Midterms DA - Berkeley.docx - Impeachment DA u2013...

This preview shows page 1 out of 210 pages.

Unformatted text preview: Impeachment DA – Stanford 1NC 1NC – NoKo Democrats will win now – candidates, momentum, and newest models predict Seth Masket, 2-12-2018, professor of political science at the University of Denver, specializing in political parties, state legislatures, and campaigns and elections, "A House forecast holds good news for Democrats," Vox, , accessed 2/16/18, AW A pretty simple forecast model that relies on economic performance and presidential popularity predicts Democrats will pick up 45 to 50 House seats this fall, and take over 15 to 20 state legislative chambers. A loss of just 24 House seats would flip House control to the Democrats . Okay, that’s the headline. How realistic is this model, and We’re far enough into the 2018 midterm election cycle that we have some sense of what the fundamentals of the political environment that will govern it look like. what is it based on? The economic performance variable is per capita real disposable income (RDI), measured from the second quarter of the year before the election to the second quarter of the election year. Presidential popularity is the president’s Gallup approval rating on Labor Day of the election year. The data ranges from 1950 to 2014. Most this model works fairly well. It predicted Democrats losing 46 House seats in 2010 (they lost 63), and it predicted Republicans losing 40 House seats in 2006 (they lost 31). The model has an R-squared of . 568, meaning that just those two variables explain about 57 percent of the variation in the shifts in House seat shares. I can improve the model fit considerably by including a measure of the majority party’s exposure (how many seats in the House it currently controls), but years, that barely budges the forecast for 2018. The graph below shows a range of predicted outcomes according to the model, based on three levels of presidential approval (35 percent, 50 percent, and 65 percent) and economic growth ranging from -2 percent to 8 percent. Forecast for US House seat gains by president’s party by economic growth and approval. Seth Masket/data from theBureau of Economic Analysis Forecast for US House seat gains by president’s party by economic growth and approval. Seth Masket/data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis As the graph reminds us, the president’s party tends to lose seats in congressional midterms. Since 1950, only in 1998 and 2002 did the president’s party manage to eke out a few seats, and both of those were during unusually popular presidencies and solid economic expansions. The rest of the time, it’s a loss for the party, affected substantially by we don’t know precisely what President Trump’s figures will be heading into this election, but his approval rating has generally ranged between 35 and 40 percent. It’s possible that strong economic news could buoy his approval somewhat (his numbers have improved slightly in recent weeks), but his personal behavior has managed to step on what would otherwise be good news for presidents ever since he took office. EVEN IF ECONOMIC GROWTH JUMPED TO 3 PERCENT, THE MODEL WOULD STILL PREDICT REPUBLICANS TO LOSE 37 HOUSE SEATS Economic figures, meanwhile, are showing only modest growth so far — per the economy and presidential approval. Of course, capita real disposable income only rose by around 1 percent between the last quarter of 2016 and the last quarter of 2017. It’s possible the recent tax legislation could put more money in people’s hands and boost these figures. Even if RDI growth jumped to 3 percent, though, the model would still predict Republicans to lose 37 House seats, more than enough to lose control of the chamber, and 14 state legislative chambers. (Note that I’m not saying which state legislative chambers might flip, although this is a useful guide. Nor am I forecasting the US Senate, where it will be difficult for Democrats to take over the chamber.) What doesn’t this model account for? A big factor is district safety. Due to the concentration of Democratic voters in Democratic House districts, which leads to a lot of “wasted” Democratic votes, Republicans can lose the national House vote special elections over the past year, and they’ve recruited record numbers of congressional candidates, usually a positive sign for a party’s prospects. A wave of retirements by prominent Republicans in Congress also suggests good fortune for Democrats, making it harder for Republicans to hold some competitive seats. More generally, as with any forecast model, past performance is no guarantee of substantially and still retain a majority of seats. Conversely, Democrats have been running very strongly in future results. It’s possible things are just different now. Perhaps Trump’s Republican supporters are so loyal that they’ll turn out no matter how challenging the fundamentals But it’s worth remembering that despite all the weirdness of the 2016 election, the results that year were astonishingly are, limiting Democratic gains. Perhaps Democrats are so angry right now that their turnout will far exceed that of the out party in previous elections. close to the predictions of conventional forecast models. Even as we continue to note how abnormal much of the current political system is, it seems a safe bet that voters will continue to behave as they have in the past. Dem’s are campaigning on a MASSIVELY unpopular DeVos plan – the plan changes the game and revitalizes the rural GOP base Klein 17 (Alyson, “Is There an Upside for Democrats in DeVos as GOP's Face of K-12 Policy?,” 2/9, ) Dem ocrat s could spend a lot of time fighting brand-new U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and her initiatives over the next few years, especially if she tries to make good on the $20 billion voucher initiative President Donald Trump pitched on the campaign trail. But her time in the spotlight also has a big potential upside for them. For one thing, it could energize Dem ocrat s and those who support their vision to open their wallets and pound the pavement for local, state, and federal Democratic candidates. And that energy would serve Democrats best where they may need it most right now: in rural, red states with Democratic senators that are up for re-election in 2018. Democrats have 25 seats to protect in the mid-term election, including 10 in states that President Donald Trump won, including Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and West Virginia. DeVos' favorite K-12 policy —vouchers— won't do much good in those states , where students have transportation challenges just getting to regular public schools. (More on that issue here.) And the vulnerable senators—all of whom joined their Democratic colleagues in voting against DeVos Tuesday—were more than happy to point that out, setting up the DeVos nomination as an example of Trump betraying his most-loyal voters. "The reddest part of my state are parts of my state where there are no private schools. Rural Missouri," Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., said Tuesday as the Senate was wrapping up debate on DeVos. " In rural areas of this country, there are not private schools for parents and kids to choose. They would have to drive miles." Republicans, McCaskill said, "are kicking in the shins the very voters that put them in power. And I don't get that. I don't understand how you can give the back of your hand to rural America with this decision." Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., made a similar pitch in this post on Medium, and said on Twitter that she had gotten nearly 3,000 anti-DeVos calls, including many questioning her qualifications, not just her positions. And in this tweet, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., another likely 2018 GOP target, cited DeVos' lack of knowledge of education policy—and especially rural schools—as a reason he voted against her. Both Heitkamp and Manchin were the target of ads by two conservative nonprofit groups, the Club for Growth and America Next, urging voters to persaude them to vote for DeVos. And to be sure, DeVos has offered up virtual charter schools as a solution for families in isolated areas that want to take advantage of school choice. But many rural areas don't have the broadband capability to make that work. And virtual charter schools have been plagued by uneven—and often, dismal—academic performance, as an investigation by Education Week found. Notably, the two Republicans who ultimately opposed DeVos—Sens. Susan Collins, of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska,—are both from rural states and have faced contested elections. And on the national level, opinion polling doesn't show vouchers as a big winner, especially among Republican voters. In fact, vouchers have slipped in popularity, even as more states have embraced choice. Less than half of Americans are fans of the policy, according to an August 2016 opinion poll by Education Next, a journal published by Stanford University's Hoover Institution. Forty-three percent of the 4,181 survey participants—which constituted a nationally representative sample—said they support the idea of vouchers, down from 55 percent four years ago. And vouchers for low-income students were more popular among Democrats than Republicans, the poll found: 49 percent compared to 37 percent. (More here in this great explainer by my colleague Arianna Prothero.) Jack Jennings, who spent three decades working for Democrats on Capitol Hill, sees DeVos as a policy minus, but a potential political plus for his party. "The main advantage for the Democrats is that it clearly identifies the Republicans That won't sit well with suburban parents whose kids go to public schools, a key voting block for the GOP . "Democrats can tell those parents that the Republicans are only interested in charter schools, of which there are not a lot in suburbia, and private schools, of which there are not a lot anywhere. Even Catholic schools in the cities are declining." But David Winston, the president of the Winston Group, a Washington polling firm that works with GOP candidates, noted that Trump's win is evidence that voters might be ready to take a chance on something different. "The electorate is willing to take some risks to change the status quo because they feel that it isn't working, and that's going to play in her favor," he said of DeVos . But she will have to show that her policies are actually improving student outcomes . "You need results," he said. Dem ocrat s though, already appear to think they may hold the winning cards on the DeVos debate when it comes to mobilizing the grassroots activists, if nothing else. nationally as committed to privatizing public education," Jennings said. Dem win key to impeachment Goldberg 6-14-17 (Jonah, fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor of National Review, “ Trump Will Probably Be Impeached if Republicans Lose the House ” ) 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.) Continued Trump Presidency causes a North Korean war – Impeachment is the only option Freedland 8/11 – Jonathan Freedland is a Jonathan Freedland is a weekly columnist and writer for the Guardian. He is also a regular contributor to the New York Review of Books and presents BBC Radio 4's contemporary history series, The Long View. In 2014 he was awarded the Orwell special prize for journalism., Date of Publication: 8-11-2017, ("Trump is the real nuclear threat, and we can’t just fantasise him away", Guardian, Date Accessed: 10-24-2017, Available Online at: ) Among the many terrifying facts that have emerged in the last several days, perhaps the scariest relate to the nuclear button over which now hovers the finger of Donald Trump. It turns out that, of all the powers held by this or any other US president, the least checked or balanced is his authority over the world’s mightiest arsenal. He exercises this awesome, civilisation-ending power alone . As Trump has learned in recent months, the man in the Oval Office cannot simply issue a decree changing, say, the US healthcare system. He has to build majorities in the House and Senate, which is harder than it looks. If he wants to change immigration policy, a mere order is not enough. He can be stopped by the courts, as Trump saw with his travel ban. But if he wants to rain fire and fury on a distant enemy, bringing more fire and fury down on his own citizens and many hundreds of millions of others, there is no one standing in his way. Not for nothing does the geopolitical literature refer to the US president as the “nuclear monarch.” The more you hear of the simplicity of the system, the more frightening it becomes. If Trump decides he has had enough of Kim Jong-un’s verbal threats, he merely has to turn to the low-level military aide at his side and ask them to open up the black briefcase that officer keeps permanently in their grasp . The bag is known as the nuclear “football”. (It gets its name from the code word for the very first set of nuclear war plans: dropkick.) Inside the bag is a menu of options, explained in detail in a “black book,” but also set out in a single, cartoon-like page for speedy comprehension. Trump has only to make his choice, pick up the phone to the Pentagon war room, utter the code words that identify him as the president and give the order. That’s it. There is no need for consultation with anyone else. Not the secretary of state or the secretary of defence, nor the head of the military. The officer who receives the call at the Pentagon has no authority to question or challenge the order. His or her duty is only to implement it. Thirty minutes after the president gave the instruction, the nuclear missiles would be hitting their targets. There is no way of turning them back. Such power in the hands of a single individual would be a horrifying prospect even if it were Solomon himself whose finger was on the trigger. But as Bruce Blair, a former nuclear missile launch officer, and seasoned military analyst wrote during the 2016 campaign, Trump’s “quick temper, defensiveness bordering on paranoia and disdain for anyone who criticises him do not inspire deep confidence in his prudence.” What’s more, Trump is the man who said in 2015, “For me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me,” and who bellowed from the campaign podium, “I love war”. In last year’s election campaign, the former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough reported on a briefing a foreign policy expert had given Trump. “Three times, he asked, at one point, ‘If we have them, we can’t we use them?’ … Three times, in an hour briefing, ‘Why can’t we use nuclear weapons?’” It turns out Hillary Clinton was right to warn Americans 14 months ago that, “It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.” And here we are, Trump tweet-goading the North Koreans by declaring military solutions “locked and loaded”. We need imagine no longer. Those who find themselves trembling at all this have spent the last few days grasping for a comfort blanket. A favourite has been the notion that those around Trump, especially the generals current and former, will not let him unleash nuclear Armageddon. This view holds that, yes, Trump may well be dangerously unhinged but fear not, the wiser heads of Washington will stay his hand. Indeed, this strain of thinking has been visible since Trump took the oath of office. Call it the deep state fantasy. It looks to the national security apparatus, the intelligence agencies and the permanent bureaucracy, the shadow government, to step in and do the right thing . It hangs its hopes on a range of prospective saviours. It might be the trio of former generals made up of Jim Mattis, who heads the Pentagon, John Kelly, recently drafted in as chief of staff, and HR McMaster who serves as national security adviser. Alternatively, it looks to the loose alliance hailed this week by the influential Axios website as “The Committee to Save America”, consisting not only of the generals but also the cluster of New Yorkers that includes some of Trump’s less hot-headed economic advisers, with added reinforcements from the Republican ranks in Congress. The committee’s unofficial mission: to protect “the nation from disaster”. The ultimate deep state fantasy longs for the men in the shadows not merely to restrain Trump, but remove him from office. The designated hero of this story is Robert Mueller, the former FBI director now heading what is reported to be a swift and penetrating probe into allegations of collusion with Russia as well as Trump’s wider business dealings. Mueller’s role may indeed prove to be critical. But the deep state fantasy itself, while comforting, is surely a dead end for Trump’s opponents. For one thing, events have reached an odd pass when liberals are dreaming of unelected generals thwarting an elected head of government: that used to be the fantasy of the militaristic right. But it also relies more on hope than evidence. All these supposedly wise heads around Trump: what restraint have they achieved so far? Kelly was meant to impose order and discipline, and yet we still have Trump tweeting threats that could easily be misinterpreted as the cue for war. On North Korea, the US administration continues to send conflicting signals by the hour, with Trump outriders like Sebastian Gorka slapping down secretary of state Rex Tillerson on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Friday, creating confusion when a nuclear standoff requires calm clarity. And we cannot escape the basic fact. All these advisers can try to hold him back, but when it comes to it, nuclear authority is Trump’s and Trump’s alone . He is the nuclear monarch. The glum truth is that the only people who can effectively check a democratically elected menace like Trump are other democratically elected leaders. Ultimately it will be up to the men and women of Congress to do their constitutional duty by impeaching Trump and removing him from office. If Republicans won’t do it, then voters need to replace them with Democrats who will, by voting for a new House in the midterm elections of November 2018. The trouble is, it’s not clear that the US – or the world – have that much time. 1NC – Democracy/Heg Democrats will win now – candidates, momentum, and newest models predict Seth Masket, 2-12-2018, professor of political science at the University of Denver, specializing in political parties, state legislatures, and campaigns and elections, "A House forecast holds good news for Democrats," Vox, , accessed 2/16/18, AW A pretty simple forecast model that relies on economic performance and presidential popularity predicts Democrats will pick up 45 to 50 House seats this fall, and take over 15 to 20 state legislative chambers. A loss of just 24 House seats would flip House control to the Democrats . Okay, that’s the headline. How realistic is this model, and We’re far enough into the 2018 midterm election cycle that we have some sense of what the fundamentals of the political environment that will govern it look like. what is it based on? The economic performance variable is per capita real disposable income (RDI), measured from the second quarter of the year before the election to the second quarter of the election year. Presidential popularity is the pres...
View Full Document

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture