Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files


**Elections Disadvantage Affirmative



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page65/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   ...   75

**Elections Disadvantage Affirmative

**2AC Blocks

2AC Hillary Good- Link Turn Strategy

1.Hillary Clinton won’t win in 2016- the democratic base prefers Bernie Sanders


The Daily Beast 2015 - “This Is How Hillary Loses the Primary” July 9, http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/07/09/this-is-how-hillary-loses-the-primary.html

Something remarkable is happening in American politics. For the first time in our history, a socialist is running a close second and gaining ground on the front-runner in a presidential race.¶ Anyway you look at it, Senator Bernie Sanders is making history and may very well play a deciding role in who will be the next president. How real is the Sanders movement? Well, at this point in his campaign in 2007, Barack Obama had 180,000 donors on his way to setting records with low-donor contributions; Bernie Sanders has 250,000.¶ How’s he doing with voters in early states? “The next time Hillary Rodham Clinton visits New Hampshire, she need not look over her shoulder to find Bernie Sanders; the Vermont Senator is running right alongside her in a statistical dead heat for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, according to a CNN/WMUR poll,” wrote The New York Times on June 25.¶ But lest the Sanders surge in New Hampshire be dismissed as neighboring state advantage, the Clinton campaign seems even more worried about losing Iowa. In a carefully orchestrated bit of expectation lowering, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook recently said, “the caucuses are always such a tough proving ground” and Clinton campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmeri said, “We are worried about [Sanders].”¶ Here’s what we know has happened so far in the Democratic primary for president. Since Hillary Clinton started spending money, hiring staff and campaigning, she has lost votes. In Iowa and New Hampshire, she was doing better in the polls in January than she is today. Heck, she had more votes last month than she has today.¶ Politics is about trends and the one thing we know is that trends escalate in speed as elections near. Even starting out with the huge lead that she did, Clinton can’t allow Sanders to keep gaining votes while she loses votes in the hope that the bleeding won’t be fatal in the long run.¶ Thinking that little tricks like getting an “organizer” to introduce the candidate at a rally will change an image built over four decades in politics is like McDonald’s thinking they can take on Starbucks because they now sell espresso.¶ So far Clinton’s approach has been to try to demonstrate to the element of the party that finds Sanders so appealing that she is really one of them. This seems like an extremely flawed strategy that plays directly to Sanders’s strengths. If the contest is going to come down to who can be the most pure liberal, the best bet is on the guy who actually is a socialist. Particularly when running against someone with Hillary Clinton’s long record of being everything that the current left of her party hates.¶ The truth is, Hillary Clinton has supported every U.S. war since Vietnam. She supported not only DOMA, which her husband signed, but a travel ban on those who were HIV positive. She supported welfare cuts (remember her husband’s efforts toward “ending welfare as we know it”?). She supports the death penalty and campaigned in her husband’s place during the 1992 New Hampshire primary when he left to oversee the execution of an African-American man whose suicide attempt left him brain damaged.

2. Link Turn- the public is weary of surveillance- recent polls prove Americans are more worried about government surveillance than terrorism


The Guardian 2013- July 29, “Major opinion shifts, in the US and Congress, on NSA surveillance and privacy” http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/29/poll-nsa-surveillance-privacy-pew

Numerous polls taken since our reporting on previously secret NSA activities first began have strongly suggested major public opinion shifts in how NSA surveillance and privacy are viewed. But a new comprehensive poll released over the weekend weekend by Pew Research provides the most compelling evidence yet of how stark the shift is.Among other things, Pew finds that "a majority of Americans – 56% – say that federal courts fail to provide adequate limits on the telephone and internet data the government is collecting as part of its anti-terrorism efforts." And "an even larger percentage (70%) believes that the government uses this data for purposes other than investigating terrorism." Moreover, "63% think the government is also gathering information about the content of communications." That demonstrates a decisive rejection of the US government's three primary defenses of its secret programs: there is adequate oversight; we're not listening to the content of communication; and the spying is only used to Keep You Safe™.¶ But the most striking finding is this one: "Overall, 47% say their greater concern about government anti-terrorism policies is that they have gone too far in restricting the average person's civil liberties, while 35% say they are more concerned that policies have not gone far enough to protect the country. This is the first time in Pew Research polling that more have expressed concern over civil liberties than protection from terrorism since the question was first asked in 2004."¶ For anyone who spent the post-9/11 years defending core liberties against assaults relentlessly perpetrated in the name of terrorism, polling data like that is nothing short of shocking. This Pew visual underscores what a radical shift has occurred from these recent NSA disclosures:

3.It is too early to make predictions about the race, a lot will change between now and November- polls this early are almost always inaccurate


Politico 2015, “The Dirty Little Secrets About 2016 Predictions” http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/the-dirty-little-secrets-about-2016-predictions-119860.html#.Vaq3mypViko, July 8

Election after election around the world has proven that electoral predictions aren’t always to be trusted. In March, analysts failed to foresee Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory. In May, most people thought the Tories were doomed in England. Last weekend, pollsters got the Greek referendum result badly wrong. For political forecasters like me, the big worry is that America is next.¶ The sudden emergence of Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com in 2008 helped to bring scores of previously obscure electoral forecasters to the forefront of American culture, and enabled dozens of writers with similar interests to make careers out of what looked like a hobby. But the amount of faith the public now puts in us is misplaced. Electoral modelers have a nerdy little secret: We aren’t oracles. Draw back the curtain, and you’ll see that we are only as good as the polls we rely on and the models we invent. And there are real problems with both.¶ That’s why the “data journalism” movement contains the seeds of its own destruction. The danger lies in data journalists’ tendency to belittle skeptics and other analysts who get it wrong. Worse is the distinct tendency to downplay how much uncertainty there is around our forecasts. This is a shame, because sooner or later—probably sooner—the models are going to miss in an American presidential election and data journalism as a whole is going to suffer.¶ Consider Silver (who is, to his credit, fastidious about pointing out the limits and uncertainty surrounding his predictions). He became a household name in 2008 and 2012 by insisting, correctly, that Barack Obama remained the favorite, even when the polling looked “iffy.” But it isn’t at all difficult to imagine an alternate universe where Silver’s predictions went awry. In 2008, if the financial collapse had come two months later, whether Obama would still have won is debatable. Or, as Silver himself likes to point out, the polls in 2012 were actually off by about three points in the Republicans’ favor. There is no reason they might not have been off by a similar amount in the opposite direction, which would have resulted in President Romney.

4. Hillary Clinton not key to prevent sanctions- she does not trust Iran


Business Insider 2015, - “CLINTON: I don't trust the Iranians” July 16, http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-i-dont-trust-the-iranians-2015-7

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Thursday that critics of the Iran nuclear deal had a "respectable argument."¶ "There are people on the other side of this whom I respect, who have said very clearly: 'I can’t support it, I think it’s a mistake.' They believe the Iranians will cheat," Clinton said at a town hall meeting in Dover, New Hampshire. "I think that is a respectable argument. However, I think it’s important to ask what are our alternatives."¶ "Do I trust the Iranians?" she added. "Absolutely not."

  1. An Iranian war will not go nuclear- deterrence will prevent escalation


Sappenfield 2006 (Mark, staff, http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0718/p01s01-wome.html

July 18)

Yet there are signs of increasing sophistication, perhaps due to help from Iran, experts say. On Friday, Hezbollah launched a more advanced missile, which struck an Israeli warship. Hizbullah rockets are also penetrating deeper into Israel than ever before, with several striking Haifa, Israel's third-largest city, on Sunday. Israel claims that four of the missiles were the Iranian-made Fajr-3, with a 28-mile range. For its part, Israel has so far relied mostly on air strikes as its military response. Monday, Israel acknowledged that its forces had invaded Lebanon, though they returned shortly after. Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1982. Its army occupied the territory for three years, then withdrew because of the strain of the occupation and broad international condemnation. History also offers a note of caution to Israel's foes. In 1967, Israel responded to Egyptian aggression by taking the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank from Jordan, and the Golan Heights from Syria. Years later, when Syria and Israel fought over control of Lebanon in 1982, Israeli jet fighters reportedly shot down 80 Syrian planes without losing any of its own. Israel's military superiority is built on American support and a skill honed by decades of fighting for the very existence of the nation. Israel receives the best equipment that the United States can offer its allies. "They have some of the most highly advanced weapons systems in the world," says Dr. Jones. Israel's air force, in particular, has no rival in the region, which makes air strikes the most effective – and most probable – means of Israeli retaliation and aggression. Yet Israel has so far focused most of its attacks on Lebanon, despite Hizbullah's links to Syria and Iran. Indeed, both sides have long used Lebanon as a way to harass the other, since Lebanon's military is almost irrelevant, analysts say. Even though Israel accuses Syria and Iran of backing Hizbullah's attacks, it hesitates to attack them directly. The reason is simple: Though Syria's aging military is no match for Israel's, it has missiles that could strike any part of Israel, as well as stocks of chemical weapons. Moreover, the 60 miles from the Israeli border to the Syrian capital of Damascus is one of the most heavily fortified zones in the world. "Syria doesn't have the capacity to win [a war against Israel], but it can cause lots of suffering," says Nadav Morag, former senior director for domestic policy in the Israel National Security Council. Iran more formidable than Syria By contrast, Iran presents a far more formidable challenge – but one that is so remote from Israel geographically as to make hostilities difficult. As with Syria, Iran's greatest threat lies in its missiles. Yet the prospect of firing missiles at America's greatest ally – at a time when it is surrounded by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan – is decidedly risky. Likewise, the notion of an Israeli air strike against Iran presents enormous logistical hurdles. Although Iran does not possess a credible air force and has only mid-grade Russian air-defense systems to contend with Israeli jets, Israel would surely be denied overfly rights by the Arab countries that surround them, meaning it would have to take a circuitous and difficult oversea route to Iran. It would probably be a measure taken only as a last resort., Mr. Morag says.


Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   ...   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review