he is on the ballot for them,” said Georgia Republican Chip Lake, a
veteran of congressional campaigns across the South. “The
president has good numbers with his base, but not with
independents and swing voters, and they live in the suburbs.” In Illinois primary elections on Tuesday, the five counties
that wrap around Chicago’s Cook County saw Democrats cast almost five times as many ballots as they did four years ago, ahead of a midterm
romp for the GOP. Republicans, meanwhile, saw their turnout drop by almost a quarter of what it was in 2014. The
national
Republican money machine is focusing heavily on defending the suburbs. The Congressional Leadership Fund, a
political action committee aligned with Speaker Paul Ryan, has opened field offices in 30 Republican-held districts, with plans eventually to
spend more than $100 million in as many as three dozen. The group’s first wave of offices overlapped heavily with the Clinton-GOP districts.
But they’ve effectively acknowledge the creep of the suburban with their expansion into places like Rep.
Andy Barr’s Kentucky district that includes Lexington — population 318,000 — and its surrounding suburbs. “We’re not going to get
the benefit of the doubt in this environment,” says the group’s director Corry Bliss. There’s no consensus on how
many of the districts will end up truly competitive. National Democrats tout dozens of challengers who
outraised Republican incumbents in recent months, putting them in position to wage serious campaigns.
Those voters specifically are turning away because of Trump’s racism – the plan flips
that
Garofoli 18 (Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. “People calling Trump
a racist, but will it affect him at the ballot box?” 1/12
http://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/People-calling-Trump-a-racist-but-will-it-affect-
12495330.php)
The nation is experiencing an extraordinary moment — many Americans are openly calling their
president a racist. The question is whether enough voters will be sufficiently outraged to punish
President Trump or his supporters at the ballot box. The racism displayed this week when Trump
referred to Haiti and some African nations as “shithole countries” isn’t unique among his predecessors.
America’s Founding Fathers owned slaves, and another president, Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, ordered the internment of thousands of
Japanese Americans during World War II. Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon frequently used racial slurs. But Trump is the
first president to be defined in large part by his outright hostility to people who are not white and are
not Christian. He dive-bombed into the national political conversation by falsely accusing President Barack Obama of being born outside
the United States, then opened his presidential campaign by calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and proposing a blanket ban on Muslims
entering the country. As president, he has attempted to turn these sentiments into policy. Trump and his supporters have frequently tried to
explain away his past statements as being misunderstood or awkwardly phrased. But the reaction to Trump’s demand, during a policy meeting
with members of Congress, to know why the United States should accept immigrants from “shithole countries” — most with majority black
populations — is what makes his remarks so toxic and powerful. “It denies the ability to deniers to continue to say that racism is a thing of the
past,” said James Taylor, a professor of political science at the University of San Francisco and author of “Black Nationalism in the United States:
From Malcolm X to Barack Obama.” “Donald Trump
is showing — at the most important symbolic position in the country — that this
kind of racial feeling and resentment is alive and can’t be dismissed.” The failure of Republican leaders
to condemn Trump — there has been silence from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while usually talkative Sen.
Lindsey Graham, who attended the meeting, went no further than saying the media accounts of the president’s words were being “basically
accurate” — normalizes language that has offended so many people in the United States and around the world. And that
could drive
voters in the other direction. A December survey from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center found that 60 percent of
Americans feel Trump’s election has led to worse race relations in America. And while the president is fond of
saying that his base of supporters is unswervingly with him — “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t
lose voters,” he said during the 2016 campaign — his attitudes on race are increasingly alienating his fellow
Republicans. “Most of the increase in negative opinions has come among Republicans and Republican-
leaning independents,” the Pew survey’s authors wrote. Others say Trump’s vulgar description could indeed hurt him
with the voters he needs to survive politically. He doesn’t have much room for error, as his approval
rating is at 39 percent, according to the latest RealClearPolitics.com average of major polls. “It will hurt him with college-
educated female (Republican) voters. And don’t rule out college-educated male Republican voters,
either,” said G. Terry Madonna, a pollster and director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin and Marshall College in
Pennsylvania, a state Trump narrowly won. “This is the type of stuff that drives the suburban voters away. They’re
much more attuned to the language that’s used.”
2NC – Trump Cooperation Link
Cooperating with Trump on the aff dooms the Dems
Stancil 18 (Will Stancil is a research fellow at the University of Minnesota Law School. “Democrats'
'Resistance' to Trump Is Eroding, and So Are Their Poll Numbers.” The Atlantic. 2/9,
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/democrats-resistance-to-trump-is-eroding-and-
so-are-their-poll-numbers/552845/)
But for the Democratic Party, the current moment of elite acquiescence to Trump presents unique and profound dangers. A Democratic
midterm wave has never been inevitable. Democrats have advanced this far because they have
positioned themselves to take advantage of widespread anger at Trump. Recent shifts in elite opinion do
not seem to reflect any change of public sentiment. Trump is nearly as unpopular as ever. Voters
disapprove of the president by huge margins. Opinion polling consistently finds that over half the country “strongly
disapproves” of him. Indeed, loathing for Trump is so profound that he is able to move public opinion towards almost any position, simply by
taking the other side. (In one striking example, Trump’s opposition to NFL protests appeared to make those protests more popular.) Tellingly,
there does not seem to be a single high-profile policy dispute in which the president’s position
commands majority support. Until now, Democrats have capably exploited this political opportunity.
They have, in effect, employed the same obstructionist tactics that were utilized by Republicans against
President Obama. By declaring the president anathema, Democrats electrified their party and mobilized everyone who is frightened of him.
This is a particularly canny tactic because, as was demonstrated in the Obama era, even voters frustrated with gridlock and chaos mostly blame
the president and his party. In 2010 and 2014, unrelenting Republican opposition to Obama preceded huge midterm gains for the GOP, despite
the fact that he was much less unpopular than Trump is today. While opposition to Obama helped mobilize the partisan base, opposition to
Trump is a true majoritarian position. “The Resistance” has been mocked from the left as naïve and Trump-obsessed, and mocked from the
center and right as dogmatic, unpractical, and melodramatic. It’s an easy target: it relies heavily on political newcomers with old-fashioned
ideas about democratic process and American values; it’s propelled by Trump’s vulgarity as much as his policy proposals; it is apt to celebrate
anyone who shares their contempt for the president, including no small share of cranks and charlatans. Perhaps because of this,
tastemakers and party leaders have overlooked that the anti-Trump movement’s core political
prescription—uncompromising opposition—has proven itself the single most effective way to frustrate
the Trump agenda and elect his opponents. In 2017, nothing unified voters more than their aversion to the president. When
anti-Trump sentiment was peaking last December, the Democrats’ generic ballot advantage actually
exceeded the gaps produced by economic collapse and mass unemployment in 2010 and 2008. This is no
parochial gang of partisans: It’s fully half the country, highly mobilized, and the proximate cause of recent Democratic strength. As a result,
Democratic electoral fortunes depend on maintaining Trump’s unpopularity, much more than any rhetoric of their own. Uniform and
unequivocal opposition has helped weigh Trump down in the public eye; abandoning this successful strategy for
equivocation and compromise might lift him up. Facing a gerrymandered House and a bad Senate map,
it doesn’t take much to put Democrats’ predicted wave at risk. Already, their huge polling lead is
shrinking. Democrats worry that a single-minded focus on Trump will leave them without an agenda after he’s gone. But a new, conciliatory
approach will mean that “after he’s gone” gets further away. The anti-Trump coalition may not last forever, but at this moment, it represents,
in raw vote-getting terms, the most powerful force in American political life—the unified inverse of the nation’s reactionary minority. As
Democrats’ stubborn resistance wanes, they risk eroding that unified coalition, and prolonging the crisis
of the Trump presidency indefinitely.
2NC – Diversity Visa Lottery Link
Voters strongly oppose the diversity visa lottery
Torbati and Kahn 17 (Yeganeh Torbati, Chris Kahn, Reuters. “Most Americans oppose visa lottery but
favor other openings for immigrants: Reuters/Ipsos poll.” NOVEMBER 9, 2017.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-poll/most-americans-oppose-visa-lottery-but-
favor-other-openings-for-immigrants-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1D92Y6)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most Americans oppose the use of a lottery system for giving immigrants permanent
U.S. residence, but a majority support allowing immigrants to obtain green cards through sponsorship by U.S. employers, according to a
Reuters/Ipsos opinion poll. The poll, released on Thursday, found that only 25 percent of Americans support allowing
immigrants to obtain U.S. green cards or permanent resident status through a lottery system, while 60
percent oppose it. The green card lottery, also called the “diversity visa” program, aims to diversify the U.S. immigrant population by
allotting 50,000 immigrant visas each year to citizens of countries that do not send many people to the United States. The program has
long been criticized by immigration hardliners in Congress, and came under renewed attack by Trump and
some Republicans after Sayfullo Saipov, an Uzbek national who came to the United States on a diversity visa in 2010, was charged in an attack
last week in New York City that killed eight people. Trump has urged Congress to kill the diversity visa lottery, which has
drawn fire for being vulnerable to fraud and for posing national security risks. A 2013 bipartisan effort to reform immigration would have done
away with the program, but was killed by the Republican-led House. The recipients of the visas are chosen randomly by lottery, though they
have to go through standard security checks before they are granted permission to enter the United States. Seventy percent of all adults
support allowing foreign spouses of U.S. citizens to obtain green cards, and 61 percent support allowing immigrants to obtain permanent
resident status through their work for U.S. businesses. Though 60 percent of all adults said they opposed allowing immigrants to obtain green
cards through a lottery, a smaller percentage, just over half, said they would support a proposal to end the program.
The Trump administration has targeted both legal and illegal immigration. An April executive order by Trump called for reforming the program
awarding H-1B visas for skilled workers, and the administration has challenged applications for the visas more often than at nearly any point in
the Obama era. Chrystal Wilkins, 54, said she disagreed with ending the green card lottery. Wilkins, a Democrat, is married to a Senegalese
immigrant who is now a U.S. citizen. Her husband did not come through the visa lottery but has a friend who did, she said. “Immigration is good
for the country,” said Wilkins, who lives in New York. “People should be allowed to come into the country through a lottery visa.” Angel Hall,
18, who described herself as a moderate Republican, said she agreed with ending the green card lottery but supported other forms of legal
immigration, including employment-based green cards, “because they (immigrants) are coming here to work and be part of our economy.”
“It’s a little bit weird to just randomly pick people,” said Hall, a student in Michigan. “It should be more ordered than the
random lottery that it is.”
2NC – DACA Link
The Aff’s addressing of DREAMERS means Republicans will retain majority in the
House for midterms
William A. Galston, 6-18-2018, ("As Trump’s zero-tolerance immigration policy backfires, Republicans
are in jeopardy," Brookings Institute, William A. Galston holds the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings
Institution’s Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a Senior Fellow. Prior to January 2006 he
was the Saul Stern Professor and Acting Dean at the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland,
director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, founding director of the Center for Information
and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), and executive director of the National
Commission on Civic Renewal, co-chaired by former Secretary of Education William Bennett and former
Senator Sam Nunn. A participant in six presidential campaigns, he served from 1993 to 1995 as Deputy
Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy. Galston is the author of nine books and more than
100 articles in the fields of political theory, public policy, and American politics,
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/06/18/trumps-zero-tolerance-immigration-policy-puts-
republicans-in-jeopardy/, DRS)
Republican moderates have little choice but to force the issue. They believe—rightly, polls suggest—that
their constituents will hold them responsible for failing to address the Dreamers’ plight. If conservatives
do not relent, they may end up with a bill they detest—or with the loss of their party’s majority in the
House. This is Speaker Ryan’s moment of truth. If he cannot produce a compromise bill that enjoys
President Trump’s unequivocal public support and bring it to the floor, he risks leaving endangered
members of his majority defenseless against the wrath of their constituents. But to reach this
compromise, he will have to persuade the Freedom Caucus and other hardliners to place the interests of
their party ahead of ideology purity, which they have long refused to do. If Mr. Ryan fails, his legacy may
well be the end of his party’s House majority.
Plan flips it – takes away a key motivator of Latino turnout
Khalid 18 (Asma Khalid is a political reporter for NPR. “How Immigration Could Motivate Democrats In
2018.” February 18, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/02/18/586475474/how-immigration-could-
motivate-democrats-in-2018)
So maybe heated rhetoric alone does not turn out voters, but Lopez says policy changes might, such as when the
DACA program was first introduced the summer before President Obama's re-election. "Obama in 2012 was under this cloud of being a
'deporter-in-chief,' — at least many Latino leaders had described him as such," said Lopez. "So
when he does DACA many analysts
say that was just enough the motivator to get many Hispanics who were perhaps on the fence about
voting out to vote." But even if there was a post-DACA bump, it was a minor bump. Chris Zepeda-Millán, a political scientist at the
University of California, Berkeley, says history proves that Latinos are more likely to mobilize against a legislative threat
than for legislative action. He points to the mass Latino mobilization in 2006 because of the Sensenbrenner bill, which threatened to
make it a federal crime to aid someone who entered the country illegally. "Latinos tend to come and out vote, and
immigrants, when there's anti-immigrant legislation on the ballot," said Zepeda-Millán. "We saw this in California.
We've seen it in other states as well. When there's anti-immigrant legislation looming, Latinos tend to come out at
higher rates." A similar thing happened in California in the 1990s when Republicans backed Proposition 187, a ballot measure to deny
public services to people in the country illegally. Midterm consequences The key difference between Donald Trump's
election and the upcoming midterms is that it's a fundamentally different political landscape. This
November, elections will be held in discrete districts. The Republican pollster Whit Ayres points out that much of how immigration is discussed
in a local contest comes down to the demographic context of the local area. And in many key suburban swing districts, immigration may not be
as much of a lighting rod in either direction. Many of these analysts on the topic of immigration say that Republicans
could benefit in
those areas by merely getting the issue off the table. Any immigration solution, even if it's merely a
short-term DACA fix, could suffice. "Most voters don't list immigration as their number one voting issue," said Erickson-Hatalsky.
"So, I think if Trump signs a deal that probably diffuses the issue politically, in general."
2NC – Trump Popularity Key
Trump’s popularity is the key question for the midterm
Cook 18 (Rhodes Cook, Senior Columnist, Sabato's Crystal Ball. “Donald Trump’s Short Congressional
Coattails.” UVA Center for Politics. 3/1, http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/donald-
trumps-short-congressional-coattails/)
While long coattails may no longer be in their quiver, presidents still have ways to influence national
campaigns. They can use the “bully pulpit” to fashion campaign themes, something that Trump is trying
to do now for 2018. He is also raising money, endorsing Republican candidates (most recently Senate aspirant Mitt
Romney in Utah), and seeking to cajole and intimidate both friends and foes alike. With the Gallup Poll showing the
president’s mid-February approval rating to be above 85% among Republicans, Trump will likely have his greatest impact this
year in molding the party’s message and helping to define the list of nominees that Republicans will put
before the voters in November. But with a Gallup approval rating of just 30% among independents, and
barely 5% among Democrats, his role in the 2018 general election looks to be problematic. There is little
doubt that the controversial Trump will be the central player of the 2018 campaign. Even while his name is
not on the ballot, this year’s elections will offer a highly charged referendum on Trump and his
presidency. Love him or hate him, it could result in a midterm variation of presidential coattails, or a lack
thereof.
2NC – AT: Link N/U
Trump will continue pursuing hardline immigration policies now
Cook 6/18 (Nancy, Politico. “Trump aides plan fresh immigration crackdowns before midterms.”
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/18/trump-aides-plan-fresh-immigration-crackdowns-before-
midterms-652246)
Top aides to President Donald Trump are planning additional crackdowns on immigration before the November
midterms, despite a growing backlash over the administration’s move to separate migrant children from parents at the border. Senior policy
adviser Stephen Miller and a team of officials from the departments of Justice, Labor, Homeland Security and the Office of Management and
Budget have been quietly meeting for months to find ways to use executive authority and under-the-radar rule
changes to strengthen hard-line U.S. immigration policies, according to interviews with half a dozen current and former
administration officials and Republicans close to the White House. The goal for Miller and his team is to arm Trump with enough
data and statistics by early September to show voters that he fulfilled his immigration promises — even
without a border wall or any other congressional measure, said one Republican close to the White House. Among the fresh ideas being
circulated: tightening
rules on student visas and exchange programs; limiting visas for temporary
agricultural workers; making it harder for legal immigrants who have applied for welfare programs to
obtain residency; and collecting biometric data from visitors from certain countries. Details of the ideas are still
being worked out, one White House official said. In one of the most closely watched plans under discussion, DHS has proposed a new rule that
former Obama administration officials and immigration advocates worry could be used as an end run around a 1997 court settlement that
limits the time migrant children can be kept in government custody. Putting a formal government rule in place, lawyers and advocates say,
could in effect supersede the settlement, allowing the administration to get rid of it altogether by dropping the rule a year or two later. “Once
you rescind that regulation, then you go back to being able to do whatever you want and the detention becomes the complete discretion of
ICE,” said Leon Fresco, former deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Immigration Litigation at the Department of Justice. “That is
where people think this is headed.” The president and his top aides have framed the family separation issue as something Democrats could end
by signing on to Republican legislation addressing Trump’s priorities, including funding the border wall — even though the separation moves
are solely the outgrowth of a Department of Justice decision and not grounded in a particular law. Miller, who was instrumental to Trump’s
early travel ban — which, like the border separations, triggered widespread public outrage and was put into effect without sufficient logistical
planning — is among those who see the border crisis as a winning campaign issue. “That is the fundamental political contrast and political
debate that is unfolding right now,” Miller said in an interview with Breitbart News published on May 24. “The Democratic Party is at grave risk
of completely marginalizing itself from the American voters by continuing to lean into its absolutist anti-enforcement positions.” And some in
the Trump administration are not inclined to back down from any of its immigration policies because they’ve been planning them for more than
a year, according to one White House official and a Republican close to the administration. On Jan. 25, 2017, Trump signed an executive order
that called for the arrest and detention of people caught crossing the border illegally — a broad preview of the Department of Justice’s April
“zero-tolerance” decision to refer all border-crossers for federal prosecution, which has led to the separation of children from parents being
sent into criminal courts. Many of the ideas for enacting more aggressive immigration enforcement or tweaking old government rules
originated with the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, which Miller effectively runs. Other participants in the effort include John Walk, a
lawyer in the White House counsel’s office and Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ son-in-law; Thomas Homan, the soon-to-retire head of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Francis Cissna, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Gene Hamilton, a former staffer to
Sessions and ex-DHS official, who’s now at the Department of Justice; and officials throughout DHS. In his Breitbart News interview in May,
Miller called for closer examination of H1-B visas, which allow U.S. employers to hire foreign workers for certain specialized
jobs. OMB is currently reviewing a proposal to make it harder for immigrants with visas to obtain
permanent residency, including a green card, if they or their children have used government benefits such as Medicaid, food
stamps or tax credits. Advocates fear this would keep people from seeking necessary help or medical attention.
2NC – Plan = GOP Credit
Midterms are referendums on the party on power – the plan makes them look great
Cook 17 (Charlie, Founder of the Cook Political Report – Political Analyst, “Midterms Are About the
Party in Power, Not Issues”, 8/1/17, http://cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-
politics/midterms-are-about-party-power-not-issues)
Democrats can take a different tack next year. They can nationalize their races, make them a
referendum on Trump and Republicans in Congress, stay away from local issues, and run as “send-
them-a-message” candidates. In other words, do exactly what Republican candidates did to Democrats in
2010 and 2014. It’s fashionable these days to say that Democrats have to stand for something if they’re going
to win a House majority and break even in the Senate. Balderdash. I have never seen a party win a
midterm election on the issues; midterms are always a referendum on the party in power. The party in
the White House has gained House seats in only two modern elections, and the circumstances both times were
special. In 1998, Democrats rode a backlash against the Republican majority in Congress that was preparing to
impeach President Clinton. In 2002, 14 months after the 9/11 attacks, the GOP made modest gains in an election that was about
patriotism after a national emergency. Some political buffs might ask about 1994 and the Contract with America
that Newt Gingrich and Republicans ran on. Many forget, or never knew, that the Contract with America was
announced only six weeks before the election, after it was already clear that the election was going to
be a disaster for Clinton and congressional Democrats. The proportion of people who were aware of
the Contract before the election was actually quite small. If memory serves, it was mainly distributed as an insert in TV
Guide. Gingrich deserves an enormous amount of credit for taking the fight to Clinton and Democrats and creating the atmosphere that helped
rout them, but to say it was about issues is to overstate things by a ton. Clinton’s
job-approval ratings had been in the high
30’s and low 40’s for much of the two years leading into that midterm, and the election was a
referendum on him and his party. The Republicans’ strong suit was that they weren’t Democrats and were against Clinton. Those
are the kinds of things that decide midterm elections.
2NC – AT: GOP Base Link Turn
The GOP base doesn’t matter – it’s a question of turnout and independents – sitting
party approval matters, and the plan improves Trump’s approval
Enten 17 (Harry, senior political editor at the five thirty eight, “Democrats don’t need Trump’s voters
to retake the house,” Five Thirty Eight, May 23, 2017, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-
dont-need-trumps-voters-to-retake-the-house/)
Stop me if you’ve seen a headline (or five) that proclaims something along the lines of: “Most Trump voters still support Trump.” Typically, the
article includes quotes from Trump voters in Pennsylvania or Michigan. Sometimes it revolves around polling showing people don’t “regret”
voting for Trump. The takeaway is usually: Trump still has the support of his base, which means Democrats haven’t
cracked the Trump nut yet. But here’s the thing: Democrats don’t need to crack that nut by 2018; Trump can
hang on to most — if not all — of his base, and Democrats could still clean up in the midterm elections.
Checking in with Trump’s supporters is worthwhile. But don’t mistake their level of satisfaction for a
political prediction. Let’s start with the basic fact that Trump won just 45.9 percent of the vote in 2016. That doesn’t make his victory
any less legitimate — winning (the Electoral College) with less than a majority is still winning — but Trump has a smaller base than
every president elected since 1972, except for Bill Clinton in 1992. Trump voters are not a majority. More importantly
for the sake of 2018, they don’t represent the majority of voters in the majority of congressional districts. Trump
won more than 50 percent in 205 of 435 districts. If House Republicans won every district where Trump won a
majority in 2016 but lost every other one, Democrats would control 230 seats. Among seats won by a
Republican in 2016, Trump fell short of a majority in 40 districts. Democrats need to win only 24 of those
to win control of the House. Of course, Democrats are unlikely to run the table in districts where Trump got
less than a majority. He still won a plurality in 25 of those districts. And Democratic candidates probably won’t win every voter who cast
a ballot for Hillary Clinton or a third-party candidate in 2016. The larger point is just that Republicans need more than Trump
voters to hold onto the House. Which is why judging the political climate by looking only at how Trump’s voters are feeling is
misleading. Most presidents hold on to most of their base. But even a little erosion among base support can make a
difference. Moreover, turnout matters, as does whether independent voters approve of the president’s
job performance. In the last three midterm wave elections (1994, 2006 and 2010) that resulted in the president’s party losing
the House, for example, the president’s party won at least 84 percent of the president’s voters. But that wasn’t
enough. In 1994, voters who cast a ballot for a third-party candidate in 1992 (mostly for Ross Perot) turned against the Democrats, going
more than 2-to-1 for GOP House candidates. The 2004 election was close enough that Democrats holding on to a bit more of their voters in
2006 was enough to make huge gains. In 2010, poor turnout among then-President Barack Obama’s 2008 voters (though its effects are often
overstated) hurt Democrats across the country. In short, how
independents vote in 2018 and who turns out will play
roles just as big as that of how satisfied Trump voters are. Even if the latter are super happy with Trump,
if everyone else is super unhappy, Democrats will likely do well. The GOP’s problem again comes back to
Trump’s base being relatively small to begin with compared to the base support of past presidents. The
latest poll from YouGov, for example, shows 88 percent of respondents who said they voted for Trump approve of his job performance. But 88
percent of the 46 percent of 2016 voters who chose Trump is just 40 percent. Overall, the YouGov survey found 54percent of
registered voters disapprove of Trump so far. If every person who currently disapproves of Trump’s job
performance voted against the Republican Party’s House candidates in 2018, Democrats would almost
certainly take control of the chamber.1 Obviously, how someone feels about the president isn’t a perfect
proxy for how they’ll vote in a House election. Fortunately for House Republicans, they’ll probably hold
some voters who don’t like Trump. Candidate quality still matters, and there is still a small incumbent advantage in House
elections. That’s how Republicans won the House popular vote by 1 percentage point in 2016 even as Trump was losing the popular vote. That
said, opinions of the incumbent president and House voting patterns have become more closely linked
in recent midterms. The president’s party has lost at least 83 percent of voters who disapprove of the
president’s job in every midterm since 1994. In none did the president’s party win more than 87 percent of those who
approved of the president’s job.2 These statistics are not good news for Republicans if Trump’s current approval rating (40 percent among
voters) and current disapproval rating (55 percent) holds through the midterm. Even if Trump’s Republican Party wins the recent high water
mark of 87 percent of those who approve of the job the president is doing and loses only 83 percent of those who disapprove, Republicans
would still lose the House popular vote by 7 percentage points.3 That could be enough for them to lose the House. We still have well
over a year until the midterm elections. President Trump’s approval rating may recover. But if
Republicans want to hold onto the House in 2018, they had better hope it gets at least a little better —
no matter how much Trump’s 2016 voters still approve of him.
2NC – AT: GOP Not Tied to Trump
Voters will tie GOP to Trump
Gaby 17 (Keith Gaby explores the intersection of politics and climate change for the Environmental
Defense Fund. “Congress almost always votes with Trump as 2018 midterms loom. Bad idea, polls
suggest.” June 28, 2017. https://www.edf.org/blog/2017/06/28/congress-almost-always-votes-trump-
2018-midterms-loom-bad-idea-polls-suggest)
Nearly two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president. It’s a remarkably
dismal number for a president at any time, but especially so early in his term. It’s clear that the
dissatisfaction is not only because of scandals and poor behavior, but also because his policies are
deeply unpopular. Consider this: Just 28 percent of Americans support Trump’s decision to withdraw the
United States from the Paris climate agreement. The health care bill he celebrated has approval ratings
in the teens. And a full 62 percent disagree [PDF] with his attacks against the Clean Power Plan and other Obama-era pollution limits. In
spite of this, hundreds of members of the U.S. House and Senate, many of whom face re-election next year,
continue to vote with the president nearly all the time. Here’s why this matters: Presidential approval is one of
the most important determining factors in midterm elections, and Trump’s ratings could have
consequences for lawmakers who now follow his lead. Unpopular presidents a risky bet As the Gallup Poll noted in advance
of the last midterm election 2014, a president’s “standing with voters is usually a significant predictor of election
outcomes.” When presidents are unpopular, Gallup reported, “their party typically loses a substantial number
of seats in the House of Representatives.” That makes congressional voting patterns in 2017 so much more remarkable. Even
“moderates” support Trump 90% of the time According to analysis by FiveThirtyEight, 229 House members sided with Trump’s
position more than 90 percent of the time – and 102 have a 100-percent Trump score. With some important exceptions, even
members who like to be considered moderates nearly always support the president’s positions, as
FiveThirtyEight shows in its breakdown of who voted how.
Impeachment Impact
1NC – Impeachment Impact
Dem House win guarantees impeachment and removal
Goldberg 17 (Jonah, 6-14-2017, National Review senior editor, bestselling author and columnist and
fellow of the National Review Institute, Robert J. Novak Journalist of the Year at the Conservative
Political Action Conference (CPAC), "Trump Will Probably Be Impeached if Republicans Lose the House"
National Review, http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448590/democrats-take-back-house-2018-
trump-probably-impeached)
Unless it steps up soon, Democrats will probably take back the majority in 2018 — and take down the
president. The 1998 midterm election was a debacle for Republicans, particularly then-speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Since
Reconstruction, no president had seen his party gain seats in the House in a midterm election six years into his presidency. Gingrich, who made
the election a referendum on impeaching President Bill Clinton, resigned after the loss. Clearly, voters had sent the signal, “Don’t do it.” The
White House thought it had dodged a bullet. But one morning, over Thanksgiving break, then–White House chief of staff John Podesta was
running in Washington’s Rock Creek park when it hit him: GOP leaders are “not going to let their members off the hook. They’re going to beat
and beat and beat on them until they vote for impeachment.” It fell to Podesta to tell the still-celebrating White House staff that the midterms
meant nothing, that the push to impeach the president in the House was a runaway train that could not be derailed. “This thing is rigged,”
Podesta announced at a Monday-morning staff meeting. “We are going to lose.” President Trump’s White House could use a John Podesta
about now. Because no
one seems to have told Trump’s team that the Democrats are every bit as committed
to impeaching Trump as the GOP was to impeaching Clinton. The difference, of course, is that the
Democrats don’t control the House — yet. If they did, as the Washington Examiner’s Byron York rightly noted recently,
impeachment proceedings would already be underway. And if the Democrats take back the House in
2018, it won’t matter to most members whether the country as a whole supports impeachment,
because the voters who elected them — and the donors who supported them — will be in favor of it. (A
recent Public Policy Polling survey found that 47 percent of Americans support impeachment while 43 percent oppose it.) Personally, I think it
would be folly to impeach the president given what we know now. But that’s meaningless. The phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors”
notwithstanding, the criteria for impeachment have little to do with criminal law and everything to do with politics. If
218 members of
the House think it is right — or simply in their political interest — to impeach the president, he can be
impeached. Whether two-thirds of the Senate decides to remove the president from office is also an
entirely political decision. Given the likely composition of the Senate after the next election, however, that remains unlikely. Then
again, who knows? Given how Trump responds to criticism and political pressure, would you want to bet that the tweeter-in-chief would be a
model of statesmanlike restraint during an impeachment ordeal? So many of his current problems are the direct result of letting his ego or
frustration get the better of him. What fresh troubles would he mint when faced with removal from office? What might he say under oath to
the special counsel? Clinton, recall, was impeached and disbarred because he perjured himself in a deposition. The
only hope for the
Trump presidency is for the GOP to maintain control of the House. House minority leader Nancy Pelosi has cautioned
against making the midterms a referendum on impeachment. But that is an electoral strategy, not a plan for when she gets the speaker’s gavel.
And even if she declines to go straight to impeachment hearings on Day One, a Democratic-controlled House would still be a nightmare for the
White House. Any hope of passing a conservative agenda would die instantaneously. Worse, once Democrats gained the power to subpoena
documents and compel testimony from members of the administration, the Hobbesian internal politics of today’s White House would look like
a company picnic by comparison. In short, the only hope for the Trump presidency is for the GOP to maintain control of the House. According to
various reports, the GOP thinks it can hold on by running “against the media” in 2018. As pathetic as that would be, it might work. Though I
doubt it. A better strategy would be to actually get things done. And the only way for that to happen is for both houses of Congress to get their
act together. Voting bills out of the House may be enough to justify a Rose Garden party, but it will do little to sway voters who’ve been told for
years that the GOP needs control of all three branches to do big things. Trump won’t be on the ballot in 2018, but his
presidency will hang in the balance.
Trump foreign policy implodes liberal order and causes global war
Rosendorf 17 – Neal Rosendorf, Associate Professor of International Relations, New Mexico State
University, Ph.D., Harvard University, “ÜBERMAN AMERICA: THE SINISTER SOFT POWER OF TRUMP’S
FOREIGN POLICY”, CPD Blog, 2-27, https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/%C3%BCberman-america-
sinister-soft-power-trump%E2%80%99s-foreign-policy
Hence soft power, undergirded by American values, has correctly been seen as a preponderantly positive force
in international relations, in which transparent, free-market, representative democracies that are open
to the world have a baked-in advantage over repressive autocratic regimes. But what happens if the U.S.
becomes one of the world's leading bad guys? Can the U.S. still maintain soft power if it is extolling hard-
edged nationalism and xenophobia, disdaining longstanding alliances and fomenting the breakup of
the entire post-World War II system that America put in place seven decades ago? What would it look like? Who would it
attract? And where will it take the world? In fact, although a number of prominent figures have warned against the American abdication of liberal world order leadership and the related
in hewing to the Trump foreign policy line the US will in fact
erosion, or even the end, of American soft power, I would argue that
continue to maintain a considerable “ability to shape the preferences of others”. But it won’t be via the sort
of attraction, persuasion, ideas and ideals that analysts and policy formulators weaned on postwar bipartisan consensus U.S. internationalism (this writer included) will be remotely
comfortable with, nor will they (we) celebrate the sort of leaders, activists and publics who respond positively to this version of American soft power. They (we) won’t like the results, to put it
exceedingly mildly. With Trump
the administration violently casting off U.S. fealty to such watchwords of the exceptionalist American faith as “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness,” “the last best hope of earth,” “Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” or “a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept,
God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace,” it can be hard to imagine that the U.S. could still hold soft
power, albeit of a dramatically different cast, attractive to a disturbingly different audience. As an aid to the (nightmare) imagination-challenged, an apt metaphor for what lies ahead for
U.S. soft power, should the Trump Administration succeed in its radical recasting of American values and policies at home and abroad, can be found in the Classics—of comedy, that is:
Saturday Night Live, and a hilarious, terrifying sketch featuring “Überman.” No, this has nothing to do with a car ride service. Überman was the brainchild of Al Franken, an SNL writer-
performer before his election to the U.S. Senate. In 1979 Franken posed the counterfactual question, “What If….Superman Grew Up in Germany instead of America?” In Franken’s re-
imagination of Superman’s origin story, young Kal-El’s rocket lands during the interwar years in Prussia rather than Kansas, where he is raised by ardent Nazis who, as his adoptive father
reminds him, “taught you how the Fatherland was stabbed in the back at Versailles, how Jews are parasites, how Germany will one day bring order to the world!” Thus inspired, Klaus Kent, “a
mild-mannered clerk for the Ministry of Propaganda,” becomes Überman, proudly declaring to Adolf Hitler his fight for “Untruth, Injustice and the Nazi Way,” saving Der Führer from a hidden
bomb he discovers with his X-ray vision, and denouncing Jimmy Olsteyn as a Jew—whose secret he also uncovers with his X-ray vision (get it?). After depositing the hapless Jimmy at Auschwitz
Überman wins the Battle of Stalingrad in five minutes, singlehandedly rounds up two million Jews, and “Kills Every Person in England—U.S. Next”, as the headline blares in Der Daily Planet.
The longer Donald Trump holds on to power, and hence the longer the sinister soft power Trumpism
manifests is projected around the world, the greater the encouragement to, and impact on, the
unsavory populist nationalist movements and authoritarian regimes to which America is now perversely
offering inspiration. Donald Trump’s unabashed “America First” foreign policy is the metaphorical equivalent of Überman’s gruesome reversal of Superman’s biography and
principles. Al Franken’s sketch encapsulates the unfolding Up-Is-Down, Black-Is-White, Good-Is-Evil and Evil-Is-Good disjunction and the global havoc the U.S. is in the
process of wreaking. It isn’t necessary to rehearse at length the list of the Trump administration’s head-snapping, system-shattering statements and policy shifts that is by now
painfully well-known to readers even as it grows daily like The Blob (Steve McQueen’s, not Ben Rhodes’). The last time influential Americans and their supporters among the public
unapologetically embraced unpalatable policies and values like immigration restriction, racism and anti-Semitism, the results included Adolf Hitler sending a fan letter to the anti-immigrant
“scientific” eugenicist Madison Grant, a Nazi medal for Henry Ford in honor of his vicious published attacks on Jews, and the modeling of the Nuremberg Laws on Jim Crow segregation codes
—indeed, there was more than a touch of Überman to the United States even at the dawn of the Age of Superman. But at least at America’s helm during most of the decade prior to U.S. entry
into World War II was Franklin D. Roosevelt, his wife Eleanor and a host of New Dealers, who endorsed, if disappointingly imperfectly at times, equality and inclusiveness for African-Americans,
Jews and recent immigrants —rather than far-right incubus counterfactual presidents like Buzz Windrip in Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here and Charles Lindbergh in Philip Roth’s The Plot
Against America. However, with Donald Trump in the White House there is no presidential moral counterpoise, but rather a celebration of some of the most disturbing pathologies embedded
deep in American politics and society, raging back in the open after many decades of disreputability. And as Überman doesn’t cease to be, well, super, because of his malevolent predilections,
Trumpian America will not not cease to possess soft power. But it will be of a dark, sinister cast: Lionizing,
legitimating and inspiring populist nationalist leaders (Austrian far-right party head Harald Vilimsky preened after Trump’s inauguration, “He is a
winner, we are winners: Frauke Petry, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, all of us here are winners”); Providing moral cover for foreign publics’
xenophobia; Setting an example for would-be strongmen of delegitimizing the press (“the enemy of the American people”)
and demonstrating the efficacy and impunity of pedaling the most brazen disinformation; Confirming longstanding extreme left- and right-wing accusations that the U.S. has no special
Encouraging and steering
redeeming qualities, even vis-à-vis the autocratic, sanguinary Putin regime (“We’ve got a lot of killers—you think our country is so innocent?”);
the weakening or even the break-up of the European Union, NATO and the WTO; Legitimating Vladimir
Putin’s Russia as a defender of Western values; And stoking a racial-ethnic-religious Western
civilizational antipathy toward Islam in toto and the broader non-Western world. If you think all of this is dispiriting to read,
imagine what it was like to write it—Sad! (Utterly heartbreaking, actually.) But is all in fact lost? Is American soft power destined to henceforth be a
malign, destabilizing force in the world? Perhaps not. If Donald Trump rapidly falls out of favor with
the bulk of the American electorate—and remember, he’s already rather more than halfway home in this regard—he could be rendered a
political loser in short order and tossed out of the White House, taking foreign policy Trumpism down
with him. The 2018 and especially 2020 elections will be pivotal in this regard. It would be essential for the
speediest possible resuscitation of U.S. soft power that Trump as a one-termer (or less) be succeeded by a president, whether Republican or
Democratic, dedicated to a firm re-commitment to the traditional American values, ideas and ideals that Trump & Co. have so blithely cast aside. In this scenario, the U.S. would still be dealing
with long-term fallout from its misadventure in international illiberalism. As Warren Buffett famously noted, “It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. If you think
about that, you'll do things differently.” Still, while it would indeed probably take a couple of decades to well and truly live down the damage done even in four years (or less) by the Trump
it would not be the most difficult national reputation-rebuilding effort ever undertaken—think of what
administration,
to continue the
West Germany faced in the years following World War II. However, if Donald Trump is re-elected in 2020 and is thus given a mandate by the American public
radical recasting of U.S. foreign policy—and with it the overturning of the extant international order—
then the fundamental shift in the nature and effects of American soft power is likely to be, in practical
terms, permanent for a half-century or more. This will be especially so if this shift is accompanied by an
incremental domestic turn toward authoritarianism and the concomitant erosion of the political
opposition's ability to reclaim power. There's another factor to reckon with as well: the longer Donald Trump holds on to
power, and hence the longer the sinister soft power Trumpism manifests is projected around the world,
the greater the encouragement to, and impact on, the unsavory populist nationalist movements and
authoritarian regimes to which America is now perversely offering inspiration. Even if the U.S. were to rapidly regain its
ideological bearings once a hypothetical two-term Donald Trump has left office and go back to manifesting its traditional values-based soft power, it could find itself up
against a bevy of formerly pro-liberal internationalist states that have metastasized into Trumpian soft power-inspired
illiberal democracies or cold-out dictatorships now cleaving to Russia and/or China—which will remain autocracies seeking to undermine U.S. global power.
Thus, a resuscitated Superman America might well end up facing the daunting threat of Überman World.
Unrestrained Trumpian foreign policy causes multiple scenarios for nuclear war
Rotner 17 (Philip, attorney and an engaged citizen who has spent over 40 years practicing law, 8/4.
“Trump’s Foreign Policy Is A Disaster.” https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trumps-disastrous-
foreign-policy_us_5981e471e4b0b35d274c5f02)
For all the dysfunction at home, it is Donald Trump’s ad-hoc, chaotic foreign policy that stands to do the most
damage. Showing no understanding of history or the complexity of the world, Trump has insulted our
allies, emboldened our adversaries, squandered American leadership, and confused the entire world.
Worst of all, if he doesn’t get serious about diplomacy, he could blunder into a catastrophic war with a
nascent nuclear power. Let’s start with our allies. Trump launched his presidential campaign by insulting Mexico. He accused the
Mexican government of exporting rapists and drug dealers into the United States. He promised to build a wall to keep them out, and he insisted
that Mexico would pay for it. Candidate Trump first met with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto last July. The meeting was so disastrous
that Pena Nieto’s domestic favorability ratings immediately dropped to an all-time low. Adverse public reaction in Mexico forced Pena Nieto to
cancel a scheduled meeting with Trump in January. As President, Trump finally met with Pena Nieto in July, some six months after he was
inaugurated. They met not on a state visit, but on the sidelines of the Group of 20 summit in Hamburg. Trump reiterated his insistence that
Mexico must pay to wall itself in. Big deal, right? So what if the President of Mexico got his feelings hurt, right? Wrong. There have already been
real consequences. An article in the May issue of The Atlantic, “Mexico’s Revenge,” describes how Trump’s bullying is drawing Mexico away
from the U.S. and closer to China. The “Trump effect” also has made it more likely that the bombastic left-wing populist, Andrés Manuel López
Obrador, will be elected next year as President of Mexico. The election of the so-called “Tropical Messiah” would radically change our
relationship with our southern neighbor, not for the better. Then there’s the NATO alliance. Trump’s performance at the NATO summit in
Brussels last May will go down in history as one of the worst presidential trips in modern history. Trump shocked our allies by omitting from his
speech any reference to our Article 5 commitment to mutual defense. Instead, he scolded them for their refugee policies, and humiliated them
as NATO freeloaders. Trump himself, possibly with an assist from the Xenophobic Steves, Bannon and Miller, decided to omit the Article 5
assurance at the last minute, without consultation or advance notice to his security team. Some two weeks later, Trump finally expressed his
commitment to NATO’s mutual defense pact. In a joint press conference with the President of Romania, Trump begrudgingly declared that he
was “committing the United States to Article 5,” as if that were something new. Perhaps Trump’s belated assurance mitigated some of the
damage he had done in Brussels. But what good could it possibly do to raise doubts in the minds of our allies about our commitment to mutual
defense? Why throw a “we’ll see” into the equation? However our
NATO allies sort through Trump’s inconsistent
signals, they won’t have the same confidence in the United States that they have had since the end of
World War II. They have already begun pulling back their reliance on the U.S., exploring alliances and trade
agreements with other powers. Trump’s Asia policy, if it can be called that, is even worse. Whatever window may have been open for a serious
diplomatic response to North Korea’s rapid emergence as a nuclear threat seems to be closing, if it has not closed already. Rather than
engaging in serious diplomacy with the one country that has real influence on North Korea, China, Trump harbored the notion that he could
charm China’s President Xi Jinping to do his bidding by chatting him up over dinner at Mar-a-Lago. When that brain-dead approach failed,
Trump began to publicly belittle Xi, expressing his disappointment that Xi didn’t just flip a switch to end the North Korea problem. After a brief
spell of moderating his rhetoric toward China, Axios reports, an irritated Trump
is now planning an aggressive trade
campaign against China. While a trade war with China may make Trump feel manly, it will only be an obstacle to any
diplomatic efforts to enlist China’s support in dealing with North Korea. War with North Korea may yet be averted.
Or it may have been unavoidable even if Trump had done everything right. But he hasn’t, and as a result there may soon be no other options.
Trump is pursuing an equally brain-dead, self-defeating course with Iran. As I wrote months ago, reasonable people
disagreed about the wisdom of entering the Iran nuclear deal in the first place. But once the deal was done, and now that our
side has performed its obligations, only Iran would benefit from blowing up the deal. Heedless of the
near-unanimous advice of his foreign policy team, Trump is now attempting to sabotage the deal.
According to the New York Times, he has assigned a team of White House staff members “to develop a case within the next three months for
declaring that Iran had violated the agreement.” If
Trump does blow up the Iran deal, Iran will walk away from its
obligation to abandon its nuclear program, and our European allies will continue to do business with Iran while moving farther
away from the United States. Trump will have succeeded in isolating America, not Iran. Trump has even bungled
our relationship with Russia. God (and maybe Robert Mueller) only knows what explicit or implicit promises Trump and his associates
made to Russia during the campaign, but whatever it was, it’s not working. Trump’s non-stop whining about being victimized by the press over
Russia, along with his creepy bromance with Vladimir Putin, have only strengthened the resolve of Congress to get tough on Russia, and of
investigators to get tough on Trump. Meanwhile, Putin continues to expand his sphere of global influence. And Trump has done nothing to
mitigate the danger that Russia will continue to interfere with our democracy. Quite the opposite. By refusing even to acknowledge Russia’s
interference with the 2016 election, much less to condemn it, Trump is displaying a weakness that can only encourage Putin to continue to
create mischief. I could go on, citing diplomatic blunders with Israel, Syria, Canada, and a dozen other countries. But the
worst of it isn’t
the damage done in any one country. Rather, it’s the spiritual harm to our country, and the
decline of America’s moral authority
resulting from Trump’s dishonesty, inconstancy, and casual promiscuity in tweeting out inconsistent policies without
thought, consultation, or even a working knowledge of the subject matter. He has put our allies and adversaries alike in the
awkward position of being unable to fathom what he believes in, if anything. This is an invitation to our
adversaries to test him, and to our friends to distrust, or even ignore him. All of this has already taken an enormous
toll on America’s standing in the world. The Pew Research Center’s recent survey of Global Attitudes and Trends tells a chilling story of
American decline since the beginning of the Trump presidency. Pew’s report, “U.S. Image Suffers as Publics Around World Question Trump’s
Leadership,” shows that global confidence in the U.S. president has fallen from 64% at the end of the Obama presidency to 22% after only a few
months of the Trump presidency. Trump’s global “no confidence” number is a whopping 74%. The decline is not just personal to Trump. He has
dragged the nation down with him. The greatest damage is with our allies. On Trump’s watch, U.S. favorability ratings have
dropped by 20 to 40 points in almost all of Europe, most of North America (with notably high drops in Canada and Mexico), India and Australia.
Our ratings have gone up in only two countries, Russia and Vietnam. Public opinion matters in democracies. It shapes a nation’s policies and
actions. What happens the next time the U.S. needs to cobble together a “coalition of the willing” to support us in a global crisis? Who will
support us if Trump blunders into a war with North Korea or Iran? And who would have thought that the
health care fiasco, tax cuts
for the rich, a phantom infrastructure program, Russiagate, and a White House in chaos would turn out
to be the least of our worries?
2NC – Dem Win k2 FoPo
GOP win destroys U.S. foreign policy
Bacon 18 (Perry Bacon Jr. is a senior writer for FiveThirtyEight. “What Happens If Republicans Keep
Control Of The House And Senate?” MAY 22, 2018, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-happens-
if-republicans-keep-control-of-the-house-and-senate/)
I suspect that a Republican win in the House, even if the majority of voters back Democrats (Republicans’ built-in
seat advantage makes it possible for the party to hang on to congressional control while losing the nationwide popular vote), would spur
some rethinking of that tactic. Coverage might go in a somewhat pro-Democratic direction, asking if something is amiss with the
electoral system if Democrats keep winning the national popular vote but remain shut out of power. But I think there will be renewed
questions about whether the media is out of touch with a country that not only elected Trump but also
kept his party in power in Congress despite intense coverage of the president’s foibles. Other important things
would happen, of course. GOP control of the Senate would allow Trump to continue to fill federal courts with
conservative judges. Moving the judiciary to the right has become one of the chief goals of the administration and a major part of
Trump’s appeal to more traditional Republicans who might otherwise be wary of his political style. Additionally, a good 2018 for the
GOP might send the message abroad that the American public has ratified Trump’s domestic and
foreign-policy approach, and world leaders like Germany’s Angela Merkel might begin to more forcefully
distance themselves from the U.S. “For all those [foreign leaders] who have found reassurance in the
idea that this is a temporary aberration and that America will go back to its regularly scheduled
programming soon, it would be an argument for starting to recalculate,” said Daniel Kurtz-Phelan, the executive
editor of Foreign Affairs magazine. In any case, it’s worth thinking through the repercussions of various 2018 outcomes, even relatively unlikely
ones. As we all should have learned by now, unlikely isn’t the same as impossible.
2NC – Trump FoPo Impact Ext.
Trump’s foreign policy causes WWIII
Kagan 17 (Robert Kagan is a senior fellow with the Project on International Order and Strategy in the
Foreign Policy program at Brookings “Backing Into World War III - America must check the assertive,
rising powers of Russia and China before it’s too late. Accepting spheres of influence is a recipe for
disaster.” 2/6/17, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/06/backing-into-world-war-iii-russia-china-trump-
obama/)
Think of two significant trend lines in the world today. One is the increasing ambition and activism of the
two great revisionist powers, Russia and China. The other is the declining confidence, capacity, and will
of the democratic world, and especially of the United States, to maintain the dominant position it has held in
the international system since 1945. As those two lines move closer, as the declining will and capacity of the United
States and its allies to maintain the present world order meet the increasing desire and capacity of the
revisionist powers to change it, we will reach the moment at which the existing order collapses and the
world descends into a phase of brutal anarchy, as it has three times in the past two centuries. The cost
of that descent, in lives and treasure, in lost freedoms and lost hope, will be staggering. Where exactly we are
in this classic scenario today, how close the trend lines are to that intersection point is, as always, impossible to know. Are we three years away from a global
crisis, or 15? Americans
tend to take the fundamental stability of the international order for granted, even
while complaining about the burden the United States carries in preserving that stability. History shows that
world orders do collapse, however, and when they do it is often unexpected, rapid, and violent. The late 18th
century was the high point of the Enlightenment in Europe, before the continent fell suddenly into the abyss of the Napoleonic Wars. In the first decade of the 20th
century, the world’s smartest minds predicted an end to great-power conflict as revolutions in communication and transportation knit economies and people closer
together. The most devastating war in history came four years later. The apparent calm of the postwar 1920s became the crisis-ridden 1930s and then another
world war. Where exactly we are in this classic scenario today, how close the trend lines are to that intersection point is, as always, impossible to know. Are
we
three years away from a global crisis, or 15? That we are somewhere on that path, however, is
unmistakable. And while it is too soon to know what effect Donald Trump’s presidency will have on
these trends, early signs suggest that the new administration is more likely to hasten us toward crisis
than slow or reverse these trends. The further accommodation of Russia can only embolden Vladimir Putin, and the tough talk with China will
likely lead Beijing to test the new administration’s resolve militarily. Whether the president is ready for such a confrontation is
entirely unclear. For the moment, he seems not to have thought much about the future ramifications of
his rhetoric and his actions. China and Russia are classic revisionist powers. Although both have never
enjoyed greater security from foreign powers than they do today — Russia from its traditional enemies
to the west, China from its traditional enemy in the east — they are dissatisfied with the current global
configuration of power. Both seek to restore the hegemonic dominance they once enjoyed in their
respective regions. For China, that means dominance of East Asia, with countries like Japan, South Korea, and the nations of Southeast Asia both
acquiescing to Beijing’s will and acting in conformity with China’s strategic, economic, and political preferences. That includes American influence
withdrawn to the eastern Pacific, behind the Hawaiian Islands. For Russia, it means hegemonic influence
in Central and Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which Moscow has traditionally regarded as either part
of its empire or part of its sphere of influence. Both Beijing and Moscow seek to redress what they
regard as an unfair distribution of power, influence, and honor in the U.S.-led postwar global order. As
autocracies, both feel threatened by the dominant democratic powers in the international system and
by the democracies on their borders. Both regard the United States as the principal obstacle to their
ambitions, and therefore both seek to weaken the American-led international security order that stands
in the way of their achieving what they regard as their rightful destinies.
Entitlements Impact
1NC – Entitlements Impact
Dem win in either chamber stops GOP entitlement cuts
Prokop 18 (Andrew, Vox. “5 ways the 2018 midterms could change American politics.” 1/2,
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/1/2/16795804/elections-2018-midterms-consequences)
First off, if Republicans lose control of either the House of Representatives or the Senate in 2018, they’ll lose their
ability to send new bills to President Donald Trump’s desk with their party’s votes alone. That means,
basically, that the conservative legislative agenda would be dead. Practically, the Senate filibuster rule
already means 60 votes are required to advance most bills. And since the GOP only controlled 52 Senate seats, the party
was far away from that threshold. So for the vast majority of votes on legislation (say, on funding the government), some
Democratic support is already necessary. But in a limited number of instances each year, Congress can
use the special budget reconciliation process, which requires only a simple majority vote, to pass a new law.
And Republicans aggressively used this process to try to enact their top two agenda items this year on a
party-line basis — Obamacare repeal (which ended in failure) and their tax bill (which succeeded). So if the GOP holds on to
both chambers of Congress in 2018, the party could very well make another attempt at repealing Obamacare
through reconciliation. (They were only one vote short of passing something through the Senate last time.) Some conservatives
have discussed trying to tackle cuts to welfare, food stamps, Medicare, or Social Security with
reconciliation as well. And more tax cuts are always a possibility with a Republican Congress — George W.
Bush and Republicans used reconciliation to pass tax cuts through Congress in both 2001 and 2003. Conversely, a Democratic takeover
of either the House or the Senate would kill all those ambitions. The practical consequences would probably be: no
Obamacare repeal; no major cuts to Medicare, Social Security, food stamps, or welfare; and no more big
tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Instead, we’d likely get gridlock. Even if Democrats won both chambers, they
wouldn’t be able to enact their own new partisan priorities, so long as President Trump remains in office and can wield his veto pen. So the
real stake on this front are: Do conservatives get more chances to enact their dream laws in 2019 and
2020 — laws that could have consequences for decades to come — or do they get stopped in their
tracks?
included “…promote the general Welfare…” as part of the government’s responsibility. Health is certainly necessary for general welfare, and requires
access to healthcare. Doctors and nurses are the eyes and ears of public health surveillance, but their
effectiveness depends upon whether they are available. If someone doesn’t have access to healthcare,
but has a deadly, communicable disease, then the risk of an outbreak spreading unchecked increases.
During the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014, a poor Liberian showed up at a Texas emergency room with a non-specific fever. He
was given antibiotics and sent home, and ultimately died of Ebola. Fortunately this incident didn’t lead to a widespread Ebola
outbreak in Texas, but it’s the kind of thing that could. Obamacare may have its faults, but one thing it does
right is provide millions of Americans with health insurance who would not have it otherwise. From a
public health perspective, access to healthcare is absolutely critical for pandemic preparedness. During the
election, candidate Trump repeatedly stated that Obamacare was a “disaster” and should be repealed. More recently, president-elect Trump
announced that he might keep parts of the Affordable Care Act. It’s hard to know what he believes or wants to do. But one thing is clear: If he repeals it, and we get hit
with a deadly pandemic, the public should hold him and the Republican Congress accountable. Better to
avoid that outcome, and keep in place a system that ensures more Americans have access to doctors . The health of
Affordable Care Act without first crafting a “replacement” would create major hardships throughout
the health care system. Hospitals traded billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid payment cuts for
expanded health coverage under the Affordable Care Act, reasoning it would be good for hospital finances to have fewer
uninsured patients who don’t pay for their care. Congressional Republicans are leaning toward a plan that would repeal the
law early next year, but delay enacting a new system for up to three years. That won’t work, according to two influential hospital lobbying groups. The American
Hospital Association and the Federation of American Hospitals laid out their concerns in letters sent Tuesday to Trump,
Vice President-elect Mike Pence, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-
N.Y.), who will become minority leader next year. These groups are demanding that legislation repealing the law and creating an alternative pass simultaneously, or that Congress and the
Hospitals will be seriously threatened if neither action occurs, Tom Nickels,
incoming Trump administration restore the funding cuts from the law.
executive vice president for government relations and public policy, said Tuesday during a conference call with reporters.
“Repealing the ACA while leaving its Medicare and Medicaid cuts in place will have huge implications for
hospitals and the patients they serve,” Nickels said. “Losses of the magnitude that we’re going to
discuss cannot be sustained and will adversely impact patients access to care, decimate hospitals’ and
health systems’ ability to provide services, weaken local economies that hospitals sustain and grow, and
result in massive job losses.”
ACA creates a dedicated prevention fund that solves vaccines, health response, and
tracking – there’s a litany of scenarios for disease spread that make it extremely likely
Colman, J.D., former Washington State Department of Health employee, 16 (Victor, *note – the
author of this specific paper isn’t clear, but Colman is the director of the COPC, the firm that authored
it* “About the Prevention and Public Health Fund”, http://copcwa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/05/About-the-Prevention-and-Public-Health-Fund.pdf)
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), for the first time in the nation’s history, created a dedicated fund for prevention. The
Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) provides backbone funding for programs and services in Washington State
that touch the lives of millions of people every day. Established under the Affordable Care Act, the Fund has provided funding to
States and communities to provide programs and services to: Prevent and control diabetes, heart
disease, and obesity Track and monitor disease trends, and provide data that communities and health
care partners use to identify vulnerable populations and address priority health problems Provide
training and incentives to the public health workforce and their healthcare partners to adopt evidence-
based disease prevention programs Support people in their efforts to quit tobacco Provide breast and
cervical cancer screening and early diagnosis Protect children and adults from vaccine preventable
diseases through immunization education, outreach, and reminder systems Work with health plans to
improve the delivery of clinical and other preventive services Enhance epidemiology and laboratory
capacity that enables state and local health officials to respond to infectious diseases and
emergencies that put citizens’ lives and health at stake – including natural disasters,
terrorist attacks, infectious disease outbreaks, and unsafe food, air and water . Why it’s
Effective, affordable health care is essential for improving health, but what happens beyond the
important
doctor’s office also has a major impact on how healthy we are. There is increasing understanding of how important
it is to combine good medical care with support in our daily lives to carry out a doctor’s advice. The
Prevention and Public Health Fund is the nation’s largest single federal investment in prevention and
takes an innovative approach by supporting cross-sector and public- private partnerships and
collaborations to improve outcomes. The Prevention Fund will provide $14.5 billion over the next 10 years to
improve public health and prevent chronic illnesses, including obesity and related diseases, through increased screenings, counseling and community-based prevention
programs. The Fund supports services and programs that allow health to be improved in communities, schools, workplaces and homes by supporting healthier lifestyles and eliminating
obstacles to healthy life choices.
Aff
Uniqueness
GOP Win – Dem Candidates
GOP will maintain control – Dem candidates too liberal for general election
Brufke 5/25
Julie Grace, The Hill, “Election fears recede for House Republicans” May 25, 2018,
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/389459-election-fears-recede-for-house-republicans
House Republicans left town for the Memorial Day recess feeling more optimistic about their chances in the midterm elections, putting a spring
in their step as they head toward the heat of the campaign season. Recent polling and election forecasts have cast doubt
on the idea that a “blue wave” is building that will sweep Democrats into office this November. One recent
survey by Reuters found voters preferring a generic Republican candidate to a generic Democrat — the
first time this year that the GOP has led on a generic-ballot test, which is considered a key bellwether
for elections. In addition, the forecaster Cook Political Report announced Tuesday it was moving four seats —
Nebraska’s 2nd District, South Carolina's 5th District and California's 39th and 49th districts — toward Republicans. Cook’s analysis
cited “sub-optimal primary outcomes” as a key component in the shift, meaning Democrats are
nominating candidates who are less likely to win. Republicans have cheered several recent primary results, arguing that
Democrats are picking candidates who are too liberal for the general election. Those primaries include former
Rep. Brad Ashford's (D-Neb.) loss in Nebraska's 2nd District to a more liberal candidate, and Susan Boser’s victory over the more-moderate
Wade Jodun in Pennsylvania’s 15th District. Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), the chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee,
cited the two primary results when making the case that the
GOP has a strong chance of holding the House majority. "They nominated some
extreme people. We nominated pretty mainstream folks that will be great candidates in the general election,”
Stivers said. Rep. Trey Hollingsworth (R-Ind.) — a freshman member set to face progressive-backed candidate Liz Watson in Indiana's 9th
District — said he believes hard-left candidates will drag down Democrats in November.
GOP Win – Probability
Dems will pick up seats but not control – stats and liberals too far left
Fund 6/10
John Fund is National Review’s national-affairs reporter, “Dislike of Trump May Not Drive Voters to
Democrats” June 10, 2018 https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/midterm-elections-trump-may-
not-drive-voters-to-democrats/
Voters also dislike the Left’s nonstop focus on impeachment and ‘resistance.’ Five months before the midterm
elections, predictions that Democrats will ride a “blue wave” to forcefully sweep away GOP control of the House of Representatives have
become hopes that a high tide can still bring them a bare majority of 218 seats. Last
week, political analyst Larry Sabato found 211
House seats at least leaning to the Republicans, 198 at least leaning to the Democrats, and 26
toss-ups. If the toss-ups break
evenly, Democrats would gain 17 seats, but the GOP would still have a 224-to-211 House majority. What has
changed to give Republicans a better-than-fighting chance to hold on? One explanation is the economy,
which may improve President Trump’s approval ratings and affect how voters plan to vote in November. In June 2016, only 32 percent
of Americans rated the economy as “good” or “excellent.” Today 62 percent do. The growth rate for President
Obama’s last year in office was only 1.6 percent; growth projections for the second quarter of 2018 are north of 4 percent. The stock market is
up 25 percent since Trump’s inauguration. Midterm elections that have occurred in a cycle featuring clear economic growth, such as those in
1998 and 1978, have seen the party that occupies the White House doing much better than in years when the economy was struggling.
Nonetheless, President Trump’s drama-prone leadership seems to be contributing to his less-than-stellar polling numbers, which are still
upside down. But his favorability ratings have improved. His job approval was only 37 percent in December. The average of polls
monitored by RealClearPolitics now has him at just under 43 percent approval, his highest in more than a year. Along with that improvement,
Republicans now are only about five to seven points behind in polls that ask voters which party they want to control Congress. That is
significantly below the 12.5 percentage point lead that Democrats had in June 2006, the last year they took back control of the House. MIT
political-science professor Charles Stewart, an expert on election data, recently told Vox: To
capture the House, Democrats
would have to see the biggest election swing [from presidential election to the next midterm election] in
their favor in the entire post–World War II era. And, even then, they would only have a 50–50 chance of
taking the House. I believe a big obstacle they have is that while many people don’t like President Trump, that doesn’t mean they want to
reward increasingly left-leaning Democrats at the polls in November. Ron Brownstein of CNN pointed out that in the latest Quinnipiac
Poll, 53 percent of college-educated whites disapprove of Trump, but only 47 percent say they plan to
vote Democratic in House races. This is “a continuing gap that bears watching,” he tweeted. “Other recent polls also find that gap.”
One explanation of the gap is that some voters don’t want to return to the big-government economic policies of the
slow-growth Obama years just because they dislike Trump. Why would someone cut off their nose to spite their face? Of
course, surprises are almost a daily occurrence in the Trump administration, and a series of nasty ones could shake up the current situation and
again give Democrats a clear advantage. Trump’s trade wars could spook investor and business confidence and lead to economic uncertainty.
The probe by Special Counsel Robert Mueller could unearth major developments and lead to surprising indictments. But for now,
Republicans can look forward to a climate in which the economy continues to pick up steam and the
public is increasingly bored or unaffected by the Mueller probe. Democrats have put all of their chips on mounting
“resistance” to President Trump. They may find, however, that they should have spent the months after their stunning 2016 election loss in
retooling their party so that it offered an updated, positive message rather than merely the sour rhetoric of an angry #Resistance movement. By
responding to Trump’s provocations and baiting with overheated anger and epithets of their own, Democrats may have turned off
just enough voters to keep Republicans in control of both houses of Congress.
GOP Win – Momentum
Dems will pick up seats – but they’ve lost momentum and won’t get control
Moyer 6/18
Liz, CNBC, “Goldman Sachs: Chances of a Democrat 'blue wave' in November are diminishing” June 18,
2018 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/goldman-sachs-chances-of-a-democrat-blue-wave-in-
november-are-diminishing.html
Goldman Sachs: Chances of a Democrat 'blue wave' in November are diminishing The prediction market-implied odds
of Republicans maintaining their majority in the House is 44 percent, up from 32 percent two months ago. Odds of the GOP holding
its majority in the Senate are 75 percent, up from 64 percent. The generic ballot, which asks voters if they prefer a
Republican or Democratic majority in Congress, peaked at a 12 percentage point Democrat advantage in December
and is back down to 5 to 6 points, Goldman said. Democrats still have an advantage in the November midterm election, but the
anticipated blue wave seen sweeping away the Republican majority in Congress has diminished from just a few months ago. Goldman Sachs
analysis of the current prediction market concluded that November will be a closer election than earlier forecast. Enthusiasm readings indicate
Democrats have lost some of their advantage.
GOP Win – Senate
GOP will win the Senate – and Trump thumps
Martin 6/2 (Jonathan Martin, New York Times. “Senate Republicans Are Newly Hopeful About the
Midterms. For Good Reason.” June 2, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/us/politics/senate-
republicans-midterms.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur)
WASHINGTON — After a turbulent first year confronting friendly fire from President Trump, Senate Republicans are entering the
summer before the midterm elections feeling more hopeful about retaining their narrow majority than
at any time since the president’s election. And for good reason. Mr. Trump is enjoying a modest increase
in his approval ratings this year and, as important, is attacking Democrats rather than inciting the internecine
feuds that could depress Republican turnout. The economy continues to grow, as demonstrated by Friday’s
unexpectedly strong jobs report, while unemployment has fallen to levels unseen since 2000. Republicans, already on the
offensive thanks to a Senate map that includes 10 Democratic-held seats in states Mr. Trump won, have seen nearly every electoral
variable turn in their direction in recent months: They have averted disaster in the West Virginia primary,
successfully recruited their preferred candidates in North Dakota and Florida, and watched a renegade
Republican challenger wane in one of Mississippi’s two Senate races. This past week brought two developments that
drew little attention for their Senate implications but could prove pivotal in November. Gov. Eric Greitens of Missouri resigned rather
than face a felony computer tampering charge, depriving Democrats of a political weapon they had hoped to wield in the
Senate race there. (A felony invasion of privacy charge against Mr. Greitens, who was accused of sexual misconduct, was dropped weeks
earlier.) And the ailing Senator John McCainremains in office, passing a crucial deadline that all but ensures there
will be only one Senate seat up for grabs in Arizona. “The Republican caucus in the Senate is feeling substantially
more optimistic now than at this time last year,” said Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, predicting his party will gain a handful of seats. Not
everyone in the G.O.P. is as bullish, with worries that the president’s capacity for political self-sabotage, the Democrats’ fund-raising advantage
and the anti-Trump intensity propelling the left will make it difficult to do much more than break even and protect its one-seat Senate majority.
But that Republicans are even discussing the prospect of gaining Senate seats, in the first midterm
campaign of a president whose approval rating has never reached 50 percent, illustrates the wildly
divergent electoral landscapes for the House and the Senate. While the fight for control of the House is playing out
mainly in the affluent and highly educated suburban districts that have been hotbeds of anti-Trump fervor, many of them on the coasts, the
Senate campaign is taking place on much more Trump-friendly terrain. Six of the most competitive
Senate races are in states he carried by double digits: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee and West
Virginia. (Democrats hold all of those seats except Tennessee’s.) A major question looming over the 2018 Senate contest is whether so-called
wave election years — in which one party makes significant gains in both chambers of Congress, as happened in 1994 and 2006 — can still exist
as the country grows more polarized and politics more shaped by hardening party preferences. With ticket-splitting fading,
especially in federal races, voters are increasingly turning to lawmakers who reflect the presidential
leanings of their state. That could spell trouble for Democrats representing largely conservative
electorates and states where surveys show that, unlike in much of the country, the president is viewed more favorably than unfavorably.
“In the middle of the country people are by and large center-right, and they see the national Democratic brand as really far left, which is a ball
and chain those senators have to carry around,” Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota, said. But Democrats argue that the well-
cultivated reputations and financial advantages of party incumbents like Senators Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Jon Tester of Montana and
Joe Manchin III of West Virginia matter as much as the red-leaning nature of their states. And they say that what passes for good news on the
right — simply being competitive in states the G.O.P. otherwise dominates — underscores the Republicans’ weakness in a year when the map is
so favorable. “We’re feeling very good about our chances,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, adding, “At a
minimum, there’s a 50-50 chance we’re going to take back the Senate.” There are only nine Republican seats in play, but Democrats believe
they have the chance to win in three: Arizona, Nevada and Tennessee. Yet even some Democrats concede that Republicans have seen their
prospects brighten recently — thanks to their actions in some cases and their good fortune in others. “They are limiting their vulnerabilities,”
said Adam Jentleson, a Democratic strategist, conceding that “it’s entirely possible we lose two or three seats.” The sudden resignation of Mr.
Greitens delivered immense relief to Republicans, and none more than Josh Hawley, the attorney general of Missouri. Mr. Hawley has been
under fire for running a lackluster campaign against Senator Claire McCaskill, a wily political veteran trying to hang on in a state that has moved
sharply away from Democrats. Mr. Greitens, accused of making threats and sexually coercing a woman with whom he was having an affair, had
for months refused to resign, raising Democratic hopes that they could use him to tar the Republican ticket this fall. But by quitting, the
governor cleared the way for Mr. Hawley to run a more policy-oriented, head-to-head race against Ms. McCaskill, who won in 2012 thanks in
large part to self-inflicted Republican errors. “People will move very quickly to other issues that more normally would be part of a Senate
campaign,” Mr. Blunt said. He added wryly that “if we have learned anything from President Trump, it’s that people are willing to move on from
a topic pretty quickly.” The developing political landscape in Arizona could prove even more consequential. Because Mr. McCain, who is
battling brain cancer, remains in office, Republicans believe that they will have to defend only one seat there this
fall — that of Senator Jeff Flake, who is retiring. Even if Mr. McCain were to vacate his office before November, Republicans believe that the
governor would not be obliged to schedule a special election this year. They say that May 30 was the final day for candidates to submit
petitions to run and that there is no mechanism in state law to add candidates to the ballot. Mr. McCain’s
presence does not just
deny Democrats an opening to compete in two Arizona Senate races this fall — it may also strengthen
Republican chances to retain Mr. Flake’s seat. The Republican leadership is backing Representative Martha McSally and is
optimistic she will emerge as the nominee in part because hard-right voters are divided between Joe Arpaio, the former Maricopa County
sheriff who was pardoned by Mr. Trump, and former State Senator Kelli Ward. With no prospect of a second Senate contest, the two hard-
liners will most likely continue splitting voters because neither will be able to switch races. The unburdening in Missouri and the clarity in
Arizona capped a stretch in which the White House convinced Representative Kevin Cramer to reverse course and take on Ms. Heitkamp and
sidelined a primary challenger against Senator Dean Heller of Nevada. At the same time, Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a multimillionaire who can
finance his own campaigns, entered the race against Senator Bill Nelson, and Republicans torpedoed the coal magnate and ex-convict Don
Blankenship in West Virginia. Chris McDaniel’s bid in Mississippi to resurrect his Tea Party-backed campaign for the seat he nearly won in 2014
has proved feeble. “It is a very low bar when you’re celebrating the fact that a governor resigned because of a sex scandal and the candidate
who had been criminally convicted in West Virginia is not your nominee,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who oversees the Senate
Democratic campaign arm. But after watching Mr. Trump’s approval rating hover in the 30s for much of last year, and absorbing his frequent
gibes, Republicans will take it. “That’s a very big deal,” Mr. Thune said with a chuckle about how Mr. Trump is turning his fire toward the
Democrats. He said Mr. Trump had come to realize that “attacking Republicans isn’t helpful.” But Mr. Thune also acknowledged that Mr.
Trump could undercut the economic gains if he goes through with his tariff threats and “retaliation is
leveled against farm states.” Indeed, even as they grow more optimistic, veteran Republicans know they are placing their fate in the
hands of an unpredictable leader. “We’re on the right track, things look pretty good today,” Charles R. Black Jr., a veteran
strategist, said. “But Trump is like a suicide bomber: He could still blow himself up the day before the
election and ruin everything.”
Link
2AC – Link Turn – GOP Turnout
Anti-immigrant sentiment galvanizes GOP turnout – plan flips that
Khalid 18 (Asma Khalid is a political reporter for NPR. “How Immigration Could Motivate Democrats In
2018.” February 18, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/02/18/586475474/how-immigration-could-
motivate-democrats-in-2018)
Immigration appears thoroughly ingrained in the Democratic brand. When the center-left think tank Third Way conducted surveys after the
2016 election with voters, nearly all of them pointed to the same thing. "When
we asked people what Democrats stood for,
immigration was one of the biggest words that came up in the word cloud that people used to discuss Democrats," said
Lanae Erickson Hatalsky, vice president for social policy and politics at Third Way. "[Immigration] was a mainstay of how people saw the
Democratic Party." And so
the logical conclusion ahead of the 2016 presidential election was that Trump's
unfriendly immigration rhetoric would help Democrats. "One of the things that many analysts had pointed to is Donald
Trump's comments about immigrants, particularly Mexican immigrants, might motivate Latino voters to turn out in record numbers," explained
Mark Hugo Lopez, the director of Hispanic Research at the Pew Research Center. That did not exactly happen. For one thing, the top
issue
for Latino voters — like all voters — was the economy. And the Latino turnout rate actually declined
compared from 48 percent in 2012 to 47.6 percent in 2016. Despite the assumption that immigration is a pillar of the Democratic Party, in the
last presidential election, it
galvanized Republicans far more than Democrats. Trump voters President Trump made
immigration the backbone of his campaign. "When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best," Trump said at his
2015 campaign announcement. "They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're
bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people." Trump
successfully moved
immigration into the core of the Republican Party's identity. In the early 1990s, Republican and Democrats were almost
entirely in sync with how they felt about immigrants' contributions to the country, but as Democrats have become more progressive,
Republicans have become more conservative. Among
2016 voters who said "the most important issue facing the
country" was immigration, they heavily favored Trump — 64 percent to 32 percent — according to the exit polls.
Republican pollster Whit Ayres believes that immigration is politically potent not so much on its own, but as symbolic of broader emotional
issues that affect the GOP base. "For opponents of immigration, the issue taps into economic pressures that could
damage the blue-collar middle class, as well as fears that we're losing our culture — a country that's spoken
English since its founding is becoming bilingual," he explained. "Don't underestimate ... the frustration of many Trump
voters that we are losing our country. And that we are fundamentally changing it in ways that are unlike
anything we've had in the past." John Sides, a political science professor at George Washington University, conducted a survey after
the 2016 election where he interviewed the same voters he had spoken with in 2012 — so he knew how they felt about immigration and he
also knew how they had voted. "One of the reasons why Trump was able to win ... was by using the issue of
immigration to pull some white Obama voters over to his side," explained Sides. His research found that about a quarter
to a third of white Obama voters in 2012 had fairly conservative positions on immigration. "We were able to show among white voters
there were only a handful of things that were more strongly related to their choice between Trump and
Clinton than their choice between Obama and Romney, and those things had to do with their views of
race, and their views of immigration, and their views of Muslims," Sides said.
1AR – Link Turn – GOP Turnout
Hardline anti-immigration stance is the ONLY way for the GOP to win – the plan flips
that
Martin and Haberman 6/18 (Jonathan Martin and Maggie Haberman, New York Times. “Forget Tax
Cuts. Trump Wants to Rally the G.O.P. Base Over Immigration.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/18/us/politics/trump-immigration-midterms.html)
WASHINGTON — As Republicans try to keep their midterm election strategy focused on the economy, tax
cuts and falling unemployment, President Trump sent his clearest signal yet on Monday that he intends to make
divisive, racially charged issues like immigration central going into the campaign season. Facing
bipartisan criticism over his administration’s family separation practice on the border, Mr. Trump
renewed the sort of bald and demagogic attacks on undocumented immigrants that worked well for him
politically in his 2016 presidential campaign. He inveighed against “the death and destruction that’s been caused by people
coming into this country” and vowed that “the United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility.”
Republicans typically handle immigration gingerly in an election year, as they try to appeal to Hispanic
voters, independents and moderates across divergent districts. But with more Americans still opposing the tax
measure than supporting it, Mr. Trump’s allies believe that trying to link Democrats to crimes committed
by undocumented immigrants and gangs like MS-13 will do more to galvanize Republican voters and get
them to the polls in November than emphasizing economic issues. “People don’t turn out to say thank you,” said
Corey Lewandowski, one of the president’s top political advisers. “If you want to get people motivated, you’ve got to give
them a reason to vote. Saying ‘build the wall and stop illegals from coming in and killing American citizens’ gives them an important
issue.” This fear-oriented approach reflects the degree that Mr. Trump has put his anti-immigration imprint
on the Republican Party. The same raw appeals Mr. Trump made in 2016 about immigrants illegally crossing the border have not
abated among most of his Republican supporters. And his supporters say the party has little choice in an election where Democrats
are eager to register their opposition to a president they despise — and that the only way to succeed in
a campaign driven by turning out the party base is to focus on what grass-roots conservatives care most
about. “It’s an issue folks are emotionally attached to,” said Andy Surabian, a Republican strategist and former Trump aide.
“I know that upsets some people in the donor class, but it’s the reality of where the party is.” Mr. Trump’s anti-immigrant remarks
are aimed at the conservative base of the party that elevated his candidacy and is dominant in red states
and House districts, especially those with largely white populations. The Republican grass-roots were already hawkish on immigration,
while the president’s takeover of the party has further diminished its pragmatist wing. And while hard-line Republicans are a minority of the
country’s voters, the G.O.P. cannot retain its grip on Congress without this bedrock of its base going to the
polls.
Immigration is key for the GOP – that’s the only way to turn out their base
Taylor 6/5 (Ramon Taylor is a New York-based video journalist for VOA News. His coverage includes
U.S. elections, the 2014 World Cup in Brazil and President Obama’s visit to Cuba. He has also produced
for CNN en Español and Telemundo in Washington. “Will Immigration Get Trump Voters to Midterm
Polls?” https://www.voanews.com/a/will-immigration-get-trump-voters-to-midterm-
polls/4425267.html)
Republican House and Senate candidates are adopting one of President Donald Trump’s key issues – and his style
- to get themselves elected in November. Immigration has long been red meat to Trump’s base. At Nashville,
Tennessee’s Municipal Auditorium last Tuesday, 5,500 supporters eagerly chanted “build the wall” and Trump’s use of a controversial term to
describe MS-13 gang members — “animals!” “I believe in President Trump’s immigration ban, and I’ll fight with him every step of the way to
build that wall,” said current U.S. Representative and Senate hopeful Marsha Blackburn in an online video ad, ahead of an expected tight
contest with Tennessee’s former Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen. So far this election season, House
GOP candidates
nationwide have mentioned immigration in 34.3% of TV spots, ranking a close second to Pro-Trump ads (35.5%),
according to an exclusive USA Today analysis of political ad data from Kantar Media. “There’s been a lot of debate about whether these same
[pro-Trump] voters will turn out to support other Republican candidates, and I think that’s why you’ve seen so many Republican candidates sort
of trying to emulate Trump’s tone and approach on some of these issues,” said Dan Cox, Director of Research for the Public Religion Research
Institute (PRRI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. Rallying the base, alienating others “Midterm
elections typically are
about the base, and this issue really animates the Republican base,” Cox said. A 2018 ad released by Trump’s
reelection campaign recalls the history of Luis Bracamontes, an undocumented immigrant convicted of killing two California deputies, before a
narrator issues a dire warning: “Democrats who stand in our way, will be complicit in every murder committed by illegal immigrants.” The
message falls in line with much of Trump’s recent rhetoric that Cox characterizes as “personal safety”-themed — one that
garners a nationwide audience among his base of white working-class Americans. According to a 2017 survey analysis
conducted by PRRI and The Atlantic, 62% among that demographic believe the growing number of immigrants
threatens American culture. Among the same group, voters who favored deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally were 3.3
times more likely to support Trump than those who did not. Historically, voter turnout rates drop precipitously in midterm
elections as compared to presidential election years. As a result, it is normal for candidates of either
party to focus on their base of reliable, energized voters during those years.
Plan kills GOP turnout – they strongly oppose all forms of immigration
Carl 18 (Jeremy Carl is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. “Democrats’
Immigration Radicalism: The Gift That Keeps on Giving for Donald Trump.” National Review. February 5,
2018. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/democrats-immigration-mistake-radicalism-helps-
trump/)
It bears repeating that it’s not Republican partisans who have shifted radically on immigration; it is the Democrats — with a particularly abrupt
shift coming since 2012. About
80 percent of Republicans have long said they’re dissatisfied with current
immigration levels, with 70 to 80 percent of the dissatisfied saying they’d like to see levels reduced, not
increased. Democrats, by contrast, are increasingly likely to say the status quo is fine, and those dissatisfied
are less and less likely to say they want immigration to fall. In this year’s Gallup poll on the question, half of respondents
were satisfied with the way things are, and among the rest, just a quarter wanted to reduce immigration. With this shift the Democrats have
become radically out of sync with public opinion in the rest of the country. The Harvard-Harris poll showed that while there was strong support
for giving DACA recipients work permits and even a pathway to citizenship, 60 percent of Americans reject giving preference to parents and
relatives of amnestied DACA recipients, including four out of five Republicans and two out of three independents — but only two out of five
Democrats. Meanwhile, 80 percent of registered voters in that same survey rejected the premise of chain migration
in favor of skills-based migration. Those numbers include 90 percent of Trump voters, 79 percent of
independents, and incredibly even 72 percent of Democrats. An absolute majority, 63 percent (including 51
percent of Clinton voters!), want to admit fewer than 500,000 immigrants per year — last year we admitted 1.3
million — while only 12 percent want 1.5 million or more. Even a majority of Hispanics want annual
immigration below 500,000, versus 8 percent who want 1.5 million or more. Meanwhile 83 percent of Trump voters and 58 percent
of independents think border security is inadequate. And while Trump’s border wall has just 54 percent overall support, it was 89 percent
among Trump voters and 54 percent among independents. The people who hate the wall aren’t voting for Trump anyway. Sixty-eight
percent oppose the diversity visa lottery that Trump has proposed eliminating, including 76 percent of Trump voters and 65
percent of independents. In competitive states and districts in 2016, these numbers are doubtless even better. Pro-enforcement
numbers in the Harvard-Harris poll were consistently stronger for these proposals in suburban areas (which
constitute the vast majority of swing territory), while pro-amnesty numbers were inflated by large margins in urban areas with
few competitive house seats. Likely voters tend to be more conservative than registered voters, further suggesting that Harvard-Harris
underrates pro-enforcement sentiment. The polling numbers illustrate the central reality of the weakness of the Left’s immigration position. Its
viability depends almost entirely on gauzy sob stories put forth by left-wing activists and the liberal media. The more we talk about the actual
reality of U.S. immigration policy, the more we win. The more we talk about immigrants with skills we actually need, the more we win. The
more voters are informed, the more we win. The GOP should be pressing ahead on all fronts. In the meantime,
the GOP should be
pressing ahead on all fronts — for example, dramatically speeding up the deportation process, rooting out the funding
for far-left “refugee resettlement” agencies (most of which receive the vast majority of their funding from the federal government, and which
regularly engage in political rallies to the adoration of the left-wing media), and putting pressure on lawless judges who have substituted their
own personal views on immigration for U.S. law The GOP should also expand the immigration debate to include affirmative action and quotas:
Under current legal precedents (which emphasize “diversity,” not historical oppression in the U.S.), as well as standard practice at many
colleges and corporations, more than 90 percent of DACA recipients will immediately be eligible for racial preferences in education and hiring
over approximately 90 percent of Trump’s voters. Republicans should ask how that helps Americans of any race. The informed conservative
perspective on immigration continues to be: No amnesty — and if amnesty does become a necessary evil in an immigration deal, it must be
sequenced after enforcement and legal changes have taken place and are shown to be effective. Right now the best thing for
conservatives would be for Trump’s offer to fail and for the Democrats to pay for it at the ballot box in
2018. In the meantime, if the president stands firm on his offer, he is in a good place politically — he’s made the Democrats an offer they
shouldn’t refuse — but in thrall to their radicalism, they probably will.
1AR – AT: Dem Turnout Link
Immigration is more important for GOP than Dem turnout
Tarrance 18 (V. Lance Tarrance, Jr. is Special Assistant to the Director of the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Previously, he was Director of Research for the Republican National Committee, Deputy Director of
Research for the Republican National Committee, and Director of Research for the Texas Republican
Party State Committee. Mr. Tarrance is also author of the book The Ticket Splitter, A New Force in
American Politics, which he co-authored with Walter DeVries. “Previewing Base Voter Messaging for the
2018 Elections.” MARCH 7, 2018. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-
matters/228641/previewing-base-voter-messaging-2018-elections.aspx)
Given the political parties' limited time and resources, to make their points, each will most likely target
only two compelling messages for their national battle plan. The economic outlook issue is usually front and center in
every campaign, and as of today, the advantage on the economy seems to be with the Republicans for 2018. The Democrats have
more messaging energy from traditionally secondary topics like policies for the poor, race relations and
income distribution. Even though the midterm elections are eight months out, gun control could become a strong new message by
November. The big question for Democrats is: Will focusing primarily on opposition to Trump be sufficient to ensure victory in 2018? The
strongest countervailing issue determining Republican turnout may be immigration. The level of
immigration has a strong negative valence for the Republican base, in contrast to generating more
mixed reactions from Democrats. Government and immigration are also the two highest-ranking issues
in Gallup's February measure of the most important problems facing the United States, with government the clear top
issue among Democrats (named by 28%) and immigration the leading Republican concern (29%). This indicates political energy
behind these issues for each party. Despite all the other policies, new and old, that could be raised in
any midterm election year, these two issues could well be the hardened combat zone for the 2018
midterm elections.
2AC – Link Turn – Plan Unpop
Immigration is broadly unpopular
Kirby 18 (Brendan Kirby, PoliZette senior writer. “Poll Shows ‘Extreme’ Immigration Proposals Are
Broadly Popular.” 02 May 2018, https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/poll-shows-extreme-immigration-
proposals-are-broadly-popular/
Proposals to reduce legal immigration, give preferences to immigrants with advanced skills and
education, and crack down on companies that hire illegal immigrants are often considered “extreme” in
the nation’s capital. But throughout most of the rest of America, they are common sense, according to a new
poll measuring voter sentiment on the contentious issues ahead of this year’s midterm elections. The survey, conducted by The Polling
Company Inc. on behalf of NumbersUSA, found widespread support among likely midterm voters for proposals that are part of immigration
legislation offered House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.). The survey included interviews with 1,000 likely voters and has
a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percent. “Most of the political elite just totally haven’t understood that Americans for a long, long
time have wanted a legal immigration cut,” said NumbersUSA President Roy Beck, whose group lobbies for a reduction in
migration to the United States. Some highlights of the poll results include: Fifty-nine percent said new immigrants should be able to bring in
their spouses and minor children, but not extended family members. When
respondents were told the United States
awards 1 million green cards a year and gives six different choices for possible immigration levels, the most popular range
was 250,000 or less. Nearly half — 49 percent — chose that option, which is well below any proposed to date by politicians in
Washington. Only 17 percent chose the status quo or an immigration increase. Told Congress is considering eliminating
250,000 "chain migration" visas a year, respondents by a margin of 53 percent to 24 percent favored reducing
immigration rather than redistributing those visas to allow businesses to bring in more foreign workers. By a
margin of 52 percent to 24 percent, respondents favored requiring all businesses to use the E-Verity system to check the legal status of new
hires under legislation to grant amnesty to young adult illegal immigrants who came to America as children. By
a margin of 63 percent
to 20 percent, respondents rejected granting amnesty to the young illegal immigrants if the legislation
kept the status quo on chain migration, E-Verify, and current immigration levels. Pluralities and
majorities among Republicans, Democrats and independents, along with Hispanics, held those views on
nearly every question. Beck said the survey suggests that Americans do not support amnesty for so-called dreamers
— the nickname for people who would benefit from the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act — without those
concessions. "It's astounding, isn't it?" he said. "There's hardly any support for it." Advocates
for reduced immigration seized
on the poll as evidence that congressional candidates in the fall could ride the issue. "I think it could be a
winner, especially in communities where excessive migration has occurred," said David Cross, a spokesman for Oregonians for Immigration
Reform. Cross said he is not surprised there is a wide divide between the ruling class and the people. "The general public is much more
informed on immigration than people in Washington," he said. Although
some might dismiss the results since
NumbersUSA commissioned it, an official with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said it is hardly
an outlier. "It is consistent with other polls," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the group. "And it's just consistent with logic
and common sense."
2AC – AT: Trump Cooperation Link
Dems don’t need to oppose Trump in every instance to win
Kilgore 18 (Ed, political columnist for Daily Intelligencer, New York Magazine’s news and politics blog.
He was previously a regular contributor on politics and elections to The New Republic and
FiveThirtyEight and a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute. Earlier in his career, Kilgore was
policy director for the Democratic Leadership Council, communications director for U.S. Senator Sam
Nunn, and a speechwriter and federal-state relations liaison for three governors of his home state of
Georgia. “Is Democratic Cooperation With Trump Depressing Supporters?” 2/11,
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/is-democratic-cooperation-with-trump-depressing-
supporters.html)
It’s an interesting argument, particularly since nothing would be easier for Democrats than to ignore policy issues,
reject every opportunity for negotiations, stick a big hatpin through their frontal lobes, and just howl at
the moon until Congress is theirs and Trump is gone. But there are some problems with it. For one thing, it’s
not all that clear Democrats could have hung onto a strategy of total resistance in early 2018. The federal government had to be funded in
order to operate. There is no way to pass an appropriations bill without Democratic votes in the Senate. Yes, you can argue that Democrats
should have struck a better bargain with Republicans to reopen the government after it shut down. But it seems to be the very act of bargaining
with Trump and his allies to which Stancil objects. “Resign
or we’ll never let the government function” is not a winning
message even for a party whose core followers might initially cheer it. For another thing, projecting oneself as
the proud member of the uncompromising anti-Trump resistance just isn’t an option for members of
Congress from areas that were and remain pro-Trump enclaves. Yes, senators like Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon
Tester, Joe Donnelly, and Claire McCaskill need an energized anti-Trump “base” to turn out for them. But it’s not going to be
enough. And exhibiting a frustrated willingness to work across party lines — which is really what Senate
Democrats have mostly been doing, along with trying to form a coalition with those Senate Republicans
who are fighting Trump on immigration — is going to be more effective than heading to the barricades.
It’s also less than clear that the slightly more conciliatory tone of congressional Democrats has had much of anything to do with flagging poll
numbers. Senate Democrats called off the government shutdown on January 22. By then they’d already lost a large chunk of their congressional
generic ballot lead, which (according to the RealClearPolitics averages) peaked at 13 percent just before Christmas and had dropped below 8
percent by January 22. What else might have been going on? Well, a lot of things: more positive attitudes about the GOP tax bill (which
Democrats never stopped attacking); more economic optimism; and a stretch of time when President Trump didn’t dominate the news with
some fresh hellish screwup. Stancil is right that Democratic turnout needs an energized “base” that never loses its focus on reducing Trump’s
power. But much as“base turnout” is essential in midterm elections, it doesn’t eliminate the need for at least
some persuasion, and maybe more than some in very hostile territory. So it’s never going to be as easy or
as promising as it sounds to turn the Democratic Party into a pure and sweet instrument of total
opposition. That is particularly true since Democrats do not share the stridently oppositional psychology of a Republican Party whose base
hates government, hates the 21st century, and hates the very idea of “progress” as it’s come to be defined in this country. A lot of these
questions may work themselves out as 2018 proceeds. It may well be that no matter what Senate Democrats do to “normalize” Trump and
reduce the seething rage of activists toward the 45th president, said president — who has his own “base mobilization” needs — will keep the
“resistance” revved up at the failsafe point by his outlandish behavior. He is, after all, the reason for the resistance, which would exist and
thrive with or without the active help of the Democratic Party. I personally see no reason to believe that Democrats or those elements of the
news media or civil society who fear Trump’s excesses have gone soft on him. But those Democrats
who are in public office have
to pick and choose moments of loud opposition, and sometimes even have to sound conciliatory. Yes, if anyone voting in
November doubts Democrats are the anti-Trump party, that’s a problem. But snarling and snapping every minute until then is
probably not necessary to maintain confidence in the Donkey’s bite.
2AC – AT: Red State Dems Link
Blue state GOP seats are key – not red states
Enten 18 (Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight. “Five Blue States Could
Determine Who Controls The House In 2018.” 2/1, https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/five-blue-states-
could-determine-who-controls-the-house-in-2018/?src=obsidebar=sb_1)
New Jersey Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen’s retirement announcement this week wasn’t a game changer in the battle for control of the House of
Representatives. Even before his announcement, Frelinghuysen, a Republican, was in danger of losing a re-election bid in the 11th
Congressional District, which President Trump won by a mere 1 percentage point in 2016. With Frelinghuysen out of the race, Democrats and
Republicans are expected to fight it out over the now-open seat. But even if the Frelinghuysen news isn’t earthshaking, it’s a reminder that
whether Democrats manage to win the House in 2018 could come down to how many seats they pick up
in the five most populous states that Hillary Clinton won in 2016: California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York
and Virginia. The vast majority of Republican House members don’t hail from these states, of course. In fact, of the 241 seats Republicans
controlled after the 2016 elections, just 42 (17 percent) were from these five states. That’s not surprising — this isn’t GOP territory; Clinton
carried all these states by at least 5 percentage points, and House and presidential voting are increasingly connected. But while California,
Illinois, New Jersey, New York and Virginia account for only a small percentage of Republican-held seats overall, they are home to a
disproportionate share of vulnerable Republicans. According to the Cook Political Report, these five states are
home to 38 percent of all the Republican-held seats that are truly in play in 2018.1 California has the
largest number of vulnerable Republican House seats with eight (out of 14 GOP-held seats in the state). But New
Jersey — Frelinghuysen’s state — has a higher proportion of flippable GOP seats (four of five). Even if we take
“likely Republican” seats off the table and look at just those seats in the lean and toss-up categories, a
majority of New Jersey Republicans still make the list. This includes Frelinghuysen’s seat, which is rated as a toss-up. The
most interesting thing about these states, though, is the total number of Republican seats that are rated as at least somewhat vulnerable.2 If
you add them all up, a total of 25 Republican seats in these five populous Clinton states could flip to the
Democrats. That’s one more seat than Democrats need to gain a majority. In other words, they could take
back the House without flipping a single seat in a state that Trump came close to winning in 2016. Now,
Democrats are probably not going to win a House majority based solely on heavily populated blue states. The competitive districts in these
Clinton states aren’t all alike. Some are well-educated, like Virginia’s 10th Congressional District. Others are best described as working-class, like
New York’s 22nd District. Some are whiter than the nation as a whole, like New Jersey’s 11th; others are majority non-white, like California’s
39th. The national political environment — what turnout looks like in November, and which groups Democrats over- or underperform with —
will therefore manifest itself differently in each of these districts. The chances are that Democrats
are going to lose at least a
few of these blue-state seats, while also flipping some seats in states that Trump won in 2016, such as
Arizona, Florida and especially Pennsylvania, where six Republican seats are vulnerable. It does seem pretty clear at this point, however, that
the 2018 midterm elections are going to be fought on very different turf than the special elections that
dominated the 2017 landscape, or even the 2016 election. Instead of national reporters rushing to red
states like Alabama, Georgia, Kansas and Montana, or parachuting into the Rust Belt, they’ll be setting
up camp in well-populated blue states.3
2AC – Immigration Not Key
Immigration’s not key – hurts both sides and doesn’t affect swing voters
Decker 18 (Cathleen Decker is a former politic analyst for the Los Angeles Times who wrote about the
Trump administration and the themes, demographics and personalities central to national and state
contests. “Trump's immigration moves complicate election strategies for both parties.” APR 05, 2018.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-immigration-analysis-20180405-story.html)
Immigration has historically affected the voting public much the way arguments over other cultural
issues such as gun control or abortion rights have done, pitting an activated minority of voters on both sides
against a majority far less motivated to cast single-issue ballots. Coupled with the firm views Americans
already have on the president — wildly popular among his base and unpopular overall — Trump's
actions may not lead to any huge swing of voters toward or against him. Yet his moves certainly complicate electoral
strategies for candidates heading into the 2018 midterm election and beyond. "It's very tricky for both sides," said Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow
for the Center for American Progress, who has studied the voters who traditionally have most supported border security and opposed illegal
immigration. That is because immigration
pulls at threads that already threaten to unravel both parties. Both are
trying to balance their need for support from blue-collar voters and college-educated moderates, groups
with very different cultural outlooks and economic concerns. Those differences persist even as the distance between Democrats and
Republicans on immigration has grown dramatically. If
Trump succeeds in making immigration a bigger issue in this
year's midterm election, it could help Republicans in blue-collar, heavily white districts in the Midwest. It
would likely hurt them in suburban areas where college-educated moderates are already alienated from
Trump. That divide would echo the calculation the president made in 2016. For Republicans, Trump's moves will be greeted
enthusiastically among one of his key voter groups: white voters without a college education. Those voters sided with
Trump over Hillary Clinton by a 31-percentage-point margin in the 2016 election, according to an exhaustive survey of voter behavior that
Teixeira and others conducted last year. Trump's vows to close the border and deal harshly with immigrants, both
those here illegally and legally, hugely energized his core supporters in the presidential election, according
to studies by two nonpartisan organizations, the Pew Research Center and PRRI, a nonpartisan group that studies voter values. Among the
issues that drove voters to support Trump, "that was the one that had the largest impact," said Carroll
Doherty, director of political research at Pew. At the same time, Trump's tough rhetoric on immigration has had long-term
implications. Turned off college-educated voters contributed to Democratic victories in off-year
elections in 2017 and on into this year and are a much sought-after group in this year's midterm.
"Among a lot of other groups of voters, issues like this are seemingly hurting the president," said Rob Griffin,
associate director of research at PRRI. Among Democrats, the bulk of the party's voters are sympathetic to
immigrants in the country illegally and unmoved by the president's insistence that a closed border is
necessary for the nation's security. Those voters — including minorities, the young and those with
college educations — are already firmly in the anti-Trump camp, meaning that the greatest impact of his
recent immigration moves may be to further encourage them to cast ballots. But there's another group
of voters in play on the issue: those who often have voted for Democrats, but who share the cultural
concerns of those most supportive of Trump — white, less educated and centered in the key middle-
America states that flipped from Democratic to Republican in 2016 and gave Trump the presidency.
Many voters in those states cast ballots for President Obama in 2008 and 2012; then, finding their futures still insecure amid
the area's foundering manufacturing industries, they sided with Trump in 2016. More than other demographic groups, they fear what Griffin
termed "cultural displacement" by newcomers. "It's the politics of resentment that are really being tapped
here," said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, speaking of Trump's rhetoric. "If you're in a state that is doing well, you don't have to worry as
much. If you are in a state that's in a downturn … then you have to worry more about it. It really depends on the economic trend of the state
and whether people feel like they are all in this together." Fresh from their humbling 2016 defeat, Democrats
have been divided
over whether to aim for the more liberal voters in the next elections or cast a wider net to try to reclaim
voters who backed Trump. That debate affects how party strategists approach immigration issues. Only a generation ago, Republican
and Democratic voters had a similar range of views on immigration. Yet over that span of time, the Republican Party has become dominated by
older and whiter voters, while the Democratic Party has grown younger and more diverse. The combination has driven them apart on the issue.
In 1994 — the year that California convulsed over Proposition 187, the measure that would have banned immigrants in the country illegally
from state services — just over a quarter of white, high-school-educated voters from both parties said they believed immigrants strengthened
the country, a Pew survey showed. In each party, nearly two-thirds of those voters said immigrants were a burden. Among white
college-educated voters, Democrats held more sympathetic views of immigrants — but not dramatically
so. By 2017, Republican views had remained fairly constant while Democrats had grown far more supportive of immigrants. Overall, a plurality
of Republicans still considered immigrants a burden more than a strength. But among Democrats, 85% said immigrants strengthened the
country, a jump of 52 points in support over a span in which Republican support grew by only 10 points. The question for Trump is whether he
expects his border moves to attract new voters or merely solidify the ones he has. A question for Democrats is whether they will find the
message to counter any appeal from his renewed pitch and limit Trump's reach. "Looking
at the situation right now, in 2018, it
doesn't seem like an issue that can save them," Teixeira said of the impact of immigration on
Republicans, who are widely expected to lose congressional seats in November. On the other hand, he added,
"For the Democrats, they really need to stop the bleeding among white non-college voters."
Thumpers
2AC – Black Swans
A host of “known unknowns” thump the link
Wilson 6/19
Reid, The Hill, “20 weeks out from midterms, Dems and GOP brace for surprises” June 19, 2018,
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/392872-20-weeks-out-from-midterms-dems-and-gop-brace-
for-surprises
Twenty weeks before November’s midterm elections, Democrats and Republicans are cautiously eyeing
a fluid political landscape, one that is likely to be dramatically altered by outside forces in the weeks and
months ahead. In interviews with about two dozen Democratic and Republican strategists, pollsters and political scientists, most agree on
a few things: House Democrats are almost certain to pick up seats, and Senate Republicans are likely to add to their slim majority. But a host
of what Donald Rumsfeld might call "known unknowns" looms large over the midterm elections. Special counsel
Robert Mueller’s investigation into President Trump shows no indication of nearing an end. The booming economy may
be blunting Democrats’ advantage right now, but a burgeoning trade war with allies and competitors alike could
dampen growth. And Trump’s high-stakes diplomacy with North Korea, Iran and others creates further
uncertainty in an already dangerous world. “We all think we have a handle on trends, but those are three really big
possibilities out there that could alter a lot,” said Bruce Mehlman, a Republican lobbyist who closely tracks election data.2
1AR – Black Swans
Unpredictable black swans could shape the midterm
Scott 18 (Dylan, Vox. “How everything could still go horribly wrong for Democrats in the 2018
midterms.” 4/12, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/12/17216136/2018-midterm-
elections-predictions-house-control)
Fear 3: some act of God introduces an unknown variable to the campaign This is the most uncomfortable
electoral variable to discuss and the one you can plan for the least. You can try to craft a political message that keeps
voters dissatisfied with Trump. You can do your best to vet your candidates and prepare them for the grind of a campaign. But there are
some things you simply cannot anticipate: a terrorist attack, an international crisis, a natural disaster, or
a war. It’s difficult to begin to quantify what the electoral repercussions would be in such big and
unpredictable events. Some of the operatives just shrugged their shoulders when this point came up. What can you do? Black swan
events are always a risk — and rarely an actual factor — in politics. But a few were willing to at least talk through the electoral
implications. Take a military intervention: Some Democrats argued that there is actually reason to think that
could hurt Republicans as much as help. Trump’s brinksmanship with North Korea has been polarizing.
The same would likely prove true for any military adventures the president decided to undertake in the next few
months. “Trump is so polarizing that unless America were attacked, it would be polarizing,” one strategist said. “Trump doesn’t get the benefit
of the doubt. You’d have as many opponents as supporters.” But conversely, there
is the truism that Trump has yet to face an
unmanufactured crisis during his presidency (well, excepting a couple of hurricanes and the widely criticized response to the
crisis in Puerto Rico). While it could certainly turn out that he would bungle it and thus reinforce the perceptions that have made him so
unpopular to begin with, there is also at least the possibility that he would handle it well and give Americans
new confidence in his leadership. As Vox’s Andrew Prokop wrote during the 2016 campaign, there is some scholarly evidence that
the more hawkish party gets an electoral advantage when the unthinkable happens: Experimental and real-
world studies have tended to show that in the US and abroad, the major party with a more hawkish reputation usually
benefits when international terror becomes a major concern. For instance, [Michael] Koch, Laron Williams, and Jason
Smith studied how quickly various parliamentary governments lost their majority coalitions after transnational terrorist attacks in a 2012 paper.
What they found was that right-leaning governments had an easier time holding on to power than left-leaning governments did. It seems the
left gets more blame for terrorist attacks that occur under its watch. “Trump
hasn’t dealt with an actual crisis yet. If a legit
crisis happens between now and November, how Trump handles it could shape how people view him
and his presidency,” said yet another Democratic operative. “If he does well, that’s the kind of thing that could
make people normalize his presidency.”
Trump polling error, economy and investigations could all swamp the midterm
Hanson 18 (NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the
author of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won, released in
October from Basic Books. “Trump’s Midterm Known Unknowns.” 1/23,
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/455680/trump-midterm-predictions-exercise-caution-recall-
november-2016)
Certainly, presidents with an approval rating below 50 percent usually lose more than 30 seats in the House. That crash would be more than
enough to produce a Democratic majority and thus would ensure an impeachment proceeding designed to paralyze the remainder of Trump’s
first term. In the Senate, the Democrats have three times as many seats to defend (and lots of them in Trump-won states). Yet recently they
are gaining confidence that they can flip enough races to deadlock or even win the Senate. The now-orthodox narrative about the midterm
elections is increasingly hyped by the media as a “blowout” or “tsunami.” Yet the dilemma is not just that we are ten months out from the
election and relative party popularity is already gyrating, but that there
are lots of landmark developments in play that we
usually do not experience in any midterm election. The first, of course, is Trump and the polls. No one knows
whether the “Trump phenomenon” of 3–5 percent underreporting in the polls is still valid. The Rasmussen
poll has Trump at 45 percent, about 5 percent higher than the gold-standard RealClearPolitics average of 40 percent — analogous to the
Election Day outlier and often-scoffed-at polls by USC/Los Angeles Times and Investor’s Business Daily/TIPP. Anecdotally, most can attest that
colleagues and friends still usually look both ways before whispering, “Wow, Trump is doing great.” It
may be a mass phenomenon
that, for some, expressing
hesitation about Trump or even virtue-signaling about his excesses serves as psychological
penance for voting for him. Conventional wisdom trusts the 40 percent average; by 2016 unorthodox thinking, however, one might
argue for the 45 percent outlier. But remember again, we are in surreal, even revolutionary, times when what is certain is now suspect, and
what is absolutely impossible is feasible. No
one ever imagined that the take-the-knee NFL protests would have
tanked viewership and attendance by over 10 percent and shaken the very foundations of a multibillion-dollar industry.
No one ever dreamed that many in the illustrious liberal aparat would be attrited in just days by long-
known but suddenly disclosed creepy behavior — John Conyers, Al Franken, Mark Halperin, Matt Lauer, Ryan Lizza, Charlie
Rose, Jann Wenner, and Leon Wieseltier. We had never seen late-night television turn into nonstop political ranting.
We have no idea whether comedians’ spiked ratings represent the new normal or have earned a quiet but simmering backlash. In short, we
have no idea whether the unprecedented hatred for a president, evident in mainstreamed assassination chic and 90 percent negative press
coverage, will reach a saturation point and turn off voters. Or will it create a pet-rocket/hula-hoop fad effect, where not voting for Trump
becomes the correct, career-advancing, and socially acceptable act? Nor
does anyone fathom the effect of the booming
economy on the midterm election, especially an economy whose potential for rapid growth has not been seen in a generation.
Conventional wisdom wars with itself. On the one hand, unpopular presidents usually lose the midterm elections. On the other, “It’s the
economy, stupid” logic of 3 percent GDP growth undergirds a lot of political arithmetic. We
have never seen a stock market
boom like the present one. Nor has the U.S. experienced all at once record gas and oil production, peacetime unemployment sinking
to 4 percent or lower, and near-record small-business and consumer confidence. Is it more likely that current economic trends
will peak and lead to stagnation or even a bust by November — or continue with even more robust
growth? Was the U.S. economy under Obama sorely underperforming and psychosocially repressed? And if so, do we really have any idea
what the “animal spirits” of American entrepreneurialism are capable of when they are let loose — and are unabashedly praised rather than
deprecated? The new tax code in the ensuing months might ensure more take-home pay for the middle class and fatten further its 401K
accounts. If GDP growth increases and illegal immigration keeps falling, job growth among minorities may continue at near-record levels. An
unprecedented economic boom might make anti-Trump voters simply stay home, to square the circle of publicly
not liking Trump the messenger while privately very much liking Trump’s message. Or it could be that a 3 percent growth in
annualized GDP won’t be enough for the controversial Trump; he might require 4 percent or even above for voters to
value the economy over all other considerations. Trump’s recent bump in the polls occurred at a time of both strong economic news and an
anti-Trump news blitz. There are other known unknowns. First, no one can foresee the ultimate results of the warring
investigations by Robert Mueller’s team and by the House Intelligence Committee. Will Mueller
synchronize more indictments with the November elections and try to indict a Trump family member on
some sort of financial impropriety or obstruction allegation? Would it even matter if the charge had little to do
with Trump or Mueller’s original directive? Or instead, will we finally learn the full story of the Fusion GPS–Steele
dossier and discover that the FBI and Justice Department, the outgoing Obama administration, a toadying media, and the Clinton campaign
not only colluded in trafficking with Russian-supplied fibs and fantasies designed to cause chaos in the Trump campaign and transition, but also
in many cases violated federal laws by using fraudulent materials to obtain FISA orders so they could improperly surveil U.S. citizens and then
unmask and leak the names of those citizens (also illegally), and then use transcripts of such improper intercepts to cook up perjury charges
against Trump associates? Could we go from a non-scandal to one of the greatest political scandals of the post-war era? Trump was once widely
demonized for supposedly sloppily tweeting that Obama had “wire tapped” him. (“Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’
in Trump Tower just before the victory.”) But in political terms, what
would happen over the next few months if it turned
out that Trump was not only prescient but that he also understated the extent of the prior
administration’s violations of civil liberties? Like the economy, the political ramifications of the pseudo-collusion charges and
the Steele dossier remain great unknowns. But in terms of momentum, the disclosures among Mueller investigators of improper workplace
behavior, political biases, five months of “lost” text messages on FBI cellphones (coincidentally, texts that congressional overseers were
seeking), and the failure to find clear evidence of collusion suggest that the team will become ever more eager to find something — anything —
before the election, even as repulsion with the dossier scandal and its purveyors only grows. Second, we
cannot yet calibrate either
the political fallout from the recent government shutdown (and perhaps others to come in 2018) or the
consequences of the Democratic gambit of basing an electoral campaign on the demonization of Trump,
the supposed ogre. Will Trump be able to reframe the recent shutdown as amnesties for illegal aliens trumping pay of U.S. soldiers? Or will
progressives win the aftermath with charges of Trump nihilism? We won’t know the full answer for weeks, if not months.
2AC – Healthcare Thumper
Healthcare is the most salient issue for the midterm – nothing else comes close
Walter 18 (Amy Walter is the National Editor of The Cook Political Report where she provides analysis
of the issues, trends and events that shape the political environment. Her weekly column appears at
cookpolitical.com. “Deja Vu All Over Again. Health Care Takes Center Stage in 2018 Campaigns.” 3/22,
https://www.cookpolitical.com/analysis/national/national-politics/deja-vu-all-over-again-health-care-
takes-center-stage-2018)
There’s always something of a disconnect between what Washington, DC is obsessed about and what the rest of the country is worried about.
In DC, of course, the story is Robert Mueller, Russia and White House chaos. Out in congressional races, however,
Democratic candidates aren’t talking about any of those things. Instead, their primary focus is health
care; specifically, their criticism of GOP attempts to repeal Obamacare. Ironically, while the passage of Obamacare
cost Democrats their House majority in 2010, GOP attempts to repeal Obamacare may help Democrats flip House
control in 2018. While Republicans argue that Americans are going to vote with their pocketbooks this
fall (thanks to a growing economy boosted by tax cuts and deregulation), Democrats seem to be betting that health care —
costs and access — will be the more salient issue in 2018. In fact, as we saw in the special election in PA-18, Democrat
Conor Lamb made the case that many of his constituents are going to have to use their tax cut refund to
pay for escalating health care costs. It’s also true that Americans are more emotionally attached to health
care than they are to almost any other issue. They may not love the health care system they have today, but they also dislike
the idea of government messing with it. In 2010, of course, voters punished Democrats for messing with the system. But, eight years later,
Obamacare is more popular than ever. A February Kaiser Foundation poll found the long-maligned health care law
garnering 54 percent approval, including 55 percent among independents. Republicans remain sour on the law, with
78 percent disapproving. In fact, since last summer, Obamacare has enjoyed support from a narrow majority of Americans (50-54 percent).
Back in 2016, approval of Obamacare averaged in the low to mid-40 percent range. It’s not clear if this new level of support is due to increased
happiness with the law, or if it’s become more popular as GOP attempts to dismantle have intensified. Moreover, with Democrats
no longer in charge in Washington, the issue of health care is now the responsibility of the GOP. Trump
has repeatedly pledged to "let Obamacare fail.” Almost every House Republican voted for a bill that
would repeal Obamacare. And, Congress won’t help shore up insurers in the exchanges — referred to in DC as
Obamacare stabilization — which could lead to insurers jacking up rates. As such, note POLITICO’s Jake Sherman and Anna Palmer: “We’ll see
how people feel if [health care] premiums spike.” Plenty
of Republicans are worried about the prospect of rate hikes
this fall as voters are headed to the voting booth." A Pew poll out this week, found that "health care costs is a top
household financial pressure across all income levels. About half (53%) of households earning $100,000 or more a year say
it affects their financial situations a lot; about as many (52%) of those earning $30,000 a year or less say the same." It’s clear that
Democrats see the issue as much more politically potent this year as well. Scroll through the ads Democrats have
run in the primaries, or watch their campaign videos, and you’ll find almost all mentioning the “Trump” or “GOP plan” to take away, or raise the
cost of health insurance. In her announcement video , Democrat Angie Craig, running against GOP Rep. Jason Lewis in suburban Minneapolis,
highlights her family’s challenges in paying the health care bills of her younger sister, and chides Lewis for “his votes to dramatically increase
the cost of insurance, and kick millions off health care.” In Illinois, almost every
Democratic candidate running in a
competitive House district made health care a part or centerpiece of their campaign message. The top two
vote-getters in the crowded Democratic primary in suburban Chicago’s 6th district (held by Republican Pete Roskam) both attacked Trump’s
position on health care. Kelly Mazeski, a breast cancer survivor, pledged to “stop Trump’s dangerous plan to hurt millions of people with pre-
existing conditions and forces us to pay more for less care.” Sean Casten, an environmental engineer and winner of the primary, attacked
Trump for “gutting health care.” A nurse and former HHS official under President Obama, Lauren Underwood won the primary for the exurban
Chicago-based 14th district currently held by GOP Rep. Randy Hultgren. Her ads featured her in scrubs, where she boasted of her work in
“expanding access to care” while "our congressman has not looked out for the folks in the 14th district.” Betsy Dirksen Londrigan, who won the
Democratic primary to face Rep. Rodney Davis in the Springfield-based 13th district, talked of her son’s rare and almost fatal infection, arguing
that “Trump’s health care plan would have bankrupted us.” Last week, I
met half a dozen Democratic candidates running
for GOP-held seats. Every one of them mentioned health care as one of the main reasons for their
candidacy. Most mentioned the vote the GOP incumbent had taken last year to repeal Obamacare,
framing it as a Republican attempt to “take away health care” from district constituents that will raise
the cost of insurance. Notably, none of the candidates in GOP-leaning districts mentioned the term
Obamacare in their ads. The results of the Kaiser Poll gives us a pretty good illustration of why they didn’t. When Kaiser looked at
voters who lived in battleground states or districts, 48 percent had a favorable view of Obamacare, and 48 percent had an unfavorable opinion,
with slightly more holding a very unfavorable view (33 percent) than a very favorable opinion (29 percent). In other words, while the health
care law may garner majority support nationally, it only breaks even in the states and districts that will determine the House/Senate majorities.
This is why we should expect to see Democrats run against Trump/GOP actions on health care, rather than
promoting or defending the current law.
1AR – Healthcare Thumper
Healthcare will be the deciding issue in November
Scott 18 (Dylan Scott, Policy Reporter for Vox. “Health care is Democrats’ secret weapon in the 2018
midterm elections.” 3/22, https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/22/17143298/2018-
midterm-elections-health-care-obamacare-repeal)
In a remarkable twist of karma, health care could defeat Republicans at the polls this November. Opposition to the
Affordable Care Act helped sweep the GOP into power eight years ago. But after they spent the last year failing to repeal it
while the Trump administration waged a quiet administrative war against the law, Republicans in
Congress are facing the very real possibility that health care could animate the backlash that could
force them out of power next year. That is the subtext of this week’s fight in Congress over whether to include stabilizing the
health care law in the government spending bill. Republicans who support stabilization cite reducing premiums as their top priority: Outside
experts have projected a 40 percent drop in premiums for ACA plans if stabilization measures were put in place, though estimates from the
Congressional Budget Office are not quite as rosy. Those lawmakers haven’t fallen in love with Obamacare or anything, but they see the
political utility of lowering premiums. Democrats, meanwhile, know they have a winning issue on their hands. Progressive
operatives note that 2019 premiums are supposed to be announced in October — just a few weeks before the
election. Given that last year’s premium increases were rightly attributed to Trump’s sabotage — and
that voters tend to blame the party in power anyway for what is right or wrong with their health care —
that could provide more ammunition for the Democrats in their final attacks right before voters head to
the polls. From special elections over the past year, we know health care has been a powerful
motivator for Democratic voters. In his razor-thin win in Pennsylvania’s 18th Congressional District, Democrat Conor Lamb
decisively won the health care vote. Polling uniformly shows Americans trust the minority party in
Congress over the majority on health care. Republicans can’t undo all of the damage of the past year.
They have already voted for various unpopular repeal bills that would have left 20 million fewer Americans with health
insurance and that would have unwound protections for people with preexisting conditions. Those attacks are baked in. The
GOP’s only remaining hope is to try to mitigate premium increases for next year — and then hope health
care isn’t enough to carry a blue wave. Obamacare stabilization is really about the midterms If you read between the lines, the
impetus for Republicans who have spent eight years demonizing Obamacare deciding now to help it is pretty clear: Premiums are going up,
they will keep going up without new federal funding, and Americans will blame the people in power if they do. “ Rates will
go up. The
individual market will probably collapse,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who has led the stabilization talks over the last year, said
on the Senate floor last week, describing what would happen without a stabilization plan. “There will be 11 million people who are
between jobs, who are self-employed, who are working, who literally cannot afford insurance, and they’re not going to be very
happy. And they’re going to blame every one of us, and they should.” The polling bears this out — specifically that
Republicans will take the blame for the state of Obamacare, even if they hate the law. The Kaiser Family Foundation
recently found that 60 percent of Americans believe Republicans are responsible for the ACA going forward.
And nothing matters more to voters on health care than its cost. Republicans already have a mess on
their hands of their own making. The Trump administration’s multifaceted crusade against the health
care law — slashing outreach budgets and pulling the law’s cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers — were already to blame
for a 20 percent premium hike this year. Then Congress repealed the individual mandate in their tax bill, a huge political victory
given the GOP’s vehement opposition to the mandate but one that insurers have said would drive up premiums even more next year. The
Republican solution to these problems that they have created is $30 billion in reinsurance funding, proposed by Alexander, Sen. Susan Collins
(R-ME) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Greg Walden (R-OR). They want to pass the funding as part of the government
spending bill that must be approved by Friday to avoid a shutdown. Alexander has clung to evidence that the plan would drive down premiums:
40 percent, according to the consulting firm Oliver Wyman, or a more modest 10 to 20 percent drop, according to the Congressional Budget
Office. In either case, the stabilization bill would help avert a round of damning October headlines about skyrocketing insurance costs on the
GOP’s watch. (The CBO also projects a slight rise in the uninsured rate because the proposal would end up making insurance more expensive
for some people who receive ACA subsidies. But that would not happen immediately.) If they can get it passed, that is. House conservatives
have always been dubious about stabilizing Obamacare, and now Democrats don’t sound enthused either. They might not want to
give Republicans a win because of the politics — like I said, Democratic operatives are keenly aware of when premiums are
announced — but the Trump White House made it easier for them by demanding anti-abortion riders be
attached to the plan and by trying to codify an administration proposal that would unwind the ACA’s protections for preexisting conditions.
That has allowed Democrats to oppose the stabilization bill on solid policy ground while at the same
time denying Republicans a win that would soften the electoral environment for the GOP. What we’ve learned
from the special elections From the Republican perspective, shoring up the insurance markets would at best stop the
bleeding. Because the early returns in the midterm elections, and in the public debate over health care,
have been brutal for the majority party. At the macro level, Americans clearly trust Democrats more than
Republicans on the issue. A Politico/Morning Consult poll from November found that 44 percent of voters trusted Democrats more,
compared to 34 percent who trusted Republicans more. (USA Today and Suffolk found a similar breakdown: 43 percent trusted Democrats the
most, 15 percent said they trusted Trump, and 10 percent trust Republicans in Congress — harsh numbers for the GOP any way you cut them.)
On top of that, theACA — the Republican policy boogeyman for the past decade — has never been more popular than it is
today, after withstanding a year of GOP attacks. So it should come as no surprise that Democrats are already landing
substantial wins on health care in this cycle’s special elections thus far. It started last summer, with Jon Ossoff’s
unexpectedly strong showing to replace Georgia Rep. Tom Price. As Jeff Stein documented at the time for Vox, voters in that red
district were overwhelming motivated by the health care debate raging on Capitol Hill over a GOP plan projected to increase
the ranks of the insured by 20 million or so people. “It’s the No. 1 issue,” Ossoff supporter Gopi Nath, 48, told Stein. Three-quarters of voters,
even in that red-tinted district, opposed the Republican repeal bill. A few months later, in Alabama, Doug Jones surged to his
shocking upset in another deep-red state by dismissing the GOP’s “repeal and replace” promises as a political slogan
and by fiercely advocating for a funding extension for the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The most decisive win
for Democrats — and for health care — was in the Pennsylvania 18th, where Trump won by 20 points just a year ago,
a district Republicans had held for 15 years. The Democratic candidate, Lamb, won by less than 1,000 votes, and health care could
make a compelling case it put him over the top. From a Public Policy Polling exit poll, taken the day after Pennsylvania’s
special election: Health care was a top issue for 52 percent of voters: 15 percent said it was the most important issue for
them, and another 37 percent said that it was very important.
2AC – Mueller Thumper
Trump will fire Mueller – decimates the GOP in the midterm
Budowsky 18 (Brent Budowsky was an aide to former Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Texas) and former Rep.
Bill Alexander (D-Ark.), who was chief deputy majority whip of the U.S. House of Representatives. He
holds an LLM in international financial law from the London School of Economics. “A Saturday Night
Massacre would bring a midterm mauling to GOP.” 4/10, http://thehill.com/opinion/white-
house/382436-a-saturday-night-massacre-would-bring-a-midterm-mauling-to-gop)
Washington, D.C. is now on red alert for the potentially imminent firing by President Trump of special counsel Robert
Mueller and other Republicans holding high positions in the Department of Justice. Monday’s raid targeting
one of Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, may well drive Trump to extreme actions that would be a hostile attack
against the administration of justice and bring a death knell for Republicans in the midterm elections.
Following the breaking news of the Cohen raid, Trump made hostile attacks against Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein and special counsel Robert Mueller — all of whom are Republicans. He demonstrated an
anger and rage that could soon lead to a Nixon-like "Saturday Night Massacre" that many Republicans as well as
Democrats have long feared. Trump’s anger following the Cohen raid also includes the interim U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New
York Geoffrey Berman, who spearheaded the raid and who is also a Republican. Trump appointed Berman to the position after he fired Preet
Bharara. Trump’s anger is also targeted against the FBI, whose director is Christopher Wray, also a Republican and Trump
appointee after Trump fired former FBI Director James Comey. Last week, I wrote that Mueller
will drop a series of bombshells
that will plague Republicans in the midterm elections unless they stand tall to uphold the administration of justice, and I've
been warning about the dangers of the Russian scandal in recent months. The bombshell of the Cohen raid was not dropped
by Mueller, who merely referred the matter to the U.S. attorney in New York, who spearheaded the raid, which was approved in a warrant
granted by a federal judge who concluded there is probable cause that a crime was committed and the only sure way to obtain the evidence
was through the raid. Republicans in Congress, who are already in grave jeopardy, facing potentially huge losses in the midterm elections, are
well aware that the long list of targets of Trump’s anger and rage are all Republicans! A failure of Republicans in Congress to stand up for the
administration of justice and a failure to oppose firings of Republican officials would create a death knell for GOP chances in November. The
controversy and chaos surrounding the investigations of the Russian attack against America coincide with other developments of paramount
importance as the midterms approach. The most
politically powerful development is the endless series of scandals,
mini-scandals and ethical failures that have surrounded the Trump presidency from its beginning. Trump
promised to drain the swamp, but the swamp is worse than ever under Trump. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has
become, outside of anti-environment circles, the poster boy for the swamp at its dirtiest. The
list of cabinet members and other
administration officials who have committed ethically dubious actions appears destined to grow even
beyond its currently unacceptable levels. The Trump presidency is engulfed in chaos. Shortly after Trump
announced he wanted to get out of Syria, the Syrian dictator, Bashar Assad, almost certainly with support from Russian dictator Vladimir Putin,
who Trump has until recently often praised, launched a brutal and sickening chemical weapons attack. Hopefully Trump will abandon his plan to
get out of Syria soon and will seek and obtain bipartisan support for a strong American and Western response to the Syrian mass murder. The
chaos continues with endless leaks and background comments from administration officials seeking to humiliate retired Marine Corps General
and White House chief of staff John Kelly (as Trump and his inner circle humiliated former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and former National
Security Advisor General H.R. McMaster) by suggesting he is now powerless to do his job. As the midterm elections near, the American people
are exhausted and appalled by the scandals and chaos that surround the Trump presidency. There is a Trump fatigue that
overwhelms the politics of the nation. There is now a clear and present danger of Trump seeking to
execute a Saturday Night Massacre after the Cohen raid, while the Mueller investigation deepens and
spreads. The Mueller investigation and the Cohen raid all involve a Republican attorney general, a Republican deputy attorney general, a
Republican U.S. district attorney, a Republican FBI director and a Republican special counsel.
1AR – Mueller Thumper
Mueller will block out every other issue
Glueck and Roarty 18 (KATIE GLUECK AND ALEX ROARTY, McClatchy DC. “2018 campaigns are not
ready for Robert Mueller.” 4/8, http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-
world/national/article208301959.html)
Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation could upend the 2018 midterm elections — whether it reveals
wrongdoing at the highest levels or exonerates the president. And yet campaign officials and party insiders
on both sides are unprepared for it. Interviews with two dozen political strategists reveal that there is very little
planning underway for the possibility that Mueller will make significant news this year, potentially in the
middle of a campaign cycle that history suggests will already be difficult for the president's party. "It's something on everybody's
minds," said one Republican strategist working on races in Tennessee, who like many sources interviewed for this story requested anonymity to
discuss internal campaign strategy. "There's an unknown there. That's certainly a fear." Many Republicans said it’s nearly impossible to prepare
for the myriad Mueller scenarios, and they argue their time is better-spent dealing with current realities of the race. Those Republicans who
have given the issue thought have wildly divergent views about how they would advise candidates to proceed if there is a Mueller verdict, from
dismissing negative results as “fake news” to pushing for a pivot to local issues. Democrats, meanwhile, are in their own messaging quandary,
caught between a desire to seize on a potential one-of-a-kind scandal or stick with pocketbook issues such as health care. Some party
operatives even think Democrats would be better off in November if Mueller’s investigation never existed in the first place. “It’s not as if Trump
wasn’t already the driving narrative of midterm campaigns,” Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic strategist advising a handful of House and
gubernatorial candidates. “But this would block out the sun to a large degree.”
connectivity For most of history, humans lived in small, disparate bands that were relatively isolated from each other. "Only comparatively recently has there
been extensive contact between peoples, flora and fauna from both old and new worlds," write researchers in a paper on global transport and
infectious disease spread. The rise of sailing in the 1300s helped spread deadly plague around the world through rat populations carried on boats. And then the slave trade of the 16th and
17th centuries introduced Aedes aegypti — the mosquito type that today spreads viruses like Zika, yellow fever, and dengue — to the Americas from West Africa. These pathogens spread at a
relatively slow pace. It took more than 10 years for plague to spread across Europe, for example. Air travel changed all that. "The jet plane took off in the '70s and accelerated during the '80s
and '90s," said Duane Gubler, an infectious diseases specialist and former director of the division of vector-borne disease at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "So now we have
this modern transportation or globalization that is moving animals, humans, commodities, and pathogens around the world." The movement of people and goods is happening at a faster rate
You can now travel pretty much anywhere in the world in a day. And unlike the plague lurching
and greater volume than at any other time.
a traveler can now bring a deadly strain of bird flu from China to Europe within 24 hours.
across Europe in the 1300s,
When a pathogen is introduced to a new place, people are biologically more susceptible to the disease,
since their immune systems have probably never been exposed and have no experience fending it off.
Doctors and health systems can also be caught off guard. This is one of the factors that helped the recent Ebola epidemic in West Africa spiral out of control: the three most affected countries
had never experienced an outbreak of the virus before. "Clinicians had never managed cases," the World Health Organization reported. "No laboratory had ever diagnosed a patient specimen.
No government had ever witnessed the social and economic upheaval that can accompany an outbreak of this disease. Populations could not understand what hit them or why." Contrast that
with East Africa, which has had plenty of experience dealing with Ebola outbreaks over several decades. In Uganda, for example, as soon as an Ebola case is identified, public health officials
overwhelm all streams of media with messages about how to stay safe. People won't leave their houses out of fear of infection, and they immediately report suspected cases to surveillance
officials. It's one of the reasons Uganda has successfully stamped out about half a dozen Ebola outbreaks. This new context helped spread an old virus around quickly, leading to more than
15,000 cases and 11,000 deaths. 2) Urbanization an emerging humanitarian disaster"
—" Not only are people and goods traveling farther and at a
greater volume and speed than any other time in history, but people are also more likely to live in densely populated urban environments. More than half of the world's population now lives
in cities, and just about every country on the planet is becoming more urbanized. Global health researchers have called the trend "an emerging humanitarian disaster." That's because most
people don't live in relatively clean cities like Washington, DC, or Munich. "Most cities are unplanned, and many people — tens of millions — now live in crowded, unhygienic conditions," said
Gubler. Cities can be perfect breeding grounds for disease to spread. Consider the ongoing Zika outbreak in Brazil. Not only was this an old virus in a new country that caught health officials off
guard but Brazil's many cities also happened to be extremely hospitable to the virus. The Aedes aegypti mosquito, which carries Zika, thrives alongside people. As Gubler wrote in this 2011
paper, "[It's] a highly domesticated urban mosquito that prefers to live with humans in their homes, feed on humans and lay eggs in artificial containers made by humans." (Think tires or
plastic cups.) Across Latin America, 113 million people (nearly one in five) live in slums. Many of these slums lack a clean and steady water supply, so people keep buckets filled with water
around their homes — ideal mosquito breeding grounds. Not to mention the fact that air conditioning isn't common, leaving bodies and homes warm and making them even more hospitable
to the disease-carrying bugs. Globally, unprecedented population growth following World War II has meant that not only are more people living in cities than ever before but populations are
also exploding into areas that were once inhabited only by other animals. Anytime humans interact with animals, there's a chance that a pathogen could make the leap across species and
sicken them. Today about three-quarters of new emerging infectious diseases are spread to humans by animals — a health threat that came with the rise of ajgriculture. As the historian Yuval
Harari writes in his sweeping history of humankind, Sapiens: "Most of the infectious diseases that have plagued agricultural and industrial societies (such as small pox, measles, and
tuberculosis) originated in domesticated animals and were transferred to humans only after the Agricultural Revolution." Today, this is still the case, whether it's chicken sellers sitting on the
streets of China risking exposure to bird flu or hunters in Guinea eating bushmeat that could be infected with the Ebola virus. "That’s why many of these infections come out of Africa or Asia,
where there's a strong link between humans, animals, and the environment," said Ali Khan, author of The Next Pandemic and the former director of the Office of Public Health Preparedness
and Response at the CDC. 3) Pervasive poverty means outbreaks will be worse When new viruses strike impoverished or weakened health systems,
they have a much greater chance of thriving and killing people. The 2014-'15 Ebola epidemic offers another illustrative example here. Every American infected with Ebola during that period
survived. The same wasn't true for the affected West Africans, 11,000 of whom died. The stark difference in outcomes had to do with money and access to health care: Patients with Ebola can
be kept alive through tried-and-true health measures — kidney dialysis, IV rehydration, antibiotics — and 24-hour hospital care. While that's possible at the National Institutes of Health in
Bethesda, Maryland, it wasn't in many of the places where Ebola struck, like Gueckedou, Guinea. We're seeing a similar story play out right now with an outbreak of yellow fever in Angola.
More than 2,500 people have been infected with the virus, and 300 have died, in an ongoing outbreak. This outbreak could have been prevented. While there's no cure for yellow fever, a
vaccine was developed in 1936, and it's highly effective. Within three or four weeks after receiving the shot, nearly all people are protected from the virus. But in order for the vaccine to really
prevent outbreaks, many people need to be immunized. That's not happening in many parts of Africa, including Angola, where the virus is endemic. Starting in 2006, the World Health
Organization, with support from Gavi (an international organization focused on improving vaccine access), ramped up efforts to make sure at-risk communities got vaccinated. But many
countries on the continent still have vaccine coverage rates that are much too low to make the vaccine effective. So because of poverty and weak health systems, even when we have the
Politics and social factors play a determining role in whether or not you
technology to stop disease spread, we don't get to use it. "
have one or two cases — and whether or not you have an outbreak or pandemic," said Khan. "We probably
can't prevent the one to two cases. But we sure as heck can prevent the pandemic." 4) A warming
climate is helping fuel more disease outbreaks When we think about health, experts say, we need to start thinking about how environmental factors like
climate change can matter as much as — or sometimes even more than — our personal behaviors. In a report released in June 2015, The Lancet brought together the world’s leading experts
on environmental health. They argue that "[t]he implications of climate change for a global population of 9 billion people threatens to undermine the last half century of gains in development
and global health," including the spread of disease vectors. For example, Zika, dengue, and chikungunya are all spread by the Aedes mosquito. And one of the reasons researchers think Aedes
may be reaching new places —and more people — lately is climate change. (Mosquitoes thrive in warm and moist environments.) Bird flu, cholera, Lyme disease — researchers believe all are
being made worse by climate change. In his decades as a disease detective for the CDC, Khan has witnessed the expansion of vector-borne diseases in the US. "It’s already happening now," he
said. "And it's only going to continue to accelerate as our climate continues to get warmer, as we continue to have these extremes in rain fall, and weather events." Despite all
this, we're getting better at stopping outbreaks The researchers who published on the rise
of infectious disease outbreaks in The Royal Society also found that while the number of outbreaks was
increasing globally, the number of outbreak cases per capita was actually declining over time: "Our data suggest
that, despite an increase in overall outbreaks, global improvements in prevention, early detection, control and treatment are
becoming more effective at reducing the number of people infected." The researchers I spoke to also mentioned that we've
generally gotten better at detecting outbreaks and advancing medical technologies — vaccines,
medicines, diagnostics — needed to control spread. Where we fail, they all said, was in strengthening public health systems globally to reduce the
risk of a couple of cases turning into something much bigger and deadlier. For example, the vector control programs that started after the WWII, Gubler pointed out, have been victims of their
own success. "Health authorities couldn't see any sense in continuing to spend a lot of money to control diseases that weren't occurring, so the programs were disbanded," he explained. "At
the same time, many countries disbanded their public health infrastructure to deal with vector-borne diseases." This is another reason mosquito-borne diseases like yellow fever, dengue, and
Zika are on the rise. The money spent on public health has been in a steady free fall in the US in recent years. When health emergencies like Zika or Ebola hit, there's no emergency funding
what
mechanism to quickly get a response in place. And at the global level, the budget of the World Health Organization has been at a standstill and not adjusted for inflation for years. Yet
stopped the SARS and Ebola outbreaks from truly going global were simple, old-fashioned public health
measures like contact tracing and quarantines.