Elections Disadvantage

Elections Disadvantage 1NC [Insert Uniqueness] It’s not a rational issue - Plan has unique symbolic importance in voters psyche – inevitably gets tied to deep seated sense of overall frustration and anxiety felt on all issues – now is key and link alone turns case He, 16 --- He Yafei is former vice minister of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council, and former vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China US Focus, “U.S. Election and Its Impact on China”, 1/25, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/u-s- election-and-its-impact-on-china/

U.S. Election and Its Impact on China The United States presidential election is now in full swing, with both parties going all out in a feverish effort to gain the upper hand. The 2016 vote is watched very closely all over the world, because whoever occupies the White House next January is going to face a fast-changing world with multiple challenges crying out for active American involvement and a more isolationist and inward-looking America unwilling to take on the role of “world policeman”. Before we delve deeper into the impact of the election on China and US-China relations for the coming years, there is a need to offer a brief analysis of what insight this election process has brought us into the American phych e. First and foremost , it has laid bare the rising populist sentiments that are oozing out every pore of American politics both domestic and international . One example is the Republican candidate Donald Trump whose fiery words on immigration and Muslims has won him high approval ratings even though those words are obviously on the extreme end of populism. Three Republican candidates, Trump, Cruz and Carlson, are considered politically extreme but have consistently won as a group over 50% support among Republican voters based on recent polls. It shows that voters are rejecting traditional candidates. What it reveals is that men-on-the-street in America are simply tired of traditional politics and politicians. The fact that Jeb Bush falls behind Trump therefore comes as no surprise. Populist sentiments reflect the unhappiness ordinary people have harbored against status quo where American economy is still under the shadow of financial crisis and slow recovery as well as enfeebled responses of the American government in the face of global challenges. To put it in perspective, they represent the frustration and anxiety of American people feel about the changed and still fast changing world they live in . The American supremacy and sense of safety both physical and economic is threatened . That’s the essence of what people fear . Here comes China , whose economic growth and military modernization in recent years represents, to American people , a world that undergoes rapid changes an d evolves to a multipolar on e where the US is no longer being able to call shot on everything. The resentment against globalization is on the rise. Overall strategic retrenchment and an emphatic shift to focus more on China are taking place simultaneously. “Scapegoating” China is inevitable. “China has taken jobs away from American workers”. “ China is manipulating its currency to gain advantage in trade”. “ China is being aggressi ve in the South China Sea and trying to drive the US out of the Western Pacific”. The list of complaints can go on and on. It doesn’t matter whether those accusations and complaints are true or not to American politicians and voters as long as they have “ election valu e”. For instance, the renminbi has appreciated against the US dollar to the tune of 30% since 2008, but voices are still strong in America calling for the RMB to appreciate further. We all know from experience that China-bashing is common and “cost-free” in US election s. This time around is no different. What is different is that while without agreeing to the concept of “G2”, there is a broad recognition that the US and China are the two major powers in today’s world. It is no hyperbole to say that nothing gets done without close cooperation between the two nations, be it climate change, energy security, non-proliferation of WMD, etc. In this connection the US election does have an impact on China and US-China relations as noted by Robert Manning, who said the US-China relationship enters “ dangerous waters” in 2016.

That flips the election for the GOP – our link prices in other factors and we don’t need to win that Hillary gets the blame Needham 16 (Vicki, The Hill, 1/21, “Moody’s model gives Dem candidate advantage in 2016,” http://thehill.com/policy/finance/266668-moodys-model-gives-dem-candidate-advantage-in- 2016)

The Democratic presidential nominee will win the race for the presidency, but the election is shaping up as historically tight, according to a political model. Less than 11 months from Election Day, Moody’s Analytics is predicting that whomever lands the Democratic nomination will capture the White House with 326 electoral votes to the Republican nominee’s 212. Those results are heavily dependent on how swing states vote. The latest model from Moody’s reflects razor-thin margins in the five most important swing states — Florida, Ohio, Colorado, New Hampshire and Virginia. In each of those states, the Democratic advantage is less than 1 percentage point, well within the margin of error. The election model weighs political and economic strength in each state and determines the share of the vote that the incumbent party will win. The most important economic variable in the model is the growth in incomes in the two years leading up to the election. That factor captures the strength of the job market in each state, including job growth, hours worked, wage growth and the quality of the jobs being created. The model also factors in home and gasoline prices. So far, the strength of the economy has kept the model on track for the Democratic nominee. But the trajectory of the president’s approval rating also makes a difference in who could win the White House. If President Obama’s approval rating shifts only a little more than 4 percentage points , a bit more than the margin of error for many presidential opinion polls, the move could further cut into Democratic hopes to retain the White House. Growing concern about terrorism and other issues could dent Obama’s approval rating further . Usually, if the sitting president’s approval rating is improving in the year leading up the election, the incumbent party receives a boost. But in most elections, the president’s rating has declined in the lead-up to the election, favoring the challenger party. extinction – climate change, global wars, and turns case Nisbet 16 (Matthew, Associate Professor of Communication Studies and Affiliate Associate Professor of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Northeastern University who studies the role of communication, media, and public opinion in debates over science, technology, and the environment, New Scientist, 5/27, "Trump would deliver fatal blow to fight against climate change," http://www.northeastern.edu/camd/commstudies/people/matthew- nisbet/#sthash.Zoq2zrjr.dpuf)

Trump would deliver fatal blow to fight against climate change A Donald Trump presidency would disrupt the fight against climate change in a way that threatens to snuff out all hope, warns Matthew Nisbet Trump on a podium, with his hilarious hair Bad for the environment Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images By Matthew Nisbet Donald Trump has just promised to “cancel the Paris climate agreement“, end US funding fo r United Nations climate change programmes, and roll back the “stupid” Obama administration regulations to cut power plant emissions. The Republican presidential candidate has often defied party orthodoxy on major issues, shocking conservatives with his off-the-cuff remarks. But his scripted speech yesterday to an oil industry meeting directly echoed the party’s line on climate change and energy. Trump trails Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic rival for the White House, in fundraising, and his speech was a clear sign that he seeks to capitalise on financial support from the powerful fossil fuel industry. His call to roll back industry regulations also deepens his appeal to voters in oil, gas and coal-producing states. “Obama has done everything he can to get in the way of American energy, for whatever reason,” Trump said, in an attack sure to be a centrepiece of his campaign. “If ‘crooked’ Hillary Clinton is in charge, things will get much worse, believe me.” Climate incoherence Yet a Trump presidency poses an existential threat qualitatively different from past Republican candidates who have doubted climate change. It could set in motion a wave of political and economic crises, creating global turmoil that would fatally disrupt efforts to tackle this issue in the US and abroad. Alarmed by the possibility of a Trump victory in November, international negotiators are urgently working to finalise the UN Paris agreement, in the hope that it can become legally binding before President Obama leaves office. Yet even if the gambit is successful, a Trump victory could cripple international progress in other ways. To meet the aggressive targets set at Paris, countries will have to substantially ratchet up efforts to end reliance on fossil fuels over the next few years. At the very moment when the world needs American leadership on this, Trump’s incoherence on climate and energy policy and his outright disgust for global collaboration would have a severe chilling effect on progress. In past comments, he has said he is “not a believer in man-made global warming“, declaring that climate change is a “total hoax” and “bullshit“, “created by and for the Chinese” to hurt US manufacturing. On energy policy, he has appeared befuddled when asked about specifics, even fumbling the name of the Environmental Protection Agency, which he has promised to abolish. Civil unrest The broader disruption of a Trump presidency would do even greater damage, weakening efforts to create a sense of urgency over climate change. Trump’s candidacy has brought public discourse in the US to its ugliest level, as he trades in trash talk and outrageous insults, spreading falsehood and innuendo, fomenting bigotry and prejudice. He has threatened the censure of critics in the media, even condoning violence against protesters, calling them “thugs” and “criminals”. His success emboldens far right and ultra-nationalist movements in the US and across Europe, risking further destabilisation. At home, Trump’s promise to ban Muslims from entering the US, to erect a wall at the Mexican border, and to deport millions of immigrants will provoke widespread protest and civil unrest. Abroad, Trump’s bravado and reckless unpredictability, his vow to renegotiate trade deals and to walk away from security alliances will generate deep tensions with China, Russia and Europe, risking financial collapse and military conflict. In the midst of such dysfunction and upheaval, the glimmer of hope offered by the historic climate change pact agreed to in Paris last year may forever fade. The stakes riding on a US presidential election have never been higher . ***Uniqueness*** Uniqueness – General UQ — VEPs Clinton will win---prefer voter expectation polls---it’s the gold standard of election predictions ---Also A2: “Trump wins because people think Clinton’s so far ahead that they stay home” – the stats show bandwagoning is more likely, so she actually benefits from that perception

Neal, 7-14 – Samantha Neal, 7-14-2016, “Unusual Polling Question Reveals Which Candidate Is More Likely To Win In November”, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/poll- candidate-expected-win-clinton_us_5787c63de4b08608d33379be

Donald Trump has recently been gaining ground in the latest polls at both the national and state level, suggesting that the email scandal plaguing Hillary Clinton has not left her unscathed. However, when polls ask voters who they think will win the election rather than whom they plan to vote for, people overwhelmingly believe Clinton will prevail. If the predictive capacity of the “expectations question” is as accurate as it has been in previous years, Clinton is poised to win this election. In fact, she currently polls better than President Barack Obama did against Mitt Romney and John McCain at this point in 2012 and 2008, on both whom voters expect to win and whom they plan to cast their ballot for. Questions that measure voter expectations are often more accurate at predicting a winner than asking people which candidate they will vote for. These questions typically read along the lines of, “Regardless of who you are voting for, who do you think will win the election?” When asked to provide objective expectations as opposed to subjective intent, respondents must evaluate a wider variety of preferences than simply their own. As for which candidate voters think will prevail in November, Clinton utterly eclipses Trump. According to every pollster who has tracked this question over the past month (YouGov/Economist, NBC/SurveyMonkey, Suffolk University, CNN/ORC, CBS), Clinton wins by a margin ranging from 16 to 28 percentage points ― and this lead has been sustained over the entire course of the general election. On the intent question (”Who are you voting for?”), the HuffPost Pollster model, which aggregates all publicly available polling data, shows a much tighter race. Clinton only leads by a 3- point margin. Looking back on the last three presidential elections , the expectations question predicted the overall outcome much more accurately than the intent question in nearly every poll who asked it in months leading up to the election. At this stage in the 2012 election, Obama led Romney by an average of 25 points on the expectations question, according to polls from YouGov/Economist, Suffolk, Gallup, CNN/ORC, ABC/Washington Post and Pew. The voter intent question indicated a much closer race ― Romney and Obama were within 1 point of each other. The same pattern holds in both the 2008 and 2004 races. The merit of the expectations question has been researched extensively by David Rothschild and Justin Wolfers, who argue that asking people whom they expect will win instead of whom they prefer “grabs a much larger slice of people’s experience and knowledge, including a whole range of idiosyncratic facts” that are otherwise impossible to quantify. In this sense, voters are prompted to make a projection based on their cumulative experiences , which typically produces a more accurate prediction than a singular vote can. The expectations question also reveals something about our own beliefs: We’re influenced by the way we perceive other people think. In other words, people are more likely to vote for the candidate they think will win because of a “ bandwagoning effect ” ― or the idea that individuals will vote for a candidate that they believe others are voting for. The implications of these findings for the 2016 election are clear: For one, polling indicates that people overwhelmingly believe Clinton will win the election. (And recent history shows that’s an accurate prediction.) Also, the overarching perception that Clinton is going to win could also garner her more votes among undecided voters in the fall.

UQ — Other issues Trump will lose there’s a laundry list (racism, independents, danger to separation of powers, Trump University, pull of support from Paul Ryan, electoral college) Budowsky, 6/7 (Brent, formerly served as policy aide to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen (D-Tex) and Legislative Director to Rep. Bill Alexander D-Ark.), then Chief Deputy Majority Whip. He holds a law degree from Catholic University, and an LL.M. degree from the London School of Economics and writes a weekly column for The Hill, 06/07/16, “Hillary Clinton Will Win by a Landslide Against Donald Trump,” The Observer, http://observer.com/2016/06/hillary-clinton-will-win-by- a-landslide-against-donald-trump/ )

I try to minimize election predictions—especially long before the voting on election day—but I consider this prediction one of the easiest I have ever made. Hillary Clinton will win by a landslide against Donald Trump . I expect her to win 46 states, and if I am wrong, it is equally likely she will win more than 46 states in November, rather than less. FBI Director James Comey will announce that he is not recommending a criminal prosecution in the Clinton email case, which will give her a tremendous boost. To understand the full magnitude of Clinton’s coming victory consider the news over the last week, which is a sneak preview of the future. After Trump attacked the judge in the case against him about Trump University, falsely saying the judge is a “Mexican” in terms that even some conservatives and Republicans condemned as racist, virtually every senior Republican across the landscape of the national GOP harshly criticized Trump’s attacking the judge. At one point the lead story on the front page of The New York Times quoted prominent authorities on justice and law, including several who are staunch Republicans and conservatives, worrying that the election Trump could literally pose a threat to the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. Clinton responded with outrage and with a strong and sustained political attack against Trump that was universally bannered in the media, which rallied Democrats and appealed to independents who will be crucial in November. While Clinton was on the offensive over Trump’s attacks on the judge and Trump University, the news was full of interviews with former customers of Trump University who claimed they were defrauded and former employees who publicly charged that they were put under pressure to engage in unethical business practices and decided to resign. I am not judging which party should or will prevail in the Trump University case. That is for the court to decide based on the evidence. The Trump camp has produced favorable reviews by other customers of Trump University, and at some point, probably after the election, the court will decide the ultimate outcome of the case, as other courts will decide the outcome of similar cases. Whether Trump University did anything wrong—and I am offering no opinion about this—the political problem for Trump and Republicans will be that between now and election day there will be more stories in all media about Trump University customers and employees charging fraud. While Clinton has at times taken some heat from reporters who believe she has not made herself as open and accessible to them as they would like, Trump’s all-out attacks against the media—which were reminiscent of a former vice president named Spiro Agnew—were offensive to virtually all professional members of the media. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan was highly embarrassed when, after announcing his support for Trump, he was forced to spend the next several days harshly criticizing the GOP nominee he had just announced his support for. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, whose GOP majority is threatened by strong prospects of a Democratic takeover, was forced to criticize Trump repeatedly over the weekend as his Senate Republican candidates were forced by local media to either defend Trump, or in most cases, join senior Republicans in deploring his comments. Clinton continued her attack throughout this period while the free media, reporting on events, gave her ammunition for her offensive while Republicans were running for cover as Trump kept doubling down on his name-calling. There are several main factors contributing to the high likelihood of a Clinton landslide in November. The former first lady, United States senator and secretary of state begins with a huge advantage in qualifications for the presidency. She has a worldwide stature and credibility at home and internationally as a highly qualified candidate for the presidency. At the very moment Trump achieved the status of presumptive nominee, which guaranteed a much higher degree of scrutiny and a much greater need for him to establish his presidential-calibre bona fides, he continued his practice of insulting and berating many Republicans as well as Democrats and then began insulting and berating many in the media who will be reporting on whether Trump is qualified to be president, or not! As a result, the enormous advantage Clinton possesses in presidential qualifications and stature in the eyes of voters and the press grew even wider with every new insult Trump offers, and doubles down on, day after day. Another huge advantage Clinton and Democrats possess is the mathematics of the electoral college. Usually Republicans have the advantage in midterm elections because they are likely to achieve a stronger turnout than Democrats, while Democrats have the advantage in presidential elections because their turnout will be higher and, even more, because the state- by-state breakdown of electoral college math gives Democrats the edge. Because of the insulting and divisive style of the Trump campaign, the Democratic electoral advantage will be even greater than previous presidential elections. The prospect of a Trump presidency will galvanize Democratic voters to come out in huge numbers, generate a wave of anti-Trump Hispanic voters that could win key states for Democrats in both the presidential and senate elections and alienate and alarm many female, independent and younger voters. During the last week voters witnessed Clinton launching and escalating her attack, Trump put on the defensive and repeating his controversial insults against the judge and the media, while leading Republicans either ran for cover or ran to the television cameras to denounce the latest insult from Trump. UQ — Coattails Clinton’s effectively riding Obama’s coattails---smooth SQ boosts her numbers Casselman, 7-22 – Ben Casselman, senior editor and the chief economics writer for FiveThirtyEight, 7-22-2016, “The Economy Will Probably Be Pretty Good On Election Day”, FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-economy-will-probably-be-pretty-good- on-election-day/

That silence stands in stark contrast to the primary campaign, which was often dominated by economic issues such as trade, immigration and the stagnation of middle-class incomes. But maybe it shouldn’t come as a surprise that Republicans are looking to shift the campaign’s focus to other issues: It looks increasingly likely that when voters go to the polls in November, the economy will look relatively strong. As recently as a month ago, that was far from clear. The surprise “Brexit” decision sent financial markets into a tailspin. A weak jobs report sparked fears of a slowdown in hiring. Recession fears, which had died down since early this year, began to re-emerge. It was not hard to imagine Trump’s team excitedly pulling clips of all the times Clinton praised President Obama’s stewardship of the economy. This week, though, it was probably Clinton who was applauding as Republican convention speakers repeatedly said she would represent a continuation of Obama’s presidency. The stock market has regained all its post- Brexit losses and is setting record highs. The job market rebounded strongly in June. Other economic measures, such as consumer spending, are strong. In his acceptance speech Wednesday night, GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence called Clinton “the secretary of the status quo .” Economically, at least, that might not be such a bad thing. Empirics prove: Clinton will win the election because of Obama’s job approval ratings. Demographics support this hypothesis Sosnik, 6/29 (Doug, Democratic political strategist, was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000, June 29 2016, “The 2016 election is already decided. History says Hillary Clinton wins,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the- 2016-election-is-already-decided-history-says-hillary-clinton-wins/2016/06/28/8c6e682e-3d49- 11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html)

If history is any guide, the outcome of this year’s presidential election has already been decided. With the exception of 2000, the result of every presidential election since, and including, 1980 has been determined before the general election even officially began. In fact, most of these elections were effectively decided by this point in the cycle. There is no reason to think that this year, as crazy as it has been, will be different. Spoiler alert: Hillary Clinton wins . The single best predictor of the electoral outcome is the job approval of the incumbent president — even one who’s not on the ballot. In four of the five elections since 1980 when the incumbent president’s job approval was at or above 50 percent, that party held the White House. The outlier was 2000, when President Bill Clinton enjoyed a 57 percent job approval rating in October yet Al Gore “lost” to George W. Bush. In the three elections when the incumbent’s job approval fell below 40 percent in the final year of his term, the party suffered overwhelming defeats. Some might argue that Jimmy Carter’s experience in 1980 disproves my point about races being decided by this point, but it doesn’t. True, Carter was leading in national polls in a three-way race (remember John Anderson?) until mid-October. But by June 1980, Carter’s job approval had dropped to 31 percent — and it never significantly improved during the remainder of the campaign. The nature of a three-way race masked the core of public dissatisfaction with Carter and prolonged until the end of the election the consolidation of the nearly 70 percent anti-Carter vote, which ultimately resulted in Ronald Reagan’s landslide win. By the beginning of the summer of 1980, with 2 out of 3 Americans disapproving of Carter’s performance in office, there was little doubt that the country would not give him four more years. Three big election moments remain: the selection of the vice presidential nominees, the party conventions and the fall debates. Breathless coverage notwithstanding, none of these has had a measurable impact in changing the outcome of a presidential election in at least 40 years. The last time a vice presidential selection may have altered the outcome was in 1960, when John F. Kennedy’s choice of Lyndon B. Johnson assured Democrats of carrying Texas. The last time a party’s convention may have changed the outcome was in 1968, when the Democrats suffered four days of rioting in the streets of Chicago. And the last time a debate may have affected the outcome was in 1976, when Gerald Ford mistakenly asserted that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe,” effectively ending his surge against Carter. All indications are that the 2016 campaign is likely to continue this pattern. President Obama’s job approval rating now sits above 50 percent. Significant structural advantages have also favored Democrats since 1992. The party’s candidate has carried 18 states plus the District of Columbia — totaling 242 electoral votes — in every election since 1992. Now New Mexico and its five electoral votes, which Bush won in 2004, are considered safely Democratic. If those states remain solid for Clinton, that leaves her only 23 votes short of the 270 necessary for victory. Demographic trends since 1992 only reinforce this advantage for Democrats. In addition, Clinton enjoys a significant financial and organizational advantage over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. In the past month, the Clinton campaign has run $23 million worth of ads in eight swing states without any time purchased by the Trump campaign to counter her attacks. Clinton has also maintained a stable campaign team at the top while building a national campaign staff of about 700 people. The Trump campaign, on the other hand, has had constant leadership turmoil with a staff of fewer than 100 people. Lastly, and perhaps most important, never before has a party nominated a candidate as unpopular as Trump is. True, Clinton’s negatives are high — but Trump’s are even higher, reaching 70 percent with more than half having a very negative view. And Trump’s party isn’t helping him. According to a recent Bloomberg poll, just one-third of Americans have a favorable view of the Republican Party. Some 28 percent of self-identified Republicans have an unfavorable view of their own party. Americans view their vote for president differently than for any other office. Ultimately, this is a decision as much emotional and instinctual as it is intellectual. And once voters have made that choice, it is very difficult to dislodge. Voters have gotten to know Trump over the past year. They have pretty much made up their minds about how they feel. It is very unlikely anything that happens in the remaining 131 days of this campaign is going to change that. UQ — Analytics Massive data advantages put Clinton in the lead---2012 proves it’s key Enderle, 7-22 – Rob Enderle, 7-22-2016, “Clinton wins, how analytics cost Trump the election”, CIO, http://www.cio.com/article/3098915/analytics/clinton-wins-how-analytics-cost- trump-the-election.html

During the last presidential election Barack Obama’s IT team shouldn’t have outperformed Romney’s team as massively as it did. At the heart of the Romney loss were three, as Donald Trump would say, huge errors. The first mistake was using analytics services that didn’t understand elections, the second was using multiple services that didn’t coordinate with each other and the third was not questioning the data because it told them what they wanted to hear. This last has been a recurring cause of project and even company failure. The last mistake is not only being repeated by Trump, but he appears to be overt about it. It would seem ironic that after giving Romney so much grief for losing, Trump is setting things up so that Romney will be able to say, after Trump loses the election, that at least he didn’t lose THAT badly. Clearly that is the outcome Ted Cruz just bet his political career on. Trump don’t need no stinking analytics When you read this coverage out of AdWeek that is the conclusion you walk away with, but I think it speaks to a far more common problem. When numbers agree with an executive ’s view, they like them and when they don’t, there must be something wrong with the numbers. Don’t get me wrong, given the problems we’ve had with analytics that could well be the case. I recently reported on a KPMG report that basically said the majority of CEOs didn’t trust their numbers, which suggests Trump is in good company but it is still a stupid conclusion. The right path is to either better understand the numbers and/or make sure you can trust them. Romney vs. Obama What seems strange to me about this is here you had a guy who runs big businesses and a guy who was basically a teacher with slight political experience, and it was the teacher who used analytics better. Obama had a better team, made far better use of the systems it put in, were far more cost effective, and the results assured Obama’s second term. Romney, however, was convinced he was going to win because the numbers told him what he wanted to hear. As a result, his team pulled back, thinking its candidate would coast to a win. So, in this case, Obama trusted his numbers, they were right, and in executing against them he won. Romney also trusted his numbers, but they were wrong, and he lost. So answer should be to ensure that the numbers, the analytics, are accurate not distrust the numbers. Focus groups I agree with Trump and Steve Jobs in the opinion that focus groups are crap when it comes to predicting things. The reason is they are way too easily manipulated, there is no good way to place them in the future so their decisions in the group mirror what they will actually do, and, because they are so compelling, people tend to believe what the focus group says. I’ll give you an example. Years ago I was in a focus group for Chrysler and they showed me what I thought was a wonderful car. All of us said we’d buy it in a minute, so they put the car into production. However, in the 18 months between when the car was shown to us and when it became available, there were better cars that came from competing firms so my position, and everyone else's, changed. The car ended up not selling well. This doesn’t mean focus groups aren’t useful. They are best used when trying to understand why someone did something. They are largely worthless in terms of predicting something. For instance, on the Brexit vote, focus groups likely would have showcased that people voted for it to show displeasure with the government not because they really wanted the exit. That would tell you the underlying problem to fix was the “pissed off at the government” part not exiting the EU. Why Trump lost While Clinton’s use of analytics clearly isn’t at Obama’s level, it is well above Trump’s. Partly, you can see this in regards to how much better she has been at collecting donations. She also seems to pivot better on issues as they become important for resonance. However, the lack of excitement in her campaign and the email thing still make this a race for now. The number both camps should be watching more closely is propensity to vote because this is partially what bit Romney in the butt last cycle. But the lesson I want to leave you with is that numbers make for better decisions and, if you can’t trust them, fix the trust part -- don’t just toss out the entire concept of analytics as a key decision-making tool. If your brakes didn’t work, you wouldn’t stop using brakes, you’d get them fixed. Brakes can save your life, analytics can save your job, or in this case from being made fun of because you did worse than the guy you’ve been calling a choke artist.

UQ — Econ Clinton will win now---strong econometric lead Matthews, 7-22 – Chris Matthews, 7-22-2016, “These 3 Charts Show Why Donald Trump Will Lose in November”, Fortune, http://fortune.com/2016/07/22/donald-trump-will-lose-charts/

The political press has spent the week dissecting every last speech and tweet made by Donald Trump or his surrogates during the Republican National Convention, in hopes of divining how the week-long event would help his chances of winning the presidency in November. But what has not been said in these many thousands of articles and television appearances is that no matter what the Donald Trump campaign does , there are certain variables — related to the U.S. economy —that will directly affect his chances that Trump actually has no control over. In past elections, when there are healthy and improving economic conditions in the quarters leading up to a presidential election that usually been good news for the incumbent party. That is, of course, bad news for Donald Trump, as nearly all the of the most important econometrics would suggest a Hillary Clinton victory this fall. Here are three charts that show why Donald Trump will lose in November: Consumers are feeling perky Macquarie Capital Markets Analyst David Doyle points out in a recent analyst note that preliminary GDP data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta show personal consumption expenditures will grow by an annualized 4.5% quarter-over-quarter, or the fastest since 2006. That’s a pretty good indicator of how people are feeling. “Macro data continues to show that the global economy’s $13 trillion gorilla, the U.S. consumer, is getting even stronger,” he writes. Meanwhile, consumer confidence data from the University of Michigan is showing similar results. Although confidence isn’t quite as high as it was when George Bush, Clinton, or Reagan got elected, these numbers show that the American consumer is generally feeling good about the economy, and the current readings are much higher than when Barack Obama was reelected four years ago. Manufacturing Looks Strong Back in 2011, blogger and statistician Nate Silver published a study on which economic indicators correlate strongly with presidential election outcomes. His finding : The best predictor of whether or not an incumbent party would retain the White House was strength in the manufacturing sector, as measured by growth in the Institutes for Supply Management manufacturing index from January to September in that election year. Since January, the ISM has risen 5 points , which , if Silver’s model, is correct, translates into a healthy Clinton victory. Job Growth Continues to Impress The second most important variable , according to Silver’s analysis, is annualized job growth from the first to third quarter in an election year. We don’t know what job growth will look like in third quarter just yet, but so far it looks strong , and we’ve seen annualized job growth of between 1.7% and 2.3% over the past year. If this trend continues that would be enough to give Clinton a slim margin of victory in the fall, according to this analysis. There are, of course, other factors at play that will determine the winner of the fall election. But the economic data at least, continues to work in Clinton’s favor. UQ — Polls / A2: Uniqueness Overwhelms Best models show Clinton victory is very likely, but not guaranteed Potiker, 7-19 – Haley Potiker, 7-19-2016, “NY Times Prediction Model Claims Hillary Clinton Will Win The Election”, Uproxx, http://uproxx.com/news/new-york-times-predicts-hillary-will- win/

Hillary Clinton has a 76 percent chance of winning the election in November, according to the first interactive presidential prediction model released by New York Times’ pollster arm the Upshot. The statistical model combines analysis of each states’ voting history with “roughly 300 state and national polls of the race” to output and graph all likely outcomes. According to the Times, Clinton’s chance of losing “is about the same probability that an N.B.A. player will miss a free throw.” The Times’ model suggests Clinton will have an easier path to the White House than Donald Trump: she is a strong favorite (85% or likelier) in 15 states, which taken together total 186 of the 270 electoral votes she needs to win. If she can take home the next eight states she’s currently leading in — including Michigan, New Mexico, Minnesota, Colorado, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Nevada — then the White House is hers. Though Trump has a only a 24 percent chance of victory, the Times noted that a lot can change in 16 weeks. The Upshot model shows Trump with a strong lead in 17 states, though they are largely states with smaller populations, resulting in a total of only 124 electoral votes. The Times’ model will be updated live throughout the rest of the election as more polling data becomes available. The Republican National Convention is currently underway in Cleveland. Hillary is winning despite what their evidence and other polls say Silver 7-15-16 (Nate Silver, 7-15-16, Election Update: 10 Questions About Where The 2016 Race Stands, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-10-questions-about-where- the-2016-race-stands/, American statistician and writer who analyzes elections. He is currently the editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight blog and a Special Correspondent for ABC News. Silver successfully called the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, he was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People)

Despite a relatively poor run of polls, Clinton is very probably still ahead of Trump right now. That doesn’t mean she’d be assured of winning an election held today, let alone one in November — there’s a lot of uncertainty (see the next question for more about this). But polls- only has her ahead of Trump by 3.4 percentage points nationally, similar to the margin by which Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012. If Clinton has a 3.4-percentage-point lead, as our model surmises, that means we’ll sometimes see national or swing state polls that show her ahead by margins in the high single digits, such as the set of swing state polls that Marist College released this morning . We’ll also see some polls showing Trump with narrow leads, like the polls Quinnipiac University released earlier this week. All of this is pretty normal. Hillary will win the white house—absent drastic events the economic election model is the best way to predict election winners—better than aff polls and pundits Needham, 7/1 (Vicki, consultant and reporter, 07/01/16, “Election model: Clinton will win easily,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/economy/prediction-hillary-clinton-easily- wins-beats-donald-trump-moodys-presidential-election-model)

Democratic chances of winning the White House remain strong, according to a closely followed economic election model. Moody’s Analytics is forecasting that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, will easily win the presidency in November over Republican Donald Trump, the June forecast predicts. The latest model shows for the fourth straight month that the Democratic nominee will win 332 electoral votes, compared with 206 for the Republican nominee. The model chooses a party, not a candidate, to win. “The closer we come to election day, the more that two-year change is based in history and less on our economic forecasts,” said Dan White, a Moody’s economist who oversees the monthly model. “With just over four months left to election day, the chances of an economic forecast error distorting the results are fading,” he said. “This ups the confidence level in the model’s results, though forecast risks are always present, especially when it comes to politics.” Moody's bases its forecast on a two- year change of the economic variables, from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of this year. A slight increase in gasoline prices modestly improved Republican chances, but that shift was offset in part by higher incomes, house prices and President Obama’s rising approval rating. The latest Gallup poll shows the president’s approval at 52 percent, up a point from last month. Separately, a FiveThirtyEight election forecast gives Clinton a 79.2 percent chance of winning to Trump's 20.7. In that forecast, Clinton would win 48.8 percent of the vote to Trump's 42. The former secretary of State is holding leads across most major polls. Clinton leads Trump by 6 points, 47 to 41 percent, in a New York Times/CBS News poll. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll saw Clinton widen her lead to 51 to 39 percent from 46 to 44 in May. In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, Clinton holds a 46 to 41 percent advantage, though the race is essentially tied when third-party candidates are included. Fox News has the Democrat up 44- 38 percent over Trump in a head-to-head matchup. Moody’s model awards Electoral College votes to each party based on state-by-state outcomes. Two states, Maine and Nebraska, allow electoral votes to be split by congressional district. The model, which has predicted every election correctly since it was created in 1980, has forecasted a Democratic victory since the release of its first run in July 2015. The most important economic variable is income growth by state, including job and wage growth, hours worked and the quality of the jobs being created in the two years leading up to an election. The model also factors in home and gasoline prices on a state level, as well as presidential approval numbers.

Trump is losing Silver 6-29-16 (Nate Silver, 6-29-16, Donald Trump Has A 20 Percent Chance Of Becoming President, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of- becoming-president/, American statistician and writer who analyzes elections. He is currently the editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight blog and a Special Correspondent for ABC News. Silver successfully called the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, he was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People)

If Trump is “unpredictable,” a phrase we heard used to describe him so often during the primaries, does that mean his chances of defeating Hillary Clinton are 50/50? If that’s what you think, you have the opportunity to make a highly profitable wager. Betting markets put Trump’s chances at only 20 percent to 25 percent instead. In fact, despite (or perhaps because of) the unusual nature of his candidacy, the conventional wisdom holds that Trump is a fairly substantial underdog . In contrast to 2012, when there were frequent arguments over how solid President Obama’s lead in the polls was, there hasn’t been much of a conflict between “data journalists” and “traditional journalists” on this question of Trump’s chances. Nor has there been one between professionals who cover the campaign and the public; most experts expect Trump to lose, but so do most voters .

Clinton has a slight lead, but it’s neck and neck – newest polls and Trump actions Rappeport 6/29 – (Alan Rappeport is a writer and reporter covering the U.S. election for the New York Times, 6/29/16, “Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Are Deadlocked, Poll Shows,” New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump- are-deadlocked-poll-shows.html?_r=0, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump are deadlocke d less than a month before the Democratic and Republican presidential conventions, according to a new national poll of registered voters that shows the American electorate feeling disappointed in each candidate.

A Quinnipiac University survey released on Wednesday found that 42 percent supported Mrs. Clinton while 40 percent backed Mr. Trump. The poll represents a slight improvement for Mr. Trump, who trailed by four points at the beginning of the month, and has a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points.

The numbers come as Mr. Trump has rebooted his campaign after a series of missteps, appointing a new campaign manager and sharpening his rapid- response operation. Mrs. Clinton has been aggressively taking on Mr. Trump with a series of speeches questioning his temperament and picking apart his policies.

Clinton wins, but Trump’s drawing closer Sherfinski 7/5 – (David Sherfinski covers politics for The Washington Times, 7/5/16, “Donald Trump cuts into Hillary Clinton’s lead: poll,” The Washington Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/5/donald-trump-cuts-hillary-clintons-lead- poll/, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson) Likely Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has cut what had been a double-digit lead for Hillary Clinton two months ago down to single digits, according to a poll released Monday.

Mrs. Clinton led Mr. Trump by about 5 percentage points, 45.6 percent to 40.4 percent, according to the USA Today/Suffolk University poll. Rounding would give Mrs. Clinton a 6-point, 46 percent to 40 percent, lead.

That’s about in line with the lead Mrs. Clinton holds in an average of recent national polling. Two months ago, she had led Mr. Trump in the USA Today/Suffolk poll by 11 points, 50 percent to 39 percent.

In the new poll, 61 percent reported feeling alarmed about the election, compared to 23 percent who said they feel excited and 9 percent who said they feel bored.

Mrs. Clinton led among females voters by a 12-point, 50 percent to 38 percent, margin, while Mr. Trump led among men by 2 points, 43 percent to 41 percent.

More than nine in 10 Clinton supporters and more than nine in 10 Trump supporters said they’re firm in their choice.

But majorities still said they have an unfavorable opinion of both Mrs. Clinton (53 percent) and Mr. Trump (60 percent).

Six in 10 Trump supporters, 62 percent, said they think he will actually win the election, compared to 89 percent of Clinton supporters who said they think she will win.

In a four-way race, Mrs. Clinton held a 4-point lead over Mr. Trump, 39 percent to 35 percent, with Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson at 8 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein at 3 percent.

The national survey of 1,000 registered voters was taken from June 26-29 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. UQ — Swing states

Clinton wins now, but margins are razor-thin – especially in swing states Easley 6/28 – (Jonathan Easley is a reporter covering the election for The Hill, 6/28/16, “Polls show tight Clinton-Trump race in 2016 battlegrounds,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285083-polls-show-tight-race-for-white-house-in- battleground-states, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

Battleground state polls show Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton locked in a tight race for the White House with just more than four months to go before Election Day.

Clinton has so far failed to pull away in the 10 states likely to determine the outcome of the 2016 election, even as Trump has suffered through what some political observers describe as the worst stretch they’ve seen a major presidential candidate endure.

Trump in the last few weeks has fired his campaign manager, seen Republicans flee from his campaign and released embarrassingly low fundraising figures.

Yet he is running competitively with Clinton in the states that will decide the winner of the White House after what may be looked back on as the low point of his campaign.

“If we’ve learned anything this cycle, it’s that this is the Donald Trump election and no ne of the normal rules apply,” Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray told The Hill.

President Obama coasted to reelection in 2012 by defeating GOP nominee Mitt Romney in nine out of 10 battleground states: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

He lost North Carolina, which he had won four years earlier.

Heading into the 2016 conventions next month, polls in those 10 states show close races across the board.

The polling suggests Clinton has an edge because she has leads in six of the 10 states, while Trump is only consistently leading in North Carolina.

Clinton’s lead , however, is just a percentage point or two in most of the states.

Clinton’s largest lead is in Wisconsin, a state Democrats haven’t lost in a presidential election since 1984. According to a CBS News-YouGov poll released Sunday, she has a 5-point lead in the Badger State.

In every other state, the candidates are either tied or within 3.5 points of one another.

Trump and Clinton both have historically high unfavorable ratings, opening the door for two outsider candidates — Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein — to potentially play spoiler.

When Johnson and Stein are considered in polls, the margin between Clinton and Trump almost invariably narrows.

Overall, the electoral map appears to provide more avenues for Clinton to reach 270 electoral votes than Trump.

Polls suggest Clinton has a strong chance of winning Arizona, for example, and the race is also surprisingly close in Georgia and Utah.

RealClearPolitics has Clinton favored to win 211 electoral votes, including 10 from Wisconsin.

The website has Trump winning 164 but has him favored in none of the 10 battleground states. States with 163 electoral votes are seen as toss-ups on the RCP map, including the nine other traditional battlegrounds as well as Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, which has been a safe Democratic state.

Democrats insist they are not taking anything for granted in the race.

“No Democrat with any common sense or real campaign experience is taking this race for granted,” said Democratic strategist Craig Varoga. “These states are battlegrounds for a reason — they're always, without exception, closer in polls and results than the other 35 to 40 states.”

Pennsylvania is the battleground giving Democrats the most heartburn.

Its 20 electoral votes have not gone to the GOP nominee in almost 30 years, yet a Public Policy Polling survey of the state released this month found Trump and Clinton tied, while a Quinnipiac University poll showed Clinton ahead by only 1 point. Analysts at the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics recently shifted Pennsylvania from “Likely Democratic” to “Leans Democratic.”

Trump on Tuesday will look to build on his advantage with working class white voters in the state with a speech from Monessen, a steel mill town an hour south of Pittsburgh that is trying to revitalize itself.

Clinton’s allies, meanwhile, are now pouring millions of dollars into a state where they never expected to have to compete.

The contest in New Hampshire, which has gone for the Democratic candidate in five of the last six presidential cycles, is also a toss-up, with the latest poll showing the candidates are tied.

Even Clinton’s 5-point lead in Wisconsin is emblematic of the challenges both candidates face: Sixty-one percent of voters said they have a negative view of Clinton, against 62 percent who view Trump unfavorably.

“The historically high unfavorability rating for both of these candidates and the overridingly negative attitude voters have about the direction of the country give an added level of volatility to this race that we haven’t seen,” said pollster David Winston. “We’re in uncharted waters. Clinton has a slight edge, but this is far from settled.”

Trump and Clinton are tied in Ohio, but Clinton holds a 3.4 point lead over Trump in Florida, according to the RCP average of polls.

Florida, by far the biggest swing state with 29 electoral votes, was won by Obama by less than 1 point in 2012.

Clinton has only a 1-point lead in Colorado, according to a CBS-YouGov poll released over the weekend. That poll found that a plurality of voters only support Clinton because they oppose Trump, and vice versa.

In Virginia, Clinton has a 42 to 39 lead over Trump, according to a recent PPP survey.

But again, there are warning signs here for the Democrat: Trump leads big, 42 to 29, among independent voters.

And that survey found that Clinton’s lead would be larger, but that supporters of Bernie Sanders have yet to get on board with her campaign.

The only state where Trump is presently favored to win is North Carolina, where he holds a 1.3-point advantage in the RCP average. North Carolina is consistently one of the closest contests in the country. Obama notched the lone Democratic victory there in modern times, squeaking out a 0.3 percentage point victory in 2008, before falling short there by 2 points in 2012.

Clinton barely leads in swing states – fears over globalization and American pride resonate with voters Salvanto 6/26 – (Anthony Salvanto is CBS News elections director, 6/26/16, “Poll: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton in tight races in battleground states,” CBS News, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll-florida-north-carolina- wisconsin-colorado-battleground-states/, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

Battleground states are called battlegrounds for a reason: They're often close, and 2016 looks like no exception.

Hillary Clinton holds narrow leads over Donald Trump across a number of key states of Florida (up three points, 44 to 41 percent); Colorado (Clinton 40 percent, Trump 39 percent); Wisconsin (Clinton up 41 percent to 36 percent) and North Carolina, which has flipped back and forth between the parties in the last two elections, where it's Clinton 44 percent and Trump 42 percent.

In the wake of the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom this week, many wondered if the same sentiments that drove voters to leave the UK, such as voter unease about the economic and cultural effects of globalization, were at work in the U.S. presidential election , too.

Similar sentiments underpin Donald Trump's general election vote, though there is not yet enough for him to surpass Clinton. Trump is also competitive in large part because of partisanship, as rank-and file Republicans continue to get behind him, even as Republican leaders have been more lukewarm toward the way Trump is running his campaign.

About one-third of voters in these states feel the U.S. has done too much in trying to become part of the global economy; too much to make changes to its culture and values, and encouraged too much diversity of people from different backgrounds. Those sentiments are especially pronounced among Republicans and conservatives in these battleground states, majorities of whom feel that way. And those voters are overwhelmingly supporting Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.

Partisanship is driving much of these horse races too. Despite the hard-fought primary contests on both sides, Democrats in these states are now lining up behind Hillary Clinton and Republicans behind Trump--each garnering around eight in ten from their respective camps.

And much of the vote appears locked in already: the bulk of those not voting for Clinton say they will not consider her, and the bulk of those not voting for Trump say they will not consider him. In Florida, sizable numbers of voters are voting in opposition to a candidate they don't like: Forty-eight percent of Trump's voters are backing him mainly to oppose Hillary Clinton, and 32 percent of Clinton's voters are with Clinton in order to oppose Trump. That opposition effect works for both candidates, but voters say each party may have lost opportunities. Fifty percent of those not backing Clinton say they might have considered a Democrat this year had the party not been selecting Clinton as its nominee, and 47 percent of those not for Trump say they might have considered a Republican, but won't support Trump.

Voters see many themes in this election, though partisans have very different views on which of them are the most important. Most feel the election is a lot about the safety and security of the country (in Florida, 74 percent say so, as do 70 percent in North Carolina) and most say it's also about what it means to be an American (59 percent say so in Florida) and about whether or not the economy works fairly (53 percent say so in Wisconsin, for example.) Trump voters and Republicans are more apt to say it's about what it means to be American, and also about changing Washington. Clinton voters in these states are less likely to say it's about changing Washington, and more apt to say this race is about making the economy work, and about security the rights of people who deserve them.

While some Republican leaders are at best lukewarm about how Trump is running his campaign, rank-and-file Republicans in these states are largely okay with it, and many don't care whether or not Trump listens to party leaders. This was an anti-establishment sentiment we saw repeatedly through the primary season, too. However for the larger electorate, and especially among independents, this campaign is leaving them a bit distant. Independents say that the Democrats nominating Clinton hasn't made them think better of the Democratic party, and that the Republicans nominating Trump hasn't made them think better of the Republicans. Clinton wins now, but Trump could win if he captures swing states in the Rust Belt Stokols 6/19 – (Eli Stokols is a national politics reporter for POLITICO, currently covering the Republican side of the 2016 presidential election, 6/19/16, “Donald Trump’s path to victory,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-path-to-victory-224239, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

Donald Trump has vowed to remake the electoral map by winning states that have been reliably blue in recent cycles — but the GOP’s best pollsters say his bluster is a long way from aligning with reality.

Trump, who has been slow to campaign in swing states while raising money by stumping in red states like Texas last week, should be able to count on winning Republican strongholds — states such as Arizona (11 Electoral College votes) and Georgia (16), where he campaigned last Wednesday, despite some optimism from Democrats that those increasingly diverse states could be put in play. In total, the party’s electoral math gurus say the presumptive GOP nominee likely starts the general election with a hold on 19 states, giving him a total of 164 Electoral College votes.

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump continues to trail presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton — both nationally and in battleground states — according to a new poll released Wednesday. But two hypothetical Republican candidates actually would fare much better. Presumptive Republican candidate for president Donald Trump speaks to guests during a policy speech during a campaign stop at Alumisource on June 28, 2016 in Monessen, Pennsylvania. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images) Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump delivers an economic policy speech Tuesday in Monessen, Pennsylvania. (Jeff Swensen/Getty Images) According to a new Ballotpedia poll, Clinton leads Trump in Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia — swing states crucial to winning the White House. The poll shows that in five of those states — Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia — Clinton enjoys a double-digit cushion. Interestingly, the survey found that in hypothetical match-ups Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) leads Clinton in five of the seven states, and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) leads Clinton in three states. Clinton Leads Trump in 7 swing states Nelson 6/29/ 16 – Louis Nelson, He works with POLITICO's breaking news team, after spending a year on the web team, where he was a producer and editor. Before, Louis worked at Washington's WJLA-TV as a web editor and at The Washington Post, where he covered. Louis is a graduate of George Washington University, 2016(“Battleground bloodbath: Clinton leads Trump in 7 swing states”, Politico, June 29, http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016- election/2016/06/clinton-trump-swing-state-poll-224923, 06 – 29 – 2016, EC)

Hillary Clinton is polling higher than Donald Trump in seven swing states, holding leads ranging from 4 to 17 percentage points, according to a poll released Wednesday. Of the seven states polled by Ballotpedia, Clinton’s lead was smallest in Iowa, where registered voters who responded to the poll preferred her by 4 points. The former secretary of state’s largest lead came in Michigan, a traditionally Democratic-leaning state where Trump has said he could compete in November. Clinton leads the Manhattan billionaire there by 17 points, 50 percent to 33 percent. Clinton also holds double-digit leads over Trump in Florida (14 points), Pennsylvania (14 points) and North Carolina (10 points). Respondents preferred her to Trump by 9 points in Ohio and 7 points in Virginia . Clinton maintained her advantage when respondents were offered a third option, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, although her leads shifted slightly. In a three-way race, Clinton’s lead among those polled dropped to just 3 points in Iowa and 6 points in North Carolina. But Johnson’s introduction as an option increased the former secretary of state’s lead to 15 points and 8 points in Pennsylvania and Virginia, respectively. Ballotpedia also polled Clinton in presidential matchups against two other prominent Republicans, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, even though Trump has been the GOP’s presumptive nominee since early May and both men have disavowed interest in running. Kasich polled well against the former secretary of state, besting her in five states: Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Ryan polled better than Clinton in three states: Iowa, Ohio and Virginia. The Ballotpedia poll was conducted among active registered voters via landlines and cellphones from June 10-22, much longer than the usual three to five days for a statewide poll. Interviewers reached 596 respondents in Florida, 601 in Iowa, 612 in Michigan, 603 in North Carolina and 601 in Pennsylvania, all with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points. The poll also reached 617 registered voters in Ohio and 612 in Virginia, each with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 points. Ballotpedia, an online political encyclopedia whose staff covers politics and elections, is sponsored by the nonprofit organization the Lucy Burns Institute. Clinton wins swing states – political insiders report Glueck 16’— Katie Glueck, Katie Glueck, Katie Glueck is a national political reporter at POLITICO, where she covers the 2016 presidential election. Her work has also appeared in publications including the Wall Street Journal, the Austin American-Statesman, the Kansas City Star and Washingtonian magazine. She is a graduate of the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University, and is a native of Kansas City, 2016 (“Insiders: Clinton Would Crush Trump In November,” Politico, June 29, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-november-insiders-222598, Accessed 06-29-2016, AB)

In the swing states that matter most in the presidential race, Donald Trump doesn’t have a prayer against

Hillary Clinton in the general election. That’s according to top operatives, strategists and activists in 10 battleground states who participated in this week’sa POLITICO Caucus. Nearly 90 percent of them said Clinton would defeat Trump in their home states in a November matchup. Republicans are only slightly more bullish on Trump’s prospects than Democrats: More than three-quarters of GOP insiders expect Clinton to best the Republican front-runner in a general-election contest in their respective states. Among Democrats, the belief is nearly universal: 99 percent of surveyed said will Clinton will beat Trump.

In three of the biggest swing states — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida — Republicans were particularly downbeat about the prospect of a Trump-Clinton contest. “There is positively no way for Trump to win in Pennsylvania,” said a Republican from that state. “Trump cannot and will not carry Ohio,” a Republican from that state insisted. “He will do well in Appalachia and in the Mahoning Valley, but he will get killed in the rest of the state. The danger for the GOP is losing Rob Portman, which is a very real possibility under this matchup.” Added a Florida Republican, who like all participants was granted anonymity in order to speak freely, “Trump is grinding the GOP to a stub. He couldn't find enough xenophobic, angry white Floridians to beat Hillary in Florida if he tried.”

Clinton wins swing states – democratic unity, demographics, and trends prove Montanaro 6/26/16 — Domenico Montanaro, Domenico Montanaro is NPR's lead editor for politics and digital audience. Based in Washington, D.C., he directs political coverage across the network's broadcast and digital platforms. Before joining NPR in 2015, Montanaro served as political director and senior producer for politics and law at PBS NewsHour. There, he led domestic political and legal coverage, which included the 2014 midterm elections, the Supreme Court and the unrest in Ferguson, Mo. Prior to PBS NewsHour, Montanaro was deputy political editor at NBC News, where he covered two presidential elections and reported and edited for the network's political blog, "First Read." He has also worked at CBS News, ABC News, The Asbury Park Press in New Jersey, and has taught high-school English. Montanaro earned a bachelor's degree in English from the University of Delaware and a master's degree in Journalism from Columbia University, 2016 (“NPR Battleground Map: Florida, Pennsylvania Move In Opposite Directions,”NPR News, June 26, http://www.npr.org/2016/06/26/483452230/npr-battleground-map-florida-pennsylvania- move-in-opposite-directions, Accessed 06-29-2016, AB)

The past month has not been kind to Donald Trump. He has landed in controversy on everything from how much he (eventually) gave to veterans groups to Trump University (and the judge who he declared biased because of his Mexican heritage) to his response to the Orlando shooting. National polling has certainly reflected that — Hillary Clinton has opened up a 6- point lead in the RealClearPolitics average of the polls after the two were tied at the end of May. But Trump continues to be competitive in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania because of blue-collar white voters. Polling and reporting bears that out. NPR's Don Gonyea, for example, traveled to Northeastern Ohio earlier this month and found Rust Belt union voters, people who should be reliable Democrats, considering Trump, in part, because of his trade message. Still, there appears to be some earth shifting beneath Trump's feet, especially with disunity between Trump and party leaders and the pause he's giving some rank-and-file, mainstream

Republicans. At the same time, Democrats have moved more toward unity. Clinton joined Trump as the presumptive nominee for her party, got the endorsement of President Obama and liberal hero Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, and Bernie Sanders is inching closer to endorsing her. When evaluating the landscape this month, we have made some changes to the NPR Battleground Map, most notably: -Florida (29 EVs) moves from Toss Up to Lean D -Pennsylvania (20 EVs) moves from Lean D to Toss Up The changes are net-plus of 9 Electoral Votes for Clinton from last month's initial ratings. It moves Clinton's advantage in our map over Trump to 279-191, as you can see in our battleground map above. (This style of map is new this month and reflects a proportional representation of each state by Electoral Vote strength.) A presidential candidate needs 270 Electoral Votes to become president. In other words, if Clinton wins just the states leaning in her direction, she would be president without needing any of the toss up states — Colorado, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio or Pennsylvania. (If you want to read about Trump's potential path, check out the write up of our initial ratings last month.) Florida Because of demographics, Florida has appeared to us to be , if not leaning, moving toward Democrats , especially with Trump on the ticket.

Adam Smith at the Tampa Bay Times noted: "A candidate wildly unpopular with non-white voters and presiding over a deeply fractured party with swaths of voters who can't stomach their nominee simply has little shot of winning a state as diverse and competitive as Florida. This, at least, is the conventional wisdom from wise political players who never imagined the reality star could win the Republican nomination against Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

TheTampa Bay Times surveyed more than 130 Florida political professionals, fundraisers and other experienced politicos, and nearly 70 percent predicted Clinton will win Florida in November. ... "Florida being Florida, the safe assumption is that the numbers will tighten into a neck-and-neck contest by November. Yes, Trump can win America's biggest battleground state, but only if the GOP closes ranks behind him. And only if he can perform far better against Clinton than Mitt Romney did against Barack Obama in places like Tampa Bay and North Florida to compensate for what most experts predict will be a historic Democratic drubbing in vote-rich southeast Florida." A Quinnipiac poll this month showed Clinton up 8 (47 to 39 percent), though she only leads by 3 in the RCP average. Of course, while the fundamentals appear to favor Clinton there, Obama won it by less than a point in 2012 and Democrats worry that strict Voter ID laws could make it tight. Pennsylvania Democrats have won Pennsylvania in every presidential election in the last quarter-century (since 1992). But Pennsylvania is a place that is an emerging battleground. As David Wasserman wrote at 538: "I'd argue Pennsylvania has leapfrogged Colorado and Virginia as the next most winnable state for Republicans. In fact, it may be on pace to claim sole 'tipping point' status. As it turns out, Colorado and Virginia are among the top 10 fastest Democratic-trending states in the nation — they are, respectively, getting about 0.9 percentage points and 1.2 points more Democratic-leaning compared with the country every four years. By contrast, Pennsylvania has gradually migrated in the opposite direction. It's gotten about 0.4 percentage points more Republican every four years. Projecting this trend forward another four years from 2012's results would reorder the existing battleground states on the 2016 electoral map." NPR's Steve Inskeep and the team at NPR's Morning Edition traveled to a key county in Pennsylvania recently in The View From Here series — Bucks County. It's the kind of place Donald Trump likely has to win if he wants to win Pennsylvania. Obama won it twice, narrowly in 2012, as did John Kerry in 2004. Blue-collar whites were open to Trump's message. That's also true elsewhere in the state as well. See Politico's piece on Cambria County in the Western part of the state. It went for Romney, but is indicative of the trend in a place that used to go for Democrats. The key in Pennsylvania — especially places like Bucks that has a higher rate of college graduates than the country at large (37 percent vs. 29 percent) — is if Trump's tone turns off GOP and independent white professionals.

The RCP average has Clinton just 0.5 percentage points ahead with polls this month showing her in the low 40s and 1-point, non- statistically significant, leads. Clinton has work to do to keep this state blue. Other changes/notes: -Georgia (16 EVs) from Likely R to Lean R: Georgia's demographic trends are unmistakable. The white versus non-white vote has drastically declined over the last couple of decades. Trump is still the favorite, but, like Obama in 2008, who finished just 5 points behind, the RCP average right now is just 4. -Nebraska (1EV) from Likely R to Lean R: Nebraska is one of those states that splits its electoral votes by congressional district. This one, in the Omaha area, is the most left-leaning in the state. (Obama won it in 2008.) There is a Democratic congressman there, Brad Ashford, who was endorsed Monday by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. -Utah (6 EVs): There's been a lot of talk about Utah and whether it should move to Lean R. Mormons remain unconvinced of Trump and his morality, and because of that he's been struggling in the polls. But Clinton hasn't seen much of a boost, polling in the 30s. No Democrat has won more than 35 percent (Obama in 2008) in Utah in the last 50 years. Now, if Clinton starts to poll in the 30s, or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, starts to get in the mid-to-high teens, then this state could be for real. But until then, it remains Likely R. UQ — Rust Belt

Clinton has the lead, but Trump has momentum, especially in Rust Belt states Hoddinott 6/8 – (Aaron, 6/8/16, “It’s On! Trump versus Clinton for Leader of Free World,” http://capitalistcreations.com/its-on-trump-versus-clinton-for-leader-of-free-world/, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

History was apparently made last night, just don’t ask Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton won the Democrat nomination for President, making her the first woman to accomplish this in the history of America. So now the moment we’ve all been waiting for has arrived: From now ‘til November, she will be going toe to toe with Donald Trump. Both candidates are highly disliked by factions within their own parties, yet appeal to a growing base of undecided voters.

Trump Has the Edge Over Hillary

Although the critics of Trump say the electoral map strongly indicates a Hillary victory in November, momentum looks to be on Trump’s side. And for his personality, he has the right message to take back the Rust Belt from the Democrats, which would almost guarantee a victory for The Donald. Not only that, but if Hillary’s victory speech last night was any indication of the narrative she will go with against Trump during the election season, it will backfire on her.

From Hillary Clinton’s Victory Speech Last Night

Clinton explained to her revelers last night that her mom told her from a young age to never back down from a bully – insinuating of course that Trump is that bully. Hillary called her victory a historic moment for women, which hints that her campaign strategy will be to hit Trump on his so-called misogynist ways. Problem is, given her husband’s track record and her reported silencing tactics of his female critics, it will backfire. Some right-wing commentators have gone so far as to call Bill a sexual predator – fodder for Trump on the campaign trail.

As an aside, Hillary looks rather sickly. This is no reason to critique someone, and I hope she isn’t ill, but appearance matters on the campaign trail. Energy levels matter – as we saw with Jeb ( Trump routinely attacked the once front-runner for being “low energy”). Drudge has reported there is a real health issue with Hillary that is being kept quiet. Who knows…

Moreover, Trump will not let Clinton’s email server problem die. And nor should he. This should be of huge concern for the American voter. And if Hillary doesn’t win, it could be her Nixon moment. It’s likely ‘do or be prosecuted’ for Hillary this election. I suspect the investigators are too nervous to prosecute a potential future President… but if she doesn’t win, Hillary will likely be prosecuted. That dark cloud will not leave her the entire campaign – Trump will make sure of that.

In Trump’s victory speech last night he promised to make a big speech about ‘Clinton corruption’ and how they sold government access for money. The gloves are off, and I think Trump will come out of this scrum the victor. Hillary just has too many skeletons. As crazy as it is to say, Bernie Sanders would have been a tougher fight for Trump than Hillary Clinton. She’s a flawed candidate. UQ — Obama Popularity Clinton will win, but aligning with Obama is key Karni 7/5 – (Annie Karni is a Politics Reporter for Politico, 7/5/16, “Obama and Clinton rally against Trump,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-and-clinton-rally- against-trump-225086, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

When Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama publicly reconciled eight years ago at a celebrated summer rally in Unity, New Hampshire, the two recent rivals were still closer to being opponents than friends.

While both candidates were set on healing the Democratic Party after a divisive primary, the lead-up to the event was fraught. Did their show of warmth — a kiss on the tarmac in Washington, D.C., as they boarded a chartered plane together — appear genuine? Would their praise for each other — “she rocks,” gushed Obama, seeking to win over her supporters — seem too forced?

“It is as far from fraught as can be,” said Obama’s former chief strategist, David Axelrod, of Obama's long-anticipated campaign trail debut. “He’s been chomping at the bit to get out there. There’s so many reasons why he feels strongly about this — part of it is his genuine respect for her, part of it is his feelings about the alternative. There’s no half-hearted warrior here.”

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, said of Tuesday’s rally that unlike eight years ago, “they have such a great relationship that there’s nothing to psychoanalyze. He wants to do everything he can for her.”

Coming just weeks before Clinton is expected to announce her running mate, the Charlotte rally will also serve as a reminder that the Clinton-Obama alliance remains the Democratic Party’s defining partnership no matter whom Clinton chooses as her No. 2. The idea of the first female president following the first African-American president bonds the two leaders in their own minds and in the minds of their supporters, aides said. Some Democratic operatives with young children like to joke that their kids could be 16 before they realize a white man can serve as commander in chief.

McAuliffe, who has been pushing his home state Sen. Tim Kaine as Clinton’s running mate, outlined what Clinton is looking for in a partner on the trail. “I’ve known Hillary for 30 years — she wants someone who can be a collaborator,” he told POLITICO. “President Clinton and Al Gore used to have their weekly lunches. That’s ingrained in Hillary’s head as well. She wants a partner, she doesn’t want someone who’s going to upstage her. You want someone helping to push your agenda.”

But so far, it's the outgoing president, with his 52 percent approval rating, who fits that bill.

The risk is Donald Trump and other Republican detractors will seize on the rally as further evidence that Clinton is running for Obama’s third term. And on the heels of last week’s energetic rally with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the two events could remind voters of how Clinton on her own remains a low-appeal candidate in need of star power to generate enthusiasm.

But Obama’s popularity among the Democratic voter blocs Clinton needs outweigh any potential drawbacks. On Tuesday, what will matter more than any close study of their body language, like eight years ago, is how the president posits his case for the woman he would like to see as his successor and safeguard of his legacy. Obama allies said they expect him to deliver a first-hand account of what kind of temperament the presidency requires. As a former rival who came around to Clinton, White House aides said, Obama can also make the most convincing case to voters who remain ambivalent about her. Clinton’s own willingness to serve under the rival she once viewed as an unqualified upstart also helps to cast her in a flattering light. The image most ingrained in Axelrod’s mind of Clinton’s service in Obama’s Cabinet, for instance, is her reaction to the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act. “The day after it passed, she got up and she gave him a big hug,” he recalled, “she was hugging and high- fiving everyone in the Situation Room. She was so fundamentally excited that this had happened. It was a touching moment. What it said was there are bigger things than egos and ambitions.”

The rally Tuesday is also expected to represent a unique moment in the campaign: Obama and Clinton are not planning many joint appearances in the months to come. “They will be more apart than together,” said a White House official. “They can both draw crowds and energize and excite voters.”

The Charlotte rally also marks a break from modern presidential election history: It’s been more than half a century since a sitting president was called upon by a potential successor for help — and truly delivered.

With approval ratings in the 20s, George W. Bush was no asset to John McCain in 2008. And hot off Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 2000, “Clinton was a very mixed bag for Al Gore,” said Democratic strategist and former Gore adviser Robert Shrum. Gore kept his distance from Clinton, rarely even calling for the advice that the insulted outgoing president was desperate to give.

George H.W. Bush in 1988 needed to make a case beyond running as Ronald Reagan’s third term and needed some distance from the popular but aging president — Reagan’s best pitch for his vice president, at a rare joint rally in California, was that playing the role of standby equipment as a vice president was a role that didn’t “fit easily on such a man.”

In Richard Nixon’s 1960 race against John F. Kennedy, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s assessment about his own vice president’s lack of experience — “If you give me a week I might think of one, I don’t remember,” he said, when asked to give an example of Nixon’s contribution to his administration — ended up in a negative ad run by the Kennedy campaign.

In contrast, Obama is the rare “unalloyed asset” for Clinton, said Shrum. “People who don’t like him are never going to vote for Hillary anyway,” he said. “There’s no downside at all. He mobilizes the base of the party; he’s got over 50 percent job approval. There’s no reason you wouldn’t use him as much as you can.”

“ It’s a smart move for her, and it’s a smart move for the president,” said Roy Neel, a former adviser to Bill Clinton and Al Gore. “Obama can be extremely helpful to Hillary, certainly to rally African-American, Hispanic voters, and young people, the base that elected him in 2008.”

Originally planned for Green Bay, Wisconsin, the Clinton-Obama rally was rescheduled after the June 13 mass shooting in Orlando, and subsequently moved to the battleground state that Obama lost by a narrow margin in 2012 after having won it in 2008. The new location signals a Democratic effort to expand the map there in the wake of Trump’s recent weakness in North Carolina polls. Over the weekend, in a sign of the state’s increasing significance, Trump announced a competing rally in Raleigh the same day.

But this competing campaign stop might serve to fuel Obama’s case for Clinton.

“He can talk about what the presidency requires,” said Axelrod. “And the big argument she’s making is that she has the temperament and the experience that’s necessary for the job.”

Specifically in swing states – the Clinton-Obama team is key to swinging young voters that are key Cahn 6/30 – (Emily Cahn is a senior writer for Mic covering politics, 6/30/16, “4 States Where Barack Obama Can Boost Hillary Clinton's Campaign,” Policy Mic, https://mic.com/articles/147394/4-states-where-barack-obama-can-boost-hillary-clinton-s- campaign#.EL7qIPl9A, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

Democrats are fired up and ready to unleash President Barack Obama.

Obama will hit the campaign trail on Tuesday in Charlotte, North Carolina — his first joint- appearance with presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton since he endorsed her earlier this month.

With his approval rating averaging more than 50% for the first time since early 2013, Democrats say Obama will be an asset to their party in the fall. And they are planning to lean on him to help Clinton win in November and cement his presidential legacy.

Yet while Democrats say Obama's popularity will be a boon in November, they add that there are certain places he's most likely to appear as Election Day draws near.

"I think that the president can and be an asset pretty much anywhere, but particularly with young people, particularly in swing states he's done well in, and particularly in some of the more suburban areas of these swing states," Shripal Shah, communications director for Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC working to flip the Senate back to Democratic control in November, said. "Those are the people that pretty much built his coalition in '08 and '12, and those are the people who are still persuadable. and he's the the best messenger to persuade them" AT: Polls Fail History proves current polls are predictive Wang 16 — Sam Wang, Co-founder of the Princeton election Consortium, Ph.D.in Neuroscience at Stanford University, 2016 (“What head-to-head election polls tell us about November,” Princeton Election Consortium, May 1st, Available Online at http://election.princeton.edu/2016/05/01/what-do-head-to-head-general-election-polls-tell-us- about-november/, Accessed 7-21-16)

General-election matchup polls (e.g. Clinton v. Trump) started to become informative in February. In May, they tell us quite a lot – and give a way to estimate the probability of a Hillary Clinton victory .

First, let us examine the primary evidence. Wlezien and Erikson have gathered presidential preference polls from 1952-2008:

These graphs show that during the year of the general election, polls gradually converge to a point that is close to the actual November outcome.

Wlezien and Erikson expressed their findings in terms of correlation coefficients. In early February (about 280 days from the election), the correlation between polls and November outcomes is +0.2, where 0.0 corresponds to no relationship and +1.0 indicates a perfect relationship. The correlation rises to +0.9 by October. However, this measure is not easily used by consumers of polls.

Instead, a more intuitive measure is how far polls tend to move over time.

To calculate this box-and-whisker plot I also included 2012 data (spreadsheet here). Positive values indicate that the Democratic candidate did worse in November than in polls. The box indicates the interquartile range, i.e. the middle 50%, and the whiskers indicate the range. The red points indicate two outliers: the elections of 1964 (Johnson v. Goldwater) and 1980 (Carter v. Reagan v. Anderson). In May, polls overestimated support for the Democratic candidate by over 10 percentage points. For obvious reasons, Republican-leaning pundits like to write about 1980. But that is one case out of 16 elections.

Instead of such cherrypicking, it is more accurate to include them as part of an analysis of all 16 elections. The full range and estimated standard deviation of poll-outcome differences looks like this:

On average, polls have little or no bias relative to November , but have some variation, which is what we care about. That variation is quantified by the standard deviation (SD). I estimated SD using median absolute deviation (MAD), and verified this approach using interquartile range divided by 1.35. For March and April, the standard deviation is around 4 percentage points. AT: UQ Overwhelms It’s not a landslide – it’ll be close Post and Courier 7/2 – (The Post and Courier editorial board; Charles R. Rowe is the editorial page editor, 7/2/16, “It’s not over till it’s over,” The Post and Courier, http://www.postandcourier.com/20160702/160709844/its-not-over-till-its-over, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

An article in Tuesday’s New York Times entertained the seemingly growing possibility that Hillary Clinton could become the first “landslide” presidential-election winner in more than three decades. And recent polls do show her standing on the rise while Donald Trump’s falls.

But before assuming that the electoral rout is on, keep in mind that most analysts repeatedly — and inaccurately — dismissed Mr. Trump’s chances at winning the Republican White House nomination in his first bid for elective office.

Keep in mind, too, that while “The Donald” has extraordinarily high “negative” poll numbers, so does Mrs. Clinton.

Sure, as John Harwood wrote in his latest dispatch from the Times’ “Letter From America” series, Mr. Trump’s “tempestuous persona, harsh rhetoric and thin preparation have repelled important segments of his own Republican Party as well as Democratic constituencies.”

Plus, the Times’ new average of assorted polls reflects Mrs. Clinton’s upward trend this month, showing her with a 45 to 39 percent national edge. Last week’s Washington Post/ABC News poll, which gave her a 48-36 percent edge, also reported that nearly one- third of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents — and two-thirds of all voters surveyed — deemed Mr. Trump unqualified for the presidency.

Then again, a Quinnipaic University poll released Tuesday gauged Mrs. Clinton’s lead at a scant 42- 40 percent. A Rasmussen survey released Thursday showed Mr. Trump ahead by 43-39 percent. And recent polls in the “battleground states” of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania remain relatively close.

Remember, too, that each of the last six presidential elections has been decided by about a dozen such swing states. The national tickets of one party or the other have consistently carried at least three dozen states — including South Carolina, which has now backed the GOP nominee in nine straight presidential contests.

The last presidential-race landslide came in 1984, when Ronald Reagan was re-elected while winning 49 states and 58.8 percent of the popular vote against Walter Mondale.

George H.W. Bush then carried 40 states and took 53.4 percent of the vote against Michael Dukakis in 1988.

However, since then, no candidate has topped the 32 states carried by Bill Clinton in 1992 or the 52.9 percent of the popular vote garnered by Barack Obama in 2008.

Yes, the latest betting odds peg Mrs. Clinton as a 11-to-4 favorite (you must bet $11 on her to collect $4 if she wins) and Mr. Trump as a 9-to-4 underdog (bet $4 on him to collect $9 if he wins).

Yet one year ago, the odds against Mr. Trump winning the Oval Office were much longer at 33-to-1.

Perhaps continued criticism by fellow Republicans, and Friday’s resignation of another high-ranking campaign official (“director of surrogates” Kevin Kellems) signal serious trouble for Mr. Trump.

Perhaps Mrs. Clinton will over time emerge as a lock to win the presidency. Maybe she will even do so by a landslide, winning numerous red states in a politically transforming process.

But regardless of which nominee you consider the better — or less bad? — presidential pick, don’t bank on who will win, or by how much, before the poll that really counts.

And that’s the one tabulated on Nov. 8.

Brexit and Clinton failures mean the race will be tight and Trump is a serious threat Fahy and Fahy 7/4 – (Brian Fahy and Garrett Fahy are practicing lawyers and talk radio hosts as well as contributing writers at the Orange County Register, 7/4/16, “Is Trump's election America's Brexit?,” http://www.ocregister.com/articles/trump-721321-brexit-president.html, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

The impossible is becoming increasingly probable. In spite of his Twitter tirades, boorish behavior and propensity for prevarication, Donald Trump is , according to CBS News and Quinnipiac University polling, almost even with Hillary Clinton both nationally and in the must-win states of Florida, Colorado and North Carolina. How is this possible?

His polling rebound comes on the heels of his strong rhetorical takedown of Hillary Clinton and President Obama after the Orlando massacre and his support for the Brexit campaign, which sent an anti-establishment, anti-immigration message, a “Britain First” message, which stunned the British political establishment. Outgoing British Prime Minister David Cameron, the first Brexit casualty, suggested this week that the Brexit referendum was fueled in large part by British frustrations over unrestrained immigration. Sounds familiar.

On this side of the Atlantic, Trump has been pushing his “America First” theme , which, like the Brexit movement , disdains the political establishment and unchecked immigration of unscreened migrants from failed states. Whether the fervor that fueled the Brexit campaign will cross the pond is anyone’s guess, but events here are fueling Trump’s surging, anti-establishment campaign.

First, gun control. In the wake of the Orlando massacre, Democrats made themselves look foolish – and Trump look presidential – by staging a failed sit-in on the House floor and demanding a vote on proposals that even the ACLU opposed, whereby those on the secret no-fly list and terror watch list would be denied, without any due process, the constitutional right to own a gun. In contrast, Trump said he would be meeting with the NRA to “discuss how to ensure Americans have the means to protect themselves in this age of terror.”

Next, the Supreme Court. In the last week of its term, the Supreme Court deadlocked on President Obama’s unlawful attempt to rewrite our immigration laws, ensuring the president’s amnesty program is (thankfully) dead for now. Immigration will remain a campaign issue, and a winning issue for Trump, after Hillary promised similarly unlawful executive actions should she capture the White House. The Court also overturned Texas’ commonsense laws regulating abortion providers, reminding voters that the Supreme Court is out of control and in need of a president to appoint a conservative justice to stem the tide of liberal arrogance. Anyone on Trump’s announced short list will do.

Third, while Trump’s paltry fundraising has given political professionals heartburn, this hasn’t prevented Trump from getting his messages out. Even though he has raised less than most congressional candidates, his ability to get free media coverage is propelling his candidacy and ensuring that he leads every news cycle. Trump is doing now what President Reagan did so well 30 years ago: speaking directly to the American public and bypassing the New York/D.C. media machine.

Compounding his good luck, Hillary Clinton, the woman who amassed a fortune giving secret speeches to Wall Street executives and taking donations from foreign governments with deplorable human rights records, is giving ultra-liberal Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren – the fake Native American – a test drive as a potential vice presidential nominee. Trump rejoices as two shrill, Northeastern liberals with credibility problems peddle an agenda more liberal than President Obama’s, and more than 60 percent of America believes the nation is on the wrong track .

Lastly, the Democratic National Committee this week doubled down on its war against blue-collar jobs by voting to endorse the Stalinesque investigation by Democratic attorneys general of energy companies and think tanks who dared to question the reality of global warming or climate change. The party that squandered billions on failed green energy schemes (e.g. Solyndra) is now targeting some of America’s largest and most influential employers on an issue that always ranks dead last on voters’ priority lists, a sure way to forfeit votes and campaign contributions.

Does all of this mean Trump will win come November? Not at all. But it does mean that the Trump train chugs on, building momentum and making it increasingly unlikely that the GOP establishment or Hillary Clinton will derail a movement no serious person believed could succeed – just like the Brexit referendum.

Even the Nate Silver concedes that a Clinton win isn’t inevitable Silver et al., 6/30 – (Nate Silver is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight, Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight, Clare Malone is a senior political writer for FiveThirtyEight, David Firestone, formerly a reporter and editor at The New York Times, is FiveThirtyEight’s managing editor; 6/30/16, “An 80 Percent Shot Doesn’t Mean Clinton Is A Sure Thing,” FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/an-80-percent-shot- doesnt-mean-clinton-is-a-sure-thing/, HWilson)

David: And that in-between number gives Hillary Clinton about an 80 percent chance of winning, which obviously doesn’t mean it’s over.

Clare: Did Cookie vote Trump? Or is he a Bernie Bro?

Nate: I’m sort of annoyed by it being 80 percent, because I feel like that’s the number people most misinterpret. When you say 80 percent, people take that to mean “really, really certain.” It’s not, particularly.

David: I liked your ballgame analogy, Nate, in the article you wrote to accompany the forecast. Teams come back from 20-percent- win situations frequently. In fact, about 20 percent of the time!

Nate: Absolutely amazing how that works!

Clare: You’re annoyed that it’s a high number because people are going to glom onto that and think it holds for the whole election? Not realizing that this is where things stand as of June 29 and that it’ll change as things go on and polls come in?

Nate: It can change, sure. But let’s be clear — 80 percent is the forecast Clinton has to win on Nov. 8. That’s our best estimate of her chances, accounting for the uncertainty between now and then, based on the historical accuracy of presidential polling. If the election were held today instead, she’d be a safer bet still. The polls can change a lot between now and Nov. 8. And they probably will. But there’s a chance those changes benefit Clinton, and not Donald Trump. And since she’s up by about 7 points now, there’s the chance they help Trump … but not enough to allow him to win.

And that’s the thing. Of the 80 percent of the time Clinton wins — PLENTY of those times are going to involve her sweating . Either because Trump makes it very close at the end or because there are some periods in which things look very tight along the way, as they did for Obama against McCain and against Romney.

But Clinton will win a lot of those close calls, along with her share of landslides.

Clare: So the Clinton campaign should not change its warm-up song to “Landslide” just yet? (The Fleetwood Mac version, obvs, not the Dixie Chicks cover.)

David: Because it’s a model, we’ll be feeding new polls into it as they come out every day, or whenever we have them. And the polls-plus version also changes with economic performance. So we can expect to see fluctuations in the numbers regularly, and sometimes those can be serious changes . Uniqueness — Demographics UQ — Educated White People Trump has already lost a major demographic: educated white Americans who will refuse to vote for him and swing the election for Hillary AP, 7/11 (The Associated Press, JULY 11, 2016, “Trump Is Losing to Hillary Among One Crucial Group of White Voters,” http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/donald-trump-educated-white- voters/)

Wanda Melton has voted for every Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan in 1980, but now the Georgia grandmother plans to cross over to support Democrat Hillary Clinton. “I’m not a real fan of Hillary,” Melton says from her office in Atlanta. “But I think it would just be awful to have Donald Trump.” She adds: “I cannot in good conscience let that happen.” Melton is among a particular group of voters, whites with college degrees, who are resistant to Trump. Their skepticism comes as an ominous warning as Trump struggles to rebuild even the losing coalition that Mitt Romney managed four years ago. College-educated whites made up more than one-third of the electorate in 2012. Polls suggest Trump trails Clinton with those voters, especially women. “Donald Trump simply cannot afford to lose ground in any segment of the electorate” that supported Romney, said Florida pollster Fernand Amandi. Romney’s strength with that group, for example, made for a close race in Florida, where President Barack Obama won by less than 75,000 votes out of more than 8.4 million cast. Some Republicans worry that Trump’s approach — his unvarnished, sometimes uncouth demeanor and his nationalist and populist arguments — guarantees his defeat, because the same outsider appeal that attracts many working class and even college-educated white men alienates other voters with a college degree. Ann Robinson, 64, is a lifelong Republican in Trump’s home state of New York, a Democratic stronghold that the real estate tycoon cites as an example of where he can “expand the map.” Robinson sneers at the proposition and says she’ll vote for Clinton. “It’s just not a reasonable movement,” she says of Trump’s populist pitch. “I’m not sure he can actually be their savior. She has so much more experience. Trump has nothing.” Mary Darling, 59, is an Illinois Republican who said she won’t vote for Trump or Clinton. “If they could just soften his edges, people would flock to him, but that’s just not going to happen,” she said. Lew Oliver, chairman of the Orange County Republican Party in Florida, says he’s prepared for an uphill fight in no small part because of Trump’s struggle among more educated voters. “The fundamentals aren’t in our favor, and some of his comments aren’t helping,” Oliver said. Romney drew support from 56 percent of white voters with college degrees, according to 2012 exit polls. Obama notched just 42 percent, but still cruised to a second term. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in June found Clinton leading Trump among college-educated whites 50 percent to 42 percent. Polling from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center pointed to particularly stark numbers among white women with at least a bachelor’s degree. At this point in 2008 and 2012, that group of voters was almost evenly divided between Obama and the Republican nominee. This June, Pew found Clinton with a 62-31 advantage. Conversely, Pew found Trump still leads, albeit by a slightly narrower margin than did Romney at this point, among white women with less than a bachelor’s degree. Should Trump fail to even replicate Romney’s coalition, he has little hope of flipping many of the most contested states that Obama won twice, particularly Florida, Colorado and Virginia. Trump’s struggles among college whites have Democrats eyeing North Carolina, which Obama won in 2008 before it reverted back to Republicans, and even GOP-leaning Arizona and Georgia. The education gap for Trump isn’t new. Exit polls in the Republican primaries found him faring better among less educated groups. Trump particularly struggled with better educated Republicans when Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., was in the presidential race. Republican pollster Greg Strimple of Idaho says the gap is understandable. Voters without a college education, he said, are more likely to be struggling financially, to feel alienated from the political class that Trump rails against. They are more likely to find solace in his promise to stop illegal immigration. College educated voters “may have had relatively stagnant incomes, but they can still look at their 401(k)s and think about the future,” Strimple said. “They’re free to care more about things like tone.” Clinton’s campaign sees the persuadable portion of the electorate as being made up largely of women, many with college degrees. It has tried to reach them by hammering Trump as “dangerous” and “temperamentally unfit” for the job, while her initial general election advertising blitz focuses on her achievements in public life. UQ —Women Women will win the election for Hillary—women on both sides of the aisle are standing by her and Trump’s losing the key demographic of female republicans Page, 7/11 (Susan, the Washington Bureau chief of USA TODAY, covering her 9th presidential campaign (and still trying to get it right). She's interviewed the past 8 presidents and reported from 5 continents, July 11, 2016, “For Clinton, sisterhood is powerful — and Trump helps,” USA TODAY,) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/10/hillary-clinton- women-voters/86793244/

The woman's card? Hillary Clinton is playing it — and Donald Trump is helping her. As the Democratic National Convention prepares to make history by nominating a woman for president, women in national polls are giving Clinton the highest level of female support of any candidate in more than four decades and the widest gender gap ever recorded. Clinton's lead of a yawning 24 percentage points in the latest Pew Research Center Poll — not only among Democratic partisans but also from women who typically vote Republican — is an electoral challenge for the GOP that imperils Trump's ability to win the White House. In interviews with women across the country by the USA TODAY Network, some supporters are elated by the prospect of shattering what Clinton has called "the final, hardest glass ceiling," electing the first female president. "It's about time," says Stephanie Parra, 31, an education consultant in Phoenix. The Latina says Clinton is "breaking barriers for us." But other women are driven less by support for Clinton than by antipathy to Trump. That's particularly true among Millennials, voters 35 and younger who were part of the Obama coalition but haven't warmed to Clinton, at least not yet. While seven in 10 younger women support Clinton, they say by more than 2-1 that their choice is more a vote against him than for her. Lauren Rolwing, 32, an illustrator from Nashville who was interviewed at a downtown pet-shop-turned-coffeehouse called Fido, is still sporting her Bernie Sanders campaign button though she acknowledges he's not going to be the Democratic nominee. She's undecided between voting for Clinton or a third-party candidate. "At this time, I'm not going to take anything off the table other than voting for Trump," she says. "That's off the table." Alarm over Trump's provocative policies and rhetoric also is costing him support among some white women who typically vote Republican. White women without a college degree have backed GOP nominees by double-digits in each of the past three presidential elections, but in the Pew survey they support Trump over Clinton by just three percentage points, 48%-45%. The reason? Clinton's supporters in this demographic group say they are voting against him rather than for her (28%-17%). Even most of Trump's supporters indicate they are choosing the lesser of two evils: They are more likely to say they are voting against Clinton than for him (27%-19%). The Pew poll of 1,655 registered voters, taken June 15- 26, has a margin of error of +/-2.4 percentage points. Of course, some female voters support Trump, and enthusiastically. "Trump is our only hope to gain our country back," Teresa Willis, 60, a massage therapist and hairdresser from Mason, Ohio, declared in an interview at a raucous Trump rally last week in nearby Sharonville, outside Cincinnati. She is most concerned about national security and about restoring religion in American society and schools. "I believe this election is our last chance." "I'm very concerned about the economy and things like that," says Alyssa Weisser, 43, a small-business owner from St. Clairsville, Ohio, who went to a Trump rally there last month. "Obviously, Trump knows a lot about creating jobs and owning a business and running it — which Hillary has not run anything." That said, Trump trailed Clinton among women in the Pew poll by 35%-59%. He led among men by six points, 49%-43%. If that held to Election Day, the 16-point difference in Clinton's support among women and men would swamp the record 11-point gender gap set in 1996. Then, female support for Bill Clinton gave him his margin of victory over Republican Bob Dole. "Sixteen points? That's gigantic," says Susan Carroll, a professor at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University and coeditor of Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics. "That's off the radar screen." 'It's Irrelevant' Some Americans aren't comfortable with the idea of electing the first female president. In the latest USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll, only a third of women said they felt excitement about the prospect of Clinton's groundbreaking election. In fact, a bit more said they felt unease. More than one in four said it didn't make any difference to them. "It's such a shallow thing and, for me, it's irrelevant," says Hope Ellison-Scipione, 51, of Grosse Pointe Park, in suburban Detroit. Ellison-Scipione, who designs office space for the IRS, enthusiastically supports Clinton, but for reasons other than her gender. "She has the most experience, and she's going to be able to continue what (President) Obama has started," she says. Clinton, 68, wins support from nine of 10 African American women and from more than seven in 10 Latinas in the Pew poll. By generation, her widest margin of support is among Millennials but her most positive support -- those voting mostly for her rather than against Trump -- comes from women in her own generation, the Baby Boomers. College-educated white women typically lean Democratic, but Clinton now leads among them by a stunning margin of 31 points, 62%-31%. She even holds a narrow lead, 46%-43%, among married white women, a group that has supported Republicans by wide margins in recent presidential elections. Holding the support of suburban white women looms as a key test of the GOP coalition this year. "I think it's fantastic that a woman is finally on the ticket," says Marsha Pulizzano, 32, who lives in the Milwaukee suburb of Brookfield. "I think our kids are going to grow up and think nothing of it, whereas for us it's this huge ordeal." Even so, Pulizzano, who supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the state's Republican primary this spring, isn't sure which nominee she'll vote for in November. "Right now, if I had to pick, I guess I'd pick Hillary, but I'm not a fan of either," she says, worrying, "Trump flies off the handle." Maggie Ensing, 29, a former teacher and stay-at-home mom from another Milwaukee suburb, Franklin, has voted Republican in every presidential election since she turned 18, and of the primary contenders she liked Ohio Gov. John Kasich best. But she's also uncertain about the choice between Trump and Clinton. "I don't like either of you," she says plaintively. "Can we have someone else, please?" Maggie Ensing is a 29-year-old, stay-at-home mother Later, she calls back to discuss the dilemma she feels. "Our country is extremely polarized, divided and tense," she said. "My dream candidate would have been someone who could ease that somewhat. Unfortunately, you couldn't ask for two candidates that are more opposite of each other. This entire election makes our country feel more out of control and disconnected than ever. This is the heart of why I feel so uneasy about November." Can you trust her? In some subtle ways, Clinton's gender may be boosting her among female voters. Most say she has a sense of their lives and "understands the needs of people like them;" by an overwhelming margin, they don't feel that way towards Trump. Women tend to judge Clinton less harshly on whether she is honest and trustworthy, a crucial vulnerability. "There's some empathy involved based on the experience of being a woman," Carroll says. "Women may say ... she's done some things but so have other politicians, but she gets judged." The Rutgers political scientist also says the fact that Clinton now speaks more directly than she did in 2008 about her life, her grandchildren and issues of special concern to women may be bolstering her appeal. To be sure, there's still skepticism about her character and criticism of some controversies, including her use of a private email server while she was secretary of State. "It's always a cover- up with them," Willis, the Trump supporter from Ohio, scoffs about the Clintons. Teresa Willis, of Mason Ohio, holds onto a Donald Trump But Jill Goldmann Weinshel, 51, a stay-at-home mom from Mequon, Wis., wonders whether gender has been a factor in the attacks on Clinton. "Are the issues being brought up against her gender-related or thinly veiled? I'm not sure," she says. "Maybe that is part of why people have a hard time warming up to her, because she doesn't fit the old stereotype." Views about the impact of being a female candidate have shifted significantly since Clinton lost the Democratic nomination eight years ago to Barack Obama. Then, voters in a January 2008 Pew poll predicted the fact that Clinton was a woman was more likely to hurt her than help. More than a third said it wouldn't make a difference. Now, nearly half predict it won't make a difference, and those who see an impact say by overwhelming margins that it is more likely to help her than hurt her. Men are more confident about that than women are, and younger women are more optimistic about the potential impact than older women are. "We're very much in need of a woman's voice," says Sharon Smith, 75, a retired teacher from Urbandale, Iowa, and Clinton supporter who sees the candidate's gender as both a boost and a hurdle. "We like a strong woman in the home, but how about a strong woman in the community?" ***Specific States*** Florida 2NC – UQ – Florida – Obama Key Florida has historically been vulnerable to swings, but Obama’s support gives Clinton an edge Cahn 6/30 – (Emily Cahn is a senior writer for Mic covering politics, 6/30/16, “4 States Where Barack Obama Can Boost Hillary Clinton's Campaign,” Policy Mic, https://mic.com/articles/147394/4-states-where-barack-obama-can-boost-hillary-clinton-s- campaign#.EL7qIPl9A, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

Democrats are fired up and ready to unleash President Barack Obama.

Yet while Democrats say Obama's popularity will be a boon in November, they add that there are certain places he's most likely to appear as Election Day draws near.

Here are the four places where Obama can help Clinton the most.

North Carolina

North Carolina is a firmly purple state, thanks to a growing number of northerners moving to the Tar Heel State due to its thriving economy.

Obama won here in 2008 by less than a one-point margin, and lost four years later by two points.

In 2016, polling in the state shows Clinton and Trump in a virtual tie, with Clinton leading in the New York Times polling average by a mere 0.4%.

Democrats say Obama will be an asset to Clinton in areas such as Charlotte, where he remains immensely popular with the sizable minority populations.

The Sunshine State is perpetual swing territory.

Obama carried it twice — by a nearly three-point margin in 2008 and by a slim one-point margin in 2012.

Florida's growing Hispanic population makes the state fertile territory in Clinton's race against Trump, who has attacked Mexican immigrants and promised to build a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Democrats say minority-heavy areas in south and central Florida are ripe for Obama to campaign in.

Populous cities such as Orlando, Miami and Tampa are where Democrats build their margins of victory in the state, and where Obama is most likely to campaign in with Clinton.

"I anticipate that he will be really helpful in central Florida , whether it's Tampa or Orlando," said Ana Cruz, former executive director of the Florida Democratic Party. "Remember, back in '08, shortly after Hillary conceded, [one of their first appearances] together was in Orlando, Florida, and it drew huge crowd because of the ... diverse demographics that central Florida has." 2NC – UQ – Florida Clinton will win Florida – most recent polls show. Fox News Politics 6/21/16 Fox News, 2016 (“Swing state polls: Clinton pulls ahead in Florida, tied with Trump in Ohio,” Fox News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/21/swing-state-polls-clinton-pulls-ahead-in-florida- tied-with-trump-in-ohio.html, June 21st, accessed 6/29/16) WP

Hillary Clinton is moving up in the polls in two key battlegrounds as the race shifts to the general election, pulling ahead of Donald Trump in the pivotal swing state of Florida and bringing the race for Ohio to a dead heat. The latest Quinnipiac University Poll shows Clinton leading her presumptive Republican rival 47-39 percent in the Sunshine State. That’s up from a near-draw in similar polling a month ago. The former secretary of state also has closed Trump’s modest lead in Ohio, with the latest poll showing the candidates at a 40-40 percent tie. The polling follows a rough patch for the Trump campaign . The billionaire businessman has been sparring with fellow Republicans over his controversial comments and proposals – including remarks about a U.S. federal judge’s Mexican heritage and his call to temporarily halt Muslim immigration. On Monday, Trump ousted his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Nevertheless, Trump and his top advisers are voicing confidence about the road ahead. Asked about the Quinnipiac polling, Trump told Fox News that it comes after he’s been “hammered by the dishonest media.”

Clinton beats Trump with Hispanic vote – key for independent and swing voters in largely Hispanic Florida. Smith 16 Adam Smith, Times Political Editor, 2016 (“Can Donald Trump win Florida? Yes, but he probably won't”, Tampa Bay Times, http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/can-donald-trump-win-florida-yes-but- he-probably-wont/2276269, May 6th, accessed 6/29/16) WP

The recent Associated Industries poll found nearly 9 in 10 Hispanics in Florida view Trump negatively. " Hispanic voters represent such a big bloc of independent voters today, as well as swing voters and disaffected Republicans, that if we do our politics and our messaging right and we get our voters out, we 've got an opportunity to run up really historic numbers in South Florida because of the nature of Trump's candidacy," said Scott Arceneaux, executive director of the Florida Democratic Party and senior adviser to Clinton's Florida campaign. Dario Moreno, a Republican pollster and associate politics professor at Florida International University, recently surveyed 400 Miami-Dade, Cuban-American voters — once a reliable GOP voting bloc — and found 37 percent support for Trump . That's higher than the 31 percent for Clinton, but still a dire warning for Florida Republicans. "We've been seeing demographic changes in this community since 2004," Moreno said, as younger voters of Cuban descent have increasingly identified as Democrats or independents . "With Trump, the real danger is that he's going to accelerate this realignment in Miami." Ryan Tyson, Associated Industries vice president of political operations, expects as much as one-third of Florida's electorate in November will be nonwhite. As things stand, Trump appears hard-pressed to win any state with a population of under 75 percent white. That would make big, traditional battleground or GOP-leaning states including North Carolina, Virginia and Colorado tough for Trump. Diverse and heavily Democratic South Florida alone could make Florida out of reach for Trump.

Clinton’s leading in Florida, but there’s only a risk voters switch to Trump because of Clinton distrust Lightman 5/27 – (David Lightman, writer for McClatchy newspapers and the Miami Herald, 5/27/16, “How swing voters could swing – to Trump,” Miami Herald, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article80183192.html, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

TAMPA, FLA.

They are the people who decide elections, shun partisan labels or loyalty, and swing back and forth between the major political parties from election to election. And they have a problem.

They can’t stand either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

With Clinton, they really don’t like the way she used private email as secretary of state in defiance of the rules, reinforcing their view that the presumptive Democratic nominee is a smug, arrogant insider. With Trump, who clinched the Republican nomination this week, they see a self- absorbed loudmouth unfit to fill the world’s most powerful job.

Yet interviews with dozens of swing voters in the pivotal corridor between Tampa Bay and Orlando also revealed a potential clue to how they could go this fall in battleground Florida, if not everywhere. The key: It may end up being easier for a candidate to change behavior than résumé. And that’s why there is a potential for them to swing to Trump .

If swing voters are important anywhere, they’re particularly crucial in this central part of the Sunshine State. Florida has voted for the presidential winner in every election but one – 1992 – since 19 64. So has Hillsborough County, which includes Tampa and its suburbs and was at the center of these interviews by McClatchy with The Bradenton Herald.

Katherine Reynolds, a dance teacher from Inverness, is among the undecided.

She saw President Barack Obama eight years ago as an important harbinger of change. “We needed new blood, and I thought perhaps as the first black president, we’d get a fair share in the economy for everybody,” she said. “We didn’t.”

She voted for Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. This time, no one moves her. “I won’t say Trump is my favorite person,” she said. But Clinton, she said, is “devious.”

Trump, at least, seems to connect comfortably with ordinary people, she said. “ He has a good chance of helping the working class ,” Reynolds figured. She’ll keep listening, keep watching.

Others throughout the region echoed her quandary.

“A lot comes down to character,” said Cassandra Holbrook, a Manatee Technical College student. At the moment she finds Trump “a little too self-important,” but she has serious questions about Clinton’s past.

“There’s a distrust factor with Clinton, but Trump’s rhetoric worries me,” said Henry Scarfo, a Lake Mary retiree who backed Obama in 2008 and then Romney. One thing that could send him Trump’s way is a signal from Republican leaders, notably House Speaker Paul Ryan, that Trump is OK.

The swing voters are an unusually hard bloc to handicap, because the 2016 election is different from any other in recent times.

One survey in battlegrounds Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Ohio finds that swing voters are 21 percent of the electorate and voted for different parties in the last two elections, 2012 and 2014.

They largely call themselves independents (84 percent), have less college education than the broader electorate and include fewer African-Americans, the same percentage of Latinos and fewer liberals, according to the poll for the Progressive Policy Institute, a moderate Democratic-leaning research group. They are mostly concerned about the economy, and are more concerned with growth than fairness.

“Whether it comes down to policy or personality is yet to be determined,” said Stephen Hahn- Griffiths, vice president at the Reputation Institute, a research group that studies public images. This could be the rare election where personality will make the difference, and so far Trump has done well selling his brand .

Fifty-four percent of voters nationwide view Clinton negatively, according to last week’s NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Trump is seen that way by 58 percent, though that’s down from 65 percent in April, as he started trying to paint himself as a more sensible, committed Republican and less of an outspoken maverick. That 7- point improvement suggested Trump has the potential to improve his standing further.

Rich Moralis, a retiree from Dunedin, has voted for both Republicans and Democrats for president. He backed Obama in 2012, but Clinton annoys him. “She’s a liar,” he said.

Moralis is Hispanic, and is well aware that Trump insulted Mexicans last year by suggesting many immigrants were rapists. “Trump is kind of racial,” Moralis said, but that could be outweighed by his outsider status.

Duane Pike, a retiree from Land O’ Lakes, saw good and bad in Trump. “Do I like the guy personally? No,” he said. “But I like his candor, and he’s gotten the average American to come out and vote.”

A big barrier to potential Clinton support, and perhaps one that limits her upside, is her email turmoil.

The FBI is looking into whether the former secretary of state’s use of a private server put government secrets at risk. On Wednesday, the State Department inspector general found that she had not sought permission to use the private service. Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon noted there has been “no evidence of any successful breach of the secretary’s server.”

To Matthew Durshimer, a civil engineer from Tampa, there seems to be a double standard at work for Clinton. He noted one email chain where Clinton had requested a secure fax to be sent on a non-secure line.

“If my fiancée did something like that she’d be fired,” Durshimer said.

Something else in the Clinton character troubles these voters.

She seems cold, even ruthlessly ambitious, willing to do anything to get elected, they say. They’ve watched her bend this year on the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the trade pact she once supported but now opposes, and on the minimum wage. Clinton had said it was a matter for states, but now she backs a higher national minimum.

Adelmarie Bones, an environmental scientist from Tampa, wants to see more genuine feeling for others in Clinton. “I see a passion to become president,” she said, but little else. Bones wants Clinton to emulate her friends and her. “My dream is to be a partner in my firm, and be able to help others,” she said. Her vote this fall? “I’m very conflicted. I’m very disappointed in both candidates.” She’ll decide after “reading a lot.”

Trump’s challenge is different from Clinton’s .

She can’t erase the email controversy or her past record. But he can change his behavior and appear more statesmanlike, less bombastic. The same candor that made him a popular outlier is a risk with swing voters, who tend to study candidates carefully. Clearly, his mouth and the perception that he lacks gravitas and commitment hold him back with the general election holdouts.

Clinton has a slight lead, but it’s close – Trump does have a path to victory Silver et al, 6/14 – (Nate Silver is the founder and editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight; Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight; Julia Azari is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University. Her research interests include the American presidency, political parties, and political rhetoric; 6/14/16, “Can Trump And Clinton Transform The Electoral Map?,” FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/can-trump- and-clinton-transform-the-electoral-map/, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson) micah: All right! To wrap things up: Florida. Could Trump’s horrible numbers among Hispanic voters basically take Florida off the board? julia: Sometimes when I close my eyes I still see the 2000 map flipping back and forth. micah: That may be a sign you need to step away from politics for a couple days, Julia. julia: It was my first presidential election and very formative. harry: Trump, though, has also done well among nonreligious Republicans, and there are a ton of those in Florida. He absolutely wiped the floor with Marco Rubio in the Florida primary for a reason. micah: Lots of Northeastern transplants too. natesilver: The Hispanic population in Florida has gradually become more like the Hispanic population elsewhere in the country, which is bad news for Republicans, because some of those older Cubans were pretty GOP-leaning.

Harry’s right, though, that some of the other demographics in Florida seem decent for Trump. They’re decent for Clinton too, though, who also does relatively well with older voters. Florida might be the anti-Colorado in some ways, a comparatively good fit for both candidates.

If you look at the polls in Florida, though — rather than try to extrapolate from the demographics — they suggest that it’s polling right in line with the national average, instead of being a pinch Republican-leaning. In other words, it might be a true tipping-point state this year. Orlando changes the game – Trump’s now tied with Clinton in Florida Catanese 6/15 – (David Catanese is senior politics writer for U.S. News & World Report and founder of the blog The Run 2016; 6/15/16, “Florida Republicans Think the Orlando Attack Will Help Trump,” U.S. News, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-15/florida- republicans-think-the-orlando-attack-will-help-trump, Accessed 7/6/16, HWilson) Florida Republicans believe the massacre in side an Orlando nightclub will lift Donald Trump's presidential candidacy in their state , driving voters to embrace more aggressive tactics to thwart future domestic terror attacks.

"The more that issue comes to the fore, the more that strengthens Trump over [Hillary] Clinton," says Peter Feaman, a Republican National Committeeman from Florida. " It's because the threat of Islamic terrorism has now come home. It's no longer Ft. Hood, it's no longer San Bernardino . . . it's now Orlando."

The Obama-Clinton Tag Team

The shooting spree that claimed the lives of 49 people Sunday has once again thrust national security to the center of the White House race. Trump responded by expanding on his call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. with a more sweeping restriction: a halt on immigrants from any country with a history of terrorism.

His Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, has called Trump's proposals "un-American" and "dangerous," and instead favors building bonds within Muslim communities to counter radicalization at home while taking on those who embrace a "perverted version of Islam" abroad.

But even Republicans who have issues with Trump 's radical policy prescriptions and overheated oratory think the mass carnage inflicted in the Sunshine State on Sunday may alter people's mindsets about safeguarding the country from threats.

"I think people are getting scared and getting a little paranoid, and I think that lends itself to some of Trump's arguments," says Brett Doster, a veteran Tallahassee-based GOP operative who worked for Jeb Bush's presidential campaign. " People want strength and I think he owns that argument right now. In times of duress, people tend to be attracted to a stronger leader with a bigger personality. I'm kind of appalled our party is nominating him. I won't work for him, can't bring myself to. But I think the guy is going to end up being president. I think he's on track to probably win this thing."

In a national poll of likely voters commissioned by Bloomberg Politics and taken the Friday before the Orlando attack through Monday's aftermath, Clinton carved out one of her largest leads against Trump this year: 12 percentage points. But on the question of who would better combat terrorist threats at home and abroad, Trump topped Clinton 50 percent to 45 percent.

On Monday, as details of the slaughter by the 29-year-old Muslim man with an apparent affinity for the Islamic State group emerged, the pollsters added a question to the survey and posed it to 408 likely voters: "A year from now, if a situation similar to the Orlando shootings were to happen, there will be a different president in the White House. Would you have more confidence in Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump to deal with it as president?"

The answer was closely contested, with Trump nabbing a slim advantage over Clinton inside the margin of error, 45 percent to 41 percent. Fifteen percent weren't sure. Meanwhile, the latest polling out of Florida , the closest battleground state in the 2012 presidential race, shows a dead heat between the two presumptive nominees.

Taken together, the numbers demonstrate how pervasive fears about Islamic extremism could bolster Trump's case for a more rash set of actions to curb the global threat. Even if voters disagree with Trump's specific prescriptions, they may be more inclined to support a steely, muscular counterterrorism approach once such a horrific event transpires so close to home. Clinton and Trump are functionally tied – any slip-ups mean a Florida loss Catanese 6/10 – (David Catanese is senior politics writer for U.S. News & World Report and founder of the blog The Run 2016, 6/10/16, “As General Election Begins, Clinton Holds a Narrow Edge Over Trump,” U.S. News, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-10/clinton- begins-general-election-with-narrow-edge-over-unpredictable-trump, Accessed 7/6/16, HWilson)

With just under five months until Americans pick a new president, Hillary Clinton begins the 2016 general election campaign holding a slim advantage over Donald Trump , who has surprisingly kept pace with the presumptive Democratic nominee while weathering a cyclone of strife within the Republican Party.

The New York City billionaire essentially wrapped up the GOP nomination five weeks ago, but failed to reap the benefit of a monthlong head start against Clinton, who became the first woman to clinch a major party's presidential bid earlier this week.

Clinton Captures Big Endorsements

While Clinton's attention was divided by having to fend off Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Trump could've used the time to build out his team, broaden his organizational presence in swing states, cultivate relationships with reluctant donors and sharpen his case against the former secretary of state.

Instead, he ensnared himself in a racially charged controversy in defending the now-defunct Trump University while his campaign leadership experienced a turbulent stint of skirmishes that prompted the firing of its political director. On top of that, many of his former Republican rivals remain uncommitted to his candidacy and other prominent conservatives are running away from it. The Grand Old Party has not yet fully come to terms with its standard-bearer.

Even so, Trump remarkably remains in the game – a byproduct of a highly polarized country forced to choose between two widely known but highly disliked candidates who are shouldering considerable baggage.

"Given all the trouble Trump has caused, and a lot of it for himself . . . he is still pretty close in the polls," Bill Bennett, a former secretary of education under President Ronald Reagan, said Wednesday evening on Fox News.

In Florida , the third-most populous state with 29 electoral votes, P ublic P olicy P olling tracked Trump edging Clinton by just 1 point. 2NC – Florida – AT: Demographics Increased Hispanic population doesn’t matter – low turnout and right-wing retirees outweigh Klas 7/2 – (MARY ELLEN KLAS, writer for the Miami Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau, 7/2/16, “Hispanic growth in Florida: Will it determine the election?,” Miami Herald, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article87250257.html, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

What difference does four years make? For Florida, in a presidential election year, the difference means surging population growth that could influence the outcome of the national contest.

The state remains a crucial swing state in the presidential sweepstakes but, since 2012, Florida’s electorate has changed in important ways — exacerbating the role of its growing Hispanic and elderly populations and potentially sowing seeds of a more disruptive revolution to come.

The generational and ideological tensions that could emerge between the aging baby boomers, who data shows have become more conservative and less trusting of government, and Florida’s increasingly diverse younger generations have the potential to make Florida a bellwether for the nation — again.

New population data released by the U.S. Census bureau June 23 shows that the state grew by 1.46 million people from 2010 to 2015. Looking at ethnicity, Hispanics represent 51 percent of the growth. Looking at age groups, people 65 and older represent 46 percent of the growth. In five years, Florida’s Hispanic population grew 18 percent overall — six times more than non-Hispanic whites, and more than twice as fast as blacks.

More than a third of the growth — 269,911 people — occurred in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, the epicenter of the state’s Hispanic population. But the fastest growth occurred in the counties along the I-4 corridor from Orange, Osceola and Seminole counties to Polk and Hillsborough, which saw its Hispanic population rise by a combined total of 219,229.

The Hispanic population also grew in counties with previously less dense populations. St. John’s County, the bedroom community south of Jacksonville where the $65,575 median income is the highest in the state, saw a 42 percent increase in its Hispanic population. Nearly 4,400 more Hispanics are now living there. Nearby Clay County had a 32 percent increase in Hispanic residents, with 4,876 more newcomers.

And in Florida’s Panhandle, home to three military bases, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Bay counties saw increases in their Hispanic residents of between 39 percent to 34 percent between 2010 and 2015.

But to pollsters and political observers, the focus is on the potential impact of these demographic shifts in the November election.

“Florida is the biggest swing state in the country, therefore it is the biggest swing state with a Hispanic population ,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll. “ It is no surprise there has been a substantial increase in the Hispanic population in the state . The question is, how many people are registered to vote and how many of them actually show up?”

The participation rate for Hispanics in elections has been historically low. Nationally, and in Florida, the population is young — nearly half are under age 29 and millennials tend to vote infrequently — and many are immigrants who have not established citizenship yet. Miami -Dade County, which has the highest percentage of Hispanics in the state with 66.7 percent of its population Latino, also saw the lowest voter turnout rate in the state in the 2014 midterm elections with only 41 percent of its registered voters casting a ballot.

“There is an exceptionally large delta between the percent of population who is Hispanic and percent of the electorate that is Hispanic,’’ said Steve Schale, a Democratic political consultant. He believes the real number of Hispanic voters is actually higher than it appears on paper, since many of those who registered to vote before 2006 did not have the option to self-identify as Hispanic.

But the surge in Hispanic voters in Florida could also be offset by the increase in the group that is among the most reliable voters — those who are white and over age 65. Among this group, Florida is the stronghold of the nation.

According to the latest census numbers, Florida had the highest percentage of its population age 65 and over — 19.5 percent — among states in 2015.

Sumter County is home to one of the fastest-growing metro areas, The Villages, and is the only county in the nation where the majority reached retirement age in 2015. The median age: 67. The median household income: $49,874. The region votes Republican and is conservative but in the last five years Sumter also saw an increase in its Hispanic population: 20 percent. 2NC – Florida Not Key ***note when prepping file --- this evidence can be used to answer some of the aff arguments that it’s impossible for Trump to win in Florida

Even if Trump loses Florida, he can still win by capturing the rust belt Geier 16 – (Ben Geier is a writer at Fortune.com; 5/6/16, “Here's How Donald Trump Can Win in November,” Fortune, http://fortune.com/2016/05/06/heres-how-donald-trump-can-win-in- november/, HWilson)

It will likely come down to the Rust Belt and the Midwest .

Donald Trump is up against what seems like tremendous odds to capture the presidency this fall. After romping through the primaries and discarding his rivals one by one, he is now poised to go mano a mano with Hillary Clinton, and most polls point towards a Clinton rout.

But Democrats shouldn’t be too confident , and Donald Trump fans should not feel like there’s no hope. By tweaking the electoral strategy used by Republican candidates for the past four election cycles, Trump has a legitimate chance at transforming the electoral map and catapulting himself into the White House. Put simply, Trump will need to zero in on the Rust Belt and parts of the Midwest. To pull that off, he’ll need to turn several historically blue presidential election states red.

Since 2000, five states have been critical to Republican presidential strategy: Florida, Ohio, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico. The first four have voted twice for Republicans and twice for Democrats. New Mexico went for the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 2000 except 2004.

But when the GOP did well in those five states, they won the presidential race. It put George W. Bush in the White House for two terms. Those states are important to Democratic candidates, too. President Obama won all five of those states, twice. And if Mitt Romney had won those five states, he would have unseated Obama.

To win these crucial states, Republicans have historically tried to appeal to the Hispanic community and young voters. It’s been an uphill battle for most Republicans, and it certainly wouldn’t be an easy feat for Trump. He is mostly loathed by Hispanic voters, and he will face a challenge getting through to young voters outside of his key demographic of lower-income, less educated white people.

To win, Trump will need to put the previous GOP strategy aside. Instead, he may look to keep Ohio in the mix and then set his gaze on the remainder of the Rust Belt and the Midwest : Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

In the Midwest, “you have this grouping of blue collar, middle income households,” says John Brabender, a Republican strategist who has been viewed as the architect of Pennsylvanian Republican Rick Santorum’s career. Brabender notes that in Ohio specifically, a large number of conservative voters didn’t show up to the polls for Mitt Romney in 2012. Florida Links Trump spins China policy as economic issues Shackford 16 — Scott Shackford, associate editor at Reason.com, 3-16-2016 ("What do Trump's voters really want from him?," Newsweek, 3-16-2016, Available Online at http://www.newsweek.com/trump-voters-really-want-436733, Accessed 7-21- 2016-- MEW)

Ron Bailey researched and noted in the wake of Super Tuesday that living in an economically distressed community is a good indicator of Trump support. His supporters tend to be poorer and less educated , often without a college degree. Consider the fight over "income inequality." The left thinks they own this issue. The problem is overstated, but the fact is, the biggest indicator that you're one of the people who are on the bad side of the income shifting is that you have less than a college education. The Pew Institute looked through the demographics of who was benefitting and who was getting hurt by the current levels of income inequality. The worst were those who were just high school graduates or less. Racial and gender demographics didn't matter as much. Blacks, women and Asians were actually doing better, as were whites and men. The gap that did exist was almost entirely due to education level. So if these folks are Trump's constituency, their embrace of Trump's terrible concepts of trade makes sense. It's not that they're correct on trade. They're absolutely not. Free trade helps everybody in the long run. Americans benefit greatly from trade with China with cheap goods. A lower-class American still has access to the kinds of goods and services the poor of the past could only dream about. But! Those of us who support free trade are also very familiar with the capitalist cronyism and corruption that attempts to capture and redirect market forces not just in the United States but in other countries (like China and Mexico, both of whom Trump hits a lot in his speeches). Trump gets attacked as one of these crony capitalists, and it's absolutely true. Trump's constituency is made up of people who believe that they are the ones who have been hurt the most by this system. One might think, then, that Trump would be seen as the enemy here. Trump is "winning" by going completely mercenary with this approach: He is offering to use his knowledge and ability to manipulate this system to benefit those voters. He is going to negotiate to bring jobs back to the United States. He is going to do so many amazing things you just won't believe it! That's the way he talks. He doesn't provide details, because these are just the opening offers, right? Once he has power, he'll hash it out. Taxes, spending, whatever. Everything is negotiable. He'll make sure you get the best deal, if you're a Trump supporter. There's no concept of a win-win scenario within Trump's perception of trade, and therefore what he's proposing is anathema to free marketers. But the problem is that his supporters do not see the possibility of a win-win scenario in the way Washington currently operates. They just see everybody except them "getting rich" off the government. Trump is going to be the crony capitalist who serves them. He's a con artist; he's their con artist. They don't believe the current system of patronage is going to end, because why would they? Does anybody actually believe that Bernie Sanders can successfully "fight Wall Street" (even if they think this is an admirable pursuit and not something that presents dire consequences)? Every politician under the sun promises to "take back Washington" and stop "the bastards," whoever those might be. But the bastards are still there. Rather, this is about gaming the system for the Trump voters' own benefit. It's counting cards. It's about stacking the deck for themselves rather than other people. Of course, that's right up the alley of a guy who has built casinos. That is why the obsession with "winning." And it's absolutely vital to understanding the authoritarian draw of Trump. It's as defensive as the man himself, but it didn't happen in some vacuum. Actually engaging Trump voters requires getting past the authoritarianism and nativism to truly understand what sort of outcome could please them without destroying the country's foundations, assuming they'll actually listen after all this time. Trump wins Florida with focus on the economy Oliphant 16 — James Oliphant, journalist for Reuters, 2-26-2016 ("In Florida, Donald Trump has a model for success," Reuters, 2-26-2016, Available Online at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-florida-idUSMTZSAPEC2Q54ZCQF, Accessed 7-21-2016- MEW)

“ It’s not unusual for Florida to elect these non-establishment guys,” he said. Scott was the former CEO of Columbia/HCA, the healthcare giant that ultimately settled a massive billing fraud case brought by the U.S. government during his tenure. When he entered the 2010 Republican primary, the assumption was that it was Attorney General Bill McCollum’s race to lose. Financing his own campaign, Scott ran hard to McCollum’s right, supporting Arizona’s then highly controversial anti- immigration law and releasing an ad that ripped President Barack Obama for defending a possible mosque in New York near the site of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Like Trump, Scott portrayed himself as a businessman better suited to repairing the distressed economy than the Republican establishment was. “They both bring the same kind of attitude to government,” said Susan MacManus, a political science professor at the University of South Florida, “that a business person can run government better than professional politicians.” Trump has contributed $125,000 to Scott’s political-action committee since 2012. Some have speculated Scott could serve as Trump’s vice presidential nominee. But in what may serve as another lesson for Trump, Scott remains a highly polarizing figure. His relationship with the state legislature has been prickly — and his approval ratings have never crossed 50 percent. “He entered politics with half the state’s voters liking him,” MacManus said. “He’s never gone much beyond that.”

Economy biggest issue for Florida voters – this evidence is comparative to other issues Dangerfield 16 — Dalia Dangerfield, poller, 3-8-2016 ("Exclusive Florida Decides Poll: Economy top issue for Florida voters," No Publication, 3-8-2016, Available Online at http://www.baynews9.com/content/news/baynews9/news/article.html/content/news/articles/bn9/2016/3/8/exclusive_political_.h tml, Accessed 7-21-2016)

41 percent of those polled said economy is biggest issue Analyst: Republican voters believe Trump is best to tackle economy National security, immigration are considered 2nd and 3rd biggest issues, respectively The economy remains the top concern for voters in Florida, according to the Bay News 9/News 13 Exclusive Statewide poll. Voters said while things have improved economically for some in the country, making ends meet is not always easy for others. "You almost feel like you're working hard, but you're not getting anywhere," said mother Melanie Rogers. Click to view detailed poll results "I think the biggest issue right now is poverty, and people who aren't very well off in the country," said voter Stephanie Alleyne. In the poll, 41 percent agreed that the economy is the biggest issue facing the 2016 presidential candidates. Nearly one in five voters - 19 percent - picked national security, while 14 percent of the voters said immigration and 10 percent of voters said health care. Education and climate change were each cited as the top issue by 4 percent of those surveyed.

Top issue for Florida voters is the economy Tampa Bay Times 14 — Tampa Bay Times, poll, 11-5-2014 ("Florida voters' No. 1 concern: The economy," 11-5-2014, Available Online at http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/florida-voters-no-1-concern-the-economy/2205173, Accessed 7-21-2016)

TOP ISSUES: Florida voters are worried about the economy. By a 3-to-1 margin, voters said they are worried about the direction of the nation's economy than not worried about it, and the economy was their top issue of concern. By a 2-1 margin, voters approve of the U.S. military action against ISIS in Syria and Iraq than disapprove. Florida voters are evenly split on whether the state should recognize same-sex marriage, and a plurality of voters believe health care reform went too far. Economic policies will decide Floridian votes Morrison, No date— Isaac Morrison, poller, ("Will Social Issues Be Important To Florida Voters This Year? One Polling Firm Decided To Ask...," Independent Journal Review Opinion, xx-xx-xxxx, Available Online at https://opinion.ijr.com/2015/09/248155-will-social-issues-important-florida-voters-year-one-polling-firm-decided-ask/, Accessed 7- 21-2016)

With 29 electoral votes and a popular vote differential of 6% or less in the last five presidential elections, Florida ranks as one of the most important states in the presidential race. Winning Florida is a hugely important part of any presidential candidate’s plan. So, what do Florida voters really care about? What issues should candidates focus on if they want to convince Floridians that they warrant serious consideration? A new poll by Olive Tree Strategies may have answers. The poll reached 1,200 registered voters from across the state, 576 of them men and 624 women, with a margin of error of ±2.83%. Respondents answered two questions about the national election, and candidates may want to pay attention to the results. The first of these focused on issues: Which ONE of the following do you believe is the MOST important issue facing the United States today? 33% Jobs and the economy 19% Government spending and the budget deficit 16% Foreign policy and national defense 12% Healthcare 9% Immigration 5% Social issues like gay marriage and abortion 3% Don’t Know / No Opinion As much as social issues and immigration have dominated headlines, it’s surprising to see them at the bottom of the results. A combined 52% of the voters were concerned with economic and financial issues more than anything else. Men and women responded similarly in all categories except for one: 8% of men chose healthcare as their most important issue, while 16% of women chose it. Michigan 2NC – UQ – Michigan Trump could win Michigan – white vote. Khalid 6/30 - Asma Khalid, campaign reporter focusing on the intersection of demographics and politics in the 2016 election., 6/30/16("The 270 Project: Try To Predict Who Will Win The Election," published by NPR, Available online at http://www.npr.org/2016/06/30/483687093/the-270-project-try-to-predict-who-will-win-the- election, Accessed 7/21/2016, AJ)

Michigan: Trump also has Michigan in his sights — and he might need it. "I'm going to win places like Michigan that the Republicans can't even think of," Trump has said.

Demographically, it's plausible. Michigan is a state Obama won twice, but between 2008 and 2012, his support with white voters dropped there significantly. Obama won whites in Michigan, 51 percent to 47 percent, in 2008. But, in 2012, he lost them 55-44, a net 15-point drop.

" It's really the home of the traditional Reagan Democrats," Frey said, " and that's a prime group for Donald Trump."

Assuming Trump increases white male turnout in Michigan by 2 points, and everything else remains constant, he would need 63 percent of white men, 5 points better than Romney The election’s a dead heat and Trump’s ramping up focus on Michigan – predictions that Hillary’s winning underestimate Trump’s ability to rally Gibbons 5/25 – (Lauren Gibbons is a political reporter on MLive's Impact team; 5/25/16, “Can Donald Trump win Michigan in the November election?,” MLive, http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/05/can_trump_win_in_michigan.html, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

LANSING, MI — A growing number of Michigan Republicans are bullish on New York businessman Donald Trump's chances at turning a consistently blue state red come the November presidential election.

Although the latest poll data still shows likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton with a double-digit lead against Trump in the state, many are acknowledging that Michigan shouldn't necessarily be treated as a given as the general election approaches.

Political news website Real Clear Politics shows Clinton averaging a lead of 10.5 percentage points in polls pitting her against Trump conducted between Feb. 22 and March 24.

But Trump 's campaign recently listed Michigan as one of its targets for the general election, and new national polling shows Trump and Clinton in a statistical dead heat .

In a recent interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump national convention manager Paul Manafort included Michigan on a list of Democratic-leaning states that could give Trump the possibility to expand the electoral map in his favor, listing independents, crossover Democrats and supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as potential Trump voters .

"We think the Democrats are the ones who are going to have a very narrow way to victory, and we think we're going to be successful," he told Tapper. Bernie Porn, partner and president of polling firm EPIC-MRA, said based on the numbers so far, Michigan — a state that hasn't carried a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, when George H.W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis — continues to lean Democratic. But he warned against taking that trend for granted, considering the unpredictability of the 2016 election so far.

"If I were the Democrats, I would not make any assumptions at this juncture," he said. "People have underestimated Donald Trump throughout the primary — Democrats should not make that mistake .

"Assume it's going to be purple" — at least until consistent polling data says otherwise, Porn continued.

Falling in line

Several prominent Republicans in Michigan have already jumped aboard the Trump train.“ Lt. Gov. Brian Calley endorsed the candidate this week, and U.S. Rep. Candice Miller told Politico earlier this month that she looks forward to a "President Trump" come next year.

Although the Republican Party is in a "healing process" following the primary, Michigan Republican Party Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel said the party is already making moves to coalesce behind the presumptive nominee.

Couple that with Michigan Republicans' energy, appetite to take back the White House and distrust of Clinton, McDaniel said, and the Republican presidential nominee could "absolutely" win in a state that currently boasts a Republican governor, attorney general and secretary of state.

The 2016 election also gives the Michigan Republican Party a chance to tap into new potential Republican voters — independents, disgruntled Democrats, young people and others , McDaniel said.

"There's a recognition that the same old, same old seen from Washington over and over again is not changing things in our lives," McDaniel said. 2NC – L – Michigan – Trade Michigan can go trump if trade is a big deal. Grier 5/6/2016[Ben Geier, reporter, 5-6-2016, Fortune, Here's How Donald Trump Can Win in November, Available Online at http://fortune.com/2016/05/06/heres-how-donald-trump-can- win-in-november/, accessed 7-21-2016, NP]

With its strong base of working class and union workers, Michigan has been a Democratic presidential election stronghold since the 1990s. But the exit polls from both parties’ primary races this year suggest that Trump has a shot at turning the state red. In the exit poll after the Democratic Primary, which was won by Bernie Sanders, 57% said that trade deals take away jobs from Americans. In the Republican Primary, 55% of those polled felt the same way. Hillary Clinton is painted as a pro-NAFTA free-trader, largely because of the policies of her husband’s administration . Trump, meanwhile, has based most of his Midwest campaign on being against trade agreements like NAFTA. Then there is the fact that, among Democratic voters in Michigan, 69% of those polled said they were either “dissatisfied” or “angry” with the federal government. And 34% said they would not be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination. Brabender says Trump may be able to pick up Bernie Sanders voters — not the young progressive part of his coalition, but the populist part that allowed him to win the Michigan primary.

Michigan really close, trump needs female and right-wing electorate Facher 7/19/2016[Lev Facher, Online news intern, 7-19-2016, No Publication, Clinton vs. Trump (vs. others): Many Michigan voters remain undecided, Available Online at http://michiganradio.org/post/clinton-vs-trump-vs-others-many-michigan-voters-remain- undecided, accessed 7-21-2016, NP]

*Quals may be bad, but it cites good polls and the warrant for electore is qualled differently

If you live in Michigan and haven't decided which presidential candidate you'll vote for this November, you're far from alone. A recent poll conducted by the Lansing-based Marketing Resource Group shows a staggering 32% of Michigan voters have yet to settle on a candidate. That's bigger than the share of voters supporting the current leader, Hillary Clinton. The presumptive Democratic nominee currently holds an advantage over Republican nominee Donald Trump, as she claimed support from 34% of the 800 likely voters MRG surveyed. Trump registered 29% support. "... there's twice as many people that are uncommitted at this point in time." "We really wanted to find out how many people just still haven't committed to either one of these two candidates," said Tom Shields, MRG's executive director. "As a comparison, four years ago, 84% of the vote was hard commitment to either Romney or Obama in September. So there's twice as many people that are uncommitted at this point in time. Maybe that'll change as we get into the conventions, but I don't think so." Other recent Michigan polls also show Clinton holding a narrow lead. A CBS/YouGov poll has Clinton leading Trump 42-39 among likely voters, with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson earning 5% of the vote and Green Party candidate Jill Stein earning 2%. The higher proportion of undecided voters in MRG's poll is likely a product of the firm's decision not to ask which way voters leaned if they were uncomfortable committing firmly. Instead, MRG only took into account voters who were more confident which box they'll be checking. That was a decision made in response to a unique and largely unprecedented election, Shields said, in which still-uncommitted voters are uncommitted for a reason: They find both of the mainstream options unappealing. MRG isn't the only polling provider to have found an unusually high level of uncommitted voters, either. A recent Gravis Marketing poll shows similar numbers in the four-way race: Clinton at 37%, Trump at 34% and 26% of voters choosing an "other" option instead of Clinton, Trump, Johnson or Stein. "Four months out, it's tough to determine who really is going to be a voter or not." "Ten percent of the independent voters said that they would not vote if these were the two choices," Shields said of MRG's poll. "That may change. Four months out, it's tough to determine who really is going to be a voter or not. These people were pulled from a likely voter list, so they have a history of voting to begin with normally they would vote in a presidential year." Another factor complicating the race, according to Shields, is that Trump and (to a lesser extent) Clinton are struggling with a substantial portion of their own party's base. Most female Republican voters, for instance, have a negative view of Hillary Clinton and are unlikely to vote for her, but MRG's data shows 37% of them remain undecided. That's because Trump has been unable to seal the deal with the female, right-wing electorate, Shields said. Clinton, for her part, has faced similar issues among Democrats. "There could be a chance [the undecided voters] just don't vote," Shields said. New Hampshire 2NC – UQ – New Hampshire Clinton has a narrow lead over Trump in New Hampshire now Hensch 16 Mark Hensch, writer at The Hill, 2016 (“Clinton leads Trump by 2 points in NH,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280309-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by- 2-points-in-nh, May 18th, accessed 6/29/16) WP

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton would squeak past Donald Trump in New Hampshire if the general presidential election happened today, according to a new poll. Clinton leads Trump, 42 to 40 percent, in the WBUR survey released Wednesday. Six percent would prefer another candidate, while 9 percent do not know or are undecided. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, faces a more daunting challenge in New Hampshire if Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) ultimately becomes the Democratic presidential nominee. Sanders leads Trump by 17 points in that scenario, 53 to 36 percent. Four percent would prefer another candidate, while 6 percent do not know or are undecided. Wednesday’s results also show that Clinton and Trump are viewed unfavorably by a majority of likely New Hampshire voters. Clinton and Trump both hold 58 percent unfavorable ratings, pollsters found. Sanders is the best-liked presidential candidate in New Hampshire, boasting a 55 percent favorable rating. WBUR surveyed 501 likely voters in New Hampshire from May 12 to 15. Its survey has a 4.4-percentage point margin of error. North Carolina 2NC – UQ – North Carolina – Obama Key Clinton and Trump are neck and neck in North Carolina, but Obama’s support and approval helps her win now Cahn 6/30 – (Emily Cahn is a senior writer for Mic covering politics, 6/30/16, “4 States Where Barack Obama Can Boost Hillary Clinton's Campaign,” Policy Mic, https://mic.com/articles/147394/4-states-where-barack-obama-can-boost-hillary-clinton-s- campaign#.EL7qIPl9A, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

Democrats are fired up and ready to unleash President Barack Obama.

Yet while Democrats say Obama's popularity will be a boon in November, they add that there are certain places he's most likely to appear as Election Day draws near.

Here are the four places where Obama can help Clinton the most.

North Carolina

North Carolina is a firmly purple state, thanks to a growing number of northerners moving to the Tar Heel State due to its thriving economy.

Obama won here in 2008 by less than a one-point margin, and lost four years later by two points.

In 2016, polling in the state shows Clinton and Trump in a virtual tie, with Clinton leading in the New York Times polling average by a mere 0.4%.

Democrats say Obama will be an asset to Clinton in areas such as Charlotte, where he remains immensely popular with the sizable minority populations. Moreover, Obama can help Clinton in the Raleigh-Durham area, which is filled with younger, educated white voters that might need prodding to back Clinton after a contentious primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders.

And winning North Carolina would be a good omen for Clinton in November . If she carries the state, there's almost no path for Trump to secure the 270 Electoral College votes necessary for victory. 2NC – L – North Carolina – Jobs Trade bashing and promises of jobs gives North Carolina to Trump Funk 6/10 – (Tim Funk, reporter for the Charlotte Observer covering the 2016 election; 6/10/16, “5 things Donald Trump needs to do to win NC,” The Charlotte Observer, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article83117332.html, Accessed 7/6/16, HWilson)

4. Stage ‘Bring Back Our Jobs’ rallies in former factory towns

Trump’s condemnations of “stupid” trade deals that have closed many American factories could resonate in North Carolina, which has lost thousands of textile and furniture jobs over the years.

Instead of issuing daily insults, the billionaire might win more votes in the state by casting himself as Businessman-in-Chief at blue-collar rallies in places like Concord and Hickory.

And he could remind those in his audience how Clinton recently angered coal miners in West Virginia by saying their jobs were also going away.

“ Trump could say ‘The textile workers are like the coal workers and here’s what Hillary Clinton wants to do,’ ” said Susan Roberts, a political scientist at Davidson College. “And that ‘We need to deregulate (business) to bring back jobs.’ ” Ohio 2NC – UQ – Ohio – Obama Key Ohio is anyone’s game – Trump’s trade-bashing resonates – Obama’s support helps Clinton hang onto a narrow lead Cahn 6/30 – (Emily Cahn is a senior writer for Mic covering politics, 6/30/16, “4 States Where Barack Obama Can Boost Hillary Clinton's Campaign,” Policy Mic, https://mic.com/articles/147394/4-states-where-barack-obama-can-boost-hillary-clinton-s- campaign#.EL7qIPl9A, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

Democrats are fired up and ready to unleash President Barack Obama.

Yet while Democrats say Obama's popularity will be a boon in November, they add that there are certain places he's most likely to appear as Election Day draws near.

Here are the four places where Obama can help Clinton the most.

North Carolina

North Carolina is a firmly purple state, thanks to a growing number of northerners moving to the Tar Heel State due to its thriving economy.

Obama won here in 2008 by less than a one-point margin, and lost four years later by two points.

In 2016, polling in the state shows Clinton and Trump in a virtual tie, with Clinton leading in the New York Times polling average by a mere 0.4%.

Democrats say Obama will be an asset to Clinton in areas such as Charlotte, where he remains immensely popular with the sizable minority populations.

Moreover, Obama can help Clinton in the Raleigh-Durham area, which is filled with younger, educated white voters that might need prodding to back Clinton after a contentious primary with Sen. Bernie Sanders. And winning North Carolina would be a good omen for Clinton in November. If she carries the state, there's almost no path for Trump to secure the 270 Electoral College votes necessary for victory.

Florida

The Sunshine State is perpetual swing territory.

Obama carried it twice — by a nearly three-point margin in 2008 and by a slim one-point margin in 2012.

Democrats say minority-heavy areas in south and central Florida are ripe for Obama to campaign in.

Populous cities such as Orlando, Miami and Tampa are where Democrats build their margins of victory in the state, and where Obama is most likely to campaign in with Clinton.

Ohio

Both Sanders and Trump have stoked working-class white voters' anger over trade agreements, which they say have led to job losses in Rust Belt states such as Ohio.

It's a message that could help Trump in Ohio — a must-win state in any of his potential paths to 270 Electoral Votes.

Democrats say Obama, who has focused in his final year on a re-negotiated T rans- P acific P artnership deal, will likely head to the Buckeye State to defend that trade agenda and try to keep those working-class white voters in the Democratic camp.

Places where Obama will likely campaign alongside Clinton in the state to deliver that message include Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati — Democratic strongholds where Clinton will look to build her statewide margin. 2NC – UQ/Link – Ohio – Trade Concluding a major trade deal would get pinned to Hillary and cause Trump to win Ohio – maintaining an anti-trade stance allows Hillary to win but distancing herself from the plan causes her to lose Russo 6/27 – (John Russo, formerly co-director of the Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University, is a visiting scholar at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, 6/27/16, “Hillary Clinton risks losing Ohio and the working class unless she alters her stance on trade: John Russo (Opinion),” http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/hillary_clinton_risks_losing_o.html, Accessed 6/30/16, HWilson)

In the latest Quinnipiac poll, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are tied in battleground Ohio. This suggests a very close race in Ohio in the fall.

Economic issues, especially trade, led many former Democrats to cross party lines to support Trump in the Republican primaries. Many who hadn't voted in recent elections joined them. We're likely to see a repeat of this in November unless Democrats change their trade policies.

None of this should surprise Democrats, especially those in Ohio.

As a professor of labor studies and co-director of the Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University for more than 30 years, I had many opportunities to talk politics with workers there.

In 2000, many told me that, after voting for Democrats all their lives, they were choosing guns, gays and God over Al Gore, who had been a primary spokesman for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) seven years earlier.

In 2002, Northeast Ohio Democrats threw out eight-term congressman Tom Sawyer on the basis of his support for NAFTA, despite Sawyer having a 90 percent voting record on labor issues.

Since the passage of NAFTA, Ohio Republicans have controlled state government save for a brief interlude caused by Republican corruption in 2006. At the same time, two Democrats -- Sen. Sherrod Brown and Rep. Tim Ryan, who replaced Sawyer -- have been elected and re-elected in no small part due to their opposition to NAFTA and the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Clearly, trade policy poses a problem for Democrats and their presumptive candidate. Clinton has been tied to former President Bill Clinton's NAFTA legislation and its Wall Street proponents. While she has stated that s he is against TPP at this time, many Ohioans hear that as weasel words that only contribute to their distrust of Clinton.

It is widely speculated that the Obama administration will push for TPP acceptance in the lame-duck session following the 2016 general election. According to a tweet from CNN's Dan Merica, Clinton says she will not lobby Congress on the issue. But this will only undermine her credibility and provide Trump with an incentive to continue to demagogue the issue.

In Ohio, about 60 percent of voters in 2012 did not have a college degree, one of the most commonly used (though problematic) proxies for identifying working-class voters. Slightly more than half of them voted for Obama, according to CNN exit polls.

Clinton needs to stop insisting that trade is good. But while Obama won a majority of working-class votes in Ohio, he lost among whites, winning only 41 percent of their votes. This suggests that a significant portion of Obama's working-class support in 2012 came from Ohio voters of color, not white voters.

Four years later, the combination of white working-class support for Trump, as we saw in the primary, and expected lower African- American turnout -- Clinton is unlikely to inspire the enthusiasm that Obama generated -- may swing Ohio's prized electoral votes to the presumptive Republican nominee.

Clinton needs the support of working-class Ohioans – the very people who have been hurt the most by trade policy. To do that, she needs to stop insisting that trade is good. Her current stance is similar to wooing West Virginia coal miners by touting the benefits of non-carbon fuels.

Similarly, she should stop talking about retraining and promising high-tech jobs, which only reminds voters of how hollow such programs have been in the past.

Instead, Clinton should acknowledge that we have lost the trade war and pledge to use every legal means at her disposal to protect American workers and industries from the continued onslaught of imports. This would include initiating trade cases against countries that target American industries by subsidizing their exports, exploiting workers, manipulating their currencies, and polluting the environment.

She should threaten to impose tariffs on every imported product from countries that refuse to implement the same U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations and federal, state and local tax requirements that are imposed on American businesses.

At the very least, Clinton should do more than promise to build a strong infrastructure program. Such a program would put the skills, materials and physical strength of working-class Ohioans to work and improve Ohio's competitive economic environment. Clinton has identified specific programs but she needs to do more to explain how she will pay for them. Otherwise, her campaign platform will sound too much like an echo of past hollow campaign promises.

Clinton should also stress making college affordable for the working class and those living in poverty. Not everyone wants a desk job in front of a computer, and older workers may not be interested in retraining for high-tech jobs. But they do want more education and training for their kids.

Finally, working people worry about how they will fare economically after retirement. They know that Wall Street oversold 401(k) plans and that traditional pensions are disappearing. Clinton needs to reject Wall Street's calls for changes in Social Security and offer a specific program to maintain private pension plans without cutting benefits.

If Clinton does not develop a strong and believable working-class agenda , I predict that the Democrats will lose Ohio in November, and that would open the door to a Trump victory nationally. 2NC – UQ – Dem Win Clinton takes Ohio now – only increased anti-trade rhetoric can get them back on Trump’s side – Ohio’s key to the overall election Reuters 6/27 – (Reuters is the news and media division of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters is the world's largest international multimedia news agency, providing investing news, world news, business news, technology news, headline news, small business news, news alerts, personal finance, stock market, and mutual funds information; 6./27/16, “In campaign trail debut with Clinton, Warren says Trump driven by greed,” http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/reuters/white-house-hopeful-clinton-teams-up-with-liberal- warren-for-ohio-event/42256172, Accessed 6/30/16, HWilson)

CINCINNATI (Reuters) - Liberal Elizabeth Warren attacked Republican Donald Trump on Monday during her first campaign appearance with U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, calling him an "insecure money grubber" who is driven by greed and hate.

Warren, a leader of the Democratic Party's progressive wing and a potential vice presidential pick, said Clinton had spent her career fighting for liberal values while Trump, a wealthy real estate developer, was focused on boosting his bottom line.

The U.S. senator from Massachusetts appeared with Clinton before a raucous, enthusiastic crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, targeting a battleground state in a potential preview of a Clinton-Warren campaign team. She repeatedly accused Trump of looking out for himself instead of for average Americans.

"When Donald Trump says he'll make America great, he means make it even greater for rich guys just like Donald Trump," Warren said, standing shoulder to shoulder with a cheering Clinton.

Clinton has struggled to win over some liberal backers of rival Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist U.S. senator from Vermont, since beating him for the Democratic nomination this month. She hopes the support of Warren can help her in that effort as she campaigns against Trump for the Nov. 8 election.

Warren, who has vigorously attacked Trump in recent weeks, called him "a small, insecure money grubber who fights for no one but himself" and warned: "He will crush you into the dirt to get whatever he wants. That's who he is."

The capacity crowd repeatedly roared its approval, and a line of supporters who could not get inside stretched out the door and down the street. At one point, Warren stopped her speech to turn and applaud Clinton, a former secretary of state.

"She knows what it takes to beat a thin-skinned bully who is driven by greed and hate," said Warren, known for calling for reining in Wall Street and eradicating income inequality.

WARREN 'A SELLOUT' - TRUMP

In a statement, Trump called Warren "a sellout" for backing Clinton, who has taken donations from Wall Street interests and once backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Asian trade deal. Clinton has since reversed her trade stance.

In an interview with NBC News, Trump called Warren "a fraud" and "a racist," accusing her of making up claims about her Native American heritage to advance her career.

He again called Warren "Pocahontas," the name of a 17th-century Native American figure, to draw attention to a controversy first raised during Warren's 2012 Senate race in Massachusetts.

"She is one of the least productive senators in the United States Senate," Trump told NBC. "We call her Pocahontas for a reason."

Two other potential Clinton vice presidential picks - U.S. senators Tim Kaine of Virginia and Sherrod Brown of Ohio - rejected Trump's assertion and defended Warren's record.

"That’s what he does, he attacks people. He acts like he’s attacking their character - he’s attacking his own character when he does that," Brown told Reuters. “You can’t believe anything Donald Trump says. Period," Kaine told Reuters.

OHIO PIVOTAL

Taking the microphone in Ohio, Clinton said she liked Warren's aggressive approach to her Republican rival, who has sprayed rivals and critics with insults throughout his campaign.

"I just love how she gets under Donald Trump's skin," Clinton said.

Clinton's decision to campaign with Warren for the first time in Cincinnati, a city on Ohio's southwestern border with Kentucky and Indiana, underscored the swing state's vital role in the November showdown with Trump.

Ohio has backed every successful presidential nominee since 1964 and no Republican has won the White House without carrying the state.

Warren's calls to rein in corporate excess could resonate with two groups Clinton must court in the election - Sanders supporters and those anxious about the economy who are drawn to Trump's promise to toss out international trade deals.

Ohio's manufacturing base has taken a hit in recent economic slowdowns, and Trump has identified it as a state where his anti-free trade rhetoric could resonate with alienated blue- collar voters.

Since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee, Clinton has repeatedly tried to portray businessman Trump as fundamentally unfit for the presidency. Clinton said Warren's long history of fighting for progressive economic values made her a perfect messenger for that critique. Clinton ahead in rust belt states but Trump can catch up due to lack of democratic unity Stoklos 6/19/16 -- Eli Stokols is a national politics reporter for POLITICO, currently covering the Republican side of the 2016 presidential election, (“Donald Trump’s path to victory”, available online at http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-path-to-victory- 224239, accessed 6/30/16, HDA)

To reach 270, Trump’s team is aiming to capture America’s Rust Belt — specifically, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin — where polls generally show him performing better than Mitt Romney did at this point in 2012. If he can capture Florida and keep North Carolina — the 2012 red state of the lightest hue — a strong showing that includes capture of the Rust Belt could, Trump’s team believes, put him over the top. But the odds are long, veteran strategists said. “It’s a fantasy. Romney got 19 percent of nonwhites. Is Trump going to do better? I don’t think so,” said Stuart Stevens, Romney’s 2012 campaign strategist. “It’s a joke. It’s just talking. It has no grounding in reality.” Trump, however, is looking even farther afield. He is talking up his chances in states like New York and California and making tactical moves aimed at boosting his support in states no Republican presidential hopeful has won since the 1980s. Despite being the only candidate left standing in the GOP field, Trump campaigned for three weeks in California, contending that he can take the state’s 55 electoral votes away from Hillary Clinton in November. And while his campaign has yet to hire a state director in Ohio, Trump recently brought on John McLaughlin, a New York pollster, to help him win his home state — even though polls show Clinton ahead by more than 20 percentage points, according to the RealClearPolitics average. On Thursday, Trump reportedly told donors during a meeting that he thinks he can put New Jersey and Maryland in play as well. Plus, a super PAC backing him is tossing money into national cable ads rather than targeting voters in the battlegrounds. But the consensus of the Republican political and polling world outside Trump Tower is that he cannot expect to make such dramatic inroads; most pollsters say this unpredictable election cycle has not changed the fundamental electoral math, even as it has taught the most seasoned observers to expect the unexpected. “Never in modern history have we seen two nominees who have an unfavorable rating over 50 percent,” said Ed Goeas, a Republican pollster in Washington. “We’re truly in uncharted waters trying to use history to determine what’s going to happen in this campaign.” Those close to his campaign privately say Trump’s pronouncements about turning some strongly Democratic states is essentially an old-fashioned head fake — an effort to raise money while forcing Clinton’s team to spend its own defending safe territory. “He’s just poking and prodding to see if he can put [California] in play,” said one operative who works closely with the campaign. “He doesn’t have to win but would love to make her spend some money and time there.” But he will need to outperform Romney to win, and there is no underestimating the difficulty of that task. With the exception of Wisconsin, where Trump suffered one of his worst primary losses, the Rust Belt states his team has identified appear to be competitive , although current polls are somewhat misleading , taken at a moment when Clinton has yet to bring home disaffected Bernie Sanders supporters. Trump, on the other hand, has been attempting to unify Republicans for more than a month. “Right now, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida look very close because she’s having a hard time getting Sanders supporters on board,” said Tom Jensen, director of Public Policy Polling, whose most recent surveys show Clinton with a lead of 1 percentage point over Trump in Pennsylvania and a 3-point edge in Ohio. “Republicans are more unified right now than Democra ts,” he continued. “Trump’s lead with Republicans [in Pennsylvania] was 12 points bigger than her lead with Democrat s, but it remains to be seen if that can be sustained. One thing we saw is that 72 percent of Sanders supporters say they’d vote for Clinton over Trump — and if she gets just half of them, her lead balloons to around 6 or 7 points.” Clinton will win Ohio but it will be close. Balmert 6/21 [Jessie Balmert, Reporter covering state government and the 2016 Election for The Enquirer, (“Latest poll: Clinton, Trump tied in Ohio,” Cincinnati, http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/blogs/2016/06/21/latest-poll- clinton-trump-tied-ohio/86168844/, Accessed 06-30-2016, ??)]

COLUMBUS - Presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton are in a dead heat for Ohio's votes in the all-important swing state, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are in a dead heat Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are in a dead heat for Ohio votes. (Photo: AP) Both would receive about 40 percent of the vote, according to the most recent poll, which comes one month after polling showed Trump had a slight edge over Clinton in the Buckeye State. CINCINNATI.COM Poll: Trump edges Clinton in Ohio in battle of unpopular candidates In the past month, Trump has suffered some self-inflicted wounds, including attacking a federal judge of Mexican descent and doubling down on a ban on Muslims following the shootings at an Orlando gay club. Clinton has slightly more support from Ohio Democrats – 80 percent would vote for her – than Trump has among the state's Republican voters, 76 percent of whom would vote for Trump . Quinnipiac also polled in Florida and Pennsylvania. "The at-times bitter verbal battles between Trump and some Republicans leaders is showing in these numbers," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac Poll, in a statement. "In these three key states, Clinton is doing better, and in the case of Florida much better, among Democrats than Trump is among Republicans. Traditionally GOP presidential candidates score better on this party loyalty test." About 59 percent of Ohioans said Trump's comments about the federal judge overseeing his Trump University case were racist, but 33 percent disagreed. Both nominees remain unpopular with Ohioans. They were tied with 59 percent of voters polled saying they had an unfavorable view of either candidate. In comparison, 40 percent of Ohioans had an unfavorable view of Democrat Bernie Sanders, who would lead Trump 48 percent to 38 percent head-to- head in Ohio, according to the poll. Ohioans thought Clinton was better prepared to be president , had higher moral standards and was more intelligent than her GOP rival. But they thought Trump was more honest, more inspiring and a stronger leader. Trump would be the better guest for a backyard barbecue, but Clinton would be more helpful in a personal crisis. Trump will win Ohio—Sandusky county is a good indicator Lanka 6/15 --- Benjamin Lanka, writer for Gannett Ohio, 2016 (“Poll: Trump leads Clinton in key Ohio county,” WKYC, June 15, Available Online at http://www.wkyc.com/news/politics/elections/poll-trump-leads-clinton-in-key-ohio- county/245062945, Accessed on 06-30-2016, ES) New poll data shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton in the presidential race in Sandusky County, which a polling firm has selected as one of the key bellwether counties in the nation.

The poll, conducted by Axiom Strategies, shows the presumptive Republican nominee leading the presumptive Democratic nominee 39 percent to 34 percent with Libertarian Gary Johnson collecting 8 percent in the county located near Lake Erie and home to Fremont. The lead is just outside the poll's margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent. Both candidates, however, must battle large unfavorable opinions in the county with 46 percent of respondents having an unfavorable opinion of Trump and 54 percent having an unfavorable opinion of Clinton.

Half of respondents said they believed Clinton's past record is more damaging than Trump's.

In fact, of the seven counties identified by the firm - all in different key swing states - Trump had leads in five of them.

According to the firm, the counties were selected because they historically have been indicators for statewide presidential results. They analyzed returns starting in 2000 to select the areas by matching overall statewide results of presidential elections with county results. In Sandusky County, for example, the county results for the 20 12 and 20 08 elections were within one percentage point for both the Republican and Democratic candidates. 2NC – AT: No Campaign Manager Trump has a campaign manager now—he can get his act together Thompson 6/23 --- Chrissie Thompson, Cincinnati Enquirer writer, 2016 (“Donald Trump finally hires Ohio campaign manager,” Cincinnati Enquirer, June 23, Available Online at http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/23/donald-trump-finally-hires-ohio- campaign-manager/86296074/, Accessed on 06-30-16, ES)

Donald Trump finally has a campaign manager in Ohio.

Bob Paduchik , who ran George W. Bush's two successful presidential efforts in Ohio, will serve as state director for the presumptive GOP nominee. Paduchik had worked for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s campaign during the 2016 primary.

The hire comes more than a month after Democrat Hillary Clinton set up her campaign staff in Ohio. Clinton has jumped out to a head start in Ohio, visiting the state twice in the last two weeks, planning a trip to Cincinnati next week, and fundraising and running commercials in the swing state.

Trump's delay in organizing a campaign in Ohio stems in part from the reticence of many top operatives to back the controversial billionaire. Most Ohio Republican politicos backed Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who ran against Trump for the Republican nomination and has yet to endorse him.

“Mr. Trump ran a great campaign, and he won,” Paduchik said. “I’ve been a Republican all my life. I’m happy to support Mr. Trump, the Republican nominee."

Paduchik, 49, said he doesn't feel the campaign is behind schedule, based on his experience in 2000 and 20 04 on the Bush campaign. 2NC – Link – Ohio – Trade Increased China bashing could cause Ohio to swing Chon 6/29 – (Gina Chon, contributor, Reuters BreakingViews; 6/29/16, “Trump’s new strategy: Label Clinton a Republican,” http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/29/trumps-new-strategy- label-clinton-a-republican-commentary.html, Accessed 6/30/16, HWilson)

U.S. presidential contender Donald Trump has a new strategy: He's labeling Democrat Hillary Clinton a Republican. In a speech Tuesday, the real-estate mogul who won the Republican primaries blasted trade deals with Mexico and Japan and accused the former secretary of state of supporting pacts that hurt American workers. That puts Clinton more in line with the GOP. It's an attempt to woo voters on the other side of the fence who still back Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Trump has been trying to appeal to what he calls the shrinking middle class by criticizing globalization. He wants to scrap the T rans- P acific P artnership involving 12 Pacific Rim countries. That's the same position held by Sanders, who said he would do all he can to ensure Trump loses but has not dropped out of the Democratic race. Trump also wants to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was pushed under Bill Clinton's administration.

The strategy could resonate with voters in key swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania . Those regions have been hurt more by the 5 million manufacturing jobs that have been lost in the United States over the last 15 years. Unemployment rates are higher than the national figure of 4.7 percent, with Ohio at 5.1 percent and Pennsylvania at 5.5 percent. Trump gave his speech in the rust belt of Pennsylvania, citing the loss of steel jobs in nearby Pittsburgh to China.

Clinton has been more supportive of trade. Besides backing NAFTA, she also supported TPP until Sanders made it an issue in the Democratic primaries. Other liberals like Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren reject the deal, which is supported by most Republican lawmakers and President Barack Obama. Trump threw Sanders's words back at Clinton, quoting him as saying she has voted "for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs."

Trump's trade stance puts him at odds with a central tenet of the Republican establishment. Indeed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – a pro-business organization that almost always backs the GOP – publicly rebuked his position on Tuesday. That follows moves by prominent Republicans like former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to publicly back Clinton. The pressure by Sanders has already forced Clinton to backtrack on her support of TPP. Trump is simply carrying the baton in Democratic fashion.

Trump can win Ohio if he solidifies his base, and certainty on manufacturing can do that. Thompson 6-29-16 — Chrissie Thompson, local politics reporter, 2016 ("Can Donald Trump win Ohio with slightly tweaked message?," Cincinnati, 6-29-2016, http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/28/can-donald-trump-win- ohio-rape-tpp-muslim-immigration/86481608/, date accessed 6-30-2016, EAKJ)

ST. CLAIRSVILLE - Donald Trump dipped into Ohio Tuesday, bringing to the quintessential swing state the same message and tone he used when he campaigned unsuccessfully for the state’s GOP primary nod – but with a few subtle tweaks. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, referred to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as “a rape of our country.” He praised the benefits of waterboarding against suspected terrorists of the Islamic State, arguing the U.S. must “fight fire with fire.” He extolled the beauty and size of his planned wall on the Mexican border, prompting the crowd’s standard “Build a wall! Build a wall!” chant. But parts of Trump’s message have changed a little in recent days, amid pleas from Republican leaders to tone it down and a scramble from his campaign to build a national operation. USA TODAY Donald Trump targets globalization and free trade as job-killers He’s giving more policy speeches, such as an address earlier Tuesday against globalization and trade deals. So wonky trade details, such as a reference to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, popped up later that day amid his standard rally material, much to the disinterest of the crowd of around 2,000. He worked in a request for donations: “DonaldJTrump.com,” he added. He has backed off his plan to ban immigration by all Muslims, instead making several vague comments about screening or banning immigrants from countries where terrorists live. On Tuesday, he insisted, without giving documentation, that it was easier for Syrian Muslims to come to the U.S. as compared with Syrian Christians. One person started to boo. But then, as if seeking to ward off critiques accusing him of an anti-Muslim or xenophobic bent, he said: “I’m not saying one or the other (religion). I’m saying, how unfair is that? How bad is that?” He took a similar approach when he referred to the TPP as “rape.” “That’s what it is, too. It’s a harsh word,” he said, preemptively responding to criticism of his comparison of a violent crime to a trade deal. To win Ohio – and no Republican has made it to the White House without the Buckeye State – Trump must win over GOP voters who were wary of his controversial comments or positions. He lost the state’s primary in March to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, as many voters said they wanted to do their part to stop the billionaire’s march to the nomination. Many Ohio Republicans now say they dislike Trump’s presumptive opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, but haven’t decided whether they can stomach a vote for Trump in November. Both Larry Waltz and Ashley Cochran referred to their choice in November as “the lesser of two evils.” Waltz, 74, who usually votes Republican, told a reporter driving through his hometown of Zanesville he hadn’t decided who would win his vote. Cochran, 28, has chosen Trump and drove from nearby Bridgeport to attend his rally at Ohio University Eastern’s campus. “I like people who think with their brain,” Cochran said, and Trump may be able to “actually fix things” in the economy. CINCINNATI.COM Donald Trump is coming to Cincy for $25,000-per- person fundraiser Trump chose for his first visit since the primary an area of Ohio where he prevailed over Kasich: Belmont County, just across the Ohio River from West Virginia. The real estate mogul is hoping to gain an advantage over Clinton by keeping Appalachian voters in November. Belmont County, for instance, voted Republican in the 2012 presidential race, but voted solidly Democratic for decades before then, including for former President Bill Clinton. Clinton, on the other hand, has focused her first visits on each of the swing state’s major cities, hoping to win over millions of moderate and Democratic voters to outweigh Trump’s possible advantage in rural and Appalachian Ohio. Still, Clinton’s supporters aren’t conceding Appalachia. “Secretary Clinton understands we need investment in southeast Ohio. There’s no magic wand to fix this,” U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, told reporters earlier Tuesday on a conference call. “ Donald Trump will say he’s going to bring back all these manufacturing jobs. He has no plan to do it .” CINCINNATI.COM How Elizabeth Warren attacked Donald Trump at Hillary Clinton rally in Cincinnati In his Tuesday speech on trade, Trump vowed to reject the proposed TPP trade deal with Pacific Rim nations and renegotiate the N orth A merican F ree T rade A greement with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary. Later, he addressed a St. Clairsville crowd filled with people who had driven across the river from Wheeling, West Virginia, a historic manufacturing town. As president, Trump said he would call companies considering moving American factory work to Mexico. If his proposals were to prevail, he would remind CEOs their Mexican-made goods would face a tariff upon being imported into the United States. “It doesn’t work that way anymore. We’re not the stupid people anymore,” Trump said, imagining what he would say as president. Then, he said, to cheers from the working-class crowd: “I’m not angry at Japan. I’m not angry at China. I’m angry at our leaders, who are so stupid.” Pennsylvania 2NC – UQ – Pennsylvania Clinton has a slight lead in Pennsylvania right now, but it’s exceptionally close Easley 6/28 – (Jonathan Easley is a reporter covering the election for The Hill, 6/28/16, “Polls show tight Clinton-Trump race in 2016 battlegrounds,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/285083-polls-show-tight-race-for-white-house-in- battleground-states, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

Pennsylvania is the battleground giving Democrats the most heartburn .

Clinton’s allies, meanwhile, are now pouring millions of dollars into a state where they never expected to have to compete.

It’s neck and neck – trade resonates with voters – Obama’s support helps Clinton cling to a lead Cahn 6/30 – (Emily Cahn is a senior writer for Mic covering politics, 6/30/16, “4 States Where Barack Obama Can Boost Hillary Clinton's Campaign,” Policy Mic, https://mic.com/articles/147394/4-states-where-barack-obama-can-boost-hillary-clinton-s- campaign#.EL7qIPl9A, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

Democrats are fired up and ready to unleash President Barack Obama.

Yet while Democrats say Obama's popularity will be a boon in November, they add that there are certain places he's most likely to appear as Election Day draws near.

Look for Obama and Clinton to hit suburban areas in swing states. While places such as Arizona and Georgia — traditionally Red states where polls show Clinton within striking distance — might not benefit from a visit from Obama. "I think that the president can and be an asset pretty much anywhere, but particularly with young people, particularly in swing states he's done well in, and particularly in some of the more suburban areas of these swing states," Shripal Shah, communications director for Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC working to flip the Senate back to Democratic control in November, said. "Those are the people that pretty much built his coalition in '08 and '12, and those are the people who are still persuadable. and he's the the best messenger to persuade them"

Here are the four places where Obama can help Clinton the most.

North Carolina

North Carolina is a firmly purple state, thanks to a growing number of northerners moving to the Tar Heel State due to its thriving economy.

Obama won here in 2008 by less than a one-point margin, and lost four years later by two points.

In 2016, polling in the state shows Clinton and Trump in a virtual tie, with Clinton leading in the New York Times polling average by a mere 0.4%.

Democrats say Obama will be an asset to Clinton in areas such as Charlotte, where he remains immensely popular with the sizable minority populations.

And winning North Carolina would be a good omen for Clinton in November. If she carries the state, there's almost no path for Trump to secure the 270 Electoral College votes necessary for victory.

Florida

The Sunshine State is perpetual swing territory.

Obama carried it twice — by a nearly three-point margin in 2008 and by a slim one-point margin in 2012.

Democrats say minority-heavy areas in south and central Florida are ripe for Obama to campaign in.

Populous cities such as Orlando, Miami and Tampa are where Democrats build their margins of victory in the state, and where Obama is most likely to campaign in with Clinton.

Ohio

Both Sanders and Trump have stoked working-class white voters' anger over trade agreements, which they say have led to job losses in Rust Belt states such as Ohio.

It's a message that could help Trump in Ohio — a must-win state in any of his potential paths to 270 Electoral Votes.

Democrats say Obama, who has focused in his final year on a re-negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, will likely head to the Buckeye State to defend that trade agenda and try to keep those working-class white voters in the Democratic camp.

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania hasn't gone Republican in a presidential election since 1988. Yet polling shows the race is neck-in-neck, with Clinton leading Trump by just 1.9 points, according to the New York Times polling average.

As in Ohio, that close margin is likely thanks to working-class white voters in western Pennsylvania, an area that was once a draw for manufacturing, but has seen jobs dry up in the past few decades .

Democrats will likely look to Philadelphia and its outlying suburbs to counteract any losses among that demographic bloc. It's an area where Obama remains popular , and where Democrats could likely dispatch him if polling stays as lose as it is.

"He remains an immensely popular president in a number of different areas of this state," said Pennsylvania-based Democratic strategist Michael Bronstein, mentioning Philadelphia and its suburbs as places where Obama remains particularly popular. "And as a campaigner, he is an asset for Secretary Clinton's presidential campaign, and will be treated like the rock star that he is if he comes to Pennsylvania." Clinton and Trump are functionally tied – any slip-ups mean a Florida loss Catanese 6/10 – (David Catanese is senior politics writer for U.S. News & World Report and founder of the blog The Run 2016, 6/10/16, “As General Election Begins, Clinton Holds a Narrow Edge Over Trump,” U.S. News, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-10/clinton- begins-general-election-with-narrow-edge-over-unpredictable-trump, Accessed 7/6/16, HWilson)

Clinton Captures Big Endorsements

A pair of surveys taken last weekend in the battleground states of Florida and Pennsylvania prove the case. In Pennsylvania – a state Republicans haven't carried in a presidential election since 1988 – Clinton is ahead of Trump by only a single point, according to the Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling. In Florida , the third-most populous state with 29 electoral votes, P ublic P olicy P olling tracked Trump edging Clinton by just 1 point. 2NC – L – Pennsylvania – Trade Trade-bashing resonates deeply in Pennsylvania – it’ll be crucial Jackson 6/28 – (David, journalist for USA today, 6/28/16, “Donald Trump targets globalization and free trade as job-killers,” USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/28/donald-trump- globalization-trade-pennsylvania-ohio/86431376/, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

MONESSEN, Pa. — While attacking Hillary Clinton and other career politicians, Donald Trump took aim Tuesday at two other prominent election targets: globalization and free trade .

" Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.

In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called " failed trade policies" — including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.

Clinton and other politicians, meanwhile, "watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment," Trump said in a dusty old aluminum plant in Monessen, part of what was once known as "The Steel Valley" along the Monongahela River.

Echoing his mantra of "America First," Trump vowed to use only American steel — and aluminum — on U.S. road, bridge, and construction projects, employing only American workers.

Trump attacked both Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, for past support of trade deals, including TPP. He also hit them over China's admission to the World Trade Organization.

Hillary Clinton says she now opposes the Pacific Rim trade agreement and other "bad trade deals" that are hurting U.S. workers. Pledging to appoint a "trade prosecutor" during a speech in Ohio this week, Clinton vowed to go after "unfair trade practices like when China dumps cheap steel in our markets or uses weak rules of origin to undercut our car makers."

A prominent Clinton supporter — Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio — called Trump a hypocrite, saying he has benefited from trade deals that have helped him sponsor clothing lines made in other countries. While Clinton has offered a “detailed plan to boost American manufacturing," Brown said Trump has "high-priced accountants" who are "cashing checks from products that he’s had manufactured in other countries.”

During his speech in a warehouse stacked with pallets of aluminum parts, Trump said Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership only "when she saw my stance," and predicted that she would still sign the trade pact if elected to office. "Her whole career, she has betrayed the American worker," Trump said.

Trump also pushed the trade issue at a rally Tuesday evening in St. Clairsville, Ohio, near the coal-rich West Virginia state line.

Speaking to fans at the Ohio University Eastern Campus, Trump said China and other countries are taking advantage of the United States. "They're just not treating us right, folks," he said.

Trump also described the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as "a rape of our country" by special interests.

Trade and other global issues are resonating in blue-collar areas of Pennsylvania and Michigan, states that have gone Democratic in six straight presidential elections, as well as Ohio , generally considered a must-win for any Republican candidate.

Trump "talks about the economy only in the language of globalization," said Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. "It's globalization that's wrecking the American economy, and that's how I'm going to fix it," he said of Trump's rhetoric.

Drezner added: "It's a question as to whether people will actually vote on that."

In western Pennsylvania, people have "endured incredible economic hardship" as manufacturing jobs move overseas, said Joseph DiSarro, who chairs the political science department at Washington & Jefferson College in Washington, Pa. Trump's message is well-received there, DiSarro said, adding that " globalization has really brought on unfair competition to the American worker " as businesses move jobs to low-wage, low-regulated countries.

In addition to the impact of globalization on trade, Trump has also criticized aspects of multi-lateral alliances like NATO and has said that European and Asian nations are not paying enough for U.S. defense assistance.

Analysts said that Trump tends to ignore the benefits of a globalized economy, including easier and increased movement of goods and services across borders that leads to greater selection and cheaper prices for consumers. The loss of manufacturing and industrial jobs owe more to automation — machines — than trade, Drezner said.

International alliances, meanwhile, have helped keep the peace.

Clinton has said that other countries would retaliate against Trump's plans, leading to higher taxes and prices for U.S. consumers: “There’s a difference between getting tough on trade, and recklessly starting trade wars. The last time we opted for Trump-style isolationism, it made the Great Depression longer and more painful.”

Trump aides say last week's vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is another sign that people across the world are rebelling against globalization.

Trump's speech in Pennsylvania found a receptive audience among many of the invited guests, many of them local Republicans.

"I think we should not allow our companies to manufacture overseas," said Carol Jacobelli, 75, a retired tax accountant from Trafford, Pa. "I hope Trump can find ways to stop it."

Emily Zboyovsky, 76, a retired real estate broker and lifelong resident of Monessen, said free trade is only one problem. Ineffective politicians and bad policies have also helped shutter steel towns, she said, adding that she likes Trump "because he's not obligated to anybody."

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who also attended the speech, predicted " a lot of Democrats" in depressed areas of Pennsylvania and beyond will respond to Trump's message , both about trade and Clinton.

"She is a globalist," he said.

Virginia Economy key Virginia millennials care about the economy- could give Trump the upper hand Kidd and Bitecofer 16 (Quentin Kidd, professor of political science and director of the Wason Center for Public Policy at Christopher Newport University, Rachel Bitecofer, lecturer in the department of government and director of the Wason Center for Public Policy survey research lab at Christopher Newport University, “Virginia’s Millennials and the 2016 Election,” accessed 07/21/16, MM)

Millennials are fully enfranchised as of 2015, which means the formidable political weight of the millennial voter could be fully felt for the first time in the 2016 presidential election. In Virginia, millennial voters have been scarred by the economic turbulence of the past decade but remain optimistic about the future. They see civic engagement as important, even if they disagree on the best method of affecting change. The influence of Virginia’s youngest generation of voters will no doubt factor heavily into the political strategies of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The candidate who can best articulate a message that capitalizes on the economic anxieties of young Virginians may have the upper hand . The political behavior of millennials in the 2012 presidential election and data drawn from the 2016 presidential primaries clearly show that the Republican Party needs to make inroads with this important cohort if it hopes to carry their vote in the general election this fall. Economy top issue for Virginia voters Wcav 14 — Wcav, 11-4-2014 ("Exit Polls Reveal Issues Important to Virginia Voters," No Publication, 11-4-2014, Available Online at http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Exit-Polls-Reveal-Issues-Important-to-Virginia-Voters-281527271.html, Accessed 7-21-2016)

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - A look at the highlights of the views of Virginia voters from Tuesday's elections, according to data from preliminary exit polling conducted for The Associated Press and television networks. TOP ISSUES: The economy was the leading issue for about half of the voters, followed by health care and foreign policy. ECONOMY: About eight in 10 voters said they were either somewhat or very worried about the direction of the economy.

Economy is a primary concern for Virginia voters- especially because they had a slow recovery Gibson, 15 — Ginger Gibson, Senior Political Writer at the International Business Times, 2-21-2015 ("Election 2016: Economy Going To Remain Top Voter Issue," International Business Times, 2-21-2015, Available Online at http://www.ibtimes.com/election- 2016-economy-going-remain-top-voter-issue-1823856, Accessed 7-21-2016- MEW)

“The economy is always important and I know it’s important in my great state of Nevada,” Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval, one of the few GOP governors not considering a 2016 White House run. “I think that will be top of mind for the people of our nation.” In the important primary state of Iowa, which is also a swing state in the general election Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican, said the fledgling agriculture sector is going to make the government’s effect on the economy a top issue for voters in his state. “Agriculture is being really hurt by what the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] is doing to the fuel standard,” Branstad said. “Agriculture income, which was good ever since we had the renewable fuel standard, now corn prices are below the price of production.” He’s holding a meeting of the likely Republican presidential candidates in his state next month to talk about the economy. He already expects at least 10 likely candidates to attend and face questions about agriculture. “That’s an issue we’re going to be asking all the candidates and want to know what they’re going to be doing about it,” Branstad said. For states that have had their recovery slowed, the issue could be even more pressing. “It’s always going to be the economy,” swing state Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a Democrat, said. “It’s all about the jobs, about the economy. The economy is coming back. Virginia is a little slower because of the large defense cuts and sequestration.” It doesn’t matter if the state has suffered from a slower recovery or a speedier one, governors sense the economy still is the top voter concern. “The economy will continue to be the issue, even in Delaware where over the last two years we’ve significantly outpaced the nation, last year tripled the pace of job growth of our neighboring states,” said Gov. Jack Markell, a Democrat. “It’s not only the number of jobs, but it’s the quality of jobs, it’s the wages. All of these issues are going to be front and center for voters.” For governors running for president, the actual rate of their state’s recovery could play a key role in campaign messaging. The more robust the recovery, the more they can talk about it. For those who have had slow growth, it will be an issue they will have to defend. Wisconsin Uniqueness Trump gaining in Wisconsin – only down 4%. Gass 7/13 - Nick Gass, eputy editor for breaking news. He joined POLITICO as a web producer in November 2012 , 7/13/16("Poll: Trump Gains on Clinton in Wisconsin," published by Politico, Available online at http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/07/poll- trump-clinton-wisconsin-225486, Accessed 7/21/2016, AJ)

Donald Trump is gaining ground on Hillary Clinton among likely voters in the battleground state of Wisconsin , according to the latest Marquette University Law School poll released Wednesday.

While 45 percent of respondents said they would vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee when matched head-to-head against Trump, 41 percent said they will support the presumptive Republican nominee, and 9 percent said they would support neither candidate. Clinton led by nine points against Trump in last month's survey, 46 percent to 37 percent, with 13 percent who said they would support neither candidate.

" There's good evidence here" that the race is tightening in the Midwestern state," poll director Charles Franklin said during the poll's announcement Wednesday afternoon.

In a four-way race among likely voters with Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Clinton's lead over Trump expands to six points, 43 percent to 37 percent. Meanwhile, Johnson earned 8 percent while Stein took 2 percent.

The poll was conducted July 7-10 via landlines and cellphones, surveying 801 registered voters in the state with an overall margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. Among the 665 likely voters surveyed, the margin of error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Trade Key Trade policy decides Wisconsin – majority of voters are opposed Bartash 4/6 - Jeffry Bartash, reporter for MarketWatch in Washington., 4/6/16("In Wisconsin, more Republicans opposed free trade than Democrats," published by Market Watch, Available online at http://www.marketwatch.com/story/in-wisconsin-more-republicans-opposed-free- trade-than-democrats-2016-04-06, Accessed 7/21/2016, AJ)

Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders were not the only ones to score decisive victories in the Wisconsin primaries . So did foes of free trade.

Exit polls showed that 54% of voters in the state’s Republican primary believe free trade “ takes away U.S. jobs .” Only 33% said trade creates more jobs .

Even more Republicans in Wisconsin opposed free trade than Democrats. Some 42% of Wisconsin Democrats said trade kills jobs vs. 41% who say it’s creates more of them. Most other states show far less Democratic backing for free trade, however.

The loss of support among Republican voters in such a trade-intensive state is yet another nail in the coffin of President Obama’s grand plan to pass a major deal with Japan and 10 other Asian countries (excluding China.).

The so-called Trans Pacific Partnership almost certain won’t pass this year and it may never pass. Most Democrats have resisted their own president while Republicans traditionally supportive of free trade have backed away amid growing resistance from their own voters. Donald Trump has capitalized in part on the conservative backlash to assume front-runner status in the Republican primary.

Opposition to free trade in the U.S . had largely been centered in former industrial strongholds in the Midwest , particularly among union members and Democrats . Yet exit polls earlier this year also showed that a clear majority of Republican voters in North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio now believe free trade is harmful to the U.S. economy .

Opposition in Wisconsin might be more telling.

The state, which sits on the Canadian border, has a very diversified economy in which free trade plays an outsized role. Estimates by the Business Roundtable and the National Retail Federation suggest that about 20% of the state’s nearly 3 million jobs are tied to exports. Wisconsin’s large farming sector is a main beneficiary of the global trading system.

Canada was the main destination of Wisconsin exports, but Mexico and China were the next largest trading partners. Trump has attacked both countries for taking American jobs and threatened retaliation .

Two-term Republican Gov. Scott Walker, meanwhile, has pushed exports as a major part of his economic strategy to boost the state’s rate of growth. Last year his administration boasted of helping exports of Wisconsin-made goods hit a record high $23.4 billion in 2014.

“This is great news for Wisconsin farmers, as well as businesses of all sizes and all industries,” Walker said at the time.

Republican voters apparently disagree, and not just in Wisconsin. The result: U.S. leadership in since World War Two in trying to create a more open global trading system may be a long-term casualty of the 2016 election.

These days few Republicans are talking up free trade. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has blasted Donald Trump’s threat to raise tariffs so high that it could cause a trade war. But he turned against the Asian deal before he ran for president and has largely ignored the issue on the campaign trail. Republicans in Washington have also been quiet. Economics determine Wisconsin – recession still affects voters. Walters 07/11 - Steven Walters, Senior Producer for the Nonprofit public channel Wisconsin Eye, 07/11/16("Steven Walters: Exploring reasons Wisconsin is a presidential battleground ," published by The Gazette Extra, Available online at http://www.gazettextra.com/20160711/steven_walters_exploring_reasons_wisconsin_is_a_pre sidential_battleground, Accessed 7/21/2016, AJ)

Fourth, middle-class Wisconsin families had an average household income of $52,622 in 2014— about what they made in 2008, when the Great Recession began. According to the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, average household income in Wisconsin bottomed out—hitting $49,001—in 2010, and has taken four years to crawl back to more than $52,000 a year.

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders spent the last year reminding voters nationally of the “income inequality” that made the wealthy wealthier and the middle-class more worried.

Could the failure of middle-class Wisconsin households to recover economically make them angry enough to join voters in other Rust Belt states—Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania—and support Republican candidate Donald Trump over Democrat Hillary Clinton? Sanders made trade an issue in Wisconsin – pushes dems to trump too. Polstorm 4/5 - Polstorm, Online Pollster News Website, 4/5/16("The Latest: WI Dems divided on trade’s effect on joblessness," published by Political Storm, Available online at http://www.politicalstorm.com/the-latest-wi-dems-divided-on-trades-effect-on-joblessness/, Accessed 7/21/2016, AJ)

Democratic voters in Wisconsin are divided on the effect of trade on unemployment, an issue that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has played up in a flood of television ads over the past few weeks.

About 45 percent of Democratic voters say trade with other countries takes away jobs in this country, while nearly 4 in 10 see trade as beneficial, according to early results of exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research. Only about 10 percent see trade as having no effect on job in the United States.

The polls indicate a mixed response on an issue that Sanders has put at the center of some of his most-aired television ads.

Over the past month, Sanders has poured about $2.4 million into radio and television ads in Wisconsin and one of his top aired ads has tucked in several subtle jabs at former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s record on trade, according to data from political advertising tracker Kantar Media.

One Sanders ad touts the senator as standing with American workers , linking jobs losses to the North American Free Trade Agreement, which was signed into law by former President Bill Clinton, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Clinton initially supported but has since said she opposes.

***Links*** Link – China – General – 2NC national political psyche, gut voter reaction and critics spin ties the plan to full scope of ALL economic and security fears about China – it’s a key issue for voters Gross, 13 --- Donald, Donald Gross is a lawyer, business strategist and policy expert who also serves as an adjunct fellow of Pacific Forum CSIS, a non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A former State Department official, he developed and implemented U.S. policy on strategic trade, national security and foreign relations. Earlier, he was Director of Legislative Affairs at the National Security Council in the White House and Counselor of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, “The China Fallacy”, http://www.donaldgross.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-China-Fallacy- Excerpts.pdf

Following the collapse of the Soviet empire in 1989, Americans began to worry deeply about another threat to the well-being of their country: the People’s Republic of China . Though the United States became the world’s only superpower at the end of the Cold War, strategists and analysts continued to search for dangers that might arise in the future. Among states that could potentially become big-power adversaries, China led the pack. Without doubt , the “China threat ” today resonates deeply in the national political psyche, as Americans worry about China displacing the U.S. in Asia, taking U.S. manufacturing jobs , carrying out industrial espionage , modernizing its military forces, hacking into computers , and causing a multitud e of other problems . Not so long ago, Americans considered another country to be the United States’ most dangerous adversary. During the Cold War, only the Soviet Union seemed to have the power and desire to unleash a devastating nuclear attack on cities and strategic targets across the U.S. Few seriously questioned the U.S.S.R. was masterminding an international communist conspiracy that threatened the “American way of life.” Though anticommunist fears peaked during the McCarthy period of the early 1950s, the ideological struggle continued through the Cuban missile crisis, the Vietnam War, the era of Glasnost, the break-up of the Soviet Union and beyond. While most Americans would admit that China does not possess the military prowess of Russia and is not actively seeking to export its ideological views around the world, many believe the U.S. should do all it can to prepare for an “inevitable” military conflict with China. They think it is only prudent to build up U.S. military bases and forces in the Pacific, in the face of China’s continuing military modernization. They are inclined to support U.S. trade policies imposing tariffs , quotas and other protectionist measures on Chinese imports that enter the country “illegally.” While they cannot help buying low-cost Chinese goods and enjoying low interest rates resulting from China’s large holdings of U.S. Treasury securities, they condemn policies that led the American government to borrow billions of dollars from China . On a gut level , many people fear “cheap Chinese labor” will cause the decline of the United States economy and that U.S. industry will continue to suffer from China’s “unfair trade practices .” From a values standpoint, Americans feel most comfortable when their leaders strongly criticize China for violating human rights and restricting political freedoms. Most believe in their hearts that China’s Communist Party still reverberates with the thoughts of Chairman Mao and that the Party is only willing to incrementally cede political controls through force or necessity. With so many reasons t o fear, despise and worry about China, Americans nevertheless cannot help admiring China’s accomplishments and being intrigued with this emerging power. Many watched the opening and closing ceremonies for the 2008 Olympic Games and came away deeply impressed by the brilliant spectacle. Most cannot help but admire and be inspired by China’s achievement of raising more than 400 million people out of poverty, virtually wiping out widespread illiteracy, developing a large middle class and creating a dynamic, consumer society. Many realized that China was a different place altogether from the impoverished, dispirited and totalitarian country they had heard about for years. Nevertheless, most Americans shook their heads knowingly when television commentators dutifully noted that Chinese authorities sharply limited demonstrations and dissent in Beijing during the Olympics. They could not help but feel sympathy for Tibetans whose protests were violently suppressed only weeks earlier by the Chinese military (just as most Americans felt compassion for blind dissident Chen Guangcheng, who sought refuge and protection at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in late April 2012). Looking back, the drumbeat of critical views about China among American academics, policy experts and journalists gathered strength during the Clinton administration and has continued to the present day. The “ China threat” has many security, economic and political dimensions that experts frequently cite to justify their fears . On security matters, some critics assert, as an article of faith , that China is bent on pushing the U.S. out of Asia and eventually dominating the world. These “China hawks” argue that China could move at any time to forcibly occupy Taiwan and reunify the island with the mainland. Such a successful attack on Taiwan, bolstered by explicit and implied military threats against other countries in East Asia, would enable China to dominate the region as a whole. China would then double down on its ultimate goal, this reasoning goes: replacing the United States as the world’s only superpower. From the standpoint of the China hawks, a war between the United States and China is inevitable, since the U.S. stands in the way of China achieving its strategic objectives. Regarding China’s threat to U.S. jobs and economic growth, critics with strong protectionist views argue that the sharp increase in the United States trade deficit with China has had a devastating impact on American workers, causing the loss of nearly 2.8 million jobs between 2001 and 2010.1 They claim that China has unfairly achieved its large bilateral trade surplus with the United States, which reached approximately $295 billion in 2011, because in their view, China couples its aggressive export strategy with measures to manipulate and artificially undervalue its currency, giving Chinese products an unfair advantage in foreign markets.2 While both China hawks and protectionists condemn China for its one-party communist regime, lack of democracy and poor human rights record, they largely accept the country’s domestic political situation as an inalterable fact. Though they may hope for China’s eventual transition to full democracy and high human rights standards, their primary concern is protecting the United States against the threat that China poses to America’s security and economic well-being . shaping u.s. policy In many respects, it is the views of the China hawk s that have informed ongoing American security policy toward China over the last decade. During the George W. Bush administration, the U.S. initiated a major buildup of forces in the Pacific as part of what it officially termed to be “hedging” against a potential Chinese military threat. Under the rubric of preparing for the “contingency” of a war with China, U.S. hedging has effectively amounted to a containment strategy. Beyond significantly increasing the number of naval, air and land forces at U.S. bases in the Pacific, the buildup strengthened close-in naval intelligence gathering along China’s coast as well as extensive air force surveillance and reconnaissance of the country as a whole . The Obama Administration hardened this policy through measures it announced in November 2011 that accelerate the strategic encirclement of China, including deploying U.S. marines to Australia’s northern territory and adopting a new “Air Sea Battle Concept” to carry out long-range strikes deep inside China in the event of war. Though the Bush administration, by encouraging market reform and promoting U.S. investment, pursued “engagement” with China on economic matters, it increasingly adopted restrictive trade measures such as imposing extensive import duties on Chinese products. Under pressure from protectionists in Congress, Bush officials moved to this more combative posture in their second term in the belief that China was benefiting unfairly from liberalized trade.3 The Obama Administration supported and magnified this approach. Preeminently, U.S. policy relies on trade measures called “anti-dumping” actions that penalize Chinese companies for allegedly selling their products in the U.S. market at below the cost of production. The Obama Administration also imposed high punitive tariffs on some Chinese products and created a new “enforcement unit” to ramp up U.S. investigations of Chinese trade practices. While critics often lament internal political conditions in China, they are far more focused on security and economic issues . The broad lack of interest in strengthening China’s democracy and human rights practices had a definitive policy impact during the Bush administration and remains in place during the Obama Administration: aside from cataloging political abuses and shortcomings in an annual State Department report, addressing individual cases of concern and making periodic official statements that emphasize American political values, the U.S. government does little that will effectively promote democracy and human rights in China.4 The views of critics who deeply fear a “China threat ” have unduly shaped U.S. government policy and anaesthetized Americans to its weaknesse s. To many people , United States security policy toward China seems prudently designed to prepare for an uncertain future. Given widespread fear of the threat China might someday pose , many Americans see strengthening defenses in the Asia Pacific as a matter of common sense. On economic issues, many believe it is only fair for the U.S. government to protect American jobs and manufacturers against purportedly nefarious Chinese commercial practices . If this policy sometimes requires confronting China over trade issues, they are willing to live with the consequences. Finally, while most Americans broadly dislike China’s authoritarian political system, they show little overall interest in adopting policies to help move it toward greater democracy and protection of human rights.

voters PERCEIVE plan as appeasement, weak on china, and ineffective – inevitably gets tied to ALL china related fears, regardless of specifics – critics control spin and perception Gross, 13 --- Donald, Donald Gross is a lawyer, business strategist and policy expert who also serves as an adjunct fellow of Pacific Forum CSIS, a non-profit research institute affiliated with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. A former State Department official, he developed and implemented U.S. policy on strategic trade, national security and foreign relations. Earlier, he was Director of Legislative Affairs at the National Security Council in the White House and Counselor of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, “The China Fallacy”, http://www.donaldgross.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-China-Fallacy- Excerpts.pdf

The difficulty of moving beyond current policy Despite the questionable premises underlying much of prevailing U.S. policy toward China, policymakers and commentators find it difficult to move beyond existing views . There are several reasons why this is so. To begin with, current policy is complex. It stresses preparation for a security threat from China at the same time as it promotes U.S. business interests there. It protects uncompetitive American companies from the adverse effects of China’s rapidly growing economy (unintentionally creating a nationalist backlash in Beijing) while largely ignoring China’s domestic political system. The seemingly contradictory elements of U.S. policy—in the face of real uncertainty about the direction of China’s military, economic and political development—mask the true dangers and weaknesses of the overall U.S. approach. A second reason why policymakers and commentators find it difficult to move beyond existing China policy is that groups with vested interests have a stake in its various components. These groups attempt to mold public opinion by defining “acceptable” and “mainstream” views of China, which provide strong support for the existing policy framework. This is especially true of security policy , where hawks who believe in a coming military clash with China also argue that the U.S. should pursue a military buildup to prepare for it. Not surprisingly, the military services and defense contractors in the United States are important members of the political constituency that favors an aggressive security strategy toward China. The specter of a large and amorphous “China threat ” has proved useful as a replacement for the “Soviet threat ” to spur the Pentagon’s acquisition of advanced weapons systems, especially at a time of overall defense budget cuts. Another group with a vested interest in a hard line security policy is the traditional “ China lobby ” (originally strong supporters of the anticommunist regime that led Taiwan after the Chinese revolution in 1949) which has concentrated in recent years on ensuring the U.S. supplies large quantities of high-quality weapons and military equipment to Taiwan to deter and defend against a possible Chinese attack. Perhaps the overriding reason why many policymakers and commentators cannot easily move beyond existing views of China is that they do not sufficiently factor into their analysis the major security, political and economic benefits that the United States and its Asian allies could achieve through improved U.S.-China relations . Many commentators tend to emphasize worst-case scenarios and pessimistic assessments which are seen by the media as “sober-minded” and “realistic.” It seems fruitless to these analysts to describe future benefits from a state of affairs that they believe will likely never come to pass. Influenced by the “ tyranny of the status quo,” policymakers and commentators often feel the best they can do is to propose incremental changes that could achieve small policy improvements over time. U.S. politicians who attack Beijing for economic practices that lead to “ shipping American jobs to China ” also discourage policymakers and experts from highlighting the benefits of improved relations between the two countries. When these politicians exploit patriotic feelings and engage in demagogic “China bashing” to attract votes , they have a chilling effect on policy analysts. In this atmosphere, proposals that could significantly improve relations become vulnerable to political attacks as “appeasement,” “un-American” or “weak on China .” Conversely, highly questionable protectionist measures to help uncompetitive companies are seen as “ tough” and “pro- American .” The upshot is that the acceptable bounds of the policy debate on China are far narrower than they ought or need to be. Any change in China policy exposes Clinton to political risk – its PERCEIVED as soft on china stance Rong 15 (Xiaoqing, New york based contributor @ Global Times, "Clinton may find it best to be quiet on China," 4/16, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/917207.shtml)

China has become a fixed topic in US elections at state and federal level in recent years. Most of the sound bites are negative. And in many elections, candidates blame each other for being too soft on China. A Washington Post editorial during the 2012 presidential election explained the reason wittily: "It's an iron law of US politics: You can't go wrong bashing China. Polls show the public believes that the US is losing jobs due to unfair economic competition from abroad, especially from China . And so, every four years, presidential candidates fall all over themselves promising to get tough on imports." Sometimes the Sinophobia can be stretched to an insane level. In 2013, when the now Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell was campaigning for re-election in Kentucky, his wife Elaine Chao, the Taiwan-born former secretary of labor in George W. Bush's administration, was attacked by supporters of his rival for being a "Chinese wife" who prompted her husband to "create jobs for China." Clinton doesn't want to be seen as "soft" on China. In her 2014 memoir Hard Choices, she called on other Asian countries to form an alliance so they could collectively stand up to China. She also criticized China's censorship. She mentioned a confrontation with a Chinese leader about Tibet. And she devoted a whole chapter to how the Americans helped Chen Guangcheng, the blind activist who went to the US Embassy in Beijing and then was allowed to leave China for asylum in the US. The attacks have continued. Clinton recently used her Twitter account to criticize China for detaining five feminist activists. But even this "tough on China" tone doesn't seem to have convinced her political opponents or even some of the people on her side. The alliance among smaller Asian countries she hoped to see is at best weak. And now it could be further dissolved with the establishment of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The "James Bond-style activity" of Chen's American saviors described in her book doesn't fit entirely with Chen's own account in his newly published autobiography in which he blamed the US for not fulfilling its promises to him. And the thorniest issue Clinton faces might be money. According to joint research of the Washington Examiner and watchdog Judicial Watch, during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, made $48 million from foreign countries for giving 215 speeches, including $1.7 million for giving four speeches in China or to Chinese-sponsored entities in the US. In addition, entities that have close ties to China donated between $750,000 to $1.75 million and the Clinton Foundation, the family's charitable organization. Clinton resigned from the board of the family foundation right after Sunday's announcement to avoid conflicts of interest. Still, her opponents will not easily let go of the opportunity to question her ethics. What may also be brought up in the process is Clinton's once close relationship to Chinese-American fundraiser Norman Hsu whose 2007 arrest for illegal fundraising prompted her to return $850,000 in campaign donations he helped to raise. Hsu was later indicted for fundraising fraud. In 1996, the Democratic National Committee also returned $360,000 in donations raised by questionable Taiwan-born fundraiser Johnny Chung for Bill Clinton's reelection campaign. Chung said he got some money from the mainland, which denied the connection. Clinton's campaign will reportedly cost $2.5 billion. The figure has already raised many eyebrows. There is no doubt Clinton has the ability to raise whatever she needs without crossing the line. But the astronomical spending will likely bring up all the money-related questions and memories and mean that Clinton has an incentive to keep her distance from China. Maybe. Clinton should keep in mind a warning from Henry Paulson. When asked at an event at the Asian Society on Monday what he'd like to hear the presidential candidates say about China, the former US treasury secretary quipped: " I'd like them to say as little as possible ." Link – China - Softline Policies – 2NC

Soft line china policies are a vital election issue – uniquely key this cycle Sevastopulo and Donnan 15 (Demetri and Shawn, Washington Correspondents @ Financial Times, 8/26, "Republicans line up for potshots at China," http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ced1bce8-4baa-11e5-a089- 1a3e2cd1819b.html#axzz49gbNsW5i)

China has long served as a bogeyman in US presidential elections. Whether Bill Clinton referring to the “butchers of Beijing” in reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre, George W Bush attacking Mr Clinton for being soft on China or Mr Obama touting the need for alliances to challenge Beijing, US presidential contenders have long lambasted China while vowing to take a tougher stance than the White House incumbent if elected president. But some analysts say China is sparking a different degree of anger now for several reasons : its growth as an economic power, its assertive actions in the South China Sea, rampant cyber attacks, theft of intellectual property rights and the creation of a climate that is less welcoming to foreign business. Frank Jannuzi, president of the Mansfield Foundation, which promotes US- Asia relations, said there had been a bipartisan consensus since Richard Nixon went to China in 1972 that the US would profit by engaging the country. But he said the consensus had almost unravelled because companies had become “increasingly disenchanted” with China. Trump throws out reporter and the rule book Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures during the first Republican presidential debate at the Quicken Loans Arena Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) When Donald Trump evicted an influential Latino reporter from a press conference on the campaign trail in Iowa, it fuelled concerns that his perceived war on Hispanics is damaging the Republican party’s chances of reclaiming the White House in 2016. Continue reading “In Washington there has always been a debate between the China hawks and the Panda-huggers. The balance keepers used to be business,” said Mr Jannuzi, who advised Joe Biden in his 2008 run to be the Democrats’ nominee for president. “ You are going to see many presidential candidates view China’s moment of economic turmoil as an opportunity to push them . . . because they can combine the anxiety of the American people about the way China’s economy could hit their retirement accounts with the anxiety that has long been there in elite policy circles about China’s international policy behaviour.” Chris Johnson, a former top China analyst at the CIA, said the rhetoric on China was “different from the standard stuff” because Beijing refused to address US concerns on issues such as cyber security. “The comments from Walker and the others are irresponsible,” said Mr Johnson. “But it does put the administration on the defensive . . . because they will have to go hard on these issues.” Mr Johnson added that China had become a victim of its own success and could not rely on the “hide your strength, bide your time” strategy promoted by Deng Xiaoping. “Suddenly these guys who were doing well, but doing well invisibly, are out there in a way that they weren’t before. They’re an easy target.” The China-bashing has implications for Mr Obama, who spent much of this year deflecting demands from Capitol Hill to include binding provisions to prevent currency manipulation in a Pacific Rim trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Soft-line policies on China alienate the public and become election-year fodder for Republicans Glaser 15 (Bonnie, Senior Adviser for Asia in the Freeman Chair in China Studies, where she works on issues related to Chinese foreign and security policy. She is concomitantly a senior associate with CSIS Pacific Forum and a consultant for the US government on East Asia, "China bashing: American campaign ritual or harbinger of tougher policy?," http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/08/25/China-bashing-American-campaign-ritual-or- harbinger-of-tougher-policy.aspx)

China-bashing in the 2016 presidential election has begun in earnest. In past campaigns, many of the attacks on China were forgotten as candidates dropped out of the race or were defeated. In 2012, for example, Mitt Romney pledged to declare China a currency manipulator on his first day in office. He never got the chance, of course, and Obama's policies were unaffected by Romney's campaign rhetoric. Sometimes, promises to 'get tough' with China during the campaign simply became irrelevant as presidents, once in power, confront the demands of real-world policy challenges. When George W Bush ran for president in 2000, he criticised his predecessor Bill Clinton for calling China a strategic partner, and instead said China should be viewed as a 'strategic competitor.' After becoming president, however, Bush dropped that label. When a Chinese jet collided with a US surveillance plane over the South China Sea, Bush worked hard to avert a US-China political crisis, and after the September 11 attacks, he welcomed Beijing's proposal to fight together against terrorism. This time may be different, however. China's repressive policies at home, combined with its transgressions in the S outh C hina S ea and massive cyber attacks on US companies and the Federal Government, make it an easy target. Moreover, criticism of China likely resonates with most Americans. Republican candidates will accuse Obama of being too soft on Chin a and vow that if elected, they will stand up for American interests. Democrats, including Obama's former secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, are more likely to find fault with than defend the current Administration's approach to managing US-China relations. Regardless of who is elected president in November 2016, he or she is likely to adopt a firmer approach to China on a litany of issues. So what are the candidates saying about China so far? GOP candidate Donald Trump condemned China's recent currency devaluation as 'the greatest theft in the history of the United States.' If elected president, Trump said, 'Oh would China be in trouble!' Carly Fiorina, another GOP contender, criticised China's cyber hacks on federal databases as an 'act of aggression' against America. She also warned against allowing the Chinese to control trade routes in the South China Sea and pledged she would be 'more aggressive in helping our allies...push back against new Chinese aggression.' In a lengthy critique of Obama Administration policies published in Foreign Affairs, GOP candidate Marco Rubio lambasted Obama's 'willingness to ignore human rights violations in the hope of appeasing the Chinese leadership.' He also accused China of pursuing 'increasingly aggressive regional expansionism.' Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has joined the fray in an effort to shield herself from the accusation that she was complicit in the implementation of a policy that accommodated China and failed to sufficiently stand up for American interests. Clinton acknowledges that as secretary of state she worked hard to build a better relationship with China and says she would continue to do so as president. But she also warns about the dangers posed by China's militarisation of the South China Sea and condemns China's 'stealing commercial secrets, blueprints from defense contractors' and 'huge amounts of government information' in its quest for an advantage over other nations. The presidential campaign is just starting to heat up. The torrent of China-bashing in the remaining 15 months before the general election is likely to have a profoundly negative effect on China's image in the US, which is already unfavourable. In a 2014 poll by the Pew Research Center, only 35% of Americans had a positive view of Chin a, while 55% had a negative one. China's image in the US has tilted in a more negative direction in recent years – as recently as 2011 half of Americans gave China a positive rating. The negative public mood will likely align with harsher attitudes in Congress, reinforcing the proclivities of the next US president to adopt a tougher stance against Chinese trade policies, human rights violations, cyber intrusions, and assertiveness in the South China Sea. Despite a sincere desire for a positive bilateral relationship with the US, Xi Jinping is likely to prioritise the preservation of domestic stability, defence of sovereignty, and pursuit of the Chinese Dream. Soft on China policies alienate the public, empower Republican attacks, and will be tied to Clinton Nakamura 15 (David, Staff @ Wash Post, "Anti-China rhetoric in campaign suggests change under a new president," 9/23, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/anti-china-rhetoric-in- campaign-suggests-change-under-a-new-president/2015/09/23/f6bb3066-61ff-11e5-b38e- 06883aacba64_story.html)

A flashpoint every four years in American politics, China again has become a target for Republicans and Democrats alike on the presidential campaign trail. But foreign policy experts said there is mounting evidence that this time it’s more than a rhetorical gambit: Escalating tensions have left officials on both sides of the Pacific preparing for a shift in U.S. policy toward China, no matter which political party wins the 2016 election. As President Obama prepares to welcome Chinese President Xi Jinping to the White House on Thursday , those vying to succeed Obama have begun bashing China over its currency manipulation, cyberhacking, human rights abuses and aggression in the South China Sea . Although Obama aides and Chinese officials have tried to shrug off the attacks as election-season pandering, analysts said the tough talk reflects souring attitudes toward China on Capitol Hill and in the public . And they suggested that the fear of a less friendly administration to come has contributed to China’s recent provocations. “What I think they’re really concerned about is what comes next,” said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “And as a result, I think they’re trying to use this one-year-plus period in the Obama administration to get done in some areas as much as they can. In fact, I would argue this is what’s going on in the artificial island building in the South China Sea.” Xi’s two-day state visit to Washington is meant to reassure U.S. political leaders that China will be a reliable global partner and that its economic and territorial ambitions in Asia under his leadership are benign. In an address to business leaders in Seattle on Tuesday, the Chinese leader pledged to fight against cyberattacks and proposed creating a “high-level joint dialogue mechanism” with the United States to establish ground rules in cyberspace and to resolve disputes. But, it is unlikely that Xi and Obama will be able to announce major breakthroughs on the scale of the climate deal they reached last fall in Beijing, and that will make it difficult for the Chinese leader to accomplish those goals. Meantime, public opinion of China has soured as the United States has slowly recovered from the Great Recession. This year, 54 percent of Americans held an unfavorable view of China , compared with 29 percent in 2006, according to the Pew Research Center. “President Obama has hoped that being more open to China would make them a more responsible nation. It has not worked,” Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who is seeking the GOP nomination, said in a speech to business leaders last month in Charleston, S.C. “We can no longer succumb to the illusion that more dialogue with China’s current rulers will narrow the gap in values and interests that separates us. . . . It is up to our next president to correct the errors of our current one.” Officials at the White House and in Beijing have rolled their eyes over much of the campaign-trail rhetoric. It’s easy for Republican front-runner Donald Trump to harangue China for stealing U.S. jobs or for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a candidate for the Democratic nomination, to criticize the trade imbalance. Just wait until one of these critics takes office, the White House thinking goes, and realizes just how important China is to the fortunes of the United States. Even Obama talked tough on China while campaigning before moderating his stance once in office. White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes chalked up much of the criticism from GOP candidates to hyperbole that overstates “the degree of Chinese responsibility for certain things.” He emphasized the “bipartisan support” over previous Democratic and Republican administrations for a policy of engagement with China since the opening of relations more than four decades ago. At the same time, Rhodes acknowledged the growing concerns on Capitol Hill and in the business community, warning that “China needs to be mindful that its activities don’t undermine its standing here in the United States.” Part of Obama’s message to Xi, Rhodes added, is that “if you are not taking steps to address some of these concerns as it relates to particular trade irritants or cyber activities, you risk eroding the support for the U.S.-China relationship that comes from the business community; you risk inviting responses from Congress.” The issue is complicated. When the Chinese stock market tumbled in August, leading to fresh concerns over Beijing’s handling of its economy, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker adopted the strongest stance among the GOP presidential candidates. He suggested Obama cancel Xi’s visit to send a message over the economic issues, as well as the cyber, maritime and currency tensions. But the message landed with a thud in Iowa, whose farmers export millions of dollars of soybeans and other agriculture to China each year. Walker ended his campaign this week amid plummeting poll numbers. Still, China is unlikely to fade as a campaign issue. Organized labor has railed against China’s currency manipulation, saying it has contributed to trade imbalances. Congressional Democrats, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who is slated to take over as party leader in 2017, are pushing for legislation that would punish China over currency manipulation. And although Hillary Rodham Clinton has not spoken much about China on the campaign trail, her tenures as first lady in the 1990s and as secretary of state during Obama’s first term were marked by memorable moments in confronting Beijing. In 1995, she spoke out forcefully on women’s rights during a speech at the U.N. World Conference on Women in Beijing. And in 2010 , her declaration during a security conference in Hanoi that the United States would intervene in growing regional tensions over China’s bid to gain more control in the South China Sea signaled a shift in the Obama administration’s tone. A year later, the administration announced a “pivot to Asia,” a bid to refocus foreign policy attention to the region that Beijing interpreted as an effort to contain China. Beijing has responded by launching several major regional economic initiatives, including an Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and by building artificial islands in the South China Sea, which analysts said will probably be used as military outposts.

Republicans will spin increased engagement as soft on China Golan 15 (Shahar, Henry M. Jackson School of Int’l Studies at University of Washington – Chaired by Sorenson - Director Center for Korea Studies, Building a Pragmatic Coalition in American Politics, Rethinking United States Military Bases in East Asia, University of Washington, The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, Task Force - Winter 2015, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33275/Task%20Force %20E%202015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

Another factor that one cannot dodge when debating American foreign policy or USChina relations in particular is political ideology. Dueck explains that electoral needs caused the Republican Party “by the time of the Korean War to become more hawkish than Democrats—a position they have never relinquished”, and concludes that “today as before, a hawkish American nationalism forms the center of gravity of the Republican Party, especially in its conservative base, when it comes to foreign policy issues” (Dueck, p.307). Focusing specifically on the China debate, Peter Heyes Gries (2014) argues in his book “The Politics of American Foreign Policy: how ideology divides liberals and conservative over foreign affairs” that “Conservatives desire a tougher China Policy than liberals do… because on average they maintain much more negative attitudes towards communist countries in general and the Chinese government in particular” (n.p.). Meanwhile, when regarding the other political opposition, Gries infers that “the anti-China advocacy of Big Labor has likely counteracted the greater liberal warmth towards China within the Democratic Party” (n.p.). It becomes revealed that a clear divergence between general attitudes of Republican and Democrat voters when it comes to China, with the former preferring cooler relations. Therefore the rethink of the military bases is likely to be spun as soft on China, especially in conservative circles, and used to berate Democrats for caving to Chinese aggression. No risk of a link turn – negativity bias means China will always be spun negatively Golan 15 (Shahar, Henry M. Jackson School of Int’l Studies at University of Washington – Chaired by Sorenson - Director Center for Korea Studies, Building a Pragmatic Coalition in American Politics, Rethinking United States Military Bases in East Asia, University of Washington, The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, Task Force - Winter 2015, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33275/Task%20Force %20E%202015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

Finally, another constraint regarding the PRC is general American public opinion towards the East Asian country. Sutter explains that “ American Public opinion remains more negative than positive regarding the policies and practices of China, but it is not in a position, as it was in the aftermath of the Tiananmen crackdown, to prompt serious negative change in American China policy”( Shambaugh, p.117). While public opinion in the US regarding the PRC has soften since the early 1990’s, the general distaste for Chinese actions lead politicians to pursue populist rhetoric at times in order to appease public sentiment. Sutter points that this can be seen in the media that “reflected trends in American public opinion in demonst rating a continuing tendency to highlight the negative implication of Chinese developments for American interests and values” (Shambaugh, p.118). While American public opinion, as Sutter points out, is not a position to strongly affect American actions towards the PRC, it could provide further motivation for politicians to use harsh rhetoric against the PRC.

China policy MATTERS – public cares deeply, empirically sparks huge fights in election years Golan 15 (Shahar, Henry M. Jackson School of Int’l Studies at University of Washington – Chaired by Sorenson - Director Center for Korea Studies, Building a Pragmatic Coalition in American Politics, Rethinking United States Military Bases in East Asia, University of Washington, The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, Task Force - Winter 2015, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33275/Task%20Force %20E%202015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

The China Factor In recent times China has become one of the most contentious issues regarding American foreign policy. Out of all issues concerning East Asia, China generates the greatest political attention in the US; American politicians frequently use the China card in foreign policy debate, especially during campaigns. The rethink of the military bases will provide ammunition for critics of the administration who will try to spin the reform as soft on the PRC. In his book US-Chinese Relations: Perilous Past, Pragmatic Present, Robert Sutter, an acclaimed China expert, describes the political environment of the US regarding China policy as “an atmosphere of suspicion and cynicism in American domestic politics over China policy,” setting the stage “ for often bitter and debilitating fights in US domestic politics over China policy in ensuing years that on balance are seen not to serve the overall national interests of the United States” (Sutter, 2013, p.81). Sutter’s observations show that electoral needs in the US often cause candidates to use harsher rhetori c and actions against the PRC than they believe are beneficial for the US. While many scholars have argued that administrations will ultimately favor pragmatic forward-moving relationships with the PRC, aspiring presidents have not been shy of criticism of the PRC leading up to presidential elections. This portrays how political maneuvering is needed to pursue policies that could be perceived as warm towards the PRC. Because of these domestic hurdles, US history has proven a pattern of presidents pursuing forward-moving, pragmatic relations with the PRC after a campaign of harsh rhetoric pointed at the Asian state. Link – China – Econ – 2NC

Economic engagement and pro globalization china policies are key election issues – plan cause vote switching

- Triggers mass voter backlash and robs Hillary of vital Dem wedge issue Thoma, 16 --- Mark Thoma is a macroeconomist and time-series econometrician at the University of Oregon. His research focuses on how monetary policy affects the economy, and he has worked on political business cycle models. Mark is currently a fellow at The Century Foundation, and he blogs daily at Economist's View, “How will global trade affect the U.S. elections?”, CBS News, 4/26, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-will-global-trade-affect-the- u-s-elections/

How will global trade affect the U.S. elections? In textbook economic models, adjusting to changes in the economy is deceptively simple. If the labor market suffers a "shock" due, for example, to increased globalization, it adjusts quickly to restore full employment. In the real world, it doesn't happen like this. It takes time for workers to find new jobs, if they can find them. New businesses and new job openings at existing businesses aren't created instantaneously. And wage adjustments, which create the incentives for workers to move and new jobs to be created, don't happen as fast as the textbooks generally assume. And now, the effect of international trade and globalization has become a big issue in the presidential campaign . Recent research showing that a large number of manufacturing jobs have been lost to China helps explain why . But what evidence shows that trade with China actually changes voting behavior? A recent paper from the National Bureaus of Economic Research attempts to answer this question. The research compares voting patterns in regions in the U.S. with different degrees of exposure to changes in trade policy. It focused on how voting changed after China was granted "permanent normal trading relations" in October 2000. Granting China this status removed the risk each year that imports from it would be subject to increased tariffs, a risk that discouraged U.S. firms from locating in China with the intent of exporting goods to the U.S. market and discouraged Chinese firms from entering U.S. markets. As the following two figures from the paper show, the result was a large increase in imports from China and a large decline in manufacturing employment. However, these effects did not hit all areas of the U.S. equally, and that allowed the researchers to identify differences in voting patterns due to the granting of permanent normal trading relations with China. The paper analyzed votes at the county level and focused on Congressional elections because of their frequency (every two years) and because Congressional representatives represent smaller geographic regions than senators or presidents and hence are expected to be more responsive to their constituents' desires. Two key findings emerged from this research. First, " U.S. counties more exposed to increased competition from China experience increases in the share of votes cast for Democrats in Congressional elections, along with increases in the probability that a Democrat represents a county and the probability of a county switching from a Republican to a Democrat Representative." Second, the explanation for that voting pattern appears to be that "Democrats are more likely to support policies that limit import competition and that provide economic assistance that may benefit workers adversely affected by trade competition." Specialization and trade give American consumers a much greater variety of goods at a lower cost than if we tried to produce everything we consume ourselves. It has also had a substantial impact on reducing poverty in developing countries. However, international trade also imposes substantial costs on domestic workers and businesses that end up paying the price of greater global trade, and the country hasn't done enough to ensure that social insurance programs are available to ease these costs. In addition, the benefits of increased trade have been concentrated at the top of the income distribution. If they had been more widely shared -- if the income of the working class had not stagnated for decades while income for those at the top soared -- the political backlash might not now be so severe . It will be interesting to see the extent to which votes in the upcoming presidential election, as well as votes for senators and congressional representatives, reflect the dissatisfaction that so many people have with the consequences of globalization . The winds of change are in the air, but are they blowing hard enough to overcome the entrenched political interests that have brought the country to this point? If so, where will they take us? Will we close our doors to further expansion of trade and all the benefits that come with it, or will we find a way to keep expanding trade and share its benefits widely and overcome the stagnation of the middle class that has fueled the rise of populist sentiment? I hope things change and that political institutions are up to the task of expanding trade and serving the needs of the many rather than the few. But it's hard to be optimistic that this type of change is possible. It's very clear, to me at least, that our government institutions have failed to ensure that the promise of globalization is realized -- the idea that we can make everyone better off by distributing the gains from trade broadly and equitably. It will be very difficult to overcome the powerful forces pushing to either retreat from trade or retain the inequitable status quo .

Stats and Best studies prove the DA – voter belief and perception mean link is immediate – opponents control the debate Dizikes, 16 --- Peter Dizikes , MIT News Office, Interview w David Autor, Professor @ MIT, “3 Questions: David Autor on global trade and political polarization”, 4/26, http://news.mit.edu/2016/3-questions-david-autor-globe-trade-political-polarization-0426

Study finds relationship between U.S. job losses due to trade, and political polarization in Congress. In recent years economic studies have illuminated the extent to which global trade agreements, while benefitting many consumers, have also led to significant job losses in the U.S. — particularly due to jobs moving to China after 2001. Now a new study co-authored by MIT economist David Autor (along with non- MIT colleagues David Dorn, Gordon Hanson, and Kaveh Majlesi) identifies a political effect from this economic process. From 2002 through 2010, in U.S. congressional districts particularly affected by job losses due to trade, elected members of the House of Representatives became more ideologically extreme, with moderates consistently losing out in both parties. Autor spoke to MIT News this week about the headline-grabbing results. Q. Your new working paper establishes a strong relationship between job losses in the U.S. due to global trade, and political changes in the U.S. Congress — but the phenomenon at work is not what many people might guess. What did you find? A. There’s been a 30-year trend of rising polarization in the U.S. Congress. A lot of areas economically affected by rising trade exposure, especially in the South, have also been moving politically to the right. We wondered if these economic shocks might be contributing to the political factionalization. There are multiple ways this could work. One would be an anti-incumbent effect: It’s well established that politicians are punished for bad economic outcomes. But we don’t find that. Another possibility might be that the effects of trade shocks would just strongly favor one party over another. But the answer there is also no, not really. However, if you look at ideology rather than party, you do see very sharp movements. But they’re movements across ideological space. So moderate Democrats and moderate Republicans are being voted out of office in trade-exposed areas and being replaced with much more ideologically ardent substitutes. A lot of these gains are on the right. But that’s not entirely the case. If you look at initially Democratic voting districts, you see a very sharp movement to the left — as well as, to some degree, gains for Republicans in some of those districts . So you see this polarization occurring where moderates of both parties are being removed in trade-affected areas, and are being replaced by candidates who win by smaller margins and have more ideological views. Q. Is it fair to say this also corresponds to the ethnic composition of the voters in these congressional districts? And what accounts for this subtle wrinkle in the findings, in which a few of these districts do flip from the Democrats to the Republicans? A. We haven’t done an overwhelming number of ethnic breakdowns, but the one we did that we thought was useful, was that we broke districts into those where the majority of the population was non-Hispanic white, and those where less than half of the population was non-Hispanic white. There are only 66 districts in the study [out of 435 in Congress] which are majority-minority. But in those cases you see very sharp movements to the left. By contrast, in the areas that are majority non-Hispanic white, all the movement is to the right: Moderate Democrats are removed from office, moderate Republicans are removed from office to a lesser extent, and conservative Republicans make enormous gains. And there are no gains for Democrats. Q. In terms of voter beliefs, what is the mechanism here? What explains how such similar types of job losses due to trade lead to such divergent political outcomes? A. Imagine you have two groups of people, liberals and conservatives, and they share the same objective: They want workers to be employed and protected from the shocks of globalization. And then you have a big [trade] shock, and a lot of people lose employment. You might think everyone should converge on what we should do about that. But you can have a setting where beliefs are sufficiently disjointed, such that the same information is interpreted in completely different ways by people observing it. Say I’m a liberal Democrat and I want workers to be protected. A trade shock might lead me to say, “ This confirms what I suspected. We need a broader social safety net to make sure that workers aren’t too adversely affected.” Now suppose you’re a conservative Republican and you see the same thing. You might say, “ This confirms what I suspected, that we need strong nationalistic policies [such as tariffs] to protect our workers.” People are responding in a schismatic sense to the same underlying phenomena . The 2016 presidential election shows the parties are not able to maintain discipline and stop people from moving to populist solutions [on trade] that most politicians don’t like — they’ve lost control of that dialogue. But our paper makes clear that this process was well under way throughout the 2000s. And in some sense what we’re seeing now in the presidential primary isn’t as surprising in retrospect, because so much of it had already occurred, in congressional votes, along the economic fault lines of areas badly impacted by declining manufacturing.

Voter opposition to economic globalism is a key election issue – hillary must avoid Schoen, 16 --- Doug Schoen, longtime political strategist, columnist @ forbes, Fox News contributor and author of several books, including the recently published The End of Authority: How a Loss of Legitimacy and Broken Trust are Endangering our Future“General Election Trade- Offs”, Forbes, 5/13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2016/05/13/trade- protectionism-and-the-2016-election/#284f747e26bf

Clinton’s gaffe epitomizes broader issues with Clinton’s candidacy and messaging. That said, it also means a lot more. It’s part of the debate over trade and protectionism that has become central to the 2016 election thanks to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders’ economic populism. With Clinton’s most recent loss to Sanders in West Virginia, a state she carried in the 2008 Democratic primary by over 40 points, significant questions remain about the former Secretary of State’s ability to appeal to Rust Belt Americans. Clinton’s struggles are particularly evident among white Americans without college degrees, many of whom have long worked in manufacturing and coal mining industries. Exit polls from the May 10 Democratic contest in West Virginia demonstrate troubling realities for Clinton: among West Virginia Democratic primary voters, over 30% say they would choose Trump in a general election match-up between the businessman and Clinton. Most intriguingly, 44% of Sanders’ supporters report they would vote for Trump in the general election as well, while only 23% said they would vote Clinton. In fact, these patterns are evident across America’s Rust Belt, especially in states like Michigan. Similar to exit polling from West Virginia, data from the Michigan primary more than two months ago also helps identify the shared base of support between Trump and Sanders. The state-wide results clearly showed Trump’s popularity among blue-collar white voters and Clinton’s vulnerabilities with that same group – a foreboding sign for a general election match-up come November. Exit polls found that a majority of all Michigan voters believe trade with other nations “takes away U.S. jobs,” and among Republicans, Trump won 45% of those respondents. On the Democratic side, Sanders won these voters by a margin of 58% to Clinton’s 41% for Clinton. It follows that while Clinton may seem to be a part of the establishment which supported free trade in the past, the shift in the electorate toward Trump and Sanders’ brand protectionism is clear. On the surface, this makes sense. The economy has been improving, but it’s still a weak recovery. Wages are stagnant and Americans aren’t optimistic. Over 60% don’t believe in the American dream anymore. A candidate like Donald Trump , who believes Americans should “no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of glo balism,” would succeed in this political environment. Regardless of whether or not the consequences of globalism are real, Trump’s ability to cultivate voters’ deeply seeded economic concerns has elevated him to the position he enjoys today. As the field narrows to a Trump and Clinton general election match-up , it becomes ever more critical to understand the next president’s role in shaping the United States global economic position. For both Clinton and Trump, trade agreements are possibly the most important aspect of this issue. Voters may presume that as Clinton tacks closer to the middle for the general election, she will come around to the TPP. Trump, however, is a larger question. Based on his rhetoric, Trump is hell bent on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States and appears willing to turn his back on international economic partnerships formed over recent decades. To this end, a number of economists have come out against Trump warning that his tariffs would hurt Americans greatly. The National Foundation for American Policy writes, “We find that a Trump tariff proposal against all countries would cost U.S. consumers $459 billion annually and $2.29 trillion over five years. Our analysis finds that the Trump tariffs would manifest themselves as a 30.5 percent increase in the price of competing domestic producer goods and therefore, as a cut in real wages.” Furthermore, exports to Mexico, China and Japan – the targets of Trump’s rhetoric – would fall an astounding 78%. The report concludes, “Then the results would be truly catastrophic for the poor,” the report said. “It would be as if the United States imposed a new tax of 53 percent on the lowest 10 percent income decile and a 20 percent tax on the next lowest decile. It would be the equivalent to an 11 percent flat tax on the after-tax income of U.S. workers.” That doesn’t sound like what Trump is promising Americans. Kenneth Rogoff, the former chief economist for the IMF, offers that even though Sanders is more appealing than Trump, his rhetoric is just as dangerous. Case in point: his rallying against TPP and even forcing Clinton, who was a supporter of the deal, to turn against it . The TPP has its flaws, but it does a lot of good including opening up Asian markets to Latin America. He also regularly points out that Clinton supported NAFTA and blames it for killing thousands of jobs. But he never mentions that it forced Mexico to lower its tariffs. Holding strong to the center on trade will be a central task for Clinton in November. I’m not sure how many Trump supporters will care that economists are telling them his plans will hurt the economy and our global standing because “American first” lines of argumentation are doing so well this cycle. But that doesn’t make it any less critical that we get it right on this issue. Trade and protectionism matters as much as tax and foreign policy.

Backlash to pro-globalization China Policies swing election – claim that “other issues are key” is non-responsive Stokes, 16 --- Bruce, senior fellow @ council foreign relations, director of global economic attitudes at Pew Research Center, where he assesses public views about economic conditions, foreign policy and values, non-resident fellow at the German Marshall Fund and an associate fellow at Chatham House, former international economics correspondent for the National Journal, a former senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. Stokes is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and Johns Hopkins University’s School for Advanced International Studies. He has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including CNN, BBC, NPR, NBC, CBS and ABC and is a frequent speaker at major conferences around the world. “Choices by US Voters Will Influence the World”, YaleGlobal, 3/17, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/choices-us-voters-will-influence-world

The US primary season has slowly winnowed down the field of presidential candidates. “To date, the campaign debate has been dominated by multiple themes that could ultimately impact people outside the United States – trade, immigration and terrorism, to name just a few,” explains Bruce Stokes, director of global economic attitudes at the Pew Research Center. Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state is Democratic Party’s front-runner after winning contests in five states on March 15. Donald Trump, real estate developer and television reality-show celebrity, leads among Republicans. A sharp divide between parties is reflected in public-opinion surveys: 31 percent of those polled cite trade as a top priority while 58 percent regard trade as beneficial for the country; half cite immigration as a priority while majorities of Democrats and Republicans support allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the country. Terrorism shifted as a top priority, from 1 percent of respondents in 2014 to 75 percent early this year. Republicans and Democrats represent just over half of the US electorate, and independents, about 40 percent, will help decide which candidate has the strength and skills to handle a range of global issues. – YaleGlobal

Choices by US Voters Will Influence the World The US presidential campaign is dominated by global issues including trade, immigration and terrorism – and voters have mixed feelings The US political primary election season is in full swing as Americans choose candidates for the presidency of their nation and, arguably, the job of de facto leader of the world. In the wake of recent primaries in vote-rich states such as Florida and Ohio, Republican candidate Donald Trump has a commanding lead over his rivals Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich. Democratic front- runner Hillary Clinton has an even larger advantage over her challenger Senator Bernie Sanders. To quote the American baseball player Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over,” but the field finally seems to be sorting itself out. To date, the campaign debate has been dominated by multiple themes that could ultimately impact people outside the United States – trade, immigration and terrorism, to name just a few. Americans’ attitudes on these issues could well influence the outcome in November. And the positions the candidates take on these issues may foreshadow, or constrain, what policies the next US president will pursue. Moreover, the mood of the electorate may influence votes in Congressional elections for both the US House of Representatives and Senate, reinforcing foreign-policy choices made by the new president. Trade is a recurrent campaign theme, despite the fact that global trade ranks low overall on the American public’s list of concerns, as registered by a Pew Research Center survey: 31 percent rate it as a top priority. Candidates in both parties have repeatedly tied the issue to jobs and the economy and promised to be tougher on trade, especially with regard to China . Real estate developer and television celebrity Trump has promised to impose a 45 percent tariff on imports from China. Clinton has pledged to crack down on Chinese currency manipulation that gives Chinese products an unfair competitive advantage. Sanders, Trump and Clinton have repeatedly attacked the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Such trade criticism strikes a chord with many Americans , despite the fact that they are, in principle, free traders. According to Pew Research Center, Americans suggest that free trade is good for the nation by a margin of 25 percentage points – 58 percent versus 33 percent – a sentiment broadly shared across gender, race, age, income, education and party divisions. But the public is divided on the overall economic impact of Washington signing free trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership: 31 percent suggest such agreements make the economy grow, 34 percent say they slow the economy down. Moreover, on the politically potent issues of jobs and wages, 46 percent of Americans voice the view that trade deals lead to job losses in the United States, while the same percentage says they lower US wages. Only 11 percent think trade raises wages and just 17 percent suggest it generates jobs. A mericans are critical of trade with Beijing: 52 percent describe the US trade deficit with China – the largest U.S. merchandise trade deficit – as a very serious problem. On immigration, roughly half, or 51 percent, of Americans think dealing with immigration should be a top priority for Congress and the White House. That emphasis is up from 41 percent in 2009 at the beginning of the Obama administration. And it’s a highly partisan issue: 66 percent of Republicans give it priority, but only 43 percent of Democrats. Given such partisanship, it may be no surprise that Trump has called for building a wall along the US border with Mexico and deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. Clinton, on the other hand, has advocated a path to full and equal citizenship for such immigrants. Partisanship also manifests itself on how to handle illegal immigration. Contrary to what one might assume based on many headlines, less than half, or 46 percent, of Americans favor building a fence along the entire Mexican border. Again, that sentiment is deeply divided along partisan lines: 73 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats support such a fence. Similarly, and again contrary to what one might conclude from the campaign rhetoric, large majorities in both parties favor allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States legally, if certain requirements are met: 66 percent of Republicans favor such an approach, while 32 percent say undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay, and nearly five to one Democrats, 80 percent to 17 percent, say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States. For all of the talk on the campaign trail about trade and immigration, terrorism could prove the political wildcard in the 2016 election. Public opinion data suggest that an October surprise in the form of a terrorist incident before the November 8 election could have a profound effect.. CIA director John Brennan told CBS news program “60 Minutes” in February that attempts by ISIS to attack the United States are “inevitable.” A number of GOP presidential candidates have already staked out “get tough” positions on terrorism and Muslims. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, for example, has proposed carpet bombing the Islamic State. Trump has advocated temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the country. If another terrorist attack happens ahead of the election, fears of terrorism and what to do about it could frame political discourse and favor the candidate deemed strong. Concern about terrorism is already relatively high and variable. Three-quarters of those surveyed in January 2016 by the Pew Research Center said that defending the nation against terrorism should be the top priority for the Obama administration and Congress – a particular concern among Republicans, 87 percent, but also troubling for Democrats, 73 percent. Such worries are notably unstable. In a December 2014 Pew Research Center survey, just 1 percent of Americans said terrorism was the most important problem facing the country. In December 2015, after the terrorist shooting in San Bernardino, California, 18 percent voiced the view that terrorism was the most serious challenge, briefly outstripping concern about the perennial public worry of the economy. Gallup found a similar spike in apprehension about terrorism, but by January 2016 public anxiety about terrorism had ebbed, suggesting just how sensitive the public mood is to a single terrorist attack in the past and how responsive it might be to one in the future. Fear of a future terrorist incident is high. In December 2015, a month after the Paris terrorist attack, 51 percent of Americans surveyed expressed worry that they or someone in their family would become the victim of terrorism, according to a Gallup survey, and two-thirds of Americans said that further terrorist attacks in the United States were likely – the greatest level of such concern expressed since early 2003. The intensity of public unease about terrorism and the tendency of such fears to spike in the wake of terrorist attacks, suggest that if John Brennan is right and additional terrorist incidents are inevitable, terrorism could become the disruptive political issue on both sides of the Atlantic in 2016. US presidential elections are decided on a number of issues, often the state of the economy. But this year, a number of international concerns about negative consequences of globalization including trade, immigration and terrorism are prominent in the political debate. History suggests that the US election will not turn on any of these issues alone, but they may well influence the outcome. And it is people outside the United States who then must also deal with the consequences. Free trade loses voters—change in China policy on issues of trade will hurt Clinton as Trump will use it in his free trade tirades against Obama and the democrats Lincicome, 7/11 (Scott, an international trade attorney, adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute and visiting lecturer at Duke University, JULY 11, 2016, “How Free Traders Fueled Trump And Can Beat Him,” The Federalist, http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/11/how-free- traders-fueled-trump-and-can-beat-him/)

Donald Trump is on the protectionist warpath, attacking not just America’s trading partners but also its long-held political consensus in favor of open trade. The demise of this consensus is in one sense odd—trade has never been popular with voters, and modest declines in recent polls are typical for election years—but it is no less real: for the first time in decades, both major party presidential nominees are openly skeptical of trade ( Trump outright hostile), and congressional leaders are unwilling to consider the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In a time when our stagnant economy could use a trade-provided boost, such proposals are nowhere to be found. How did America devolve from the trade advocacy of Kennedy, Reagan, (Bill) Clinton, and Bush to the divisive protectionism of Trump? Some causes are obvious: the Democratic Party, once supportive of trade, has slowly embraced protectionism, its platform and legislative record shifting from trade-friendly in 1996 to mirroring the anti-globalization movement by 2008. Today Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, almost unanimously refuse to support their standard-bearer’s signature trade deal, the TPP. President Obama also deserves blame: his successful campaigns against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and outsourcing showed other politicians that protectionism can pay political dividends. The president also condoned or implemented discrete trade restrictions like the 2009 safeguard on Chinese tires, while refusing to spend political capital to advocate trade liberalization policies like completed FTAs with Colombia, Panama ,and Korea. Even now in selling the TPP, President Obama emphasizes new rules for labor, the environment, and state enterprises, as opposed to the unassailable economic and moral arguments that have supported free trade for centuries. TPP might now be in force, instead of languishing in congressional limbo, had the president experienced his trade conversion years ago instead of in 2015. Give Us Reasons, Not Numbers But trade proponents in Washington also helped create Trump and the current wave of American trade skepticism. By embracing a mercantilist message to sell trade agreements, one that touts every deal by noting only its ability to generate American exports and trade surpluses, these groups fuel prevalent protectionist myths that imports shrink the economy and cost jobs, and that the trade balance is handy scoreboard for gauging U.S. policy. At the same time, these “free traders” fail to attack such myths, thus yielding the floor to protectionists like Trump who wrongly blame trade for America’s alleged deindustrialization (though manufacturing output is at record highs) and general economic malaise. Trump’s rhetoric, heavy on trade deficit demagoguery and unsupported allegations of pervasive foreign cheating, is straight from the dusty protectionist playbook, yet has been rarely challenged by timid rivals. As such, his preposterous claims are challenged by only voiceless wonks, instead of more powerful groups— especially elected officials—that might actually affect public perceptions. Trade proponents also have erred through a consistent overreliance on economic data, particularly forecasts, to push trade liberalization policies. Not only are these data boring (a stark contrast to the protectionists’ gripping, though limited, tales of personal woe), but accurately predicting the impact of wide-ranging agreements among sovereign nations is an impossible task because trade flows and national economic performance rely on factors that often have little to do with trade policy. Treating these stats as gospel imperils future advocacy efforts whenever the predicted results fail to materialize (as they often inevitably do). Today, for example, unions discount the U.S. International Trade Commission’s new analysis of the TPP because the review of the U.S.-Korea free-trade agreement (FTA) inaccurately predicted a shrinking bilateral trade deficit (never mind that Korea’s economy entered a recession shortly after the FTA took effect, thus crippling Korean demand for U.S. exports). We Need a Sensible Response to Globalization Finally, there has been a bipartisan failure of U.S. policy to adapt to the realities of today’s more globalized, more automated world. Our policymakers continue to pursue trade liberalization through only reciprocal FTAs like the TPP, even though these agreements’ rigid tariff schedules and rules of origin deter optimal sourcing decisions in fields defined by ever-changing global supply chains. (Other countries, such as Canada, have pursued a more logical mix of trade agreements and unilateral market opening.) FTAs also can undermine public confidence in trade liberalization by treating the beneficial reduction of domestic trade barriers as a “concession” for U.S. negotiators to resist by traditionally keeping negotiations secret and promulgating arcane, heavily lobbied rules (e.g., pharmaceutical patent protections or investor-state disciplines) that give the not-wholly-unwarranted impression that current U.S. trade policy nefariously benefits only multinational corporations at the expense of American workers. At the same time, domestic policy not only has failed to help workers and companies adjust to disruptive and growing forces like globalization and technology, but likely hinders such adjustment. The Trade Adjustment Assistance program, for example, leaves participants worse off in terms of future wages and benefits than similarly situated individuals outside of the program, and breeds the misconception that trade is somehow different from, and worse than, other forms of creative destruction. American companies are also hobbled by sky-high corporate tax rates and costly overregulation. Winning public support for increased global competition under such circumstances is a fool’s errand. Let’s Address Misconceptions on Trade Head-On Trade advocates must learn from these errors to counter Trump and restore the pro-trade consensus. Long-term polling from organizations like Gallup and Pew indicate many Americans’ opinions on trade are loosely held, shaped by partisanship and capable of shifting in response to improved trade rhetoric and policy. A new poll out of Texas—one of the most free market, trade-dependent, and economically successful states in the union—lays the situation bare: more than half of all Republicans in the state, having spent the last year listening to an unchallenged Trump rail against “trade deals,” now view them as “bad for the United States economy” (while only 17 percent see them as “good”). Clearly, something other than actual economic experience is driving these views. A better trade message is needed, one that emphasizes the benefits of U.S. exports and imports (more than half of which other manufacturers use), attacks common protectionist myths, and recognizes the economic, historical, and moral case for free trade. Protectionists want to force poor American consumers to subsidize well-connected cronies; they must no longer be given free rein to set the terms of debate and mislead with impunity. If Trump wants a fight, free traders should give him one. We have not just the factual but also the moral high ground. Better policy, on the other hand, would reflect the realities of the twenty- first-century economy through a mix of simpler trade agreements; unilateral reductions in trade barriers that enrich cronies at most Americans’ expense; and legal reforms that strengthen the ability of all workers and companies, not just those exposed to imports, to confront inevitable market disruptions and to thrive in the global marketplace. The U.S. government must also be more willing to use legal dispute settlement mechanisms, particularly World Trade Organization anti-subsidy rules, to ensure that our trading partners are held to account—but only after getting our own trade and subsidy house in order (it’s a mess). Unless and until policymakers and industry groups address their failures and make such changes, the pro-trade consensus in American politics will remain broken, demagogues like Trump will prosper, and trade’s many benefits will continue to go unrealized. Clinton is taking a hit on the trade issue—her connection to past trade policies have alienated unions which have traditionally been key to turnout and campaigning to win presidential elections – a move towards China would wreck turnout Nakamura and Weigel, 7/4 (David, covers the White House, David, a national political correspondent covering the 2016 election and ideological movements, July 4, 2016, “Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric rattles the campaign message of Clinton and unions,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-anti-trade-rhetoric-rattles-the-campaign- message-of-clinton-and-unions/2016/07/04/45916d5c-3f92-11e6-a66f- aa6c1883b6b1_story.html)

PHILADELPHIA — Three dozen union workers gathered outside city hall here on Thursday to rally against the global free-trade deals they believe have harmed Americans like them. Their candidate was Katie McGinty, the Democrats’ nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania. But their spiritual leader was Republican Donald Trump. “He recognized there’s some problems we need to solve,” said McGinty, who is challenging Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R), a free-trade advocate. “One, we have to stop bad trade agreements. . . . And two, we have to take the Chinese on when they manipulate their currency and dump goods in our markets.” Just two days earlier, Trump had delivered a blistering speech at an aluminum recycling plant near Pittsburgh in which he called U.S. trade policies a “politician-made disaster” that has betrayed the working class. McGinty, surrounded by electricians, pipe fitters and steelworkers, declared that while Trump usually spouts “nonsense,” he had, in this case, “recognized a couple of truths.” Of the many ways Trump, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, has scrambled the 2016 campaign, it is his position on trade that has presented one of the most unexpected challenges for his rival, Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee. In an election season animated by economic anxiety, Trump, a New York business mogul, bucked Republican orthodoxy and powerful business interests such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an appeal to blue-collar Republicans that helped propel him t o victory in the GOP primaries. Clinton, who scrambled to move left on trade during her tough primary fight against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, now finds herself again facing attacks on the issue — this time from Trump. He used his Pittsburgh- area speech to disparage her association with a pair of major trade agreements — one negotiated by President Bill Clinton’s administration and the other by President Obama’s while she served as secretary of state. For Hillary Clinton, the risk is not necessarily losing support directly to Trump but rather not inspiring enough enthusiasm among rank-and-file union workers, whose turnout and ground-level organizing have traditionally been crucial for Democrats. Clinton already has the endorsements of several of the nation’s largest labor organizations, including the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers, but faces the question of whether that organized support will be enough to hold the labor voting bloc together at a time when Trump has co-opted the traditional labor message about the perils of free trade and globalization. “Some of our members if not support [him] agree with some of Trump’s statements,” said Joe Jacoby, 54, of Pennsauken, N.J., who serves as a union representative with Boilermakers Local 13. “Because they feel like they’re being hit hardest. Because their jobs are going away. Because it’s hard to find a good-paying job,” Jacoby, who was at the McGinty rally, said he and the other union leaders support Clinton. McGinty also made clear she supports Clinton and emphasized that Trump does not have the right solutions to trade and jobs. But Jacoby acknowledged that Trump’s message is “going to have an impact. “Trade agreements are a big part of what we’re arguing against, and he rings that bell,” he said. “You’ve got to give the man credit. When he talks about trade, it resonates with a lot of workers.” Clinton’s potential weakness on trade is evident in her inability, so far, to consolidate some of the support that went to Sanders during the Democratic primary season. While Clinton dominated with endorsements from labor unions, plenty of locals went for Sanders. He walked picket lines in Milwaukee and New York and frequently was introduced by union leaders who warned that only one candidate for the presidency had opposed the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, inked by President Clinton in 1994. Unions have blamed that pact with Mexico and Canada for the elimination of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs in the United States. Sanders supporters also appreciated that the senator strongly opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-nation Pacific Rim accord led by the Obama administration. Hillary Clinton touted the TPP as the “gold standard” of trade deals in 2012 while leading the State Department, but she renounced her support after launching her campaign last year. At least two unions that endorsed Sanders, the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, said they are unlikely to make an endorsement for the general election. “The problem is that Clinton has been a free-trader her whole life, so we’re not going to endorse her,” said Peter Knowlton, president of the electrical- workers union. “We will be running an anybody-but-Trump campaign. We have many members in swing states, and our major goal is for Trump not to get elected — not to make a pitch for Hillary.” The Teamsters, with 1.4 million members, also have not made a formal choice between Clinton and Trump. Teamsters President James Hoffa said that he hoped the contrast between the two candidates will become clearer after they release their platforms at their respective national party nominating conventions this summer. “While trade is an important issue for our union, we believe any presidential candidate needs to take a stand for our country’s working men and women by supporting critical issues like pension reform and the protection of labor rights,” Hoffa said in a written statement to The Washington Post. Even for the big labor groups that have gotten behind Clinton, much of their initial efforts have focused less on touting her merits on trade and more on trying to undermine Trump’s appeals to the working class. The AFL-CIO has produced a pair of online ads denouncing Trump’s integrity and sincerity on trade, with video of the mogul acknowledging that his clothes were manufactured in Asia. “I think he’s tapped into the legitimate anger and frustration that a lot of working-class people are feeling,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in an interview in his office overlooking the White House. But Trumka added: “Look at what he does, not what he says. He could have an effect on trade by bringing all the products he makes overseas back home and have Americans produce them. But he doesn’t do that.”

Trump plays to American fears that China is taking American jobs—Clinton will get blamed for a China trade plan Jacobs, 6/28 (Ben, a political reporter for Guardian US based in Washington DC, 28 June 2016, “Trump escalates economic tirade against free trade, China and globalism,” The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/28/donald-trump-foreign-policy-speech-tpp- china-free-trade)

Donald Trump raged against globalization and free-trade agreements on Tuesday and urged the US “to declare economic independence again”. At a scrap metal facility south of Pittsburgh, the presumptive Republican nominee veered yet again from conservative free-market orthodoxy as he called for the US to withdraw from free-trade deals, including Nafta, the trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Trump said of the US’s two neighbors: “They are so used to having their own way. Not with Trump they are not having their own way.” He also promised to take actions many economists believe would start a trade war with China, including introducing retaliatory tariffs, bringing trade cases against the country in the World Trade Organization and labeling China a currency manipulator. “We already have a trade war and we’re losing badly,” he said. Trump argued that his policies would lead to a restoration of manufacturing in the US. The loss of industrial jobs was not “some natural disaster, it is politician-made disaster”, he said, adding: “It is the consequence of a leadership class that worships globalism over Americanism ... Our politicians took away from the people their means of making a living and supporting their families.” Trump, whose campaign has long warned against “the false song of globalism”, criticized growing world economic interdependency that he argued hurt American workers. “Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization – moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas,” said Trump. “Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache.” In contrast, Trump said he would bring back millions of jobs. He made clear that this was something only he could deliver and warned that foreign countries would again take advantage of the US after he left office. “After me, they’ll probably start doing it again,” he said. “But we will have four or maybe eight great, great years.” In contrast, Trump derided his likely Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, “and her friends in global finance who want to scare America into thinking small”. Instead, he would make things better by pulling out of free-trade agreements, he said, specifically holding Bill and Hillary Clinton jointly responsible for Nafta and China’s entry into the WTO during the 1990s. Trump also railed against Clinton for her previous support of the Trans Pacific Partnership, or TPP, the 2015 free-trade agreement between the US, Japan and 10 other countries circling the Pacific Ocean. Although the former secretary of state helped negotiate the deal in office, calling it “the gold standard” in a 2012 speech, Clinton backtracked on it during her primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. The TPP is supported by both Barack Obama and Paul Ryan, the Republican House speaker, and its implantation was a policy plank in the 2012 Republican platform. Trump touted the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom last week as an example of the populism he saw fueling his campaign. “Our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their economy, politics and borders, I was on the right side of that issue – with the people – while Hillary, as always, stood with the elites, and both she and President Obama predicted that one wrong,” he said. Trump, who promised that he would reopen coal mines on a visit to West Virginia, also pledged that he would revive American steel mills as well. “A Trump administration will also ensure that we start using American steel for American infrastructure,” he said in the heart of steel country while standing in front of bales of aluminum.

Clinton is likely to win the election—only compromising on issues of trade will give Trump a chance of winning Burnett, 7/8 (Bob, Berkeley writer, retired Silicon Valley executive, 07/08/2016, “Predicting The Presidential Election,” The Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob- burnett/predicting-the-presidenti_1_b_10884742.html)

Four months before the presidential election, Hillary Clinton is ahead of Donald Trump. Three factors will determine the November 8th outcome. As of July 8th, Hillary has a 5.8 percentage lead in the Huffington Post poll of polls; of the last 10 major polls, only one showed Trump ahead. The respected Cook Report projects Clinton with 304 electoral votes, Trump with 190, and 44 contested (Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio). The esteemed statistician, Nate Silver, says that Trump has only a 20 percent chance to win. Nonetheless, it’s possible for Trump to prevail in November. Three factors will determine the ultimate outcome. Character: While most presidential contests are, to a great extent, determined by perceptions of candidate personality, the 2016 campaign is singular because of the unpopularity of Clinton and Trump. According to the latest Gallup Poll 59 percent of respondents view Trump unfavorably versus 50 percent that see Clinton unfavorably. (The Huffington Post poll shows that Trump’s unfavorability spread is about 10 percentage points greater than Clinton’s.) As would be expected, favorable perceptions shape the vote. According to the most recent Ipsos/Reuters poll Clinton gets 78 percent of Democratic votes and Trump gets 70 percent of Republican votes. (As of July 7th, Hillary’s email kerfuffle does not appear to affect her approval ratings for Democrats and Independents.) Meanwhile, President Obama has a high approval rating (50 percent plus) and has promised to campaign for Hillary Clinton. This gives an advantage to Hillary. Trump has no comparable surrogates and his unfavorability marks appear more durable. Issues: 70 percent of Americans are worried about the future of the country; their concerns center around the threat of terrorism and the economy. Donald Trump has made trade, terror, and immigration the three legs of his campaign. He moans that ill-conceived trade deals have resulted in the loss of millions of US jobs and that unchecked immigration has cost citizens millions of other jobs and hastened the cause of terrorists. Of course, Trump’s claims are largely false but, nonetheless, they resonate with unsophisticated voters who search for easy answers for the decline of their fortunes. Clinton has to both embrace the Obama legacy and stand apart from it. (Obviously she desires the President’s support.) The reality is that while the US economy has improved under Obama’s stewardship it has not benefitted everyone; while the fortunes of the top 1 percent have improved, the median income of the working families has stagnated. While Democrats can blame Republicans for this — for failure to embrace measures to lessen inequality — many voters will blame the Party in power. Trump’s advantage is that he can blame economic stagnation on the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton. His disadvantage is that he has no plan other than renegotiate trade deals and “get tough” with China. A recent CNN poll found that voters trust Trump (51 percent) than Clinton (43 percent) to deal with the economy. The threat of terror attacks is a big concern for Trump voters, many of whom are impressed by his tough guy demeanor. Once again, Trump has been vague about how he would handle ISIS saying his approach is flexible and he doesn’t want to give away his plans, in advance of the election. A recent poll found that voters trust Clinton (50 percent) more than Trump (39 percent) to deal with the threat of terrorism. Only on immigration is Trump specific: he would build a high wall along the Mexican border, deport all 11-million undocumented immigrants, and ban all Muslims from entering the United States. A recent poll found that voters trust Clinton more than Trump on the issue of immigration. These three issues give a slight advantage to Trump. But one that could easily decay given that his plans are so vague. Campaign: While perception of character and positions on issues matter, so too do the mechanics of a presidential campaign. By every metric, Clinton leads Trump: money raised, TV advertisements, swing state political organizers, etc. Clinton has an army. Trump has Trump. Ten days before the Republican convention, the GOP is in disarray. The convention agenda is not set and the attendance list is unclear. Meanwhile, candidate Trump struggles to stay on message. One day he sticks to the GOP script and attacks Clinton’s trustworthiness and malignant trade deals. The next deal he wonders off script, praises Saddam Hussein, and attacks fellow Republicans. There’s always the possibility of change, but at this writing Donald Trump is a terrible presidential candidate. If his opponent was some other Democrat other than (damaged) Hillary Clinton, Trump would be losing by 20 points. Nonetheless, Donald Trump will likely lose to Hillary Clinton. If he does, it will be his own fault.

Link – China – Trade Rust Belt Trump rallies support amongst key states voters in the election—Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio—any trade deals with China will galvanize support for him in these states Jackson, 7/28 (David, a reporter for more than three decades, and now covers the White House for USA TODAY, June 28, 2016, “Donald Trump targets globalization and free trade as job- killers,” USA TODAY, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/06/28/donald-trump- globalization-trade-pennsylvania-ohio/86431376/)

MONESSEN, Pa. — While attacking Hillary Clinton and other career politicians, Donald Trump took aim Tuesday at two other prominent election targets: globalization and free trade. "Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania. In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called "failed trade policies" — including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA. In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S. Clinton and other politicians, meanwhile, "watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment," Trump said in a dusty old aluminum plant in Monessen, part of what was once known as "The Steel Valley" along the Monongahela River. Echoing his mantra of "America First," Trump vowed to use only American steel — and aluminum — on U.S. road, bridge, and construction projects, employing only American workers. Trump attacked both Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, for past support of trade deals, including TPP. He also hit them over China's admission to the World Trade Organization. Hillary Clinton says she now opposes the Pacific Rim trade agreement and other "bad trade deals" that are hurting U.S. workers. Pledging to appoint a "trade prosecutor" during a speech in Ohio this week, Clinton vowed to go after "unfair trade practices like when China dumps cheap steel in our markets or uses weak rules of origin to undercut our car makers." A prominent Clinton supporter — Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio — called Trump a hypocrite, saying he has benefited from trade deals that have helped him sponsor clothing lines made in other countries. While Clinton has offered a “detailed plan to boost American manufacturing," Brown said Trump has "high-priced accountants" who are "cashing checks from products that he’s had manufactured in other countries.” During his speech in a warehouse stacked with pallets of aluminum parts, Trump said Clinton came out against the Trans-Pacific Partnership only "when she saw my stance," and predicted that she would still sign the trade pact if elected to office. "Her whole career, she has betrayed the American worker," Trump said. Trump also pushed the trade issue at a rally Tuesday evening in St. Clairsville, Ohio, near the coal-rich West Virginia state line. Speaking to fans at the Ohio University Eastern Campus, Trump said China and other countries are taking advantage of the United States. "They're just not treating us right, folks," he said. Trump also described the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as "a rape of our country" by special interests. Trade and other global issues are resonating in blue-collar areas of Pennsylvania and Michigan, states that have gone Democratic in six straight presidential elections, as well as Ohio, generally considered a must- win for any Republican candidate. Trump "talks about the economy only in the language of globalization," said Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. "It's globalization that's wrecking the American economy, and that's how I'm going to fix it," he said of Trump's rhetoric. Drezner added: "It's a question as to whether people will actually vote on that." In western Pennsylvania, people have "endured incredible economic hardship" as manufacturing jobs move overseas, said Joseph DiSarro, who chairs the political science department at Washington & Jefferson College in Washington, Pa. Trump's message is well-received there, DiSarro said, adding that "globalization has really brought on unfair competition to the American worker" as businesses move jobs to low-wage, low-regulated countries. In addition to the impact of globalization on trade, Trump has also criticized aspects of multi-lateral alliances like NATO and has said that European and Asian nations are not paying enough for U.S. defense assistance. Analysts said that Trump tends to ignore the benefits of a globalized economy, including easier and increased movement of goods and services across borders that leads to greater selection and cheaper prices for consumers. The loss of manufacturing and industrial jobs owe more to automation — machines — than trade, Drezner said. International alliances, meanwhile, have helped keep the peace. Clinton has said that other countries would retaliate against Trump's plans, leading to higher taxes and prices for U.S. consumers: “There’s a difference between getting tough on trade, and recklessly starting trade wars. The last time we opted for Trump-style isolationism, it made the Great Depression longer and more painful.” Trump aides say last week's vote in the United Kingdom to leave the European Union is another sign that people across the world are rebelling against globalization. Trump's speech in Pennsylvania found a receptive audience among many of the invited guests, many of them local Republicans. "I think we should not allow our companies to manufacture overseas," said Carol Jacobelli, 75, a retired tax accountant from Trafford, Pa. "I hope Trump can find ways to stop it." Emily Zboyovsky, 76, a retired real estate broker and lifelong resident of Monessen, said free trade is only one problem. Ineffective politicians and bad policies have also helped shutter steel towns, she said, adding that she likes Trump "because he's not obligated to anybody." Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum, who also attended the speech, predicted "a lot of Democrats" in depressed areas of Pennsylvania and beyond will respond to Trump's message, both about trade and Clinton. "She is a globalist," he said. Kevin Hassett, director of research for domestic policy with the American Enterprise Institute, said the problem is not globalization so much as some of the people who support globalization — namely, government officials and bureaucrats like those in the United States and the European Union. "The academic elite who think they know better," Hassett called them. Among Trump supporters and others, Hassett said, "there is a view that people are losing control of their government." Increased bashing of Dems on trade gives Trump the state Spangler 7/5 – (Todd Spangler, writer for the Tennessean, 7/5/16, “Experts: Trump's trade plans bad news for car companies,” The Tennessean, http://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2016/07/05/experts-trumps-trade-plans-bad-news- car-companies/86706120/, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

WASHINGTON — In no area has Donald Trump challenged Republican orthodoxy more than on international trade, where he has promised to force better deals for U.S. manufacturers or otherwise impose debilitating tariffs on imports, or unilaterally rip up long-standing trade agreements.

But far from guaranteeing a stronger American economy, many experts — including some Trump regularly cites when making his case for a more protectionist trade policy — say they believe such actions could result in higher consumer prices, unemployment and trade wars.

And that may be especially true for the American auto industry.

Trump last week threatened to tear up the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico or impose a crippling 35% tariff on Mexican imports if he can’t force concessions, but such a move could hurt automakers and their suppliers — which rely on materials and plants inside and outside the U.S. — resulting in higher prices and a less competitive product worldwide.

“Today, there is no such thing as an American car, there’s no such thing as a Canadian car, and there’s no such thing as a Mexican car. There are only North American cars,” said Chris Wilson, deputy director of the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center, a research organization in Washington, D.C. “What would the auto industry look like if we didn’t have things like NAFTA? It would not be as strong.”

But in choosing to go after foreign trading partners and accusing U.S. manufacturers, including Ford, of turning their backs on American workers by opening plants in other countries, Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has adopted a long-standing Democratic line of attack — one that some fear could rouse Rust Belt voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan who believe that trade deals are to blame for the loss of manufacturing jobs.

The United Auto Workers — which endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton — has joined Trump in denouncing Ford 's plans to open a new plant in Mexico, despite the company's contention that it won't result in a loss of U.S. jobs.

Bad trade policy could hand Trump Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin Hahn 5/30/2016[Julia Hahn, Author, 5-30-2016, Breitbart, Politico Mag: Trade Will Give Trump Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, Available Online at http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential- race/2016/05/30/politico-mag-trade-will-give-trump-ohio-wisconsin-michigan/, accessed 7-21- 2016, NP]

*Cites Politico Magizine and David Bernstien

A Friday piece in Politico Magazine warns that a Hillary Clinton “fumble on trade” could give Donald Trump wins in Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan in a general election contest . In a piece entitled, “How Hillary Loses,” David S. Bernstein writes that the new polls showing Trump ahead of Clinton represent a “terrifying moment for Democrats.” While Bernstein says one should not read too much into the early polls, he argues that the polling numbers reveal that “there is now a clear path for her to lose” the election. In particular, Bernstein explains that trade could win Trump Ohio, Wisconsin, and maybe Michigan. Bernstein’s warning in Politico echoes earlier concerns published by the liberal, anti-Trump Huffington Post, which similarly outlined how Trump’s position on trade could deliver him to victory against Clinton . Bernstein writes: As soon as the votes were tallied in 2012, Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO and Mary Kay Henry of SEIU were claiming unions had delivered Obama’s victory. They argued, with justification, that Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada got into the blue column because of a massive turnout effort from labor. But earlier this year, both Trumka and Henry expressed concerns that Trump could flip that script. “Our members are responding to Trump’s message,” Henry said in one interview. “Donald Trump is tapping into the very real and very understandable anger of working people ,” Trumka said in a speech. It’s not just that these workers are drawn to the raw emotion of Trump’s “you’ve been screwed” rhetoric. Polls show that union households tend to oppose free trade quite strongly. Sanders has made free trade a centerpiece of his primary campaign against Clinton. Trump, hoping to woo Sanders voters, frequently praises his position on that issue. Union voters largely agree with Trump that trade deals—including those negotiated by Democratic Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton—have taken their jobs away. Hillary Clinton has yet to counter this attack in any meaningful way. Her history on trade has been careful and political, which has left her struggling to articulate a strong argument against Sanders, let alone Trump. While the Politico piece is overly generous on Clinton’s record on trade, a more careful review of Clinton’s record shows that not only has she been hesitant to protect American workers, but she has reflexively supported a trade agenda that would send the jobs of American workers overseas. Indeed, in recent weeks Trump has hammered Bill Clinton for signing NAFTA and negotiating China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The United States lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs in the NAFTA-WTO era– i.e., the years following NAFTA’s enactment and China’s subsequent entrance in the World Trade Organization in 2001. Hillary Clinton was an early proponent of NAFTA. Hillary Clinton also aggressively promoted the U.S. trade pact with South Korea, which was fraudulently billed to the American people as a deal which would dramatically boost American exports to South Korea. However, in the three years following the deal’s enactment, our trade deficit with South Korea had nearly doubled as U.S. exports to South Korea barely budged, while imports had exploded. According to the Economic Policy Institute, in the three years following the deal’s enactment, the growing goods trade deficits with Korea eliminated more than 75,000 jobs. Clinton also supported the Colombian free trade agreement. In his book Clinton Cash, Peter Schweizer follows the trail of money and exposes Clinton’s ties to a major Clinton Foundation donor who supported the trade pact. Most notably, Clinton played a major role in promoting the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In 2012, Clinton said that TPP “set the gold standard in trade agreements”–a declaration that her opponent Bernie Sanders frequently highlights to Democratic primary voters. In 2012, Clinton told the Chamber of Commerce that she was “hoping we can finalize the [TPP] agreement this year … and then watch it take off.” Clinton’s decision to promote the TPP demonstrates her underlying support for the international structures that underpin trade globalism. In other words, a politician can look at the text of the final product of a trade deal and say that she would like to see tweaks to certain provisions of the deal; however, someone who fundamentally opposes the idea of binding the nation to an international commission would not be able to support the TPP in any form—a point that was raised by Sen. Sessions in his 2016 candidates questionnaire, which received response from only one presidential candidate. Clinton’s aggressive boosting of the TPP illustrates her support for international governing structures, in which foreign countries are given equal weight to determining aspects of U.S. economic policy and decision making. As Sessions has pointed out, under the global governing commission established by the TPP–which Sessions describes as a “Pacific Union” akin to the European Union— “the Sultan of Brunei would have an equal vote to that of the United States.” Bernstein continues to explain how working-class voters’ opposition to Clinton’s trade agenda could hurt her in the general election: It’s not hard to see how quickly this could start costing her Electoral College votes in the Rust Belt, where Trump hopes to improve on past Republican performance. … In Ohio, for example, 22 percent of 2012 voters came from union households, and 60 percent of them voted for Obama. In Wisconsin, a similar share of the electorate voted 2-to-1 for Obama over Romney. In 2016, both states went for Sanders over Clinton in their primaries. In Pennsylvania, where Trump is planning a major effort, union households provided Obama more than half his net margin. Yet beyond just union voters, polling data suggests that this issue will win Trump support amongst broad swaths of the American electorate–as he saw during the Republican primary. Indeed, as Breitbart News reported two weeks prior to Indiana’s primary contest in which Trump knocked out his remaining Republican primary opponents, trade was a central issue to that race. Polling data shows that Republican voters are the group most skeptical of trade globalism–a fact that has gone unrecognized by Party leaders, as well as professional Republicans in the #NeverTrump movement. Pew found that only a vanishing 11 percent of Republican voters believe that so-called “free-trade” will raise wages. By a nearly 5-to-1 margin, Republican voters believe that so-called “free trade” depresses wages, rather than increases wages, and by a greater than 3-to-1 margin, Republican voters believe that “free trade” will kill jobs, not create them. Yet despite polling data, Republican Party leaders worked tirelessly to give President Obama expanded trade powers. In fact, last year, Paul Ryan co-authored an op-ed with Sen. Ted Cruz promoting both fast track executive authority and the TPP. Moreover, GOP Party leaders continue to oppose Trump’s trade platform. As The Washington Post has reported, Paul Ryan has indicated he will not include Trump’s trade platform in the House GOP’s 2017 policy agenda. The House Speaker, whose views on foreign trade and foreign migration more closely resemble Clinton’s than Trump’s, has yet to endorse the presumptive GOP nominee. Similarly, some of the most prominent members of the #NeverTrump movement–such as Jamie Weinstein and Mark Levin–argue that Trump’s plan to reach out to working-class voters on trade will doom conservatism and the nation. In a recent piece, Levin worried aloud about Trump’s efforts to reach out to disaffected Democrats. Interestingly, Democrats have echoed Levin’s fears; they are concerned that Trump’s nationalist position on trade will appeal to the working-class voters with whom Romney and Ryan were never able to connect. Link – China – Econ – Ohio 2NC

Primary results prove Anti Trade Sentiment is the key issue – swings election and specifically ohio – plan undermines Hillary’s new distancing strategy Sirota, 16 --- David Sirota is the senior editor for investigations at the International Business Times, as well as a best-selling author. He has been published in The New York Times Magazine, Politico, The Atlantic, Harper’s, Wired.com, Vice and Salon.com and he has served as a consultant on documentaries for CNN, International Business Tribune, 3/9/16, “Election 2016: Voters’ Concerns About U.S. Trade Policy Fueled Michigan Primary Election Results”, http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/election-2016-voters-concerns-about-us-trade-policy- fueled-michigan-primary

Election 2016: Voters’ Concerns About U.S. Trade Policy Fueled Michigan Primary Election Results In the lead-up to the Michigan primary, Hillary Clinton’s campaign appeared to sense that the issue of international trade could be a powerful force in the election. In a late February conference call with reporters, the Democrat's campaign deployed a congressman from a nearby industrial state to cast her opponent, Bernie Sanders, as not sufficiently supportive of protecting jobs. Clinton also sought to downplay her support for major trade deals , instead talking up her one vote in the Senate against a relatively small trade pact with Central American nations. But Sanders' stunning upset victory in Michigan seemed to demonstrate that the tactics were not enough — and that Clinton’s past support for a raft of trade pacts could hurt her in other nearby states that have been similarly battered by job losses. According to exit polls , 58 percent of those who voted in Michigan’s Democratic presidential primary said that trade with other countries takes away American jobs — and of those, 58 percent voted for Sanders . A similar trend emerged on the Republican sid e, where 55 percent of those who voted in Michigan’s Republican primary said trade with other countries reduces American jobs. Donald Trump — who has recently echoed Sanders’ career-long critique of America’s trade policies — won a plurality (45 percent) of those voters in a field of GOP candidates who have not matched his trade criticism. The Democratic contest, though, was the arena where the trade policy debate was most pronounced . Sanders spotlighted Clinton's past comments that seemed to tout job outsourcing, and he pointed out that Clinton has been an outspoken supporter of most of the United States’ biggest free trade agreements. In the years leading up to her election to the senate, she publicly backed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Later, she initially opposed free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea, but then State Department emails revealed that she went on to personally lobby to pass those pacts. She also repeatedly promoted the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she only recently said she now opposes. Over the last three decades, high-profile critics of such trade deals — from Sanders to Pat Buchanan to Ross Perot to now Trump — have argued that by reducing U.S. tariffs on goods from countries that have lower wage, labor, environmental and human rights standards, such trade deals would prompt manufacturers to move production facilities abroad in an effort to cut costs and boost profits. Those critics’ arguments have been buttressed by the export deficits that accompanied the trade agreements — deficits that have together resulted in the loss of roughly 4 million U.S. jobs, according to estimates from the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. That group notes that in addition to Michigan, some of the states that have been hardest hit by trade-related job losses include Ohio , Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Those delegate-rich states are scheduled to soon hold primaries that could tip both parties’ presidential nominating contests . Ohio’s upcoming primary may be the biggest test of whether Sanders and Trump’s trade critiques have electoral resonance beyond Michigan. One of the state’s U.S. senators, Sherrod B rown, is a liberal Democrat who has been able to win two terms in the swing state by forging a profile as one of Congress’s most ardent critics of free trade deals. Its other senator, Republican Rob Portman, had been a consistent supporter of such deals but recently announced his opposition to the TPP — a move that seemed to confirm the growing political power of the trade criticism. Heading into the state’s March 15 election, the Republican contest appears to be a close fight — meaning trade could tip the balance. Polls show that despite being the state’s governor, John Kasich is trailing Trump . Kasich had been a steadfast supporter of trade deals such as NAFTA, but has recently tried to adjust his campaign rhetoric to match Trump’s trade criticism. On the Democratic side, two of the state’s congressional representatives appeared to differ on the significance of the candidates’ past record on trade deals. In February, Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy Kaptur — who represents Toledo — suggested that Sanders’ unwavering opposition to free trade agreements would appeal to her state’s voters. “First time in my career that I’ve heard a candidate give voice to what we’ve been struggling for and against in this Congress for the last quarter century,” she told the Boston Globe. “Senator Sanders has always been there. He has never been a ‘Johnny-Come-Lately’ and he has never changed positions.” She contrasted that with Clinton by adding: “I must say that when Secretary Clinton was secretary of state, I don’t recall her ever attempting to balance [free-trade agreements] or change them in any way.” The Globe reported that “Kaptur said Clinton had belatedly come to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership, noting, ‘Senator Sanders was there from the very beginning.’” A few weeks later, the Clinton campaign organized a conference call for reporters with Ohio Democratic Rep. Tim Ryan, a critic of trade deals who represents Youngstown. During the call, Ryan dismissed Sanders' opposition to free trade agreements, arguing the Vermont lawmaker “doesn’t have a history of manufacturing” and asserting that “he’s been MIA.” He also suggested that what’s more important than Clinton’s past support for trade deals that may have hurt the industrial Midwest is where the former Secretary of State now says she stands on those issues. “There were a lot of people that go back and forth on some of these trade agreements but what I want is someone who is going to look at them as they are written, as they are negotiated, like she has done with TPP and basically said if this is not going to create jobs, if this is not going increase wages, if this is not going to protect our national security then she is not going to support them,” he s aid. “We need to focus on what’s happening now and what’s going to happen in the future and I’m very secure with the fact that she is going to be with us on these key issues.”

Ohio is key – trade issues are vital Warren, 16 --- James Warren is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report and an award winning reporter, columnist and editor. He is chief media writer for the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. He was managing editor of The Chicago Tribune and Washington bureau chief for both The Tribune and New York Daily News. He's been a regular commentator on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and Al-Jazeera America. He was a Chicago columnist for The New York Times and has written for Vanity Fair, Politico, Washington Monthly, Time, The Atlantic, Daily Beast and Huffington Post, “The Battle in the Buckeye State”, 3/9, http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-09/why-ohio-is-so-key-in-2016

The Battle in the Buckeye State Why Ohio is such a key presidential prize . Donald Trump just "loves Ohio," he told CNN's Chris Cuomo Wednesday in a trademark pre-sunrise phone chat cum infomercial to herald his latest primary triumphs. Yes, there was that big Tuesday win in Michigan that everybody knew about. But, hey, wondered Cuomo, what about that very late- breaking conquest in faraway Hawaii? "I have a great hotel in Hawaii." That's fine. But, ultimately, he'd best turn his adoration of the Buckeye State into another success on Tuesday and, if he's the Republican nominee, in November. [SEE: Editorial Cartoons on the 2016 Presidential Elections] No state can claim to have been as defining in presidential races as Ohio. At minimum, it now looms as especially critical in the GOP race. Either Gov. John Kasich wins, and offers the possibility of a contest and even a contested convention, or the GOP campaign may be done. "Can Kasich make the state's Republican organization work for him?" asks John Green, a political scientist as the University of Akron. If not, he'll probably be a goner. Green is director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the university, which is named after a late former chairman of the Republican National Committee credited with helping to revive the GOP after President Lyndon Johnson demolished Barry Goldwater in 1964. Green's a specialist in religion and politics – having adeptly charted the rise of politically potent evangelicals – and, unavoidably, Ohio. He's co- author of "Buckeye Battleground" with Daniel J. Coffey, David B. Cohen and Stephen C. Brooks. So, I asked him a few questions Wednesday as a most improbable of presidential campaigns turned its attention to his state. [READ: Who's Losing Momentum? Mississippi and Michigan Show It's #NeverTrump] Why is Ohio the alleged "cradle of presidents?" Or, well, is it really? The reason Ohio is so important is that it is a very diverse state. It's that traditionally it's been a good microcosm of the country as a whole. No state is a perfect mirror but Ohio comes very clos e. Religion, race, age, economic diversity, you get a very good mirror. When the U.S. is divided politically, that division tends to run right through Ohio. But it's important to distinguish late 19th century and early 20th century, when most of the presidents from Ohio were elected. Between the Civil War and 1930s, the Republican Party was the dominant party and Ohio was at the center of Republican politics. That gave Ohioans a lot of influence. After Democrats became dominant after the 1930s, it mattered but didn't really produce presidents, even as it caused close elections. It didn't have the same influence among the Democrats. But across all those years, the key feature is its diversity. Whenever elections are competitive, Ohio tends to be very competitive. Ohio also tends to go with landslides, too, so it's a good predicator. Over last 30 years or so, it's always been a battleground state, and both parties can win so they contest it fiercely. It probably matters more to Republicans than Democrats. A Republican president is never elected without carrying Ohio. Two Democrats were elected without it. But one was a special case. In 1944 it went Republican when (U.S. Senator and onetime Ohio Governor) John Bricker was the Republican vice presidential candidate on the ticket against FDR. In 1960, Kennedy was elected but Ohio went Republican by a large amount. [READ: John Kasich Fights Against Fantasy Politics] But that leads to an important question because it spins slightly more Republican over the years. Is that for demographic reasons of late? The answer is no. Ohio is about the same as 30 years ago in partisan terms. But really the difference is that Republicans have been very well organized in Ohio and more often than not can get their voters out. The Democrats, who on paper have at least as many votes, maybe more, have a harder time in getting out their vote. The Republicans have a history of a very good party organization. That may matter on the margins in many elections since if an election is down to two or three points, organizations matter. Obama won twice and the Democrats had a top-notch organization, so they could compete with the traditional Republican organization. So if you're looking forward to November, depending on the nominees, can the Democrats replicate Obama's campaigns? If they can, they can carry Ohio. If they can't, they may lose. Why hasn't the Republican Party won the White House without Ohio? Because of the strong organization of the party, that leads to the state leaning the most Republican among Midwest states even though it's a divided state. Because from 1865 to the present it's been able to get its voters to the polls, there has been an advantage. Republicans have run terrible campaigns, too. But the organizational advantage makes Ohio different than Missouri, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Michigan had an every bit as good Democratic organization, given the union influence there. How are the state's demographics changing? And do they not seem to be trending better for Republicans? Both parties see constituencies they have to mobilize. On the Democratic side there are blue-collar workers, young people and African- Americans. On the Republican side, there are suburban, rural and suburban women voters. The women are thought to trend Democratic but upper status ones may have interests that lean Republican. And there's a vibrant right wing. It's not as pronounced in Ohio as South Carolina or Texas but it's there. The huge fight is over folks in the middle. About a third identify as independents. Political scientists can get into arguments as to how independent those voters are. Most have some partisan leaning but it is still revealing when you call them up and they say they are independent. One needs to mobilize one's base and compete for the independent vote. It's a formula both parties have worked successfully. Republicans have historically have had an advantage because they are better at base mobilization. [SEE: Republican Party Cartoons] Overall, the democratic trends have been similar to the rest of the country. The state is becoming less white, becoming older. Older blue collar industries are declining and replaced with high-tech manufacturing, which is good economically but, from a social point of view, a big problem because a lot of people who had good jobs can't find them anymore. When steel mills employed thousands, there were good jobs for people of modest means and limited education. Now it produces more steel than before but the mills are automated. That is important because those blue-collar workers feel they have been left behind. That is the core of Trump supporters and theoretically it scrambles the deck. But it could also alienate other Republicans who don't like the Trump message because they're part of a sector that's done well. If [you're] a blue-collar worker, trade doesn't look good. But for a farmer, engineer or other white-collar worker, it looks much better. It's a divisive issue in cutting across other divisions and makes it possible to move voters from one party to another. What about the state's seemingly traditional embrace of moderate Republican like George Voinovich and Rob Portman? It has tended to embrace more moderate ones because the state is so competitive, going with a right-wing candidate doesn't work. Democrats have the same tendency, in going for more moderate Democrats. Trump is thus an anomaly. The party leadership in Ohio doesn't really like Trump. One reason is they clearly believe he would be a disaster at the polls in November and might cost a Senate seat, maybe some congressional seats and some positions lower down the ballot. The establishment may back their guy Kasich and see Trump as not doing well in a general election. Lots of Ohio Republicans are scratching their heads. They don't get it. They don't see how he appeals to those voters. I think it's less of a mystery. There's a big vein of anger. Part of it's anger at party leaders. Then there are the underlying economic problems people have. Trump is an effective spokesman for that anger. It's an anti-establishment thing. [READ: Can the Establishments Strike Back?] What else might outsiders miss about Ohio ? There are two things to add. First , while trade as an issue is huge , immigration is not. Many Ohioans have the same views as many Americans. But it has a very small Hispanic population, so that's different and a reason the immigration issue plays differently. There are lots of foreign-born people but they tend to either come from Europe or Asia and Africa, with those from Asia and Africa tending to be doctors, lawyer and engineers. Nobody sees them as a problem in the way Arizonans or Californians might see immigrants from Latin America.

Link – China – Econ – Sanders Voters 2NC

- Backlash drives voters towards Trump and Sanders, away from Clinton Schwartz, 16 --- Nelson, Nelson D. Schwartz has covered the economy and economics for the business section of The New York Times since August 2012. He was the 2014 recipient of the Nathaniel Nash Award, given annually by The Times to honor “a correspondent, reporter or columnist who excels in business or economic news, nationally or abroad, “Where Jobs Are Squeezed by Chinese Trade, Voters Seek Extremes”, NYT, 4/26, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/economy/where-jobs-are-squeezed-by- chinese-trade-voters-seek-extremes.html?_r=0

Where Jobs Are Squeezed by Chinese Trade, Voters Seek Extremes In this forlorn Southern town whose once-humming factories were battered in recent years by a flood of Asian imports, Rhonda Hughes, 43, is a fervent supporter of Donald Trump. Her 72-year old mother is equally passionate about Senator Bernie Sanders. Disenchantment with the political mainstream is no surprise. But research to be unveiled this week by four leading academic economists suggests that the damage to manufacturing jobs from a sharp acceleration in globalization since the turn of the century has contributed heavily to the nation’s bitter political divide. Ms. Hughes avoids discussing the election with her mother, but their neighbor Benjamin Green, 83, knows just what Washington needs. “It’ll take a junkyard dog to straighten this country out,” he said. Cross-referencing congressional voting records and district-by-district patterns of job losses and other economic trends between 2002 and 2010, the researchers found that areas hardest hit by trade shocks were much more likely to move to the far right or the far left politically. “ It’s not about incumbents changing their positions ,” said David Autor, an influential scholar of labor economics and trade at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the paper’s authors. “ It’s about the replacement of moderates with more ideological successors .” Mr. Autor added: “In retrospect, whether it’s Trump or Sanders, we should have seen in it coming. The China shock isn’t the sole factor, but it is something of a missing link.” In addition to Mr. Autor, the research was conducted by David Dorn of the University of Zurich; Gordon Hanson, a professor at the University of California, San Diego; and Kaveh Majlesi of Lund University in Sweden. “ Exposure to import competition is bad for centrists,” Mr. Hanson said. “We’ve known that political polarization and income inequality track each other, but that pattern is simply a correlation. We’ve now found a mechanism for how economic changes create further political divisions.” Parker Griffith experienced the move away from the political middle firsthand. A so-called Blue Dog Democrat who represented Courtland and the rest of Alabama’s Fifth Congressional District, he switched to the Republicans in 2009 and metamorphosed into a moderate Republican. But that wasn’t enough to save his seat. Dr. Griffith was beaten in the Republican primary in 2010 by Morris J. Brooks Jr., who has emerged as one of the most right-wing members of Congress. “If you’re under economic stress and you can’t provide for your family, the easiest answer is to find someone to blame,” said Dr. Griffith. “Mexicans, illegal immigrants, Obama.” Representative Brooks has said that he would consider “anything short of shooting” illegal immigrants to get them out of the country and that he favored imposing heavy tariffs on China to “level the playing field” and punish Beijing for what he sees as currency manipulation. In the case of the Fifth District, which includes Huntsville and its space- and defense-related industries, as well as more industrial Florence along the Tennessee River, the move has been to the right. But Mr. Autor and his colleagues found that in districts with heavy minority representation, similar shocks can push more Democratic districts in the opposite direction. While whites hit hard by trade tend to move right, nonwhite voters move left, eroding support for moderates in both parties, the study concluded. As the South industrialized in the second half of the 20th century, poor Alabamians who once toiled on farms were able to secure a toehold in the middle class. In the shadow of Tennessee Valley Authority dams that supplied cheap power, thousands of workers sewed jeans and T-shirts, and could earn upward of $20 an hour in heavily unionized factories. But the collapse of the apparel industry here in the first decade of the 21st century, following China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001, reversed that process. Nearly 10,000 manufacturing jobs disappeared. At 7.4 percent, the regional unemployment rate is well below its peak of 12.8 percent in 2010, but remains far above the national average of 5 percent. The new paper underscores a broader rethinking among economists of the costs and benefits of policies aimed at encouraging industrial competition across borders. “There’s a deeper appreciation for the magnitude of the impact on workers who lose their jobs,” Mr. Hanson said. “But the nature of globalization changed after the end of the Cold War and it took a while for academics to catch up.” Until the Nafta agreement with Canada and Mexico in 1994, and especially the entry of China into the W.T.O., trade deals were mostly multilateral and the rise in manufacturing imports to the United States came primarily from other advanced industrial nations like Germany and Japan. “ China and the W.T.O. represented a shock that was way larger,” Mr. Autor said. “We hadn’t seen shocks like this because we were trading with rich countries, not highly productive developing countries with enormous labor reserves.” To understand the connection between imports from China and political polarization, the researchers focused on the fact that manufacturers tend to localize in a specific region. “There are these concentrated pockets of hurt,” Mr. Autor said, “and we’re seeing the political consequences of that .” Mr. Autor and Mr. Hanson emphasize that trade is only one factor among many that have contributed to a polarizing Congress (income inequality is another, as are attitudes toward immigrants ). But it has been an important one , particularly over the last decade, when Chinese imports ramped u p. This trade-induced polarization has had a significant effect on the overall ideological makeup of Congress. The authors found that voters in congressional districts hardest hit by Chinese imports tended to choose more ideologically extreme lawmakers. Between 2002 and 2010, districts in the top 5th percentile of trade exposure, on average, experienced a 19 percent greater drop in manufacturing employment relative to districts at the other end of the spectrum. Those hard-hit districts became, on average, far more conservative: the ideological equivalent of moving from Marco Rubio to Ted Cruz. Some very conservative members of Congress have been sympathetic to free trade arguments in the past, but Representative Brooks, who has welcomed support from the Tea Party, doesn’t mince words about where he stands. “We’re going to have to do whatever is necessary to ensure that a foreign country isn’t able to successfully attack and destroy significant parts of the economy,” he said. “I was in China two weeks ago and they are going to clean our plow if we don’t act.” Mr. Autor, like most economists, is still persuaded of the long-established benefits that global trade confers on the economy as a whole. But he recognizes that angry voters have valid reasons to be frustrated. “It’s a matter of diffuse benefits and concentrated costs, but our political system hasn’t addressed those costs,” he said.

That’s key – further alienating liberal Sanders voters swings the election Silver, 16 --- Nate, Worlds most badass election politics analyst, “The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter”, 5/19, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the- hidden-importance-of-the-bernie-sanders-voter/

The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter Many of them are independents, and they could be key to Clinton’s general election success . Donald Trump has gained on Hillary Clinton in recent national polls after becoming the presumptive GOP nominee this month. But Trump may also be helped by the ongoing primary battle between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Although Clinton’s substantial lead in pledged delegates (and larger lead in overall delegates) makes her the all-but-certain Democratic nominee, her lack of support from Sanders voters is harming her general election numbers. According to the most recent YouGov poll, 61 percent of Sanders voters have an unfavorable view of Clinton, against just 38 percent with a favorable one. YouGov has been tracking these numbers for several months,1 and they’ve gradually gotten worse for Clinton: The good news for Clinton is that she has the opportunity to gain ground among Sanders voters if and when she officially wraps up the nomination, just as Trump did among Republicans. Although many Sanders supporters will start the general election campaign with a negative view of Clinton, they aren’t necessarily eager to vote for Trump. In the YouGov poll, just 55 percent of Sanders supporters said they’d vote for Clinton over Trump in November. However, only 15 percent said they’d vote for Trump. That leaves 30 percent of Sanders voters who say they are undecided , would vote for a third-party candidate or would sit out the election. There’s a key twist, though, in tracking how Sanders voters are affecting Clinton’s general election prospects. Unless you break out the numbers for Sanders voters specifically, as YouGov does, you may miss their importance. That’s because a lot of Sanders voters don’t identify as Democrats. Exit polls have been conducted in 27 primary and caucus states so far, and Clinton has won among voters who identify as Democrats in all but Vermont, New Hampshire and Wisconsin (where she tied Sanders). But she’s won self-identified independents only in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi. (I keep using that term “self-identified” because the exit poll asks voters how they “usually think of” themselves — Democrat, Republican or independent. A voter’s self-identification may differ from her party registration, and some states do not have party registration at all.) Overall throughout the primaries and caucuses, I estimate, Clinton is beating Sanders by 27 percentage points among self- identified Democrats but losing to Sanders by 31 points among voters who call themselves independents but voted in the Democratic primaries.2 This might be confusing because we usually think of independent voters as being moderate. Sanders voters, however, are definitely to the left of Clinton, but a lot of them don’t like to call themselves Democrats. (Sanders himself, of course, has repeatedly been elected to Congress as an independent and did not officially declare himself to be a Democrat until November.) As a result, about 40 percent of Sanders’s primary and caucus voters identify as independent, as Republican or with some party other than Democrats, according to my estimates. Thus, citing Clinton’s reasonably strong general election numbers among self-identified Democrats — she had the support of 87 percent of Democrats in a recent NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll in her matchup against Trump, for instance, and 83 percent in a Fox News poll that showed her behind Trump nationally — may miss her problems among liberal-leaning, Sanders-voting independents. In the Fox News poll, only 30 percent of independents went for Clinton, and in the SurveyMonkey poll, just 36 percent did. But both surveys showed a large pool of undecided independents, potentially the Sanders voters that YouGov identified. If Clinton wins over those voters, she’ll gain a few percentage points on Trump in national and swing state poll s , and the race will potentially look more like it did in March and April, with Clinton having a fairly comfortable lead over Trump . If not, the general election could come down to the wire. Link – China – Econ – A2: Link = Long Term

Plan triggers a political EXPLOSION of voter backlash – it’s election suicide Dayen, 16 --- David, contributing writer to Salon.com, and also writes for The New Republic, The American Prospect, The Guardian (UK), Politico, The Huffington Post, Alternet, Democracy Journal, Pacific Standard, and more. He has been a guest on MSNBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, Current TV, Russia Today, NPR, Pacifica Radio and Air America Radio, American Prospect, 3/18, http://prospect.org/article/job-killing- trade-deal-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard-china-bilateral-investment-treaty

The 2016 election has highlighted growing public opposition in both parties to the status-quo globalization agenda, which both sides blame for outsourcing jobs and privileging corporate profits over ordinary workers. This populist voter backlash puts trade agreements like the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP ) on life support , and is forcing candidates to better explain how they would boost jobs and wages. But what if those voters learned that the Obama administration is in the midst of negotiating yet another corporate-friendly trade deal, one that would facilitate more offshoring, and that could also give China, of all countries, effective veto power over domestic policy? That’s precisely what’s happening in behind-the-scenes negotiations over a little- publicized agreement on the table between the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest economies. Just as the White House is trying to sell TPP as a bulwark against China, the administration is simultaneously seeking an investment treaty with the Chines e that undercuts that argument. “It really calls into question the contention of the Obama administration that they have a coherent strategy to integrate trade and international relations and national security,” says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at New America. “It shows they have no idea what they’re doing.” The deal is called the China Bilateral Investment Treaty, or BIT. This is a standalone compact which would normally be negotiated as the investment chapter in a broader free trade agreement. Investment treaties provide a framework for foreign investors to pursue direct corporate ownership stakes in a partner country, offering them a series of guarantees of non-discriminatory treatment, limits on the expropriation of capital, and access to extra-judicial tribunals to enforce the agreement. The latter are set up through a system known as the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, which has expanded in scope in recent years as a key protection for foreign investors. In fact, ISDS has proven hugely controversial in the TPP debate, with critics charging it would allow corporations to overturn national laws that constrain their profits. The U.S. has implemented 41 BITs over the years, as well as investment chapters in a dozen free-trade agreements. But the U.S. already attracts more foreign direct investment than any country in the world, with $168 billion flowing in just in 2012. That includes investments from countries that until now have lacked the protections of a BIT, like China. “It’s pitched as a way to promote investment,” said Celeste Drake, trade and globalization policy specialist at the AFL-CIO. “We’re one of the top countries for foreign investment anyway. We don’t need to give away rights for foreign investors.” Few investors have the capital to undertake and manage businesses overseas. Invariably, large multinational corporations, or investment vehicles like hedge funds and private equity firms, engage in foreign direct investment. And a BIT offers them the ability to lock in profits while neutralizing the risks that go along with investing abroad. For example, U.S. companies operating in China encounter local corruption, preferential treatment for their domestic producers, intellectual property theft, and ever-changing regulatory demands. The BIT sweeps away such hurdles, and allows foreign investors to use ISDS to recoup lost profits if foreign governments use those maneuvers to hamper their business. It effectively removes American companies’ one big motivation for keeping manufacturing stateside—our relatively stable judicial and regulatory systems and rule of law. If companies can get all that guaranteed in China, there’s nothing keeping their factories here. The BIT, then, is a recipe for more outsourcing. China currently protects many of its industries by excluding foreign investment in certain sectors. The key to the BIT is what’s known in trade deal parlance as the “negative list”—a list of which sectors would stay excluded. U.S. corporations want to whittle down that list and pry open more sectors where they can invest in China, and subsequently move production overseas. On the flip side, there’s already substantial Chinese investment in the U.S.—more than U.S. investment in China, in fact—but we don’t have good information on its impact. Many Chinese companies are state-owned or state- influenced, subsidized from home, and freed from having to run an immediate profit. Michael Wessel, a commissioner on the U.S.- China Economic and Security Review Commission, warns that Chinese-subsidized firms could squeeze domestic competitors by undercutting them on price. Despite this uncertainty, Wessel contends that not single case study on Chinese-invested firms has been undertaken by an independent expert. “We have no idea what Chinese companies are doing in the U.S.,” he says. “Not all investment has [the] same impact. Our negotiators are flying blind.” When you contemplate Chinese state-owned enterprises enjoying the same treatment on their investments as domestic producers, and having the ability to use ISDS to maintain those privileges, things get even more alarming. “ISDS puts corporations and sovereign governments on the same plane,” says the AFL-CIO's Drake. “This would be China acting through a corporation to challenge a U.S. law.” Under ISDS, Chinese companies could sue federal, state, or local governments over any laws that force them to alter their production facilities. They could potentially sue the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which approves all foreign investment transactions, even though this panel’s reviews are normally not subject to judicial oversight. The U.S. could try to restrict state-owned enterprises, but without broadly-written language, Chinese companies would be likely to circumvent such constraints. “We’ve talked to U.S. negotiators, they don’t seem disturbed by it,” Drake adds. “I’m disturbed that they’re not disturbed.” While most of these agreements look similar to the “model BIT,” a template treaty available at the State Department website, the administration has been strangely silent when it comes to its China trade negotiations. Administration officials haven’t publicly announced any negotiation sessions, nor have they briefed cleared trade advisers, who are supposed to be able to look at trade deals as they happen. “This is more secretive than the TPP,” says Wessel, who is also a cleared adviser. We do know that both sides are eager to finish the BIT, after 24 rounds of talks. Politico Pro reported this week that the White House expects a new “negative list” offer from China before President Xi Jinping arrives for a summit later this month. The Obama administration called completing the BIT before the president leaves office a “top economic priority” following an Obama-Xi meeting in September. Xi has also expressed interest in accelerating the talks, especially in light of China’s weakening economy and its need for foreign investment. Wrapping up the BIT negotiations, however, would trigger a political explosion . Given that the leading Republican candidate assails trade deals with China in every public address, tossing another U.S./China treaty into the mix would fan an already volatile political fire . Like other treaties, the BIT would require a two-thirds vote for Senate ratification. That would be a difficult lift in a year with a record Chinese trade deficit and high anxiety over the downsides of globalization . The BIT’s presence also undermines the geopolitical case for TPP, since one of the main arguments for that treaty is that it’s needed to “contain” China. “If you’re saying TPP is for strategic reasons and doing this at the same time and not telling us anything about it, what are we to expect?” asks Lynn of New America. “We have to assume it’s a giveaway, and we have to assume your claims about TPP are bogus.” China has ignored many of the commitments imposed on it following its entry into the World Trade Organization, and critics fear the Chinese would not live up to their obligations on the BIT either. And even amid the secrecy surrounding the deal, many question the value of letting China invest more in the United States, or letting U.S. corporations escape domestic laws and regulations, effectively turning capitalism into a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose game. Investment rules acceptable to corporate executives aren’t necessarily good for workers. And pushing another deal that accelerates the hollowing out of the nation’s industrial base, in an election year, borders on political insanity.

Trump spins plan as investment offshoring – vital to success of his campaign strategy Francis, 16 --- David, Foreign Policy, The Cable, 5/5, http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/05/05/china-asks-u-s-voters-to-be-reasonable- and-objective-as-trump-ascends/?wp_login_redirect=0

China is Trump’s economic bogeyman . On the campaign trail, he constantly rails against Beijing for stealing American jobs , taking advantage of the U.S.-China trade relationship, and manipulating its currency to make Chinese goods cheaper. (Side note: The International Monetary Fund has determined that this is not the case; according to the bank, the renminbi is fairly valued.) He’s also accused China of militarizing the South China Sea and has pledged to build up U.S. military presence in the region. “We have been too afraid to protect and advance American interests and to challenge China to live up to its obligations,” said a statement on Trump’s campaign website, regarding his plans to deal with Beijing. “We need smart negotiators who will serve the interests of American workers — not Wall Street insiders that want to move U.S. manufacturing and investment offshore.” For a more entertaining look at how important China is to Trump’s campaign, check out the video below: Perhaps China was responding to Trump’s recent comments on trade between Beijing and Washington. “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country,” Trump said at a campaign rally on Sunday, adding, “and that’s what they’re doing.” At the very least, the comments from leaders of the world’s second-largest economy reveal concerns about their relationship with the world’s largest. It’s just another sign the rest of the world is growing very, very concerned about the possibility of a Trump presidency. A2: TPP Thumps TPP is priced-in and BIT links much more. BIT is currently unknown – exposing it would hurt the Dem’s claims about being hardline on China. Dayen ‘16

David Dayen is the winner of the Ida and Studs Terkel Prize for his book Chain of Title: How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street's Great Foreclosure Fraud. David is also a contributing writer to Salon.com and The Intercept, and a weekly columnist for The New Republic and The Fiscal Times – “The Job-Killing Trade Deal You’ve Never Heard Of: The China Bilateral Investment Treaty” – The American Prospect - March 18, 2016 - http://prospect.org/article/job-killing-trade-deal-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard-china-bilateral-investment-treaty

The 2016 election has highlighted growing public opposition in both parties to the status-quo globalization agenda, which both sides blame for outsourcing jobs and privileging corporate profits over ordinary workers. This populist voter backlash puts trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) on life support, and is forcing candidates to better explain how they would boost jobs and wages. But what if those voters learned that the Obama administration is in the midst of negotiating yet another corporate-friendly trade deal, one that would facilitate more offshoring, and that could also give China, of all countries, effective veto power over domestic policy? That’s precisely what’s happening in behind-the-scenes negotiations over a little-publicized agreement on the table between the U.S. and China, the world’s two largest economies. Just as the White House is trying to sell TPP as a bulwark against China, the administration is simultaneously seeking an investment treaty with the Chinese that undercuts that argument. “It really calls into question the contention of the Obama administration that they have a coherent strategy to integrate trade and international relations and national security,” says Barry Lynn, a senior fellow at New America. “ It shows they have no idea what they’re doing.” The deal is called the China Bilateral Investment Treaty, or BIT. This is a standalone compact which would normally be negotiated as the investment chapter in a broader free trade agreement. Investment treaties provide a framework for foreign investors to pursue direct corporate ownership stakes in a partner country, offering them a series of guarantees of non- discriminatory treatment, limits on the expropriation of capital, and access to extra-judicial tribunals to enforce the agreement. The latter are set up through a system known as the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process, which has expanded in scope in recent years as a key protection for foreign investors. In fact, ISDS has proven hugely controversial in the TPP debate, with critics charging it would allow corporations to overturn national laws that constrain their profits. The U.S. has implemented 41 BITs over the years, as well as investment chapters in a dozen free-trade agreements. But the U.S. already attracts more foreign direct investment than any country in the world, with $168 billion flowing in just in 2012. That includes investments from countries that until now have lacked the protections of a BIT, like China. “It’s pitched as a way to promote investment,” said Celeste Drake, trade and globalization policy specialist at the AFL-CIO. “We’re one of the top countries for foreign investment anyway. We don’t need to give away rights for foreign investors.” Few investors have the capital to undertake and manage businesses overseas. Invariably, large multinational corporations, or investment vehicles like hedge funds and private equity firms, engage in foreign direct investment. And a BIT offers them the ability to lock in profits while neutralizing the risks that go along with investing abroad. For example, U.S. companies operating in China encounter local corruption, preferential treatment for their domestic producers, intellectual property theft, and ever-changing regulatory demands. The BIT sweeps away such hurdles, and allows foreign investors to use ISDS to recoup lost profits if foreign governments use those maneuvers to hamper their business. It effectively removes American companies’ one big motivation for keeping manufacturing stateside—our relatively stable judicial and regulatory systems and rule of law. If companies can get all that guaranteed in China, there’s nothing keeping their factories here. The BIT, then, is a recipe for more outsourcing. China currently protects many of its industries by excluding foreign investment in certain sectors. The key to the BIT is what’s known in trade deal parlance as the “negative list”—a list of which sectors would stay excluded. U.S. corporations want to whittle down that list and pry open more sectors where they can invest in China, and subsequently move production overseas. On the flip side, there’s already substantial Chinese investment in the U.S.—more than U.S. investment in China, in fact—but we don’t have good information on its impact. Many Chinese companies are state-owned or state-influenced, subsidized from home, and freed from having to run an immediate profit. Michael Wessel, a commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, warns that Chinese-subsidized firms could squeeze domestic competitors by undercutting them on price. Despite this uncertainty, Wessel contends that not single case study on Chinese-invested firms has been undertaken by an independent expert. “We have no idea what Chinese companies are doing in the U.S.,” he says. “Not all investment has [the] same impact. Our negotiators are flying blind.” When you contemplate Chinese state-owned enterprises enjoying the same treatment on their investments as domestic producers, and having the ability to use ISDS to maintain those privileges, things get even more alarming. “ISDS puts corporations and sovereign governments on the same plane,” says the AFL-CIO's Drake. “This would be China acting through a corporation to challenge a U.S. law.” Under ISDS, Chinese companies could sue federal, state, or local governments over any laws that force them to alter their production facilities. They could potentially sue the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which approves all foreign investment transactions, even though this panel’s reviews are normally not subject to judicial oversight. The U.S. could try to restrict state-owned enterprises, but without broadly-written language, Chinese companies would be likely to circumvent such constraints. “We’ve talked to U.S. negotiators, they don’t seem disturbed by it,” Drake adds. “I’m disturbed that they’re not disturbed.” While most of these agreements look similar to the “model BIT,” a template treaty available at the State Department website, the administration has been strangely silent when it comes to its China trade negotiations. Administration officials haven’t publicly announced any negotiation sessions, nor have they briefed cleared trade advisers, who are supposed to be able to look at trade deals as they happen. “This is more secretive than the TPP,” says Wessel, who is also a cleared adviser. We do know that both sides are eager to finish the BIT, after 24 rounds of talks. Politico Pro reported this week that the White House expects a new “negative list” offer from China before President Xi Jinping arrives for a summit later this month. The Obama administration called completing the BIT before the president leaves office a “top economic priority” following an Obama-Xi meeting in September. Xi has also expressed interest in accelerating the talks, especially in light of China’s weakening economy and its need for foreign investment. Wrapping up the BIT negotiations, however, would trigger a political explosion. Given that the leading Republican candidate assails trade deals with China in every public address, tossing another U.S./China treaty into the mix would fan an already volatile political fire. Like other treaties, the BIT would require a two-thirds vote for Senate ratification. That would be a difficult lift in a year with a record Chinese trade deficit and high anxiety over the downsides of globalization. The BIT’s presence also undermines the geopolitical case for TPP, since one of the main arguments for that treaty is that it’s needed to “contain” China. “If you’re saying TPP is for strategic reasons and doing this at the same time and not telling us anything about it, what are we to expect?” asks Lynn of New America. “We have to assume it’s a giveaway, and we have to assume your claims about TPP are bogus.” AT: Orlando Thumper

Clinton wins despite Orlando, but it does make it closer for Trump Enten 6/13 – (Harry Enten is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight; 6/13/16, “Be Wary Of Claims About How The Orlando Attack Will Affect The Election,” FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/be-wary-of-claims-about-how-the-orlando-attack-will- affect-the-election/, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)***note – graphs omitted

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have already responded to the deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history , which occurred Sunday morning at a gay nightclub in Orlando. Indeed, the massacre, carried out by a man who swore allegiance to the Islamic State, will reshape the dialog around the presidential election, in the short term at least. But the truth is that we don’t know how the tragedy will affect the race , and we should be careful about making too many conclusions based on the polls too soon.

Trump’s support rose in Republican primary polls in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino in late 2015.

As my colleague Nate Silver wrote, Trump voters reacted positively to his calls for a temporary ban on any Muslims’ entering the U.S. and tougher restrictions on immigration more generally. Trump won a far higher percentage of the vote during the primaries among people who listed immigration as the issue most important to them and among those who favored a temporary ban on Muslim immigrants.

But, as Nate pointed out at the time, it’s difficult to tease out exactly how much of a bounce Trump really got. Moreover, Trump’s support didn’t move much after the bombings in Brussels in March, which suggests the voters disposed to favor Trump due to the threat of terrorism may have already moved into his camp. That is, voters are now aware of Trump’s positions, and he may not have any more ground to gain.

This leads to a second point: The general election electorate is much different than a GOP primary electorate. Just because Trump gained support among Republicans after a terrorist attack doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll gain among voters at large. Trump, for instance, saw his favorability ratings among Republicans go up during the primary, while at the same time they went down among both Democrats and independents. You can see this split between the Republican and general electorate on specific issues, too. In the most recent ABC News/Washington Post May poll — which found Trump leading Clinton in the horse race by 2 percentage points — just 43 percent of Americans favored a temporary ban on Muslim immigration,1 compared with 64 percent of Republicans. In the same poll, Clinton was more trusted than Trump on immigration, 51 percent to 42 percent, while Republicans favored Trump on the issue 83 percent to 11 percent.

That brings up point No. 3: There are a lot of directions in which this debate can go. Orlando involved a lone gunman, who swore allegiance to ISIS but didn’t have strong ties to it. The attacks involved a legally purchased gun and occurred at a gay nightclub. This was a mass shooting, a terrorist attack and a hate crime, making it hard to predict how the American public will react. Clinton, for her part, will likely try to make this debate about who is best prepared for a crisis. Polls show Americans view Clinton as better prepared than Trump is to deal with an international crisis. In the ABC News/Washington Post poll from May, she led Trump by 19 percentage points on this question. She also led Trump on who was more trusted on “social issues such as gay marriage and abortion” by 33 percentage points in a Gallup survey conducted in May.

Trump, meanwhile, repeated his call for a Muslim ban, on which the polling is more split. In comments on Monday, he repeatedly invoked the dangers of “radical Islam” and said “we have to control our borders,” essentially combining the two issues. Trump might also push the debate toward gun rights and the Second Amendment — an issue some of his supporters have already brought up and one on which he was slightly more trusted than Clinton in the May Gallup survey. On the broader issue of terrorism, Clinton holds a slight advantage in some surveys, while Trump does in others.

Because they have different strengths and weaknesses, Trump and Clinton are likely to try to frame the post-Orlando discussion much differently.

Finally, point No. 4: We may never know how exactly the Orlando attacks affected the 2016 election. The polls right now aren’t steady . Trump seemed to gain ground after he vanquished Ted Cruz and John Kasich from the race in early May. But over the past three weeks, Clinton has regained some of the edge she had lost. Now that she has become the presumptive nominee and Democrats bigwigs are rallying behind her, Clinton should theoretically be able to widen her advantage over Trump as some — perhaps most — wayward Bernie Sanders supporters pile on the bandwagon. If the polls, in fact, don’t move over the next couple of weeks, it could be a sign that the post-Orlando political environment is helping Trump. Or, it could also be the case that the bulk of Sanders supporters were never going to back Clinton (or are waiting for him to formally endorsement her). If nothing else, the attack reshapes what was going to be a unity week for Democrats, with Clinton meeting with Sanders on Tuesday night and an already canceled Clinton/President Obama rally in Wisconsin on Wednesday. Of course, Clinton may still pick up ground. How much of that is a presumptive nominee bounce versus that Americans think she is a better leader in a time of crisis? That’s going to be a difficult puzzle to solve. Link – China – SCS Policies

Soft-line policies on China alienate the public and become election-year fodder for Republicans – SCS is a key issue Glaser 15 (Bonnie, Senior Adviser for Asia in the Freeman Chair in China Studies, where she works on issues related to Chinese foreign and security policy. She is concomitantly a senior associate with CSIS Pacific Forum and a consultant for the US government on East Asia, "China bashing: American campaign ritual or harbinger of tougher policy?," http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/08/25/China-bashing-American-campaign-ritual-or- harbinger-of-tougher-policy.aspx)

Soft on China policies alienate the public, empower Republican attacks, and SCS policies will be tied to Clinton Nakamura 15 (David, Staff @ Wash Post, "Anti-China rhetoric in campaign suggests change under a new president," 9/23, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/anti-china-rhetoric-in- campaign-suggests-change-under-a-new-president/2015/09/23/f6bb3066-61ff-11e5-b38e- 06883aacba64_story.html)

Public cares deeply about North Korea and the plan will be spun as “soft” on the DPRK Golan 15 (Shahar, Henry M. Jackson School of Int’l Studies at University of Washington – Chaired by Sorenson - Director Center for Korea Studies, Building a Pragmatic Coalition in American Politics, Rethinking United States Military Bases in East Asia, University of Washington, The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, Task Force - Winter 2015, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33275/Task%20Force %20E%202015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

Many de-facto political actors are voicing alternative policy today that is more hawkish towards the DPRK, for the most part from the political right wing. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank that has strong influence in congress, has repeatedly made the argument that “North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism: We should designate them accordingly. Obama officials have stated on the record that the DPRK counterfeits US currency: We have never made a formal charge”, such vehement calls to place the DPRK on the list of state sponsors of terrorism are grounded on the belief, stated in this Heritage Foundation policy memo, “if we don’t get back to hurting them, they will keep on hurting us” (Bromund, 2015, n.p.). Similar echoes can be found in the American Enterprise Institute, another conservative think-tank, as it suggests, “The Obama administration must also drop the wishful thinking deriving from the Bush era that China will somehow put pressure on Pyongyang to rein in its destructive behavior…. Recent calls by former chief American negotiator Christopher Hill for a “strategic reengagement” with Beijing over the DPRK thus promise to lead the US down the same path of wishful thinking and being tactically outmaneuvered.” (Austin, 2015). Meanwhile the liberal American Security Project reflects far greater optimism for negotiations and soft power, suggesting “that there is a role that public diplomacy can play in North Korea to catalyze social change and advance US foreign policy objectives… properly directed outreach as a component of a coordinated overall smart power strategy may be able to help catalyze change.”(Mull, 2013, n.p.). Policy circles are proposing alternate options, with a clear divergence based on American political identification. This debate will only increase with the rethink of the military bases, and will highlight the different takes liberals and conservative generally hold towards the DPRK. The administration should expect members of congress to attack the reforms and use think-tank publications to propose alternate policy. Gries eloquently describes the fundamental factor in American attitudes towards the DPRK, he states that “surveys have consistently revealed that Americans feel coolest toward communist countries like North Korea and China” (n.p.). Focusing on divergence of opinion in the US, he claims “conservatives desire a tougher policy toward North Korea than liberals do in large part because they feel cooler towards communist countries and hence North Korea” (Gries, n.p.). This argument, evidenced in different media outlet portrayals of recent events, is crucial to understanding the sources of backlash to the rethink of the bases. These news articles provide an account of how liberals and conservatives in the US feel towards the DPRK specifically and Communism in general. Obama’s ending of the embargo on Cuba provided an interesting case study for Gries’s conclusion that conservatives are cooler towards communist courtiers. Responding to the recent opening to Cuba, Ana Quintana (2015) of the Heritage Foundation voiced her opposition stating that “President Obama’s new Cuba policy has been heavily criticized and rightfully so,” insisting that “Congress must make sure that US policy continues to support civil society groups on the island that uphold US values and are unaffiliated with the Castro regime and its communist ideology” (n.p.). In contrast, there are analysts who argue that complete embargos have not proven successful. Nicholas Kristof (2014) argues for the lifting of the embargo because he believes that people traveling across countries spread ideas that combat leftist sentiment (n.p.). This phenomenon can reform non-inclusive political and economic regimes better than hawkish policies (n.p.). He begins his article with criticism for the hawks in politics, recounting, “When I hear hawks denouncing President Obama for resolving to establish diplomatic relations with Cuba and ease the embargo, I don’t understand the logic. Is their argument that our policy didn’t work for the first half-century but maybe will work after 100 years?;” he proceeds to call for “hordes of them [American tourists in Cuba], giggling at ancient cars held together with duct tape, or comparing salaries with Cubans” (n.p.). The divergence of opinion between Kristof and Quintana regarding policies towards communist Cuba is consistent with the argument that liberals are warmer towards communist states. This assessment can be seen in other recent events as well. On the same day the embargo on Cuba ‘ended,’ another communist regime, the DPRK and the Sony hacking saga, dominated headlines and grabbed US attention. While criticizing the DPRK’s hacking into Sony and calling for a response to it from the Obama administration, Jonathan D. Pollack (2014), writing for the left-of-center Brookings Institute, remarks that “Sony’s decision to produce a film about a US-sponsored scheme to assassinate the DPRK’s leader, Kim Jong-un, was remarkably foolish; President Obama acknowledged as much” (n.p.). Writing for the conservative Weekly Standard Blog, William Kristol (2014) had a drastically different tone in his response to the Sony Affair: The surrender to North Korea is a historical moment. It's far more significant than President Obama's announcement the same day of his opening toward Cuba. That is merely another sign of an administration's strategically weak and morally rudderless foreign policy. The capitulation to North Korea could be—unless we reverse course in a fundamental way—a signpost in a collapse of civilizational courage. (n.p.) Reports following the hacking scandal in the Washington Post quoted a senior American diplomat saying “we want to test if they [North Korean regime] have an interest in resuming negotiations”, and a proposition for Pyongyang to postpone missile tests if the US cancelled joint exercise with the ROK; this prompted varying responses in conservative and liberal media outlets (Fified, 2015, n.p.). An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claimed that, The last time the Administration made a diplomatic overture… North responded with a ballistic missile launch … That is all the more reason for the … [US to] adopt a policy of regime change through coercive financial sanctions, support for North Korean refugees and dissidents, and enhanced deterrence on the Korean peninsula. (Review & Outlook, 2015) Meanwhile, an editorial in the NYT objected to the rejectionist attitude displayed in the Wall Street Journal, arguing, “It’s hard to understand what America would lose by testing the North’s intentions once again, especially as China may be ready to be a more responsible partner in finding a solution” (The Editorial Board, 2015, n.p.). These varying views and calls to action show that political ideology is a factor in Americans stances towards the DPRK, and portrays that Gries’s assertion is visible in media debates in the most recent of times. From the above analysis regarding Congressional actions, think-tank proposals, and media opinions in the US toward the DPRK, it is clear that it is a topic of controversy in US domestic politics . The analysis leads to the conclusion that Republican policy makers are likely to attack the administration, framing the rethink as not harsh enough on the DPRK .

Clinton will take the blame – GOP wants to use North Korea as a referendum on the Dems Reuters 1/6/16 (James Oliphant & Doina Chiacu, “North Korea bomb claim a new challenge for Clinton campaign,” http://news.yahoo.com/republicans-blame-obama-urge-china-curb- north-korea-145314298.html)

To Republican U.S. presidential contenders, North Korea’s claim that it tested a hydrogen bomb may further make the 2016 race what they dearly want it to be: a referendum on President Barack Obama's foreign policy and, by extension, Hillary Clinton’s. For months, these Republicans have liked to say the world is "on fire," pinning the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, and the recent tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia on Obama’s administration and Clinton’s stint as his secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. Now, they can add North Korea to the threats they say face American voters. "When China fell to the communists (in 1949), the question that dogged the Truman administration was: 'Who lost China?'" said John Feehery, a Republican strategist. "The question that will dog the Democrats is: Who lost North Korea?" "They’ve been a headache for every Democrat. They’ve been a headache for every Republican," Michael Rubin, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said of the North Koreans. "North Korea may be the last remaining foreign policy quagmire that hasn't been politicized in a partisan fashion." That does not mean Republican candidates did not try on Wednesday after North Korea's announcement. They said Obama's foreign policy let North Korea bolster its nuclear arms capabilities, and also assigned blame to Clinton. "Three out of the four nuclear detonations that the North Koreans have done have happened on Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's watch," New Jersey Governor Chris Christie told Fox News, "and they have just not acted strongly at all around the world." Clinton condemned North Korea's move as "dangerous and provocative," and said the United States should respond with more sanctions and stronger missile defenses. She also defended her performance as Obama's top diplomat. "As secretary, I championed the United States' pivot to the Asia Pacific - including shifting additional military assets to the theate r - in part to confront threats like North Korea and to support our allies," Clinton said in a statement. "I worked to get not just our allies but also Russia and China on board for the strongest sanctions yet." Interest groups ensure changes in policies towards the DPRK become hot- button issues Golan 15 (Shahar, Henry M. Jackson School of Int’l Studies at University of Washington – Chaired by Sorenson - Director Center for Korea Studies, Building a Pragmatic Coalition in American Politics, Rethinking United States Military Bases in East Asia, University of Washington, The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, Task Force - Winter 2015, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33275/Task%20Force %20E%202015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

This chapter will look into the constraints that US domestic politics pose to the proposed policy reforms. A plethora of interest groups including ethnic lobbies and business communities, as well as political ideology and foreign policy outlook, pose constraints to American action in the Asia Pacific. This report will draw on academic work, publications of think tanks, actions of interest groups, public opinion surveys, and statements of influential US foreign policy thinkers to assess and predict how opposition to a policy rethink will manifest. The report concludes that the opponents o f the reforms will perceive current legislation as soft on the PRC and not harsh enough on the DPRK. After explaining the complications that US domestic politics pose, the paper will prospect areas of healthy support in the US. It will show how it is possible to create coalitions of support for the proposed reforms by utilizing American domestic preoccupation with the Middle East, the foreign policy outlook of 2016 candidates, interest groups, and existing calls for reforms in the US today. Link – Aid

Foreign aid spending alienates voters – plays into GOP’s Ghana vs Grandma spin strategy MCLAUGHLIN 11. [Seth, contributing writer, “Key Foreign Policy Players Try to Master Capitol Hill” The Washington Diplomat – May, http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7829:key-foreign-policy- players-try-to-master-capitol-hill&catid=1473:may-2011&Itemid=471]

The Beltway battle over the federal budget was temporarily interrupted by the real-life fighting in Libya and natural catastrophe in Japan, but the spending debate roared back to life in mid-April, consuming lawmakers on Capitol Hill as they scrambled to avoid a government shutdown, which would have been the first since 1995. The game of chicken came down to the wire, but a shutdown was ultimately averted, although that was just round one of what's set to be a drawn-out tug of war over America's finances. Round two over the 2012 budget and round three, raising the country's debt ceiling — which if left unchecked, could prove even more economically catastrophic than a shutdown — promise to be even more epic. But it's not just politicos in Washington and anxious Americans who are following the partisan showdown. The city's diplomats have been intently watching the congressional sparring as well. After all, strengthening economic ties with the world's largest economy is among every diplomat's top priorities. Whether it's development assistance or trade and investment, the state of the U.S. government checkbook matters not just to Americans, but to the world. However, after a decade of tax cuts coupled with two wars, a housing boom and bust and an economic recession, America's bloated and battered checkbook needs rebalancing. Both Republicans and Democrats agree that with a budget deficit of $1.5 trillion and climbing — along with a national debt of about $14.2 trillion — federal spending must be curbed. But by how much, from where and how fast, especially in the midst of a still fragile recovery and sagging unemployment, will be the talk of the town for months to come. Immediately after the dust settled over the budget for the 2011 fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, both sides set their sights on the 2012 numbers that will also decide the amount of money and manpower the United States releases across the globe. Though the State Department and foreign operations budget represent a sliver of total spending, most peg it at about 1 percent of more than $3.5 trillion federal budget, money spent on diplomacy and development has become a convenient whipping post for voters and lawmakers searching for quick answers to the country's financial mess, but also wary of the fallout from reforming the real drivers of federal spending — popular entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare, and spending on defense (also see "America's Foreign Affairs Budget Faces Congressional Chopping Block" in the March 2011 issue of The Washington Diplomat). Even if politicians are more willing to broach so-called third rail subjects like Medicare and Medicaid, the international affairs budget still faces the threat of significant cuts by lawmakers determined to show fiscal restraint across the board . A congressman would be hard pressed to take away grandmother's Medicare and justify giving more assistance to rebel fighters in Libya, for instance, even if the two cases aren't exactly correlated. Explaining fiscal nuance is not an easy sell . Politically speaking, it's simply easier for lawmakers to cut foreign aid than to go after programs that have a more noticeable effect on their constituents back in their home districts. Public misperception s also drive the political expediency. Americans think that 25 percent of the federal budget goes to foreign assistance, according to a recent poll by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. The real amount? The total international affairs budget comes in at under 1.5 percent. But you can be sure both sides will be clawing over every scrap of that 1.5 percent. As it stands, the fiscal 2011 budget allocated $48.3 billion for State and foreign operations — an $8.4 billion reduction from the president's requested amount though it was on par with 2010 levels. As part of the $38 billion of cuts in the 2011 budget, about $500 million was carved out of the State Department's budget compared to last year, while U.S. payments to the United Nations will be decreased by $377 million. Pay for Foreign Service officers was also frozen, and USAID operating expenses were trimmed by $39 million. But the GOP is eyeing far bigger cuts in foreign aid for 2012. President Obama has sounded the starting gun on next year's spending battle by rolling out a $3.7 trillion request that included $47 billion for the State Department and USAID — roughly a 1 percent increase compared to 2010 levels. Combined with additional diplomacy and development efforts, including the Peace Corps and the Millennium Challenge Corp., the president is requesting $50.9 billion in foreign assistance. That's $3.7 billion less than what was requested in fiscal 2011. Obama is also requesting $8.7 billion in supplemental funding for the State Department and USAID in fiscal 2012 as they can take on additional responsibilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In general, most (though not all) Republicans have been highly critical of any increase to the international affairs budget in a time of fiscal austerity, arguing that America needs to get its own economic house in order before sending money abroad . Some conservatives also want better vetting of foreign aid programs to make certain they indeed strengthen national security and that federal money isn't being funneled into countries with poor records of democracy and human rights. Others though have suggested the budget line should be zeroed out altogether, or severely gutted. A2 China Lobby/Business Lobby No turn – policy changes put the Dems on the defensive and the business lobby HATES China now Sevastopulo and Donnan 15 (Demetri and Shawn, Washington Correspondents @ Financial Times, 8/26, "Republicans line up for potshots at China," http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ced1bce8-4baa-11e5-a089- 1a3e2cd1819b.html#axzz49gbNsW5i)

China has long served as a bogeyman in US presidential elections. Whether Bill Clinton referring to the “butchers of Beijing” in reference to the Tiananmen Square massacre, George W Bush attacking Mr Clinton for being soft on China or Mr Obama touting the need for alliances to challenge Beijing, US presidential contenders have long lambasted China while vowing to take a tougher stance than the White House incumbent if elected president. But some analysts say China is sparking a different degree of anger now for several reasons : its growth as an economic power, its assertive actions in the South China Sea, rampant cyber attacks, theft of intellectual property rights and the creation of a climate that is less welcoming to foreign business. Frank Jannuzi, president of the Mansfield Foundation, which promotes US- Asia relations, said there had been a bipartisan consensus since Richard Nixon went to China in 1972 that the US would profit by engaging the country. But he said the consensus had almost unravelled because companies had become “increasingly disenchanted” with China. Trump throws out reporter and the rule book Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump gestures during the first Republican presidential debate at the Quicken Loans Arena Thursday, Aug. 6, 2015, in Cleveland. (AP Photo/John Minchillo) When Donald Trump evicted an influential Latino reporter from a press conference on the campaign trail in Iowa, it fuelled concerns that his perceived war on Hispanics is damaging the Republican party’s chances of reclaiming the White House in 2016. Continue reading “In Washington there has always been a debate between the China hawks and the Panda-huggers. The balance keepers used to be business,” said Mr Jannuzi, who advised Joe Biden in his 2008 run to be the Democrats’ nominee for president. “ You are going to see many presidential candidates view China’s moment of economic turmoil as an opportunity to push them . . . because they can combine the anxiety of the American people about the way China’s economy could hit their retirement accounts with the anxiety that has long been there in elite policy circles about China’s international policy behaviour.” Chris Johnson, a former top China analyst at the CIA, said the rhetoric on China was “different from the standard stuff” because Beijing refused to address US concerns on issues such as cyber security. “The comments from Walker and the others are irresponsible,” said Mr Johnson. “But it does put the administration on the defensive . . . because they will have to go hard on these issues.” Mr Johnson added that China had become a victim of its own success and could not rely on the “hide your strength, bide your time” strategy promoted by Deng Xiaoping. “Suddenly these guys who were doing well, but doing well invisibly, are out there in a way that they weren’t before. They’re an easy target.” The China-bashing has implications for Mr Obama, who spent much of this year deflecting demands from Capitol Hill to include binding provisions to prevent currency manipulation in a Pacific Rim trade deal known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. China lobby is weak and US businesses are anti-China now Drezner 10 (Daniel, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a senior editor at The National Interest, "The Death of the China Lobby?" 7/20, http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/07/20/the-death-of-the-china-lobby/)

Obama could be right, but on one key dimension his bargaining hand will actually be stronger than those of past presidents. China , by continuing to alienate and frustrate western multinational corporations, is also effectively weakening the strongest pro-China lobbies in both Washington and Brussels. As Rachman notes: Were it not for the power of big business, the relationship between the US and China might have gone sour years ago. There are forces on both sides of the Pacific – Chinese nationalists, American trade unionists, the military establishments of both countries – that would be happy with a more adversarial relationship. For the past generation it has been US multinationals that have made the counter-argument – that a stronger and more prosperous China could be good for America. So it is ominous, not just for business but for international politics, that corporate America is showing increasing signs of disillusionment with China…. In the past, American business has acted as the single biggest constraint on an anti- Chinese backlash in the US. If companies such as GE, Google and Goldman Sachs qualify their support for China or refuse to speak up, the protectionist bandwagon will gather speed. The Chinese government, of course, is not stupid. China’s growing confidence in dealing with the US, and the world in general, is still matched by a cautious desire to avoid conflict. At strategic moments, the Chinese government is likely to make tactical concessions – whether on Google or the currency – in an effort to head off a damaging conflict with the US. But with American business and the American public increasingly restive, the risks of miscalculation are growing. And here I must dissent from Rachman. In some ways, I do think the Chinese government has been pretty stupid over the past year in executing its "Pissing Off As Many Countries As Possible" strategy. China rankled the Europeans over its climate change diplomacy at Copenhagen. For all of Beijing’s bluster, it failed to alter U.S. policies on Tibet and Taiwan. It backed down on the Google controversy. It overestimated the power that comes with holding U.S. debt. It alienated South Korea and Japan over its handling of the Cheonan incident, leading to joint naval exercises with the United States — exactly what China didn’t want. It’s growing more isolated within the G-20. And, increasingly, no one trusts its economic data. This doesn’t sound like a government that has executed a brilliant grand strategy. It sounds like a country that’s benefiting from important structural trends, while frittering away its geopolitical advantages. Alienating key supporters in the country’s primary export markets — and even if Chinese consumption is rising, exports still matter an awful lot to the Chinese economy — seems counterproductive to China’s long-term strategic and economic interests. ***Internals*** China Key China is a key issue in the election—Clinton’s history and it can swing Democratic votes Kirby 7/18 --- Brendan Kirby, staff writer at PoliZette, 2016 (“Trump’s Path to Victory Runs Through China,” PoliZette, Available Online at http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/trumps-path- victory-runs-through-china/, Accessed on 07-21-2016, ES)

Ed Rendell, former Pennsylvania governor and major Hillary Clinton surrogate, is no Donald Trump fan, but he acknowledged the presumptive Republican nominee for president has tapped into populist anger about trade.

“He’s right about China,” Rendell told Sirius XM’s “The Dean Obeidallah Show” last week. “We have, for some reason, not stood up to China, and we’ve allowed them to manipulate their currency, which gives their businesses tremendous advantages in selling to America.”

There is, perhaps, no other issue with as much potential to peel away Democratic -leaning voters from the former secretary of state.

“Trump, Rendell, Bernie Sanders — everybody seems to get it but Hillary,” China expert Peter Navarro told LifeZette. “It’s going to be a defining issue in the election.”

A slew of polls over the last couple of years suggests that Americans remain hostile to international trade deals in general — and suspicious of China in particular.

A March survey conducted by Democratic pollster Pat Caddell found that by a margin of 66 percent to 13 percent, Americans believe China is actively trying to undermine the U nited S tates to advance its own economic and national interests.

The same poll also found that 28 percent of Americans think the United States is “totally ignoring” potential military and economic threats posed by China. Another 47 percent think America is compromising its national security and economic interests by relying on China to produce consumer goods and finance U.S. government debt. Some 53 percent wanted the Obama administration to take a harder line on Chinese computer hacking.

Americans See a Variety of Problems in Relationship with China

A Pew Research Center survey last year showed large majorities of Americans see [ consider] debt held by China, lost jobs, cyber attacks, the trade deficit, and China’s growing military power as somewhat or very serious problems in the U.S.-Sino relationship. Republicans were more likely to express concern on those issues, but significant percentages of Democrats held similar views.

“People see the whole trade issue as part of a larger issue — America’s position in the world is slipping,” said Curtis Ellis, executive director of the American Jobs Alliance. “They see American economic power weakening, and they see actors like China humiliating America, challenging America.”

Ellis said Americans link that sense of American decline to their personal economic struggles. “Trade becomes a vehicle issue fraught with all of the anxiety — personal and geostrategic,” he said. “It cuts across party lines … People feel the system is rigged against them.”

If China does take center stage in this year’s election, it could spell trouble for Clinton, Navarro said.

“The issue’s really important. China is really a microcosm and symbol of the bigger issue, which is the economy and trade,” said Navarro, author of “Crouching Tiger: What China’s Militarism Means for the World,” and an economics professor at the University of California, Irvine. “It’s particularly important for Hillary Clinton, because it was Bill and Hillary Clinton who lobbied and shoehorned China into the World Trade Organization.” Concrete Policy Key Plan causes Trump win – disproves ignorance on policy which persuades moderates Schmookler 6/16 — Andy Schmookler, Award-winning author of What We’re Up Against, former Democratic nominee for Congress in Virginia, political commentator and talk radio philosopher, 6-16-2016 ("," Huffington Post, 6-16-2016, Available Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-schmookler/trump-as-bull-in-the- amer_b_10506144.html, Accessed 7-21-2016)//CM

This piece — written before Hillary Clinton’s excellent critique of Trump’s suitability to be in charge of American foreign policy — has run in newspapers in Virginia’s very Republican 6th congressional district (from Lynchburg to Harrisonburg and beyond). Whereas Hillary’s critique focused mainly on “temperament,” the different argument of this piece focuses on Trump’s ignorance. The world is a complicated place (even more so than when I worked in American national security circles during the neo-cold war years of the 1980s). Making the right policy decisions is therefore a great challenge. And the stakes are high - war and peace, life and death - not only for us Americans but, because of the power and leadership role of the United States, for everyone on earth. Which is why we Americans should take note of the intense alarm our friends around the world have expressed at the fact that one of the two people who might be our next president is Donald Trump. The United States has been the world’s greatest power for most of the past century. And though the U.S. has made a few costly mistakes, one of the reasons for our success is that, over the decades, capable people labored to establish a set of relationships with other nations and a generally workable framework of international organizations that have given the United States and the world a reasonable degree of peace, stability and prosperity. That’s why we would rightly be highly skeptical of any presidential nominee — even if it were one deeply knowledgeable and brilliant in the realm of foreign affairs - who proposed major upheavals in those enduring frameworks of American policy. Not that the collective judgments of American statesmen and experts couldn’t conceivably be improved, but just that those judgments ought not lightly be overturned. But if the presidential nominee proposing these major changes in America’s enduring positions, far from being an expert, is someone whose every utterance bespeaks a level of ignorance shocking in a potential president—well, then we can well understand the alarm of our friends around the world. And we, the citizens of the United States, should share that alarm. Two examples. A mainstay of American foreign policy for more than half a century has been a determination to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The U.S. was a leader in the creation of the important Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has helped lessen the global dangers of nuclear war. But back in March, Donald Trump suggested that it might be better for Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals to defend themselves against their nuclear neighbors, rather than continuing to depend - as they have now for generations - on the American nuclear umbrella. (And a few days later, Trump indicated more generally that he thought it would be good if more nations possessed nuclear weapons—thus rejecting the well-considered judgments of more than a half-century of American policy-makers.) The Japanese and South Koreans were reported to be “shocked” and “bewildered” by Trump’s pronouncement. Another even more long-standing bedrock of American foreign policy has been the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In the years since the end of the cold war - the simmering confrontation with the Soviet Union that formed the context of which NATO was formed — NATO has continued to be a non-trivial part of the system for protecting American and Western interests and values, aiding in operations in such places as Bosnia and Afghanistan. With his assertion that NATO is “obsolete,” Trump set off another set of alarms among nations that have long been among America’s best friends. The responses from diplomats in Europe and Asia suggest that Trump’s proposed overhaul of American foreign policy would leave the U.S. not with more influence in the world, but less. Similarly with many of his provocatively belligerent remarks directed at other nations with whom we have important relationships—such as Mexico, China, and the nations of the Islamic world. Why would they feel safe if the nation that is far and away the world’s most powerful dealt with others in the spirit that Trump is expressing? An America that saw its foreign relations so much in terms of “victories” would be likely to drive the rest of the world to band against the United States. It has long been understood that nations should conduct themselves in the world in careful, measured, and predictable ways because there is so much at stake in keeping the peace (and no police to break up fights). That’s why diplomats speak as they do, minimizing friction, keeping things moving smoothly. Mr. Trump, apparently thinking he knows better, offers the very opposite approach. Though “Make America Great Again” sounds good, it would be a more credible slogan from someone who showed a greater understanding of what has made America a great world power to begin with.

Rust Belt voters aren’t persuaded by status quo Trump ramblings – the plan gives concrete backing and persuades blue collar workers Bierman and Lee 6/28 — Noah Bierman writes about California’s congressional delegation and covers national stories from the mid-Atlantic region out of Washington, D.C. Before joining the newspaper in 2015, he worked for the Boston Globe in both Boston and Washington, covering Congress, politics, and transportation in the immediate aftermath of the Big Dig. Kurtis Lee is a political reporter for the Los Angeles Times. Prior to joining the newspaper in August 2014, Lee worked for three years at the Denver Post and covered state and national politics("Donald Trump vows in Rust Belt speech to punish China and end major trade deals," latimes, 6-28-2016, Available Online at http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-trade- speech-20160628-snap-story.html, Accessed 7-21-2016)//CM

Donald Trump, who rode a wave of anti-globalism to the top of the GOP presidential field, made a series of pledges and threats Tuesday aimed at punishing China and divorcing the U.S. from trade deals he blames for the loss of manufacturing jobs. The speech, delivered from a teleprompter at the Alumisource Factory in Monessen, Pa., was one of Trump’s most traditional, stylistically, since he entered the presidential race a year ago. Trump included 128 footnotes in his prepared remarks after contentious battles with fact-checkers who found last week’s speech attacking Hillary Clinton littered with falsehoods. But the content, one of Trump’s strongest attacks on trade, was at odds with Republicans’ longstanding alliance with business groups that favor loosening international barriers to commerce. Trump blamed globalization for wiping out the middle class, and once again linked his candidacy to Great Britain’s vote last week to withdraw from the European Union, which devalued the pound and caused an international wave of economic anxiety. “Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy," Trump said from the heart of the battered Rust Belt, where voters embraced him during the GOP primaries. "I hate to say it, but I used to be one of them.” Election 2016 | Live coverage on Trail Guide | Sign up for the newsletter Indeed, he wrote a blog post in 2005 asserting that “outsourcing creates jobs in the long run.” Trump's speech took aim mostly at politicians, with little regard to the role that mechanization and corporate outsourcing — including by his own companies — have played in the decline of America's industrial base. "As Bernie Sanders said, Hillary Clinton 'voted for virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs,'" Trump said, noting his alignment on the issue with Clinton's Democratic primary rival. Trump unveiled a seven-point plan that included an overt threat to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement. Hillary Clinton supported the deal, negotiated by President George H.W. Bush and enacted by her husband, as well as with China’s 2001 admission to the World Trade Organization, which Trump blames for massive job losses. Chinese exports to the U.S. have soared ever since, reaching a record $482 billion last year. And by some economists’ estimates, Chinese imports have resulted in a net loss of about 2 million domestic jobs from 1999 to 2011. Even so, experts have noted that automation, skills training and other policy choices have played significant roles as well in the job losses and income declines of blue-collar workers, factors ignored by Trump. Nor did he mention that globalization and imports have reduced prices of goods for American consumers, benefiting especially lower-income families. Trump’s comments threatening to withdraw from NAFTA or renegotiate “a better deal by a lot” echoed criticisms long voiced by organized labor, that the free-trade pacts between the U.S., Canada and Mexico have shuttered thousands of domestic plants and cost countless jobs. Still, trade among the three nations was growing well before the agreement took effect in 1993, and, according to congressional research, NAFTA’s net effect on the U.S. economy in the 20 years since was relatively small. With 'free the delegates' rallying cry, upstarts seek to block Trump nomination in Cleveland With 'free the delegates' rallying cry, upstarts seek to block Trump nomination in Cleveland Trump’s plan also calls for withdrawing from the massive Pacific trade deal in the works, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Clinton pushed as secretary of State but now says she would not sign. He also called for punishing other countries for trade and currency violations, with a heavy emphasis on China. Trump said he would label China a currency manipulator, a designation that under current practice would be made after a review by the Treasury Department and could potentially set off punitive measures; Trump mentioned taxes and tariffs. His rhetoric is at odds with many traditional GOP allies, such as the Chamber of Commerce, the National Assn. of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable, all of which criticized the speech. Both Trump and Clinton are trying to attract voters in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, where the loss of the industrial base has left many voters with stagnant wages or without jobs. Trump has tended to do best among these voters, particularly white men without college degrees. Trump’s tough message on China has found resonance among manufacturing workers, but some, like Cliff Tobey, 41, a third-generation miner in Minnesota’s Iron Range, weren’t impressed after hearing about Trump’s latest speech attacking China. “The rhetoric is great, that Donald Trump is talking about these things,” said Tobey, who was laid off from his job last year. “My problem is, you see that he’s outsourcing his own things, like hats, and importing foreign workers.… I don’t think tariffs across the board against China, a trade war, is a good thing. It seems amateurish.” Trump also criticized the Obama administration for failing to go after trade violations, although there are several anti-dumping and unfair trade cases against China and others in the works. Clinton, speaking alongside Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in Ohio on Monday, proposed appointing what she called a trade prosecutor, who would report directly to the president, “to end the abuse of our market, our workers, our people.” It is unclear what authority this position would carry that is not already vested in other high-level officials, including the International Trade Commission. Trump doubted Clinton would abide by her opposition to the Pacific trade deal, predicting that, if elected, Clinton would merely revise it slightly to claim she improved it. Though Republican Party leaders have traditionally championed trade deals, many of their voters dislike them. More than two-thirds of Trump supporters viewed free trade agreements as a bad thing, according to a Pew Research Center survey in March. In the Pew study, 53% of Republican voters said they viewed trade deals in a negative light, compared with 38% who viewed them positively. The numbers were practically reversed (34% negative and 56% positive) on the Democratic side. Still, the Pew study found an overall majority supporting free trade. “As a country, we really failed the losers from global economic competition,” said Edward Alden, a senior fellow at Council of Foreign Relations whose forthcoming book, “Failure to Adjust,” dissects the policy mistakes. “Trump, for all the fact that I think he is a terrible vessel for it, is tapping into some of that legitimate anger and resentment.” Democrats are barely hanging on to Rust Belt votes – Trump’s ignorance could lead to a loss in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin – but the plan triggers a win for Trump by wooing Sanders voters. Bernstein 5/27 — David S. Bernstein, contributing political analyst at WGBH News in Boston, 5-27-2016 ("How Hillary loses: Four mistakes that could cost her the election," POLITICO Magazine, 5-27-2016, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-hillary-clinton-campaign- loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924, Accessed 7-21-2016)//CM

It’s a terrifying moment for Democrats: Hillary Clinton’s double-digit lead in national polls has evaporated and panic is beginning to set in. Polls now show Donald Trump ahead of Clinton, or at worst only a few points behind. During the insanity of the Republican primary, it was easy for them to believe that Trump could never be president—that in a general election, mainstream voters would regard him as an absurdity. But Clinton remains a shaky candidate with historically high negatives, an email scandal that keeps getting worse and a stubborn primary opponent whose supporters may yet become a midsummer nightmare in Philadelphia. Meanwhile, the Republicans, seemingly in all-out civil war just weeks ago, have quickly fallen in line. Democrats are resigning themselves to a tough, ugly, painful and expensive street fight. The numbers offer some reassurance for Democrats—but also some bad news. Story Continued Below The reassurance is that the recent polls probably don’t mean much. Trump’s current surge is likely driven by Republican voters coalescing around their nominee, and Clinton will almost certainly get a similar bump when Bernie Sanders lets go and Democratic voters return to the fold. Most pundits believe 2016 is still Clinton’s race to lose. Here’s the bad news: There is now a clear path for her to lose it. If you drill down enough, it’s clear there are at least four paths to a loss, and any one of them poses a real risk for a candidate likely to follow her usual careful, calculating playbook. The cold math of a potential Clinton defeat is not to be found in national polls, but in the Electoral College—and within each state’s unique demographics and culture. Trump won’t dramatically remake the political map, but he doesn’t need to. He just needs to squeeze a little more out of certain voters in certain states, while Clinton draws a little less. If Clinton pushes away some of her potential supporters; fails to energize others to vote; and fires up Trump’s base by pandering to her own—well, she just might be able to make the numbers work out for him. If he does pull off the election of the century, Trump’s path to 270 Electoral College votes will begin with 164 practically in the bank, from 21 solid-red states generally considered sure things for the Republican nominee. And here’s how Clinton could push more than enough additional states onto Trump’s side of the ledger—Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan—one mistake at a time. Step 1: Take Hispanic enthusiasm for granted It’s been a matter of faith in Democratic circles: Trump’s grotesque demonization of Latin- American immigrants will boost Hispanic turnout and Clinton’s share of their vote. As a result, you’re already hearing a lot less about Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro, once the odds-on favorite to become Clinton’s vice presidential running mate. Castro was supposed to be part of a big Democratic push for Hispanic votes this year. Now, the thinking seems to be, those votes will take care of themselves. Early evidence certainly supports that belief. Hispanic-Americans dislike Trump—strongly dislike him—in massive majorities, according to polls. Legal residents are rushing to become citizens, and citizens are registering to vote, just so they can cast a ballot against him in November. That has Clinton supporters believing that she’ll win crucial victories in Florida—where 17 percent of the 2012 vote was Hispanic, according to exit polls—Colorado, Nevada and possibly even Arizona. But it would be difficult for Trump to keep doing as poorly with Latino voters as he’s done over the past year. And if he’s able to keep his incendiary language to a minimum, there is no guarantee that Clinton’s energy will hold for the many months until the election. There is also reason to think Clinton’s enthusiasm with Hispanic voters needs stoking. A new Fox Latino poll shows Clinton leading Trump by an impressive-sounding 39 points: 62 to 23. But there’s a problem: That 39-point spread is actually less than the 44 by which Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012. Florida, where Democratic confidence is sky-high, carries a critical 29 Electoral College votes. In 2012, according to exit polls, Hispanics made up a larger percentage of the state’s vote than in previous years, and Obama won a higher percentage of them—60 percent—than any Democrat had before. That translated into a 285,600-vote advantage (20 percent) among Hispanic voters for Obama over Romney in the state, which Obama carried by just 73,000 votes overall. The big question is: Can Clinton sustain that kind of historic lead? All Trump would have to do is roll back the Democratic advantage to 2008 levels, instead of 2012 levels, to reverse the tide. All else being equal, a return to 2008’s numbers—when Hispanics were 14 percent of the vote, and Obama won them by a 15 percent margin rather than 20 percent—would mean Democrats losing 109,200 votes off their advantage. And that could turn Obama’s 73,000-vote Florida victory into a 36,000-vote defeat. Yes, their numbers are growing. But Hispanics simply don’t like Clinton nearly as much as they like Obama: Her favorable/unfavorable is a net +15 in that Fox Latino poll, while Obama’s is +46. Colorado, where the fast-growing Hispanic population gave 75 percent of its vote to Obama in 2008, is a similar story to Florida. So is Nevada, where all of the major analysts still rate the Senate race between Republican Joe Heck and Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto a tossup—suggesting that they aren’t yet foreseeing a torrent of Democratic-voting Hispanics rush the polls in November. Oh, and did we mention that Hispanic voters are disproportionately young—a staggering 44 percent of eligible Hispanic voters this year are millennials, compared with 27 percent of non-Hispanic whites, according to Pew—and that Sanders has been pulling large numbers of them away from Clinton, just as much as others their age. Trump Wins: Arizona (11 electoral votes), Florida (29), and possibly Colorado (9) and Nevada (6) Running total (in total Electoral College votes): Trump wins between 204 and 219 Step 2: Alienate the young Millennials, being both more numerous and less cynical than their Generation X predecessors, once seemed likely to usher in a substantial advantage for Democrats among young voters. Except then they stopped turning out. In 2012, the number of 18-to-29-year-old voters dropped by 1.8 million from the previous presidential election year. “It seems likely that the observed young-adult voting surge of 2004–2008 was temporary,” a U.S. Census study concluded, “and not representative of a permanent shift towards greater young-adult engagement in presidential elections.” In 2016, this is likely to affect Clinton’s performance in several college-heavy states that have had relatively high turnout—and high Democratic voting rates—among those age groups. That includes swing states such as Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire and Virginia. Just look at what happened in the past cycle. In Iowa, for example, 18-to-29-year-olds dropped from 17 percent of the 2008 vote to 15 percent in 2012—and were less likely to vote for Obama. The result was a net loss of close to 30,000 votes, in a contest Romney lost by less than 90,000 votes. And that was with Obama, who did far better than Clinton with young voters. During primary season, Sanders took a stunning 84 percent of the under-30 vote in the Iowa caucuses. Many of these young Sanders voters may come around to support Clinton over Trump in the general—just as Clinton’s bitter supporters eventually came to support Obama in 2008. The question is, though: How many? Maybe not enough. As Jennifer Duffy of the Cook Political Report notes, there is a big difference between 2008 and 2016: Then, Clinton’s so-called PUMA die-hards were mostly middle-age suburban women, with long-standing ties to the Democratic Party. In other words: likely voters. Most young Sanders voters, on the other hand, are not yet regular voters, and certainly not the kind of committed Democrats Clinton can count on; her campaign will need a significant get-out-the-vote effort to persuade them to show up in November. That will be more difficult the more she takes the conservative path, pivoting to the center for the general election, and focusing on messages geared toward her core—older—voters. To see how much young-voter turnout matters, look at North Carolina. In 2008, Obama had a net advantage there among 18-to- 29-year-olds of 368,000 votes—and eked out a 14,000-vote victory overall. In 2012, with dampened enthusiasm, Obama’s advantage in that age group dropped by 120,000, and Romney coasted to a 92,000-vote win. What’s more, those young voters are especially likely to be swayed to third-party alternatives, which—see below—could become more enticing this time around. Trump wins: Georgia (16), North Carolina (15) and Iowa (6), with a chance at Virginia (13) Running total: Trump wins between 241 and 269 Step 3: Let establishment Republicans find another place to go The key to a Clinton landslide is turning red voters blue. And once it became clear that conservatives didn’t have the guts to put forward a #NeverTrump protest candidate, “Republicans for Hillary” was beginning to have a bit of a ring to it. But there’s another possibility: A plausible moderate-right candidate could emerge as a genuine alternative. Take, for example, former Massachusetts Republican Governor Bill Weld, whose history with Clinton goes back decades. Weld is exactly the type of GOP moderate Clinton has reportedly been wooing as Trump edged closer to the nomination. He endorsed Obama in 2008. He compares Trump’s rhetoric to Nazism. And there are plenty of Republicans like him this year, particularly in the Northeast. Not too many years ago, you could imagine considerable appeal for Clinton among Weld-ian Republicans. But thanks to her primary run, a combination of issues— Sanders pushing her left on economic issues, her unsatisfactory answers on the email scandal—has made that a tougher sell. And now, instead of endorsing Clinton, Weld has agreed to join Gary Johnson on a potential Libertarian Party ticket, which suddenly looks like a very friendly home for old- fashioned country-club Republicans. It’s not a stretch to imagine Weld’s friend and fellow former Massachusetts Republican Governor Romney, who is clearly disgusted with Trump, could endorse Johnson-Weld. Disgruntled Republican funders loath to back Trump—another demographic being wooed by Clinton—could follow. Sure, the votes the Libertarian Party siphons off will be primarily those of Republicans. That’s likely to pad Clinton’s lead in some already blue states she doesn’t need to worry about, such as Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. However, the disaffected GOP voters it pulls away from Clinton are potentially critical for her in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and perhaps even Maine, where third-party candidates have a considerable disruptive history. And in the event that, say, John Kasich were to endorse Johnson-Weld, even Ohio could suddenly get shaken up. Sure, that one is a long shot, but even without a big-name endorsement, there’s evidence that a plausible GOP alternative hurts Clinton more than Trump this year. A new Zogby poll of Ohio voters shows that in a four-way race including Johnson (pulling 6 percent) and Green Party nominee Jill Stein (3 percent), Clinton takes the bigger hit, and her lead in the state decreases. We’ve seen this movie before: It was 1980, and independent candidate John Anderson pulled lots of votes in what we think of as blue states—15 percent in Massachusetts, 13 percent in New Hampshire, 11 percent in Colorado and Washington, 10 percent in Oregon and Maine. Anderson had been a Republican, but the votes he siphoned off would have gone more to Jimmy Carter than to Ronald Reagan—by 49 percent to 37 percent, according to exit polls. Every one of those states went for Reagan. In Maine, the margin was just 3 percentage points. The emergence of a plausible moderate alternative also threatens to derail a larger piece of Democratic strategy: Clinton hoped to trot out aisle-crossing Republicans to boost her bipartisan credentials. Now, many Republican leaders will have a choice between Trump or Johnson, and not be forced to choose Clinton. Meanwhile, the other big constituency of anti-Trump Republicans—religious conservatives—has given up on finding its own protest candidate. Unlike establishment moderates, these Republicans would never go for Clinton—and will mostly end up boosting Trump’s numbers in states such as Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina and Florida. If Clinton loses in November, her supporters are going to be kicking themselves for not locking in moderate Republicans sooner. In 2012, Obama won New Hampshire by 40,000 votes, or about 5 percent of the vote. In the Granite State, that was a relative landslide: The margin has been less than 2 percent in three of the past six presidential elections. Should a Libertarian ticket pull an Anderson-like 13 percent of the vote there—and should the bulk of those voters be Never-Trumpers, some of whom would otherwise have gone to Clinton—then the third party could tip a typically close Granite State contest to Trump. Trump wins: New Hampshire (4), one district of Maine (1) and—if union households desert Clinton over trade (see below)—possibly Pennsylvania (20) Running total: Trump wins between 246 and 294 Step 4: Fumble on trade As soon as the votes were tallied in 2012, Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO and Mary Kay Henry of SEIU were claiming unions had delivered Obama’s victory. They argued, with justification, that Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada got into the blue column because of a massive turnout effort from labor. But earlier this year, both Trumka and Henry expressed concerns that Trump could flip that script. “Our members are responding to Trump’s message,” Henry said in one interview. “Donald Trump is tapping into the very real and very understandable anger of working people,” Trumka said in a speech. It’s not just that these workers are drawn to the raw emotion of Trump’s “you’ve been screwed” rhetoric. Polls show that union households tend to oppose free trade quite strongly. Sanders has made free trade a centerpiece of his primary campaign against Clinton. Trump, hoping to woo Sanders voters, frequently praises his position on that issue. Union voters largely agree with Trump that trade deals—including those negotiated by Democratic Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton—have taken their jobs away. Hillary Clinton has yet to counter this attack in any meaningful way. Her history on trade has been careful and political, which has left her struggling to articulate a strong argument against Sanders, let alone Trump. She gave measured support at the time to her husband’s controversial NAFTA deal, but later called it a mistake; voted in favor of most but not all trade deals as senator; and flip-flopped unconvincingly on the Trans-Pacific Partnership this year. It’s not hard to see how quickly this could start costing her Electoral College votes in the Rust Belt, where Trump hopes to improve on past Republican performance. (And where, you may remember, Clinton had to apologize for threatening to put coal companies out of business.) In Ohio, for example, 22 percent of 2012 voters came from union households, and 60 percent of them voted for Obama. In Wisconsin, a similar share of the electorate voted 2-to-1 for Obama over Romney. In 2016, both states went for Sanders over Clinton in their primaries. In Pennsylvania, where Trump is planning a major effort, union households provided Obama more than half his net margin. Trump wins: Ohio (18) and Wisconsin (10), and maybe Michigan (16) Running total: Trump wins between 274 and 338 The Final Tally So there you have it. Trump survives a Latino surge in the South and West; Clinton fails to bring home young voters in the Southeast and Midwest; Libertarians give Trump a foothold in the Northeast; the Rust Belt puts the nail in the coffin—and with somewhere between 274 and 325 electoral votes, Donald J. Trump becomes the 45th president of the United States. Yes, the specifics could vary. But it’s clear Trump can cross the 270 electoral-vote threshold even on the low end, with plenty of cushion on the high end to make up for a state that slips through his fingers here or there. For what it’s worth, it’s also possible Clinton wins in a landslide, as an increasingly unstable Trump shrinks deeper and deeper into racism, xenophobia and conspiracy theories. But what’s clear is that Democrats can no longer count on a lopsided race that even a problematic candidate running a clumsy campaign can’t lose. Again: It’s a long way to November, and Trump could always self-destruct. But he probably won’t, and 2016 is shaping up as a contest that a careful Clinton campaign can easily lose, state by state, even as she piles up the popular vote in California and other sure-win places. Demographics are not destiny. In fact, they can be a disaster waiting to happen. Trump’s ignorance lost him states in the primary and will continue to do so – he needs concrete policies like the plan to point to and persuade voters. Hoy 4/18 — Matthew Hoy, conservative columnist, former reporter, editor and page designer, 4-18-2016 ("For conservative voters, Donald Trump isn’t the man," sanluisobispo, 4-18-2016, Available Online at http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/matthew- hoy/article72412712.html, Accessed 7-21-2016)//CM

My liberal colleague, Tom Fulks, doesn’t like Donald Trump because he’s an “organ-grinding circus act,” a “fascist billionaire” and a purveyor of “violent political rhetoric.” I agree, but that’s not the worst of it. Matthew Hoy Matthew Hoy David Middlecamp [email protected] I don’t like Donald Trump because what he really is is a liberal Democrat playacting as a Republican. Unfortunately, Trump has fooled far too many Republicans who are so angry at President Barack Obama’s gangster government that they see a short-fingered vulgarian as the best solution to what ails Washington. A week before the Wisconsin GOP primary, Trump criticized that state’s governor, Scott Walker, for not raising taxes in that state in the wake of a budget shortfall. Urging a tax hike is generally not the first instinct of a fiscal conservative. (Walker and the state’s legislature eliminated the shortfall without raising taxes.) In fact, it’s generally not the first instinct of Trump, either, when he’s in his GOP- thinking mode. In an interview with The Washington Post, Trump claimed he could wipe out the national debt — currently at $19 trillion and climbing — not by raising taxes or cutting spending, but by redoing our trade deals with China. Sorry, but that’s just Bernie Sanders-level economic ignorance. The truth is, Trump will say whatever he thinks the people around him want to hear. Conservatism is a foreign language to Trump. He’s too lazy to learn it. And he’ll probably forget about it anyway if (God forbid) he actually wins. Earlier this month, Trump, who claims he’s now pro-life, took five different positions on abortion in just 72 hours and managed to elicit outrage from both sides of the debate. Trump has promised that Social Security’s looming demographic insolvency problem can be solved by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. This sort of willful ignorance perhaps explains why the guy who isn’t afraid to tell you he’s the smartest guy in the room has filed for bankruptcy four times. Trump has promised that if he gave illegal orders to the military to intentionally target noncombatants or to torture terrorists, the military would obey. “If I say do it, they’re gonna do it,” he said during a televised debate. And those are the somewhat coherent answers Trump gives to questions. Trump’s answer to The Washington Post Editorial Board on whether he’d use a tactical nuke on ISIS quickly devolved into bashing Florida Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and then asking the people around the table their names without actually answering the question. When he was asked by journalist Bob Woodward what made Abraham Lincoln succeed, Trump gave an answer so devoid of actual facts or content that one could legitimately wonder whether Trump knows who Lincoln was. Trump’s supporters should be infuriated that he hasn’t even bothered to do the bare minimum of preparation for the job he’s running for. But he may be right when he says he could commit at least assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder and his supporters would still vote for him. Trump supporters: You should be offended by that. Trump waves away these criticisms by saying he’s a great CEO and he’ll hire the very best people. If his campaign is his evidence, then he’s wrong about that, too. Trump lost Iowa after it was apparent he didn’t know what a political “ground game” was or why it was important he should have one. Trump won South Carolina, and its 50 delegates are duty-bound to vote for him on the first ballot at the GOP convention in Cleveland. But Trump’s campaign has failed to get Trump loyalists seated as delegates in the state, and it appears those delegates may quickly flee Trump in a contested convention. In Colorado, Trump was trounced after it quickly became apparent he hadn’t hired people who could be bothered to read that state’s rules on how its delegates are selected. On Thursday, top Trump surrogate Michael Cohen revealed that he can’t vote for Trump in New York’s GOP primary because he’s a registered Democrat. Cohen shouldn’t feel too bad. Two of Trump’s own kids can’t vote for him either. If you’re a conservative who is mad that Washington hasn’t been listening and you’re sick of the “moderate” candidates the GOP nominated in 2008 and 2012, Donald Trump isn’t your answer. Californians have seen this movie before, starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. Once a series of conservative reforms pushed by the “Governator” were defeated at the ballot box, he went native and abandoned everything he’d run on. In fact, his last act in office was to commute the murder sentence of Esteban Nuñez from 16 years to seven years. You see, Schwarzenegger was friends with the murderer’s father, state Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez. Tribune columnist/editor Joe Tarica — a self-confessed Democrat — has already told you who his least-favorite Republican is: Ted Cruz. I can’t think of a more honest and heartfelt endorsement. If you’re one of the 20 percent of Democrats who would defect for Trump, don’t hesitate; write in Trump’s name. Read more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/opn-columns-blogs/matthew-hoy/article72412712.html#storylink=cpy

Trump’s presidential campaign has been plagued with vagueness - policies like the plan plan reverses this trend Bennett 7/21 — John T. Bennett is a White House Correspondent for CQ Roll Call and graduate of Johns Hopkins., 7-21-2016 ("Trump Surrogates Promise Global Wins But Scant Policy Specifics," Roll Call, 7-21-2016, Available Online at http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/trump-surrogates-promise-global-wins-scant-policy- specifics, Accessed 7-21-2016)//CM

Republican presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump arrives on stage to introduce his wife Melania Trump during the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call) Hawkish lawmakers and former military officials skewered Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama Monday night, painting them as weak and incompetent. Under Donald Trump , they promised, America would pile up foreign policy wins — but their fiery remarks were thin on just how the billionaire businessman would do that. They came to a massive stage in Cleveland and promised Trump’s administration would bring “unconditional victory” against violent Islamic extremist groups, vowed that he would always use the term “radical Islamic terrorism,” and win wars rather than seek to end them. But none offered specific strategic and tactical policy proposals or changes that would turn any of those sweeping pronouncements into reality. Other than ripping up a nuclear deal with Tehran, the national security speakers’ collective message was Trump would simply do almost everything differently on national security and foreign policy than did Obama and his team — especially Clinton, Barack Obama’s first secretary of state. Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton , who was an Army infantry officer for five years, delivered a message aimed at independent voters: Trump will make national security his “chief responsibility.” [ Special Coverage: 2016 Republican National Convention ] Cotton used his convention speech to cast a potential Trump administration as more competent on national security than the Obama administration. And the Iraq and Afghanistan veteran made clear Trump and his running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, would be more willing to use U.S. force than Obama. “Our warriors and their families don’t ask for much. But there are a few things we’d like,” said Cotton, an Armed Services Committee member and subcommittee chairman. “A commander in chief who speaks of winning wars and not merely ending wars, calls the enemy by its name, and draws red lines carefully, but enforces them ruthlessly,” he said. “And politicians who treat our common defense as the chief responsibility of our federal government, not just another government program.” Cotton told a packed house at Quicken Loans Arena, home of LeBron James and the NBA champion Cleveland Cavaliers , that that kind of commander in chief “isn’t much to ask for.” “But eight years without it is more than enough,” Cotton said. “In a Trump-Pence administration and with a Republican Congress, help is on the way.” Want insight more often? Get Roll Call in your inbox email address Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani practically yelled much of his national security speech, including this line: “It’s time to make America safe again.” “I know it can be done because I did it by changing New York City from 'the crime capital of America' to, according to the FBI, the safest large city in America,” Giuliani said. “What I did for New York City, Donald Trump will do for America.” [ At GOP Convention, Lots of Talk But No New Evidence on Benghazi ] Giuliani, whom Trump has mentioned as a possible head of a radical Islamic terrorism commission, offered only one major Trump policy proposal, saying the likely GOP nominee would rescind the deal Obama and other global powers brokered with Iran over its nuclear program. He called it “one of the worst deals America ever made, alleging that it “will eventually let them become a nuclear power and put billions of dollars back into a country that the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism.” When the former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York asked the attendees if they would trust Clinton to be the next commander in chief, they responded in unison with a thunderous “No!” “Donald Trump will change all of that,” he said. “Donald Trump is a leader. He will reassert America’s position as the nation with the best values to lead the world.” Giuliani hit Clinton and Obama for, as GOP members and pundits have put it for years, "following from behind." And retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn later picked up on that theme -- but not before appearing to contradict the man who put him on his vice presidential candidate short list. Flynn said the U.S. must defeat its enemies by "finding and capturing" them. In so doing, he seemed to contradict Trump, who repeatedly has vowed to "bomb the [expletive] out of" the Islamic State. "My message to you is very clear: Wake up America! There is no substitute for American leadership and exceptionalism," Flynn said. "America should not fear our enemies." He called Clinton a "clone" of Obama. [ Celebrities on Trump: He'll Protect Family, Country ] "Tonight, Americans stand as one with strength and confidence to overcome the last eight years of the Obama-Clinton failures such as, bumbling indecisiveness willful ignorance and total incompetence that has challenged the very heart and soul of every American, and single-handedly brought continued mayhem, murder and destruction into our neighborhoods and onto the world’s streets," Flynn said. Flynn was fired from his job as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon's premier intelligence organization, in 2014 by James Clapper, Obama's director of national intelligence. Flynn, who has been advising Trump on national security issues, warned America's place in the world is "in jeopardy," but declared a Trump presidency will kick off "a new American century." Flynn blamed Obama for the rise of the Islamic State , and vaguely promised a new "path" under a President Trump. But, again, he also offered few specifics, suggesting only that Trump would cease releasing terrorist detainees from the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility. And he promised the New York real estate mogul would use tougher words than has Obama. But hawkish words and bold promises do not always solve squabbles within the national security and foreign policy establishment that advises the commander in chief, nor his or her own West Wing staff. And words about values, no matter how passionately spoken, do not necessarily translate into U.S. policies that can be neatly implemented around the globe. For the GOP, little else was on display Monday night in Cleveland. Obama Popularity Key Approval ratings of incumbents do matter – perception and the importance of executive authority Dickerson 7/5 – (John Dickerson is the anchor of CBS News' Face the Nation, the number one Sunday morning public affairs program. He also serves as Political Director for CBS News; 7/5/16, “The unusual chumminess of Clinton and Obama,” Face the Nation, http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-unusual-chumminess-of-clinton-and-obama/, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

In their first public campaign stop together, President Obama and Hillary Clinton visit the purple state of North Carolina Monday. Mr. Obama has a mixed record in North Carolina, which went for him the first time he ran in 2008 and then denied him a victory in 2012, when he lost to Mitt Romney by 90,000 votes. If Hillary Clinton is offering a third Obama term, 2016 will be the rubber match.

The last time the relationship between candidate and incumbent was this close was in 1988 when Ronald Reagan stumped for his vice president, George H.W. Bush. Given how tricky that association was, the Clinton-Obama tandem may be the least fraught alliance between incumbent and campaigner in presidential history.

Usually, presidential candidates are not this chummy with the incumbent president of the same party. It's a little like the relationship between a teenager and a parent. The child must rely on the parent for certain things only a parent can provide, but the teen resents the dependency. (Get Out of My Life, but First Could You Drive Me & Cheryl to the Mall is the title of a great parenting book that captures this phenomenon.)

In 1960, President Eisenhower, known for his hidden-hand style of leadership inadvertently gave Nixon the Heisman when asked about his number two. He hadn't meant to. In fact, he'd been insisting to reporters at a news conference that Nixon had been involved in shaping policy. But then when he was asked to name an idea that had originated with Nixon, Eisenhower said "If you give me a week, I might think of one." Kennedy used the line in a campaign ad to undermine Nixon's repeated claim that he had more experience than Kennedy.

In 1968, Vice President Hubert Humphrey desperately tried to run out from under Lyndon Johnson and his unpopular Vietnam policies. Humphrey only saw his numbers really improve when he finally broke with the president on the war.

In 2000, Al Gore avoided Bill Clinton so much that according to Taylor Branch's book The Clinton Tapes Clinton complained to Gore after the race that he was disappointed that he wasn't used more. Gore was angry Clinton hadn't apologized to him about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and he blamed Clinton for his loss to George Bush.

Candidates want to stand on their own two feet to give voters a unique figure to get excited about. Association with the old boss makes that harder because people think you're just a weak imitation of the guy they used to like. After seven years in Clinton's shadow, Gore famously fought to show that he was an Alpha Dog, paying feminist Naomi Wolf $15,000 a month to give him advice on how he could appear more assertive (she reportedly told him, among other things, to wear more earth tones).

Vice President George H.W. Bush kept trying to convince Reagan's aides to put him at the center of administration events so that he could burnish his own public image but grew frustrated when they didn't. "It's almost as if I don't exist," Bush wrote in his diary, according to Jon Meacham's Destiny and Power.

Bush also had to navigate around the Iran-Contra Affair in which he was implicated. Still, Reagan's approval rating was near 60 percent at the end of his term and the duo was the only one since FDR to win three consecutive terms for the same party.

In 2008, John McCain didn't want to be near George W. Bush in his campaign. "I understood he had to establish his independence," Bush wrote. "I thought it looked defensive for John to distance himself from me. I was confident I could have helped him make his case. But the decision was his. I was disappointed I couldn't do more to help him."

Vice presidents or administration officials who try to distance themselves from the presidents they served are engaged in a totally bootless pursuit. (You can roll your eyes at your parents but you can't pretend you don't share the same genes.) Voters don't buy it , which makes efforts to wriggle out from the reality of things look disingenuous. It also creates an ongoing tension that can fill any news cycle as aides fight a shadow war in the press.

This connection between campaigns and incumbents is even stronger in the modern world of polarization, where little gets done through the legislature. Presidents rely on executive action more , which means the nominee of a party is ever more tied to the incumbent whose work they always promise not to undo. Their opponents, on the other hand, can make easy promises to shred all executive actions on the first day.

How helpful can Barack Obama be to Hillary Clinton? His approval rating is near 50 percent now, and it has been climbing to heights not seen since his re-election bid. Some political scientists argue that the approval rating of the incumbent is a possible predictor of electoral success.

The president will use his current experience in the Situation Room to attest to Clinton's readiness for the job. When Mr. Obama endorsed her several weeks ago, he put her at center stage in the bin Laden raid when citing her qualifications.

The president has particular strength in the African American community. In 2012, when appealing to black voters, he asked them to have his back. Now he'll ask them to do it against the man who led the effort to suggest he was not a legitimate president because of his Kenyan birth.

North Carolina has the largest African American population of any of the traditionally competitive states, at 22 percent, slightly higher than Virginia, which has a 20 percent black population and where we will also likely see President Obama campaign. North Carolina also has a large share of suburban female voters and college-educated voters, two groups the Clinton team hopes to target against Trump.

President Obama once said he understood that voters needed to have that "new car smell," which some took as a dig at Hillary Clinton. There's no more of that now. H e's all in. It's the best way he can protect his legac y. Plus, he also really dislikes Donald Trump.

Obama’s rising popularity ensures Clinton wins in 2016 – attempts to distance from plan or stick obama with the blame only undermine her coattails strategy Stanage 16 --- Niall, Contributor @ The Hill, "Clinton's ace in the hole: Obama," 5/29, http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/281575-hillary-clintons-ace-in-the-hole-obama)

Hillary Clinton will have a not-so- secret weapon in her quest for the White House: President Obama. Obama’s approval ratings have been marching up ward since the start of the year. He retains immense popularity with the Democratic base, including vital groups such as young people, with whom Clinton has struggled. And experts also say that there is no one better positioned to unify the party behind the former secretary of State as her long and sometimes bitter struggle with primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) draws to a close. If Obama could run for a third-term, “he’d be reelected in a walk,” said New York-based Democratic strategist Jonathan Rosen. “ He can play a huge role in bring ing the Democratic base and independents, together to unite behind her candidacy .” That could be particularly important given evidence from the primary season that suggests Clinton has failed to thrill some parts of the Obama coalition, even while she has drawn strong support from other blocs. She has struggled mightily among younger voters, for example, even while beating Sanders by huge margins among African-American Democrats. The political relationship between Obama and Clinton is a long and knotty on e . Distrust still festers among some of the aides who worked for each candidate during their titanic 2008 primary struggle. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton rallied support for Obama in the general election that year, even coming to the Democratic National Convention floor to move a motion for the then-Illinois senator to become the nominee. In 2012, former President Bill Clinton — whose role in the 2008 primary was contentious — gave a famously effective speech lauding Obama’s economic record. Before Hillary Clinton began her quest for the presidency this time around, she seemed to distance herself from the man whom she served as secretary of State. Back in August 2014 , she critiqued a foreign-policy view synonymous with Obama saying, “Great nations need organizing principles and ‘Don’t do stupid stuff’ is not an organizing principle.” That attitude carried through into the early months of the campaign. Last fall, according to NPR, she told voters in Davenport, Iowa, “I am not running for my husband’s third term of President Obama’s third term. I am running for my first term.” Clinton’s rhetoric shifted as the challenge from Sanders became more serious, however. On healthcare, she cast herself as the protector of Obama’s signature domestic achievement, the Affordable Care Act. A Clinton ad on gun control featured the candidate saying, of the president, “ I’m with him.” Part of Clinton’s pivot was clearly aimed at stopping the Sanders insurgency in its tracks. But Clinton’s political proximity to Obama could pay dividends in the general election, too. Gallup’s daily tracking poll at the end of last week showed 52 percent of adults approving of Obama’s job performance and 44 percent disapproving. At the beginning of the year, Obama won approval from just 45 percent of adults in the equivalent poll, while 51 percent disapproved. Some independent experts believe that the feverish tone of the primary season in both parties has fueled Obama’s climb. “As the conflicts got more into the gutter during the primary season, President Obama looks much better by comparison,” said Grant Reeher, a professor of political science at Syracuse University. “I think that he personally has been helped by what has happened in both primaries — but particularly the Republican one — which reminded people why they liked the guy eight years ago.” Experts like Reeher noted that traditionally it has been difficult for a candidate to win the White House after his or her party has held the presidency for the preceding eight years. Only once since 1948 has someone pulled off that feat. President George H.W. Bush succeeded his fellow Republican President Reagan by winning the 1988 election. But 2016 could be exceptional. The polarizing nature of the presumptive Republican nominee could leave some voters seeking a “safe haven” with a known quantity such as Clinton, experts say. That dynamic could be enough to counteract Clinton’s own lowly favorability numbers, as well as the traditional reluctance to give a party three successive White House terms. “It is obviously a challenge to win the White House for three straight elections and as a candidate, as a front-runner, everyone takes shots at you. But that challenge can be overcome when you have a popular sitting president,” said Democratic strategist Evan Stavisky. Obama popularity means Clinton wins – EXCELLENT predictor of her chances Goldstein 5/28/16 (Ken, Political Commentator @ Bloomberg News, "Analysis: Recent national polls should worry Clinton - See more at: http://amestrib.com/news/analysis-recent- national-polls-should-worry-clinton#sthash.TAHFC0yQ.dpuf," http://amestrib.com/news/analysis-recent-national-polls-should-worry-clinton)

With that in mind, one data point to pay attention to is President Barack Obama’s job approval number. It is now more than 50 percent, according to Gallup and a variety of other surveys, and that should be good news for Clinton. Even though Obama is not on the ticket, the approval rating of the incumbent president is a n excellent predictor of the vote share of his party’s nominee. Clinton’s chances are greatly buoyed by an improving view of Obama’s job performance. Obama’s approval ratings are increasing – that’s a KEY predictor for Dem success in 2016 Klein 16 (Ezra, Political commentator @ Vox, citing Alan Abramowitz, Prof of Poli Sci @ Emory Univ., 3/29, "This presidential campaign is making Americans like Obama — and that's good for Dems in November," http://www.vox.com/latest-news/2016/3/29/11326606/campaign- americans-like-obama)

Political scientist Alan Abramowitz emailed over an interesting insight about the effect the presidential race is having on Barack Obama's numbers — and what that might mean in November: All the noise being made by the presidential campaign, especially by the Republican campaign, has taken attention away from what may turn out to be more significant for the general election — Barack Obama’s rising approval rating. Obama’s weekly approval rating in the Gallup tracking poll (I ignore the daily fluctuations which are largely meaningless) has risen to its highest level in many months — 53 percent approval vs. 44 percent disapproval for the past week. This is potentially very significant for the November election because much research, including my own, has found that the president’s approval rating is a key predictor of the election results even when the president is not on the ballot. Thus a very unpopular George W. Bush probably doomed John McCain to defeat in 2008 no matter what happened during the campaign that year. A 53-44 approval-disapproval balance would give Democrats a good shot at keeping the White House even if they were not running against a badly divided Republican Party led by perhaps the most unpopular nominee in decades. So why has Obama’s approval rating been rising recently? Several factors may be involved including an improving economy but one of the most important [may] well be the GOP presidential campaign. The more voters see of the leading GOP candidates, the better Obama looks. Along these lines, it is probably not a coincidence that there has been an especially large jump in Obama’s approval rating among women which now stands at 58 percent. Obama approval ratings key to Dem chances in 2016 Bernstein 16 (Jonathan, Bloomberg View columnist covering U.S. politics, "Commentary: Obama's rising popularity is good news for Democrats," 3/30, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-barack-obama-approval-rating- hillary-clinton-20160330-story.html)

President Barack Obama's surging approval rating is becoming a major plot line of the 2016 election. Obama has reached 53 percent approval from Gallup, a three-year high, and he's been at or above 50 percent in that survey for four weeks. HuffPollster's aggregate of all current polls gives Obama an average approval rating of 49.2 percent, compared with 47.3 percent disapproval. He bottomed out in the first week of December at 44.1 percent, according to that estimate, so he's gained five percentage points over an almost four-month sustained rally. That should help Hillary Clinton 's chances in November. Current presidential approval, along with some measure of economic performance, both have strong effects on general election voting. They aren't perfect predictors, but they seem to make a difference. In the Gallup survey, Obama is now doing a little bit better than Ronald Reagan was in late March 1988. He's well behind Dwight Eisenhower and Bill Clinton during their final years in the White House, and far ahead of George W. Bush.

Yes Clinton tied to Obama – she wants to ride his coattails – but NEW political controversies can impact her fortunes Collinson 16 (Stephen, Political Analyst @ CNN, "Barack Obama's last campaign," 5/7, http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/07/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-last-campaign/) Washington (CNN) President Barack Obama's popularity is growing just in time for him to wage the final campaign of his political life. A CNN/ORC poll published Friday found Obama's approval rating at 51%. He's now been in positive territory since February -- the longest period since shortly after his re-election in 2012. And 49% of those polled say things in the country are going very or fairly well -- up 7% since January. The late-term boost in popularity is good news for a President whose achievements have often come at a heavy political price in a deeply partisan age. But it could be even better news for Hillary Clinton , who is preparing for a fierce general election clash with Donald Trump and may need to deploy a popular Obama to the campaign trail to drive up Democratic enthusiasm. Though Obama yet hasn't formally endorsed Clinton, who remains in a primary race against Bernie Sanders, he was eager Friday to take on Trump and preview his arguments for the fall. "We are in serious times and this is a really serious job," Obama said in his first news conference since Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee this week. "This is not entertainment. This is not a reality show. This is a contest for the presidency of the United States." His remarks reflect the fact that though many Democrats and Republicans believe Clinton is favored to win given Trump's high negatives with key demographics, lack of political experience and controversial rhetoric, the White House will take nothing for granted. "Our view is that he will campaign and he will be out there like the nominee is having the race of their life," said a senior administration official on condition of anonymity to discuss internal thinking. "That is how you have to run in presidential elections." The GOP resistance to Donald Trump Hitting the stump for his chosen successor -- always a nostalgic moment for a President leaving office -- Obama will draw contrasts with the gains made in his presidency and what he believes Republicans, under Trump, would represent. 'Holes in his shoes' "There is no question that the President will be rolling up his sleeves and be out there quite a bit on the campaign trail in the summer and the fall," said White House Communications Director Jen Psaki. "He has already done quite a bit of fundraising. I think people can expect that he will get some holes in his shoes from the amount of campaigning he will do." Obama will likely spend time courting voters who twice backed his White House campaigns -- millennials, Latinos and African Americans -- all of whom Clinton needs in November. The President and his wife, Michelle, could be powerful advocates for Clinton in big cities in key swing states, like Cleveland, Miami and Denver, where Trump must cut into the Democratic vote to win the election. "President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama are the two most popular elected and non-elected officials amongst minorities, particularly African Americans," said Tharon Johnson, a Georgia Democratic strategist who ran Obama's southern re-election campaign in 2012 and now backs Clinton. "President Obama will be able to speak to the minority community with not just rhetoric like Trump but with concrete successes like (Obamacare), the growth in the economy etc that will ignite that demographic," Johnson said. Johnson said Obama would also be an asset in uniting Democrats after a primary that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders plans to pursue until the convention in July. "Mobilizing the Sanders wing of that party is something a sitting president like Obama who is popular with the base can probably do better than anyone," Johnson said. Given his improving approval ratings, Obama also plans to venture into more unexpected territory, White House aides said, including suburban areas and midwestern states. Such an itinerary could draw him into direct conflict with Trump, who will brandish a fiercely protectionist trade agenda in areas that he says have been hurt by economic competitors like China and the economy under Obama. Obama's potential to help There is every sign Clinton understands Obama's potential to help her. Although she has repeatedly said she's not running for Obama's third term -- or that of her husband -- she has praised and defended the President in front of Democratic audiences. And having been on the inside when then-Vice President Al Gore spurned President Bill Clinton's offers of help in 2000, fearing fallout from his boss's personal dramas could be damaging, Clinton has special insight on the president-versus-candidate dynamic. But Obama's gaze is not just on the future that will unfold when he is an ex-politician. He has personal political business to get done as well. In some ways, Obama is a unique lame duck president as he is in significantly b etter positions than many of the term- limited presidents who preceded him. In 1988, Ronald Reagan was popular, but much of his political energy had been punctured by the Iran-Contra affair. And in his late 70s, he had none of the vigor that the younger Obama still retains -- despite his increasingly snowy hair. Bill Clinton, though personally popular when he left office, was still overshadowed politically by the impeachment drama and President George W. Bush's second term approval sank under the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the economic meltdown and never recovered. Spared such trials, these are heady and poignant times in the White House as the President basks in a political boost in the twilight of his term. "In my final year, my approval ratings keep going up. The last time I was this high, I was trying to decide on my major," Obama joked at the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner last week. The unexpected Still, if there is one lesson of the Obama presidency, it is that the unexpected is usually just around the corner. A sudden game-changing event -- be it a terror attack, global crisis or an unexpected economic slump -- could change the political weather. Obama is actively campaigning for Hillary and his support of her unites democrats—anything he does will spillover to her Karni, 7/5 (Annie, correspondent and reporter, 07/05/16, “Obama and Clinton rally against Trump,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-and-clinton-rally-against- trump-225086)

When President Obama takes the stage at the Charlotte Convention Center with Clinton on Tuesday afternoon for their first joint rally of the 2016 campaign, it will be most notable for how far the two leaders of the Democratic Party have come in the eight intervening years. “It is as far from fraught as can be,” said Obama’s former chief strategist, David Axelrod, of Obama's long- anticipated campaign trail debut. “He’s been chomping at the bit to get out there. There’s so many reasons why he feels strongly about this — part of it is his genuine respect for her, part of it is his feelings about the alternative. There’s no half-hearted warrior here.” Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant, said of Tuesday’s rally that unlike eight years ago, “they have such a great relationship that there’s nothing to psychoanalyze. He wants to do everything he can for her.” Coming just weeks before Clinton is expected to announce her running mate, the Charlotte rally will also serve as a reminder that the Clinton-Obama alliance remains the Democratic Party’s defining partnership no matter whom Clinton chooses as her No. 2. The idea of the first female president following the first African-American president bonds the two leaders in their own minds and in the minds of their supporters, aides said. Some Democratic operatives with young children like to joke that their kids could be 16 before they realize a white man can serve as commander in chief. McAuliffe, who has been pushing his home state Sen. Tim Kaine as Clinton’s running mate, outlined what Clinton is looking for in a partner on the trail. “I’ve known Hillary for 30 years — she wants someone who can be a collaborator,” he told POLITICO. “President Clinton and Al Gore used to have their weekly lunches. That’s ingrained in Hillary’s head as well. She wants a partner, she doesn’t want someone who’s going to upstage her. You want someone helping to push your agenda.” But so far, it's the outgoing president, with his 52 percent approval rating, who fits that bill. The risk is Donald Trump and other Republican detractors will seize on the rally as further evidence that Clinton is running for Obama’s third term. And on the heels of last week’s energetic rally with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the two events could remind voters of how Clinton on her own remains a low- appeal candidate in need of star power to generate enthusiasm. But Obama’s popularity among the Democratic voter blocs Clinton needs outweigh any potential drawbacks. On Tuesday, what will matter more than any close study of their body language, like eight years ago, is how the president posits his case for the woman he would like to see as his successor and safeguard of his legacy. Obama allies said they expect him to deliver a first-hand account of what kind of temperament the presidency requires. As a former rival who came around to Clinton, White House aides said, Obama can also make the most convincing case to voters who remain ambivalent about her. Clinton’s own willingness to serve under the rival she once viewed as an unqualified upstart also helps to cast her in a flattering light. The image most ingrained in Axelrod’s mind of Clinton’s service in Obama’s Cabinet, for instance, is her reaction to the 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act. “The day after it passed, she got up and she gave him a big hug,” he recalled, “she was hugging and high-fiving everyone in the Situation Room. She was so fundamentally excited that this had happened. It was a touching moment. What it said was there are bigger things than egos and ambitions.” The rally Tuesday is also expected to represent a unique moment in the campaign: Obama and Clinton are not planning many joint appearances in the months to come. “They will be more apart than together,” said a White House official. “They can both draw crowds and energize and excite voters.” The Charlotte rally also marks a break from modern presidential election history: It’s been more than half a century since a sitting president was called upon by a potential successor for help — and truly delivered. With approval ratings in the 20s, George W. Bush was no asset to John McCain in 2008. And hot off Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 2000, “Clinton was a very mixed bag for Al Gore,” said Democratic strategist and former Gore adviser Robert Shrum. Gore kept his distance from Clinton, rarely even calling for the advice that the insulted outgoing president was desperate to give. George H.W. Bush in 1988 needed to make a case beyond running as Ronald Reagan’s third term and needed some distance from the popular but aging president — Reagan’s best pitch for his vice president, at a rare joint rally in California, was that playing the role of standby equipment as a vice president was a role that didn’t “fit easily on such a man.” In Richard Nixon’s 1960 race against John F. Kennedy, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s assessment about his own vice president’s lack of experience — “If you give me a week I might think of one, I don’t remember,” he said, when asked to give an example of Nixon’s contribution to his administration — ended up in a negative ad run by the Kennedy campaign. In contrast, Obama is the rare “unalloyed asset” for Clinton, said Shrum. “People who don’t like him are never going to vote for Hillary anyway,” he said. “There’s no downside at all. He mobilizes the base of the party; he’s got over 50 percent job approval. There’s no reason you wouldn’t use him as much as you can.” “It’s a smart move for her, and it’s a smart move for the president,” said Roy Neel, a former adviser to Bill Clinton and Al Gore. “Obama can be extremely helpful to Hillary, certainly to rally African-American, Hispanic voters, and young people, the base that elected him in 2008.”

Trump and Hillary are in a dead heat in swing states like North Carolina-- silence on House Bill 2 and FBI probe means that she needs her connection to Obama to gain ground in those key states PORTILLO et al, 7/5 (ELY, ELIZABETH LELAND AND JIM MORRILL, consultants and reporters, JULY 5, 2016, “Clinton criticizes Trump, emphasizes Obama’s support at Charlotte rally,” The Charlotte Observer, http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics- government/election/article87726277.html)

The Clinton campaign hopes the president’s support translates into votes in this battleground state, which Obama narrowly won in 2008 but lost in 2012. It was their first joint appearance and came on a day with another significant development for the presumptive Democratic nominee: FBI Director James Comey announced that his agency won’t recommend Clinton face charges in the long-running probe into her use of a private email server when she served as Obama’s secretary of state. But he criticized her and her aides for “extremely careless” email practices and mishandling classified information. Neither Obama nor Clinton mentioned or even alluded to the FBI findings. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters that while the two spent time together aboard Air Force One they didn’t discuss the investigation or the FBI’s announcement. The importance of Obama’s visit is underscored by the average of polls compiled by Real Clear Politics. It shows North Carolina in a statistical dead heat: Clinton with 44 percent of votes, Donald Trump with 43.3 percent. No Republican since Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 has won the White House without carrying North Carolina. “Hillary Clinton has to be the next president of the United States,” Obama said, echoing Clinton’s words about him in 2008 when she said, “He must be our president.” “I’m here today because I believe in Hillary Clinton.” He described her as smart, steady, compassionate and respected worldwide, a contrast to Trump. “This is not a reality show, this is reality,” Obama said. “You don’t have the luxury of just saying whatever pops into your head.” ‘North Carolina is ground zero’ Clinton called for policies popular among the Democratic base: Paid family leave, a higher minimum wage, gun control and continuation of the Affordable Care Act. But neither she nor Obama addressed issues that some North Carolina supporters hoped they might: specifically, the new House Bill 2 law that bars local governments from enacting anti-discrimination protections. Instead, the two politicians spent much of their time bragging on each other. They referenced their contentious primary fight in 2008 and described how they went from rivalry to friendship. Behind them, a giant wall banner proclaimed the theme: “Stronger together.” Clinton, who spoke first, praised Obama as “someone who has never forgotten where he came from.” To the delight of the crowd, she then deadpanned, “Donald, if you’re out there tweeting, it’s Hawaii.” Obama, she said, is a president who knows how to keep America strong. Trump, on the other hand, “is simply unqualified and temperamentally unfit to be our president.” “Can you imagine him sitting in the Oval Office the next time our country faces a crisis?” Obama himself mocked Trump. “Even Republicans on the other side don’t really know what the guy’s talking about,” the president said. “They don’t. … Am I joking? No.” The rally drew more than 7,000 people to the Charlotte Convention Center – 5,500 in Hall C, where they spoke, and another 2,400 in overflow. Among those attending were Roy Cooper, the state attorney general who is hoping to unseat Gov. Pat McCrory, and Deborah Ross, who is locked in a fight with Sen. Richard Burr. “We’re going to turn North Carolina blue in November,” Ross said, and Cooper echoed the sentiment. “North Carolina is ground zero. Why else would our president and our next president choose North Carolina to campaign together for the first time?” he said. “They know we can win this state.” Said U.S. Rep. Alma Adams: “Let’s help Hillary turn this mother out.” Reaction to email probe Many at the rally weren’t aware of the FBI decision earlier in the day about Clinton’s private email server. But they said Comey’s decision not to recommend charges didn’t surprise them. Megan Brogan of Fort Mill said she trusts Clinton more than any candidate – even more than she trusted Obama when he first ran. “She’s got a track record. He was relatively inexperienced.” But Comey called Clinton’s actions “extremely careless” and said it’s possible hostile powers gained access to her communications while she was secretary of state. In advance of Comey’s announcement, N.C. Republican chairman Robin Hayes criticized the joint appearance by Clinton and Obama. Hayes complained to reporters of the “absolute inequity and unfairness of a sitting president whose political appointee is the attorney general of the United States, whose running mate is endorsing a candidate under investigation by the FBI.” Obama support for Clinton is key to unify minorities, older voters, young voters, Bernie supporters and independents—she can’t part with him on foreign policy without losing these groups Zitner, 7/6 (Aaron, National Politics Editor, Jul 6, 2016, “Why Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Needs Barack Obama,” The Wall Street Journal, http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/07/06/why- hillary-clintons-campaign-needs-barack-obama/)

He called her tested and qualified. “We need Hillary’s steadiness, and her levelheadedness, and her brilliance and her temperament right now,” President Barack Obama said on Tuesday in his first 2016 campaign appearance with the woman he hopes will succeed him in office. Piling compliments onto Hillary Clinton might seem like an underpowered strategy in the face of high voter skepticism of her honesty and trustworthiness. Nearly 70% of voters say in Wall Street Journal/NBC News polling that Mrs. Clinton’s honesty is a serious concern. And the distrust could be fueled further by the rebuke Tuesday from FBI Director James Comey , who said Mrs. Clinton was “extremely careless” in handling the nation’s secrets via email, even if her actions did not merit criminal charges. But Mr. Obama’s testimony in support of Mrs. Clinton’s character might resonate with two groups of voters in particular. If it does, it would help Mrs. Clinton with the important task of unifying her party after the long primary contest against Sen. Bernie Sanders. The first group is voters who hold Mr. Obama in high regard, but Mrs. Clinton less so. These Obama-but-not-Clinton voters are a meaningful part of the electorate; many fit the profile of typical Democratic Party supporters. They’re the kind of voters Mrs. Clinton can’t afford to lose. Nearly 60% of voters under age 35, for example, reject Mrs. Clinton for Republican Donald Trump or a third-party candidate in a test match-up in Journal/NBC polling. Mr. Obama could have some sway with that group. A sizable set of young voters—some 29%— approve of Mr. Obama’s job performance but also say, at least so far, that they are not backing Mrs. Clinton for president. Similarly, 28% of Sanders supporters—another group that Mrs. Clinton should dominate—approve of Mr. Obama’s job performance but do not pick Mrs. Clinton in a four-way race for president. Some 20% of liberals and 20% of moderates fit the same description. Mrs. Clinton is having a particularly tough time with independents. Some 70% of them hold a negative image of her, a larger share than those who view Mr. Trump negatively. More independent voters back Libertarian Gary Johnson than Mrs. Clinton in a four- way race for president, Journal/NBC polling shows. But nearly a third of these “no-to-Clinton” independents also have a positive view of Mr. Obama’s performance in office, suggesting that they may be open to his message of support for her. Mr. Obama may be persuasive with a second set of voters—those who support both him and Mrs. Clinton, but who may need an additional push to vote this year. Nearly 90% of African-Americans, for example, choose Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Trump on a two-way ballot. Turnout has been high among African-Americans in the past two elections, with Mr. Obama on the ballot. The president will likely make multiple appearances this fall aimed at ensuring that turnout does not decline this year. Clinton = Blamed

Any change in China policy exposes Clinton to political risk Rong 15 (Xiaoqing, New york based contributor @ Global Times, "Clinton may find it best to be quiet on China," 4/16, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/917207.shtml)

China has become a fixed topic in US elections at state and federal level in recent years. Most of the sound bites are negative. And in many elections, candidates blame each other for being too soft on China. A Washington Post editorial during the 2012 presidential election explained the reason wittily: " It's a n iron law of US politics: You can't go wrong bashing China. Polls show the public believes that the US is losing jobs due to unfair economic competition from abroad, especially from China . And so, every four years, presidential candidates fall all over themselves promising to get tough on imports." Sometimes the Sinophobia can be stretched to an insane level. In 2013, when the now Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell was campaigning for re-election in Kentucky, his wife Elaine Chao, the Taiwan-born former secretary of labor in George W. Bush's administration, was attacked by supporters of his rival for being a "Chinese wife" who prompted her husband to "create jobs for China." Clinton doesn't want to be seen as "soft" on China. In her 2014 memoir Hard Choices, she called on other Asian countries to form an alliance so they could collectively stand up to China. She also criticized China's censorship. She mentioned a confrontation with a Chinese leader about Tibet. And she devoted a whole chapter to how the Americans helped Chen Guangcheng, the blind activist who went to the US Embassy in Beijing and then was allowed to leave China for asylum in the US. The attacks have continued. Clinton recently used her Twitter account to criticize China for detaining five feminist activists. But even this "tough on China" tone doesn't seem to have convinced her political opponents or even some of the people on her side. The alliance among smaller Asian countries she hoped to see is at best weak. And now it could be further dissolved with the establishment of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. The "James Bond-style activity" of Chen's American saviors described in her book doesn't fit entirely with Chen's own account in his newly published autobiography in which he blamed the US for not fulfilling its promises to him. And the thorniest issue Clinton faces might be money. According to joint research of the Washington Examiner and watchdog Judicial Watch, during Clinton's tenure as secretary of state, her husband, former president Bill Clinton, made $48 million from foreign countries for giving 215 speeches, including $1.7 million for giving four speeches in China or to Chinese-sponsored entities in the US. In addition, entities that have close ties to China donated between $750,000 to $1.75 million and the Clinton Foundation, the family's charitable organization. Clinton resigned from the board of the family foundation right after Sunday's announcement to avoid conflicts of interest. Still, her opponents will not easily let go of the opportunity to question her ethics. What may also be brought up in the process is Clinton's once close relationship to Chinese-American fundraiser Norman Hsu whose 2007 arrest for illegal fundraising prompted her to return $850,000 in campaign donations he helped to raise. Hsu was later indicted for fundraising fraud. In 1996, the Democratic National Committee also returned $360,000 in donations raised by questionable Taiwan-born fundraiser Johnny Chung for Bill Clinton's reelection campaign. Chung said he got some money from the mainland, which denied the connection. Clinton's campaign will reportedly cost $2.5 billion. The figure has already raised many eyebrows. There is no doubt Clinton has the ability to raise whatever she needs without crossing the line. But the astronomical spending will likely bring up all the money-related questions and memories and mean that Clinton has an incentive to keep her distance from China. Maybe. Clinton should keep in mind a warning from Henry Paulson. When asked at an event at the Asian Society on Monday what he'd like to hear the presidential candidates say about China, the former US treasury secretary quipped: " I'd like them to say as little as possible ."

The plan creates clear contrast between the parties on national security --- allowing it to swing the election – past empirics don’t apply – claim that Clinton can’t be blamed for China softline is a NEG uniqueness arg Amble 1/28/16 (John, former U.S. Army intelligence officer and veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, AND PhD candidate at the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies at King’s College London, “We Still Don’t Know if Foreign Policy Matters in the Presidential Election,” http://warontherocks.com/2016/01/we-still-dont-know-if-foreign-policy-matters-in-the- presidential-election/)

So wait, is this a foreign policy election or not? Good question, one that Elizabeth Saunders sought to answer this week in The Washington Post. One reason voters sometimes don’t support candidates based on foreign policy issues, even when they profess to be concerned with them, is because the divides between candidates’ positions can be less stark than on issues like, say, taxes and social welfare policy : “Consider Vietnam and the 1968 election … [when] most individuals’ votes were not based on Vietnam — because there was little difference between the public positions taken by Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon. … That’s potentially true in 2016 as well. The most likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has taken more hawkish foreign policy positions than many recent Democratic candidates, presumably bringing her positions closer to the more traditionally hawkish Republican side.” Democratic candidates avoiding foreign policy While the GOP field is happy to talk about national security and foreign policy issues, the Democrats (as we’ve noted before) are simply not interested. For Buzzfeed, Zack Beauchamp talked to Democratic foreign policy wonks who aren’t happy about that. Some of the highlights: Heather Hurlburt, New America Foundation: “The discussion of national security in the presidential debate is terrible. You sit around and say, ‘If only they would talk more about our issues in the context of the presidential campaign,’ and then they do. Just be careful what you wish for.” Matt Duss, Foundation for Middle East Peace: “Whenever there’s a crisis, Democratic leaders scramble to make statements about what we should do. But there’s a failure to constantly articulate a progressive vision for foreign policy.” Rachel Kleinfeld, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “Hillary is probably a little more interventionist than the Democratic base would like. Bernie Sanders is closer to where the Democratic base is … [but] that’s not the message he wants his campaign to be about. Although Clinton is kind of an exception To be fair, in this week’s Democratic town hall hosted by CNN, Clinton did spend a lot of time tackling foreign policy issues , especially compared to her two opponents. She addressed the Iranian nuclear program, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the Islamic State, radicalization, and Benghazi. But as Frida Ghitis writes for CNN, “there was, however, a downside for Clinton. … The once seemingly inevitable Democratic nominee opted to tie herself ever more closely to President Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Indeed, come the general election , Clinton’s full-throated defense of the controversial Iran deal and other foreign policy choices will make it that much hard er to distance herself from the broader historic catastrophe of the unraveling of the Middle East that has unfolded during Obama ’s watch.” Clinton won’t be able to distance herself from the plan Dueck 15 – PhD, Professor of Policy, Government and International Affairs @ GMU (Colin, “The Obama Doctrine,” p. 193-194)

Presidential elections are among other things a referendum on the previous four years.58 If the existing president is unpopular , then a nominee from the same party cannot altogether escape the association with an unpopular incumbent, John McCain was a very different person from George W, Bush in 2008, just as Hubert Humphrey was a very different person from Lyndon Johnson in 1968, but when an incumbent is unpopular it envelops and drags down his would be successor. President Obama's overall approval ratings have hovered around since the summer of 2013—not as low as Bush's by the end of his second term, but still not at all good. If a majority of Americans continue to disapprove of Obama by 2016, and to feel the country is on the wrong track, then voters will hold the Dem ocratic Party's 2016 presidential nominee responsible for Obama's performance, regardless of candidate messaging . This includes voter evaluation of incumbent performance on foreign policy issues. A party's presidential nominee can try to distance him or herself from a weak incumbent, but if voters disapprove of a president's foreign policy, inevitably this hurts any would-be successor from the very same party. To be sure, presidential nominees from the party out of power must develop credible and constructive policy alternatives. But asking voters to reflect on the failure or success of an existing president’s foreign policy record is quite rightly a major part of what opposing nominees can and should do.

Clinton is linked to Obama – she’ll get the blame. Kilgore 5-25-16. [Ed, political analyst, "How Running for ‘Obama’s 3rd Term’ Became a Political Asset for Hillary Clinton" New York Magazine -- nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/obama-turning-into-november-asset-for-clinton.html]

[ T ]he attack against Clinton that has emerged the earliest is her obvious ties to the president and her tortured attempts to create daylight between herself and her former boss. “ There isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. She will continue foursquare … and put forward Barack Obama’s policy in a third and fourth term,” is how Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a 2012 also-ran positioning herself as the Anti- Hillary, put it to Politico in early October. The general -election risk of Clinton being perceived as running for "Barack Obama's third term" rose when she suddenly faced a serious challenge from Bernie Sanders and chose to associate herself closely with the incumbent strictly because it made sense in the dynamics of Democratic primaries where constituencies (e.g., African-Americans) particularly fond of Obama became critical to her ability to win. Much as she'd need to "pivot to the center" after Sanders generated left-bent pressure during the nomination contest, would she also need to pivot away from the controversial incumbent and once again become her "own woman"?

Hillary is seen as an Obama third term. Al-Gharbi 5-29-16. [Musa, Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University, "We may be just this screwed: Donald Trump has an easier path to victory than you think" Salon -- www.salon.com/2016/05/29/we_may_be_just_this_screwed_donald_trump_has_an_easier_path_to_victory_than_you_think/]

A Referendum on Obama’s Administration and Bill Clinton’s Historically speaking, it is rare that a party that completed two terms in the Oval Office manages to win a third. Granted, Obama has been a transformational president, and his popularity remains high. However, the problem facing Hillary is that she’s not only going to be held to account for the failures and shortcomings of the Obama administration, but also of her husband’s tenure in office.

Hillary linked to Obama – any attempts at distancing will backfire. Fabian 6-11-16. [Jordan, White House correspondent, "Clinton’s third-term dilemma" The Hill -- thehill.com/homenews/administration/283075-clintons-third-term-dilemma]

Hillary Clinton faces a unique dilemma on the 2016 campaign trail: How much to embrace President Obama , and how much to run away from him. Obama remains a relatively popular figure, with a 51 percent approval rating from Gallup and a 90 percent approval rating among Democrats. Yet public opinion on the Obama economic record is decidedly mixed. Sixty-five percent of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, according to the Real Clear Politics average, while 27 percent say the country is on the right track. The polling and data can sometimes seem contradictory. Only 42 percent in an Associated Press poll last month described the U.S. economy as good, but two-thirds said their own households were doing well. Obama can hardly wait to get on the campaign trail with Clinton, and the presumptive Democratic nominee is happy to have him. The two will campaign together for the first time this Thursday in Wisconsin, a state where Clinton will be favored this fall. Yet Clinton has handled questions about the Obama economy with the care of a politician who can see downsides to fully embracing Obama. In an interview Wednesday with Fox News’s Bret Baier, Clinton initially dodged questions about what she would do differently than Obama on the economy, turning to a well-worn campaign statement about how Obama hasn’t received enough credit for the economic recovery. Pressed further on how a Clinton economic team might tread differently from Obama, Clinton cited infrastructure spending and expanding manufacturing jobs as two issues she’d focus on, while blaming congressional Republicans for holding up Obama’s efforts. Clinton and Obama also have real differences — particularly on foreign policy, where Clinton has criticized the Iran nuclear deal and Obama’s handling of Syria. Republicans believe that labeling Clinton as a third-term for Obama is a winning argument for their side. Trump’s campaign motto of “Make America Great Again” pointedly sets up the Obama years as a disaster. And Republicans point to an excruciatingly slow recovery in arguing that voters hardly want four more years of Obama’s policies. Gallup found that Trump has a ten-percentage-point edge over Clinton on the question of which candidate would do a better job handling the economy — a good sign for the presumptive Republican nominee given the importance of the economy to voters. When Obama endorsed Clinton on Thursday, Trump seized on the connection. “Obama just endorsed Crooked Hillary. He wants four more years of Obama—but nobody else does!” Trump tweeted. Team Clinton’s confidence in allying itself with Obama is just as clear. “Delete your account,” Clinton tweeted back in what became her most retweeteed tweet of the campaign. Obama and Clinton talked frequently during the Democratic primary, and all signs point to a cooperative relationship going forward. The two are trying to make history. No political party has won three consecutive presidential terms since President George H.W. Bush succeeded President Reagan in 1988. Despite the victory, there were tensions between Bush and Reagan, who like Clinton and Obama had been primary rivals eight years earlier. Reagan offered Bush a tepid endorsement after he clinched the GOP nomination in May. And while Bush campaigned to continue Regan’s legacy, his attempt to establish his own identity by calling for a “kinder, gentler nation” in his convention speech irked Reagan loyalists. In 1992, Al Gore refused Bill Clinton’s help until late in the campaign due to the fallout from his sex scandal with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton, who remained popular, desperately wanted to campaign for Gore and his supporters believe the vice president’s effort to distance himself ultimately doomed his campaign. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright called it “crazy” in a 2014 interview with the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Clinton has handled questions about running for a third Obama term with care. “I'm not running for my husband's third term, I'm not running for Obama's third term,” Clinton told late-night comic Stephen Colbert last fall. “I’m running for my first term, but I'm going to do what works.” The White House has also been careful to give Clinton space. While Obama clearly wants a Clinton victory to protect his legacy and bolster his own political standing, they've stressed the Clinton campaign has the ultimate say on when and where the president will campaign. When asked Thursday if Obama wants four more years of his presidency, White House press secretary Josh Earnest replied, “no.” He pointed out Clinton has distanced herself from Obama on some key issues, such as the conflict in Syria and the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Donald Zinman, an associate professor of political science at Grand Valley State University who wrote a book titled “The Heir Apparent Presidency,” believes it’s best for Clinton to stick with Obama, even if she has to take her lumps along the way. “ It can send a confusing message to voters if a candidate who is closely aligned with the president says they are in fact very different from the president,” he said. “Trying to distance yourself from the current administration — I’m not sure how you would even do that at this point.”

Dems HAVE to align with Obama – no distancing. Hennessey 15. [Kathleen, AP Analyst, “Democrats Embrace Obama Legacy Despite Risks in 2016 Race” ABC News -- October 19 -- http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/democrats- embrace-obama-legacy-risks-2016-race-34568532)

If the recent Republican presidential debates have revealed hobbling breaks in the party, the Democrats' first political X-ray showed a couple of hairline fractures. The five Democrats on the debate stage last week in Las Vegas offered a relatively — and surprisingly — unified front on the issues at the forefront of the campaign. On solutions, the differences tended to be a matter of degree. On President Barack Obama, at times a source of considerable Democratic discontent, their positions ranged from warm embrace to polite disagreement. The sense of respect and courtesy was in sharp contrast to the public bickering on the other side and the recent history of how parties have dealt with passing control of the White House. Democrats showed they are willing to embrace Obama 's legacy, whatever the risks . Republicans continue to struggle with the fallout from George W. Bush's presidency, with years of public soul-searching and animosity toward their leadership. "You would expect in a Democratic primary field when people are crossing a broad ideological spectrum that they might be critical of the incumbent no matter who the incumbent is," Democratic pollster and strategist Celinda Lake said. "But I think Democrats demonstrated that across the spectrum it's good to run with the president rather than against him ." Under their first national spotlight, leading Democrats put forward no drastic re-imaging of Obama's signature policies. The candidates largely pledged to build on Obama's health overhaul, preserve or expand his immigration orders and continue global climate change talks. They indirectly criticized his handling of issues that the party considers to be failings of his tenure: comprehensive immigration changes, gun control, spurring middle class wage growth, cracking down on Wall Street. Opposition to a Pacific Rim trade pact was the most prominent area of disagreement. Obama noted the trend Friday, saying he found it "interesting" how few differences emerged. "I think everybody on that stage at the debate affirmed what I have said in the past, which is we agree on 95 percent of stuff and on the basic vision of a country," Obama told reporters. The candidates' cohesion around Obama is as much political calculation as a spontaneous exercise. Obama is popular with Latinos, blacks, young people and unmarried women — the core coalition that any Democrat will need to win the nomination and the White House. His approval rating hovers around 80 percent among Democrats in Gallup's recent tracking surveys. Among liberal Democrats, that number moves toward 90 percent. Democrats alienate these groups at their own peril. Front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton has started to pull away from Obama, delivering rough comments on his immigration record or deviating from his policy in Syria. But when given the biggest audience of her campaign, she promised to "build on the successes of President Obama" and "go beyond." She not only embraced Obama but also used his endorsement of her to deflect criticism. The two once debated her vote on the Iraq War, she noted, and "after the election, he asked me to become secretary of state. He valued my judgment, and I spent a lot of time with him." Clinton's rivals similarly went easy on the president, even the one whose campaign is built on a harsh critique of his economic policy. "I have a lot of respect for President Obama. I have worked with him time and time again on many, many issues," said Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. It was a softer introduction to his call for "political revolution" to unlock the government from what he contends is the control of Wall Street and corporate media. Still, the collective appreciation for the president and his policies papered over persistent rifts, particularly between the party's left flank and pragmatic middle . Can’t Distance Clinton Distanced herself on TPP, but it’s a tight rope walk, she can’t distance herself anymore. Tracy 6/21 – Matt Tracy is a journalist at the National Memo. 2016 (“Why Democrats Are Fighting Each Other Over The Trans-Pacific Partnership”, The National Memo, available online at http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-democratic-party-is-in-fighting-about-the-trans-pacific- partnership-heres-why/, accessed 7/21/16, HDA)

Clinton formerly supported TPP but officially came out against it in October , following pressure from the left wing of the party. She appointed a slew of experienced policy wonks, such as CAP President Neera Tanden and former EPA administrator and White House advisor Carol Browner, to the platform committee. The decision by Clinton’s appointees to steer clear of a full-throated opposition to TPP could be a matter of simple loyalty to President Obama, who has lauded the partnership as one that is necessary for American business to succeed in a global economy and compete with China. A number of Clinton’s appointees served in the Obama administration, and the presumptive nominee has defended the president’s legacy and her role in creating it. Paul Booth, a leader in the AFSCME public employee union and a Clinton representative on the committee, said he would prefer the platform plank on TPP to use “general, in-principle language” — providing cover, perhaps, for a greater acceptance of trade in a Clinton administration. During last week’s meeting, Rep. Keith Ellison, who represents the Sanders campaign, said, “I’d love to work with Mr. Booth, but I’m not picking up any spirit of cooperation from him.” Amid a generational shift on attitudes toward trade and globalization, it’s worth examining Sanders’ reasons for opposing the TPP. According to the Vermont senator, the partnership “would make matters worse by providing special benefits to firms that offshore jobs and by reducing the risks associated with operating in low-cost countries.” He also slammed TPP for exploiting weak labor laws by promoting trade in countries like Vietnam, which he said has been cited by the Department of Labor, Human Rights Watch, and others for its poor human rights record. Sanders also says the TPP would compromise food safety and limit access to generic pharmaceuticals — the result of a negotiation process that he says was largely carried out in secret. On Tuesday, Sanders published an op-ed column in the New York Times comparing Americans’ anxiety over trade to British voters’ feelings about the European Union. He demanded that Democrats “wake up” and oppose a deal that does not serve the American working class. “We need to fundamentally reject our ‘free trade’ policies and move to fair trade,” he wrote. “We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” Meanwhile, President Obama insists that the TPP boasts the “strongest commitments on labor and the environment of any trade agreement in history.” He has broadly praised the agreement’s dedication to leveling the playing field for American workers and businesses. The underlying message in most of Obama’s remarks about TPP, however, is that he wants to ensure the United States stays ahead of China in the global market. “The prescription of withdrawing from trade deals and focusing solely on your local market, that’s the wrong medicine,” Obama said Wednesday, responding to questions about another presidential candidate who doubts the value of global trade: Donald Trump. On the surface, the rift within the Democratic Party is summed up by the conflict between Sanders’ progressive, non-establishment appointees to the platform committee, and Clinton’s more moderate, establishment appointees. But reality is a bit more complicated: Clinton has distanced herself from the TPP , while her supporters at the highest levels of government nearly all support it (with a notable exception, Elizabeth Warren, who came out strongly against the deal a year ago). Clinton will have to carefully tiptoe around the issue because she is counting on President Obama to make an economic argument for her candidacy in the months ahead. That may make for uncomfortable moments when Trump denounces trade deals while Clinton and Obama stand together on the campaign trail . That tension , which has flared in Trump’s anti-trade wake, began months ago. Clinton called the TPP the “gold standard of trade” and had positive things to say about it in her book, Hard Choices. Yet, even after her about-face on the issue, her allies are maintaining flexibility on the deal while Democrats seek to lure Sanders supporters to Clinton’s side. Even now, many American voters know very little about TPP, and those who know about the deal are split: a Morning Consult survey conducted last March revealed that 29 percent opposed it while 26 percent supported it; 45 percent said they did not have an opinion or did not know how to respond. In the coming weeks and months, Sanders and his supporters will aim to raise enough awareness about the partnership’s downside — and indeed, the downside of global trade deals generally. If the tides of opinion keep turning, Obama may have to face some tough choices of his own. Clinton is pursuing a coattail strategy and can’t distance herself from Obama O’Toole 16 - Molly O’Toole is the politics reporter for Defense One. O’Toole previously worked as a news editor at The Huffington Post. She has covered national and international politics for Reuters, The Nation, the Associated Press and Newsweek International. January 24th (“As Clinton puts more distance between her foreign policy and President Obama’s, his national security legacy may prove short-lived.”, Defense One, available online at http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2016/01/obama-doctrine-has-no-heir-hillary- clinton/125334/, Accessed 7/21/16, HDA)

When Hillary Clinton declared herself defender of President Barack Obama’s legacy in the last Democratic debate, it marked a change in the careful balance she has sought b etween taking credit for the national security successes she orchestrated for his administration and distancing herself from its failures. National security was always going to be tricky for Obama’s former rival and secretary of state. Then came the Islamic State. Then the Paris attacks. Then San Bernardino, Calif. On the campaign trail, she’s called for a tougher, more active foreign policy better attuned to a general election in which anxiety is pushing the pendulum toward greater U.S.military intervention. “I have made clear that I have differences, as I think any two people do,” she said following a November national security speech. “We largely agreed on what needed to be done,” she said, but on Syria, “I thought we needed to do more earlier.” Then came the surge from Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in Iowa and Hampshire. “I am so proud of what we’ve accomplished under President Obama’s leadership,” Clinton said during Obama’s last State of the Union. “If we don’t have the resources to win those key early states and then the nomination, the next State of the Union could be delivered by Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.”

Trade’s a huge election issue – specifically with China – Clinton can’t distance herself despite her response to the TPP Casselman et al., 6/13 – (Ben Casselman is FiveThirtyEight’s chief economics writer; Andrew Flowers is FiveThirtyEight’s quantitative editor; David Firestone, formerly a reporter and editor at The New York Times, is FiveThirtyEight’s managing editor; 6/13/16, “The Consequences: How Trade Became A Major Issue In 2016,” FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the- consequences-how-trade-became-a-major-issue-in-2016/, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

Welcome to the first installment of “The Consequences,” a series of chats about the issues being debated in this year’s political campaign. A couple of times every month, we’ll gather a group of FiveThirtyEight staffers and invited guests for a conversation on subjects in the news, particularly when the subjects are complex and could use a little illumination.

That’s an apt description of our first subject, international trade, which has become a central theme in this year’s presidential race. Our participants this week are two members of FiveThirtyEight’s economics staff, Ben Casselman, chief economics writer, and Andrew Flowers, quantitative editor. Also joining us is Dr. Shushanik Hakobyan, assistant professor of economics at Fordham University and a scholar of U.S. trade policy who has extensively analyzed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and other international pacts. The moderator is David Firestone, FiveThirtyEight’s managing editor. David: International trade has emerged from wonky obscurity to become one of the most heated issues in this year’s presidential campaign. Given its complexity, were you surprised to see trade blamed for so many of the country’s economic woes, attacked from both right and left as the reason for slow job growth and stagnant wages?

Shushanik: I was not at all surprised. Trade issues become hotly debated in every election season. The campaign rhetoric eventually gives way to a much calmer tone after the elections. Just recall the 2008 election season when Obama was campaigning against NAFTA. It was very similar in spirit to what we’ve seen this year, now with an added incentive to bash trade in the run up to the vote for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Ben: I agree, Shushanik, but I do think there’s something a bit different this time. For one thing, you have both major-party nominees coming out against the TPP, and Donald Trump has built his whole campaign around protectionism, which is unusual for a GOP nominee.

Andrew: It’s revealing the degree to which resentment about trade has been one of the driving issues in this election, at least in explaining Trump’s appeal. It’s an indication that the costs from trade have been very concentrated — more so than we thought. It’s hit a certain segment of American workers very hard. They’re angry and disaffected. For many of them, trade is to blame.

Shushanik: I agree, Andrew, but much of the research, including mine on NAFTA, suggests that a very small share of the labor force is affected by trade. Yes, it is true the impact is very concentrated not only by sector, but also by location.

Trade is an easy scapegoat for the economic situation and it is much more easily understandable by an average person.

David: What do each of you think of the quality of the debate we’re seeing? If you had a personal truth-o-meter, how would you rate the assertions that Trump and Sanders are making on trade in general, and the TPP and NAFTA in particular?

Ben: It’s interesting you highlight those two, David, because I think a lot of the evidence suggests the impact of both those agreements probably pales (or will pale, in the case of TPP) to the impact of trade with China. Research from MIT economist David Autor and various colleagues has pointed to pretty substantial impacts from liberalized trade with China, on the order of 2 to 2.4 million lost jobs.

Andrew: I don’t think Trump has elevated the debate on trade. His approach is populist and mercantilist — in the sense that “winning” at trade means exporting more to other countries than we import from them. He is furiously promising to renegotiate trade agreements and win a better “deal,” even if that means slapping a tariff on Chinese goods, which could potentially bring disastrous consequences via an escalating trade war.

Sanders, on the other hand, has just flatly opposed trade deals — both old and new. But Ben is right: Far more important than NAFTA or the TPP is China. That research by Autor et al. is stunning: they estimate at least 1 million U.S. manufacturing jobs were lost due to the rise of Chinese imports.

David: OK, let’s talk about China for a minute, and then get back to NAFTA and Shushanik’s research on it. Trump seems perfectly willing to start a trade war with China and has actually said it would have little harmful impact. Is there any economist out there who believes that?

Ben: There are some mainstream economists who have argued for at least a pause in new agreements. But I don’t know of any who think a trade war with China is a good idea.

Andrew: There are several reputable economists arguing for a more confrontational stance with China on specific trade issues like manipulation of their currency. But no serious economist would recommend what Trump’s saying he’ll do: tax Chinese imports until they give in to our demands.

Ben: Right. There are legitimate questions about whether China is playing by the rules in terms of opening up its markets. Shushanik: I have yet to see any analysis confirming Trump’s claims on the impact of a trade war. The truth is that an average consumer benefits greatly from Chinese imports via lower prices and increased variety. Plus businesses are able to obtain intermediate goods [such as raw materials and parts used in manufacturing] at lower prices. Let’s not forget that about two-thirds of our imports are actually not final goods.

Andrew: Yes, the gains from trade with China are real — in the form of lower prices on goods — and these benefits disproportionately help poor Americans. But the costs from this trade with China are not diffuse but concentrated.

Ben: MIT Technology Review had a fun piece the other day looking at what the iPhone would look like if it were made entirely in America.

Shushanik: A few years back there was also a study showing that much of the value of an iPad is American, and only a small share is Chinese value added.

David: But why is it so hard for many Americans to see those benefits? Lower prices and variety always seem to be pushed to the side when trade is blamed for jobs.

Ben: Those benefits are individually small, even if they’re large in the aggregate. But a lost job is very big and easy to see. As Andrew said, the benefits are diffuse and the costs are concentrated.

Shushanik: Andrew is right. And this is true of any trade policy.

Ben: Of course, many would argue that we can help offset those costs — job retraining, direct benefits, or other programs to help people who lose jobs adjust. That’s the idea behind the “Trade Adjustment Assistance” program. But we haven’t expanded those efforts, and it doesn’t look like we will anytime soon.

Andrew: When people blame trade they often don’t just mean being out-competed by cheaper Chinese imports. They’re using trade as a stand-in for offshoring and outsourcing, too.

Shushanik: Here’s another example: Sugar costs twice as much in the U.S. than abroad due to quotas. As consumers we pay a few cents more per year, but the profits reaped by sugarcane farmers are huge.

Andrew: The real failure in American trade policy hasn’t so much been in specific deals or in the push for globalization more generally. The failure, as Ben noted, is that our safety net never modernized as trade expanded.

Ben: Not to mention automation. Remember: U.S. manufacturing employment is down, but output is way up. casselman-tradechat-1

Andrew: Yes, but these trends predate the expansion in trade. They’re due to technology. To me, the real inflection point in how economists viewed trade happened in the 1990s, when trade joined technology in being a powerful driver behind the decline in manufacturing jobs.

Shushanik: Offshoring is also part of the story and cannot be ignored. Just recall the Carrier case recently.

Ben: Trump certainly recalls!

Andrew: It’s China joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 that was the real game changer.

David: As you mentioned, Shushanik, the debate is similar around any trade pact. NAFTA is widely reviled by unions, for example, but your research has shown that much of that derision is undeserved.

Shushanik: NAFTA had an overall positive impact on real income in the U.S. There’s no indication that it had any impact on long-term employment. True, some jobs were lost in the short run, but job creation over the medium and long run outweighed jobs those lost due to NAFTA.

For most U.S. workers, any change in income due to NAFTA was insignificant. But for workers who were in the industries most vulnerable to imports from Mexico, blue-collar wage growth was significantly slower than for other workers while NAFTA was being implemented. That was also true for workers in locations where such vulnerable industries were concentrated.

Ben: I think it’s important to keep all of this in the broader context of the stagnation, or at least the anemic growth, of wages, particularly for those without a college degree. Some of that is trade. Some of that is globalization in other forms (outsourcing, etc.). Some of that is technology. Some of that is fiscal policy. And we can argue about how to allocate the blame. But the problem is real. I think what has shifted somewhat is our understanding of how durable the negative impacts are for people who do lose jobs. The places that are hit hardest don’t seem to rebound as quickly as we once thought, as Autor and his colleagues recently noted. That doesn’t change the fact that liberalized trade is a net positive for the economy. But distribution matters too.

Shushanik: There were many structural changes in the U.S. economy, along with external factors (China’s W.T.O. accession, other low-income countries opening up to trade, etc.), that could be responsible for the decline in manufacturing jobs.

Ben: Right, part of the challenge here is there were a lot of changes hitting at once. It’s hard to tease out the specific factors that drove these trends.

Andrew: Good point.

Shushanik: Past experience with trade agreements suggests that although most workers will neither gain nor lose much, U.S. blue- collar workers in unskilled labor-intensive manufacturing industries are likely to suffer income losses. And if there are locations in the country where such jobs are concentrated, blue-collar workers in those locations (whether they are in the service sector or the manufacturing sector) are likely to suffer losses. However, such workers are much less numerous than they were at the time of NAFTA, since the manufacturing sector employs so many fewer Americans than it once did.

David: And yet it’s always a trade pact that gets the blame — the fallacy of the easy target. The consensus by the disaffected candidates on the right and left will put a lot of pressure on the center, though — specifically, Hillary Clinton, who has turned critical of the TPP. Do you see a long-term shift coming in how mainstream Washington thinks of trade and globalization, moving away from an earlier free-trade consensus?

Andrew: Economists’ consensus on trade circa 2000 was that it was good for the economy as a whole; and while there would be some “losers,” they would eventually find jobs in other industries or move to more prosperous towns. That hand-waving confidence in the benefits of trade now looks misguided.

Ben: One other trend that I think is important here is the decline in labor market mobility. People are changing jobs less often, they’re moving (physically) less often, companies are creating and destroying fewer jobs. And that makes it harder for workers and regions to adjust to shocks, including those caused by trade.

And unfortunately, we don’t really understand what’s behind that decline in dynamism, or how to reverse it.

Andrew: Clinton is in a bind , though: her husband supported and signed NAFTA , against the wishes of most Democrats. And while she is now against the TPP, she is still associated with President Obama , who supports it.

Ben: I strongly doubt that Clinton has suddenly turned into a huge trade skeptic . She turned against TPP — I won’t try to guess whether that was purely political, but politics clearly played a role — but she isn’t railing against trade the way Trump is. So if she wins, I suspect we’ll retain the basic trade policy we’ve had since NAFTA, with maybe just a bit more of a nudge to the left. If Trump wins… who knows? It’s notable that he doesn’t say he wants to end free trade, he just wants better agreements, whatever that means. AT: Other Issues Key claim that “other issues are key” is non-responsive Stokes, 16 --- Bruce, senior fellow @ council foreign relations, director of global economic attitudes at Pew Research Center, where he assesses public views about economic conditions, foreign policy and values, non-resident fellow at the German Marshall Fund and an associate fellow at Chatham House, former international economics correspondent for the National Journal, a former senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. Stokes is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and Johns Hopkins University’s School for Advanced International Studies. He has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including CNN, BBC, NPR, NBC, CBS and ABC and is a frequent speaker at major conferences around the world. “Choices by US Voters Will Influence the World”, YaleGlobal, 3/17, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/choices-us-voters-will-influence-world

The US primary season has slowly winnowed down the field of presidential candidates. “To date, the campaign debate has been dominated by multiple themes that could ultimately impact people outside the United States – trade, immigration and terrorism, to name just a few,” explains Bruce Stokes, director of global economic attitudes at the Pew Research Center. Hillary Clinton, former US secretary of state is Democratic Party’s front-runner after winning contests in five states on March 15. Donald Trump, real estate developer and television reality-show celebrity, leads among Republicans. A sharp divide between parties is reflected in public- opinion surveys: 31 percent of those polled cite trade as a top priority while 58 percent regard trade as beneficial for the country; half cite immigration as a priority while majorities of Democrats and Republicans support allowing undocumented immigrants to remain in the country. Terrorism shifted as a top priority, from 1 percent of respondents in 2014 to 75 percent early this year. Republicans and Democrats represent just over half of the US electorate, and independents, about 40 percent, will help decide which candidate has the strength and skills to handle a range of global issues. – YaleGlobal

Choices by US Voters Will Influence the World The US presidential campaign is dominated by global issues including trade, immigration and terrorism – and voters have mixed feelings The US political primary election season is in full swing as Americans choose candidates for the presidency of their nation and, arguably, the job of de facto leader of the world. In the wake of recent primaries in vote-rich states such as Florida and Ohio, Republican candidate Donald Trump has a commanding lead over his rivals Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has an even larger advantage over her challenger Senator Bernie Sanders. To quote the American baseball player Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over,” but the field finally seems to be sorting itself out. To date, the campaign debate has been dominated by multiple themes that could ultimately impact people outside the United States – trade, immigration and terrorism, to name just a few. Americans’ attitudes on these issues could well influence the outcome in November. And the positions the candidates take on these issues may foreshadow, or constrain, what policies the next US president will pursue. Moreover, the mood of the electorate may influence votes in Congressional elections for both the US House of Representatives and Senate, reinforcing foreign-policy choices made by the new president. Trade is a recurrent campaign theme, despite the fact that global trade ranks low overall on the American public’s list of concerns, as registered by a Pew Research Center survey: 31 percent rate it as a top priority. Candidates in both parties have repeatedly tied the issue to jobs and the economy and promised to be tougher on trade, especially with regard to China. Real estate developer and television celebrity Trump has promised to impose a 45 percent tariff on imports from China. Clinton has pledged to crack down on Chinese currency manipulation that gives Chinese products an unfair competitive advantage. Sanders, Trump and Clinton have repeatedly attacked the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Such trade criticism strikes a chord with many Americans, despite the fact that they are, in principle, free traders. According to Pew Research Center, Americans suggest that free trade is good for the nation by a margin of 25 percentage points – 58 percent versus 33 percent – a sentiment broadly shared across gender, race, age, income, education and party divisions. But the public is divided on the overall economic impact of Washington signing free trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership: 31 percent suggest such agreements make the economy grow, 34 percent say they slow the economy down. Moreover, on the politically potent issues of jobs and wages, 46 percent of Americans voice the view that trade deals lead to job losses in the United States, while the same percentage says they lower US wages. Only 11 percent think trade raises wages and just 17 percent suggest it generates jobs. Americans are critical of trade with Beijing: 52 percent describe the US trade deficit with China – the largest U.S. merchandise trade deficit – as a very serious problem. On immigration, roughly half, or 51 percent, of Americans think dealing with immigration should be a top priority for Congress and the White House. That emphasis is up from 41 percent in 2009 at the beginning of the Obama administration. And it’s a highly partisan issue: 66 percent of Republicans give it priority, but only 43 percent of Democrats. Given such partisanship, it may be no surprise that Trump has called for building a wall along the US border with Mexico and deporting the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. Clinton, on the other hand, has advocated a path to full and equal citizenship for such immigrants. Partisanship also manifests itself on how to handle illegal immigration. Contrary to what one might assume based on many headlines, less than half, or 46 percent, of Americans favor building a fence along the entire Mexican border. Again, that sentiment is deeply divided along partisan lines: 73 percent of Republicans and 29 percent of Democrats support such a fence. Similarly, and again contrary to what one might conclude from the campaign rhetoric, large majorities in both parties favor allowing undocumented immigrants to stay in the United States legally, if certain requirements are met: 66 percent of Republicans favor such an approach, while 32 percent say undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay, and nearly five to one Democrats, 80 percent to 17 percent, say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the United States. For all of the talk on the campaign trail about trade and immigration, terrorism could prove the political wildcard in the 2016 election. Public opinion data suggest that an October surprise in the form of a terrorist incident before the November 8 election could have a profound effect.. CIA director John Brennan told CBS news program “60 Minutes” in February that attempts by ISIS to attack the United States are “inevitable.” A number of GOP presidential candidates have already staked out “get tough” positions on terrorism and Muslims. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, for example, has proposed carpet bombing the Islamic State. Trump has advocated temporarily banning all Muslims from entering the country. If another terrorist attack happens ahead of the election, fears of terrorism and what to do about it could frame political discourse and favor the candidate deemed strong. Concern about terrorism is already relatively high and variable. Three-quarters of those surveyed in January 2016 by the Pew Research Center said that defending the nation against terrorism should be the top priority for the Obama administration and Congress – a particular concern among Republicans, 87 percent, but also troubling for Democrats, 73 percent. Such worries are notably unstable. In a December 2014 Pew Research Center survey, just 1 percent of Americans said terrorism was the most important problem facing the country. In December 2015, after the terrorist shooting in San Bernardino, California, 18 percent voiced the view that terrorism was the most serious challenge, briefly outstripping concern about the perennial public worry of the economy. Gallup found a similar spike in apprehension about terrorism, but by January 2016 public anxiety about terrorism had ebbed, suggesting just how sensitive the public mood is to a single terrorist attack in the past and how responsive it might be to one in the future. Fear of a future terrorist incident is high. In December 2015, a month after the Paris terrorist attack, 51 percent of Americans surveyed expressed worry that they or someone in their family would become the victim of terrorism, according to a Gallup survey, and two-thirds of Americans said that further terrorist attacks in the United States were likely – the greatest level of such concern expressed since early 2003. The intensity of public unease about terrorism and the tendency of such fears to spike in the wake of terrorist attacks, suggest that if John Brennan is right and additional terrorist incidents are inevitable, terrorism could become the disruptive political issue on both sides of the Atlantic in 2016. US presidential elections are decided on a number of issues, often the state of the economy. But this year, a number of international concerns about negative consequences of globalization including trade, immigration and terrorism are prominent in the political debate. History suggests that the US election will not turn on any of these issues alone, but they may well influence the outcome. And it is people outside the United States who then must also deal with the consequences.

The China Factor In recent times China has become one of the most contentious issues regarding American foreign policy. Out of all issues concerning East Asia, China generates the greatest political attention in the US; American politicians frequently use the China card in foreign policy debate, especially during campaigns. The rethink of the military bases will provide ammunition for critics of the administration who will try to spin the reform as soft on the PRC. In his book US-Chinese Relations: Perilous Past, Pragmatic Present, Robert Sutter, an acclaimed China expert, describes the political environment of the US regarding China policy as “an atmosphere of suspicion and cynicism in American domestic politics over China policy,” setting the stage “ for often bitter and debilitating fights in US domestic politics over China policy in ensuing years that on balance are seen not to serve the overall national interests of the United States” (Sutter, 2013, p.81). Sutter’s observations show that electoral needs in the US often cause candidates to use harsher rhetoric and actions against the PRC than they believe are beneficial for the US. While many scholars have argued that administrations will ultimately favor pragmatic forward-moving relationships with the PRC, aspiring presidents have not been shy of criticism of the PRC leading up to presidential elections. This portrays how political maneuvering is needed to pursue policies that could be perceived as warm towards the PRC. Because of these domestic hurdles, US history has proven a pattern of presidents pursuing forward-moving, pragmatic relations with the PRC after a campaign of harsh rhetoric pointed at the Asian state.

2016 will be about foreign policy—including China McPike 6/21 (Erin McPike-Political reporter Huffington Post, “Democrats Are Ceding Foreign Policy Too Early in the 2016 Election”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erin-mcpike/democrats- are-ceding-fore_b_7632524.html ,06/21/2015 4:53 pm EDT, N.G.)

There's a decent chance the 2016 presidential election will be about national security. If that's the case, recent spin by Democratic pundits may undercut former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's campaign before it has much of a chance to establish itself. "I think foreign policy is a Republican base issue , which is why you see Republicans coming out of the gate talking about it," Democratic strategist Stephanie Cutter said on NBC's Meet the Press on June 14. Challenged on that, she said, "It's a Republican establishment issue, and it always has been." Tell that to President Obama, Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, former Maine Democratic Sen. George Mitchell, the Democratic members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, all the voters who opposed the Iraq war, all the veterans who support Democrats, the organization known as VoteVets.org, etc. From the rise of ISIS, to Russian President Vladimir Putin's chest-thumping, to Israel's struggles with the Palestinians, to the nuclear negotiations with Iran, to cybersecurity, trade, China's rise and tensions with North Korea, foreign policy has become all-consuming for the executive branch and will take up a huge chunk of the 45th president's time and energy. voter anger on new foreign policy issue turns it into a key election issue Kraushaar, 14 – Josh, political editor @ National Journal, 3/27, http://www.defenseone.com/politics/2014/03/foreign-policy-becoming-major- 2016-campaign-issue/81412/

Foreign Policy Is Becoming a Major 2016 Campaign Issue Foreign policy may not be a leading issue with voters right now but if events continue to flare up around the world, bet on it being a hot topic of the 2016 presidential campaign. Take a look at American public opinion on foreign policy, and it’s clear that the American instinct is to avoid involvement in overseas conflicts. A new CBS News poll, conducted last week, showed fewer than one-third of Americans believe the U.S. has a responsibility to “do something” about Russia and Ukraine, barely higher than the 26 percent of Americans who believed the U.S. should involve itself in Syria last September. Only 36 percent said the U.S. should take the lead in solving international conflicts—a far cry from the 48 percent plurality who agreed with the statement in April 2003, during the Iraq War. The numbers are consistent with the tendency for Americans to be much more concerned with domestic issues than those abroad—at least until there’s a crisis point. The growth of al-Qaida attracted little attention from voters during the Clinton administration until 9/11 happened. After that, terrorism and foreign policy landed at the top of the American priority list. But pay closer attention to the changing rhetoric from the leading 2016 presidential contenders from both parties, and it’s clear they’re hedging their bets against the polls, anticipating the U.S. may well be headed into crisis mode. Hillary Clinton , Marco Rubio, and even Rand Paul have all sounded a more hawkish tone in the last month as Russian aggression continues unabated in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the prospects for curtailing Iranian nuclear ambitions aren’t looking promising, the civil war in Syria rages on, and Venezuela is awash in violence within our own hemisphere. President Obama may be responding to public opinion by preferring diplomatic solutions and an international consensus over unilateral American actions, but his approval ratings on handling foreign policy have cratered, regardless. His 36 percent approval rating on foreign policy, according to the CBS News poll, is 7 points lower than his already-weak 43 percent overall approval rating. He receives low scores on his handling of the Ukraine crisis, and a plurality think the United States’ image around the world has gotten worse since he became president. That’s what makes Hillary Clinton’s recent comments about Russia and Iran so telling. At an American Jewish Congress dinner last week, Clinton expressed deep skepticism that Iran was really committed to rolling back its nuclear program, despite the ongoing negotiations. Earlier in the month, she compared Vladimir Putin’s aggression in Ukraine to Adolf Hitler’s territorial advances in the run-up to World War II, even though she led efforts as secretary of State to ”reset” the strained relationship between the two countries. These aren’t the musings of a presidential candidate who believes that voters are satisfied with the president’s approach to foreign policy. She’s trying to create some space between her views and Obama’s, but she’s boxed in by being involved with his administration’s foreign policy for four years . Indeed, her hawkish turn is all the more notable, given that her support of the Iraq War in 2003 led to her political demise five years later. The fact that she’s once again positioning herself as a hawk is a sign she’s concerned that voters may be looking for a tougher commander in chief come 2016 —in stark contrast to the political environment of 2008. Even more intriguing is the muscular positioning of Rand Paul, one of the Republican Party’s leading voices against military intervention. At the outset of the crisis in Ukraine, the Kentucky senator sounded a sympathetic note toward Russia, arguing the U.S. should avoid antagonizing their rival. “Some on our side are so stuck in the Cold War era that they want to tweak Russia all the time and I don’t think that is a good idea,” he told TheWashington Post in February. But after taking heat on foreign policy from his tea-party rival, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, Paul’s rhetoric changed markedly. He wrote a Time magazine op-ed, calling for the Obama administration to be more aggressive against Putin. “It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression … and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation,” he wrote. If it wasn’t a total flip-flop, it was an acknowledgement that being seen as too soft on Russian aggression carries a cost with Republican primary voters. Meanwhile, Marco Rubio has seen his stature rise as he’s called for a more muscular foreign policy and critiqued the Obama administration’s handling of events overseas. The senator from Florida wrote a Washington Post op-ed last week, headlined “Making Putin Pay,” recommending steps the president could take to counter Russian aggression. At the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rubio was one of the few speakers to focus on foreign policy, calling for active American engagement across the world. His Senate floor rebuttal to Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa over Cuba’s and Venezuela’s dismal human- rights records became a YouTube sensation among conservative hawks. If foreign policy reemerges as an important issue, Rubio is better-positioned to capitalize than any of his prospective Republican challengers. Events can quickly overtake public opinion, as President George W. Bush quickly learned. The candidate who promised a humble foreign policy during the 2000 campaign ended up declaring in his 2004 inaugural speech that U.S. policy was to “seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture.” Foreign policy may not register as a leading issue with voters right now, but if Russia continues to redraw Europe’s borders, Iran successfully builds a nuclear weapon, and al- Qaida-affiliated terrorist groups establish themselves in Syria and Libya, bet on it being a major theme of the 2016 presidential campaign. Prospective presidential candidates may not believe the worst is yet to come, but they’re certainly preparing for that possibility AT: U Overwhelms

Clinton will win but Trump is a realistic threat – 2016 is weird. Lee 6-1-16. [MJ, CNN National Politics Reporter, "How Donald Trump could win" CNN -- www.cnn.com/2016/05/31/politics/donald-trump-general-election/]

Most said Trump faces an uphill battle in a race that promises to be one of the most divisive and vitriolic in recent memory, one in which both Trump and Clinton have historically high unfavorable ratings. Yet all agreed on one thing after a primary season that shattered conventional wisdom: Don't underestimate Trump. A recent Quinnipiac poll found Trump and Clinton in an extremely tight race in several vital swing states. "Everything that so many of us have learned by observing politics for the last 30, 40 years is going to be challenged this cycle," said Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to George W. Bush. "Don't be surprised if Donald Trump is sitting in the Oval Office on January 20th."

2016 is weird – uniqueness doesn’t overwhelm – it’s 50/50. Young and Clark 6-2-16. [Clifford, president of Ipsos Public Affairs in the US, leads Ipsos' global election and political polling risk practice, Julia, nonpartisan political and election polling expert and a senior vice president with Ipsos Public Affairs "Even Odds for Trump & Clinton: Is Trump a 'Spoiler' or a 'Game-Changer'?" Real Clear Politics -- www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/06/02/is_trump_a_spoiler_or_a_game-changer_130737.html]

It’s now inevitable that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will meet in the general election this fall. Who will win? This, of course, is the million-dollar question. To begin, let’s be wary of pundits or forecasters making definitive predictions at this point in time. Regardless of their experience or expertise, they are seriously understating the uncertainty of this electoral cycle. We believe a healthy dose of skepticism is fundamental right now. As election forecasters, we at Ipsos typically analyze two key pieces of information when assessing election odds: (1) a “base-rate model,” which is an aggregation of past election outcomes paired with simple variables; and (2) a model based on polls. We do of course utilize other pieces of information, but these two are central to our thinking about an election (for a further explanation, see page 22 here). Base-rate models normally include the aggregation of multiple past elections and give us an idea about outcomes in elections similar to the one at hand; this is our starting point. Poll-based models, in turn, aggregate the existing polls at hand; we also often adjust them by other factors such as the confidence we have in the methodology employed or in the polling firm conducting the survey. Both types of models can be expressed in probabilities. Normally, we start off assessing the relative odds with the base-rate model at the early stages of the electoral cycle with little weight to polls (which are very poor predictors far out from Election Day). And then as we get closer to the election, polls take on a greater weight in our overall assessment. Simply put, our assessment or forecast is a weighted average of the two inputs, which can be adjusted over the course of the election cycle. Elementary, right? Well, it should be, but this year these two key pieces of information are materially at odds with each other. This reduces our confidence in our own or any other prediction. Let us explain. On the one hand, base-rate models , including our own, point towards a Republican victory ; so strongly in fact that we wrote a piece in October 2015 titled “Two simple reasons a Republican will likely win in 2016” – and made an earlier point in May 2015 based on similar reasoning. Indeed, ours and other base-rate models suggest, on average, a 70 percent (or more) probability of victory for the party out-of-power (Republicans). Such base-rate models don’t typically consider the specifics of candidates but rather the underlying political and economic fundamentals and focus on the probability of the government-linked candidate winning versus others. It is a very de-personalized look at an election, which normally is a very strong starting point for our assessment of an election outcome. Ipsos’ own base-rate model (which uses just two variables: incumbency and government approval rating) has accurately predicted elections around the globe on dozens of occasions. Conversely, the poll-based models (our own included) show a clear Clinton victory. Indeed, of the 164 polls conducted in May of 2015, just 18 have shown Trump in the lead! In probabilities, the models put a Clinton victory at 80 percent to 90 percent (see table below). This perspective is reinforced by a belief that Trump’s strong negatives and a favorable Electoral College map make Clinton the clear favorite. So how do we reconcile this difference? Normally, we would simply take the average of the two, trusting the base-rate model slightly more than the poll-based model. In our experience, base-rate models outperform the polls. As such, we typically place more weight on the base-rate model because we trust them more than the polls. So this approach lands us somewhere around 50 percent. At first blush, this might seem like a very middling prediction without “teeth.” However, it does fly in the face of most forecaster predictions out there right now, which give Clinton far greater odds of success. Even so, it still seems simple, right? The odds still point to a probable , if closer than anticipated, Clinton victory . Not so fast! In our strong opinion, this is an atypical election cycle that does not follow the normal “rules” or norms of election prediction, and which undermines models reliant on historical data to make predictions. Such a disruptive election means that many of our base assumptions go out the window , and in this case, we believe it yields a situation in which Trump still has a clear path to victory under certain conditions. Let us again explain.

Uniqueness doesn’t overwhelm – clear path for Trump. Bernstein 5-27-16. [David, contributing political analyst at WGBH News in Boston, "How Hillary Loses" Politico -- www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-hillary-clinton-campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924]

The reassurance is that the recent polls probably don’t mean much. Trump’s current surge is likely driven by Republican voters coalescing around their nominee, and Clinton will almost certainly get a similar bump when Bernie Sanders lets go and Democratic voters return to the fold. Most pundits believe 2016 is still Clinton’s race to lose. Here’s the bad news: There is now a clear path for her to lose it . If you drill down enough, it’s clear there are at least four paths to a loss , and any one of them poses a real risk for a candidate likely to follow her usual careful, calculating playbook. The cold math of a potential Clinton defeat is not to be found in national polls, but in the Electoral College—and within each state’s unique demographics and culture. Trump won’t dramatically remake the political map, but he doesn’t need to. He just needs to squeeze a little more out of certain voters in certain states, while Clinton draws a little less. If Clinton pushes away some of her potential supporters; fails to energize others to vote; and fires up Trump’s base by pandering to her own—well, she just might be able to make the numbers work out for him. If he does pull off the election of the century, Trump’s path to 270 Electoral College votes will begin with 164 practically in the bank, from 21 solid-red states generally considered sure things for the Republican nominee. And here’s how Clinton could push more than enough additional states onto Trump’s side of the ledger—Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan—one mistake at a time. Clinton is leading, but it’s not inevitable – changing political dynamics can turn the tides Hancock 16 (Peter, Columnist @ Lawrence Journal World, "Vegas oddsmakers now rivaling the best pollsters," 3/27, http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/capitol- report/2016/mar/27/vegas-oddsmakers-now-rivaling-the-best-p/)

So, if you're wondering who the odds-on favorite is to win the White House in November, all you have to do is Google the term "presidential prediction markets" and you get your answer: Democrats stand a 71 percent chance of winning the general election, and right now, Hillary Clinton has roughly a 90 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee. Put another way, Donald Trump is viewed as having an 80 percent chance of being the Republican nominee, giving Republicans only a 29 percent chance of winning the White House. That's the current (as of this writing) assessment from the website PredictWise, founded by Microsoft Research economist David Rothschild, which aggregates data from a number of different sites. One of the sites PredictWise uses goes by a similar name, PredictIt, which gives users the chance to buy, sell and trade shares in the outcome of an electoral event, such as the outcome of a primary, a nomination, or the general election. So, for example, 'Candidate A wins the nomination' would be an event, and traders will speculate on what the percentage chance is of a particular outcome of that event, either "yes" or "no." Percentages are then translated into U.S. cents. The sum total of "yes" and "no" bids add up to $1. As of Sunday afternoon, people willing to bet money on a "Clinton-Yes" outcome of the general election were buying at 61 cents. People betting on a "Clinton-No" outcome were selling for 39 cents. To see how accurate that model is, we only have to look back at some recent primaries. Leading up to the March 1 Super Tuesday primaries, PredictIt was forecasting that Trump would win in 10 states and lose only in Texas to that state's favorite son Sen. Ted Cruz. And it showed Florida Sen. Marco Rubio would finish second in the Minnesota caucuses. PredictIt got every one of those right, except Minnesota, where Rubio eked out a win. That kind of information can be fun and entertaining, depending on which side of the race you're on, as long as you take it with a grain of salt. There's still a whole lot of race left, and a scandal here, or a misstep there still could greatly affect the outcome. But these prediction markets are also grabbing serious attention from academic circles. Kansas University political science professor Burdett Loomis called attention to them during a recent talk he gave to the Douglas County Democratic Party. When I emailed him later to get more information, he suggested the Iowa Electronic Markets, one of the oldest prediction markets around, and one originally set up by academics. IEM has been around for a few election cycles now, and in 2008 it outperformed all the major public opinion polls for accurately predicting the outcome of the election. IEM's model, which looks a lot like commodity futures trading, offers two different types of "contracts," or estimates of the outcome: "vote shares," or the percentage of the total popular vote either party will get; and "winner-take-all," which predicts the outcome, regardless of point spread. At last check, c o ntracts for a Democratic popular vote win in November were trading at 59.8 cents , compared with 40.5 cents for a Republican win. In the winner-take-all contracts, Democrats were up 71 cents to 31 cents over Republicans. Prediction markets are essentially a variation on a theme that has been developing in the field of public opinion polling for some time. Originally, pollsters would ask (and still do ask), "Who do you intend to vote for in the upcoming election?" That would give an accurate snapshot in time of where the race stood at that particular moment, but it often had little predictive value because people change their minds. More recently, pollsters have started asking a different question: "Regardless of who you intend to vote for, who do you think will win the race?" That question turns out to have much more predictive value because it acknowledges the tendency of people, in the end, to gravitate toward the norm. In other words, most people want to be on the winning side. AT: Too Far Away

Now is key and Clinton is linked to Obama. WSJ 6-3-16. [Wall Street Journal -- "May Jobs Report Could Present Challenge for Hillary Clinton" -- www.wsj.com/articles/may- jobs-report-could-present-challenge-for-hillary-clinton-1464977752]

While one report in June won’t define a long general-election campaign, voters’ perceptions of the election-year economy begin to crystallize around this time of year. On the campaign trail, Mrs. Clinton has closely aligned herself with President Barack Obama on a wide range of issues, including the economy. Voter preferences are shaped early, but are not static Jennings 15. [William, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations at the University of Southampton, “The Timeline of Elections: A Comparative Perspective,” presented at the 2015 Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, -- http://www.utexas.edu/cola/government/_files/wlezien/JenningsWlezien_Timeline.pdf]

Discussion and Conclusion Voter preferences evolve in a systematic way over the election timeline in a wide range of representative democracies. There is structure to preferences well in advance of elections, indeed, years before citizens actually vote. That is, very early polls predict the vote, at least to some extent. This largely reflects differences in the equilibrium support of parties and candidates. Polls do become increasingly informative over time, however, pointing to real evolution of preferences. That this pattern holds across countries is important and points towards 35 a general tendency in the formation of electoral preferences. But the pattern is not precisely the same in all countries. Political institutions structure the evolution of voters’ preferences.23 Government institutions are important. Preferences come into focus later in presidential elections than in parliamentary ones. A year out from Election Day, parliamentary elections are more predictable from the polls than are the outcomes of presidential races. This presumably reflects the greater uncertainties involved in the assessment of presidential candidates and also the time it takes for voters to directly factor in their dispositions toward the political parties (Erikson and Wlezien 2012). In parliamentary systems, by contrast, parties matter more early on. This is important because partisan dispositions, while not fixed, are more durable than those toward candidates. That preferences are in place much later in presidential systems thus comes as little surprise. That there is no real difference between legislative elections in presidential and parliamentary systems may surprise, however. It implies that parties do not matter consistently more to voters in the latter. Electoral institutions also are important. Preferences in legislative elections come into focus more quickly and completely in proportional systems. We find limited evidence of general differences across systems—that proportional representation per se is what matters. We find stronger evidence that the party-centricity of the systems matters most of all. Although closely related to proportionality, there is significant variation in party-centricity within both proportional and plurality systems, and this variation is of consequence for the formation of electoral preferences. The number of parties, meanwhile, appears to have little effect. We have only scratched the surface of the variation in context. To begin with, political institutions differ in ways that we have not considered. Perhaps more importantly, there are other differences in context that we have not even begun to explore. Some of the differences relate to countries themselves. For instance, following Converse (1969), there is reason to think that the age of democracy is important to the formation and evolution of preferences. Other differences relate not to political institutions or the countries themselves, but to characteristics of political parties. There are numerous possibilities here, most notable of which may be whether parties are in government or opposition, as is suggested by the literature on economic voting (e.g. Fiorina 1981; Duch and Stevenson 2008). Another is whether parties are catch-all or niche. The age and size of parties also could matter. Clearly, much research remains to be done, and our methodology can guide the way. That said, we have learned something about the general pattern relating preferences and the vote over the election timeline and the structuring influences of political institutions. We have shown that preferences are often in place far in advance of Election Day and that they evolve slowly over time. Indeed, the final outcome is fairly clear in the polls before the election campaign really begins . This is not to say that the campaign does not matter, as it does, particularly in 37 certain types of countries and elections where candidates are central. Even there, however, it is clear that the “ long campaign ” between elections matters most of all. Voters are tuned in – now is key Rodack 6-8-16. [Jeffrey, "Poll: Americans Giving A Lot Of Thought To Election Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/gallup-poll-elections-thought/2016/06/08/id/732941/#ixzz4BgzXrajk Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!" NewsMax -- www.newsmax.com/Politics/gallup-poll-elections-thought/2016/06/08/id/732941/]

A new Gallup poll reveals Americans are giving a lot of thought to the presidential election. The poll found: Three out of four voters said they are giving quite a lot of thought to the November contest Only 21 percent of those surveyed said they're giving "only a little" thought to it. In a statement on its website, Gallup's Jim Norman said the results are comparable to the 2008 election, which produced the highest voter turnout percentage in 40 years. It noted about 73 percent of Americans, gave a lot of thought to that election. " It is no surprise that a campaign with two heated battles for party nominations, each dominated by a candidate who has been among the nation's best-known public figures for decades, has drawn the attention of most Americans," Norman wrote. Ext: Now Key

Early impressions key. Piccoli 15. [Sean, "Dem, GOP Strategists Debate: 2016 Candidates Running Too Early?" NewsMax -- April 16 -- www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Matt-McDonald-David-Goodfriend-2016-election/2015/04/16/id/639020/]

With Election Day more than 18 months out — that's 571 days by the campaign clock — a consultant to the last three Republican presidential nominees says it's not too early to run even though most Americans pay the race no mind until the finish line is within sight. Candidates introducing themselves to voters " is a process," veteran GOP strategist Matt McDonald told "MidPoint" host Ed Berliner on Newsmax TV Thursday. "So if you think that you are going to convince a voter to vote for you in kind of the final quarter, that's not a great strategy." McDonald debated how soon is too soon for presidential campaigns with David Goodfriend, a Democratic strategist and former deputy staff secretary to President Bill Clinton. "Those of us in the political sphere … are always amazed to learn how most Americans really tune into an election very, very shortly before Election Day," said Goodfriend. "A lot of the early polling and a lot of the early modeling is irrelevant because people's attention — true attention, focusing on the issues and the candidates — really comes fairly late in the game." McDonald agreed that voters decide "later" who to support. "But they are getting to know the candidates, deciding whether these candidates share their values, what the attributes of these candidates are, how they feel about them, all along the way," he said. "It's like any other relationship where you're making a friend or you're going out on a first date, or anything like that," he said, "and those first impressions that are happening today matter down the road. And it really is a build over time , as people get to know people."

Actions now shape the conversation and resonate with the electorate---shapes voting patterns York 15 (Byron, - Chief Political Correspondent for the Washington Examiner, “2016: Yes, it's early, but pay attention now,” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/2016-yes-its- early-but-pay-attention-now/article/2563339)

It's conventional wisdom that the 2016 Republican presidential r ace is at such an early stage that the polls don't matter . They're just a measurement of name recognition at this point, some observers say, and the only people really paying attention to the campaign are reporters and hard-core party activists. Maybe that was true in earlier years. But it doesn't seem to be the case now. "One thing about this election — Republicans are paying attention," says a GOP pollster not affiliated with any campaign. "They are very concerned about who the nominee is going to be, and the idea that what a candidate says now doesn't matter could not be farther from the truth." Look at the new CNN/ORC poll, out Monday morning. First of all, it's a huge field, and no candidate dominates — Jeb Bush is in the lead with just 17 percent. But nearly all the respondents surveyed have picked a candidate to support; add together every candidate's little share of the vote and the total nears 100 percent, with few undecided. There's Bush's 17 percent, followed by Scott Walker with 12 percent; then Rand Paul and Marco Rubio with 11 percent each; Mike Huckabee with nine percent; Ted Cruz with seven percent; Ben Carson and Chris Christie with four percent each; Rick Perry and Rick Santorum with three percent each; and Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, and John Kasich with two percent each. Then there are five percent who say they support some other candidate. MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER What's behind Trump's collapsing Iowa poll numbers? Evangelicals prefer Carson By Daniel Allott • 10/26/15 6:20 PM Add it up, and that's 94 percent of Republicans who say they support a specific candidate now. The rest — a pretty tiny number of undecided — say they can't make a decision or have no opinion. Of course, that's just for now. Many will change their minds, but they are already taking the race seriously. At this point, many voters are likely making preliminary decisions based on very little information. They know Scott Walker fought unions in Wisconsin. They know Jeb Bush is George W. Bush's brother and George H.W. Bush's son. They know Ted Cruz was involved in the government shutdown. "That's why these announcements are important," says the pollster, "because it is the first time to associate more facts with each candidate. And you've seen each candidate get a little bump when they announced." Some analysts describe this period as the "pregame." The real game starts at some point in the future, perhaps in August when the first Republican debate takes place in Ohio. But the pregame, if that's what it is, matters too. Candidates are getting their only chance to make a first impression. In the 2012 campaign, the first Republican debate was held May 5, 2011, in Greenville, South Carolina. The participants were Ron Paul, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Tim Pawlenty, and Gary Johnson. (Don't remember Johnson? He's the former New Mexico governor who ended up running as a Libertarian.) The big question that night was whether Pawlenty could ascend to the top tier of candidates. (He couldn't.) But the real lesson of the evening, at least in retrospect, was that the GOP field was still remarkably unformed at that stage. This year's field seems much more stable at an earlier time. Yes, Kasich might enter the race — he certainly sounded that way last weekend in New Hampshire — and yes, perhaps another candidate will give it a try, too. But the basic structure of the Republican field seems nearly set. And strong, too. Back in 2011 and 2012, it was common to hear Republicans complain about the weakness of their field. Some complain today — some always do — but the fact is the 2016 GOP field is a pretty impressive group. Governors with solid records, senators who have made their mark in the Senate, plus intriguing figures who come from outside the world of politics. Not all of them will make it even to the Iowa caucuses. And they'll drop off like flies after that. The key thing for the winning candidate is to realize that he will have to be able to assemble a coalition of those voters who support other candidates in the current 14-candidate field. That's what it will take to win. One thing a candidate — or anyone else, for that matter — should not do is dismiss what is going on in the race now as meaningless because it is so early. Plenty can change, but it might be that when February 2016 comes around, and the voting begins, some themes (and frontrunners) in the race will look a lot like they look now.

Looking like a winner NOW is necessary because elections are determined by momentum---causes voter buy-in, increases campaign contributions and leads to positive media coverage Holbrook 96. [Thomas, Professor of Political Science @ UW-Milwaukee, Do Campaigns Matter? p. 130-131]

Although they are different from primaries, it is expected that similar but perhaps less pronounced momentum effects exist in general election campaigns. Skalaban (1988) found that paying attention to poll results had a significant influence on voting behavior during the 1980 election. According to Skalaban, those voters who paid attention to the polls in September 1980, when Reagan was ahead in most polls, were more likely to vote for Reagan than those who did not pay attention to the polls. Nadeau, Niemi, and Amato (1994) also found that voter expectations about who would win had a significant influence on party support in British general elections. To date, however, there are no studies of the effect of momentum in U.S. presidential general election campaigns. One basis for expecting significant momentum effects is offered by Nadeau et al.: "... some voters respond to the implicit bonus of being on the winning side" (1994, 378). All else held equal, voting for a winning candidate appears to offer some value for some voters. As poll results are reported in the media , voters incorporate them as one more piece Of information when evaluating the relative merits of the candidates. This, of course, assumes that poll results or information about the likely winner is readily available to voters. Indeed, there is substantial circumstantial evidence to support this proposition. In 1992, for instance, in the period between the end of the conventions and election day, over 100 national trial-heat polls were conducted for major national print and television media outlets (The American Enterprise 1992, 100- 101). This figure does not include the number of polls taken during the summer of 1992. In addition, during the general election campaign of 1992, 27% of all campaign stories on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news programs focused on the "horse race" aspect of the campaign (Stanley and Niemi 1994, 63). Clearly, there are many opportunities for voters to become aware of the competitive nature of the race. Another possible explanation for momentum effects lies not in the value voters place on supporting a winner but in the way political and media elites react to poll numbers. First, it is possible that potential campaign contributors will feel more comfortable if they think they are betting on a winner and be more forthcoming with contributions that might strengthen the campaign. Perhaps more important, however, is the way the media respond to poll results. There is some tendency for the media to treat candidates differently depending on their standing in the polls. Patterson (1989), for instance, found that the amount of favorable media coverage of Bush and Dukakis in 1988 was positively related to their relative standing in the polls during the general election campaign. Positive press coverage translates into positive information being conveyed to the voters, which should lead to more improvement in the polls. Good poll numbers, then, may influence voters directly or indirectly. Whatever the mechanism, it is expected that momentum plays a role in the dynamics Of general election campaigns. In this analysis the effect of momentum is captured with a variable that measures the change in candidate support in public opinion polls over a relatively short period of time. Specifically, for every day in the analysis, the difference between the Republican estimated polling margin (see Appendix A) on the previous day and the Republican polling margin five days earlier is used to measure short-term change in candidate support. If this number is positive, indicating a Republican gain in support, it should translate into more support for the Republican candidate. If the change is negative, indicating a Republican loss in support, it should translate into a further decline in Republican support. One important point to bear in mind is that momentum does not occur in a vacuum. Public opinion changes in response to campaign events or changes in national conditions ; momentum then exacerbates these changes.

***Impacts*** === Warming === Warming – 1NC

Trump win tanks the Paris accords guarantees extinction via warming – Clinton win solves. Graves 1-5-16. [Lucia, columnist for the Guardian and a staff correspondent at National Journal, “The Whole World Has a Stake in the Outcome of Our Presidential Election” Pacific Standard Magazine-- http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/2016- presidential-election-does-the-world-have-a-future *gender modified]

It would be difficult but not impossible for a Republican president to undo the Paris Agreement . For that reason alone, the 2016 election is about whether the world has a future . ¶ Last year, 2015, was easily the hottest year on the books, but you would never know it to hear our presidential candidates talk on the trail. Just days after world leaders forged the Paris climate agreement, the planet's best hope for curbing the catastrophic effects of global warming, Republican presidential candidates assembled for a debate. And nobody, not the nine candidates on the main stage or the three moderators before them, mentioned the Paris Agreement as anything more than a passing jab.¶ "And when I see they have a climate conference over in Paris, they should have been talking about destroying ISIS," Ohio Governor John Kasich said. Donald Trump merely scoffed at how President Obama thinks climate change is even a priority. That was it, in the wake of the historic moment: nada, zip, zilch, zero actual conversation. Just a one-touch dismissal from a guy most people don't know is even running, and a jibe in the deal's general direction from The Donald. It wasn't an oversight—it's standard practice on climate for Republicans. ¶ The party's internally incoherent consensus on the matter seems to be that the climate agreement is somewhere between "reckless," "ridiculous," and a "threat" to our sovereignty—and anyway, climate change is not really happening. ¶ But how, exactly, would the candidates respond to the landmark deal once in office? Specifically, would they submit an even stronger climate plan by 2020, as the U.S. is now required to do under the international accord? Or would they tear up the document entirely?¶ It might not be easy for a Republican president to destroy the Paris Agreement—but it would be a whole lot easier than what the world pulled off at le Bourget.¶ Where candidates come down on this matter will have tremendous consequences, not just for environmentalists or even for Americans, but for the world.¶ While Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have done a remarkable job of skirting Republican opposition in Congress—laying the groundwork through intercountry alliances in recent years—experts say a GOP president could legally unravel the deal.¶ Whether it's by rolling back Obama's Clean Power Plan —a lynchpin of the U.S. commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions— or by pulling out of the deal directly , a Republican president could single-handedly undo the past decade of progress on climate and propel the world far beyond the warming cap of two degrees Celsius needed to stave off the worst consequences of climate change. The U.S., as the world’s second-largest emitter currently and the biggest emitter cumulatively, has an outsized duty in preserving the planet’s future. ¶ Obama seems to be betting that a GOP president wouldn't go through with breaking the global contract; as he told reporters in Paris: “Your credibility and America’s ability to influence events depends on taking seriously what other countries care about.” Now that there's global consensus behind taking action, Obama added, the next president "is going to need to think this is really important."¶ So far, however, that looks like wishful thinking, particularly where Republican frontrunners are concerned.¶ Ted Cruz has already said he would withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accord, telling reporters in a high school classroom in Knoxville, Tennessee: "Barack Obama seems to think the SUV parked in your driveway is a bigger threat to national security than radical Islamic terrorists who want to kill us. That’s just nutty. These are ideologues, they don’t focus on the facts, they won’t address the facts, and what they’re interested [in] instead is more and more government power."¶ Trump, while he hasn't directly addressed the accord, has argued in the past that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive. Meanwhile Rand Paul thinks granting power to the United Nations would threaten U.S. sovereignty, resulting in "a bunch of two-bit dictators telling America what to do," as he put it recently. Marco Rubio insists the Paris climate deal is an "unfunny joke" that's "hurting the American dream."¶ “Here’s the most outrageous part,” Rubio told Fox News recently. “This is a deal that’s going to require the American taxpayer to send billions of dollars to developing countries. Well, China considers itself a developing country. Does that mean the American taxpayer is going to send billions to China to help them comply with the arrangement here?”¶ Short answer: no. Contrary to Rubio's impressions, China played a leadership role in the Paris talks and was on the giving side of the equation, offering up to $3.1 billion to help actual developing countries.¶ In fact, the only Republican candidate supporting clear actions on climate change, Lindsey Graham, dropped out in late December after failing for months to break the one percent mark in the polls. He never even made it onstage for anything but an undercard debate. The only other Republican contender to express (tepid) support for the deal, George Pataki, dropped out a week later.¶ This, apparently, is what happens when you take a realistic, even semi-honest approach to climate change in the Republican primary: You’re drummed out.¶ There remains no candidate on the Republican side who will commit to upholding the deal, and the majority of candidates have said nothing about the agreement at all. By contrast, all three candidates on the Democratic side have said they'd not just honor the Paris Agreement, but advance it; before the gavel even went down in Paris, Bernie Sanders was lamenting that the deal doesn't go far enough.¶ But denial won't play well in the general election. A recent Pew Research Center survey found 69 percent of Americans favor a multilateral commitment to limit the burning of greenhouse gas emissions; and that such statistics are sharply divided by political affiliation won't work in Republicans’ favor come November. The leading Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton—well aware of her party's edge here—has been increasingly vocal on climate, as when she came out against the Keystone XL pipeline even before president Obama nixed the project ahead of Paris. She's also voiced her support for all the president’s executive actions on climate. Still, many environmental advocates still favor Sanders, who, as movement leader Bill McKibben noted in an aside at Paris climate talks, was against Keystone as early as 2011, when the pipeline first came on the national stage. Given how things looked (say) 18 months ago, environmentalists can perhaps take comfort in watching Democratic candidates argue in prime-time over who hated Keystone first, and most.¶ The world will be presented with two stark choices come the general election. But the White House, for its part, expresses hope that the accord can be upheld regardless. "I think it's going to be incredibly difficult to move back from this position," a senior administration official told reporters post-Paris. "Momentum begets momentum."¶ "We don't want to be naive to the domestic policies here," he added, "but I think with every passing month and with every passing milestone, [the ideals of the Paris Agreement] will get more and more baked in."¶ Of course it's possible that Republicans are just pandering and that, if elected to office, a Republican president might not seek to destroy the deal. Obama has gestured to this possibility, arguing: "Even if somebody from a different party succeeded me, one of the things you find is when you're in this job, you think about it differently than if you're just running for the job."¶ Maybe he's right. But is it worth betting the world?¶ For years the U.S. has had the dubious distinction of being the only country anywhere with a major party that denies the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and accelerating. It was always a denial with far-reaching effects, given the U.S.'s hefty emissions, currently the second largest after China's, but now that pernicious reach is extended farther still. If America elects a Republican in 2016, he (it would almost certainly be a “he”) could undermine the diplomatic efforts of almost 200 countries, offering our global partners a tempting excuse to abandon their climate commitments—and to distrust the U.S. for years to come.¶ Given America’s long history of hypocrisy in climate negotiations and repeated broken promises to world partners, such a reversal could be devastating.¶ In Paris, for the first time ever, the U.S. played the role of a climate leader, hero even, in these talks, a hard-won victory that's been years in the making. That Obama has invested so much in this deal for so long, that he's made it a centerpiece of his administration— and, many expect, the overarching mission of his final year in office—underscores just how difficult it is to achieve the kind of victory we saw in Paris, and just how much these global climate talks depend on the power of the U.S. president. ¶ If Obama could make this, the next guy [president] could break it. It might not be easy to destroy the Paris Agreement, but it would be a whole lot easier than what the world pulled off at le Bourget. Global warming causes extinction. Flournoy 12 -- Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center. Don Flournoy is a PhD and MA from the University of Texas, Former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, Former Associate Dean @ State University of New York and Case Institute of Technology, Project Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications @ Ohio University (Don, "Solar Power Satellites," January, Springer Briefs in Space Development, Book, p. 10-11

In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, “The evidence of global warming is alarming,” noting the potential for a catastrophic

planetary climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of

CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of

global temperature changes ; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earth’s biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances” (Hsu 2010 ) Clinton Solves Warming Clinton will ensure that the US takes meaningful steps toward combatting climate change Geman & Foran 15 — BEN GEMAN AND CLARE FORAN, Ben Geman is an energy and environment correspondent at National Journal Clare Foran is an associate editor at The Atlantic, July 26, 2015 (“Here's How Hillary Clinton Wants to Fight Global Warming” The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/heres-how-hillary-clinton-wants-to-fight- global-warming/445527/, accessed 7/21/16)

But the Clinton campaign emphasized that Sunday's proposal is just part of a broader climate- and-energy agenda that will unfold in the coming months. Clinton's plan calls for more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of her first term , and having the U.S. generate enough renewable energy to power every home within a decade of the start of a Clinton presidency. Achieving the goals would mean expanding the amount of installed solar-energy generating capacity by 700 percent from current levels by the end of 2020, and adding more green-power generation capacity to the electric grid than any other decade in U.S. history, according to a summary of the plan. According to the Clinton campaign, the clean energy agenda outlined on Sunday would meet the test that environmental mega donor Tom Steyer laid out last week when he called on all candidates to put forward a plan to ramp up renewable and carbon-free energy so that it accounts for more than half of all power generation by 2030. Brian Fallon, a Clinton campaign spokesman, said on Twitter: "Clinton's goal translates to 33% of electricity by 2027 . Counting nuclear, as Steyer does, she exceeds his 50% goal." Steyer was quick to praise Clinton while making clear that he hopes to see the 2016 Democratic frontrunner outline additional actions she will take to fight global warming. "Today, Hillary Clinton emerged as a strong leader in solving the climate crisis," Steyer said in a statement, adding: "we look forward to hearing more details about her proposals to tackle climate change." The campaign unveiled the clean-energy pledge by releasing a video and outline of the plan Sunday evening. Clinton will implement low carbon policies –key to decreasing climate change. King 16 — Ed King, editor of Climate Home (news source dedicated to breaking climate change news and analysis), July 15, 2016 (“Weekly wrap: Clinton proposes ambitious US climate platform” Climate Home, http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/07/15/weekly-wrap- clinton-proposes-ambitious-us-climate-platform/, accessed 7/21/16)

Will climate change be Donald Trump’s kryptonite? Hillary Clinton’s campaign team seem to think so, judging by the raft of low carbon policies they proposed this week. The manifesto includes tougher rules for fracking and pipelines, incentives for wind and solar plus a carbon tax – a package that won the endorsement of 350 founder Bill McKibben. As green groups flock to the Clinton presidential ticket, fossil fuel lobby groups are backing Trump. If elected, Trump would be the only world head of state to reject the scientific consensus on climate change. His expected running mate is Indiana Governor Mike Pence, a staunch coal advocate and opponent of Barack Obama’s climate plan. Clinton will solve climate change thanks to the DNC agenda. - lowering GHGs by 80% - continued compliance and support for the Paris Agreement - Clean Power Plant - tax incentives - carbon taxes - + MORE!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheeseman 16 — Gina-Marie Cheeseman, freelance writer and journalist armed with a degree in journalism, and a passion for social justice, including the environment and sustainability., July 19, 2016 (“The DNC Platform Is Tough On Climate Change” Triple Pundit (A global media platform covering the intersection of people, planet and profit), http://www.triplepundit.com/2016/07/dnc-platform-tough-climate-change/, accessed 7/21/16)

The DNC platform acknowledges that climate change “is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time .” It also points out some startling facts about climate change, including that 15 of the 16 hottest years on record have occurred this century and that 2016 is on track to break global temperature records. It mentions that coastal cities like Miami and Baltimore are threatened by rising seas, and the U.S. West Coast has suffered from years of extreme drought. The DNC platform builds upon the work that President Barack Obama has already done to tackle climate change. That extends to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emission s by over 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. It also includes America’s pledge to the Paris Agreement , which aims to keep average global temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius. The DNC’s support also extends to the Clean Power Plan , which seeks to to reduce carbon pollution from power plants through regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency. The DNC also takes a tough stance on fossil fuel companies, even calling for eliminating tax breaks and subsidies for these firms. It calls for extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy . It opposes drilling in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coast, and calls for reform of fossil fuel leasing on public lands. The platform also supports President Obama’s decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, and is in favvor of Department of Justice investigations into ExxonMobil. The DNC supports what it calls a “clean energy economy,” and that support includes: Getting 50 percent of electricity in the U.S. from clean energy sources with a decade. Installing half a billion solar panels within four years and enough renewable energy to power every home in the country. Reducing energy waste in homes, schools, hospitals and offices. Modernizing the electric grid. Making American manufacturing the cleanest and most efficient in the world. Reducing oil consumption through cleaner fuels, investing in public transportation, more electric vehicles, increasing fuel efficiency of vehicles and build bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in urban and suburban areas. Powering the government with 100 percent clean electricity. “This is the most aggressive plan to combat climate change in the history of the Democratic Party,” said Warren Gunnels, Bernie Sanders’ policy director. “We have got to follow through on the promise of this agreement, to put people before the profits of polluters and solve the global crisis of climate change before it’s too late.” The Democratic and Republican parties greatly differ on climate change The RNC Platform is completely opposite , favoring an “all of the above” energy policy that takes “advantage of all our American God-given resources.” The RNC supports developing coal and opposes cap-and-trade legislation. It also supports offshore drilling on the Atlantic coast and the Arctic, as well as opening the outer continental shelf for oil drilling and increasing oil and natural gas exploration on federal land. The RNC also supports the Keystone XL Pipeline. In short, it is a recipe for an environmental nightmare. When it comes to climate change, the views of the two presumptive nominees couldn’t be more different. Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton calls climate change “an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time.” But her GOP counterpart Donald Trump has repeatedly called it a hoax. Clinton calls for reducing American oil consumption by a third, reducing energy waste and generating enough renewable energy to power every home in the U.S . Politifact says of Trump that “he’s enshrined opposition to climate change efforts as a key part of his platform.” Clinton has an interest in maintaining Asian stability- empirically proven. Putz & Tiezzi 16 — Catherine Putz & Shannon Tiezzi, Shannon Tiezzi is editor-in-chief of The Diplomat magazine.Catherine Putz is the special projects editor for The Diplomat magazine., April 14, 2016 (“Did Hillary Clinton’s Pivot To Asia Work?” FivethirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/did-hillary-clintons-pivot-to-asia-work/, accessed 7/21/16)

Notably, it was Clinton who definitively expressed the U.S. position on one of the most flammable security issues facing the region: maritime disputes over islands , reefs and shoals in the S outh C hina S ea claimed (in part or in whole) by Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. China claims nearly all of the features and — of perhaps more concern — much of the open sea between them. In the past four years, China has become more assertive in patrolling the disputed waters and warning ships and aircraft from other states away from its claimed territory, actions Washington sees as a threat to freedom of navigation. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates wrote in his 2014 memoirs that Clinton was “very much in the lead” when it came to advancing the U.S. strategy toward the South China Sea, a role that today is largely handled by the Defense Department. Even before the official rollout of the rebalance strategy, Clinton made it clear that the U.S. would take a hands-on approach to the disputes. In remarks made on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum in Hanoi, Vietnam, in 2010, Clinton laid out the bullet points that still form the crux of the U.S. position today: an emphasis on freedom of navigation, respect for international law, U.S. opposition to coercion and support for negotiated settlements. At each ASEAN meeting since, the United States has raised concerns over the South China Sea and other regional issues — much to the dismay of Chinese pundits, who tend to view the pivot as containment by another name. Hillary will continue to develop alliances and their importance. Chung & Ikenberry 16 — Esther Chung & John Ikenberry, staff reporter for Joongang Daily (Korean news source) & John Ikenberry, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University and reported to be a member of the Asia Policy Team for the Hillary Clinton campaign, discussed the latest on the U.S. election and what the next U.S. presidency may mean for Korean and regional politics, July 20, 2016 (“Professor Ikenberry discusses Trump, Korea” Korea Joongang Daily, http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx? aid=3021515, accessed 7/21/16)

Having just completed teaching a summer course on global governance at Kyung Hee University, Ikenberry sat down on Tuesday with the Korea JoongAng Daily to discuss the controversial elections process and policy discussions of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic counterpart Hillary Clinton. The following is an excerpt of Ikenberry’s analysis on the election, trade agreements, military alliance and more. Q. If Hillary Clinton is elected the next president , would you say her administration will continue to forge mutual defense ties with South Korea, such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and the continued presence of the U.S. troops in the region? A. I don’t represent any political candidate, so I would speak as someone who comes to Korea and East Asia a lot. I think that there would be a great deal of continuity in policy, certainly in alliance and cooperation on all regional issues. I think that a Clinton administration would put a great deal of emphasis on strengthening the alliance system in Europe and Asia, and in some sense, re- explaining and re-affirming why the alliance system is so important to the U.S. and to the region. Ext: Trump Kills Paris Accords Trump will repeal all environmental regulations and tank the Paris accords. Posner 6-3-16. [Eric, professor at the University of Chicago Law School and a co-author of “The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic" "And if Elected: What President Trump Could or Couldn’t Do" New York Times -- www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/opinion/campaign-stops/and-if-elected-what-president-trump-could-or-couldnt-do.html]

In May, Mr. Trump vowed to rescind President Obama’s environmental policies. He would be able to do that as well. He could disavow the Paris climate change agreement, just as President Bush “unsigned” a treaty creating an international criminal court in 2002. He could choke off climate regulations that are in development and probably withdraw existing climate regulations. Even if a court blocked him, he could refuse to enforce the regulations, just as Mr. Obama refused to enforce immigration laws. Trump reverses Obama climate policy – undermines our ability to meet Paris obligations Murray 16. [Bill, editor of Real Clear Energy, "Would Trump Undo Obama's Environmental Legacy?" Real Clear Politics -- May 17 -- http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/17/would_trump_undo_obamas_environmental_legacy_130583.html]

A simple parsing of his phrases – “opening up energy” or “put the miners back to work” – implies overturning important elements of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), which is the main method by which the U.S. plans to meet its emissions obligations promised at the Paris climate change convention in December. “According to the attitude that he has expressed, he would be a major threat to health and the environment ” if elected, said David Goldston, the director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. “ He doesn’t believe in climate change, he doesn’t believe in the ozone hole, and he talks about dismantling the EPA.” How is a wholesale rollback of Obama’s environmental regime possible? The quick answer is that the failure of cap-and-trade legislation in 2010 forced the administration to try and achieve its environmental goals via the executive branch. By deciding to go down the executive-action path, the risk existed of a rollback if Republicans regained the White House. The easiest way to undo Obama’s environmental efforts would be for a President Trump to simply order his administration to stop working on a series of environmental rules that are still in draft form or mired in the federal court system. The CPP would qualify, given that federal courts may not decide on its legality until 2017. Other EPA- sponsored energy-related rules that could be quickly undermined by a Trump presidency include a “well-control” methane rule just finalized last week, and a Waters of the United States rule, both of which are struggling to make it through the courts. “He’s going to be an old-school pro-business Republican with a harder edge,” said Mike McKenna, a GOP strategist who deals with energy and environment issues. “ He would target the things that underpin the whole structure of the Obama environmental policy. He’ll look at the Clean Power Plan and say, ‘Are we out of our frigging mind?’”

GOP win guarantees warming – decks the Paris deal. Adler 15. [Ben, covers environmental policy and politics for Grist, with a focus on climate change, energy, and cities, “Republicans still hope to throw a wrench in the Paris climate deal,” Grist -- December 16 -- http://grist.org/climate- energy/republicans-still-hope-to-throw-a-wrench-in-the-paris-climate-deal/]

Republicans didn’t even wait for a global climate change deal to be struck in Paris to start undermining it. Last month, congressional Republicans were loudly discouraging other nations from signing onto any agreement, arguing that the U.S. won’t keep up its end of the bargain if a Republican wins the 2016 presidential election . And they passed bills that would repeal the Clean Power Plan, the new set of EPA restrictions on carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants, which is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s strategy for meeting its emissions targets under the Paris Agreement . While U.S. negotiators were hard at work in Paris trying to secure a deal, congressional Republicans kept working hard to make the U.S. look insincere. The House passed an energy bill that would expedite permitting for oil and gas projects such as pipelines and expand liquefied natural gas exports. Sen. Ted Cruz (R- Texas), who is running for president, held a hearing stuffed with climate science deniers, including one who Greenpeace revealed is on the fossil fuel industry’s payroll. Republicans in Congress have also voted to end the crude oil export ban as part of the budget deal. That policy change would be a giveaway to the oil industry that would increase domestic oil production at the expense of the environment. Once a deal came out of Paris, naturally Republicans started criticizing it. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, complained — nonsensically, since he doesn’t even accept climate science in the first place — that the agreement does not hold countries such as China and India to strong enough standards. Anyway, he promises to interfere with any effort to meet our emissions targets or climate finance commitments. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said President Obama “is ‘making promises he can’t keep’ and should remember that the agreement ‘is subject to being shredded in 13 months,’” according to the Associated Press. As AP explains, “McConnell noted that the presidential election is next year and the agreement could be reversed if the GOP wins the White House .” The U.S. — as the world’s largest economy, largest historic polluter, and second-largest present- day carbon polluter — is an essential player in any functioning global climate agreement . Well aware of this, President Obama made a huge and largely successful effort on climate diplomacy over the last year, crafting bilateral agreements with key nations such as China, India, and Brazil in order to lay the groundwork for an international deal. Republicans , knowing the importance of U.S. cooperation, are eager not only to kneecap any U.S. climate policy, but also to prevent global cooperation on climate change. Perhaps they fear that a future Republican president will face more pressure from allies and trading partners to address climate change now that everyone else in the world has already committed to do so. So over the next five years , until the world comes together again in 2020 to hopefully negotiate a stronger set of national targets, congressional Republicans will be working to destroy the agreement and its future potential by preventing the U.S. from keeping its word. Their game plan will be to undo the Clean Power Plan and revoke U.S. pledges of financing to assist developing nations with expanding clean energy and adapting to climate change. How this plays out will depend on the outcome of the next presidential election . All of the leading Republican presidential candidates are climate science deniers who oppose the Clean Power Plan. On the campaign trail this week, most of them have avoided any discussion of the Paris Agreement. All but one of the top nine GOP campaigns did not respond to a query on the subject from The New York Times. The one Republican candidate who responded, Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, via a spokesman, had a perverse take: “While the governor believes that climate change is real and that human activity contributes to it, he has serious concerns with an agreement that the Obama administration deliberately crafted to avoid having to submit it to the Senate for approval. That’s an obvious indicator that they expect it to result in significant job loss and inflict further damage to our already sluggish economy.” But Senate Republicans have always made it clear that they wouldn’t approve any kind of climate treaty, no matter what the expected economic impacts. That’s why Obama pushed the world to adopt a more flexible agreement that doesn’t require Senate approval. Kasich is blaming Obama for a condition of his own party’s making. In the GOP presidential debate on Tuesday night, Kasich briefly mentioned the Paris negotiations, only to ridicule the idea of discussing climate change instead of how to combat ISIS. That was the only mention of climate change in the entire two-hour debate on foreign policy. Sen. Marco Rubio (R- Fla.), another presidential contender, weighed in on the Paris Agreement from the campaign trail, calling it “ridiculous,” and adding, “unilateral disarmament in our economy is reckless, and it is hurting the American Dream.” Republicans, it seems, have settled on the talking point that the Paris Agreement will harm our economy without bothering to produce any evidence of that. Their claim seems to rest on the premise that the Clean Power Plan will raise electricity costs. But in fact, studies have found that the CPP will actually lower electricity bills for the average American family, thanks to the energy-efficiency provisions. Other studies have found that the jobs lost in the coal industry under the CPP will be vastly outweighed by jobs created in renewable energy and productivity gains across the economy from lower electricity costs. And certainly there is nothing “unilateral” about our “disarmament.” The European Union, for example, is cutting emissions more drastically than the U.S. And while developing countries aren’t pledging bigger cuts than the U.S., they already have much lower emissions per capita and smaller economies, so they are offering more significant limits in relative terms. We don’t need to wait for the other Republican candidates to talk about the Paris Agreement to know what they think of it. The League of Conservation Voters compiled a fact sheet with the comments they made about the COP21 negotiations before the deal was inked. All were critical, with many saying that Obama shouldn’t even have gone to Paris to work for an agreement, and that they wouldn’t have were they in the White House. If a Democrat wins the presidency next year, the fight over following through on Paris and ramping up for the next agreement will be between her and Congress. If there is a Republican in the White House, he will get cooperation from the reliably Republican House to repeal the Clean Power Plan and end climate funding for developing nations , and those efforts may or may not be aided by the Senate, depending on whether Democrats take control of it in 2016, or at least have enough votes to mount a filibuster. No matter who becomes the next president, the third branch of government will also have a say. Conservative state attorneys general and corporate fossil fuel interests are challenging the Clean Power Plan in federal court. The presidential election probably won’t determine the court case’s outcome — only a vacancy on the Supreme Court before the case is heard might lead to that — but it will determine how the EPA responds if the rule is overturned. The Supreme Court has already held that EPA has the legal authority to regulate carbon pollution, so if the CPP is overturned, it would mean that the agency could promulgate new regulations on power plants that are more likely to be deemed compliant with the Clean Air Act . But whether their boss wants them to or not will depend on who sits in the White House . The bottom line: The domestic political fight over the Paris Agreement has just begun. Paris was great—but much more is needed and a republican won’t create those policies. The President or congress must ratify the agreement—it’s dead in the water during a Trump presidency Sutter, 15 (John D., award-winning columnist opinion Columnist, CNN Digital, December 14, 2015, “Hooray for the Paris climate agreement! Now what?,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/opinions/sutter-cop21-climate-5-things/)

Paris (CNN)"The end of the era of fossil fuels." "A victory for all of the planet and future generations." "A turning point for the world." It's hard to overstate the importance of what happened in Paris over the weekend: Ministers from 195 countries adopted by consensus a legally binding agreement to fight climate change. The Paris agreement aims to help the world abandon fossil fuels this century and, specifically, stop global warming "well below" 2 degrees Celsius and, if possible, below 1.5 degrees. Incredible, huh? This is truly a remarkable moment, especially since it occurred during what likely will be the hottest year on record, and was adopted with global consensus and in Paris, the site of terror attacks almost exactly one month ago. The accord, which came out of the COP21 meeting of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, has been years, if not decades, in the making. It's a bold signal to boardrooms and national capitals around the world: The era of fossil fuels is over, and we're moving toward cleaner (and safer and healthier) sources of energy fast. On Saturday, I was in Le Bourget, France, the site of the two-week negotiations, when the decision came in. People were screaming and hugging and banging on desks -- swapping espresso for beer. Politicians linked hands and swung them into the air, looking more like ecstatic cheerleaders than smart-suited diplomats. For many policy experts, this is the culmination of a life's work on climate change. So many other attempts at treaties like this have failed. That's worth celebrating. But no one is naive enough to think this treaty alone will "fix" climate change. On this point, even the text adopted in Paris is self-aware, noting the "significant gap" between countries' pledges and the goal of stopping warming short of 2 degrees. According to the UNFCCC's own analysis, the pollution-reduction pledges made by countries ahead of the Paris talks would allow the atmosphere to warm 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100. That's well beyond the 2-degree goal. It also would be catastrophic for the planet and for people, wiping low-lying islands off the map as seas continue to rise; pushing many plants and animals toward extinction; increasing the intensity of droughts, floods, heat waves and storms; and costing all of us a lot of money. The Paris agreement, then, would be most accurately described as a giant shove in the right direction. Nearly 200 countries agreed to a legally binding framework that commits them to upping their ambitions every five years, financing the transition to clean energy and continuing on this path. It doesn't bind countries, however, to meet their climate targets, and it also doesn't prescribe exactly how they should get there. There are no sanctions, for example, if China fails to meet its goal of peaking emissions by 2030 (there's evidence it actually will do even better than that, at least partly because air pollution has become an economic and public health crisis) or if the United States breaks its promise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025. The countries will be legally accountable to each other. But they must take bold action as individuals, too. Here are five actions that must follow the celebrations: 1. Ratify the Paris agreement For the agreement to have legal force, it must be ratified by at least 55 of the 195 countries that adopted it without objection Saturday. Those 55 countries must represent at least 55% of all global-warming emissions. This is seen by many observers, including me, as a formality. There was broad consensus in support of this agreement and the message it sends about climate change. The Obama administration also argues the agreement can be ratified by an executive action, meaning it won't have to go before the U.S. Senate, where many members of the GOP majority are skeptics of climate science and resist action. That argument should hold, said Dan Bodansky of the Center for Law and Global Affairs at Arizona State University who has followed climate negotiations for decades. "It seems like this is the kind of agreement the president can join on his own," he said. The United Nations hopes to hold a formal signing ceremony in New York as soon as April. 2. End fossil fuel subsidies Many of the 195 countries that adopted the Paris agreement actively are pumping money into dirty-energy industries when they're not standing in the international spotlight. Dropping those subsidies is something these countries can and should do immediately. Doing so would be a massive help as countries try to figure out how to limit carbon pollution. If 20 major countries abandoned their subsidies, global carbon dioxide emissions in those countries would decline nearly 11% by 2020, compared with a business-as-usual scenario, according to a recent report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Nordic Council of Ministers. If 30% of those funds were reinvested in clean energy, then emissions could be dropped 18% in the countries studied. Laura Merrill, a senior researcher who worked on the report, told me global emissions likely would drop at least 10% if all fossil fuels subsides were cut. "I think it is the elephant in the boardroom, really," she said. "It's about $500 billion (in subsidies) downstream to consumers and about $100 billion (in subsidies) upstream to producers. That's a huge amount of financing" that could be used for renewable energy. It's ironic at best that these massive subsidies continue in the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere while leaders pledge commitment to a climate accord. With oil and coal prices low, now is the right time to act. 3. Put a global tax on carbon pollution Mention the word "tax" in just about any context in the United States, and you're bound to see people squirm. But a broad coalition of business-savvy groups, including the World Bank, Unilever and Exxon Mobil, argue that some form of a carbon tax or pricing system should be used to account for the costs of fossil fuel pollution. The reason is simple: Someone has to pay for the costs of carbon pollution, which include rising seas (threatening trillions in shoreline assets), more-intense droughts, air-pollution deaths and so on. The polluter should pay those costs, not the people and places affected by an unnatural increase in global surface and ocean temperatures. Plus, money from a carbon tax could be put into investments in clean energy and technology. About 40 countries and more than 20 cities and states have implemented some form of a carbon-pricing system, according to a 2014 report from the World Bank. China is planning a national cap-and-trade system and already has tested the concept in several pilot regions. The United States and others need to consider these policies soon. Once the rationale for this kind of tax becomes more accepted, it should be tried globally. 4. Work toward political consensus One of the most significant things about the Paris agreement is its symbolism: Nearly 200 countries agree we must take sweeping actions to address the climate crisis. That type of consensus needs to emerge within those nations as well. It clearly doesn't exist yet. Over the weekend, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell reportedly said the Paris agreement could be "shredded in 13 months" if a Republican is elected to the White House. Most of the leading Republican candidates for the U.S. presidency are climate skeptics, and most of the GOP candidates flunk climate science, according to a group of scientists The Associated Press assembled to analyze their public statements on this topic. (Jeb Bush did the best of the Republicans, but he only scored 64 of 100; the Democrats scored between 87 and 94 in terms of their accuracy.) Pointing fingers won't do any good. Somehow, we need to remove political divisions from this issue and come together to work for solutions. On my way to the U.N. talks in Paris, I stopped in Denmark, which has arguably the best climate policy in the world. No place is perfect, but there's general agreement among all parties in Denmark that greenhouse gas pollution must be reduced and that the government should help encourage that transition. The country already is powered 40% by electricity from wind, and aims to be carbon neutral by 2050. We have to move past the silly fights about science -- the science is clear that we're causing global warming and, in many ways, it's worse than we thought -- and focus on solutions. 5. Invest in greener technologies The 1.5- degree target will essentially be impossible to achieve unless we develop new technologies to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. The World Bank estimates, for instance, that we're headed for 1.5 degrees of warming based only on existing pollution. We already have many, many technologies -- from wind to solar and geothermal -- that can help with the transition. Cutting back on the energy we use matters, too. But given the scale of the transition required, it also is crucial that we listen to Bill Gates and other technologists who say we must make big bets on new clean-energy technologies. There are signs that's already happening. Gates was here in Le Bourget to announce an investment group that will put billions into clean-energy research. The Paris agreement is truly a watershed moment in the world's fight against climate change. It creates a legally binding framework for progress, and that's fundamentally new. But grand ambitions also must be met with concrete action. Donald, a climate denier, would be a disaster for the world and our environment Somerville and Gautier, 16 (Richard C. J., Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, coordinating lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change., Catherine, professor emerita at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She has taught classes on climate, 13 MARCH 2016, “Climate change and the 2016 election,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://thebulletin.org/climate-change-and-2016-election9256)

As this is written, all four remaining candidates in the race for the Republican presidential nomination vehemently reject the fundamental findings of modern climate science. These findings are simple to state: The Earth's climate is now unequivocally warming. Many chains of evidence demonstrate the warming, including increasing atmospheric and ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, shrinking glaciers and ice sheets, and changing precipitation patterns. The main cause of the warming is human activities, especially burning fossil fuels, which increases the amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The effects of man-made climate change are already being felt, and they are mainly harmful. The consequences of climate change will become much more severe in the future, unless global actions are taken soon to drastically reduce the amount of heat-trapping gases emitted into the atmosphere. These conclusions are the results of decades of research by the international scientific community. They have been endorsed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and by the National Academy of Sciences and leading scientific professional societies in the US and other countries. The great majority of mainstream climate scientists such as ourselves find these results persuasive. Nevertheless, Ted Cruz heaps scorn on what he has called "a pseudo-scientific theory." He has dismissed it as, "not science, it's a religion." John Kasich says, “I don't believe that humans are the primary cause of climate change." Marco Rubio agrees, stating, "I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it." Donald Trump speaks of a "global warming hoax," calling it, "created by and for the Chinese." These public figures reject mainstream climate science because they view it through a lens that incorporates their firmly held values and convictions. They have a high regard for American capitalism and private industry, or the free enterprise system, and a low regard for taxes and regulation, which they regard as government interference. In rejecting mainstream science , they are expressing their opposition to policies that governments might implement, if the science were accepted. In the United States, aspiring Republican politicians may also feel the pressure to conform to a litmus test. In order to obtain political and financial support, especially from sources allied with the fossil fuel industry, they may conclude that they must attack mainstream climate science and insist that man-made climate change is not a problem. However, Mother Nature, or the physical climate system, is not concerned with anybody's values or convictions or political litmus tests. Mother Nature is concerned with natural laws. Heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere do trap heat. That leads to warming. After every politician has expressed an opinion, Mother Nature bats last. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a politician and sociologist, famously said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Yet the Republican Presidential candidates have gone to a great deal of trouble to avoid confronting the facts about climate change. They tirelessly repeat climate myths, the refutations of which are easily found on websites such as www.skepticalscience.com. These politicians like to say, "I am not a scientist," a truth sadly obvious to any scientist. Yet they have refused to learn what science has discovered about climate change. When Republicans in Congress have held hearings on climate change, they produce tired re-runs of political theater. The scientists invited to testify often include the same handful of outlier witnesses whose opinions are known to be compatible with Republican political positions. Science is the best process that humanity has developed to learn about natural laws. It is self-correcting, based on facts and evidence, not on belief. Marcia McNutt, the distinguished geophysicist who is the incoming president of the US National Academy of Sciences, has said, “Science is a method for deciding whether what we choose to believe has a basis in the laws of nature or not.” Most of the world now accepts that climate science can provide useful input to policymaking. Some 196 countries recently produced the Paris agreement. Stabilizing the climate and preventing dangerous levels of climate disruption, the goal of this agreement, will require vigorous international efforts and strong American leadership. Only one major country today has an important political party that overwhelmingly rejects climate science. That country is the United States; the party is Republican. Science shows that the climate system responds to the cumulative emissions of heat-trapping gases. Today's generation thus has its hands on the thermostat controlling future climate. Failure to sharply reduce emissions can lead to sea level rise that will literally change the map of the world. Electing a president who, head in the sand, rejects modern climate science would be risky and potentially disastrous. It would needlessly increase the likelihood that future generations will be condemned to cope with a severely disrupted climate. Ext: GOP Win  Warming

GOP victory risks extinction from climate Krugman 16. [Paul, professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton, “Wind, Sun and Fire” New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/wind-sun-and-fire.html?_r=0]

So what’s really at stake in this year’s election? Well, among other things , the fate of the planet. Last year was the hottest on record, by a wide margin, which should — but won’t — put an end to climate deniers’ claims that global warming has stopped. The truth is that climate change just keeps getting scarier; it is, by far, the most important policy issue facing America and the world. Still, this election wouldn’t have much bearing on the issue if there were no prospect of effective action against the looming catastrophe. But the situation on that front has changed drastically for the better in recent years, because we’re now achingly close to achieving a renewable-energy revolution. What’s more, getting that energy revolution wouldn’t require a political revolution. All it would take are fairly modest policy changes, some of which have already happened and others of which are already underway. But those changes won’t happen if the wrong people end up in power . To see what I’m talking about, you need to know something about the current state of climate economics, which has changed far more in recent years than most people seem to realize. Most people who think about the issue at all probably imagine that achieving a drastic reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would necessarily involve big economic sacrifices. This view is required orthodoxy on the right, where it forms a sort of second line of defense against action, just in case denial of climate science and witch hunts against climate scientists don’t do the trick. For example, in the last Republican debate Marco Rubio — the last, best hope of the G.O.P. establishment — insisted, as he has before, that a cap-and-trade program would be “devastating for our economy.” To find anything equivalent on the left you have to go far out of the mainstream, to activists who insist that climate change can’t be fought without overthrowing capitalism. Still, my sense is that many Democrats believe that politics as usual isn’t up to the task, that we need a political earthquake to make real action possible. In particular, I keep hearing that the Obama administration’s environmental efforts have been so far short of what’s needed as to be barely worth mentioning. But things are actually much more hopeful than that, thanks to remarkable technological progress in renewable energy. The numbers are really stunning. According to a recent report by the investment firm Lazard, the cost of electricity generation using wind power fell 61 percent from 2009 to 2015, while the cost of solar power fell 82 percent. These numbers — which are in line with other estimates — show progress at rates we normally only expect to see for information technology. And they put the cost of renewable energy into a range where it’s competitive with fossil fuels. Now, there are still some issues special to renewables, in particular problems of intermittency: consumers may want power when the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine. But this issue seems to be of diminishing significance, partly thanks to improving storage technology, partly thanks to the realization that “demand response” — paying consumers to cut energy use during peak periods — can greatly reduce the problem. So what will it take to achieve a large-scale shift from fossil fuels to renewables, a shift to sun and wind instead of fire? Financial incentives, and they don’t have to be all that huge. Tax credits for renewables that were part of the Obama stimulus plan, and were extended under the recent budget deal, have already done a lot to accelerate the energy revolution. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan, which if implemented will create strong incentives to move away from coal, will do much more. And none of this will require new legislation; we can have an energy revolution even if the crazies retain control of the House. Now, skeptics may point out that even if all these good things happen, they won’t be enough on their own to save the planet. For one thing, we’re only talking about electricity generation, which is a big part of the climate change problem but not the whole thing. For another, we’re only talking about one country when the problem is global. But I’d argue that the kind of progress now within reach could produce a tipping point, in the right direction . Once renewable energy becomes an obvious success and, yes, a powerful interest group, anti-environmentalism will start to lose its political grip. And an energy revolution in America would let us take the lead in global action . Salvation from climate catastrophe is, in short, something we can realistically hope to see happen, with no political miracle necessary. But failure is also a very real possibility . Everything is hanging in the balance.

Extinction from warming Neuhauser 15. [Alan, energy, environment and STEM reporter, “This Climate Change Election,” U.S. News & World Report, August 14, http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/08/14/the-2016-election-is-critical-for-stopping-climate-change ]

Next year, though, may truly – actually, seriously – be different, if climate scientists are right . The next candidate Americans send to the Oval Office, experts say, may also be the very last who can avert catastrophe from climate change. "It is urgent and the timeframe is critical and it has to be right now," says Vicki Arroyo, executive director of the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown Law. "We can't lose another four years, much less eight years." This is not an overnight ice age or a rise of the apes. But global warming is already here, parching the American West, flooding coastal cities , strengthening storms, erasing species and inflaming armed conflict, with a rise of just 0.85 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial levels. And it's going to get worse, experts say. Last year, a U.N. panel of scientists predicted the world had until 2050 to slash emissions by as much as 70 percent to keep temperatures from rising another 1.15 degrees by the end of the century. That's the threshold of an unstoppable cycle of Arctic and Antarctic melting, the release of heat-trapping gases that had been caught in the ice, more warming, more melting, more warming, more melting – until the glaciers and ice caps disappear. But some researchers – including the man who first presented the facts on climate change to Congress in 1988 – say that that tipping point may come even sooner, perhaps as early as 2036: Humans, in short, are having an even greater impact than expected. "Sea level projections and upcoming United Nations meetings in Paris are far too sluggish compared with the magnitude and speed of sea level changes," the scientist, Columbia professor James Hansen, wrote Wednesday in a Q&A on the web forum Reddit, discussing a study he published in July. The needed changes are monumental: Halting climate change and heading off its worst consequences is going to require a wholesale switch from fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas to renewables like wind and solar – potentially upending utilities, energy producers and construction contractors, the sort of change "of the magnitude of the invention of the steam engine or the electrification of society," says Jules Kortenhorst, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonpartisan energy research group. "How quickly can we transform one of the most complex industrial systems – our energy system – across the globe in order to move toward low carbon?" he asks . "There is absolutely no doubt we have to act now." This presents an election – and a choice – with no historical analogues. " This will be a make-or-break presidency as far as our ability to avert a climate change catastrophe," says Michael Mann, meteorology professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, whose "hockey-stick" shaped graph warned of sharply rising emissions and temperatures. Pick any issue throughout history, he and others argue, none has shared the three qualities that make climate change stand apart: its threat to the entire planet, the short window to respond, and how sharply it has divided the two parties' candidates. "Republicans and Democrats have argued over issues for years, but I can't think of an example where one party didn't even say that the issue exists," says Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University who has advised Evangelical and conservative climate action groups, and who has urged policymakers to address warming. Four of the five Democratic candidates has pledged or supported Obama administration efforts to cut the heat-trapping emissions that cause climate change: Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chafee. Former Sen. Jim Webb has said he'd expand the use of fossil fuels and once voted to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating certain greenhouse gas emissions. Among the Republicans, eight of the 17 candidates have hedged: Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, Jim Gilmore, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, George Pataki and Rand Paul have acknowledged that humans do contribute to global warming, but have questioned or stopped short of saying how much – a position at odds with the findings of a vast majority of scientists. "The climate is changing; I don't think anybody can argue it's not. Human activity has contributed to it," Bush said in an email interview with Bloomberg BNA in July – a statement that notably did not mention how much humans were at fault. During a campaign stop in New Hampshire in June, he had previously told listeners, "The climate is changing, whether men are doing it or not," one month after calling it "arrogant" to say climate science is settled. The rest of the GOP field – including three senators who rejected a January amendment tying human activity to climate change – has dismissed the issue outright. Paul also voted against the amendment. "As a scientist it's very frustrating to hear politicians basically saying, 'This isn't true,' or, 'They're just making it up to get government money,'" Hayhoe says. "A thermometer is not Democrat or Republican. What observations are telling us is not political – it is what it is." And there are conservative solutions for warming. Some party members, in fact, see it as an inherently Republican issue: Carbon emissions, for example, distort the free market, forcing others to pay the higher and indirect costs of climate change (storm recovery, disaster relief) plus the health costs associated with air pollution. "We allow the coal industry to socialize its costs, and we conservatives don't like allowing people to socialize anything," says former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, who now explores free-market solutions to climate change as head of the Energy and Enterprise Institute at George Mason University. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, one that does not support other programs and instead goes back to households, could fix that distortion, he and others argue. "The question is not, 'Is there going to be a tax on carbon?' It's, 'Do you want a tax that you have a voice in and control, or do you want to keep writing checks after disasters that you have no control over?'" says retired Rear Admiral David Titley, who has advised some of the GOP presidential candidates and directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Penn State University. "That $60 billion relief bill for Hurricane Sandy that passed very quickly through a Republican-led House, did you get a vote on that tax? Because that's a tax." Yet Inglis, himself is a living example of what can happen to conservatives who call for climate action. The recipient of the JFK Profile in Courage Award in April, he was unseated in the Republican primary in 2010 after shifting his position on global warming. "Republicans say, 'Look at what happened to him when he said it was real. Do you want that to happen to you?'" Hayhoe describes. Oil, gas and coal companies, along with billionaire Libertarian industrialists David and Charles Koch, rank among the biggest campaign donors, and often seem as allergic to new taxes as a bubble boy to fresh pollen. But popular sentiment among voters appears to be changing: Most Republican voters say they support climate action, and last week, Shell did not renew its membership in the Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council because of the group's opposition to climate action. Even the climate statements by the eight Republicans who have hedged on warming, vague as they were, may signify a kind of progress – especially during the primaries, when candidates play to their parties' more extreme bases. "In the Great Recession in 2010, it was this very atheistic position with regard to climate change: 'We don't believe,'" Inglis says. "Then, in the 2014 cycle, 'I'm not a scientist,' that was an agnostic position. These are data points on a trend line toward a tipping point." Republicans can exploit a distinct advantage on climate action, too, he adds: Voters tend to support the presidents who buck party stereotypes. "Nixon goes to China, Bill Clinton signs welfare reform – the country will trust a conservative to touch climate," Inglis argues. But climate scientists, environmental advocates and Democrats remain deeply skeptical. The most recent Republican president, for one, backpedaled on his 2000 campaign pledge to rein-in carbon emissions. Campaign donations remain hugely influential, and as Republican candidates lambaste the environmental agenda of the Obama administration, stopping climate change will actually require they expand upon Obama initiatives: resist industry pressure to slow the roll-out of tighter fuel standards for cars, push states to reduce emissions from their power sectors and uphold and ratchet-up international commitments to slow carbon emissions. There's also the Supreme Court: with four Supreme Court justices now over the age of 70, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg pushing 80, the next president will likely have the chance to nominate new jurists to the court – a court that will almost certainly decide challenges to various environmental actions aimed at slowing global warming . "If we are going to avoid catastrophic, irreversible climate change impacts, we have to be ramping down our carbon emissions dramatically in the years ahead. The current administration has begun that process, but our next president must not only continue but build on that progress," Mann says. It is on the global stage where perhaps the spotlight – and climate scientists' hopes and expectations – will shine brightest. In December, negotiators from nearly 200 nations will meet in Paris to hammer-out an international climate accord. It is expected to include commitments from China and India, heavy polluters spurred to rein-in their emissions and invest in clean energy by America's own commitment to slash carbon emissions from its power sector. " The rest of the world is going to expect the U.S. to live up to its commitment [made at the Paris meeting], no matter who is in the White House," says Henrik Selin, professor of international relations at the Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University. "If you have a president who comes in and starts rolling back the Obama initiatives, you're going to have international leaders being very unhappy about this – and they are not just countries, they are trading partners. This is not just a domestic issue, it's also very much a foreign policy issue." And so far, he and others argue, none of the Republican candidates have offered a clear vision on climate, let alone any plan to slow warming.

GOP win will increase emissions and destroy the environment. Klare 15. [Michael, Professor at Hampshire College, “A Republican Neo-Imperial Vision for 2016” Truth Dig – February 13 -- http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/keystone_xl_cold_war_20_and_the_gop_vision_for_2016_20150213]

This approach has been embraced by other senior Republican figures who see increased North American hydrocarbon output as the ideal response to Russian assertiveness. In other words, the two pillars of a new energy North Americanism—enhanced collaboration with the big oi l companies across the continent and reinvigorated Cold Warism—are now being folded into a single Republican grand strategy. Nothing will prepare the West better to fight Russia or just about any other hostile power on the planet than the conversion of North America into a bastion of fossil fuel abundance. This strange, chilling vision of an American (and global) future was succinctly described by former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a remarkable Washington Post op-ed in March 2014. She essentially called for North America to flood the global energy market, causing a plunge in oil prices and bankrupting the Russians. “Putin is playing for the long haul, cleverly exploiting every opening he sees,” she wrote, but “Moscow is not immune from pressure.” Putin and Co. require high oil and gas prices to finance their aggressive activities, “and soon, North America’s bounty of oil and gas will swamp Moscow’s capacity.” By “authorizing the Keystone XL pipeline and championing natural gas exports,” she asserted, Washington would signal “that we intend to do exactly that.” So now you know: approval of the Keystone XL pipeline isn’t actually about jobs and the economy; it’s about battling Vladimir Putin, the Iranian mullahs, and America’s other adversaries. “One of the ways we fight back, one of the ways we push back is we take control of our own energy destiny,” said Senator Hoeven on January 7th, when introducing legislation to authorize construction of that pipeline. And that, it turns out, is just the beginning of the “benefits” that North Americanism will supposedly bring. Ultimately, the goals of this strategy are to perpetuate the dominance of fossil fuels in North America’s energy mix and to enlist Canada and Mexico in a U.S.-led drive to ensure the continued dominance of the West in key regions of the world. Stay tuned: you’ll be hearing a lot more about this ambitious strategy as the Republican presidential hopefuls begin making their campaign rounds. Keep in mind, though, that this is potentially dangerous stuff at every level—from the urge to ratchet up a conflict with Russia to the desire to produce and consume ever more North American fossil fuels (not exactly a surprising impulse given the Republicans’ heavy reliance on campaign contributions from Big Energy). In the coming months, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton’s camp will, of course, attempt to counter this drive. Their efforts will, however, be undermined by their sympathy for many of its components. Obama, for instance, has boasted more than once of his success in increasing U.S. oil and gas production, while Clinton has repeatedly called for a more combative foreign policy. Nor has either of them yet come up with a grand strategy as seemingly broad and attractive as Republican North Americanism. If that plan is to be taken on seriously as the dangerous contrivance it is, it evidently will fall to others to do so. This Republican vision, after all, rests on the desire of giant oil companies to eliminate government regulation and bring the energy industries of Canada and Mexico under their corporate sway. Were this to happen, it would sabotage efforts to curb carbon emissions from fossil fuels in a major way, while undermining the sovereignty of Canada and Mexico. In the process, the natural environment would suffer horribly as regulatory constraints against hazardous drilling practices would be eroded in all three countries. Stepped-up drilling, hydrofracking, and tar sands production would also result in the increased diversion of water to energy production, reducing supplies for farming while increasing the risk that leaking drilling fluids will contaminate drinking water and aquifers. No less worrisome, the Republican strategy would result in a far more polarized and dangerous international environment, in which hopes for achieving any kind of peace in Ukraine, Syria, or elsewhere would disappear. The urge to convert North America into a unified garrison state under U.S. (energy) command would undoubtedly prompt similar initiatives abroad, with China moving ever closer to Russia and other blocs forming elsewhere. In addition, those who seek to use energy as a tool of coercion should not be surprised to discover that they are inviting its use by hostile parties—and in such conflicts the U.S. and its allies would not emerge unscathed. In other words, the shining Republican vision of a North American energy fortress will, in reality, prove to be a nightmare of environmental degradation and global conflict. Unfortunately, this may not be obvious by election season 2016, so watch out.

Republicans will never recognize climate change—it’s the biggest existential risk to the world which means inaction is dangerous Plait, 15 (Phil, Slate’s Bad Astronomy blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death From the Skies!, OCT. 1 2015, “GOP Presidential Candidates, Science, and Reality,” Slate, http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/10/01/gop_candidates_and_climate_chang e_denying_reality_in_every_way.html)

It’s time to not only face facts, but to call them out, too: This cohort of Republican presidential candidates isn’t exactly a brain trust. Every time I see an article about something one of the GOP contenders has said, I’m stunned at just how much lower they can sink. It’s as if they’re scrambling on purpose to brag about the dumbest possible thing they can come up with. Think I’m exaggerating? Here are some choice examples of ideas that have come out of the mouth holes of the remaining viable candidates: Donald Trump—whose campaign, I’m increasingly thinking, is simply an elaborate performance art piece to amplify his brand and who, it needs to be remembered, has been the front-runner for months now—has said so many forehead- slappingly dumbosities that picking any is like trying to choose a specific drop of water from the ocean. But two obvious ones are his tax plan that would almost literally destroy our government and his idea to build a border wall that is literally impossible to build. Carly Fiorina tells outrageous lies, repeats them over and again, and thinks no one will check her on them. Too bad for her there are experts willing to speak up. Ted Cruz wants to shut down the government based on the subject of those lies. Remember, Planned Parenthood doesn't get federal money for abortions (except under extremely limited circumstances like the imperiled health of the mother), making this whole thing a political and theatrical farce. Marco Rubio is uncertain about things he should’ve learned in eighth grade science, and when confronted on this claims he’s not a scientist. That’s like saying you don’t know where Washington, D.C., is on a map because you’re not a cartographer. Jeb Bush apparently openly mocks smart people, saying, “When I am elected president, the political hacks and the academics are going to take the back seat.” Yes, heaven forbid we let people like academics who have spent their lives studying a problem actually have a say in the solution. As for Ben Carson … well, there’s this. None of this stuff is exactly rocket science … but when it comes to climate science, not a single one of these people is even close to planet Earth. They’re in their own alternate reality where up is down and, I suppose literally, hot is cold. Let’s do a quick rundown of where they all stand: Donald Trump thinks climate change is some sort of China-manufactured hoax. By the way, if you look up irony in the dictionary there’s a picture of Trump. Carly Fiorina wants to play both sides as well, saying global warming is real (but there’s nothing we can do about it) but by the way global warming isn’t real. Ted Cruz thinks climatologists are flat-Earthers and that he himself is Galileo. I think he was confusing Galileo with George Orwell. Marco Rubio simply parrots long-debunked denier nonsense. Not to be out-ironied by Trump and Rubio, Jeb Bush was unhappy about Pope Francis saying we need to take action on climate change. Bush said we should ignore the pope because he’s not a scientist. Actually, he is. And while the problems I have with this pope are legion, in this particular case he’s right. As for Ben Carson, well. He says climate change is irrelevant. Irrelevant. So there’s that. I’ve been railing against the GOP’s party plank on climate change for years now, so none of this is surprising. But it’s upsetting. I disagree with almost all of the stances of the Republican Party these days, but in the past they at least used to embrace science. Now, though, if one of their candidates says the Sun will rise in the East, I’d lay better odds on the Earth’s rotation having reversed. This stunning intellectual deficit, whether real or pandering, is wholly the fault of the party itself (and, to an extent, the American public for letting it slide this far). The abject dismissal of reality has become more and more mainstream in the party politicians, and its power soared upward like a hockey stick graph when the Tea Party gained congressional seats in the in 2010 election. The fallout from this is as fascinating as it is maddening. For example, the Heartland Institute—or as I think of it, the Mos Eisley of think tanks—attacked the pope on his climate change stance, and even a Catholic congress person boycotted the pope’s speech. The internal paradoxes in the minds of these folks must be incredibly turbulent. More examples can be easily found from other conservative groups. But there’s a glimmer of hope, a glimpse of the path back to reality for the GOP. As the pope showed, religious belief doesn’t necessarily lead to rejecting science; one need only look to outspoken climatologist and Christian evangelist Katharine Hayhoe for that as well. This reveals an underlying aspect of all this that seems to be forgotten: Belief in conservative principles doesn’t lead inevitably to the denial of science. Conservative political parties in other countries don’t necessarily deny global warming either. It’s only endemic to the GOP. And while funding from the über-far-right Koch brothers clearly affects the way politicians vote in the U.S., not all wealthy donors are the same; Republican businessman Jay Faison has put the incredible sum of $175 million on the table to invest in climate-change–accepting Republican politicians. The response to that was as predictable as rising temperatures: James “Snow disproves global warming” Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, denounced it. Of course he did; Inhofe is so far removed from reality he actually thinks the pope wasn’t discussing climate change in front of Congress. I can make a laundry list of problematic GOP planks, but global warming is perhaps the single biggest threat facing humanity today. Faison’s move is a step forward, even if it makes some deniers froth and fume. Their staunch denial may yet lead to political extinction: A majority of Republican voters acknowledge the reality of global warming, and humanity’s role in it. That’s hopeful indeed. Ext: Paris Accords Solve

Paris deal will successfully limit climate change Jackson 15. [Erwin, deputy CEO of The Climate Institute, “Is the Paris Agreement Toothless?” National Interest – December 18 -- http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-paris-agreement-toothless-14667]

Is the Paris agreement toothless?

The countries of the world seemed to sigh with collective relief when the Paris climate change agreement was finalized. After years of toil, nearly 200 countries agreed to ratchet up action over time to achieve a net-zero - emissions global economy . Yet, no sooner was the ink dry than discussion began about whether the deal had enough 'teeth' to achieve its goals. The national targets under the agreement aren't legally binding, critics said. In fact, the Paris agreement has been viewed with everything from caution to outright cynicism. To an extent, this is understandable. What governments say is not always matched by their actions. And Australia is a case in point. Take the announcement of our Government joining 'the Coalition for High Ambition' in Paris. Convened by the Marshall Islands, this group includes the United States, EU, Brazil and smaller countries from Africa, Latin America, Asia and other small island states. Among other things, it supports a goal in the Paris agreement to limit global warming to less than 1.5°C by the end of century. For low-lying island nations already battling rising sea levels, like the Marshall Islands, this target is a matter of survival. Yet if other countries adopted Australia's current emissions targets, we would see the world warm by 3-4°C. It is a clear disconnect between words and actions. But Australia is not alone in this. Nearly all countries need to lift targets and policies if we are to achieve a less than 2°C or 1.5°C goal. So, do es the criticism that emissions targets aren't legally binding actually matter? If we are to achieve a reduction in the emissions entering the planet's atmosphere, it will be done through countries taking effective domestic action, not by the mere existence of an international agreement . The Paris agreement, firstly, requires that every five years all countries set an emissions reduction target that is stronger than the last (with some exceptions for the world's nations that are poorest and the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change). Importantly, these targets are to be justified against the less than 2ºC or 1.5°C goals that the Marshall Islands and others need for survival. Secondly, the Paris agreement binds countries to implement domestic policies to achieve that target . The point is that legally binding targets don't necessarily equal effectiveness. It is participation in the agreement, through action, that is vital. After all, the most binding agreement is useless if the United States, China, India and other major emitters don't participate. Recent history shows us that, just because a commitment is not binding , it does not necessarily follow that countries won't act or participate. Under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord , for example, it was voluntary for countries to put forward 2020 emissions targets. Yet, since then, the numbe r of domestic laws to control pollution around the world has more than doubled from around 420 to 800. According to the World Bank, about 40 nations have begun to make emitting companies pay for their carbon pollution. And the number of carbon pricing laws across the world has nearly doubled since 2012. Additionally, eight in ten countries now have national renewable energy targets. Renewable energy is now the world's second-largest source of electricity, with investment in renewable electricity increasing by 30 percent since Copenhagen. Over this period, more than $1.12 trillion was invested in renewable capacity . This all happened with just over 10 percent of global emissions being covered by internationally binding emissions commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. It was not driven by fear of sanction from other countries. It was driven by the fact that major economies, national security agencies, central bankers, institutional investors, major global businesses and many others now see climate change, and the global response to it, as a major strategic issue that must be managed. This is not to say we shouldn't hold countries accountable for their actions. The Paris agreement requires that countries regularly review each others' targets and actions towards achieving net- zero emissions. It also contains binding systems to promote transparency (eg. expert international teams will review biannual emissions reports from each country). The Paris agreement is not perfect, but to judge it by whether or not it is legally binding misses the point. Post Paris, the test of any nation's commitment to climate change is now two-fold. First, do its pollution-reduction targets help achieve the net-zero-emissions goals of the Paris agreement? By assessing one another on this every five years , international pressure will result in action . Second and most importantly, do its domestic laws make major emitters responsible for the pollution they cause? If the nations of the world can answer 'yes' to both these questions, it should deliver us, and nations like the Marshall Islands, the climate action we all need. Paris avoids runaway warming that would make the earth uninhabitable Lewis 15. [Renee, "Historic Paris deal puts globe on path to limit warming to 1.5C," Al Jazeera -- Dec 12 -- america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/12/12/paris-deal-sets-path-to-limit-warming-to-15-c.html]

Climate negotiators in Paris have approved a historic agreement that would put the world on a pathway to keeping the global average temperature rise above pre-industrial levels "well below" 2 degrees Celsius while "pursuing efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 C." Nearly 200 nations took part in the COP21 talks in Paris, working for the past two weeks on a deal to mitigate the worst effects of global warming, a process of change which has already begun to impact some of the world's most vulnerable communities through extreme weather, rising seas, and drought. The final draft was presented Saturday by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius before being subsequently approved Saturday afternoon by 195 nations in a suburb outside the French capital. Before the agreement officially goes into effect, it must be ratified by at least 55 individual countries. It is the first agreement that asks all countries to collectively tackle the problem of global warming, a major shift in U.N. talks that previously included pledges only by rich, not poor, nations. "Our responsibility to history is immense," Fabius told thousands of officials, including President François Hollande and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, in the main hall of the conference venue on the outskirts of Paris. " If we were to fail , how could we rebuild this hope?" he asked. "Our children would not understand or forgive us." "T he landmark agreement for the planet, it's now. It's rare in life to have the opportunity to change the world," Hollande tweeted after the agreement was approved. In the Paris agreement, the world agreed to eliminate net human-caused greenhouse gases by the second half of the century – a goal that would be achieved by a combination of reducing emissions and increasing capacity of natural carbon sinks like forests that remove those gases from the atmosphere. Carbon markets, which provide economic incentives for businesses and governments to lower emissions by creating a tangible cost to use of carbon, would also be established as part of the agreement, the accord said. However, the national pledges from each country detailing cuts to emissions and measures to mitigate climate change – which were collected at the beginning of the climate talks — were not ambitious enough to put the world on a pathway of the agreed upon goal of limiting warming to well below 2 C, the final document says. As a result, the accord included the establishment of a timetable for future meetings, including a key United Nations climate conference to be held in 2018, which will be a target by which the constituent countries of the globe are to pledge even more ambitious mechanisms for slashing emissions. Also in 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to release a report on how to limit global warming to 1.5 C, the draft said. "This is a floor not a ceiling, a beginning and not an end. It gives us a strong foundation but there's hard work ahead," Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told Al Jazeera from Paris. "We're making progress at the national level but we have to keep fighting for what we want and against what we don't want," Meyer added. Other environmental groups echoed that sentiment, saying that while Saturday’s accord was an important step on the path to drastically reducing carbon emissions, it was not a sufficient milestone absent continued collective action. “Now comes the great task of this century,” said Kumi Naidoo of Greenpeace. “How do we meet this new goal?” Naidoo said that while the cuts to emissions still fell short, the progress was nonetheless important. “This deal alone won’t dig us out the hole we’re in, but it makes the sides less steep.” For nations that face the possibility of forced migration as a result of the effects of climate change, the fact that the accord acknowledges an aim to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5 C was something to celebrate. The lower warming limit was largely unheard of a few months ago, with the United Nations and many scientists targeting the more conservative target of 2 C as a sufficient level to avert the very worst effects of climate change. But low-lying coastal countries like the Marshall Islands, an atoll nation in the Pacific Ocean that stands barely six feet higher than sea level and has faced increasingly severe impacts from rising seas and flooding, 2 C is viewed as an existential threat. The world has already warmed by 1 C since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and is on a pathway to nearly 3 C rise by the end of the century absent major changes. At 3 C, climate and social scientists believe the world is likely to experience massive migration crises, food shortages and increased conflict. For Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony De Brum, the pact's identification of a 1.5 C long-term target meant he could go home and tell his people they had a fighting chance to save their atoll nation from a rising ocean. "I think we're done here," De Brum told reporters on Saturday before the final approval, after negotiating well into the night Friday with other officials to finalize the draft. Ahead of the talks, the Marshall Islands was among 42 other nations most susceptible to the effects of climate change in a group called the Climate Vulnerable Forum, who together campaigned for the lower limit which has now been codified in the final agreement. The Climate Vulnerable Forum "brought the discussion of limiting 1.5 degrees C to Paris," Stephen Kretzmann, executive director of Oil Change International, said in a press release Saturday. "Bit by bit, there are indications that the era of fossil fuels is coming to an end." The accord sets out a plan for developed nations to contribute public and private funds totaling U.S. $100 billion per year from 2020 to 2025. The fund will enhance developing nations' ability to mitigate and adapt to global warming. Poor nations have long complained of being forced to pay for the policies of rich nations, whose relatively larger emissions over time have played an outsized role in the quickening pace of climate change and the scope of the problem. US Lead Key

US lead key on warming – if we bail on Paris global cooperation collapses. Pascual and Zambetakis 10. [Carlos, US Ambassador to Mexico, Served as VP of foreign policy @ Brookings, Evie , Brookings “The Geopolitics of Energy: From Security to Survival” Energy Security; 26-27]

Among these groups, the U nited S tates has the capacity to play a pivotal role. China and India will not move toward more proactive domestic policies if the U nited S tates does not set the example. Along with Europe¶ and Japan, the United States has the capacity to demonstrate that green¶ technology and conservation can be compatible with growth and a foreign¶ policy that is more independent of energy suppliers. The United States also stands to benefit from accelerated commercialization of green technologies and the development of global markets in energy-efficient and clean energy technologies. The ability of the United States to lead, however,¶ will depend on domestic action-on whether it will undertake on a national basis a systematic strategy to price carbon and curb emissions. If¶ it does the scale and importance of the U.S. market can be a driver for¶ global change. If it fails to act, then the United States will find that over time the opportunity for leadership to curb climate change will be replaced by the need for crisis management as localized wars, migration, poverty, and humanitarian catastrophes increasingly absorb international attention and resources . Eventually, its failure to act will come back to U.S. borders in a way that will make the Katrina disaster seem relatively tame. AT: Adaptation

Warming causes extinction and the threshold is soon – no adaptation Roberts 13. [David, staff writer -- citing the World Bank Review’s compilation of climate studies, "If you aren’t alarmed about climate, you aren’t paying attention" Grist -- January 10 -- grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal/]

We know we’ve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far. We know that 2 degrees C is where most scientists predict catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And we know that we are currently on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4 degrees or more by the end of the century. What would 4 degrees look like? A recent World Bank review of the science reminds us. First, it’ll get hot: Projections for a 4°C world show a dramatic increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature extremes. Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely to become the new normal summer in a 4°C world. Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration. In this new high-temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. In regions such as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer months are likely to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example, the warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be 9°C warmer than today’s warmest July. Extreme heat waves in recent years have had severe impacts, causing heat-related deaths, forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat waves projected for a 4°C world have not been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the consequences experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of many societies and natural systems. [my emphasis] Warming to 4 degrees would a lso lead to “ an increase of about 150 percent in acidity of the ocean,” leading to levels of acidity “unparalleled in Earth’s history.” That’s bad news for, say, coral reefs: The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5°C global warming. The regional extinction of entire coral reef ecosystems, which could occur well before 4°C is reached, would have profound consequences for their dependent species and for the people who depend on them for food, income, tourism, and shoreline protection. It will also “likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with several meters more to be realized in the coming centuries.” That rise won’t be spread evenly, even within regions and countries — regions close to the equator will see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would “significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions, particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale due to population growth.” Also, more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5°C to 2°C above preindustrial levels. Changes would be expected to be even more severe in a 4°C world. Also loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services: In a 4°C world, climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth’s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of coastline afforded by coral reefs and mangroves.) New research also indicates a “rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms.” So food will be tough. All this will add up to “large-scale displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems.” Given the uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible.” There’s a small but non-trivial chance of advanced civilization breaking down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios show us going up to 6degrees by the end of the century, a level of devastation we have not studied and barely know how to conceive. Ponder the fact that somewhere along the line, though we don’t know exactly where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will be running to make climate change unstoppable and irreversible for centuries to come. That would mean handing our grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic, denuded world, but a world that is inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade. AT: Warming Inevitable

Squo solves worst of warming now – only Trump election causes runaway warming which is our impact. Krugman 16. [Paul, professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton, “Wind, Sun and Fire” New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/01/opinion/wind-sun-and-fire.html?_r=0]

Passing 2 degree threshold not inevitable – action now key to prevent the impact. Romm 15. [Joe, Fellow at American Progress and is the Founding Editor of Climate Progress, Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy, PhD in Physics @ MIT, "James Hansen Spells Out Climate Danger Of The ‘Hyper-Anthropocene’ Age," http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/27/3684564/james-hansen-climate-danger-hyper- anthropocene/]

James Hansen and 16 leading climate experts have written a must-read discussion paper on what humanity risks if it can’t keep total global warming below 2°C (3.6°F). The greatest risk they identify is “that multi- meter sea level rise would become practically unavoidable.” This is warning everyone should heed — not just because Hansen’s co-authors include some of the world’s top sea-level rise experts, such as Eric Rignot and Isabella Velicogna, but also given Hansen’s prescience on climate change dating back more than three decades. In 1981, Hansen led a team of NASA scientists in a seminal article in Science, “Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” They warned: “Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.” Wow. A 35-year-old peer-reviewed climate warning that is 100 percent dead on. Is there anyone else on the planet who can has been right for so long about climate change? Hansen and co-authors deftly dismiss those ill-informed Pollyannas who use Orwellian terms like “good Anthropocene.” They explain that we are far past “the era in which humans have contributed to global climate change,” which probably began a thousand years ago, and are now in “a fundamentally different phase, a Hyper-Anthropocene … initiated by explosive 20th century growth of fossil fuel use.” The “Hyper-Anthropocene” is a very good term to describe the unprecedented acceleration in global warming that humanity has set in motion with the explosive growth of fossil fuels and carbon pollution, as the recent science makes clear: Marcott et al. Temperature change over past 11,300 years (in blue, via Science, 2013) plus projected warming this century on humanity’s current emissions path (in red, via recent literature). The fact that warming as high as 2°C should be avoided at all costs is not news to people who pay attention to climate science, though it may be news to people who only follow the popular media. Indeed, 70 leading climate experts made that point crystal clear in a May report to the world’s leading governments that received embarrassingly little coverage from the mainstream media. As an important aside, Hansen and his 16 co-authors continue to be criticized for publicizing this paper prior to peer review. While I probably would have framed the paper’s launch somewhat differently — as an expert opinion and discussion piece coming from one or more major scientific institutions — I think this particular criticism is overblown. The mainstream media has generally failed to explain to the public the dire nature of our climate situation, repeatedly hitting the snooze alarm even as the world’s scientists shout “Wake Up” louder and louder in every peer-reviewed forum you can imagine. Hansen himself has tried every traditional way possible to inform the media and alert the public for 35 years. If this new piece is what it takes to get any non-Trump, non-Kardashian, coverage in our current media environment, I’m not certain how much criticism scientists deserve for playing by a set of rules they did not make, rules made by the very people nit-picking at them. The fact that 2°C total warming locks us in to sea level rise of 10 feet or more has been obvious for a while now. Heck, the National Science Foundation (NSF) issued a news release back in March 2012 on paleoclimate research with the large-type headline, “Global Sea Level Likely to Rise as Much as 70 Feet in Future Generations.” The lead author of that study explained, “The natural state of the Earth with present carbon dioxide levels is one with sea levels about 70 feet higher than now.” And a 2009 paper in Science showed that the last time CO2 levels were this high, it was 5° to 10°F warmer and seas were 75 to 120 feet higher. What has changed is our understanding of just how fast sea levels could rise. In 2014 and 2015, a number of major studies revealed that large parts of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are unstable and headed toward irreversible collapse — and some parts may have already passed the point of no return. Another 2015 study found that global sea level rise since 1990 has been speeding up even faster than we knew. The key question is how fast sea levels rise this century and beyond. Coastal planners — and governments — need to know what the plausible worst-case is. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) reviewing the scientific literature, threw up their hands. They have no idea how quickly the ice sheets can melt and contribute to sea level rise — so they assume it is very little and plead ignorance: “The basis for higher projections of global mean sea level rise in the 21st century has been considered and it has been concluded that there is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the probability of specific levels above the assessed likely range.” And so the IPCC’s sea level rise range for 2100 is instantly obsolete and useless for governments and planners. A study that integrated expert opinion from 2013 on ice sheet melt with the IPCC findings concluded, “seas will likely rise around 80 cm” [31 inches] by 2100, and that “the worst case [only a 5% chance] is an increase of 180 cm [6 feet].” Since that expert opinion predated all of the bombshell findings of the last 18 months, the authors of that study noted, “We acknowledge that this may have changed since its publication. For example, it is quite possible that the recent series of studies of the Amundsen Sea Sector and West Antarctic ice sheet collapse will alter expert opinion.” Precisely. The main contribution Hansen et al. makes is to warn that “sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 200 years,” which means as early as this century but in any case, sooner than expected. They also warn that even with the less than 1°C of warming we already have, ice sheet melt appears to be putting sea level rise on an exponential growth path that would bring 10 feet of sea level rise sooner, rather than later — even if we stabilize at 2°C total warming. Why does this matter? The authors explain, “ The economic and social cost of losing functionality of all coastal cities is practically incalculable.” Heck, even the New York Times reported last year on the news of the accelerating collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet that “The heat-trapping gases could destabilize other parts of Antarctica as well as the Greenland ice sheet, potentially causing enough sea-level rise that many of the world’s coastal cities would eventually have to be abandoned.” Team Hansen just carries the analysis to its next logical phase and exposes the dangers of the IPCC’s willful underestimation of the problem: “Our analysis paints a different picture than IPCC (2013) for how this Hyper-Anthropocene phase is likely to proceed if GHG emissions grow at a rate that continues to pump energy at a high rate into the ocean. We conclude that multi-meter sea level rise would become practically unavoidable.” And what happens in the Hyper-Anthropocene? Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization. That is especially true when you throw in the other part of Hansen’s prediction from 1981 that has come true — “the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones.” Indeed, if this comprehensive new paper has one failing, it is in not discussing the myriad studies and evidence that warming-driven Dust-Bowlification threatens one third of the habited and arable landmass of the planet. I also think Hansen is pushing the speculative possibility of 10 feet of sea level rise this century harder than he needs to. Yes, there are many experts who consider that a real possibility now, so it would be imprudent to ignore the warning. But the fact is, on our current emissions path, we now appear to be headed toward the ballpark of 4-6 feet of sea level rise in 2100 — with seas rising up to one foot per decade after that — which should be more than enough of a “beyond adaptation” catastrophe to warrant strongest of action ASAP. === Trump Bad === Trump Bad — Russia War Trump presidency risks nuclear war with Russia and extinction Zack Beauchamp, 7/21/2016 (staff writer, “Donald Trump’s NATO comments are the scariest thing he’s said,” http://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12247074/donald-trump-nato-war)

Wednesday night, Donald Trump said something that made a nuclear war between the United States and Russia more likely. With a few thoughtless words, he made World War III — the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in nuclear holocaust — plausible. This probably scans like hyperbole, the kind of thing you hear a lot in politics. I assure you, it’s not. Not this time. What Trump said, in an interview published by the New York Times, is that he wouldn’t necessarily defend the United States’ allies in NATO if they were attacked by a foreign power. This extended, Trump said, to the Baltic countries right on Russia’s border — countries Russia might conceivably invade. The NATO alliance is the key deterrent against this: It is founded on a promise that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all. Trump is directly undermining this promise. The consequences are hard to overstate. He is trashing one of the foundations of the postwar European order, which has helped guaranteed peace on the continent for 70 years. And by equivocating on whether he would defend the Baltics, he creates a dangerous amount of uncertainty among Russians as to how seriously the US takes its NATO treaty commitments — the kind of uncertainty that, yes, could spark an actual conflict between the US and Russia. This is what happens when you let a flamboyant reality star get this close to the highest office in the land: You get someone who doesn’t understand the machinery of state, and plays with literal nuclear fire as a result. What Trump said Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in front of a giant American flag. (Ralph Freso/Getty Images) In the interview, the New York Times’s David Sanger asked Trump if he would defend our allies in NATO and East Asia. Trump said he wasn’t sure, that he would only be certain to defend countries that he thought had paid the United States enough money. “If we are not going to be reasonably reimbursed for the tremendous cost of protecting these massive nations with tremendous wealth … then yes, I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, ‘Congratulations, you will be defending yourself,’” Trump told Sanger. This is classic Trumpism. Throughout the campaign, he has repeatedly insisted that American alliances don’t help the United States that much, that America is owed much more from its allies than it receives. As a result, he says, the US needs to back away from its alliance commitments. The problem, however, is that the US is treaty-bound to defend its NATO allies. When NATO was created in 1949, it was built around a promise that an attack on one country would be considered an attack on all countries. You invade Poland, you start a war with the United States. Now, NATO doesn’t have the power to force the United States or any other power to defend anyone else. Article V, the provision in the NATO treaty that provides for collective self-defense, isn’t binding on America in the way the US Constitution is. Instead, Article V works by credible commitment: If the United States signals that it is fundamentally committed to the NATO treaty, then it sends a signal to Russia and other hostile powers that the US will abide by the term of its agreements. This deters them from launching wars or any other kind of military adventurism in an American-aligned state. This is most relevant in the Baltic NATO states: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. These countries were former Soviet republics, and Putin seemingly believes they still ought to be Russian possessions. He has routinely screwed with them: kidnapping an Estonian security officer in 2015, sending Russian warships into Latvian waters 40 times in 2014, and repeatedly buzzing their airspace with Russian jets. These countries’ best hope is their NATO membership: the idea that Putin would never do in these countries what he’s doing to Ukraine, because that would mean war with the United States. But when Sanger asked Trump specifically about his feelings on Baltic allies, he said openly that he wouldn’t defend them. Here’s the critical exchange between Trump, Sanger, and the Times’s Maggie Haberman, which is worth reading in full: SANGER: I was just in the Baltic States. They are very concerned obviously about this new Russian activism, they are seeing submarines off their coasts, they are seeing airplanes they haven’t seen since the Cold War coming, bombers doing test runs. If Russia came over the border into Estonia or Latvia, Lithuania, places that Americans don’t think about all that often, would you come to their immediate military aid? TRUMP: I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do. I have a serious chance of becoming president and I’m not like Obama, that every time they send some troops into Iraq or anyplace else, he has a news conference to announce it. SANGER: They are NATO members, and we are treaty-obligated —— TRUMP: We have many NATO members that aren’t paying their bills. SANGER: That’s true, but we are treaty-obligated under NATO, forget the bills part. TRUMP: You can’t forget the bills. They have an obligation to make payments. Many NATO nations are not making payments, are not making what they’re supposed to make. That’s a big thing. You can’t say forget that. SANGER: My point here is, Can the members of NATO, including the new members in the Baltics, count on the United States to come to their military aid if they were attacked by Russia? And count on us fulfilling our obligations —— TRUMP: Have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their obligations to us, the answer is yes. HABERMAN: And if not? TRUMP: Well, I’m not saying if not. I’m saying, right now there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us. In other words, Trump is saying that his unequivocal commitment to NATO hinges on whether particular NATO states — including the Baltics — have forked over enough cash. Trump clearly doesn’t think of NATO in terms of an ironclad guarantee to allied states. He thinks of it as transactional, akin to a real estate deal or (less charitably) a protection racket: The United States only protects its weaker allies if they pay up. Nice country you got there. Shame if Russia burns it down. This threatens peace in Europe U.S. Navy Trains In Pacific (Jordon R. Beesley/U.S. Navy/Getty Images) A US Navy ship on an exercise. Normally, Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric is scary but kind of harmless (at least unless he wins). This isn’t. These comments directly undermine the functioning of NATO, and thus the foundations of global peace themselves. The absolutely crucial point about NATO is that it functions on the basis of credible guarantee. The point of NATO is to deter war, by convincing hostile powers like Russia that the US would 100 percent defend its NATO allies. But since there’s no formal legal way to force the United States to defend its allies, this deterrence hinges on the idea that the American leadership is deeply committed to upholding its word and agreements in Europe. This is why, historically, there has been an ironclad, bipartisan commitment to NATO allies. For NATO to work, everyone needs to understand that America’s commitment to its allies is not a partisan football, hinging on who happens to win an election in any given year. It is a fundamental, unchanging part of American grand strategy, one that is and always will be a core American commitment. With a few stray words, Trump has done serious damage to that perception. He has made it seem that US commitment to NATO is much weaker than it is, that it could be overturned with any one election. This was always true in a literal sense: Any president could simply choose not to abide by Article V. But abrogating NATO agreements was always deemed unthinkable by both parties, which has played an important part in maintaining credible deterrence vis-à-vis Russia. Trump just put the idea of the US not defending NATO into question. This threatens the very integrity of NATO itself. If NATO allies start to think that the United States can’t be trusted to defend them, that NATO is just on paper, then they’ll start to wonder why they bother to adhere to this alliance in the first place. If Trump wins the election, this could cause them to exit the security agreement altogether. According to the best available research, this would make war on the European continent far more likely. One study, from professors Jesse C. Johnson and Brett Ashley Leeds, surveyed about 200 years of data on conflicts and concluded that "defensive alliances lower the probability of international conflict and are thus a good policy option for states seeking to maintain peace in the world." Another study looked specifically at the period from 1950 to 2000 and found that "formal alliances with nuclear states appear to carry significant deterrence benefits." The US's formal agreements, then, deter aggression against its non-nuclear partners (like Germany and the Baltics). In their new book on American grand strategy, Dartmouth scholars Steven Brooks and William Wohlforth also surveyed research from regional experts and found a similar consensus. In Europe, they write, "most assessments nonetheless sum up to the conclusion that NATO is a net security plus." Trump, then, is weakening one of America’s most important security agreements — seemingly without very much thought. The nightmare scenario: actual nuclear war (Romolo Tavani/Shutterstock) Trump’s comments are worse than just undermining NATO: By refusing to commit to the Baltics categorically, he encourages Russia to test American resolve in dangerous ways. According to some Russia experts, Vladimir Putin’s ultimate wish in Europe is to break NATO. The way to do that, according to these scholars, is to expose the Article V guarantee as hollow: to show that when push comes to shove, the United States or other large NATO powers wouldn’t actually defend the weaker states. The Baltic states would be the most likely scenario for this to happen. They are very small, they’re right on Russia’s borders, and they aren't really all that important to Western countries' own security. By threatening these states, Russia would force a question: Are the United States, Britain, and France really willing to sacrifice their own soldiers in defense of a tiny state? In 2014, the Danish intelligence agency — note that Denmark is a NATO ally — publicly warned that this was a serious possibility: Russia may attempt to test NATO’s cohesion by engaging in military intimidation of the Baltic countries, for instance with a threatening military build-up close to the borders of these countries and simultaneous attempts of political pressure, destabilization and possibly infiltration. Russia could launch such an intimidation campaign in connection with a serious crisis in the post-Soviet space or another international crisis in which Russia confronts the United States and NATO. The critical issue in preventing this scenario, again, is the perception of NATO commitment. So long as Putin believes that the US and other major powers are firmly committed to the defense of their treaty allies, he’s unlikely to risk starting a war that he would almost certainly lose. This is why Trump’s comments are so damaging: They send a direct signal to the Kremlin that the United States is less than serious about the defense of NATO allies. This suggests that a ploy to break NATO might have a bigger risk of succeeding than previously thought. But note that Trump also refused to say unequivocally that he wouldn’t abide by the NATO treaty. “I don’t want to tell you what I’d do because I don’t want Putin to know what I’d do,” he said. But the entire point of NATO is that Putin needs to know what America will do. If he knows the US will defend the Baltics, then he will likely back off. If he knows the US won’t defend the Baltics, then we could have the breakup of NATO — which would be quite bad but wouldn’t immediately risk World War III. The nightmare scenario, though, is that Putin’s confidence in NATO is undermined even though the United States, under either Trump or Hillary Clinton, remains committed to defending its treaty allies. That’s the scenario under which misperceptions potentially escalate into an actual war between the world’s two largest nuclear powers. Max Fisher wrote an extended piece on how this uncertainty could plausibly escalate to war for Vox last year; I encourage you to read it. But the point, according the experts Fisher spoke to, is that a firm perception that the US will defend its NATO allies is crucial. "That kind of misperception situation is definitely possible, and that’s how wars start," Steve Saideman, a professor who studies NATO at Carleton University, told Fisher. He then scarily compared modern Europe with pre–World War I Europe: "The thing that makes war most thinkable is when other people don’t think it’s thinkable." But here’s the scariest thing from Fisher’s piece. Russia’s conventional military is so much weaker than it used to be that it has been becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of nuclear use in a war with the West. Communications between Washington and the Kremlin are so bad, according to Fisher, that nuclear war is disturbingly plausible in the event of a conflict: Russia has been gradually lowering its bar for when it would use nuclear weapons, and in the process upending the decades-old logic of mutually assured destruction, adding tremendous nuclear danger to any conflict in Europe. The possibility that a limited or unintended skirmish could spiral into nuclear war is higher than ever. One reason things have gotten so scary: Russia’s formal nuclear doctrine says the country is willing to use nuclear weapons first in the event of a sufficiently serious conventional conflict. This is why Trump’s comments are so unbelievably terrifying. He is creating exactly the kind of ambiguity that makes a nuclear war — a potentially civilization- ending event — most plausible. Even if he doesn’t end up winning the election, he has already helped send a signal to Putin that US resolve may actually be weaker than everyone thought. I’m not saying we’re all going to die now. We most likely aren’t. The risks of nuclear war with Russia are still quite low, and remain low after Trump’s comments. The US hasn’t withdrawn from NATO, and Russia is still relatively unlikely to gamble on a lack of American resolve, given that it would assuredly lose any conventional war with NATO powers. But Russia’s calculus shifted just a bit after Trump’s comments, making the risk of a catastrophic war a bit higher today than it was yesterday. That’s horrifying. Even if Russia isn’t emboldened to full-on test NATO, the consequences could be severe. Russia messing with Baltic countries could make many people’s lives far less secure, and risk more serious incidents in the process. This isn’t a game or a reality show: This is the lives of hundreds of millions of people, and potentially the human race, hanging in the balance. Anything that raises the risk of nuclear war, however remote, should be terrifying. This is not the kind of thing you leave to amateurs — yet that is exactly what the Republican Party has chosen to do this week in Cleveland. Even if you think that everything Trump has done to date — the authoritarianism, the racism, the ignorance, the petty childishness — isn’t disqualifying, this should be. If this man could make a nuclear war somewhat more likely even before he takes office, imagine what he could do with his finger on America’s nuclear trigger. Trump presidency causes Russian expansionism and regional instability Goldberg 7/21 (Jeffrey Goldberg is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and a recipient of the National Magazine Award for Reporting, “It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Running Against Vladimir Putin,” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/clinton-trump- putin-nato/492332/) aj

I am not suggesting that Donald Trump is employed by Putin—though his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, was for many years on the payroll of the Putin-backed former president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych. I am arguing that Trump’s understanding of America’s role in the world aligns with Russia’s geostrategic interests; that his critique of American democracy is in accord with the Kremlin’s critique of American democracy; and that he shares numerous ideological and dispositional proclivities with Putin—for one thing, an obsession with the sort of “strength” often associated with dictators. Trump is making it clear that, as president, he would allow Russia to advance its hegemonic interests across Europe and the Middle East. His election would immediately trigger a wave of global instability —much worse than anything we are seeing today — because America’s allies understand that Trump would likely dismantle the post- World War II U.S.-created international order. Many of these countries, feeling abandoned, would likely pursue nuclear weapons programs on their own, leading to a nightmare of proliferation.

Trump’s sympathy for Putin has not been a secret. Trump said he would “get along very well” with Putin , and he has pleased Putin by expressing a comprehensive lack of interest in the future of Ukraine, the domination of which is a core Putinist principle. The Trump movement also agrees with Putin that U.S. democracy is fatally flawed. A Trump adviser, Carter Page, recently denounced—to a Moscow audience—America’s “often-hypocritical focus on democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change.” Earlier this week, Trump’s operatives watered down the Republican Party’s national-security platform position on Ukraine, removing a promise to help the Ukrainians receive lethal aid in their battle to remain free of Russian control.

Now, in an interview with Maggie Haberman and David Sanger of The New York Times, Trump has gone much further, suggesting that he and Putin share a disdain for NATO. Fulfilling what might be Putin’s dearest wish, Trump , in this interview, openly questioned whether the U.S., under his leadership, would keep its commitments to the alliance. According to Haberman and Sanger, Trump “even called into question, whether, as president, he would automatically extend the security guarantees that give the 28 members of NATO the assurance that the full force of the United States military has their back.” Trump told the Times that, should Russia attack a NATO ally , he would first assess whether those nations “have fulfilled their obligations to us.” If they have, he said, he would then come to their defense. Trump Bad – 1NC Trump win causes multiple scenarios of nuclear war. - Proliferation - CMR - EU relations - Protectionism - Heg O'Brien 16. [Dan, Chief economist at the Institute of International and European Affairs, columnist with Independent newspapers and senior fellow at UCD, “A Trump victory would mean global chaos” The Independent -- March 6 -- www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/a-trump-victory-would-mean-global-chaos-34515014.html]

Donald Trump cannot be taken seriously as a person, as a businessman or as a politician. But the possibility that he could be president of the most powerful country on planet must now be taken very seriously. After his victories in last week's primaries, the 69-year-old property billionaire is now likely to represent the Republican Party in November's presidential election. If his candidacy is confirmed at the Cleveland party convention in July, only Hillary Clinton will stand between him and the White House. That is an alarming prospect, for Ireland, Europe, the world, and for America itself. Although Trump still remains an outside bet for the US presidency, the potential impact is so great that the consequences need to be thought through and considered. It is always worth prefacing any discussion of the role of the US president by saying that the power wielded by the holder of that office is less than most Europeans believe. That is largely because prime ministers and presidents on this side of the Atlantic actually have a lot more influence over their domestic affairs than the US president has over American home affairs. This is particularly important in relation to a matter of great concern to Ireland: American corporation tax rules, which I'll return to presently. One reason for the more limited nature of US presidential power is the federal structure of the US. Many functions which national governments are responsible for in Europe have nothing to do with the president because they are decided by state governors and state parliaments. Another reason is the role of the other branches of the federal government. The US Supreme Court and Congress are much more powerful vis a vis the US president than their European counterparts are vis a vis prime ministers and cabinets. But for all the checks, balances and limitations of the role, a rogue US president would make the world a more dangerous and unstable place , and would almost certainly make it poorer too. Trump is as rogue as anyone in modern times who has got within shouting distance of the White House. The US president is the commander in chief of a military that is by far the most powerful in the world - American defence spending, of almost $600 billion annually, is greater than the next 12 largest national defence budgets combined. Whether people like it or not - in America or elsewhere - the US is the closest thing the world has to a policeman. It is not called the indispensable nation for nothing. Although it has at times misused and abused its enormous clout, America has been the most benign great power in history - as we in Ireland know better than most given how rarely Washington has ever leaned on governments in Dublin to do things that they haven't wanted to do. But if Trump attempted to do even half of the things he has proposed on the campaign trail in his self-proclaimed crusade to "make America great again", the use of US power would become much less benign very quickly. Having Trump in control of the US military would send shock waves around the world. It would deeply unsettle allies who depend on American security guarantees, which includes Ireland and the rest of our continent. It would do much more than unsettle rivals , potentially pushing them into an arms race with Trump's America. The effect of his taking control of America's armed forces would also have very serious repercussions at home. In the current issue of the neo-conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard, two high profile international affairs analysts - both men of the right - talk of a "crisis in civil-military relations" if Trump were in charge. Max Boot and Ben Steil of the Council on Foreign Relations describe what would be an effective mutiny if Trump followed through on his bellicose rhetoric, including the use of torture as a standard operating procedure, the killing of terrorists' families and the carpet-bombing of areas of the Middle East in which civilians live. They write: "Many military personnel would refuse to carry out orders so blatantly at odds with the laws of war; soldiers know that they could face prosecution under a future administration." Of most concern to us in Ireland is Trump's posture towards Europe. Since the 1940s there has been a large American military presence on our continent. It was this presence that preserved European democracy, first against the threat posed by fascism and then by communism. That presence continues to this day in the form of Nato, an entity which, it should be said, has been more important in maintaining peace in Europe than the EU. That presence is more important now than at any time in the past quarter century with what is often described as a "new cold war" between democratic Europe and Vladimir Putin's Russia. Trump, unsurprisingly, is a fan of Putin's autocratic ways. He has said he would get along "fine" with Russia, while frequently railing against allies of the US who benefit from its security guarantees - he has implied that he would extract billions of dollars from countries in which US military forces are stationed. This is doubly worrying for democratic Europe. That Trump feels a natural affinity for the bully in Kremlin is bad. Much worse is his inclination to withdraw from America's commitments to its allies. The merest hint that he would pull US forces out of Europe just after Russia's annexation of part of another sovereign state (Ukraine) would cause panic in central and eastern Europe. An already deteriorating security situation in the region would be made very much worse . Economically, Trump also promises huge change in America's role in the world, guided by the same isolationist instincts. He is an old-style protectionist who says he would bin free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Although he has yet to opine on the transatlantic relationship, given his crude views on trade - any country which sells more to America than America sells to it is trading unfairly - he is unlikely to champion openness across the Atlantic. If the painstaking and on-going negotiations to deepen those links, in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), are not completed and ratified by the end of this year, there is very little chance that the deal would ever enter into force if Trump takes office. Trump Bad: Prolif – 2NC

Trump win causes cascading prolif. Feith 16. [Douglas, Hudson Institute senior fellow, “Trump, america's word, and the bomb” National Review – March 14 -- www.nationalreview.com/article/432746/donald-trump-nukes-his-recklessness-would-increase-nuclear-threats

The Obama-Clinton team originally promised to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation. It wound up doing the opposite. We now have the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency. That would aggravate the problem. Eight years of left-wing American unreliability would then be followed by four (or eight) years of perceived right-wing unreliability. Faith in America n security commitments would plummet — probably irretrievably. In many countries, pressure to “go nuclear” would increase, perhaps irresistibly. Nuclear weapons remain a life-and-death issue, though the candidates and the media are giving them little attention in the campaign. Americans shouldn’t want nuclear weapons spreading around the world. When new states get them — especially rogues such as North Korea and Iran — the risk of nuclear war increases. Even if America could avoid being drawn into such a war, catastrophic harm wouldn’t be confined to the warring parties. Since World War II, efforts to keep nuclear weapons from spreading have been astonishingly successful. When China got the bomb in 1964, it became only the fifth nuclear power, after the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, and France. No one but an extreme optimist at the time would have predicted that, 50 years hence, the nuclear “club” would have only three (or maybe four) additional members. India, Pakistan, and North Korea have all explosively tested nuclear weapons. Israel is widely believed to have them but hasn’t said so. Why did non-proliferation work so well? First, the United States and the Soviet Union actually shared interests in enforcing the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Neither wanted any other country to obtain nuclear weapons. And most countries understood that they were actually safer if they renounced such weapons in return for a similar renunciation by their neighbors. The second main reason is that our allies trusted U.S. security commitments. They felt confident sheltering under America’s so-called nuclear umbrella. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, U.S. presidents took pains to preserve that trust and confidence. To do so, they exerted leadership, showed loyalty to our allies, safeguarded U.S. credibility, and preserved American military power — in particular, the quality of our nuclear weapons. President Obama did speak passionately about reducing the risks of nuclear war, but his actions undermined his goals. He dithered as North Korea expanded its nuclear arsenal and the range of its missiles. He freed Iran of economic sanctions without requiring dismantlement of its nuclear- weapons facilities. Meanwhile, other policies — “leading from behind,” courtship of Russia’s President Putin, setting and then ignoring that “red line” in Syria, slashing defense spending, and neglecting U.S. nuclear-weapons infrastructure — all communicated to America’s friends abroad a lack of resolution, of loyalty, of understanding, and of power. The bad effects are plain to see. A May 7, 2015, Wall Street Journal headline reads, “Saudi Arabia Considers Nuclear Weapons to Offset Iran.” In South Korea on February 15 this year, Won Yoo-chul, the ruling party’s floor leader, spoke favorably in parliament of “peaceful nuclear and missile programs for the sake of self-defense.” He explained, “We cannot borrow an umbrella from a neighbor whenever it rains.” Similar statements abound elsewhere. Around the world, officials foresee with dread the possibilities of cascading nuclear proliferation . In the Middle East, not only Saudi Arabia but also the other Gulf states in addition to Tu rkey and Egypt could be candidates for going nuclear. In the Asia–Pacific, it could be Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, too. It’s bad enough that President Obama has sapped American credibility. If Republicans now put Donald Trump in to th e White House, they’ll abandon all hope of recovering it. Which brings us back to Donald Trump, who has had a lot to say about America’s commitments to friends. He scorns NATO. He praises President Putin as NATO quarrels with Russia over Ukraine. In his 2000 book The America We Deserve, Trump wrote that Europe’s conflicts were “not worth American lives,” and he touted the money America could save by “pulling back from Europe.” He scorns Japan. His statements on trade depict Japan as an enemy nation rather than an ally of paramount importance. He scorns Israel. He promises to be “neutral” between the Jewish state and enemies trying to destroy it. He scorns U.S. law-of- war obligations under the Geneva Conventions, as when he boasted he would mistreat detainees and kill civilians. He now recants those boasts, but he can’t erase the picture he has created of himself as intemperate and unprincipled. He has made an electoral strategy of contradicting himself, purposefully devaluing the currency of his words (it’s ironic that he berates the Chinese for devaluing their currency). He scoffs at accuracy and shows no shame when he says false things. His message is that, as a great man, he shouldn’t be held to anything he says. It’s bad enough that President Obama has sapped American credibility. If Republicans now put Donald Trump into the White House, they’ll abandon all hope of recovering it. Friends around the world would have to adjust to an America that’s erratic to the point of recklessness. Their loss of confidence in our reliability would make the world more perilous — and not just for them. Undermining our alliances will spawn various ills, including the spread of nuclear weapons. Even if Americans someday replaced President Trump with a responsible person of sound judgment, the harm would probably be irreversible. Global nuclear war Taylor 1 (Theodore, Chair – NOVA, Former Nuclear Weapons Designer and Former Deputy Director – Defense Nuclear Agency, “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, Breakthrough: Emerging New Thinking, http://www-ee.stanf ord.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html)

Nuclear prolif eration - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Prolif eration increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people , either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of " latent prolif eration," finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them . If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war. Trump Bad: Heg – 2NC

Trump presidency guts US liberal order – tanks the economy and heg. Wright 16. [Thomas, fellow and director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at Brookings, “Trump’s 19th Century Foreign Policy” Politico – January 20 -- www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-foreign-policy-213546? o=2]

One of the most common misconceptions about Donald Trump is that he is opportunistic and makes up his views as he goes along. But a careful reading of some of Trump’s statements over three decades shows that he has a remarkably coherent and consistent worldview , one that is unlikely to change much if he’s elected president. It is also a worldview that makes a great leap backward in history, embracing antiquated notions of power that haven’t been prevalent since prior to World War II. It is easy to poke fun at many of Trump’s foreign-policy notions—the promises to “take” Iraq’s oil, to extract a kind of imperial “tribute” from U.S. military allies like South Korea, his eagerness to emulate the Great Wall of China along the border with Mexico, and his embrace of old-style strongmen like Vladimir Putin. But many of these views would have found favor in pre-World War II—and even, in some cases, 19th century—America. In sum, Trump believes that America gets a raw deal from the liberal international order it helped to create and has led since World War II. He has three key arguments that he returns to time and again over the past 30 years. He is deeply unhappy with America’s military alliances and feels the United States is overcommitted around the world. He feels that America is disadvantaged by the global economy. And he is sympathetic to authoritarian strongmen. Trump seeks nothing less than ending the U.S.-led liberal order and freeing America from its international commitments. Trump has been airing such views on U.S. foreign policy for some time. He even spent $100,000 on a full-page ad in the New York Times in 1987 that had a message remarkably similar to what he is saying today. With his background and personality, Trump is so obviously sui generis that it is tempting to say his views are alien to the American foreign policy tradition. They aren’t; it is just that this strain of thinking has been dormant for some time. There are particular echoes of Sen. Robert Taft, who unsuccessfully ran for the Republican nomination in 1940, 1948 and 1952, and was widely seen as the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Taft was a staunch isolationist and mercantilist who opposed U.S. aid for Britain before 1941. After the war, he opposed President Harry Truman’s efforts to expand trade. Despite being an anti-communist, he opposed containment of the Soviet Union, believing that the United States had few interests in Western Europe. He opposed the creation of NATO as overly provocative. Taft’s speeches are the last time a major American politician has offered a substantive and comprehensive critique of America’s alliances. Trump’s populism, divisiveness and friendliness toward dictators is also reminiscent of Charles Lindbergh, once an American hero, who led the isolationist America First movement. In some areas, Trump’s views go back even further, to 19th-century high-tariff protectionism and every-country-for-itself mercantilism. He even invokes ancient Chinese history, telling Bill O’Reilly last August that his idea for a wall across the U.S.-Mexican border is feasible because “you know, the Great Wall of China, built a long time ago, is 13,000 miles. I mean, you're talking about big stuff.” *** Trump’s starting point and defining emotion on foreign policy is anger— not at America’s enemies, but at its friends. In a lengthy interview with Playboy magazine in 1990, Trump was asked what would a President Trump’s foreign policy be like. He answered: “He would believe very strongly in extreme military strength. He wouldn’t trust anyone. He wouldn’t trust the Russians; he wouldn’t trust our allies; he’d have a huge military arsenal, perfect it, understand it. Part of the problem is that we’re defending some of the wealthiest countries in the world for nothing. ... We’re being laughed at around the world, defending Japan.” He then elaborated on his skepticism of allies. “We Americans are laughed at around the world for losing a hundred and fifty billion dollars year after year, for defending wealthy nations for nothing, nations that would be wiped off the face of the earth in about 15 minutes if it weren’t for us. Our ‘allies’ are making billions screwing us.” Trump has long believed the United States is being taken advantage of by its allies. He would prefer that the United States not have to defend other nations, but, if it does, he wants to get paid as much as possible for it. No nation has come in for quite as much criticism from Trump as Japan. “It’s time for us to end our vast deficits by making Japan and others who can afford it pay,” Trump said in an open letter to the American people in 1987. “Our world protection is worth hundreds of billions of dollars to these countries and their stake in their protection is far greater than ours.” In the intervening years, he found new targets but he never let go of his antagonism toward the Japanese. On the campaign trail recently, he took the unusual step of promising to renegotiate the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty. “If somebody attacks Japan,” he said, “we have to immediately go and start World War III, OK? If we get attacked, Japan doesn’t have to help us. Somehow, that doesn’t sound so fair. Does that sound good?” He has also criticized other allies. In 2013, he said, “How long will we go on defending South Korea from North Korea without payment? When will they start to pay us?” He has made the point again on the campaign trail. In an interview with NBC, he said, “We have 28,000 soldiers on the line in South Korea between the madman and them. We get practically nothing compared to the cost of this.” Trump doesn’t let Europe off the hook, either. Several years ago, he wrote, “Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops in Europe is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use.” On the campaign trail, he complained that Germany is not carrying more of the burden of NATO and asked why the United States should lead on European security. The truth is very different. America’s allies do pay for a proportion of U.S. bases. But they do not pay the full cost. This is largely because those alliances also work to America’s benefit by providing it with prepositioned forces and regional stability. It would actually cost more to station troops in the United States and have to deploy them overseas in a crisis. But this rings hollow for Trump because he is not convinced that the United States should be doing it at all. So when Trump constantly utters what may be his favorite refrain on the stump—“Our country doesn’t win anymore”—he is referring to a view he’s held for decades. He wants to get paid as much as possible for all the things the United States does to secure the international system (never mind that this same system laid the groundwork for the greatest burst of prosperity in human history, with the United States as the main beneficiary). This includes, but is not limited to, alliances. As the world’s only superpower, one of America’s most important functions has been to ensure open access to what are called the global commons—the oceans, air and space. The U.S. Navy guarantees the openness of sea lanes for civilian trade, for example. But according to Trump, the United States should not do this for free. How much does he want? Well, in 1988, he told Oprah Winfrey that Kuwait should pay the United States 25 percent of their oil profits because the United States “makes it possible for them to sell it.” If he were president, he said, “the United States would make a hell of a lot of money from those nations that have been taking advantage of us.” In his 1987 letter, he wrote, “Tax these wealthy nations, not America.” What he has in mind is not just other nations increasing their defense spending a modest amount or sharing more of the burden. It is excessive tribute in exchange for protection. There’s a name for that. The sense that America is being ripped off by its international relationships also shapes his view on trade, which is probably the aspect of his foreign policy that has received the most attention. Trump says he is in favor of trade, but he has come out against every trade deal in living memory. He calls NAFTA a disaster and is a strident critic of the forthcoming T rans- P acific P artnership. He wants to slap tariffs on other countries—again harking back to 19th-century protectionism—and negotiate bilateral deals. Most economists believe this would create a downward spiral in the global economy, but Trump does not seem to care. *** Of course, managing allies and partners is just one part of a foreign policy. The other is dealing with rivals and enemies. Trump has certainly cast himself as a ferocious critic of the Islamic State and Iran, but he has a curious view of two countries—Russia and China—that are not enemies but are perhaps better described as a rival and a competitor, respectively. For most makers of foreign policy, the challenge posed by Russia and China is to U.S. allies and the U.S.-led order, not to the U.S. homeland. But since Trump does not care as much about the allies, it is not surprising that he takes a more lenient view. There is another factor that endears authoritarian leaders to him—his respect for “strong” and “tough” leaders. In 1990, he told Playboy that the last Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, did not have a firm enough hand. Asked whether that meant he favored China’s crackdown on students, he said, “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak ... as being spit on by the rest of the world.” In 2015, Americans would find out that he had not changed his mind. In December, Putin was asked for his views on Trump. The Russian leader replied that Trump is “really brilliant and talented person, without any doubt. It’s not our job to judge his qualities, that’s a job for American voters, but he’s the absolute leader in the presidential race. ... He says he wants to move on to a new, more substantial relationship, a deeper relationship with Russia, how can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome that.” For most American politicians, an endorsement by a foreign leader, especially one who is hostile to the United States, is something that could spell political disaster. So when Trump appeared on “Morning Joe” the next day, the news media were expecting him to try to limit the damage, perhaps with a stark denunciation of Putin. Instead the exchange on “Morning Joe” went as follows: Trump: When people call you “brilliant” it’s always good, especially when the person heads up Russia. Joe Scarborough: Well, I mean, also is a person who kills journalists, political opponents and ... Willie Geist: Invades countries. Scarborough: ... and invades countries, obviously that would be a concern, would it not? Trump: He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader, unlike what we have in this country. Scarborough: But, again: He kills journalists that don’t agree with him. Trump: Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe. It was a revealing exchange that did not end there. In the weeks that followed, Trump would openly say that he thought he would get along “just fine” with Russia. Putin could be a strong ally in the war against ISIL. For Putin, Trump would be a dream come true: an American president who possesses views commensurate with Putin’s own antiquated notion of great-power politics. Putin would no longer have to deal with a president committed to wide-open global trade, NATO and democracy close to his borders—the formula that won the Cold War. Trump and Putin also have a similar interpretation of recent history. In 1990, Trump believed Gorbachev had ruined Russia and destroyed its economy, which is exactly what Putin meant when he referred to the collapse of the Soviet Union as a tragedy. It’s not hard to imagine these two men sitting down to cut a deal, perhaps something like Putin offering to help Trump on ISIL and Iran in exchange for giving Putin a freer hand in Europe. Trump has said less about Chinese president Xi Jinping except to call him very smart. It is clear, though, that to him the main problem with China is not its aggressive actions in the South China Sea, its attempts to blunt U.S. power projection capabilities or its repression at home. Instead, Trump has made the alleged Chinese economic threat a core part of his stump speech. He accused China of devaluing its currency and even went so far as to say it created the issue of climate change to gain an advantage over U.S. manufacturing. He promised to slap tariffs on Chinese goods, although he is vague about how much (he told the New York Times it could be as high as 45 percent but subsequently rolled that back). U.S.-China relations are about more than economics, of course. Given Trump’s worldview, it is easy to see how a deal might be struck. China would offer President Trump an extraordinarily preferential economic deal and in exchange he would leave China alone to do as it wished in the South China Sea and East China Sea. After all, it would help American workers, at least in the short term. America’s allies would be upset, but a President Trump might even see that as a bonus. *** Thus, beneath the bluster, the ego and the showmanship is the long-considered worldview of a man who has had problems with U.S. foreign policy for decades. Trump has thought long and hard about America’s global role and he knows what he wants to do. There is virtually no chance that he would “ tack back to the center” and embrace a conservative internationalist foreign policy . If he did get elected president, he would do his utmost to liquidate the U.S.-led liberal order by ending America’s alliances , closing the open global economy , and cutting deals with Russia and China . He would find this hard to do, not least because the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment would be opposed to him and he needs people to staff his National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department. But there is real power in the presidency, especially if there is clear guidance about the chief executive’s wishes. In any event, the mere fact that the American people would have elected somebody with a mandate to destroy the U.S.-led order might be sufficient to damage it beyond repair . After his election, other countries will immediately hedge against the risk of abandonment. There will be massive uncertainty around America’s commitments. Would Trump defend the Baltics? Would he defend the Senkaku Islands? Or Saudi Arabia? Some nations will give in to China, Russia and Iran. Others , like Japan, will push back, perhaps by acquir ing nuclear weapons. Trump may well see such uncertainty as a positive. Putting everything in play would give him great leverage. But by undoing the work of Truman and his secretary of state, Dean Acheson, it would be the end of the American era. Some might think this is overstated. After all, there have been other presidents who broke with America’s allies and renegotiated previous commitments. In his first term, Richard Nixon was unwilling for the United States to bear the cost of upholding the Bretton Woods economic system, so he decided to unilaterally change the rules and make others pay, instead. In 1971, faced with inflation and stagnation, he canceled the convertibility of the dollar to gold without consulting his allies. This brought a dramatic end to Bretton Woods. Nixon and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, were also famously comfortable with strongmen and authoritarian regimes. But Trump is no Nixon. Nixon had an acute sense of America’s unique role in the international order, even if he pursued it differently than his predecessors. He strengthened America’s alliances and maintained its commitments. Detente with the Soviet Union and the opening with China were part of a sophisticated strategy to create geopolitical space to gain an advantage over the Soviets. Trump, by contrast, has offered no vision of a U.S.-led order except that he wants to end it. To understand Trump, in the end, we have to go back to Taft and Lindbergh. The difference is that, unlike Trump, Taft was not outside the mainstream of his time. Many people believed America was safe and that it did not matter who ran Europe. Also, unlike Trump, Taft was boring and struggled to break through the noise in several nomination battles. The more bombastic and controversial figure was Lindbergh, the man who became a household name as the first person to fly across the Atlantic. Lindbergh led a national movement that was divisive, xenophobic and sympathetic to Nazi Germany. The Republican primary of 2016 is shaping up to be the most important party primary since 1940. Lindbergh did not run, of course. But Taft was in with a strong chance. Only the fact that the field was badly divided created an unexpected opening for Wendell Willkie, an internationalist, to emerge as the nominee at the convention. Some of Roosevelt’s advisers were so relieved at Willkie’s nomination that they advised their boss he no longer had to run for an unprecedented —and controversial—third term. The reason we must revisit 1940 is that Republicans have struggled to find a new north star after Iraq. Except for Rand Paul—whose own brand of libertarian isolationism, unlike Trump’s, didn’t sit well with voters—the establishment candidates were not sure whether they still supported Bush 43’s strategy or opposed it. Most tried to muddle through with a critique of President Barack Obama. Marco Rubio stuck to the ambitious Bush 43 approach but found a declining market. Some, like Ted Cruz, tried to deal with the shift in sentiment by cozying up to pro-American dictators and abandoning support for democracy promotion. Cruz even used the isolationist term America First to describe his foreign policy. But Cruz seems to have thought little and said even less about America’s global role outside the Middle East. Ironically for someone with the reputation of being exceptionally smart, he lacks Trump’s detail and substance. It is in this vacuum that the long-dormant Taftian foreign policy has made an unexpected comeback in the hands of Trump. What happens next is anybody’s guess. It is hard to see how the Republican foreign policy establishment, which is steeped in American primacy and a U.S.-led international order, endorses an isolationist strain of thinking that has long been presumed dead. A split seems more likely than reconciliation. In any event, if Hillary Clinton secures the Democratic nomination, as expected, and Trump maintains his huge lead over the GOP field, a Clinton-Trump race would present two starkly different views about America’s global role. For the first time since World War II, Americans will be asked to give their view on the most fundamental question of U.S. foreign policy: Do they want a U.S.-led liberal order or not? Internationalists will have to explain all over again why the United States flourishes and benefits from a healthy international system. Taft and Lindbergh lost before, but it would be a mistake to underestimate the messenger this time. Trump Bad: Econ – 2NC

Trump win causes global economic collapse Grenoble 16. [Ryan, HuffPo editor, “Donald Trump Poses As Big A Risk To Global Stability As Terrorism, Report Says” Huffington Post – March 17 -- www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-global-threat- economy_us_56eac656e4b0b25c91849874]

The rising threat of jihadi terrorism, a military clash over China’s expansionism in the South China Sea, and Donald Trump as president — one of these things is not like the others, and it’s not the one you’d expect. According to a report published by The Economist Intelligence Unit on Thursday, the prospect of conflict in the S outh C hina S ea poses a lesser risk to the world’s economic stability than the other two threats. Yes — that means the EIU, a research and analysis group associated with The Economist magazine, believes a Trump presidency would be just as risky as the threat of jihadi terrorism. Both threats are tied at sixth place on a list of the world’s top 10 biggest risks to the global economy. (The possibility of a hard Chinese economic crash ranked first and a renewed cold war ranked second. Meanwhile, a clash in the South China Sea tied for eighth with a U.K. vote to leave the European Union.) The EIU’s report calculates risk intensity on a 25-point scale, taking into account both the probability that an event will occur and the impact it will have if it comes to pass. The prospect of Trump winning the U.S. presidential election and the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilizing the global economy are both “ high impact” threats that have a “moderate probability” of occurring, according to the EIU. “In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war,” the analysis notes. “ His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi group s, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.” The EIU further condemned the presidential candidate for his “exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil).” The report says it’s doubtful that Trump will defeat his likely Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, but concedes that it isn’t impossible. Should Trump win the presidency, the report predicts that “virulent” opposition from Democrats and the Republican establishment would limit his ability to pass more radical policies, but warns that “such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking.” Economic decline causes global war Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction – U.S. Department of Defense, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises”, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213- 215)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline ma y increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Feaver, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources . C rises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a s trong correlat ion between internal conflict and external conflict , particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write: The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. " Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995). and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. Ext: Trump Kills Econ

Trump Win Devastates Trade, Econ and US leadership –his follow through is real and shreds general resiliency – turns case and decks engagement with China Schoen, 16 --- Doug Schoen, longtime political strategist, columnist @ forbes, Fox News contributor and author of several books, including the recently published The End of Authority: How a Loss of Legitimacy and Broken Trust are Endangering our Future“General Election Trade- Offs”, Forbes, 5/13, http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2016/05/13/trade- protectionism-and-the-2016-election/#284f747e26bf

Clinton’s gaffe epitomizes broader issues with Clinton’s candidacy and messaging. That said, it also means a lot more. It’s part of the debate over trade and protectionism that has become central to the 2016 election thanks to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders’ economic populism. With Clinton’s most recent loss to Sanders in West Virginia, a state she carried in the 2008 Democratic primary by over 40 points, significant questions remain about the former Secretary of State’s ability to appeal to Rust Belt Americans. Clinton’s struggles are particularly evident among white Americans without college degrees, many of whom have long worked in manufacturing and coal mining industries. Exit polls from the May 10 Democratic contest in West Virginia demonstrate troubling realities for Clinton: among West Virginia Democratic primary voters, over 30% say they would choose Trump in a general election match-up between the businessman and Clinton. Most intriguingly, 44% of Sanders’ supporters report they would vote for Trump in the general election as well, while only 23% said they would vote Clinton. In fact, these patterns are evident across America’s Rust Belt, especially in states like Michigan. Similar to exit polling from West Virginia, data from the Michigan primary more than two months ago also helps identify the shared base of support between Trump and Sanders. The statewide results clearly showed Trump’s popularity among blue-collar white voters and Clinton’s vulnerabilities with that same group – a foreboding sign for a general election match-up come November. Exit polls found that a majority of all Michigan voters believe trade with other nations “takes away U.S. jobs,” and among Republicans, Trump won 45% of those respondents. On the Democratic side, Sanders won these voters by a margin of 58% to Clinton’s 41% for Clinton. It follows that while Clinton may seem to be a part of the establishment which supported free trade in the past, the shift in the electorate toward Trump and Sanders’ brand protectionism is clear. On the surface, this makes sense. The economy has been improving, but it’s still a weak recovery. Wages are stagnant and Americans aren’t optimistic. Over 60% don’t believe in the American dream anymore. A candidate like Donald Trump, who believes Americans should “no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism,” would succeed in this political environment. Regardless of whether or not the consequences of globalism are real, Trump’s ability to cultivate voters’ deeply seeded economic concerns has elevated him to the position he enjoys today. As the field narrows to a Trump and Clinton general election match-up, it becomes ever more critical to understand the next president’s role in shaping the United States global economic position . For both Clinton and Trump, trade agreements are possibly the most important aspect of this issue. Voters may presume that as Clinton tacks closer to the middle for the general election, she will come around to the TPP. Trump, however, is a larger question. Based on his rhetoric, Trump is hell bent on bringing manufacturing jobs back to the United States and appears willing to turn his back on international economic partnerships formed over recent decades. To this end, a number of economists have come out against Trump warning that his tariffs would hurt Americans greatly. The National Foundation for American Policy writes, “We find that a Trump tariff proposal against all countries would cost U.S. consumers $459 billion annually and $2.29 trillion over five years . Our analysis finds that the Trump tariffs would manifest themselves as a 30.5 percent increase in the price of competing domestic producer goods and therefore, as a cut in real wages .” Furthermore, exports to Mexico, China and Japan – the targets of Trump’s rhetoric – would fall an astounding 78% . The report concludes, “Then the results would be truly catastrophic for the poor ,” the report said. “It would be as if the United States imposed a new tax of 53 percent on the lowest 10 percent income decile and a 20 percent tax on the next lowest decile. It would be the equivalent to an 11 percent flat tax on the after-tax income of U.S. workers.” That doesn’t sound like what Trump is promising Americans. Kenneth Rogoff, the former chief economist for the IMF, offers that even though Sanders is more appealing than Trump, his rhetoric is just as dangerous. Case in point: his rallying against TPP and even forcing Clinton, who was a supporter of the deal, to turn against it. The TPP has its flaws, but it does a lot of good including opening up Asian markets to Latin America. He also regularly points out that Clinton supported NAFTA and blames it for killing thousands of jobs. But he never mentions that it forced Mexico to lower its tariffs. Holding strong to the center on trade will be a central task for Clinton in November. I’m not sure how many Trump supporters will care that economists are telling them his plans will hurt the economy and our global standing because “American first” lines of argumentation are doing so well this cycle. But that doesn’t make it any less critical that we get it right on this issue . Trade and protectionism matters as much as tax and foreign policy.

Overwhelms any econ link – directly triggers escalating trade wars Ip 16. [Greg, Chief Economics Commentator, “Powerful Pair: Protectionism and the Presidency” Wall Street Journal – March 9 -- www.wsj.com/articles/powerful-pair-protectionism-and-the-presidency-1457544702]

With an overvalued dollar and a growing trade deficit, the Republican president needed to fulfill an election promise to protect manufacturers from foreign imports. So he stunned the world by imposing a 10% across-the-board tariff on imports. A scene from a future Donald Trump presidency? Actually, it’s what Richard Nixon did in 1971. As Mr. Trump closes in on the Republican presidential nomination by promising voters he’ll crack down on foreign competitors, the rest of the world should take stock of the extraordinary power a president has to take the country in a protectionist direction. Mr. Trump says he’s for free trade and not a protectionist. Nonetheless, he has threatened steep tariff s on imports from China and Mexico and disparages trade pacts, from the North American Free Trade Agreement to the signed but unratified 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership. Many of Mr. Trump’s policy positions are inconsistent, seemingly formed on the fly. But his antipathy to foreign trading partners is deep-rooted. In 1987, he wrote that Japan became wealthy “by screwing the United States with a self-serving trade policy.” In 1999, while flirting with a presidential run, he called Nafta “a disaster.” The Korea-U.S. free trade pact, he said in 2010, was “something that only a moron would sign.” Moreover, unlike his views on torture or banning Muslims from entering the U.S., Mr. Trump’s position on trade is not an outlier. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is equally skeptical of free trade, lambasting front-runner Hillary Clinton last Sunday for supporting “virtually every one of the disastrous trade agreements written by corporate America.” Mrs. Clinton and Republicans Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio have all backed away from past support for the TPP. Protectionist actions are on the rise globally, according to a tally compiled by Global Trade Alert, a watchdog group, led by India and Russia. Britons will soon vote on whether to leave the European Union. In short, a protectionist president would suit the temper of the times. The Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930, which sharply raised import tariffs and worsened the Depression’s impact on trade, is often cited as a cautionary tale about protectionism. But in one respect the analogy is flawed. Smoot-Hawley was largely the product of horse trading between individual legislators to protect favored industries. As a result, in 1934, Congress decided to forgo “the business of tariff logrolling,” as trade historian Doug Irwin writes, and delegated most authority over tariff negotiations to the president. This division of power has insulated the world trading system from Congress’s parochial tendencies. By the same token, it puts the world more at the mercy of presidents whose latitude over trade has steadily expanded. Presidential appointees at the Commerce Department adjudicate complaints that foreign imports are being illegally sold at below cost, below home-country price or subsidized. They almost always find in favor of the domestic industry. Whether those findings actually merit penalties is up to the independent International Trade Commission, whose members are nominated by the president and confirmed by Congress. While the candidates haven’t delved into the details of trade enforcement, a president has enormous leverage through several broader powerful tools, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the president to take “all appropriate and feasible steps” against any “unjustifiable or unreasonable” discrimination against U.S. exports, and Section 201, under which he can seek to protect industry from surging imports. Mr. Trump has promised to brand China a “currency manipulator.” The relevant legislation specifies no penalty—only consultations with the alleged manipulator. Mr. Trump says that would “bring China to the bargaining table” or “face tough countervailing duties.” There’s precedent for such tactics. Four months after Mr. Nixon imposed his import surcharge, the rest of the world agreed to devalue the dollar. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan forced Japan to accept voluntary restraints on automobile exports. Mr. Trump claims an import tariff could force Mexico to pay for a border wall. Some have speculated he could seek national-security justification under one of two laws: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, previously used to embargo trade with Nicaragua and Iran. The main deterrent to such unilateral trade barriers is the threat of retaliation under one of the many trade treaties to which the U.S. belongs. After George W. Bush slapped tariffs on steel in 2002 under Section 201, the World Trade Organization granted the European Union the right to retaliate. Mexico could drag the U.S. to a Nafta tribunal. The U.S. could stand fast and accept retaliation. Though the law is murky, a president can probably pull the U.S. out of the WTO or Nafta on six months’ notice, says Gary Horlick, a veteran trade lawyer, though that would leave in place many of the laws enacting their provisions, such as on tariff cuts and intellectual-property rights. Trump Bad: CMR – 2NC Trump causes a CMR crisis O’Brien 3-6-16 - economist at the Institute of International and European Affairs, columnist with Independent newspapers and senior fellow at UCD

Dan, A Trump victory would mean global chaos, the Independent, http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/a-trump-victory-would-mean- global-chaos-34515014.html

The effect of his taking control of America's armed forces would also have very serious repercussions at home. In the current issue of the neo-conservative magazine, the Weekly Standard , two high profile international affairs analysts - both men of the right - talk of a "crisis in civil-military relations" if Trump were in charge.¶ Max Boot and Ben Steil of the Council on Foreign Relations describe what would be an effective mutiny if Trump followed through on his bellicose rhetoric, including the use of torture as a standard operating procedure, the killing of terrorists' families and the carpet-bombing of areas of the Middle East in which civilians live.¶ They write: " Many military personnel would refuse to carry out orders so blatantly at odds with the laws of war; soldiers know that they could face prosecution under a future administration."

Extinction. Fried 12. [Dean’s Teaching Fellow-Johns Hopkins, "Rethinking Civilian Control: Nuclear Weapons, American Constitutionalism and War-Making," For Presentation at the 2012 Millennium Conference, London School of Economics and Political Science, October 21 -- millenniumjournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fried-lse-paper.docx?]

This material contextual dynamic is also illustrated by a novel shift in civil military relations in which the professionalism of the military cannot be relied upon, and rather, the executive must be active and assertive in controlling the very weapons the military would traditionally be entrusted to use. This Assertive Civil-Military Control as defined by Feaver, using Huntington as a foil, is a method that does not presuppose that the military will conform to the values and more importantly the orders of civilian society or that the officer corps will understand civilian leadership. Nor does it place its trust in military professionalism to restrain itself. As it relates to control over nuclear weapons, assertive civilian nuclear control is a means by which the military is restrained in its ability to use the nuclear weapons in its possession, by keeping custody of the ability for launch out of their control. It is an emphasis on the ‘never’ end of the always/never problematique, a means by which the weapons will not be fired unless given the order by the civilian command. While in possession of the military, the weapons themselves cannot be armed or used because of the method of positive control. The need for the control of such weapons outside the bounds of what Huntington called military professionalism, is a corollary of the increased costs of war and a heightened fear of military accidents or unauthorized uses. In the aftermath of a major nuclear exchange , in as little as 500 detonations, the planet becomes uninhabitable. As argued by the astrophysicist Carl Sagan, global nuclear war would not only bring about the physical destruction of the countries launching such weapons, but would very likely end life on earth as we know it. As he writes it, “cold, dark, radioactivity, pyrotoxins and ultraviolet light following a nuclear war…would imperil every survivor on the planet.” Sagan raises the specter that even a massive disarming first strike by either superpower at the time might be sufficient to wipe out all life. Therefore, the increasing speed of delivery in conjunction with the rapidly expanding scope of nuclear destruction necessitates further positive control measures to prevent the military from unauthorized use. This in turn reinforces the unchecked power of the president, for it would be only he who can give the order to strike. Trump Bad: Multilateralism – 2NC

A GOP win decks multilateralism Adams 2015 - professor of international relations at American University's School of International Service Gordon and Richard Sokolsky, "The GOP Plan to Bring Back a Unipolar World," Dec 30, http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/12/30/rubio-bush-republican-presidential-politics/

Preserving the unipolar moment Republican rhetoric is replete with calls to restore the leadership of the United States, as the most powerful, indispensable, and exceptional nation. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) captures this view well, though he is not alone. For Rubio, the United States is the natural, inevitable, and indispensable leader. “America plays a part on the world stage for which there is no understudy. When we fail to lead with strength and principle, no other country, friend or foe, is willing or able to take our place. And the result is chaos,” Rubio says on his campaign website. “While America did not intend to become the world’s indispensable power, that is exactly what our economic and political freedoms have made us. The free nations of the world still look to America to champion our shared ideals,” he adds. For Sen. Ted Cruz, this standing gives the United States a dominant position. “It is dangerous to dictators like [Vladimir] Putin when Americans remember their exceptionalism,” Cruz wrote in an opinion piece for CNN. “The unique combination of power and principle that has made the United States the greatest force for good on the planet has historically posed a grave threat to repressive bullies.” The call to restore American leadership and its dominant international role is a consistent theme for Republican presidential candidates . It is a dangerous one, because the world has changed in a fundamental way. The United States is simply no longer a global goliath bestriding a unipolar world. Turkey no longer jumps when America says frog. Putin is unmoved by U.S. demands. China is clearly expanding its own role, creating international economic organizations that include most of its closest allies but not the United States. The raw measures of military and economic power that are typically invoked to rebut the relative change in global power are not easily converted into the currency of diplomatic leverage. In contrast to the Republican message, in today’s world, power is often “situational,” assembled by coalitions of like- minded countries with the capacity, resolve, and resources, to take effective action to advance shared interests. American leadership looks different in this world; it is most effective when the United States helps mobilizes these multilateral partnerships , and allows others to take ownership of the solution. Insisting that the United States take the lead in international events, crises, and conflicts, would be counterproductive. A n elusive quest to restore a unipolar world order run from Washington leads to behavior at odds with the requirements of effective diplomacy in a rebalanced, multipolar world. Moreover, asserting U.S. control, as the GOP field suggests, v astly overstates the degree to which we are responsible for or could change global realities and problems. To recognize this reality is not declinism or abandoning the field, as Rubio suggests — it is realism. His view, in addition, is inconsistent with popular opinion: while Americans support a strong military, they are reluctant to incur the risks and costs of being a global cop. Indeed, according to opinion surveys, the public prefers disengagement from or avoidance of arenas of military conflict. And it overlooks the extent to which overreaction and hegemonic overreach over the past 15 years — the invasion of Iraq, CIA renditions to other countries for interrogation, expanded NSA global surveillance, to name but a few — has undermined the willingness of other countries to welcome U.S. leadership. Military power is not the answer The key ingredient of Republican national security policy is the “restoration” of U.S. military power, and its more vigorous assertion abroad. In a March 2015 column he authored with Sen. Tom Cotton, Rubio linked force reductions directly to diminished U.S. leadership. “Our force reductions have been felt throughout the world — by our friends and our enemies. They have presented not just a crisis of readiness for America, but also a perilous strategic weakness. Our adversaries have been emboldened by what they perceive as our diminished military presence.” Similarly, Jeb Bush has argued that any sound plan to defeat IS and other threats hinges on our military strength. “Let that slip away, and what would America be in world affairs, except one more well-intentioned voice at the United Nations? In any effort of ours to overcome violence and secure peace, a winning strategy depends on maintaining unequaled strength, and we can never take it for granted.” Chris Christie offers an argument of pre-emption: “A strong military doesn’t just help us to deal with the threats we face. It helps eliminate them before we even see them.” The argument that U.S. military power has declined and that its revival is the key to restoring our global leadership is false. This is because this idea deliberately understates current U.S. military capabilities. The Republicans conveniently avoid the reality that U.S. defense spending is greater than the combined defense budgets of the next eight countries with the highest levels of defense spending. Today, U.S. defense budgets are $150 billion higher than the Cold War average (in constant dollars). This spending buys an impressive, incomparable military. Unlike any other country, the United States maintains a network of globe-girdling alliances and more than 800 military facilities overseas. The United States is the only country in the world that can deploy troops, fly aircraft, and sail naval ships around the world, supported by a truly global network of communications, logistics, transportation, and intelligence agencies. No other country has such a capability. The Republican argument is also misleading. It substitutes measures of military capability and the assertive use of military force for sound foreign policy judgment . U.S. military power is useful and necessary for many good things: it can help maintain a favorable balance of global power, support freedom of navigation, deter aggression against allies and friends, demonstrate the credibility of U.S. security commitments, respond to humanitarian disasters, provide critical support for American diplomacy, and, embedded in a broader policy context, contribute to the struggle with terrorist organizations. AT: Checks and Balances

No checks on foreign policy Drezner 16. [Daniel, American professor of international politics at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, “The awesome destructive power of the next president” Washington Post – March 10 -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/10/the-awesome-destructive-power-of-the-next-president/]

As Donald Trump marches towards the GOP nomination, it’s worth pointing out two stories from this past week about what the next president can do as the foreign policy leader of the nation. In The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf discusses what the president can do on the security front without any congressional constraint … and walks away terrified: Let me put things more starkly: Under current precedent, the commander in chief can give a secret order to kill an American citizen with a drone strike without charges or trial. Should Donald Trump have that power?… Before moving into a new house, parents of small children engage in child-proofing. Before leaving the White House, Obama should engage in tyrant-proofing. For eight years, he has evinced a high opinion of his own ability to exercise power morally, even in situations where Senator Obama thought that the president should be restrained. At this point, better to flatter his ego than to resist it. You’ll be gone soon, Mr. President, and for all our disagreements, I think your successor is highly likely to be less trustworthy and more corruptible than you were. Meanwhile, in the Wall Street Journal, Greg Ip looks at the protectionist powers of a sitting president… and walks away terrified: As Mr. Trump closes in on the Republican presidential nomination by promising voters he’ll crack down on foreign competitors, the rest of the world should take stock of the extraordinary power a president has to take the country in a protectionist direction…. While the candidates haven’t delved into the details of trade enforcement, a president has enormous leverage through several broader powerful tools, such as Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which authorizes the president to take “all appropriate and feasible steps” against any “unjustifiable or unreasonable” discrimination against U.S. exports, and Section 201, under which he can seek to protect industry from surging imports…. Though the law is murky, a president can probably pull the U.S. out of the WTO or Nafta on six months’ notice, says Gary Horlick, a veteran trade lawyer, though that would leave in place many of the laws enacting their provisions, such as on tariff cuts and intellectual-property rights. So, in other words, over time the president has amassed significant levers of power with fewer checks and balances than Americans commonly realize. [To be fair, there have been valid reasons for some of these shifts in power from the legislative to the executive. If you think presidents are bad at foreign economic policy, you haven’t paid attention to legislative history. But still, this is a thing.] As much as Obama decried overreaching executive power as a candidate in 2008, he has become part of the problem as president. This president has concentrated control over foreign policy within the White House to a far greater degree than anyone since Richard Nixon. In response to an actively hostile GOP-controlled Congress, Obama has simply b ypassed the legislative branch through executive action. While many of Obama’s supporters embraced this strategy in the face of an implacable Congress, it creates an office ripe for abuse if, say, a vainglorious blowhard were to get elected.

Zero effective checks on Trump presidency. Rubin 5-31-16. [Jennifer, Right Turn blogger for The Post, "Realistic about the damage Trump can do" WaPo -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/05/31/realistic-about-the-damage-trump-can-do/]

On Sunday, Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) tried to reassure voters about Donald Trump. “[W]what protects us in this country against big mistakes being made is the structure, the Constitution, the institutions,” he said. “No matter how unusual a personality may be who gets elected to office, there are constraints in this country. You don’t get to do anything you want to. So I’m very optimistic about America. I’m not depressed about the nature of the debate.” Then on CBS’s This Morning, McConnell gave some advice to Donald Trump: “I’d like to see a more studious approach.” He continued, “I think that winning the White House is about more than just entertaining a large audience. I think the American people would also like to see him fill in the blanks.” We would like to think McConnell is correct. If Trump studies up on some issues and uses scripted speeches, he’ll be fine. If he gets elected, Congress will stop him from doing anything too nutty. That sounds good, but it’s not remotely true. As for studying, Trump seems neither inclined to read even briefing materials or learn from those more knowledgeable. Even his scripted speeches, most notably his foreign policy remarks (with the Russian ambassador front and center), are incoherent. He does not attract the best and the brightest to read the speeches; and, moreover, they still reflect his dangerous isolationist and protectionist instincts. A scripted Trump is still Trump. McConnell is right about one thing: Trump’s ad-lib interviews are worse, and generally disturbing. His impromptu attacks on fellow Republicans don’t vanish simply because he gave an energy speech a few days earlier. As for the issue of governance, the Constitution does not protect the American people from a commander-in-chief with atrocious judgment or a president who acts unilaterally, eviscerating the limits on the executive . That was the lesson of the Obama years, no? If the president is bent on misusing the executive branch (e.g. the IRS), the remedy is usually after the fact. Former CIA and NSA director Michael Hayden reminds us that Trump’s rhetoric helps the enemy’s recruitment. It can likewise demoralize friends. The president matters , more than any other individual on the planet, when it comes to our safety , security and prosperity and to that of the Free World. Moreover, Trump repeatedly shows contempt for the judiciar y, as he did over the Memorial Day holiday in excoriating the judge in the Trump U litigation who ordered documents to be unsealed. He and his spokesman suggest the judge is biased against Trump because she is Hispanic. Does anyone think he would be more inclined to respect courts if he wins? Surely not. Even worse, McConnell’s own troops won’t be all that inclined to stop Trump. If Trump is extracting pledges of support now, imagine what he’ll do when he has the powers of the White House at his disposal. You’ll have Republican senators assisting Trump as he wreaks havoc on the budget, our tax code and more. And, of course, with Trump at the top of the ticket there is a very good chance Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), not McConnell, will be majority leader. McConnell has a job to do as majority leader. He has members he wants reelected and who cannot go to war with Trump. To his credit, McConnell is avoiding fawning over Trump, unlike some fellow Republicans who seem bent on destroying their credibility. Nevertheless, the rest of us should take his soothing words with a large grain of salt. A narcissist with an authoritarian streak, one surrounded by shady characters with foreign connections and unable to separate Internet rumor from fact can do great damage to America’s economy, military and assorted institutions. He’s already done untold damage to the political debate, rendering it even more vulgar and nasty than it was before he threw his hat into the ring. It’s why it is critical to keep him out of the White House. They Say: “Advisors Solve” Foreign policy advisor statements are meaningless Davidson 16 (John Daniel; mar 22 2k16; senior correspondent at The Federalist; Do Trump’s Foreign Policy Advisers Really Matter?; http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/22/do-trumps- foreign-policy-advisers-really-matter/ ) jskullz

Above all, Trump has repeatedly emphasized a non-interventionist view of American foreign policy, decrying what he calls “nation-building” and arguing that we spend too much on foreign aid and should instead invest more resources on domestic infrastructure. Those views contrast sharply with those held by some of his advisers. Schmitz, a former inspector general at the Department of Defense during the Bush administration and later general counsel at the private security firm Blackwater Worldwide, in 2014 helped coordinate a failed effort by a private group to supply the Free Syrian Army with weapons to fight the Assad regime and defend against extremist groups like ISIS. Trump’s foreign policy opinions contrast sharply with those held by some of his advisers. Schmitz thought the Obama administration’s plan to support the rebels was insufficient, and tried to arrange for the delivery of 70,000 Russian-made assault rifles and 21 million rounds of ammunition to the rebels, financed by a Saudi prince. The plan was ultimately stopped by the CIA, but it’s clear that, at least in Syria, Schmitz supports more, not less, U.S. involvement. He wrote in November that Congress should declare war, “one way or another,” not only on ISIS but also on the Muslim Brotherhood, arguing that the Obama administration is in denial about the global jihadist threat facing America. Another Trump adviser, Walid Phares, doesn’t seem to share Trump’s controversial views about Muslims in the Middle East. Although Phares, a Lebanese Christian academic, was smeared by liberals media outlets as an “Islamophobe” and an extremist while working as an advisor to the Romney campaign in 2012, he has written on many occasions about the need for the United States to reach out to Muslim liberals in the Middle East to counter jihadism, and specifically to work with moderate Sunnis to push back ISIS without ceding ground to Iranian-backed militias. That’s one of the central arguments of his 2010 book on the struggle for freedom in the Middle East, and it sounds a lot like what Jeb Bush said in criticism of Trump’s Muslim ban during the debates. In the end, it might not matter how much Trump agrees with these advisers. In the end, it might not matter how much Trump agrees w ith these advisers. After all, last week Trump said he primarily consults himself on foreign policy , and for months he dodged questions about who his advisers were, fueling speculation that in fact he had no advisers . Even though he has now named a few, it’s hard not to conclude that Trump’s many strong positions on foreign policy—that he would seize oil from enemies in the Middle East, force Japan to pay vast sums for protection from China, abandon Ukraine to Putin’s revanchist schemes —come from Trump himself, and not a panel of expert advisers. It’s easy to see why many foreign policy experts would be reluctant to sign on to the Trump campaign. In fact, earlier this month dozens of prominent Republican national security experts signed an open letter declaring their opposition to a Trump presidency, arguing that a Trump administration “would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world.” Trump’s opinions about America’s role in the world are so far outside the mainstream that signing onto his campaign could meant the end of an adviser’s career. As the primaries drag on and Trump moves to consolidate support for the GOP nomination, some parts of the GOP establishment will no doubt begin reconciling themselves to Trump. There are some indications that this is already happening. For foreign policy experts, who tend to be careerist and sensitive to their reputations, this presents an especially difficult choice. Trump’s opinions about America’s role in the world are so far outside the mainstream that signing onto his campaign could meant the end of an adviser’s career. It would be like a professional economist endorsing Trump’s call for a trade war with China— no serious expert could do it with a clear conscience. Since Trump is unlikely to find foreign policy experts that share his outdated nationalism, it remains to be seen what role these advisers will play other than to allow Trump to say he’s talking about foreign affairs to someone other than himself. Ext: Trump  NW

Trump is the greatest risk for conflict-escalation Boot 16. [Max, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow in National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, "Why Trump is a Security Threat" Commentary Magazine -- March 27 -- https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/why-trump-is-a- national-security-threat/]

Trump thinks that lack of predictability is a virtue while ignoring the need for predictability in international affairs. In the Times interview, asked for policy specifics regarding China policy, he said, “There’s such, total predictability of this country, and it’s one of the reasons we do so poorly. You know, I’d rather not say that. I would like to see what they’re doing.” One suspects that his praise of unpredictability is merely a tactic so that he doesn’t have to provide answers that he doesn’t have. But if he’s serious, he is trying to emulate Richard Nixon’s “madman” theory. Nixon thought that by suggesting he was capable of anything , even irrational acts, he would coerce North Vietnam into ending its aggression against South Vietnam. It didn’t work then, and won’t work now . There is, of course, a case to be made for some imprecision in deterrence — to let the enemy wonder what exactly you would do in a crisis. But there is also a strong case to be made for general predictability so as to avoid a catastrophe that could have been averted if the adversary had a better read of your intentions. World War I started in large part because Wilhelmine Germany did not expect Great Britain to come to the defense of Belgium and France. The Korean War started in part because Dean Acheson said that South Korea was outside the U.S. defense perimeter, thereby inviting Kim Il-sung to invade. Trump seems to be unaware of these historical errors and appears bent on repeating them. Trump can’t be trusted on Israel. He gave an OK speech to AIPAC — to be more exact, he read an OK ghost-written speech — but the Times interview showed his heart isn’t in it. At one point he refused to commit to a “two-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. “I’m not saying anything. What I’m going to do is, you know, I specifically don’t want to address the issue because I would love to see if a deal could be made.” Trump doesn’t seem to realize that the alternative to a two-state solution is a one-state solution that would mean the end of Israel’s existence as a Jewish state. Presumably, someone clued him in between his first and second conversations with the Times, because the second time around he retreated to his AIPAC stance: “Basically I support a two-state solution on Israel. But the Palestinian Authority has to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Have to do that.” What will he say tomorrow? Who knows? After all, he stresses his unpredictability, which would leave every American ally, including Israel, guessing as to whether he would stand with them in the clutch. In sum, it is hard to come away from his Times interview — which comes just a week after his interview with the Washington Post editorial board, which was just as bizarre — without concluding that Trump is singularly unqualified to be commander-in-chief. Handing him the nuclear codes would be the riskiest and most irresponsible act imaginable. With Trump in command, our enemies would have a field day — Moscow and Beijing must be licking their chops at his desire to abandon U.S. allies in Europe and Asia — and our friends would face mortal threats. If that isn’t the single biggest threat to U.S. security, I don’t know what is. Trump causes global extinction. Cownie 16. [Richard, BA in Mathematics from Cambridge University and Masters of Science in Computer Systems Engineering @ Edinburgh University, Quora, February 20, “What is the worst thing that could happen if Donald Trump becomes President?,” https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-worst-thing-that-could-happen-if-Donald-Trump-becomes-President#!n=42]

The worst thing would be a major nuclear war, leading to a Nuclear winter with 10 or more years essentially without sunlight, obviously causing total crop failure, exhaustion of food stocks, mass starvation, and mass extinction of maybe 80-90% of all species. Civilization would be destroyed. I can imagine that a few small groups of humans might manage to hide away in favorable locations with enough stocks of canned/dried food until the atmosphere clears up. But I wouldn't want to bet on it - and obviously in addition to the appalling cold and the lack of food, there would also be considerable radiation from fallout in most areas. Given Trump's complete lack of military or foreign policy experience, his apparent desire to appoint other business/financial people with similar background, and his well-known pattern of aggressive attacks against anyone he perceives as an enemy, and disregard for customary (or even legal) constraints on behavior, I have to think that allowing Trump to control nuclear weapons would significantly increase this risk. The risk of nuclear war triggered by an accident or unintentional launch is already way higher than I'm comfortable with. === Trump Bad: Alliances === Asia Prolif 2NC

Trump collapses the global order and leads to nuclear war Feith 16. [Douglas, Hudson Institute senior fellow, “Trump, america's word, and the bomb” National Review – March 14 -- www.nationalreview.com/article/432746/donald-trump-nukes-his-recklessness-would-increase-nuclear-threats

The Obama-Clinton team originally promised to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation. It wound up doing the opposite. We now have the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency. That would aggravate the problem. Eight years of left-wing American unreliability would then be followed by four (or eight) years of perceived right-wing unreliability. Faith in American security commitments would plummet — probably irretrievably. In many countries, pressure to “go nuclear” would increase, perhaps irresistibly. Nuclear weapons remain a life-and- death issue, though the candidates and the media are giving them little attention in the campaign. Americans shouldn’t want nuclear weapons spreading around the world. When new states get them — especially rogues such as North Korea and Iran — the risk of nuclear war increases. Even if America could avoid being drawn into such a war, catastrophic harm wouldn’t be confined to the warring parties. Since World War II, efforts to keep nuclear weapons from spreading have been astonishingly successful. When China got the bomb in 1964, it became only the fifth nuclear power, after the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, and France. No one but an extreme optimist at the time would have predicted that, 50 years hence, the nuclear “club” would have only three (or maybe four) additional members. India, Pakistan, and North Korea have all explosively tested nuclear weapons. Israel is widely believed to have them but hasn’t said so. Why did nonproliferation work so well? First, the United States and the Soviet Union actually shared interests in enforcing the 1970 Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty. Neither wanted any other country to obtain nuclear weapons. And most countries understood that they were actually safer if they renounced such weapons in return for a similar renunciation by their neighbors. The second main reason is that our allies trusted U.S. security commitments. They felt confident sheltering under America’s so-called nuclear umbrella. Throughout the Cold War and beyond, U.S. presidents took pains to preserve that trust and confidence. To do so, they exerted leadership, showed loyalty to our allies, safeguarded U.S. credibility, and preserved American military power — in particular, the quality of our nuclear weapons. President Obama did speak passionately about reducing the risks of nuclear war, but his actions undermined his goals. He dithered as North Korea expanded its nuclear arsenal and the range of its missiles. He freed Iran of economic sanctions without requiring dismantlement of its nuclear-weapons facilities. Meanwhile, other policies — “leading from behind,” courtship of Russia’s President Putin, setting and then ignoring that “red line” in Syria, slashing defense spending, and neglecting U.S. nuclear- weapons infrastructure — all communicated to America’s friends abroad a lack of resolution, of loyalty, of understanding, and of power. The bad effects are plain to see. A May 7, 2015, Wall Street Journal headline reads, “Saudi Arabia Considers Nuclear Weapons to Offset Iran.” In South Korea on February 15 this year, Won Yoo-chul, the ruling party’s floor leader, spoke favorably in parliament of “peaceful nuclear and missile programs for the sake of self-defense.” He explained, “We cannot borrow an umbrella from a neighbor whenever it rains.” Similar statements abound elsewhere. Around the world, officials foresee with dread the possibilities of cascading nuclear proliferation. In the Middle East, not only Saudi Arabia but also the other Gulf states in addition to Turkey and Egypt could be candidates for going nuclear. In the Asia–Pacific, it could be Japan, Taiwan, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore, too. It’s bad enough that President Obama has sapped American credibility. If Republicans now put Donald Trump into the White House, they’ll abandon all hope of recovering it. Which brings us back to Donald Trump, who has had a lot to say about America’s commitments to friends. He scorns NATO. He praises President Putin as NATO quarrels with Russia over Ukraine. In his 2000 book The America We Deserve, Trump wrote that Europe’s conflicts were “not worth American lives,” and he touted the money America could save by “pulling back from Europe.” He scorns Japan. His statements on trade depict Japan as an enemy nation rather than an ally of paramount importance. He scorns Israel. He promises to be “neutral” between the Jewish state and enemies trying to destroy it. He scorns U.S. law-of-war obligations under the Geneva Conventions, as when he boasted he would mistreat detainees and kill civilians. He now recants those boasts, but he can’t erase the picture he has created of himself as intemperate and unprincipled. He has made an electoral strategy of contradicting himself, purposefully devaluing the currency of his words (it’s ironic that he berates the Chinese for devaluing their currency). He scoffs at accuracy and shows no shame when he says false things. His message is that, as a great man, he shouldn’t be held to anything he says. It’s bad enough that President Obama has sapped American credibility. If Republicans now put Donald Trump into the White House, they’ll abandon all hope of recovering it. Friends around the world would have to adjust to an America that’s erratic to the point of recklessness. Their loss of confidence in our reliability would make the world more perilous — and not just for them. Undermining our alliances will spawn various ills, including the spread of nuclear weapons. Even if Americans someday replaced President Trump with a responsible person of sound judgment, the harm would probably be irreversible. Ext: Asia Prolif Impacts causes nuclear war Cimbala 15 – Stephen J. Cimbala, Distinguished Professor of Political Science at Pennsylvania State University Brandywine, The New Nuclear Disorder: Challenges to Deterrence and Strategy, 2015, pp. 59-63

The spread of nuclear weapons in Asia (including those parts of the Middle East with geostrategic proximity or reach into Asia) presents a complicated mosaic of possibilities in this regard. States with nuclear forces of variable force structure, operational experience, and command-control systems will be thrown into a matrix of complex political, social and cultural cross-currents contributory to the possibility of war. In addition to the existing nuclear powers in Asia, others may seek nuclear weapons if they feel threatened by regional rivals or hostile alliances. Containment of nuclear proliferation in Asia is a desirable political objective for all of the obvious reasons. Nevertheless, the present century is unlikely to see the nuclear hesitancy or risk aversion that marked the Cold War: in part, because the military and political discipline imposed by the Cold War superpowers no longer exists, but also because states in Asia have new aspirations for regional or global respect.20¶ The spread of ballistic missiles and other nuclear capable delivery systems in Asia, or in the Middle East with reach into Asia, is especially dangerous because plausible adversaries live close together and are already engaged in ongoing disputes about territory or other issues. The Cold War Americans and Soviets required missiles and airborne delivery systems of intercontinental range to strike at one another’s vitals. But short range ballistic missiles or fighter-bombers suffice for India and Pakistan to launch attacks at one another with potentially “strategic” effects. China shares borders with Russia, North Korea, India and Pakistan; Russia, with China and North Korea; India, with Pakistan and China; Pakistan, with India and China; and so on. The short flight times of ballistic missiles between the cities or military forces of contiguous states means that very little time will be available for warning and attack assessment by the defender. Conventional ly armed missiles could easily be mistaken for a tactical nuclear first use. Fighter-bombers appearing over the horizon could just as easily be carrying nuclear weapons as conventional ordnance. In addition to the challenges posed by shorter flight times and uncertain weapons loads, potential victims of nuclear attack in Asia may also have first strike vulnerable forces and command-control systems that increase decision pressures for rapid , and possibly mistaken, retaliation. This potpourri of possibilities challenges conventional wisdom about nuclear deterrence and proliferation on the part of policy makers and academic theorists. For policy makers in the United States and NATO, spreading nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction in Asia could profoundly shift the geopolitics of mass destruction from a European center of gravity (in the twentieth century) to an Asian and/or Middle Eastern center of gravity (in the present century).21 This would profoundly shake up prognostications to the effect that wars of mass destruction are now passé, on account of the emergence of the “Revolution in Military Affairs” and its encouragement of information-based warfare.22 Together with this, there has emerged the argument that large scale war between states or coalitions of states, as opposed to varieties of unconventional warfare and failed states, are exceptional and potentially obsolete.23 The spread of WMD and ballistic missiles in Asia could overturn these expectations for the obsolescence or marginalization of major interstate warfare.

Trump will deck our foreign alliances. O'Brien 16. [Dan, Chief economist at the Institute of International and European Affairs, columnist with Independent newspapers and senior fellow at UCD, “A Trump victory would mean global chaos” The Independent -- March 6 -- www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/a-trump-victory-would-mean-global-chaos-34515014.html]

But for all the checks, balances and limitations of the role, a rogue US president would make the world a more dangerous and unstable place, and would almost certainly make it poorer too. Trump is as rogue as anyone in modern times who has got within shouting distance of the White House. The US president is the commander in chief of a military that is by far the most powerful in the world - American defence spending, of almost $600 billion annually, is greater than the next 12 largest national defence budgets combined. Whether people like it or not - in America or elsewhere - the US is the closest thing the world has to a policeman. It is not called the indispensable nation for nothing. Although it has at times misused and abused its enormous clout, America has been the most benign great power in history - as we in Ireland know better than most given how rarely Washington has ever leaned on governments in Dublin to do things that they haven't wanted to do. But if Trump attempted to do even half of the things he has proposed on the campaign trail in his self-proclaimed crusade to "make America great again", the use of US power would become much less benign very quickly. Having Trump in control of the US military would send shock waves around the world. It would deeply unsettle allies who depend on American security guarantees, which includes Ireland and the rest of our continent. It would do much more than unsettle rivals, potentially pushing them into an arms race with Trump's America. Asia Alliances 2NC

Trump will cut and run on our alliances – even perception triggers the impact. Wright 16. [Thomas, fellow and director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at Brookings, “Trump’s 19th Century Foreign Policy” Politico – January 20 -- www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-foreign-policy-213546? o=2]

Thus, beneath the bluster, the ego and the showmanship is the long-considered worldview of a man who has had problems with U.S. foreign policy for decades. Trump has thought long and hard about America’s global role and he knows what he wants to do. There is virtually no chance that he would “tack back to the center” and embrace a conservative internationalist foreign policy. If he did get elected president, he would do his utmost to liquidate the U.S.-led liberal order by ending America’s alliances, closing the open global economy, and cutting deals with Russia and China. He would find this hard to do, not least because the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment would be opposed to him and he needs people to staff his National Security Council, State Department and Defense Department. But there is real power in the presidency, especially if there is clear guidance about the chief executive’s wishes. In any event, the mere fact that the American people would have elected somebody with a mandate to destroy the U.S.-led order might be sufficient to damage it beyond repair. After his election, other countries will immediately hedge against the risk of abandonment. There will be massive uncertainty around America’s commitments. Would Trump defend the Baltics? Would he defend the Senkaku Islands? Or Saudi Arabia? Some nations will give in to China, Russia and Iran. Others, like Japan, will push back, perhaps by acquiring nuclear weapons. Trump may well see such uncertainty as a positive. Putting everything in play would give him great leverage. But by undoing the work of Truman and his secretary of state, Dean Acheson, it would be the end of the American era. collapse overall U.S. credibility in Asia---nuclear war Goh, 8 – Lecturer in International Relations in the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford (Evelyn, International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, “Hierarchy and the role of the United States in the East Asian security order,” 2008 8(3):353- 377, Oxford Journals Database)

The centrality of these mutual processes of assurance and deference means that the stability of a hierarchical order is fundamentally related to a collective sense of certainty about the leadership and order of the hierarchy. This certainty is rooted in a combination of material calculations – smaller states' assurance that the expected costs of the dominant state conquering them would be higher than the benefits – and ideational convictions – the sense of legitimacy, derived from shared values and norms that accompanies the super-ordinate state's authority in the social order. The empirical analysis in the next section shows that regional stability in East Asia in the post-Second World War years can be correlated to the degree of collective certainty about the US-led regional hierarchy . East Asian stability and instability has been determined by U.S. assurances , self-confidence, and commitment to maintaining its primary position in the regional hierarchy; the perceptions and

confidence of regional states about US commitment; and the reactions of subordinate states in the region to the varied challengers to the regional hierarchical order. 4.

Hierarchy and the East Asian security order Currently, the regional hierarchy in East Asia is still dominated by the United States. Since the 1970s, China has increasingly claimed the position of second-ranked great power, a claim that is today legitimized by the hierarchical deference shown by smaller subordinate powers such as South Korea and Southeast Asia. Japan and South Korea can, by virtue of their alliance with the United States, be seen to occupy positions in a third layer of regional major powers, while India is ranked next on the strength of its new strategic relationship with Washington. North Korea sits outside the hierarchic order but affects it due to its military prowess and nuclear weapons capability. Apart from making greater sense of recent history, conceiving of the US' role in East Asia as the dominant state in the regional hierarchy helps to clarify three critical puzzles in the contemporary international and East Asian security landscape. First, it contributes to explaining the lack of sustained challenges to American global preponderance after the end of the Cold War. Three of the key potential global challengers to US unipolarity originate in Asia (China, India, and Japan), and their support for or acquiescence to, US dominance have helped to stabilize its global leadership . Through its dominance of the Asian regional hierarchy, the United States has been able to neutralize the potential

threats to its position from Japan via an alliance, from India by gradually identifying and pursuing mutual commercial and strategic interests, and from China by encircling and deterring it with allied and friendly states that support American preponderance. Secondly, recognizing US hierarchical preponderance further explains contemporary under-balancing in Asia, both against a rising China, and against incumbent American power. I have argued that one defining characteristic of a hierarchical system is voluntary subordination of lesser states to the dominant state, and that this goes beyond rationalistic bandwagoning because it is manifested in a social contract that comprises the related processes of hierarchical assurance and hierarchical deference. Critically, successful and sustainable hierarchical assurance and deference helps to explain why Japan is not yet a ‘normal’ country. Japan has experienced significant impetus to revise and expand the remit of its security forces in the last 15 years. Yet, these pressures continue to be insufficient to prompt a wholesale revision of its constitution and its remilitarization. The reason is that the United States extends its security umbrella over

Japan through their alliance, which has led Tokyo not only to perceive no threat from US dominance, but has in fact helped to forge a security community between them (Nau, 2003). Adjustments in burden sharing in this alliance since the 1990s have arisen not from greater independent Japanese strategic activism, but rather from periods of strategic uncertainty and crises for Japan when it appeared that American hierarchical assurance, along with US' position at the top of the regional hierarchy, was in question. Thus, the Japanese priority in taking on more responsibility for regional security has been to improve its ability to facilitate the US' central position, rather than to challenge it.13 In the face of the security threats from North Korea and China, Tokyo's continued reliance on the security pact with the United States is rational. While there remains debate about Japan's re-militarization and the growing clout of nationalist ‘hawks’ in Tokyo, for regional and domestic political reasons, a sustained ‘normalization’ process cannot take place outside of the restraining framework of the United States–Japan alliance (Samuels, 2007; Pyle, 2007). Abandoning the alliance will entail Japan making a conscience choice not only to remove itself from the US-led hierarchy, but also to challenge the United States dominance directly. The United States–ROK alliance may be understood in a similar way, although South Korea faces different sets of constraints because of its strategic priorities related to North Korea. As J.J. Suh argues, in spite of diminishing North Korean capabilities, which render the US security umbrella less critical, the alliance endures because of mutual identification – in South Korea, the image of the US as ‘the only conceivable protector against aggression from the North,’ and in the United States, an image of itself as protector of an allied nation now vulnerable to an ‘evil’ state suspected of transferring weapons of mass destruction to terrorist networks (Suh, 2004). Kang, in contrast, emphasizes how South Korea has become less enthusiastic about its ties with the United States – as indicated by domestic protests and the rejection of TMD – and points out that Seoul is not arming against a potential land invasion from China but rather maritime threats (Kang, 2003, pp.79–80). These observations are valid, but they can be explained by hierarchical deference toward the United States, rather than China. The ROK's military orientation reflects its identification with and dependence on the United States and its adoption of US' strategic aims. In spite of its primary concern with the North Korean threat, Seoul's formal strategic orientation is toward maritime threats, in line with Washington's regional strategy. Furthermore, recent South Korean Defense White Papers habitually cited a remilitarized Japan as a key threat. The best means of coping with such a threat would be continued reliance on the US security umbrella and on Washington's ability to restrain Japanese remilitarization (Eberstadt et al., 2007). Thus, while the United States–ROK bilateral relationship is not always easy, its durability is based on South Korea's fundamental acceptance of the United States as the region's primary state and reliance on it to defend and keep regional order. It also does not rule out Seoul and other US allies conducting business and engaging diplomatically with China. India has increasingly adopted a similar strategy vis-à-vis China in recent years. Given its history of territorial and political disputes with China and its contemporary economic resurgence, India is seen as the key potential power balancer to a growing China. Yet, India has sought to negotiate settlements about border disputes with China, and has moved significantly toward developing closer strategic relations with the United States. Apart from invigorated defense cooperation in the form of military exchange programs and joint exercises, the key breakthrough was the agreement signed in July 2005 which facilitates renewed bilateral civilian nuclear cooperation (Mohan, 2007). Once again, this is a key regional power that could have balanced more directly and independently against China, but has rather chosen to align itself or bandwagon with the primary power, the United States, partly because of significant bilateral gains, but fundamentally in order to support the latter's regional order-managing function. Recognizing a regional hierarchy and seeing that the lower layers of this hierarchy have become more active since the mid-1970s also allows us to understand why there has been no outright balancing of China by regional states since the 1990s. On the one hand, the US position at the top of the hierarchy has been revived since the mid- 1990s, meaning that deterrence against potential Chinese aggression is reliable and in place.14 On the other hand, the aim of regional states is to try to consolidate China's inclusion in the regional hierarchy at the level below that of the United States, not to keep it down or to exclude it. East Asian states recognize that they cannot, without great cost to themselves, contain Chinese growth. But they hope to socialize China by enmeshing it in peaceful regional norms and economic and security institutions. They also know that they can also help to ensure that the capabilities gap between China and the United States remains wide enough to deter a power transition. Because this strategy requires persuading China about the appropriateness of its position in the hierarchy and of the legitimacy of the US position, all East Asian states engage significantly with China, with the small Southeast Asian states refusing openly to ‘choose sides’ between the United States and China. Yet, hierarchical deference continues to explain why regional institutions such as the ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN + 3, and East Asian Summit have made limited progress. While the United State has made room for regional multilateral institutions after the end of the Cold War, its hierarchical preponderance also constitutes the regional order to the extent that it cannot comfortably be excluded from any substantive strategic developments. On the part of some lesser states (particularly Japan and Singapore), hierarchical deference is manifested in inclusionary impulses (or at least impulses not to exclude the United States or US proxies) in regional institutions, such as the East Asia Summit in December 2005. Disagreement on this issue with others, including China and Malaysia, has stymied potential progress in these regional institutions (Malik, 2006). Finally, conceiving of a US-led East Asian hierarchy amplifies our understanding of how and why the United States–China relationship is now the key to regional order. The vital nature of the Sino-American relationship stems from these two states' structural positions. As discussed earlier, China is the primary second-tier power in the regional hierarchy. However, as Chinese power grows and Chinese activism spreads beyond Asia, the United States is less and less able to see China as merely a regional power – witness the growing concerns about Chinese investment and aid in certain African countries. This causes a disjuncture between US global interests and US regional interests. Regional attempts to engage and socialize China are aimed at mediating its intentions. This process, however, cannot stem Chinese growth, which forms the material basis of US threat perceptions. Apprehensions about the growth of China's power culminates in US fears about the region being ‘lost’ to China, echoing Cold War concerns that transcribed regional defeats into systemic setbacks.15 On the other hand, the US security strategy post-Cold War and post-9/11 have regional manifestations that disadvantage China. The strengthening of US alliances with Japan and Australia; and the deployment of US troops to Central, South, and Southeast Asia all cause China to fear a consolidation of US global hegemony that will first threaten Chinese national security in the regional context and then stymie China's global reach. Thus, the key determinants of the East Asian security order relate to two core questions: (i) Can the US be persuaded that China can act as a reliable ‘regional stakeholder’ that will help to buttress regional stability and US global security aims;16 and (ii) can China be convinced that the United States has neither territorial ambitions in Asia nor the desire to encircle China, but will help to promote Chinese development and stability as part of its global security strategy? (Wang, 2005). But, these questions cannot be asked in the abstract, outside the context of negotiation about their relative positions in the regional and global hierarchies. One urgent question for further investigation is how the process of assurance and deference operate at the topmost levels of a hierarchy? When we have two great powers of unequal strength but contesting claims and a closing capabilities gap in the same regional hierarchy, how much scope for negotiation is there, before a reversion to balancing dynamics? This is the main structural dilemma: as long as the United States does not give up its primary position in the Asian regional hierarchy,

China is very unlikely to act in a way that will provide comforting answers to the two questions. Yet, the East Asian regional order has been and still is constituted by US hegemony, and to change that could be extremely disruptive and may lead to regional actors acting in highly destabilizing ways. Rapid Japanese remilitarization , armed conflict across the Taiwan Straits, Indian nuclear brinks mans hip directed toward Pakistan, or a highly destabilized Korea n peninsula are all illustrative of potential regional disruptions. 5. Conclusion To construct a coherent account of East Asia's evolving security order, I have suggested that the United States i s the central force in constituting regional stability and order. The major patterns of equilibrium and turbulence in the region since 1945 can be explained by the relative stability of the US position at the top of the regional hierarchy, with periods of greatest insecurity being correlated with greatest uncertainty over the American commitment to managing regional order. Furthermore, relationships of hierarchical assurance and hierarchical deference explain the unusual character of regional order in the post-Cold War era. However, the greatest contemporary challenge to East Asian order is the potential conflict between China and the United States over rank ordering in the regional hierarchy, a contest made more potent because of the inter-twining of regional and global security concerns. Ultimately, though, investigating such questions of positionality requires conceptual lenses that go beyond basic material factors because it entails social and normative questions. How can China be brought more into a leadership position, while being persuaded to buy into shared strategic interests and constrain its own in ways that its vision of regional and global security may eventually be reconciled with that of the United States and other regional players? How can Washington be persuaded that its central position in the hierarchy must be ultimately shared in ways yet to be determined? The future of the East Asian security order is tightly bound up with the durability of the United States' global leadership and regional domination. At the regional level, the main scenarios of disruption are an outright Chinese challenge to US leadership, or the defection of key US allies, particularly Japan. Recent history suggests, and the preceding analysis has shown, that challenges to or defections from US leadership will come at junctures where it appears that the US commitment to the region is in doubt , which in turn destabilizes the hierarchical order. At the global level, American geopolitical over-extension will be the key cause of change. This is the one factor that could lead to both greater regional and global turbulence, if only by the attendant strategic uncertainly triggering off regional challenges or defections. However, it is notoriously difficult to gauge thresholds of over-extension. More positively, East Asia is a region that has adjusted to previous periods of uncertainty about US primacy. Arguably, the regional consensus over the United States as primary state in a system of benign hierarchy could accommodate a shifting of the strategic burden to US allies like Japan and Australia as a means of systemic preservation. The alternatives that could surface as a result of not doing so would appear to be much worse.

Turns Case – China Engagement – 2NC

Key to solve China war and make other engagement efforts effective Christensen 9 (Thomas J. Christensen, Professor of Politics and International Affairs and Director of the China and the World Program, which is a joint venture between Princeton and Harvard Universities, deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific Affairs 2006-2008, July 2009, “Shaping the Choices of a Rising China: Recent Lessons for the Obama Administration”, http://www.twq.com/09july/docs/09jul_Christensen.pdf)

What does China want and what does the United States want from China? There is a broad national consensus within China across diverse segments of society and different intellectual orientations that the nation should increase its power and influence on the international stage. The key question is what mix of policies China should use to increase that influence: economic growth and greater integration with regional and global economies; diplomatic activism designed to reassure China’s nervous neighbors and help solve regional and global problems; and/or military coercion against actors with whom China has been brewing territorial or political disputes? China’s answers to these questions will have enormous repercussions for the region and the world. The U nited S tates can best influence these choices by maintaining the current two-pronged strategy : a strong U.S. presence in Asian security and political affair s to discourage the use of coercion by China when resolving its disputes, and active diplomatic engagement to encourage China to seek greater influence through constructive economic and diplomatic policies. First, by maintaining a strong U.S. security presence in Asia in the form of U.S. forces and bases along with a network of strong alliances and non-allied / security partnerships, the United States makes it difficult for experts, advisors, and decisionmakers within China to advocate the use of coercive force against Taiwan or other regional actors as an inexpensive and effective way for Beijing to address its problems. The term ‘‘hedging’’ is often used, even in official government documents, to describe this role of the U.S. security presence. The term has some validity, but it does not fully capture the role that U.S. regional power plays. Hedging implies that the U.S. presence will only be useful if diplomatic engagement fails to convince a rising China to avoid belligerence. In fact, the maintenance of U.S. military superiority in the region, properly considered, is an integral part of that broader engagement strategy and makes diplomatic engagement itself more effective. The military strength of the U nited S tates and its allies and security partners i n Asia complements positive U.S. diplomacy by channeling China’s competitive energies in more beneficial and peaceful directions.

undermines all restraints on China conflict escalation – Deterrence works Auslin, resident scholar and director of Japan Studies – AEI, 8/28/’14

(Michael, “Preventing a Pacific vacuum”, American Enterprise Institute) Last week’s incident holds lessons about the importance of America’s military presence in Asia. The absence of effective and credible U.S. force in potentially unstable regions around the globe is encouraging murderous groups (such as ISIS in Iraq) and traditionally aggressive opportunists (like Vladimir Putin ). The specter of growing global disorder is abetted by perceptions that the United States has neither the strength nor will to counter or defeat aggressive actors.

Asia seems relatively stable compared with the rest of the world. Even China’s aggressiveness in recent years has undoubtedly been tempered by the U.S. presence in the waters and skies of the Pacific. Just contrast the presence of over 300,000 U.S. troops throughout Asia with the situation in Iraq, where the precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces led in less than four years to ISIS’s conquests.

So far the Pentagon has remained committed to maintaining and even moderately increasing U.S. force levels in Asia. It has deployed America’s most advanced weapons systems to Asia, such as the F-22, and has promised that the F-35s and Zumwalt DDG-1000 destroyers are coming in future years to bolster the U.S. Pacific Command. This, combined with the rhetoric about the “rebalance” to Asia, has likely deterred some adventurism on Beijing’s part.

Now consider last week’s encounter over the South China Sea. Beijing may or may not choose to continue such dangerous behavior but if it did, then U.S. Navy and Air Force fighters would likely soon begin escorting U.S. military planes over international waters. Eventually the Chinese would get the message that provocative behavior risks a shooting incident. Given Beijing’s relatively risk averse nature, it would almost certainly back down.

Yet what would happen if U.S. forces in Asia gradually thinned out over the next decade, due to demands elsewhere or continued budget cuts that Congress hasn’t repealed? The vacuum that plagues the Middle East and Eastern Europe would begin to emerge in Asia, too. Based on what the world has witnessed of Chinese behavior, such a vacuum would very likely result in more aggressive acts.

Such actions would aim at intimidating and hindering U.S. forces while more directly confronting Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and others over disputed territory in the East and South China Seas. Given evidence of America’s diminishing presence in their waters, Asia’s smaller nations would face uncomfortable choices about how much they can protect their interests.

A world of growing disorder would be further shaken by conflict or endemic instability in Asia. The negative impact on the global economy would reverberate in New York, London and Frankfurt as well as in Tokyo, Seoul and Jakarta.

The lack of effective regional mechanisms for resolving crises would make it especially difficult to maintain stability amid rising nationalism, resentment and distrust. Even Japan’s goal of acting as a security partner to Southeast Asian nations would crumble under the specter of being drawn into a direct conflict with China.

The U.S. thus remains the indispensable stabilizing power in Asia. Even as the region’s new normal reflects China’s steady accretion of influence, U.S. forces act as a hedge against Chinese advances beyond accepted norms of international behavior. U.S. Pacific Command’s presence in Asia offers the best chance for international law to take root. Adherents throughout the region can form an undeniable community of interests that even China will be averse to ignoring.

Such an outcome requires continued commitment by U.S. leaders. That means investing more militarily to support democracy’s political goals in the world’s most dynamic region. The alternative is to watch Asia’s new normal become ever more unstable, with America increasingly a bystander. Ext: Asia Alliance Internal

Trump will end security guarantees in Asia. Lee 16. [John, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. and an adjunct associate professor at the Australian National University, “What 'The Donald' would mean for Asia” Nikkei Asian Review – February 17 --asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Viewpoints/What-The-Donald-would-mean-for-Asia]

Clinton's policies are relatively easy to predict. As secretary of state in President Barack Obama's first administration, from 2008 to 2012, she was the architect and driving force behind the pivot or rebalance to Asia. In her current campaign to be the Democratic candidate, she has reaffirmed her intention to entrench and strengthen America's strategic and military presence in Asia, in effect taking ownership of the Asian pivot and running with it. In short, a Clinton presidency would be warmly welcomed by America's allies and security partners. It would be a continuation of the current pivot to Asia, but with intent and resources in the eyes of those who claim that Obama lost interest in Asia, or else was distracted by the Islamic State militant group, during his second term. It is also more likely that Clinton will want to be seen to be "getting tough" with China when it comes to the latter's increasingly assertive and threatening behavior in the East and South China seas. This means more freedom of navigation patrolling operations by U.S. naval vessels in waters which China has claimed, accompanied by robust language, and an end to any consideration that a broad-ranging compact between China and the U.S. -- or a G-2 -- is the way ahead. Reading Trump's foreign policy is far more difficult, even if it will surely be much more interesting. His comments on external affairs seem more about bombast than policy: in a radio address last November he said "I will also quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS," for example. Unlike the other candidates, Trump does not seem to have a foreign policy team of advisers. At this hyperbolic stage all one can do is piece together proclamations that may well form the basis of a more elaborate foreign policy, should he enter the White House. One might be tempted to dismiss much of what "The Donald" says as opportunistic hot air by the self-proclaimed anti- establishment candidate. But he has consistently pursued one particular theme over several years that no doubt causes concern among America's friends and allies in Asia. Cutting off support Back in 2000, Trump argued that the U.S. should not expend its blood and/or treasure overseas unless its allies and partners are also willing to do the same. As he said then, "Pulling back from Europe would save this country millions of dollars annually. The cost of stationing NATO troops ... is enormous. And these are clearly funds that can be put to better use." That was 15 years ago. What about more recent times? In 2013, he said this: "How long will we go on defending South Korea from North Korea without payment? When will they start to pay us?" This was no lonely thought bubble. In a CNN interview in January, he repeated the same line, and further argued that the U.S. should force China to take the lead in resolving the North Korean problem. If Beijing refuses, trade sanctions against China will follow. Despite the temptation to ignore these seemingly extreme comments, there is actually an underlying and consistent rationale to them. Like Clinton, the majority of Washington's policy community feel that a redoubling of American leadership is required to solve the world's problems -- even if there is deep disagreement as to what form such leadership ought to take. In contrast, Trump is advocating a foreign policy stance held by many libertarians in America that it is time to end the so-called military welfare by allies and partners, including in Asia. As this line of reasoning goes, the region has become dependent on American stewardship of the post-World War II liberal order and it is time to end their free-riding mentality. In an environment of strained fiscal and other resources, Washington can no longer afford the indulgence of remaining as the indispensable regional power. It is time for Asia to increasingly fend for what it wants and values.

Trump’s Asia policy will cause troop kick out. Lee 16. [John, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C. and an adjunct associate professor at the Australian National University, “What 'The Donald' would mean for Asia” Nikkei Asian Review – February 17 --asia.nikkei.com/Viewpoints/Viewpoints/What-The-Donald-would-mean-for-Asia] Even so, one can confidently surmise that the dealings of a President Trump with both friends and foes would be direct, blunt and possibly confrontational. Demanding upfront payment for security guarantees would hardly endear locals to the American presence on foreign soil, making it much more difficult for Asian allies and partners to host more U.S. military assets -- which a more effective pivot would require. Trump's tirades against Muslims, meanwhile, would undoubtedly undermine America's standing in Muslim-dominated countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia, even if such comments have been directed toward refugees from Syria and Islamic extremists.

Trump win decks Asia security alliances. Le 16. [Tom, Assistant Professor of Politics at Pomona College, former Non-Resident Sasakawa Peace Foundation Fellow at CSIS Pacific Forum, "How Trump is already damaging US alliances" The Diplomat -- May 20 -- thediplomat.com/2016/05/how-trump-is- already-damaging-us-alliances/]

The U.S.-Japan and U.S.-ROK alliances have survived the Cold War, drastic regime change, and global economic turmoil, but can they withstand a full-on assault by U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump? Trump’s fiery, and even racist, rhetoric has U.S. allies worried about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy and presence in East Asia. When examining alliances, scholars and alliance managers have focused on the importance of credibility and positive signaling. Allies need to know that the United States will help deter regional threats. However, few have called attention to the impact of negative signaling during presidential campaigns. Allies pay attention to election platforms to ascertain domestic support for possible shifts in U.S. foreign policy. Allies not only need reassurance that potential threats can be deterred, but also that the United States will neither entrap them in unnecessary conflict nor take the alliance for granted. Donald Trump’s rhetoric rings alarm bells on both fronts and alliance managers need to reassure Japan and South Korea that business will continue as usual even during regime transition. A leadership transition is a difficult time for alliances. It took President Barack Obama years to assure South Korea and Japan that East Asia mattered in U.S. foreign policy after signaling a shift away from the more proactive Bush Doctrine. Even after the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” which included significant economic, political, and military investment, many allies remained dissatisfied with U.S. foreign policy in the region. Trump has sent far worse signals to Japan and South Korea. Beyond the careless love affair with Vladimir Putin and a general lack of foreign policy prowess, Trump has taken tangible actions that have strained the credibility of the alliances. First, Trump has adopted an exceedingly aggressive stance toward China, accusing it of currency manipulation, stealing American jobs, and “cheating.” He has threatened China with a 45 percent tariff if it does not “behave,” an action that is offensive at best and a violation of international norms and laws at worst. After seemingly backing off such fiery rhetoric, Trump has reiterated his negative stance toward China to garner middle America votes. His inconsistent views make it difficult for U.S. allies to predict U.S. foreign policy and increases tension for regional stakeholders. Japan and South Korea must deftly balance their relationships with the United States and China, and increased pressure on China may force them to take unnecessarily bold actions. Chinese state media has already begun to respond to his rhetoric, criticizing U.S. democracy and claiming the United States would be a threat to the world under Trump. Second, Trump’s ire has also fallen on Japan and South Korea. Trump has accused both states of cheating and security freeriding, even proposing that the United States could withdraw its forces from both states. Not only do such positions ignore the complex trade relationships between the countries, but also the major economic contributions that Japan and South Korea have made in hosting U.S. forces. In 2015, Japan renewed its host-nation support agreement, and currently pays $1.6 billion annually to host U.S. forces. In 2014, South Korea renewed the Special Measures Agreement, which was a 5.8 percent increase in South Korea’s payments from the previous agreement, amounting to $866 million annually. These major contributions do not come cheap for alliance managers and government leaders who expend significant political energy, especially when the alliance creates backlash from local populations who question the necessity of such a large American footprint on their soil. With the rise of China, nuclear North Korea, and protests against the Futenma Base in Okinawa, now is not the time to to call into question the status of the alliances. Third, Trump’s ludicrous policy platforms cast doubt on the viability of U.S. foreign policy. The Korean media recently called attention to discontent in Washington, noting that “50 Republican national security leaders, including former Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick, issued an open letter saying they are united in opposition to a Trump presidency that they said would ‘make America less safe’ and ‘diminish our standing in the world.’” In a recent interview, retired General Mike Hayden stated that the U.S. armed forces would refuse if Trump gives an unlawful order. When such a high-level military member openly questions the judgment of a possible commander-in-chief, doubt is not only cast on the alliances, but the Republic itself.

Trump destroys the US-Japan alliance Schake 16. [Kori, fellow at the Hoover Institution and contributor to Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government blog, “Donald Trump, Barbarian Emperor” Foreign Policy – March 4 -- http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/04/donald-trump-barbarian-emperor- japan-china-defense/]

Many view Donald Trump as simply reckless, saying anything to generate attention. But as Brookings’ Thomas Wright has shown, Donald Trump does actually have a consistent world view: in 1987, he took out a full-page ad in the New York Times criticizing President Reagan’s national security policy and he continues to propagate those same views. He believed then, and says again now, that America’s allies are taking advantage of us and we must force them to do more. Specifically, Trump insists he would renegotiate the U.S.-Japanese defense alliance. The Republican presidential frontrunner sounds indistinguishable from the government of China, demanding tribute from the worried and weak while using power and leverage to the disadvantage of others.¶ Trump says Japan expects us to defend them, but won’t defend us. And it is true that the Japanese Constitution prohibits war as a tool of Japanese foreign policy, something we imposed on them after World War II. But over the past 15 years, Japan has slowly acclimatized a largely pacifist public to take an increasing role contributing to international security. Japanese military forces assisted U.S. operations in Afghanistan, contributed troops to the coalition in Iraq, and participate in anti-piracy operations off the Gulf of Aden. The Shinzo Abe government passed legislation making explicit Japan’s ability to defend allies under attack, including the United States, and is providing training and weapons to other American allies and friendly countries in Asia (a defense agreement with the Philippines will be signed on Monday). None of these things would be possible without the reassuring foundation of the U.S.-Japanese defense alliance. We want Japan’s help in the world and they are increasingly giving it; abandoning them is counterproductive. ¶ Japan endures the stationing of more than 50,000 American troops, concentrated on 83 bases and facilities. Some 25,000 Marines rotate through the island of Okinawa; our bases take up 18 percent of the island. But the government of Japan also pays for that privilege; because of the generous contributions the Japanese government makes, the cost of stationing forces forward in Japan is roughly equivalent to stationing them in the United States. Having them in Japan anchors America’s role in Asia and reassures a region that until recently was as worried about aggression from Tokyo as they were from Beijing. Forward stationing also gets American forces much faster into the fight, whether the fight is defense of South Korea, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, or any other contingency in Asia. ¶ Isolationists like Trump may say we shouldn’t be defending any of those countries. But will they like an international order in which China’s shadow is cast over all of Asia? How will the United States negotiate better trade deals when we do not get credit for protecting countries fearful of Chinese influence? How will we gain cooperation when a China — stronger for stepping into the vacuum we leave behind — penalizes countries for their involvement with us? ¶ Japan is the country in Asia considered the most important current and future partner by others (even more so than the United States or China). It is the country considered most reliable by others, and 90 percent of people in ASEAN countries consider Japan’s more active involvement valuable. Alienating Japan will not just be costly in the direct U.S.-Japan context, but also damaging to American standing in other Asian countries. ¶ A rising China has unsettled Asia. Calling American security commitments into question will lead countries friendly to us and supportive of our interests to believe they have no choice but to find accommodation with Beijing. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam have all pulled closer to the United States in recent years because of China’s threat. Even Japan and South Korea are not immune to Chinese sway if they feel unmoored from us, as has already been demonstrated by South Korea’s flirtation with a China-first approach to dealing with North Korea until the recent DPRK nuclear test. If you think letting a stable Middle East slip from America’s grasp was expensive, imagine the cost of doing the same in Asia — the region through which passes the majority of world trade and which fuels 60 of global growth. ¶ There is some reason in Trump’s frustration with America’s allies. We have allowed the United States to accrue a disproportionate responsibility for others’ security outcomes. The most egregious example may well be in Europe, where our NATO allies spend too little and are much more able than they acknowledge to manage the challenges of a declining but dangerous Russia. Trump’s reason rhymes with the Obama administration’s “leading from behind” in that both foist onto others primary responsibility for outcomes.¶ What they both have wrong is their starting point that allies are a net drain on American strength. In fact, it is allied contributions that make the American order sustainable. They share the burden and validate the outcomes of our rules, making us stronger over time. President Obama’s policy in the Middle East has demonstrated that when the United States does not set the rules, other states will, and those states will grow stronger by doing so. ¶ The U.S.-Japan alliance is a model of the benefits of steady American engagement in the world. Forged in the aftermath of a war even more brutal in the Pacific than it was in the European theater and that ended with the only use of nuclear weapons, the U.S.-Japanese alliance not only provided for the rehabilitation of relations between the two countries, it has become essential to peace and to prosperity in all of Asia. Donald Trump envisions a very different set of U.S. relationships in Asia; he postures himself as a great dealmaker who would use other countries’ reliance on us to induce them to turn a profit for us. But his approach would instead sow insecurity and dramatically raise the costs to the United States. Ext: Asia Alliance Impact – Asia War causes Asian prolif, Chinese aggression, miscalc and war – forces re- intervention turns case Thomas Berger 14, Professor of International Relations at Boston University’s Pardee School of Global Studies, PhD from MIT, “Re: Richard Samuel's NY Times quote,” 3 Jul 2014, https://japanforum.nbr.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1407&L=LIST&F=&S=&P=19341

At this point in time, however, it would be premature to base policy on the expectation of inevitable American decline. The military balance continues to favor the US and its allies , and if they work together they should be able to avoid a too dramatic shift for a considerable time to come . Taiwan is not eager to reunify with China - data provided by Shelly Rigger and others show large majorities would prefer to remain independant, and while the Koreans feel they have to work with China, they remain deeply suspicious of China as well. A recent ASAN poll shows that 66% of South Koreans view China as a threat (down from 73% last year.) See figure 5 in the survey available athttp://en.asaninst.org/south-korean- attitudes-on-china/. A recent CSIS elite opinion survey shows likewise large majority of Korean elites would prefer a US led order. See http://csis.org/files/publication/140605_Green_PowerandOrder_WEB.pdf. And the United States continues to have considerable sources of strength that may endure over time. Since the end of the Second World war there have been periodic waves of predictions that the United States is in a state of inevitable decline - the current wave is probably the 4th - and it is far from clear that the current pessimists are more likely to be correct now than they were in the past.¶ At the same time, it should be remembered that there are real risks to leaving balancing to regional powers. Japan, for instance, would be forced into taking much more aggressive actions than it is now if it were forced to rely on its resources. South Korea might be as well. Both countries would have to reopen the nuclear option, as might Taiwan, Australia and others. Perhaps not a bad thing, if you believe like Kenneth Waltz that the acquisition of nuclear weapons and the prospect of national incineration makes for more sober decision making - "more nukes less Kooks." China, in response might become more assertive as well, and the risk would go up of disastrous miscalc ulations leading to conflicts that inevitably would drag the United States back in. To paraphrase Lenin, the United States may not be interested in international politics, but international politics is definitely interested in the United States. ¶ The US experience in Europe in the 1990s was not very encouraging in this regard. When the Yugoslav crisis broke out, the U nited S tates tried to sit back and let the Europeans handle the problem . They failed - miserably. The conflict threatened to spread, cracks appeared within NATO and between NATO and Russia, and the US was pulled back in . Leaving it to the Europeans was, as Richard Haas warned at the time, a recipe for disaster. Would the Asians do much better? (And lets not even talk about the Middle East!) Ext – Asia Alliance Impact – Japan key to restrain aggressive and independent Japanese foreign policy that triggers regional war and arms races– turns case Curtis 13 - Burgess Professor of Political Science at Columbia University Gerald l. “Japan's Cautious Hawks”, Foreign Affairs, March/April, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2013-03-01/japans-cautious-hawks

That quest for survival remains the hallmark of Japanese foreign policy today. Tokyo has sought to advance its interests not by defining the international agenda, propagating a particular ideology, or promoting its own vision of world order, the way the United States and other great powers have. Its approach has instead been to take its external environment as a given and then make pragmatic adjustments to keep in step with what the Japanese sometimes refer to as "the trends of the time." Ever since World War II, that pragmatism has kept Japan in an alliance with the United States, enabling it to limit its military's role to self-defense. Now, however, as China grows ever stronger, as North Korea continues to build its nuclear weapons capability, and as the United States' economic woes have called into question the sustainability of American primacy in East Asia, the Japanese are revisiting their previous calculations. In particular , a growing chorus of voices on the right are advocating a more autonomous and assertive foreign policy, posing a serious challenge to the centrists, who have until recently shaped Japanese strategy. In parliamentary elections this past December, the Liberal Democratic Party and its leader, Shinzo Abe, who had previously served as prime minister in 2006–7, returned to power with a comfortable majority. Along with its coalition partner, the New Komeito Party, the LDP secured the two-thirds of seats needed to pass legislation rejected by the House of Councilors, the Japanese Diet's upper house. Abe's victory was the result not of his or his party's popularity but rather of the voters' loss of confidence in the rival Democratic Party of Japan. Whatever the public's motivations, however, the election has given Japan a right-leaning government and a prime minister whose goals include scrapping the con stitutional constraints on Japan's military, revising the educational system to instill a stronger sense of patriotism in the country's youth, and securing for Tokyo a larger leadership role in regional and world affairs. To many observers, Japan seems to be on the cusp of a sharp rightward shift. But such a change is unlikely . The Japanese public remains risk averse, and its leaders cautious. Since taking office, Abe has focused his attention on reviving Japan's stagnant economy. He has pushed his hawkish and revisionist views to the sidelines, in part to avoid having to deal with divisive foreign policy issues until after this summer's elections for the House of Councilors. If his party can secure a majority of seats in that chamber, which it does not currently have, Abe may then try to press his revisionist views. But any provocative actions would have consequences. If, for example, he were to rescind statements by previous governments that apologized for Japan's actions in World War II, as he has repeatedly said he would like to do, he not only would invite a crisis in relations with China and South Korea but would face strong criticism from the United States as well. The domestic political consequences are easy to predict: Abe would be flayed in the mass media, lose support among the Japanese public, and encounter opposition from others in his own party. In short, chances are that those who expect a dramatic change in Japanese strategy will be proved wrong. Still, much depends on what Washington does. The key is whether the U nited S tates continues to maintain a dominant position in East Asia. If it does, and if the Japanese believe that the U nited S tates' commitment to protect Japan remains credible , then Tokyo's foreign policy will not likely veer off its current track. If, however , Japan begins to doubt the U nited S tates' resolve, it will be tempted to strike out on its own. The U nited States has an interest in Japan's strengthening its defensive capabilities in the context of a close U.S.- Japanese alliance . But Americans who want Japan to abandon the constitutional restraints on its military and take on a greater role in regional security should be careful what they wish for. A major Japanese rearmament would spur an arms race in Asia, heighten regional tensions (including between Japan and South Korea, another key U.S. ally), and threaten to draw Washington into conflicts that do not affect vital U.S. interests. The United States needs a policy that encourages Japan to do more in its own defense but does not undermine the credibility of U.S. commitments to the country or the region.

=== Iran Deal === Iran Deal 1NC

Trump win guts the Iran deal. Moore 6-15-16. [Jack, foreign affairs journalist, "IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER TAKES AIM AT TRUMP IN PLEDGE TO BURN NUCLEAR DEAL" Newsweek -- www.newsweek.com/iran-supreme-leader-takes-aim-trump-pledge-burn-nuclear-deal-470628]

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , appeared to take aim at presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in comments he made on Tuesday, pledging to burn the landmark nuclear dea l signed with world powers in if the next U.S. president ripped it up. Khamenei alluded to the U.S. presidential candidate planning to tear up the agreement signed in July 2015. “The Islamic Republic won't be the first to violate the nuclear deal. Staying faithful to a promise is a Koranic order,” Khamenei said, according to state media. “But if the threat from the American presidential candidates to tear up the deal becomes operational then the Islamic Republic will set fire to the deal.” Trump has threatened to completely remove the agreement if he comes to power in the U.S. presidential election in November. In a speech to the lobby group American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in March, he said that his “number-one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Ira n.” He has said that if the deal remains, he would “police that contract so tough they don’t have a chance.” If a Republican president enters office, U.S.- Iranian relations would likely become more tense than they have been under the stewardship of incumbent President Barack Obama, who has sought a conciliatory tone when dealing with the Iranian regime. Guarantees nuclear war. Hobson 15. [Art, professor of physics at University of Arkansas “Commentary: Absent agreement, Iran, U.S., Israel on path to war,”March 31 -- http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2015/mar/31/commentary-absent-agreement-iran-u-s-is/?opinion]

One of history's greatest tragedies was the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in August 1945, a calamity compounded three days later by a second bomb exploded over Nagasaki. It was, like most tragedy, made virtually inevitable by foregoing blunders: revengeful treatment of Germany following World War I, U.S. failure to join World War II when it began in 1939, thoughtless responses to Japanese aggression in Asia during the 1930s, and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. Since 1945, nuclear weapons have remain ed humankind's greatest single immediate threat.∂ If we don't want to repeat the mistakes that led to Hiroshima, we had better treat the Iran ian nuclear question rationally, realistically, and without childish bravado. U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton's recent letter to Iran, and Prime Minister Netanyahu's recent speech to Congress, were not serious. Netanyahu argued that a nuclear agreement with Iran would be a bad deal and should be rejected. Cotton suggested to Iran that a future U.S. president could revoke the agreement.∂ No ne of the agreement's opponents appear to have thought through the consequences of following their leads. Iran, having no further reason for restraint and every incentive for aggression, will move quickly toward a bomb; Israel will urge action to prevent a bomb and will pressure the U.S. to join it in threatening Iran; and we could easily be drawn in to war -- a blunder that would dwarf even our foolish adventure into Iraq beginning in 2003.∂ The realistic fact is that, absent an agreement, the United States, Iran and Israel are on the road to war, possibly a nuclear war. Ext: Trump  Kills Iran Deal

GOP victory rolls back the Iran deal. Toosi 15. [Nahal, foreign affairs correspondent “How a Republican president could kill the Iran deal” Politico -- http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-president-iran-deal-kill-120077]

If the next president hates the nuclear deal with Iran, he (or she) can undo it after taking office. The dilemma: Use blunt force? Or go for a soft kill? Story Continued Below The accord reached this week in Vienna promises broad sanctions relief to Iran in exchange for significant curbs on its nuclear program. The agreement has taken years to negotiate, involves seven countries as well as the European Union and the United Nations, and relies upon the expertise of scientists as well as diplomats. But at the end of the day, the “deal” is at most a political arrangement — not a treaty or other form of signed legal document. That means that the presidential candidates who have threatened to cancel the deal — so far all of them Republicans — can keep their promise by usi ng the presidency’s executive authority to reimpose suspended U.S. sanctions on Iran and withdraw ing from panels involved in implementing the accord. That abrupt approach may be quick, but it also carries risks. For one thing, a sudden U.S. withdrawal could anger the European and Asian countries also involved in the deal, making them less inclined to reimpose their own sanctions on a country they consider an alluring trading partner. The international business community may resist efforts to once again seal off a youthful, well-educated nation with vast energy reserves. And Iran could respond to the U.S. move by resuming elements of its nuclear program, which the West has long suspected is aimed at making weapons. “If we try to reimpose sanctions on Iran and no one follows, then we have the worst of all worlds,” said Robert Einhorn, a former Iran nuclear negotiator at the State Department. Instead, even the deal’s most ardent critics say, a new president might be better off taking a more subtle, longer-term approach, one that involves laying the groundwork to ultimately convince the world that Iran — through perceived violations, intransigence, foot-dragging or whatever a president chooses to highlight — has left the U.S. no choice but to quit the deal. “You say it’s a bad deal, but you don’t just rip up the deal,” said Mark Dubowitz, executive director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The first step for a newly inaugurated president would be to order a review of the accord, which will already have been in effect for roughly a year and a half. It’s possible the Iranians will have been accused of violating the deal by the time a new president takes office, so a review could tally those transgressions to sow doubts in the minds of the American public about the soundness of the agreement. Depending on how major the violations are, the U.S. might also be able to convince other nations that the deal isn’t working. Even if the Iranians haven’t committed any or many notable violations, there are other factors a president could point to. Take the regional situation: If Iran, either directly or through proxies, has escalated its interference in other countries in the Middle East, a president could blame the nuclear deal by saying it has given Tehran economic leverage to pursue mischief outside its borders. America’s Arab allies, who have watched Iran make inroads everywhere from Syria to Lebanon to Iraq, have long argued that the Iranian government will take advantage of sanctions relief to funnel more money toward its regional aggression. Here, a U.S. president — and a hawkish Congress — also has the option of leveling new sanctions on Iran that aren’t necessarily tied to its nuclear program but rather to its support for terrorist groups. (Existing sanctions that target Iran over its support for terrorism and its abuses of human rights won’t be lifted under the nuclear deal.) At the very least, the new sanctions will increase the tension between the U.S. and Iran, possibly even leading to a backlash from Tehran that boosts the U.S. president’s standing.

GOP win will wreck diplomacy and nuclear deal with Iran that checks crisis escalation Shaer 16. [Susan, Executive Director of WAND, Women's Action for New Directions, “Despite Iran Deal Success, Beware of Attempts to Undermine It” Huffington Post -- February 1 -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-shaer/despite-iran-deal- success_b_9134416.html]

In a timeline of events that could have been lifted from an episode of The West Wing, on January 12, ten sailors in the U.S. Navy were taken into Iranian custody just hours before President Obama's State of the Union address. A U.S. Naval vessel had malfunctioned and drifted into Iranian waters where the U.S. sailors were taken captive by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. On January 13, those same ten sailors were released, less than 24 hours later. Consider that nine years ago in a similar incident, 15 British Royal Navy sailors spent 13 days in Iranian captivity. One of the differences between these two events was that by 2016, the West had opened up diplomatic channels with Iran resulting from the Iran nuclear deal. The agreement, concluded after careful and painstaking diplomacy, allowed the United States and Iran to keep a ship's malfunction from escalating to an international crisis. Not only has that agreement -- the Iran nuclear deal -- provided new ways to communicate and resolve incidents with a sometimes hostile adversary, it has also strengthened global peace and security by preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon -- without firing a shot. As a result of the deal, Iran has gone from being two to three months away from enough material for one bomb to one year away. Four days after the U.S. Navy incident in Iranian waters, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that "Implementation Day" had arrived; that is that Iran had taken the necessary steps under the Iran nuclear deal to receive sanctions relief from the EU and United States. Under the deal, Iran has dismantled or converted its nuclear facilities, shipped out large stores of enriched uranium, and provided the IAEA with wide- ranging access to its facilities. Additionally, it has cooperated with IAEA investigations into its past behavior (in December 2015, the IAEA found that Iran had ceased nuclear weapons work after 2009). Make no mistake, though it received less fanfare, Implementation Day is as significant an historic achievement as the day the Iran deal was signed. As Secretary of State John Kerry put it, "[Implementation Day] marks the moment that the Iran nuclear agreement transitions from an ambitious set of promises on paper to measurable action in progress." On the same day, Iran released five Americans being held as political prisoners in Iran for various lengths of time. The release was well timed, and though it happened through an apparent second diplomatic channel, the communication that occurred was fostered by the nuclear diplomacy efforts. Despite its success, some members of Congress continue to look for ways to void the deal. They are fixated on Iran's ballistic missile program, its sponsorship of various terror groups, and its human rights abuses. On February 2, House Republicans will vote a second time on the Iran Terror Financing Transparency Act, a bill with a tough name but a counterproductive purpose. If enacted, the legislation would tie Iran's non-nuclear-related behavior to U.S. sanctions relief, which would have the effect of killing the deal. But killing the deal would isolate the United States, as the rest of the world has begun normalizing business ties with Iran. While President Obama has the votes to sustain a certain veto should the bill reach his desk, deal opponents persist in sending a message that they will stop at nothing to undermine this signature foreign policy achievement. Safe though the nuclear deal may be for now, supporters of diplomacy with Iran must remain ever vigilant . As its detractors like to point out, the Iran deal is not a treaty. Future presidents can disregard its provisions if they see fit. The diplomatic channel that helped with the safe release of our sailors and the release of five American prisoners can easily dry up with different leadership . As voters make their way to the polls they should remember that only the Democratic candidates have endorsed the Iran deal. While foreign policy doesn't always loom large in elections, this issue should rise to the top of voters' minds. In the end, it is about nothing less than war and peace. AT: Trump Will Renegotiate the Deal

First, any attempt to meddle with the deal triggers Iran backlash. Second, it is legally impossible to renegotiate. Ritter 6-2-16. [Karl, AP reporter, "IRAN: Donald Trump can't renegotiate the nuclear deal" Business Insider -- www.businessinsider.com/iran-says-donald-trump-cant-renegotiate-nuclear-deal-2016-6]

Iran's foreign minister says the nuclear deal reached last year with world powers can't be renegotiated despite Republican presidential contender Donald Trump's pledge to do so if elected. After a lecture in Stockholm on Wednesday, Mohammad Javad Zarif said the deal "is not an Iran-U.S. agreement for the Republican front-runner or anybody else to renegotiate. It's an international understanding annexed to a Security Council resolution." Trump has denounced the deal and said he'd seek to renegotiate it if elected president. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has said she supports the agreement to rein in Iran's nuclear program, which was endorsed by the U.N. Security Council. It's not possible "to renegotiate a text that is annexed" to such a resolution, Zarif said. Internal: Deal Collapse = Iran Backlash

Deal collapse triggers Iran prolif and escalating war. Costello 15. [Ryan, Policy Fellow @ NIAC, former Program Associate at the Connect US Fund on nuclear nonproliferaiton policy, "Stakes are high for Iran nuclear negotiations" National Iranian Council – March 30 -- www.niacouncil.org/stakes-are-high-for- iran-nuclear-negotiations/]

This week, the U.S. has a chance to lead an international coalition into an agreement that would guard against any attempt by Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. However, the decades since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 are littered with missed opportunities to resolve differences between the U.S. and Iran, including on the nuclear issue. With political capital expended to keep the negotiations afloat, particularly in Washington, and the list of issues to be resolved shrinking, these negotiations have steadily risen in importance. As a result, failure or the rash rejection of a breakthrough by Congress or Iranian hardliners could result in irreparable damage to the dipl omatic track, with profound consequences for an already chaotic region.∂ We may never see a pair of U.S. and Iranian Presidents more willing to expend the political capital necessary to reach a nuclear deal. President Obama famously distinguished himself on the campaign trail in 2008 by vowing to sit down with any world leader without preconditions, including Iran, and has turned an Iran nuclear deal into what could be the chief foreign policy goal of his second term. Secretary of State John Kerry and other top U.S. diplomats have also spent countless hours doggedly pursuing a deal that balances between the political imperatives of Washington and Tehran.∂ In Iran, President Rouhani campaigned on a platform of moderation and outreach to the West. Rouhani was the lead nuclear negotiator for Iran between 2003-2005, which resulted in Iran freezing its enrichment and implementing the IAEA’s Additional Protocol. Rouhani’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, also has a successful track record of negotiating with the West, playing a critical role in the effort to form a new government for Afghanistan at the Bonn conference in 2001. Over the past year and a half of intense negotiations, Rouhani and Zarif have kept Iran’s skeptical Supreme Leader united behind their efforts to reach a deal, preventing counterproductive divides in Iran’s political elite.∂ Now, with the political scales tilted heavily in favor of diplomacy, failure could eliminate diplomatic prospects for the foreseeable future. Escalation will be the name of the game if negotiations fail, as lead U.S. negotiator Wendy Sherman articulated in October. Congress would pass sanctions and President Obama might not put up much of a fight. Iran would expand its nuclear program and limit the access of international inspectors . The sanctions regime would fray or potentially collapse, diminishing U.S. leverage over Iran. Tacit coop eration in Iraq to counter ISIS militants could end, with dangerous consequences.∂ If diplomacy fails, President Obama would likely resist the reinvigorated calls from neoconservative circles to attack Iran, but he has less than two years remaining in office. Prominent Republicans weighing Presidential runs have already staked out a hardline position by warning Iran that they would undo any potential multilateral nuclear agreement “with the stroke of a pen.” Democrats, as well, could be scarred by failure and rush toward a hawkish position. Whereas a multilat eral agreement would constrain the next President from returning to the escalation route, an advancing Iranian nuclear program and the lack of diplomatic prospects would tempt many of Obama’s potential successors to consider the military option, regardless of the consequences. Those who have dreamed of attacking Tehran ever since the fall of Baghdad are banking on such an opportunity to renew their case for yet another disastrous war.∂ It has been ten years since the European 3 (the United Kingdom, France and Germany) had a golden opportunity to constrain Iran’s nuclear program. Those talks fell apart largely due to the George W. Bush administration’s insistence that any agreement result in Iran eliminating its entire centrifuge program. As a result, Iran went from hundreds to 20,000 centrifuges as economic pressure escalated but failed to achieve any strategic goal. Now, diplomacy has once again halted the Iranian program’s advance and could lead to a historic breakthrough that reshapes the U.S.-Iran relationship, cuts off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon and averts a disastrous war. If an agreement falls through, however, getting through another ten years without a war, a n Iranian nuclear weapon, or both would likely prove more challenging than reaching the diplomatic inflection point that the parties now face in Lausanne.

US abandoning the deal causes Iran war. Beauchamp 14. [Zack, B.A.s in Philosophy and Political Science from Brown University and an M.Sc in International Relations from the London School of Economics, former editor of TP Ideas and a reporter for ThinkProgress.org, "How the new GOP majority could destroy Obama's nuclear deal with Iran" VOX -- November 6 -- www.vox.com/2014/11/6/7164283/iran-nuclear-deal- congress]

And make no mistake — imposing new sanctions or limiting Obama's authority to waive the current ones would kill any deal. If Iran can't expect Obama to follow through on his promises to relax sanctions, it has zero incentive to limit its nuclear program. "If Congress adopts sanctions," Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told Time last December, "the entire deal is dead."∂ Moreover, it could fracture the international movement to sanction Iran. The United States is far from Iran's biggest trading partner, so it depends on international cooperation in order to ensure the sanctions bite. If it looks like the US won't abide by the terms of a deal, the broad-based international sanctions regime could collapse. Europe, particularly, might decide that going along with the sanctions is no longer worthwhile.∂ " Our ability to coerce Iran is largely based on whether or not the international community thinks that we are the ones that are being constructive and [Iranians] are the ones that being obstructive," Sofer says. "If they don't believe that, then the international sanctions regime falls apart."∂ This could be one of the biggest fights of Obama's last term∂ It's true that Obama could veto any Congressional efforts to blow up an Iran deal with sanctions. lobbying effort that Democrats might prefer to spend pushing on other issues.∂ "I'm not really sure they're going to be willing to take on a fight about an Iran sanctions bill," Sofer concludes. "I'm not really sure that the Democrats who support [a deal] are really fully behind it enough that they'll be willing to give up leverage on, you know, unemployment insurance or immigration status — these bigger issues for most Democrats."∂ So if the new Republican Senate prioritizes destroying an Iran deal, Obama will have to fight very hard to keep it — without necessarily being able to count on his own party for support. And the stakes are enormous: if Iran's nuclear program isn't stopped peacefully, then the most likely outcomes are either Iran going nuclear, or war with Iran.∂ The administration believes a deal with Iran is their only way to avoid this horrible choice. That's why it's been one of the administration's top priorities since day one. It's also why this could become one of the biggest legislative fights of Obama's last two years. Internal: Deal Solves – 2NC Consensus of experts agree – the deal solves. Corn 15. [David, Washington Bureau chief, "The Iranian Nuclear Deal: What the Experts Are Saying" Mother Jones -- April 3 -- www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/iran-nuclear-deal-nonproliferation-experts]

Shortly after the participants in the Iranian nuclear talks announced that a double-overtime framework had been crafted, I was on television with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, who is something of a celebrity rabbi, a failed congressional candidate, and an arch-neoconservative hawk who has been howling about a potential deal with Iran for months. Not surprisingly, he was not pleased by the news of the day. He declared that under these parameters, Iran would give up nothing and would "maintain their entire nuclear apparatus." Elsewhere, a more serious critic, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who last month had organized the letter to Iran's leaders signed by 47 GOP senators opposed to a deal, groused that the framework was "only a list of dangerous US concessions that will put Iran on the path to nuclear weapons."∂ These criticisms were rhetorical bombs, not statements of fact. Under the framework , Iran would give up two-thirds of its centrifuges used to enrich uranium and would reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium (which is the raw material used to develop bomb-quality highly-enriched uranium) from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms. These two developments alone—and the framework has many other provisions—would diminish Tehran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Its nuclear apparatus would be smaller, and under these guidelines, Iran's pathway to nuclear weapons, while certainly not impossible, would be much more difficult. Yet because politics dominates the debate over this deal—as it does so often with important policy matters— foes of the framework could hurl fact-free charges with impunity .∂ It is perhaps easier to do so when the subject is a highly technical matter. Nuclear nonproliferation is a subject that depends upon science. (Do you know how many centrifuges it takes to spin enough material for a bomb?) And it is difficult for nonexperts to assess any nonproliferation agreement. But it is rather easy to decry Tehran's leaders as evil tyrants who support terrorism, despise Israel, and cannot be trusted. Little of that sort of attack has any bearing on evaluating this framework, which may or may not lead to a concrete accord. Trust is not at issue, for example. What counts is whether the technical means of inspection agreed upon are deemed sufficient to monitor the nuclear program, materials, supply chain, and facilities that remain. Yet who can tell?∂ Well, there are nonproliferation experts. A fair number, in fact. These are scientists and policy mavens who are trained to study and answer the questions posed by this framework. They are not infallible. They may disagree among themselves. But if there ever were a policy debate that should be shaped by scientific expertise, this is it. The politicians, pundits, and, yes, rabbis (or, at least, one rabbi) ought to give due deference to the guys and gals who know this stuff. So I've collected a few initial takes from arms control policy experts who are mostly keen on the possible deal, and here they are:∂ Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the C enter for St rategic and I nternational S tudies, a former national security aide to Sen. John McCain, and a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense: "[ T]he proposed parameters and framework in the Proposed Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has the potential to meet every test in creating a valid agreement over time… It can block both an Iranian nuclear threat and a nuclear arms race in the region, and it is a powerful beginning to creating a full agreement, and creating the prospect for broader stability in other areas. Verification will take at least several years, but some form of trust may come with time. This proposal should not be a subject for partisan wrangling or outside political exploitation. It should be the subject of objective analysis of the agreement, our intelligence and future capabilities to detect Iran's actions, the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) capabilities to verify, and enforcement provisions if Iran should cheat. No perfect agreement was ever possible and it is hard to believe a better option was negotiable . In fact, it may be a real victory for all sides: A better future for Iran, and greater security for the United States, its Arab partners, Israel, and all its other allies."∂ William Burns , president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former deputy secretary of state, and former career ambassador in the Foreign Service: "In a perfect world, there would be no nuclear enrichment in Iran, and its existing enrichment facilities would be dismantled. But we don't live in a perfect world. We can't wish or bomb away the basic know-how and enrichment capability that Iran has developed. What we can do is sharply constrain it over a long duration, monitor it with unprecedented intrusiveness, and prevent the Iranian leadership from enriching material to weapons grade and building a bomb…The history of the Iranian nuclear issue is littered with missed opportunities. It is a history in which fixation on the perfect crowded out the good, and in whose rearview mirror we can see deals that look a lot better now than they seemed then. With all its inevitable imperfections, we can't afford to miss this one."∂ Matthew Bunn , professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and coprincipal investigator at the Project on Managing the Atom: In a PowerPoint presentation he notes, "The proposed deal is the best chance to stop an Iranian Bomb. Deal would impose technical barriers that would take overt breakout off the table as a plausible option, and make sneakout more difficult. Political effects of the deal would undermine Iranian bomb advocates, reduce the chance of an Iranian decision to build the bomb. The credible alternatives—a return to sanctions or military strikes—pose significantly higher risks to US and world security. The deal is highly imperfect—but better [than] the other options realistically available."∂ Dan Joyner , University of Alabama School of Law professor , author of International Law and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and contributor to ArmsControlLaw.com: "Overall I think the framework of agreement is a very good one. Iran definitely made some very significant concessions. In fact, one might be forgiven for thinking that, with all of the specificity placed on Iranian concessions, and really only fairly vague wording on the lifting of unilateral and multilateral sanctions (i.e., regarding timing) in the joint statement, Iran showed the most diplomatic courage in agreeing to this framework. I'm sure there is much that was agreed to that we don't know about, and I have no doubt that [Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad] Zarif and his team reached a satisfactory understanding with their negotiating partners on the sanctions question from their perspective. But I suppose I just wanted to highlight that Iran is the party that made the most obvious significant concessions in this framework agreement."∂ Gary Samore and Olli Heinonen of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and members of a group called United Against Nuclear Iran: The New York Times reports, "Mr. Samore…said in an email that the deal was a 'very satisfactory resolution of Fordo [enrichment facility] and Arak [plutonium reactor] issues for the 15-year term' of the accord. He had more questions about operations at Natanz [enrichment facility] and said there was 'much detail to be negotiated, but I think it's enough to be called a political framework.' Mr. Heinonen, the former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, 'It appears to be a fairly comprehensive deal with most important parameters.' But he cautioned that 'Iran maintains enrichment capacity which will be beyond its near- term needs.'"∂ Joseph Cirincione, president of of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, and former director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "The agreement does three things. It blocks all of Iran's pathways to a nuclear bomb. It imposes tough inspections to catch Iran should it try to break out, sneak out, or creep out of the deal. And it keeps our coalition united to enforce the deal. Under this deal, Iran has agreed to rip out two-thirds of its centrifuges and cut its stockpile of uranium gas by 97 percent. It will not be able to make any uranium or plutonium for a bomb. Many of the restrictions in the agreement continue for 25 years and some—like the inspections and the ban on building nuclear weapons—last forever."∂ Frank von Hippel, an expert with Princeton's Science and International Security Program: According to the McClatchy Washington Bureau, "Frank von Hippel said he was surprised that Iran had accepted an enrichment level of 3.67 percent and hadn't insisted on 5 percent. 'There are still details to be filled in, but I like it a lot,' von Hippel said on the framework… 'On transparency , it looks like they really are doing a lot.'"∂ As many have noted in the past day, a framework is only a framework. There are plenty of tough and complicated details to sort out. The deal may fall apart, especially with conservatives in both Washington and Tehran—and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his crew—sniping away and looking to subvert any agreement. But as the heated debate continues, it will be important that nonproliferation experts play a critical role in the discourse . Science-based statements , not snarky sound bites, should be the weapons of choice.

Here are the qualifications for everyone cited:

 Anthony Cordesman, the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a former national security aide to Sen. John McCain, and a former director of intelligence assessment in the Office of the Secretary of Defense  William Burns, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former deputy secretary of state, and former career ambassador in the Foreign Service

 Matthew Bunn, professor at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and coprincipal investigator at the Project on Managing the Atom

 Dan Joyner, University of Alabama School of Law professor, author of International Law and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and contributor to ArmsControlLaw.com

 Gary Samore and Olli Heinonen of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and members of a group called United Against Nuclear Iran

 Joseph Cirincione, president of Ploughshares Fund, a global security foundation, and former director for nonproliferation at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

 Frank von Hippel, an expert with Princeton's Science and International Security Program

Aff ev just a bunch of biased conservative misinformation – scrutinize their evidence – the deal solves. Kaplan 15. [Fred, foreign policy journalist and author, "The Deal of a Lifetime" Slate – April 2 -- www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/04/iranian_nuclear_deal_is_a_breakthrough_why_the_agreement_is _the_best_option.html]

The Iranian nuclear deal reached in Switzerland on Thursday is a significant breakthrough. Uncertainties remain, inherently so, as it’s merely a “political framework” for a formal deal to be completed and signed by June 30. But this framework turns out to be far more detailed, quantitative, and restrictive than anyone had expected.∂ It might not lead to a deal as good as the outline suggests; it might not lead to a deal at all. But anyone who denounces this framework— anyone who argues that we should pull out of the talks, impose more sanctions, or bomb Iran because it’s better to have no deal than to have this one— is not a serious person or is pursuing a parochial agenda. Prolif Impact – 2NC Iran deal collapse causes mass proliferation. Borger 14. [Julian, Guardian's diplomatic editor, “A nuclear deal with Iran would mean a less volatile world” The Guardian -- December 31 -- http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/31/nuclear-deal-iran-cuba-proliferation]

There will be no greater diplomatic prize in 2015 than a comprehensive nuclear deal with Iran . In its global significance, it would dwarf the US detente with Cuba, and not just because there are seven times more Iranians than Cubans. This deal will not be about cash machines in the Caribbean, but about nuclear proliferation in the most volatile region on Earth.∂ An agreement was supposed to have been reached by 24 November, but Iran and the west were too far apart to make the final leap. After nine months of bargaining, the intricate, multidimensional negotiation boiled down to two main obstacles: Iran’s long-term capacity to enrich uranium, and the speed and scale of sanctions relief.∂ Iran wants international recognition of its right not just to enrich, but to do so on an industrial scale. It wants to maintain its existing infrastructure of 10,000 centrifuges in operation and another 9,000 on standby, and it wants to be able to scale that capacity up many times.∂ The US and its allies say Tehran has no need for so much enriched uranium. Its one existing reactor is Russian-built, as are its planned reactors, so all of them come with Russian-supplied fuel as part of the contract. The fear is that industrial enrichment capacity would allow Iran to make a bomb’s-worth of weapons-grade uranium very quickly, if it decided it needed one – faster than the international community could react.∂ However, the west is currently not offering large-scale, immediate sanctions relief in return for such curbs on Iran’s activity. President Barack Obama can only temporarily suspend US congressional sanctions, and western states are prepared to reverse only some elements of UN security council sanctions. The best the west can offer upfront is a lifting of the EU oil embargo.∂ These gaps remain substantial, but none of the parties involved can walk away from the table. A collapse of talks would lead to a slide back to the edge of conflict between Iran and Israel; the latter has vowed to launch military strikes rather than allow the former to build a bomb. It could also trigger a wave of proliferation across the region and beyond as other countries hedge their bets . ∂ So the parties to the talks have given themselves more time – until 1 March 2015 – to agree a framework deal for bridging them and until 1 July to work out all of the details. They have resumed meetings in Geneva, with an emphasis on sessions between the two most important countries, the US and Iran. The trouble is that, while the diplomats inside the chambe r sense that they are still making progress in closing the gaps, the sceptics back home just see deceit and playing for time by the other side. ∂ This is particularly true of the US Congress. A new Republican-controlled Senate will convene on 6 January. From that date, the White House can no longer rely on a Democratic majority leader to keep new sanctions legislation off the Senate floor. The legislation now under discussion could take the form of triggered sanctions, which would come into effect if there was no deal by a target date. That would add urgency to the negotiations, undoubtedly a good thing, but it would also provoke counter-measures from Iran’s parliament, the Majlis, and a very volatile environment. Iran prolif causes extinction – outweighs on magnitude. Kroenig 15. [Matthew, Associate Professor and International Relations Field Chair, Department of Government, Georgetown University and Nonresident Senior Fellow, Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security, The Atlantic Council, “The History of Proliferation Optimism: Does It Have a Future?” Journal of Strategic Studies, Volume 38, Issue 1-2, 2015, pp. 98-125, Taylor & Francis]

Nuclear War The greatest threat posed by the spread of nuclear weapons is nuclear war. The more states in possession of nuclear weapons, the greater the probability that somewhere, someday, there will be a catastrophic nuclear war . To date, nuclear weapons have only been used in warfare once. In 1945, the United States used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, bringing World War II to a close. Many analysts point to the 65-plus-year tradition of nuclear non-use as evidence that nuclear weapons are unusable, but it would be naïve to think that nuclear weapons will never be used again simply because they have not been used for some time. After all, analysts in the 1990s argued that worldwide economic downturns like the Great Depression were a thing of the past, only to be surprised by the dot-com bubble bursting later in the decade and the Great Recession of the late 2000s.48 This author, for one, would be surprised if nuclear weapons are not used again sometime in his lifetime. Before reaching a state of MAD, new nuclear states go through a transition period in which they lack a secure-second strike capability. In this context, one or both state s might believe that it has an incentive to use nuclear weapons first. For example, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, neither Iran, nor its nuclear-armed rival, Israel, will have a secure, second-strike capability. Even though it is believed to have a large arsenal, given its small size and lack of strategic depth, Israel might not be confident that it could absorb a nuclear strike and respond with a devastating counterstrike. Similarly, Iran might eventually be able to build a large and survivable nuclear arsenal, but, when it first crosses the nuclear threshold, Tehran will have a small and vulnerable nuclear force. In these pre-MAD situations , there are at least three ways that nuclear war could occur. First, the state with the nuclear advantage might believe it has a splendid first strike capability. In a crisis, Israel might, therefore, decide to launch a preventive nuclear strike to disarm Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Indeed, this incentive might be further increased by Israel’s aggressive strategic culture that emphasizes preemptive action. Second, the state with a small and vulnerable nuclear arsenal, in this case Iran, might feel use them or lose them pressures. That is, in a crisis, Iran might decide to strike first rather than risk having its entire nuclear arsenal destroyed. Third, as Thomas Schelling has argued, nuclear war could result due to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack.49 If there are advantages to striking first, one state might start a nuclear war in the belief that war is inevitable and that it would be better to go first than to go second. Fortunately, there is no historic evidence of this dynamic occurring in a nuclear context, but it is still possible. In an Israeli–Iranian crisis, for example, Israel and Iran might both prefer to avoid a nuclear war, but decide to strike first rather than suffer a devastating first attack from an opponent. Even in a world of MAD, however, when both sides have secure, second-strike capabilities, there is still a risk of nuclear war. Rational deterrence theory assumes nuclear-armed states are governed by rational leaders who would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war. This assumption appears to have applied to past and current nuclear powers, but there is no guarantee that it will continue to hold in the future. Iran ’s theocratic government, despite its inflammatory rhetoric, has followed a fairly pragmatic foreign policy since 1979, but it contains leaders who hold millenarian religious world views and could one day ascend to power. We cannot rule out the possibility that, as nuclear weapons continue to spread, some leader somewhere will choose to launch a nuclear war, knowing full well that it could result in self- destruction. One does not need to resort to irrationality, however, to imagine nuclear war under MAD. Nuclear weapons may deter leaders from intentionally launching full-scale wars, but they do not mean the end of international politics. As was discussed above, nuclear-armed states still have conflicts of interest and leaders still seek to coerce nuclear-armed adversaries. Leaders might, therefore, choose to launch a limited nuclear war.50 This strategy might be especially attractive to states in a position of conventional inferiority that might have an incentive to escalate a crisis quickly to the nuclear level. During the Cold War, the United States planned to use nuclear weapons first to stop a Soviet invasion of Western Europe given NATO’s conventional inferiority.51 As Russia’s conventional power has deteriorated since the end of the Cold War, Moscow has come to rely more heavily on nuclear weapons in its military doctrine. Indeed, Russian strategy calls for the use of nuclear weapons early in a conflict (something that most Western strategists would consider to be escalatory) as a way to de-escalate a crisis. Similarly, Pakistan’s military plans for nuclear use in the event of an invasion from conventionally stronger India. And finally, Chinese generals openly talk about the possibility of nuclear use against a US superpower in a possible East Asia contingency. Second, as was also discussed above, leaders can make a ‘threat that leaves something to chance’.52 They can initiate a nuclear crisis. By playing these risky games of nuclear brinkmanship, states can increase the risk of nuclear war in an attempt to force a less resolved adversary to back down. Historical crises have not resulted in nuclear war, but many of them, including the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, have come close. And scholars have documented historical incidents when accidents nearly led to war.53 When we think about future nuclear crisis dyads, such as Iran and Israel, with fewer sources of stability than existed during the Cold War, we can see that there is a real risk that a future crisis could result in a devastating nuclear exchange . Turns Heg/Leadership

Prolif destroys US leadership. Sechser 8. [Todd , prof. at the University of Virginia, “Nuclear Weapons,” 12/30/2008, http://faculty.virginia.edu/tsechser/Sechser-Haas-2009.pdf ]

What are the implications of the preceding argument for U.S. foreign policy? There are two separate policy questions to consider: first, whether the United States should try to prevent its adversaries from acquiring nuclear weapons; and second, whether it should continue to adhere to a doctrine of universal nonproliferation. The answer to the first question is unequivocally affirmative. The arguments in this chapter do not imply that the United States should stop trying to pre-vent its adversaries from acquiring nuclear weapons. Even if nuclear weapons are stabilizing overall , they could nevertheless permit hostile states to counter the power and influence of the United States, potentially threatening U.S. interests. A nuclear Iran, for example, might seek to deter, resist, or blackmail the United States. Stopping proliferation to U.S. adversaries will therefore remain an essential pillar of U.S. foreign policy even if the proliferation optimists are correct. On this, the optimists and pessimists can probably agree. Turns Terrorism Iran prolif turns terrorism. Brookes, National security affairs senior fellow, 07

(Peter, 4-2-07, “Iran Emboldened: Tehran Seeks to Dominate Middle East Politics”, DOA: 10-10- 13, http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2007/04/iran-emboldened-tehran-seeks- to-dominate-middle-east-politics, llc)

According to the U.S. State Department, Iran continues to be the world's most active state sponsor of terrorism. At the request of senior Iranian leadership, Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) support Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command with funding, training and weapons. Hezbollah - a Lebanese Shiite terrorist group - is a particular favorite. In fact, Iran established Hezbollah to parry Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Tehran may fund Hezbollah to the tune of $100 million per year. Last summer, Tehran's military support for Hezbollah was evident. Iran likely gave Hezbollah the green light to ambush an Israeli patrol and kidnap soldiers, which ultimately kicked off the monthlong conflict. In the ensuing days, Hezbollah indiscriminately fired as many as 10,000 Iran-supplied rockets and missiles into Israel. In addition, many were stunned when a C-802 cruise missile struck an Israeli naval vessel off the coast of Lebanon. While the shooter was never identified, the Chinese C-802 is in Iran's inventory. It could have been fired by either Hezbollah or the IRGC. Today, Hezbollah, with Iranian and Syrian support, is threatening to topple Lebanon 's democratically elected government unless it is given additional cabinet seats - potentially giving it veto power over Beirut's decisions. Iran would love to add Lebanon to Syria as a client state in its effort to form an arc of Iranian influence across the region. Iran has made a number of not-so-veiled threats that it would deploy its irregular forces and terrorist allies against the U.S. and American interests, if necessary. This is likely not an idle threat. American blood is already on the hands of Iran and its terrorist proxies as a result of the 1983 Beirut Marine barracks attack and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq today. It is almost without question that Tehran sees its ability to hold U.S. interests at risk across the globe - including in the U.S. - as leverage against American military action over its nuclear program or meddling in Iraq. Perhaps the most frightening scenario is that Iran might transfer weapons of mass destruction capability to a terrorist ally. While this is risky behavior, it is a possibility. Iran could transfer nuclear capability to a Hezbollah-dominated government in Lebanon, or a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, significantly increasing the threat to Israeli security. Osama bin Laden has not been shy about his desire for WMD or al-Qaida's readiness to use them. The insurgency's recent use of chlorine gas in Iraq is evidence of a terrorist group's willingness to employ WMD . ISIS Impact – 2NC

Sanctions ensure ISIS aggression – diplomacy with Iran key to containment. Parsi 1-15. [Trita, President of the National Iranian American Council, author of A Single Roll of the Dice - Obama's Diplomacy with Iran, "THe Senate's gift to ISIS: Sanctions on Iran" Foreign Policy Forum -- www.foreignpolicyforum.com/guest.php]

The Islamic State has many enemies and very few friends. But sometimes, even declared enemies of the Caliphate (or ISIS) can lend it a helping hand. That is essentially what is happening now as Senators Mark Kirk and Bob Menendez push to undermine the nuclear talks with Iran -- a key adversary of ISIS. If nuclear diplomacy breaks down, the US and Iran will once again find themselves on a path towards war. ISIS will be the greatest winner in that scenario. After all, who wouldn't want to see its enemies turn against each other?∂ Senators Kirk and Menendez are not intending to aid ISIS. They may not realize that this will be one of the consequences of their push to impose more sanctions on Iran in the midst of ongoing diplomacy. They may not care. Perhaps they think aiding ISIS is a price worth paying in order to block President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.∂ After all, Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK) has clarified that the aim of imposing additional sanctions is to kill the talks, not strengthen the deal. "The end of these negotiations isn't an unintended consequence of Congressional action, it is very much an intended consequence," he said yesterday.∂ The White House believes these new sanctions will "blow up" the negotiations and President Obama has vowed to veto the bill. The Republican leadership has scheduled to mark up the bill next week and then move it to a vote shortly thereafter.∂ But the opponents of diplomacy are out of sync with the American public. The public's focus is on ISIS, whereas the Senate remains fixated on Iran. According to a CNN poll , 90 percent of the public views ISIS as a threat to the United States. Another poll by Brookings Institute shows that 70 percent of the American public view ISIS as the main threat to the US in the Middle East. Only 12 percent view Iran as America's main threat in the Middle East. Moreover, 61 percent of Americans would like to see the US collaborate with Iran to defeat ISIS.∂ Even though Iran is not a formal member in the US coalition against ISIS -- and both Washington and Tehran deny they coordinate their efforts -- Iran has played a crucial role in pushing back the terrorist organization. The Christian Science Monitor reported that when ISIS forces swept across the Syrian border into Iraq, "Shiite Iran was the first to provide guns, ammunition, and military advisers."∂ Tehran's swift and muscular response to ISIS has won it a lot of praise from Iraqi officials. "When Baghdad was threatened, the Iranians did not hesitate to help us, and did not hesitate to help the Kurds when Erbil was threatened," Iraq's prime minister, Haider al-Abadi, recently said. Some Iraqi politicians even believe that Baghdad would have fallen to ISIS had it not been for the military support provided by Iran . ∂ US officials grudgingly agree. It is extremely rare that US or Iranian officials speak positively about each other in public, but when it comes to Iran's role in battling IS, even American officials have acknowledged it. General John Allen, the Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIL, has welcomed "Iran's constructive role" in Iraq. Secretary of State John Kerry has said that the net effect of Iran's role and involvement in Iraq is positive.∂ Iran's resolute opposition against ISIS is largely explained by the threat it itself sees from the terror organization. But it is also partly a result of the reduced tensions between Washington and Tehran due to the ongoing nuclear diplomacy, which has enabled the Iranians to see regional challenges through a new lens. In the past, when Washington and Tehran were embroiled in an intense regional rivalry, both sides used every given opportunity to undermine each other, even when they actually shared common interests. In Afghanistan, both opposed the Taliban and sought its defeat, but they regularly used the Taliban to weaken the other.∂ Had diplomacy over the nuclear program not begun, chances are that the two sides would have approached ISIS similarly. They would have opposed the organization, but at the same time sought ways to use ISIS to undermine the other. Consequently, ISIS would have benefitted from the US and Iran's inability to set aside their differences in order to fully focus on the jihadi terrorist organization. ∂ But that is exactly the scenario that likely will come about if Senators Kirk and Menendez succeed in torpedoing the negotiations and bring Iran and United States back on a path towards confrontation. ∂ Understandably, the Obama administration doesn't want to conflate the nuclear issue and the ISIS challenge. And it is sensitive to the charge that it would soften its nuclear demands issue in order to win Iranian support against ISIS. There is nothing that suggests any such trade-off even has been contemplated or that Obama has pursued a soft line on Iran. On the contrary, after more than 12 months of negotiations and two extended deadlines, everything points to the opposite -- both sides are negotiating too hard and showing too little flexibility.∂ Rather than worrying about the ISIS challenge softening the US's position on the nuclear portfolio, the real worry should be that Senators Kirk and Menendez will blow up diplomacy with Iran , and in doing so, eliminate the chance of preventing an Iranian nuclear bomb, restart the march towards war with Iran, and on top of that, enable ISIS to benefit from the reignited US-Iran rivalry.

Unrestrained ISIS causes WMD terrorism. Crabtree, 9/17 (Susan, Washington Examiner, http://washingtonexaminer.com/us-hones-in- on-homegrown-isis-threat/article/2553515

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, characterized the risk of Americans coming back to the United States after fighting for Islamic State in Syria or Iraq and launching an attack as “significant.” “Given what they’ve already demonstrated in terms of brutality and utter disregard for human life, other than those who adhere to their ideology, whatever weapons system they would have in their possession – there’s no doubt that they would use it, including weapons of mass destruction,” he said. Noting that military officials have been in close contact with both the U.S. intelligence communities and U.S. law enforcement, he said the risk of those in the U.S. becoming radicalized would increase until ISIS’ “momentum is reversed” and U.S. authorities are able to counter their ability to recruit and put out propaganda on social media and the Internet. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the threat to the U.S. homeland is real even though our intelligence community has yet to identify an active terrorist plot to take place on U.S. soil “If you go back to the year before 9/11, there were no specifics on a threat that year,” she told the Examiner. “It’s the same as this year, but there was this sense that something was going to happen, and you have a much more sophisticated group that is a fighting force and rapidly growing with equipment and continued funding and committing atrocity after atrocity.” “Before 9/11 we didn’t really see what al Qaeda could do,” she added. “We’ve seen it with this organization.” U.S. authorities have identified more than a dozen of the 100 Americans believe to have joined ISIS as coming from the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The twin cities have a large Somali population, the largest concentration in the U.S., but the Islamic State recruits are not limited to Somalis. Two Americans who were killed fighting for ISIS were raised in the United States. Douglas McCain and Troy Kastigar attended the same high school the Minneapolis suburb of New Hope and were good friends. McCain later lived in San Diego before traveling to Syria to fight for ISIS. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune in early September reported that a federal grand jury is investigating an attempt to convince 20 to 30 Somali men to leave Minnesota and join forces with ISIS. Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., penned a letter dated Sept. 4 to Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to address ISIS recruitment in the state. Holder on Monday announced a new series of pilot programs in cities across the country that aim to counter the rise of violent extremism with the United States by better connecting the FBI with local communities. Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., said Tuesday that the Minneapolis Homeland Security Department office has recently briefed on the threat emanating from the twin cities and its efforts to stop it. Minnesota has a history of their residents traveling overseas to join the ranks of terrorist groups. Last year, U.S. authorities said the city has lost some 25 to 40 men to al-Shabab, the Somalia-based terrorist group responsible for the attack on the mall in Nairobi, Kenya, in 2013. “This is not a new for us,” Kline said in an interview. "We have a very large Somali community. … We have mosques and we clearly have had some indication that one or more of the imams has been talking some pretty strong language. We have had the example of some who have been radicalized and gone to the fight.” “We also know there are many of these Somali Muslims who are great neighbors so it’s always the case, you have to be careful, you have to make sure you are going after those who have been radicalized who are Islamist terrorists,” he said. Kline, who sits on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, is worried that ISIS recruitment in Minneapolis is picking up speed after the extreme terrorist group’s advance across Iraq over the summer. “Because they have been registering these big military success they have been recruiting — people like to go to a winner,” he continued. “ The homegrown threat is a danger everywhere — not just in Minnesota, but throughout the country and in other Western countries.” Causes extinction---even without retaliation Toon 7 - chair of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at CU-Boulder, et al.

Owen B., April 19, 2007, “Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism,” online: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/acp-7-1973-2007.pdf

To an increasing extent, people are congregating in the world’s great urban centers, creating megacities with populations exceeding 10 million individuals. At the same time, advanced technology has designed nuclear explosives of such small size they can be easily transported in a car, small plane or boat to the heart of a city. We demonstrate here that a single detonation in the 15 kiloton range can produce urban fatalities approaching one million in some cases, and casualties exceeding one million. Thousands of small weapons still exist in the arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, and there are at least six other countries with substantial nuclear weapons inventories. In all, thirty-three countries control sufficient amounts of highly enriched uranium or plutonium to assemble nuclear explosives. A conflict between any of these countries involving 50-100 weapons with yields of 15 kt has the potential to create fatalities rivaling those of the Second World War. Moreover, even a single surface nuclear explosion, or an air burst in rainy conditions, in a city center is likely to cause the entire metropolitan area to be abandoned at least for decades owing to infrastructure damage and radioactive contamination. As the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in Louisiana suggests, the economic consequences of even a localized nuclear catastrophe would most likely have severe national and international economic consequences. Striking effects result even from relatively small nuclear attacks because low yield detonations are most effective against city centers where business and social activity as well as population are concentrated. Rogue nations and terrorists would be most likely to strike there. Accordingly, an organized attack on the U.S. by a small nuclear state, or terrorists supported by such a state, could generate casualties comparable to those once predicted for a full-scale nuclear “counterforce” exchange in a superpower conflict. Remarkably, the estimated quantities of smoke generated by attacks totaling about one megaton of nuclear explosives could lead to significant global climate perturbations (Robock et al., 2007). While we did not extend our casualty and damage predictions to include potential medical, social or economic impacts following the initial explosions, such analyses have been performed in the past for large-scale nuclear war scenarios (Harwell and Hutchinson, 1985). Such a study should be carried out as well for the present scenarios and physical outcomes. ISIS: Iraq Stability Impact

ISIS causes iraq instability—draws in great powers -advanced weapons in the Middle East

-Iranian nuclear weapons

-Israel conflicts

Oded Eran and Yoel Guzansky 6-25-14 “The Collapse of Iraq: Strategic Implications”, The Scoop, 06/25/2014, http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL1406/S00099/the-collapse-of-iraq-strategic- implications.htm

While the United States will need to take the leading role, it must first take some decisions regarding the logic of providing the Iraqi army with advanced weaponry, given the collapse of Iraqi army units that were facing forces equipped with inferior weapons. The risk that advanced weapons will fall into the hands of irregular forces and be used immediately against the central government in Baghdad cannot be ignored. A different but no less difficult question concerns Iran and the new situation in Iraq. Iran could attempt to sabotage a joint effort if it is not involved in any way and sees itself as deserving compensation in the nuclear realm , or at least an easing of the sanctions. Yet involving Iran, regardless of its conduct in Syria and its close cooperation with Hizbollah, appears impossible, and instead, dealing with Iran solely in the context of Iraq is highly problematic. An interesting question is whether this issue arose in the recent bilateral talks between the United States and Iran or whether these talks dwelled only on the nuclear issue. The attitude of the Gulf states on this issue is also unclear, even though they may see the Iraqi issue as another opportunity to test the possibility of turning over a new leaf in their relations with Iran. The achievements by ISIS are a milestone in the history of the Middle East, even though they are not completely unprecedented. Hizbollah’s success in becoming a leading political force in Lebanon and the Hamas takeover in the Gaza Strip are important forerunners. The danger that this will become a permanent situation is clear to all of those directly involved, including the United States. Therefore, ISIS may see its achievements become something of a Pyrrhic victory: If the states in the region, under the leadership of the United States, mobilize for the fight against ISIS, even its most zealous fighters will have difficulty withstanding what they will face in the campaign, both in the quality of the weapons and the steps that will be used to cut off the organization’s supply routes. Israel naturally has great interest in the success of the struggle against ISIS entrenchment in any area whatsoever in the Middle East. Even if the group’s efforts are not directed against Israel at this point, there is no doubt of the ISIS strategic objectives, and any territorial or other entrenchment by ISIS is a potential security threat to Israel . Iraq instability causes global nuclear wars Corsi, PhD in political science from Harvard, ‘7

(Jerome R. Corsi, staff writer for World Net Daily and has a, "War with Iran is imminent,” 1/8/2007, http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53669)

If a broader war breaks out in Iraq , Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch a n air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons. With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq, China may have their moment to go after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war , much as World Wars I and II began. Impact Calc – Iran Relations – 2NC

Iran-US relations are a conflict dampener- prevent global wars Adib-Moghaddam 14.[Arshin, London Middle East Institute Centre for Iranian Studies chair, MPhil and PhD, Reader in Comparative Politics and International Relations at SOAS, University of London, interviewed by Firouzeh Mirrazavi, " Renewed Iranian-American Relations Stabilize World Politics – Interview," Eurasia Review, 2-16-14, www.eurasiareview.com/16022014- renewed-iranian-american-relations-stabilize-world-politics-interview/,]

I am in no doubt that renewed Iranian- American relations will have a stabilizing effect on world politics in general. The two countries have merging interests and ultimately they are actors that can deliver. One of the reasons why the foreign policy of both countries was not effective in the different strategic theatres that you have mentioned is exactly because there was no dialogue to align them where necessary. This region needs peace and stability. The human suffering of the last decades is unbearable. The threat of al-Qaeda continues to be real and urgent. Iran and the United States must sit on the same table in order to deliberate about how to bring about a security architecture that will outlaw, once and for all, the use of force in the region. It is central that this is not pursued in exclusion of other regional actors. Iran and the United States will continue to disagree on a range of issues, certainly Palestine, Hezbollah, Bahrain etc., but I do not see any reason why these differences could not be negotiated within a diplomatic context. Certainly, they are not more serious than the differences that the United States has with China.

=== Turns Case === Turns Case – Trump

Trump win collapses china relations and all foreign policy effectiveness Grenoble 16. [Ryan, HuffPo editor, “Donald Trump Poses As Big A Risk To Global Stability As Terrorism, Report Says” Huffington Post – March 17 -- www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-global-threat- economy_us_56eac656e4b0b25c91849874]

The rising threat of jihadi terrorism, a military clash over China’s expansionism in the South China Sea, and Donald Trump as president — one of these things is not like the others, and it’s not the one you’d expect. According to a report published by The Economist Intelligence Unit on Thursday, the prospect of conflict in the South China Sea poses a lesser risk to the world’s economic stability than the other two threats. Yes — that means the EIU, a research and analysis group associated with The Economist magazine, believes a Trump presidency would be just as risky as the threat of jihadi terrorism. Both threats are tied at sixth place on a list of the world’s top 10 biggest risks to the global economy. (The possibility of a hard Chinese economic crash ranked first and a renewed cold war ranked second. Meanwhile, a clash in the South China Sea tied for eighth with a U.K. vote to leave the European Union.) The EIU’s report calculates risk intensity on a 25-point scale, taking into account both the probability that an event will occur and the impact it will have if it comes to pass. The prospect of Trump winning the U.S. presidential election and the rising threat of jihadi terrorism destabilizing the global economy are both “high impact” threats that have a “moderate probability” of occurring, according to the EIU. “In the event of a Trump victory, his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war , ” the analysis notes. “His militaristic tendencies towards the Middle East (and ban on all Muslim travel to the US) would be a potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups, increasing their threat both within the region and beyond.” The EIU further condemned the presidential candidate for his “exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jihadi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil).” The report says it’s doubtful that Trump will defeat his likely Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, but concedes that it isn’t impossible. Should Trump win the presidency, the report predicts that “virulent” opposition from Democrats and the Republican establishmen t would limit his ability to pass more radical policies, but warns that “ such internal bickering will also undermine the coherence of domestic and foreign policymaking .” Turns Case – Link

The link turns the aff – electoral backlash causes misunderstandings that deck bilateral cooperation Wang 3/24/16 (Zheng, Director of the Center for Peace and Conflict Studies and an Associate Professor in the School of Diplomacy and International Relations at Seton Hall University, "How the Chinese See U.S. Elections: Three Myths," https://www.newamerica.org/weekly/116/how- the-chinese-see-us-elections-three-myths/)

China, long a hot topic in U.S. presidential elections , is one of the few countries frequently mentioned in American presidential candidates’ speeches and debates , very often as the target of attack. And, although electoral issues have changed many times over the past two or three decades, the China topic has remained resolute . Different candidates from different times blame China for the exact same thing s: the trade deficit, currency manipulation, job losses, and human rights and foreign policy problems. Current candidates have , not unlike their predecessors, taken to criticizing the present president for being soft on China and for being overrun by the Chinese. On the other side of the Pacific, people in China have been watching the U.S. elections with great interest. However, U.S. opinions of the way the Chinese themselves perceive these accusations against China are often misguided. Here are three major myths in the U.S. regarding how the Chinese see themselves and the U.S. elections. Myth 1: The Chinese agree China is the winner in terms of trade. Reality: Many Chinese consider trade with the U.S. to be unequal, unfair, and even harmful to their country. Though U.S. candidates talk about the trade deficit with China, many Chinese actually believe that China is the victim of trade with the U.S., as China’s exports to the U.S. are mainly cheap products and raw materials that produce low profits, and its imports from the U.S. are normally expensive high-tech products that generate huge profits for American corporations. For example, to buy a Boeing aircraft, China has to export hundreds of millions of shirts. And an Apple phone that is manufactured in China results in only 4 US dollars in profit for the factory in China, while Apple reaps huge financial benefits from the Chinese market. Amidst all of China’s manufacturing focus, the country pays a high price for environmental pollution. China also pays a high societal price. According to Chinese government statistics from 2014, 168 million migrant workers moved from the countryside in Central and Western China to coastal areas to find factory jobs. As these migrant workers cannot afford to have their families living together in the coastal areas, they end up leaving 61 million children at home. Families are forced to separate, causing many social problems. Many Chinese citizens and economists alike agree that trade and globalization have brought China some profits, but that American corporations are the ones taking home the majority of the earnings while China is left to suffer the negative environmental and societal consequences that accompany this trade. A popular opinion in China is that the low income and middle class societies in the U.S. are only able to maintain their living standards due to trade with China, and that China’s low wages, low human rights, and sparse environmental regulations have made the low prices of these products possible. Additionally, China’s trade surplus and the world’s highest reserves of foreign currency have also provided the government with huge resources to buy the loyalty of elites and to control and suppress any internal opposition. Myth 2: The Chinese also see China as an aggressor in the foreign policy arena. Reality: Many Chinese see China as a victim and believe their government is not tough enough on foreign policy. Where people outside China tend to see China’s recent foreign policy behavior as that of an aggressive bully, most Chinese actually see themselves as the victims. Consider the case of the South China Sea: Outsiders often disagree with China’s maritime claims, but the Chinese genuinely believe that their claims are based on history and are valid. In fact, generations of Chinese students have been taught this position in their history and geography textbooks. Because of this, many believe that China’s neighbors have long been violating China’s sovereignty, rights, and interests in the South China Sea. To some extent, the government’s aggressiveness is a response to the rise of popular nationalism at home, which is heavily influenced by education and social discourse. Myth 3: The Chinese admire the U.S. electoral system. Reality: Not exactly. Many Chinese people actually consider U.S. elections to be rather unsophisticated and ineffective. Many Chinese are not very impressed with the U.S. democratic election process. Though they do not really have the opportunity to watch the debates or listen to political discourse, they often hear about the negative aspects of the elections, such as the hostilities exchanged between candidates and the political rumors that encircle the race, from state-sponsored media. There are two popular ideas commonly found in Chinese narratives regarding the U.S. elections. First, many Chinese people believe that a few politically connected families and business tycoons manipulate the elections. As it turns out, this year’s discussion about establishments and the emergence of Donald Trump are actually supporting this assumption. Many Chinese think that the U.S. democratic system only offers Americans choices between a few candidates, and that most of those candidates are representatives of the establishment. They feel, in other words, that America’s is not a true democracy. The second idea is that the U.S. system selects candidates with good public speaking skills and personal appeal, rather than those with experience and capability. Some Chinese scholars openly publish articles describing how the Chinese system of selecting state leaders is more advanced and effective than its American counterpart. China’s current leader, Xi Jinping, is often held up as an example. Before he became president, Xi experienced a full range of political positions, including county chief, mayor, governor of a province, and chief of Shanghai (China’s largest city). The five years he spent as China’s vice president served as the final stage of his training. Over this period of time, he gained intensive training in foreign policy and operation of the party and central government. Not only does Xi possess this expertise, but so did each of his predecessors in the past three decades, as do most members of the top leadership echelon. So for many people in China, it is unthinkable that someone like Barack Obama, who had only one term in the U.S. Senate under his belt and had no foreign policy experience, was chosen to run an entire country and become president of the world’s leading nation. It should be noted, however, that while people are proud of the Chinese system, they forget that, in recent decades, almost every time China's top leadership has gone through a power transition, it actually caused fierce internal power struggles, the consequences of which always took lengthy periods of time to overcome. The reality, then, is this: U .S .-China relations have become arguably the most important bilateral relationship in the international system, so it is critical for people from both sides to better understand each other, including their political systems. If individuals always use their own institutional and cultural experiences to interpret the other side, misunderstandings and misjudgments will become inevitable. When U.S. presidential candidates blame China for many issues, it often signifies an oversimplification of complicated trade and foreign policy issues. When they attempt to use China as a scapegoat, they create obstacles that make it more difficult for people to identify the real problems that face the country. At the same time, the Chinese should also avoid using their own institutional and cultural experiences to interpret the other side, otherwise misunderstandings will become inevitable. China-bashing in elections hurts bilateral cooperation Carpenter 15 (Ted Galen, senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author of nine books in addition to more than 550 articles and policy studies on international issues, 8/31, "China: The Mishandled Issue in the U.S. Presidential Election Campaign," http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/china-mishandled-issue-us- presidential-election-campaign)

What we are witnessing is a repetition of the usual quadrennial spectacle regarding relations with China. In presidential campaign after presidential campaign , candidates (especially those representing the party not controlling the White House) either neglect the issue or play the role of demagogue . In the 1980 campaign, Ronald Reagan criticized Jimmy Carter’s administration for “abandoning” Taiwan and establishing diplomatic relations with Beijing. Twelve years later, candidates Bill Clinton and Ross Perot vied with each other to accuse President George H. W. Bush of being too soft on China. Repeatedly citing the Tiananmen Square bloodshed, Clinton referred to Chinese leaders as “the butchers of Beijing.” During the 2000 campaign, George W. Bush viewed China as a worrisome “strategic competitor,” rather than an economic partner of the United States. The good news is that once in office the new presidents continued the responsible, pragmatic policies toward China first developed by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. The inflammatory campaign rhetoric was quickly discarded. That will likely be the case this time as well. The bilateral economic relationship is simply too valuable to jeopardize by imprudent White House actions. But campaign posturing, even if not meant seriously, creates needless suspicions and resentment in U.S.-China relations . Presidential candidates need to remember that preserving a cordial relationship with China must be a top U.S. foreign policy priority. Bilateral cooperation enables China and the United States to foster global strategic stability and economic prosperity. Conversely, a breakdown of the relationship would lead to unpleasant and possibly catastrophic global consequences. Policy toward China is far too important for candidates either to ignore or demagogue. Unfortunately, the current crop of presidential aspirants seems determined to do one or the other. Turns Case – A2: Trump Bluffing/Checks and Balances

Trumps not bluffing – his rhetoric on China creates political audience costs and erodes checks by shaping congressional politics and election outcomes Stokes, 16 --- Bruce, senior fellow @ council foreign relations, director of global economic attitudes at Pew Research Center, where he assesses public views about economic conditions, foreign policy and values, non-resident fellow at the German Marshall Fund and an associate fellow at Chatham House, former international economics correspondent for the National Journal, a former senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund. Stokes is a graduate of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and Johns Hopkins University’s School for Advanced International Studies. He has appeared on numerous television and radio programs including CNN, BBC, NPR, NBC, CBS and ABC and is a frequent speaker at major conferences around the world. “Choices by US Voters Will Influence the World”, YaleGlobal, 3/17, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/choices-us-voters-will-influence-world

Choices by US Voters Will Influence the World

The US presidential campaign is dominated by global issues including trade, immigration and terrorism – and voters have mixed feelings

The US political primary election season is in full swing as Americans choose candidates for the presidency of their nation and, arguably, the job of de facto leader of the world. In the wake of recent primaries in vote-rich states such as Florida and Ohio, Republican candidate Donald Trump has a commanding lead over his rivals Senator Ted Cruz and Governor John Kasich. Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has an even larger advantage over her challenger Senator Bernie Sanders. To quote the American baseball player Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over,” but the field finally seems to be sorting itself out.

To date, the campaign debate has been dominated by multiple themes that could ultimately impact people outside the United States – trade, immigration and terrorism, to name just a few. Americans’ attitudes on these issues could well influence the outcome in Novembe r. And the positions the candidates take on these issues may foreshadow, or constrain, what policies the next US president will pursue . Moreover, the mood of the electorate may influence votes in Congressional elections for both the US House of Representatives and Senate , reinforcing foreign-policy choices made by the new president.

Trade is a recurrent campaign theme, despite the fact that global trade ranks low overall on the American public’s list of concerns, as registered by a Pew Research Center survey: 31 percent rate it as a top priority. Candidates in both parties have repeatedly tied the issue to jobs and the economy and promised to be tougher on trade, especially with regard to China.

Real estate developer and television celebrity Trump has promised to impose a 45 percent tariff on imports from China. Clinton has pledged to crack down on Chinese currency manipulation that gives Chinese products an unfair competitive advantage. Sanders, Trump and Clinton have repeatedly attacked the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.

Such trade criticism strikes a chord with many American s , despite the fact that they are, in principle, free traders. According to Pew Research Center, Americans suggest that free trade is good for the nation by a margin of 25 percentage points – 58 percent versus 33 percent – a sentiment broadly shared across gender, race, age, income, education and party divisions.

But the public is divided on the overall economic impact of Washington signing free trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership: 31 percent suggest such agreements make the economy grow, 34 percent say they slow the economy down.

Moreover, on the politically potent issues of jobs and wages, 46 percent of Americans voice the view that trade deals lead to job losses in the United States, while the same percentage says they lower US wages. Only 11 percent think trade raises wages and just 17 percent suggest it generates jobs.

A mericans are critical of trade with Beijing: 52 percent describe the US trade deficit with China – the largest U.S. merchandise trade deficit – as a very serious problem. Trump Causes Asian War Trump would cause escalatory Asian wars — outweighs and turns case. Jackson 15 — Van Jackson, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Visiting Scholar and Adjunct Assistant Professor with the Asian Studies Program in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, former Strategist and Policy Adviser focused on the Asia-Pacific at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, holds a Ph.D. in World Politics from The Catholic University of America, 2015 (“Donald Trump's Asia Policy Would be a Disaster,” The Diplomat, September 11th, Available Online at http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/donald-trumps-asia-policy-would-be- a-disaster/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Try to imagine what would happen if Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump decided U.S. policy toward Asia. U.S. presidential elections almost never hinge on foreign policy, but it’s worth pondering how a Trump administration might impact the world’s wealthiest and most populous region given his seeming nationalist-mercantilist philosophy of governance and transactional view of foreign policy. What would Asia become if Trump became president? In short: it would be a disaster.

Although he gives us only occasional glimpses via impolitic musings, we know several things about Trump’s orientation toward foreign policy, and Asia in particular. He believes in having a large, modern, and capable military. He believes in wielding the threat of force but not so much in the use of it. And he believes allies—especially Japan and South Korea—free-ride on U.S. commitments, which he claims has two consequences. One is that Americans are suckers for maintaining a forward military presence when they don’t need to; the other is that these allies are “eating our lunch” in trade imbalances and economic growth because they don’t spend enough on their own defense.

From these glimpses we can deduce a few major implications for Asia policy. All of them are disastrous.

First, Trump would likely withdraw the U.S. military from Asia and instead beef up a garrison force on U.S. territory, which would have enormous strategic consequences. Forward military presence does more than just assure allies and deter aggressors. It enables the United States to respond quickly to a crisis wherever it may be. If U.S. forces had to fly and sail from the continental United States to respond when its interests were threatened, it would show up to everything a day late and a dollar short . One of the central insights from deterrence literature has been that it’s much harder to reverse an action once taken than preventing the action in the first place. Yet if the United States is slow to deploy because of sheer distance, then every expansionist or revisionist actor in the international system would be able to present us with faits accompli. This means that if bad guys are conducting preventive strikes, launching guerrilla wars, conquering territory, or controlling sea lanes near them, the United States would either have to simply acquiesce, or challenge them after they’ve secured themselves and attempt to reverse their achievements at great cost. Second, by eliminating U.S. forward presence in Asia, a Trump administration military would willingly give up escalation control. Although far from an exact science, escalation control requires being able to engage an adversary in a crisis or conflict without resorting to total annihilation or nuclear war. The total war approach was already tried in the form of President Eisenhower’s massive retaliation doctrine in the 1950s, which planted the seeds of a nuclear- armed China and North Korea, catalyzed the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, and left the United States ill-equipped to deal with real-world crises and low-intensity conflict, as repeatedly occurred with China in the 1950s. Even worse, if your solution to every military problem—no matter how small— is nuclear annihilation, other countries will eventually stop believing your threats or you’ll be forced to make good on that nuclear annihilation promise. Either outcome would be catastrophic.

As a corollary, if U.S. forces are based at home, then every crisis or conflict would represent a 21st century version of the massive retaliation doctrine because no tailored solutions , deterrence forces , or small troop deployments would be possible, because they’d have to first navigate across the Pacific Ocean to be relevant, by which time the outcome of a crisis or conflict may already be decided. A home-based U.S. force could only influence international outcomes by threatening massive retribution, which would immediately escalate any situation to an unacceptable and irresponsible level. As China seeks dominion over the South China Sea— through which $5 trillion of trade passes each year—a U.S. military absent from the region will have no sway over events. And if China succeeds in establishing de facto military domination of the South China Sea, it will be the United States, alongside allies and partners, who will lose freedom of navigation rights and the ability to engage in global commerce unencumbered.

Finally, Trump ’s stance toward allies like Japan and South Korea would not simply wreck those alliances , but destabilize Northeast Asia’s precarious balance . Without a U.S. alliance, both states are dramatically more likely to develop their own nuclear weapons , which destroys the possibility of preserving a nuclear nonproliferation regime, and consequently would make it impossible to prevent other determined states, like Iran, from go ing nuclear. And with the United States walking away from its clear commitments to Japan and South Korea, there would be no credible prospect of the United States coming to the aid of Taiwan , where U.S. commitments are more ambiguous. China’s determination to absorb Taiwan—even against the latter’s will—would face dramatically fewer inhibitions if China knew Taiwan would not have U.S. backing.

More than simply abandoning Japan, Trump seems to indicate we would enter a confrontational phase in U.S.-Japan relations. He blames Japan for not spending enough on defense, but Japan’s closest neighbors have long been wary of a militarily “normal” Japan. Without the United States, moreover, a Japan with a large and advanced military may push South Korea—whose diplomatic relations with Japan have long been tense—into alignment with China. And although Trump makes a bogeyman out of U.S. trade imbalances with Japan, he overlooks the fact that U.S. trade relations with Japan benefit the United States; Toyota, for example, manufactures cars for the U.S. market in many low-income areas in the United States, providing tens of thousands of jobs for Americans. Trade imbalances are an abstraction; jobs are real. Of South Korea, Trump asks, “…how long will we go on defending South Korea from North Korea without payment?” Never mind that South Korea does share the cost of stationing U.S. troops in South Korea, that the South does contribute to U.S. security interests around the world, or that the anti-Americanism in North Korean identity means we’re defending ourselves from North Korea in addition to the South. Because we maintain a military presence in South Korea, deterrence has prevailed. Yet Trump says, “…the young man from North Korea starts acting up… we immediately get our ships going. We get our aircraft. We get nothing for this.” Avoiding large-scale casualties or chemical warfare is not “nothing;” it’s peace, however precarious. Perhaps Trump would prefer to see a second Korean War?

Trump’s slogan is “Make America great again.” But willfully ceding U.S. global leadership isn’t greatness. Abandoning the global liberal order to others isn’t greatness. Allowing large-scale atrocities or the end of a generation of peace in Asia when you have the ability to prevent it isn’t greatness . And neither is reneging on U.S. commitments. Far from being “great,” Trump’s Asia policy is morally, economically, and strategically unconscionable.

Trump crushes Asian stability — comparatively larger internal link. Vu 16 — Khang Vu, Analyst from New London, New Hampshire who studies International Relations, China, and International Political Economy, 2016 (“Why A Trump Presidency Would Be Bad For Asia,” The Diplomat, April 7th, Available Online at http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/why-a-trump-presidency-would-be-bad-for-asia/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

As the race to the White House is heating up, Asian countries are paying close attention to the candidates’ foreign policy platforms. For the last few weeks, international headlines have focused on Donald Trump’s vision of a nuclearized Northeast Asia and his proposal to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea and Japan if the two countries do not contribute more to the alliance. For the most part, scholars and strategists have denounced Trump’s plan. However, despite these negative remarks, primary results have shown that Trump is undoubtedly the Republican front-runner for the presidency. Even though the final result of the presidential campaign is not decided until November, Trump’s negative impacts on Asia are too clear to be ignored.

Trump’s foreign policy can be broken down into three main components. First, he seeks to limit the scope of U.S. foreign policy , from a major international player to an isolationist. Second, Trump wants to withdraw U.S. commitment to America’s East Asian allies, at the potential cost of Japan and South Korea acquiring their own nuclear weapons. And third, Trump wants to conduct foreign policy as a form of doing business, which means America must get benefits from any relationship with another country. A thorough examination at each of these components will provide a comprehensive look at potential consequences of Trump’s policies towards Asia.

First, the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II has always been the desire to construct and safeguard a liberal world order that every country is required to adhere to. Widespread U.S. interventions into global issues have strengthened the foundation for such a rule-based political order, and the presence of the United States has constrained the rise of new non-Western countries that seek to upset international standards and norms. Unfortunately, a Trump presidency is likely to pull America out of its role , giving rising powers like China greater leeway to impose its vision of order on neighboring countries. Moreover, such a decline in U.S. influence will send a dangerous signal to its East Asian allies that America is no longer willing to come to their defense , prompting them to resort to necessary security measures in order to make up for the loss of American commitment.

As a consequence of American isolationism, Trump has suggested withdrawing troops from South Korea and Japan and allowing the two countries to develop their own nuclear weapons. Trump’s intention is based on two major assumptions. First, upgrading and maintaining a large, modern conventional force is not an effective deterrent compared to developing a nuclear capability. Second, allowing South Korea and Japan to have nukes will relieve America of its responsibility as a “nuclear umbrella,” preventing the U.S. from engaging in a nuclear war with North Korea.

However, these two assumptions are unconvincing when more closely examined. American troop presence in South Korea is meant to prevent the escalation of conflicts between the two Koreas (deterring the North and constraining the South), and to provide U.S. Army with the capability to manage potential crises on the Korean peninsula. The withdrawal of U.S. troops is likely to damage the security structure and simultaneously reduce American operation capability in times of conflicts. Moreover, the lack of American security commitment will push South Korea closer to China, which gives China more incentives to enhance its military stature in East Asia, something the United States must avoid.

Second, allowing South Korea and Japan to develop nuclear capabilities will deal a critical blow to U.S. attempts at denuclearizing North Korea . Pyongyang is not willing to negotiate giving up its nuclear weapons now, much less when watching its enemies get their own. More dangerously, the escalation of a nuclear arms race coupled with American isolationism will undoubtedly increase the chances for miscalculations among Pyongyang, Seoul, and Tokyo. In this situation, maintaining the American security guarantee is the only way to prevent a war in Northeast Asia, a method that has been effective since the end of the Korean War.

The third component in Trump ’s foreign policy will also impair the credibility of Washington’s “pivot to Asia” amid increasing China’s aggression in the East China Sea and the South China Sea. America’s pivot is meant to provide its allies and partners with reassurance of a stable political, economic, and security environment. This commitment requires the United States to conduct its foreign policy in a win-win manner with Asian countries, and Washington must demonstrate itself as a reliable partner in exchange for more interactions and cooperation. However, Trump’s business-style foreign policy will turn the pivot into a zero-sum game between the United States and Asian nations, which would raise doubts about Washington’s true intentions and consistency.

For example, Trump’s recent demand for Seoul and Tokyo to pay more to the coalition with Washington has turned a treaty commitment into a form of win-lose relationship, which prompted these states to clarify their contributions and reassess their affairs with the United States. Other Asian nations with interests in the U.S. pivot are likely to watch America’s relations with South Korea and Japan in order to determine how dependable Washington is. In the case of a Trump’s victory , the “pivot to Asia” will be a failed endeavor, causing Asian nations to seek for their own means of defense against China.

The 21st century has been described as the Asian century. Therefore, the United States need to adopt necessary policies to ensure peaceful economic, political, and security development of its Asian allies and partners. Donald Trump’s foreign policy of isolationism , nuclear proliferation , and zero-sum relationships is completely at odds with America’s “pivot to Asia.” If America wants to be great again, it will need to strengthen its commitment with the liberal structure it has created, and broaden its cooperation with regional players. Playing the role of a global peacekeeper is a must, not a choice for Washington.

Trump’s policies guarantee disaster in Asia. Alter 16 — Jonathan Alter, Columnist for The Daily Beast, Analyst for MSNBC, 2016 (“As President, Trump’s ‘Asia Pivot’ Will Be Toward War,” The Daily Beast, June 4th, Available Online at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/04/as-president-trump-s-asia-pivot-will-be- toward-war.html, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Hillary Clinton came out swinging at Donald Trump Thursday, making specific reference to the scary prospect of him taking possession of the nuclear codes: “It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”

The Trump apologists and rationalizers coming out of the GOP woodwork, which now includes Speaker Paul Ryan, will spend from now until November arguing that Trump is the dove and Clinton the hawk. He’s a non-interventionist, we’re told. His slogan, he says, is “America First,” the moniker of the often-anti-Semitic isolationists who supported appeasing Adolf Hitler in the late 1930s.

We all know how well that kept the peace.

The reason Trump will likely get us into a war (or two or three) was captured by Trump himself in his recent interview with Megyn Kelly of Fox. “I’m a counterpuncher, you understand. I’m responding. I respond by maybe, times 10,” he told Kelly. “But in just about all cases I’ve been responding to what they did to me.”

The problem for all of us is that when you’re president, “did to me” becomes “did to America.” Trump’s narcissistic victimhood will quickly transmogrify into the bruised honor of nationhood, which is often the prelude to war.

“He swings from isolationism to military adventurism within the space of one sentence,” reads a letter attacking Trump that was signed by 120 foreign policy experts.

So when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un mouths off at the Trump administration, or a Chinese naval captain doesn’t take kindly to “territorial violations” in the South China Sea, the new America president will “ respond times 10 .” Bet on it.

In the meantime, Trump’s notorious comments about barring Muslims from American shores have a familiar ring. Consider the history of Asian immigration. Chinese “coolie” labor first arrived the United States in the early 1850s to help with the Gold Rush, and thousands more came to build the transcontinental railroad. But the 1870s and 1880s brought anti-Chinese pogroms across the West and more than 200 lynchings.

The first Trumpian legislation—The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 —barred Chinese from entering the United States. The so-called Asian Barred Zone Act of 1917 extended the prohibitions on entry to most other Asian countries (as well as homosexuals, “idiots,” polygamists, anarchists, and all immigrants over the age of 16 who were illiterate). The Cable Act of 1922 effectively revoked the citizenship of any American woman who married an Asian alien. It wasn’t until the Immigration Act of 1965—an underrated part of the Great Society—that Asian immigrants were put on equal footing with Caucasians and allowed into the United States in any numbers.

For decades, politicians and newspapers referred darkly to what Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany first called “the yellow peril”—Asian hordes bent on infecting Caucasians with their “disease.” As with eugenics and other racist fads of the time, elites made anti-Asian prejudice respectable. In his 1920 book The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, Lathrop Stoddard, an eminent Harvard historian, argued that Asians were bent on taking over the Western world. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 made hating “buck-toothed Japs” a thoroughly American phenomenon.

Trump knows better than to utter the crude slurs of Spiro Agnew, who got in trouble in 1968 when he was Richard Nixon’s running mate for calling a Baltimore Sun reporter a “fat Jap.”

But he can’t help using a harsh “Ch” when pronouncing “China” that makes it sound like a curse, mocking the accents of “smart” Asian negotiators (“We want deal”), and assuming Asian- Americans are foreigners.

When Joseph Choe, a 20-year-old Harvard economics major, got up at a New Hampshire event last fall to correct him on his false claim that South Korea paid “nothing” to the United States for its defense, Trump cut him off:

“Are you from South Korea?”

“I’m not. I was born in Texas, raised in Colorado,” Choe replied.

Twenty years ago, the Asian-American vote—reflecting the affluence of that community— was 70 percent Republican. Today, it’s 75 percent Democratic, and the explanation offered by Asian- American political analysts is that Republicans more than Democrats tend to assume someone like Joseph Choe isn’t American. These citizens feel that social exclusion, and they vote accordingly, which is another reason California (where Asian-Americans make up 12 percent of the electorate) is out of reach for the GOP.

Even when Trump has a point , as he does on burden-sharing, his failure to understand the context is disastrous . The hundreds of millions of dollars that both Japan and South Korea pay the United States to house and feed U.S. troops don’t fully cover the costs to U.S. taxpayers, but Trump’s bluster is actually making it harder to get them to pay more.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is trying to reform and expand the Japanese military so that it pays more for itself and helps the United States deter Chinese aggression. But the Japanese people have always been conspiracy-minded and many now believe their government and the United States have struck a secret deal to turn Japan into a nuclear state. This, in turn, strengthens the political position of Japanese nationalists, descendants of the Tojo crowd.

If Trump knew anything about Japanese nationalists and their often hysterical anti-American rhetoric, he wouldn’t be so eager for them to have their fingers on the button.

Trump is equally clueless on trade, where his proposal for a 45 percent tariff would set off a trade war that would impoverish everyone. Trump said last week: “Who the hell cares about a trade war?” Try the estimated 10-20 million Americans who would lose their jobs when our trading partners retaliate and wreck our export markets. Of Japan, he says, “They’re killing us!”, even though the last time that country was prosperous (i.e., “winning”) was 20 years ago.

Of course the hypocrisy of Trump bashing American companies for off-shoring knows no bounds. The Donald J. Trump Collection makes suits, shirts, eyeglasses, perfume and cufflinks in factories across Asia and Central America. Most Trump neckties are made in China, which also manufactures 354 items for his daughter Ivanka’s line of clothing.

Trump may be right that trade talks between China and the United States are like the Patriots and Tom Brady “play[ing] your high school football team.”

Trouble is, he’s lying about those talks. Trump says the Trans-Pacific Partnership “was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone.” In fact, the TPP, which explicitly does not include China, was designed to make sure that the United States set the liberal, mostly pro-labor trade standards for Asia before the Chinese get a chance to set their own authoritarian trade rules.

After he forces Mexico to build a wall, rounds up 11 million immigrants, kills the wives and children of suspected terrorists, and renegotiates the national debt ( thereby eliminating the dollar as the reserve currency of the world and cratering the global economy ), Trump will turn his attention to Asia.

“We’re gonna have great relationships,” he says of our Asian allies. Good luck with that. A Trump presidency causes Japanese and South Korean proliferation and turns the case—it causes a Taiwan conflict O’Hanlon 7/4 --- Michael O’Hanlon, senior fellow in Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, defense strategy and military specialist, co-director of the Center on 21st Century Security and Intelligence, adjunct professor at Columbia, Princeton, and Syracuse universities and University of Denver, former member of the external advisory board at the Central Intelligence Agency, 2016 (“If a President Trump Turns His Back on Taiwan,” The Wall Street Journal, Accessed Online at http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-a-president-trump-turns-his-back- on-taiwan-1467650733, Accessed on 07-21-2016, ES) Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to withdraw American forces from Asia and let allies Japan and South Korea defend themselves. He suggests that these two Asian powers might best develop their own nuclear weapons.

Like most American foreign-policy scholars, I think these ideas are fundamentally unsound. They would increase the risk of war between Japan and China in particular, especially during any transition period. They would also greatly weaken the Nuclear N on -P roliferation T reaty, under which nonnuclear countries agree not to pursue the bomb.

But the biggest danger from Trump’s ideas on Asia is the risk of war in the Taiwan Strait. Absent bases in Japan, the U.S. cannot realistically deter Chinese military attacks on Taiwan. This reality could lead China to contemplate the use of force with much less hesitation than it has shown to date.

Knowing this, leaders in Taiwan might seek to develop nuclear weapons of their own as a deterrent. But China has repeatedly stated over the years that Taiwan’s pursuit of the bomb could lead to the very Chinese attack it was designed to prevent.

It is important to review the basics. Since the late 1970s, when the U.S. switched its formal diplomatic recognition to mainland China, it has not treated Taiwan as an independent country. But under the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, Washington is committed to help Taiwan defend itself against any forceful attempt at reunification by mainland China. The law obligates the U.S., among other things, to consider providing weaponry to Taiwan, and to consider the use of American military power in a conflict.

This is admittedly a somewhat muddled approach to deterrence, lacking the clarity of the NATO Treaty’s Article V mutual-defense clause. But so far it has worked. Even in light of China’s military buildup, it is likely to keep working, since there is little reason for Beijing to roll the dice at present.

China still claims the right to rule Taiwan, and considers the eventual reunification of the mainland with Taiwan a core national interest. Yet it has wisely decided for decades to defer the issue, recognizing the U.S. military deterrent and hoping a political solution would emerge.

This situation is somewhat stable, but delicate. Beijing has repeatedly stated two reasons it would lose patience and use force: a Taiwanese declaration of independence, which would clearly undercut the long-term strategy for reunification that Chinese leaders support, or Taiwanese pursuit of a nuclear-weapons capability

Thus Taiwan’s leaders would face a huge dilemma if they should be informed by a President Trump that America’s security commitments to East Asia were soon to be dissolved. They might well decide to acquire the bomb.

Taiwan considered going down the nuclear path before . In the mid-1970s, International Atomic Energy Agency officials detected suspicious activities involving a nuclear-research reactor. The U.S. pressured Taiwan to stop any illicit weapons-related activities.

In the late 1980s, Taiwan was again found to be engaged in unwarranted behavior, including initial construction of a facility for reprocessing nuclear fuel. Taiwan would have powerful incentives to resume these activities if America’s security umbrella, patchy as it may be, is fully withdrawn. While no major Taiwanese politician has openly advocated this, the logic of the situation suggests Taiwan might try to build a bomb clandestinely and declare its deterrent only when it has succeeded. Even if it could pull this off, a Taiwanese nuclear bomb still might not deter a Chinese blockade.

Although Mr. Trump has not weighed in explicitly on Taiwan, there is little chance his strategic views would allow American forces the means to defend it. Lacking bases on Okinawa and other parts of Japan, and presumably not having added any bases in the Philippines or Vietnam, the U.S. would have only two main types of conventional forces: the Navy and long-range bombers

These capabilities could inflict pain on China. But it would be very difficult for the U.S. to help Taiwan break any Chinese blockade without adequate maritime-patrol aircraft, antisubmarine warfare aircraft, and land-based air superiority and attack jets. China’s increasingly accurate conventionally armed missiles and quieter submarine fleet would make it difficult for U.S. surface ships to break a blockade on their own.

Trump presidency causes alliance drawout and East Asian prolif Hartcher 7/19 (Peter Hartcher is an Australian journalist and the Political and International Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hartcher, “US alliances can't be taken for granted,” accessed via LexisNexis Scholastic, http://www.smh.com.au/comment/global-alliances-and-friendships-rocked-if- donald-trump-wins-us-election-20160718-gq81o9.html) aj

" The US ," Campbell says, " has helped create a n operating system in Asia that combines trade, openness, peaceful resolutio n of disputes, and the rule of law that has been very good for Asia, and particularly China. The big question is whether China embraces its 21st-century potential or clings to a 19th-century spheres-of-influence approach."

But for all the questions about China, Campbell says there is bigger one looming over the Asia- Pacific. "The No.1 concern in the region today is not China, it's the US. There are questions about the durability of American power, and it's the first time I've experienced this," says Campbell, a senior Pentagon official in the administration of Bill Clinton and the topmost Asia policy official in the State Department when Hillary Clinton was its secretary.

He doesn't think that the US is inherently exhausted; the problem is its politics, and especially the movement led by Donald Trump. "The US campaign has raised more questions about the US role in the world than at any time since the end of the Vietnam War," says Campbell, who advises the Clinton campaign on foreign policy and could expect a senior post in the event that Hillary should win the November election.

He lists four of them: " The debates now are; 1. Do we believe in alliances?; 2. Do we believe in trade?; 3. Do we believe in forward deployment?; 4. Do we believe in American purpose?"

Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders both championed protectionism, but it's Trump who's gone to extremes of racism and isolationism.

It was Trump who, point for point, challenged the long-standing US consensus on the first three of Campbell's questions. It was Trump who threatened to dismantle the US alliance system.

Trump said in March that the two big US allies in north-east Asia , Japan and South Korea, "have to pay us" or " have to protect themselves". If they wanted to arm themselves with nuclear weapons to do so, that'd be OK too.

These countries are bulwarks of stability and the US alliances have helped make them so. Apart from anything else, their US alliances have restrained them from greater antagonism to each other. And the US nuclear umbrella that extends protectively over them, as it does over Australia, means that they haven't had to go nuclear themselves to defend against their nuclear- armed neighbours, China and North Korea.

"I shudder to think what might happen to our alliances and to the stability of the Asia-Pacific if Donald Trump were to become president," Tom Schieffer, US ambassador to Australia under George W. Bush, told me. "I'm voting for Hillary." If Trump were to dump America's Japan and Korea alliances, the credibility of Australia's alliance with the US also comes into question. Why? Because the US maintains big military forces in both Japan and South Korea - this is a vital part of the US system of forward deployment. If these bases close, American ability to project power into the Asia-Pacific falls dramatically.

And Trump's demand that Japan and South Korea pay more for the bases? Tokyo and Seoul already pay for most of the costs of the US bases on their soil, other than the salaries of the American troops there.

Campbell says that the US election has exposed that, while American elites have supported US trade and military engagement with the world, it's turned out to be an establishment veneer concealing a popular vacuum: "Until recently, we've been able to discuss defence and security almost detached from the US domestic political debates. We've taken it for granted, but the American people are raising foundational questions. Someone came up to me recently and said, 'Tell me why we have alliances?' "

If Hillary Clinton wins in November, she will have to start making the case to a sceptical American people. And if Trump wins, he either doesn't know or doesn't care.

The big winners? They'd be China, Russia and North Korea, who would be much freer to use sheer force against their neighbours to get their way. If so, perhaps the region is about to return to the 19th century, after all.

Clinton Solves Alliances Hillary commits to alliances and averts Asia war Chung 7/20 (Esther Chung is a reporter for the Korea Joonjang Daily, A South Korean daily newspaper, article internally quoting John Ikenberry, professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton and member of Hillary Asia Policy Team, “Professor Ikenberry discusses Trump, Korea,” http://koreajoongangdaily.joins.com/news/article/article.aspx?aid=3021515) aj

John Ikenberry , professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University and reported to be a member of the Asia Policy Team for the Hillary Clinton campaign, discussed the latest on the U.S. election and what the next U.S. presidency may mean for Korean and regional politics.

Ikenberry, who says he started studying Korea 20 years ago when he visited for research and “just couldn’t stay away,” is a renowned scholar on international order and institutions, and also the co-director of Princeton’s Center for International Security Studies and a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University in Seoul.

Following is an excerpt of Ikenberry’s analysis on the election, trade agreements, military alliance and more.

Q. If Hillary Clinton is elected the next president, would you say her administration will continue to forge mutual defense ties with South Korea , such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and the continued presence of the U.S. troops in the region?

A. I don’t represent any political candidate, so I would speak as someone who comes to Korea and East Asia a lot.

I think that there would be a great deal of continuity in policy, certainly in alliance and cooperation on all regional issues.

I think that a Clinton administration would put a great deal of emphasis on strengthening the alliance system in Europe and Asia, and in some sense, re-explaining and re-affirming why the alliance system is so important to the U.S. and to the region. Trump Places Tariff On China Trump would implement a massive tariff that destroys the economy — Reagan proves. Jenkins 16 — Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., Columnist for The Wall Street Journal, holds an M.A. in Journalism from Northwestern University, 2016 (“Can Trump Start a Trade War?,” Wall Street Journal, March 8th, Available Online at http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-trump-start-a-trade- war-1457478717, Accessed 07-07-2016)

Which brings us to an increasingly urgent question. What would President Trump do in office? He may be the narcissist his critics say, but he would arrive in the White House looking for something to do consistent with his promises and his supporters’ expectations, and with his own penchant for action.

His wall with Mexico may or may not be an intentionally symbolic figment of his imagination, but is not immediately actionable. Whereas, contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, President Trump would have considerable power to provoke trade wars to create an instant opportunity for his negotiating acumen.

As the University of Houston’s Brandon Rottinghaus and Wesleyan’s Elvin Lim point out in a highly relevant 2009 paper, the Constitution may reserve for Congress the power to regulate international trade, but presidents increasingly have claimed “delegated unilateral powers” to issue proclamations under the 1974 Trade Act.

That law is aimed at expanding trade and lowering barriers, but presidents have used it to justify trade-restricting actions by invoking unrelated laws instructing the executive to pursue some definition of the national interest.

Though such proclamations can be overturned by Congress, they never are. And President Trump would find no shortage of recent statutes—having to do with terrorism, pollution, cybersecurity, consumer safety, labor rights, etc.— that he could plausibly cite as an excuse for unilateral action against trade partners.

What’s more, he would invoke an impeccable precedent, none other than Ronald Reagan, who, within weeks of taking office in 1981, imposed sweeping “voluntary” restraints on Japanese cars that amounted to price fixing for Detroit’s benefit.

Reagan further “negotiated” unilateral restraints on memory chips, forklifts, motorcycles, color TVs, machine tools, textiles, steel, Canadian lumber and even mushrooms— any one of which , if done today, would likely hit our more interdependent and currently fragile global economy like a bombshell.

Reagan never campaigned as a protectionist. He did not argue that America’s problems were caused by other countries. Privately, his team excused his behavior as necessary to defuse protectionist rage in Congress while waiting for tax cuts and deregulation to waken America’s animal spirits during a disastrous recession. And Reagan made sure his “voluntary” restraints were palatable to the Japanese, who, in return for going along, were rewarded with a share of the price-fixing profits at the expense of American consumers. Mr. Trump would be launching his trade war in a very different world, and as a solution to America’s ills, so we can start “winning again.” Since Reagan’s day, the U.S. economy has grown 2.5-fold, but trade has grown eightfold. International capital flows, once a fraction of global GDP, now are a multiple of global GDP. Plus, today’s economies are bogged down with debt. Markets would likely respond to Trump economic war in chaotic ways Reagan didn’t have to worry about (until he did, with the 1987 crash).

But here’s the important point: Anybody who believes that a President Trump would land in office bound by checks and balances , unable to do much, is kidding himself. He would have all the powers he needs to take the U.S. and world economy on a wild ride from the moment he sets foot in the Oval Office.

Trump would implement his tariff — prefer evidence citing respected trade lawyers. Katz 16 — Richard Katz, Editor of the Oriental Economist Report, has testified before Congress on U.S.-Japan and U.S.-Asian relations, former Visiting Lecturer in Economics at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, former Adjunct Professor of Economics at the New York University Stern School of Business, holds an M.A. in Economics from New York University, 2016 (“If Trump Launched a Trade War on Asia,” Wall Street Journal, March 29th, Available Online at http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-trump-launched-a-trade-war-on-asia-1459270919, Accessed 07- 07-2016)

If Donald Trump becomes U.S. president, will he wreak havoc on world trade? Or is he bluffing when he proposes a 45% across-the-board tariff on manufactured imports from China, and 35% on goods made in Mexico by U.S. firms such as Ford Motor F 1.43 % ?

No one knows, perhaps not even Mr. Trump himself. But here’s what we do know.

First, U.S. law enables Mr. Trump to carry out his threats. Second, while such steps would damage the U.S. economy, perhaps sending it into recession, that damage would be dwarfed by the havoc created among U.S. friends such as South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand.

Even if Mr. Trump loses in November, his candidacy could spark a dangerous sea change. Since World War II, neither major party in America has nominated an outright protectionist. Many Congressional Republicans will no doubt look at his triumph and shift their own stance on trade out of fear of losing their party’s primary elections.

Mr. Trump’s threats violate the rules of the World Trade Organization, but there’s nothing in U.S. law to block a president who cares nothing for WTO rules. According to several respected trade lawyers, including Warren Maruyama , the former general counsel of the O ffice of U.S. T rade R epresentative, Mr. Trump can find authorization in Section 301 of the US Trade Act of 1974. It authorizes the president to impose sanctions, including tariffs , on any country that, in his view, undertakes an “act , policy, or practice” that is “unjustifiable” and/or “unreasonable” and “burdens U.S. commerce.” Mr. Trump could decide that any economic inducements given by Mexico to Ford and other firms constitute an “unjustifiable” act. He’d likely ignore that his rival, Gov. John Kasich, provided special tax cuts to Ford to get it to return some assembly jobs to Ohio. Mr. Trump could call China “unreasonable” for “manipulating” its currency, even though the International Monetary Fund says China’s currency is no longer undervalued. Trump Tariff Kills The Economy Trump would implement tariffs that cause a recession in the U.S. and China. Tankersley 16 — Jim Tankersley, Economic Policy Reporter for The Washington Post, former Economics Reporter for National Journal, 2016 (“Donald Trump’s trade war could kill millions of U.S. jobs,” Washington Post, March 25th, Available Online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/25/donald-trumps-trade-war- could-kill-millions-of-u-s-jobs/, Accessed 07-07-2016)

Trade has been one of Donald Trump's great selling points on the campaign trail. China and Mexico are killing us, he has told crowds on his way to the lead position for the Republican presidential nomination, and if Trump wins the White House, he will fight back. The implication is that getting tough with our trading partners -- by taxing their exports as they cross America's borders -- will bring jobs and prosperity to the United States.

An economic model of Trump's proposals, prepared by Moody's Analytics at the request of The Washington Post, suggests Trump is half-right about his plans. They would, in fact, sock it to China and Mexico. Both would fall into recession, the model suggests, if Trump levied his proposed tariffs and those countries retaliated with tariffs of their own.

Unfortunately, the United States would fall into recession, too . Up to 4 million American workers would lose their jobs. Another 3 million jobs would not be created that otherwise would have been, had the country not fallen into a trade-induced downturn.

The job losses would be halved if China and Mexico chose not to retaliate to the tariffs of 45 percent and 35 percent, respectively. In which case U.S. growth would flatline, but the country would not fall into recession.

The amount of predicted economic damage surprised Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics, who prepared the model. He said it is magnified by the precarious -- and historically unusual -- state of the U.S. and global economies right now: Under the Moody's model, the Federal Reserve has little power to slow the recession, because interest rates remain near zero. Congress refuses to enact any stimulus measures, such as spending increases or tax cuts, that might increase the federal budget deficit further.

What results, in the model, is a downward spiral of reduced economic activity. Prices rise on imported goods from China and Mexico, which has the effect of reducing spending power for American consumers. If China and Mexico retaliate, U.S. exports fall, forcing layoffs at American companies that sell to those foreign customers. The ensuing growth slowdowns spread to other trading partners, particularly in Europe, and cause stock markets to plunge, which in turn slows growth even more.

Within a year, the model predicts , the U.S. economy is in recession. “ This is a pretty ugly scenario," Zandi said, "one that I think any rational person would want to avoid.” Trump’s tariffs would ignite a devastating trade war that crushes the U.S. economy. Alford 16 — Roger Alford, Professor of Law and Associate Dean at Notre Dame Law School, holds a J.D. from New York University, 2016 (“Trump’s Proposed Great Chinese Tariff Wall,” The Huffington Post, March 2nd, Available Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger- alford/trumps-proposed-great-chinese-tariff-wall_b_9358376.html, Accessed 07-07-2016)

Unfortunately Republican primary voters have made the remarkable choice to take Donald Trump seriously, and therefore we now have little choice but to contemplate the ramifications of a Trump presidency for United States foreign policy.

In terms of U.S. trade , Donald Trump would be an unmitigated disaster. Trump, of course, has a penchant for incendiary comments, and his statements regarding international trade are as ludicrous and uninformed as much of his other foreign policy positions. Almost everything Trumps says about Chinese trade is wrong. “We don’t win anymore,” “They are taking our jobs,” and “They don’t play fair.” These are all platitudes without substance, but a significant percentage of Americans are buying his snake oil. The answer to our Chinese problem, according to Trump, is a trade war. “The only power that we have with China is massive trade,” Trump says, so we should tax China. “I would tax China on products coming in. Let me tell you what the tax should be... the tax should be 45 percent.” The solution to our trade problems with China, he thinks, is to build a tariff wall. Build a wall and make them pay.

Trump thinks that Mexico will pay for the Mexican wall, and he thinks that China will pay for a Chinese tariff wall. But he is wrong. The American people would pay for the wall with higher consumer prices and reduced American exports.

First, how would such a tariff increase impact American consumers? A 45 percent tariff on Chinese products would be an indirect tax on American consumers. On average, the United States imposes a 3.5 percent tariff on foreign products. Over 20 percent of all United States imports come from China, with a total value of over $500 billion. At 3.5 percent, the tariff on $500 billion worth of Chinese imports is $17.5 billion. At 45 percent, the tariff would be $225 billion . That’s an increase of over 1,186 percent. In other words, assuming Chinese imports continued at their current rate, Donald Trump’s proposed tariff wall with China would reflect an indirect tax on American consumers of over $200 billion . A tax increase of over $200 billion would be one of the largest in American history, greater than the combined tax increases imposed by Presidents Obama, Clinton, and Carter.

To be more concrete, as detailed here, the United States imports from China over $135 billion worth of electronic equipment, over $100 billion worth of machinery, over $30 billion worth of furniture, over $25 billion worth of toys, and over $18 billion worth of footwear. All of us routinely purchase Chinese products, and we each would face a dramatic price increase as the 45 percent tariff is passed on to consumers.

Second, how would the tariff increase impact American exporters? Trump’s tariff wall is undoubtedly illegal under the WTO rules. The rules were designed to make sure that countries keep their trade promises. Donald Trump’s proposal is a blatant breach of our promise to keep tariffs low. All of our tariff rates are “bound,” meaning we have committed by treaty not to increase beyond the bound rate. Every imported product has a bound tariff rate, and under GATT Article II, any tariff above that ceiling violates the WTO rules.

Trump’s proposed tariff wall would break United States’ promise to maintain its current tariff rates. China would have the right to bring an action before the WTO to challenge the 45 percent tariff increase. Just as the United States would undoubtedly win if China tried to do something similar to us, China would undoubtedly win if it challenged the Trump tariff wall. The WTO would demand that the United States keep its tariff promises, and authorize China to raise tariffs on United States’ products coming into China equal to the harm the United States caused to China.

In other words, if China suffers over $200 billion worth of harm from increased tariffs on Chinese products, the WTO would authorize China to increase tariffs on U.S. products by the same amount. Over 7 percent of all United States exports go to China, with total U.S. exports to China exceeding $120 billion.

So if China is hit with over $200 billion worth of tariff increases, China would be authorized to impose over $200 billion worth of tariff increases on $120 billion worth of American exports. Our major exports to China include soybeans ($15 billion), civilian aircraft ($8.4 billion), passenger vehicles ($5.2 billion), copper ($3 billion), corn ($1.3 billion), and coal ($1.2 billion). American workers with jobs in these industries would be severely injured by these WTO- authorized Chinese countermeasures. All those American auto workers, and corn and soybean farmers, and coal miners who support Trump would see their Chinese export market shrink. A tariff increase this dramatic could effectively close the Chinese market to American exports . And it would be completely proper for China to do this to compensate it for our illegal behavior.

In short, the great Chinese tariff wall that Donald Trump proposes to build would severely injure American consumers, making the price of all Chinese products dramatically higher. It also would severely injure American workers , as U.S. exports to the Chinese market would sharply contract. The economic harm that his tariff wall would have on the average American is shocking. Yet his supporters remain blissfully unaware that the United States would not win if it enters a trade war with China. Trump Causes China-Taiwan War Trump would withdraw U.S. forces from Asia — that sparks a China-Taiwan war. O’Hanlon 16 — Michael E. O'Hanlon, Co-Director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and Director of Foreign Policy Research at the Brookings Institution, Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, Princeton University, Syracuse University, and the University of Denver, former Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office and the Institute for Defense Analyses, holds a Ph.D. in Public and International Affairs from Princeton University, 2016 (“Why a Trump presidency could spell big trouble for Taiwan,” Brookings Institution, July 6th, Available Online at http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2016/07/06-trump-presidency- taiwan-ohanlon, Accessed 07-07-2016)

Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump’s idea to withdraw American forces from Asia—letting allies like Japan and South Korea fend for themselves, including possibly by acquiring nuclear weapons— is fundamentally unsound, as I’ve written in a Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Among the many dangers of preemptively pulling American forces out of Japan and South Korea, including an increased risk of war between Japan and China and a serious blow to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, such a move would heighten the threat of war between China and Taiwan . The possibility that the United States would dismantle its Asia security framework could unsettle Taiwan enough that it would pursue a nuclear deterrent against China, as it has considered doing in the past— despite China indicating that such an act itself could be a pathway to war . And without bases in Japan, the United States could not as easily deter China from potential military attacks on Taiwan.

Trump’s proposed Asia policy could take the United States and its partners down a very dangerous road. It’s an experiment best not to run.

Trump would leave Taiwan defenseless and force it to nuclearize — sparks all- out war with China. O’Hanlon 16 — Michael E. O'Hanlon, Co-Director of the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence and Director of Foreign Policy Research at the Brookings Institution, Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Adjunct Professor at Columbia University, Princeton University, Syracuse University, and the University of Denver, former Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office and the Institute for Defense Analyses, holds a Ph.D. in Public and International Affairs from Princeton University, 2016 (“If a President Trump Turns His Back on Taiwan,” Wall Street Journal, July 4th, Available Online at http://www.wsj.com/articles/if-a- president-trump-turns-his-back-on-taiwan-1467650733, Accessed 07-07-2016) Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to withdraw American forces from Asia and let allies Japan and South Korea defend themselves. He suggests that these two Asian powers might best develop their own nuclear weapons.

Like most American foreign-policy scholars, I think these ideas are fundamentally unsound. They would increase the risk of war between Japan and China in particular, especially during any transition period. They would also greatly weaken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under which nonnuclear countries agree not to pursue the bomb.

Taiwan considered going down the nuclear path before. In the mid-1970s, International Atomic Energy Agency officials detected suspicious activities involving a nuclear-research reactor. The U.S. pressured Taiwan to stop any illicit weapons-related activities.

This isn’t an experiment the U.S. should want to run. Leaving Taiwan to rely exclusively on its own means to fend off a Chinese mainland roughly 60 times more populous and 20 times as wealthy would be dangerous. It is the single most fraught consequence of Mr. Trump’s Asia policy. They Say: “China Policies Similar” Trump is more likely than Clinton to follow-through on anti-China policies. Bradsher 16 — Keith Bradsher, Hong Kong Bureau Chief of The New York Times covering Asian business, economic, political, and science news, 2016 (“In Trade Stances Toward China, Clinton and Trump Both Signal a Chill,” New York Times, June 29th, Available Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/business/international/hillary-clinton-donald-trump- trade-china.html?_r=0, Accessed 07-04-2016)

The uncertainty for China, and much of Asia, is whether the candidates will sing the same trade tunes once in office. Mr. Trump’s confrontational approach would seem to indicate some follow-through. Mrs. Clinton seems less likely to change American policies , given that she supported President Obama’s free trade efforts during his first term of office, when she was secretary of state. They Say: “Just Campaign Rhetoric” This year makes follow-through uniquely likely. Bradsher 16 — Keith Bradsher, Hong Kong Bureau Chief of The New York Times covering Asian business, economic, political, and science news, 2016 (“In Trade Stances Toward China, Clinton and Trump Both Signal a Chill,” New York Times, June 29th, Available Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/business/international/hillary-clinton-donald-trump- trade-china.html?_r=0, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Presidential candidates vow every four years to do more to help American workers facing competition from abroad. After taking office, they have consistently pursued more conciliatory trade policies toward China, seeing a strategic benefit to warm relations with Beijing.

But broad political distress this year over the loss of well-paid working class jobs to global competition, coupled with mounting concern about China’s increasingly assertive military posture, suggest that the next president could actually follow through on the pledges . If they do, the policies could pose a real predicament for China, and for other Asian countries that depend on its economy. Clinton Better for Relations Clinton is better for U.S.-China relations despite her hawkishness. Moreshead 16 — Colin Moreshead, Freelance Writer based in Tokyo, M.A. Candidate in East Asian Studies at Yale University, holds a B.A. in East Asian Studies and Economics from Wesleyan University, 2016 (“Why China Might Prefer a Hawk to a Loose Cannon,” China-U.S. Focus—a publication of the China-United States Exchange Foundation in Hong Kong, May 18th, Available Online at http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/why-china-might-prefer-a-hawk-to-a- loose-cannon/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Heading into the general election, then, there are few appreciable differences in how Clinton and Trump would tangibly shake up the Sino-U.S. relations hip in the short term . For all of Trump ’s tough talk, he has yet to commit to policy prescriptions that would challenge the status quo – even his proposed 45 percent tariff has since been walked back as merely “a threat.” However, the one policy area over which Beijing is correct to express concern is Trump’s vision for East Asian regional security, and particularly his flagrant apathy with regard to nuclear nonproliferation.

At a town hall meeting held in March, Trump told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he “would rather see Japan having some form of defense, and maybe even offense, against North Korea.” Stating that nuclear proliferation by countries like Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia was “only a matter of time,” Trump proposed multilateral armament as a means of reducing the burden of regional security on U.S. armed forces.

This shocking deviation from precedent explains why China’s government and its media will default to support for noted China-hawk Hillary Clinton . The Chinese public is somewhat familiar with Donald Trump, but primarily as an entertainer and as a businessman, while public disdain for Hillary Clinton as a politician remains. But those sentiments are baked in , and Clinton presents to Chinese politicians an undeniably superior alternative to Trump’s loose cannon: a known entity with predictable behavior who will maintain the current tenor of bilateral diplomatic dialogue.

Clinton will rebuild U.S.-China relations over time. Jennings 16 — Ralph Jennings, Contributor to Forbes covering Taiwan and Asia, 2016 (“Fights With China Loom If Hillary Clinton Elected President,” Forbes, June 23rd, Available Online at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2016/06/23/fights-with-china-inevitable-if-hillary- clinton-elected-president/#29ee5d246bed, Accessed 07-04-2016)

But after a year or two Sino-U.S. relations would probably pick up again under a Clinton presidency. China will find her predictable and her policies consistent with Obama’s , analysts believe. Each side knows that a real war , cold or hot, would hurt the economic interests of each. “ From the start there might be a break-in period,” Zhao says. “After they get used to each other, then they would pay more attention to relations and handle things in a sober way. To argue, I think, is a normal situation, but if they consider interests and mostly economic interests, China and the United States will be more rational.” * Zhao = Zhao Xijun, deputy dean of the school of finance at Renmin University in Beijing

***AFF*** ***Uniqueness*** Trump Wins Trump Win---General FBI and emails case swings the election for Trump—issues of national security come first in a general election and Hillary seems unfit for the job Horowitz, 7/7 (David, one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts, Horowitz is founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center (formerly the Center for the Study of Popular Culture) and author of many books and pamphlets published over the last twenty years, July 7, 2016 , “WHY TRUMP WILL WIN IN NOVEMBER,” Frontpage Mag, http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/263421/why-trump-will-win-november- david-horowitz)

In elections generally - but this one in particular - things are not always what they seem. Take the apparent exculpation of Hillary by FBI director James Comey. The Democrats responded with a statement that the issue had now been “resolved” because the target had not been indicted. But not so fast. The failure to indict was not an exoneration, and what the public witnessed - the secret meeting between the head of Justice and the target’s husband, the job offer to her would-be prosecutor, and the FBI’s dossier of her misdeeds – was in effect a second trial, and it came with a conviction. The former Secretary of State had lied to Congress and the public, and not about private matters like sexual escapades with interns. She had lied about national security matters, and was reckless in handling secrets that affect the safety of all Americans. Worse, the fact she appeared to be getting away with a serious crime was a dramatic confirmation of Trump’s campaign narrative: the system is corrupt, the fix is in, I will change all this. The Comey episode also turned a lot of Republican heads – most notably Paul Ryan’s – that had been openly skeptical of Trump’s candidacy, and lukewarm in endorsing his campaign. Until that moment, the failure of some Republicans to rally behind the Republican nominee, indeed to refrain from seconding Democrat attacks, has been the chief weakness of Trump’s candidacy. When Trump objected to an obviously biased judge – a member of “La Raza” and opponent of securing the border – Ryan and other Republicans joined the Democrats in the ludicrous charge that Trump was a racist. (What Republican candidate in the last thirty years have the Democrats not slandered as racist?) But Ryan is not attacking Trump now. Instead he is calling on officials to remove Hillary’s security clearance – a strong signal to voters that she is not fit to be commander-in-chief, and a powerful reinforcement of Trump’s campaign theme. At the moment, Trump is in a virtual dead heat with Hillary, which is remarkable considering the slanderous attacks on his character not only by Democrats but by the chorus of #NeverTrump Republicans who have also called him a sexist and xenophobe, and have compared him to Mussolini and Hitler. These negatives have hurt him but will ultimately fail for the same reason that the anti-Trump attacks in the primary failed. Trump is not an unknown quantity. He has been in front of the American public for thirty or forty years. Nothing in the public record would validate the charge Trump is a racist, let alone Hitler. Consequently these negatives are unlikely to over-ride the actual issues when voters make the judgments that will determine the election. At the same time, the obviousness of the slanders merely serves to confirm Trump’s narrative that corrupt elites fear him and will do anything to prevent him from upsetting their applecarts. The reason Trump will win in November is that national security is at the top of voter concerns and Trump has been a strong advocate on this front. Beginning with his promise to build a wall, made national security issues – vetting Syrian Muslim refugees, rebuilding the military, “bombing the sh-t” out of ISIS and naming the enemy – have been centerpieces of his campaign. Of course he has also had help from the terrorists who carried out the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino and Orlando, and from a feckless Obama who refuses to recognize the Islamist threat. But so did Mitt Romney, who had Benghazi and Fort Hood and the same feckless commander-in-chief to work with. Romney, however, chose not to do so. He took the war issue off the table when he embraced Obama’s foreign policy in the third presidential debate and never tried to make it central again. Since World War II no Republican has won the popular vote in a presidential election where national security has not been a primary issue. The one seeming exception is Bush’s victory in 2000. But Bush did not win the popular vote even though he was able to get the necessary majority in the electoral college. In this election, Trump has instinctively seized the high ground on national security. He has put the disasters of Obama’s Middle East retreats front and center, and s challenged the crippling denial of the commander- in-chief and his failure to take appropriate measures to defeat our enemies at home and abroad. Thanks to nearly eight years of a party in power that refuses to secure our borders and is more interested in disarming law-abiding Americans than confronting the terror threat in our midst, national security is now a primary issue on the minds of all Americans. Donald Trump speaks to those concerns in a way that the damaged and compromised Hillary cannot. Her fingerprints are all over the disastrous Obama policies in the Middle East. National security is an issue that crosses party lines and also gender lines. Even more important, it is an issue that unifies the Republican coalition, whose current disunity is Trump’s greatest weakness. With the fallout from Hillary’s server fail as a backdrop, Trump should be able to bring his party together at the upcoming convention, and go on to secure a victory in November.

Be skeptical of the negative’s evidence—it doesn’t take into account the fact that many Trump supporters don’t get polled but are very likely to turn out—the analogy is Brexit Wang, 6/28 (Christine, News Associate, “Trump may win, as supporters may be underrepresented in polls, UK's Farage says,” 28 Jun 2016, CNBC, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/28/trump-may-win-as-supporters-may-be-underrepresented- in-polls-uks-farage-says.html) Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K. Independence Party, said he sees New York businessman Donald Trump winning the U.S. presidential election this November. "I sense he may well will win it because he may well get people voting that haven't voted for years," Farage told CNBC's "Power Lunch" on Tuesday. The British politician qualified his comments, saying that the U.S. is a "different country" with "broadly different issues" than the U.K. Farage said, however, that Trump supporters may be underrepresented by pollsters in the same way that they failed to capture the scale of the leave campaign. Despite markets and polls projecting that Britons would vote to stay in the European Union, they ultimately voted last week to leave. Farage and his party were vocal proponents of a Brexit. The UKIP leader said that these predictions fail to account for people responding to pollsters in a way that doesn't accurately reflect their views or future behavior. "There's kind of this consensus that has made people feel slightly embarrassed, ashamed to be patriotic, to believe we should control immigration and so when pollsters ring them, they tend to shy away a little bit," Farage said.

Trump still has a chance Silver 6-29-16 (Nate Silver, 6-29-16, Donald Trump Has A 20 Percent Chance Of Becoming President, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/donald-trump-has-a-20-percent-chance-of- becoming-president/, American statistician and writer who analyzes elections. He is currently the editor-in-chief of FiveThirtyEight blog and a Special Correspondent for ABC News. Silver successfully called the outcomes in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election, he was named one of The World's 100 Most Influential People)

A 20 percent or 25 percent chance of Trump winning is an awfully long way from 2 percent, or 0.02 percent. It’s a real chance : about the same chance that the visiting team has when it trails by a run in the top of the eighth inning in a Major League Baseball game. If you’ve been following politics or sports over the past couple of years, I hope it’s been imprinted onto your brain that those purported long shots — sometimes much longer shots than Trump — sometimes come through. Trump Win---Independents

Trump is winning the independent vote—his choice of a VP who unites the republican voters will clinch the election for him Hipp, 7/11 (Van, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Army. He is the author of the newly released book, "The New Terrorism: How to Fight It and Defeat It.," July 11, 2016, FoxNews.com, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/11/why-right-vice-presidential-pick- will-help-trump-win-white-house.html)

Donald Trump is winning the independent vote. Yes, you heard that right. Most polls now show that independents are breaking for Donald Trump. Thus, if he can get close to the same amount of Republican support as Hillary Clinton enjoys from Democrats, he’s got a real shot to be the 45th president of the United States. Usually a vice presidential pick goes to someone who can help their party's nominee with the key swing states on the electoral map or perhaps, help with a particular demographic group. In Trump’s case he is very competitive in most key swing states and again, he is winning with independent voters. What Trump needs is a VP running mate who can bring the GOP base home and increase his vote with the rank and file Republican electorate. Trump has also shared with us the key qualities he is looking for in a running mate. Former Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, who now advises the Trump campaign, says the blue collar billionaire wants a running mate who understands terrorism and the economy, and who is also capable of getting things done on Capitol Hill. Combine all of this with the recent Department of Justice (DOJ) decision to not prosecute Hillary Clinton and we have a good idea of the specific qualities that a GOP VP nominee should possess in order to maximize Trump’s chances for victory in the fall. Now, let's take a deeper look at all of this: 1. Donald Trump needs a VP running mate who can increase his percentage of support from Republican voters. In Trump’s case, he doesn’t need a VP running mate who can deliver a big state. He needs a running mate who can bring the Republican base home and increase his voter share in all swing states and throughout the country. 2. Trump needs a VP running mate who can prosecute the case against Hillary Clinton to the American people, a task which the government failed to do. Here, Trump needs a seasoned professional and articulate speaker who has command of the facts and a historical understanding of past similar cases. 3. The GOP VP nominee must have a thorough understanding of national security and foreign policy. Keeping America safe is the foremost responsibility of a commander-in-chief. A vice president who is experienced on national security and foreign policy will complement Trump’s instincts to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. 4. The running mate should be a skilled debater who doesn’t require a “learn-up curve” to get up to speed on critical issues, such as the economy. 5. As Trump himself has said, his VP pick has got to be someone who can get things done in Washington and work with Congress to make things happen. In short, he has got to be someone with the ability to make a dysfunctional government work. Now let’s take a look at how each potential VP pick on Trump's list can help him win the presidency. (I should note that Senators Bob Corker and Joni Ernst have pretty much taken themselves out of consideration and Senator Tom Cotton says he’s not being vetted.) The following are generally considered to be on Trump’s short list: Chris Christie. The New Jersey Governor is probably more like Trump than any of the other potential VP options. His “no nonsense” style resonates with the “silent majority” who are fed up with Washington. As a former U.S. attorney, he would be very effective in prosecuting the case against Hillary Clinton to the American people. Jeff Sessions: The Alabama Senator has a strong command of national security issues, stemming from his years of service as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. No one in the Senate has a better understanding of how to deal with illegal immigration and secure U.S. borders, issues which resonate with the Republican base and helped to propel Trump to the nomination, than Sen. Sessions. As a former U.S. attorney and Alabama State Attorney General, he would also be effective in prosecuting the case against Hillary Clinton. General Mike Flynn: The retired Army Lieutenant General and former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has a real command of national security and what it would take to defeat the global jihadist network. While he may be a dark horse VP candidate, Trump genuinely likes the retired general who has offered his strategic national security advice. Interestingly, Gen. Flynn has a keen understanding of data analytics and technology from his days at DIA. At the very least, Trump should turn Gen. Flynn lose on the RNC to make sure that the GOP has the very best “get out the vote” (GOTV) technology platform and data analytics available to ensure a maximum turnout of the GOP faithful. Mike Pence: The Indiana governor plays well in the Rust Belt, is a former member of the U.S. House of Representatives where he served as chairman of the House Republican Conference, and knows how to get things done in Congress. An evangelical Christian, he resonates with traditional conservatives and evangelicals who are crucial to a GOP victory in the fall. Newt Gingrich: There is a reason why those attending the recent Trump rally in Ohio erupted into cheers of “Newt, Newt” and the former Speaker of the House won the non- scientific “Drudge Report” VP poll. The grassroots and party activists love him. The man who engineered the “Contract with America” and helped produce America’s first balanced budget since man first walked on the moon, checks many boxes for Trump, the most important for victory being, he drives up the GOP base vote for the ticket. Many traditional Republicans who are not fans of Trump’s either got their start through Gingrich or see him as a political mentor. Ohio Governor John Kasich was selected by Gingrich to be the House Budget Committee Chairman during the 1990s and former New York Governor George Pataki, like so many Republicans and conservative activists, started listening to Newt Gingrich GOPAC tapes in the early 1980s. An articulate debater, there would be no “learn-up curve” for the historian and the Trump campaign could learn much from him. Trump Win---LL Trump win is likely---momentum, expectation, and anti-Trump bias Graham, 7-22 – David A. Graham, staff writer at The Atlantic, 7-22-2016, “Do Republicans Think They Can Win?”, Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/do- republicans-think-that-trump-can-win/492515/

It turns out that asking people who they think will win an election, rather than who they want to win it, is a more reliable predictor of the victor. So I started asking delegates on Thursday whether they thought Trump could actually win. It turns out that the views are as divided as the fractious convention. But with many of the most pessimistic figures staying home—or having left in disgust or resignation by the time Thursday night rolled around—every delegate I asked was at least willing to entertain the notion of a Trump victory. Some delegates dismissed the dire predictions of data crunchers , in effect putting their faith in the Silent Majority—the fabled group that Richard Nixon coined and Trump revived—to put the nominee over the top. “ He’s gonna win by a landslide,” said Bob Hayssen , a New York delegate who was decked out in Trump regalia. “ There are millions of people out there that are afraid to admit they’re going to vote for Donald Trump.” But that’s not because there’s anything wrong with Trump, he said: “They’re going to get bashed by their liberal friends!” That wasn’t a problem for Hayssen, who showed me a picture of the tableau in his yard: 10 Trump signs, a cinderblock centerpiece, and a concrete Rottweiler he’d dubbed Lyin’ Ted. “I get bashed ever day, but I’m not a bashful guy,” he said. Carolyn Shinkle, attending the convention from staunchly liberal Massachusetts, expected a similar phenomenon. “I think he can win, definitely,” she said. “There are many people who don’t want to, for various reasons, say they’re voting for Trump.” Unlike Hayssen, she foresaw a tight election, but watching Trump roll through the primaries had given her faith in his ability to win. Kay Rendleman, an alternate delegate from Colorado, was similarly impressed by his primary performance. “I think he has a good shot because he’s defied the odds,” she said. “He tapped into a lot of frustration with government encroachment into every area of our lives.” Despite generally harsh reviews from the media, Texas delegate Ann Kate said the convention had gone a long way toward reassuring her, and she believed he had a chance to beat the predictions in November. “I’m more convinced than ever that I can vote for him,” she said. “He wasn’t first choice, or—he was pretty far down the list. Even my husband, who said I could never vote for him, today said, ‘Well, maybe ...’” Conventioneers are split between political professionals and those for whom politics is an important, passionate avocation. Among the attendees who work in politics and policy, there were somewhat more tempered expectations. The Republican National Convention was by any measure a negative convention, centered largely on attacking Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Some delegates acknowledged that while Trump could win the election, he’d need some help from Clinton. “I think he could,” said Leo Smith, the strategic voter-engagement director for the Georgia GOP. “The fact that he’s competing against Hillary is his biggest chance.” Smith laid out a three-point plan for how Trump could get over the top: Unify the party, staff up properly, and develop a strategy to engage voters. But those were all things that were meant to happen either well before or during the convention. Trump Win---Rust Belt White Dudes Trump wins---voter turn-out, rust belt strategy, and momentum Rosenmann, 7-21 – Alexandra Rosenmann, AlterNet associate editor, 7-21-2016, “Michael Moore Gives 5 Scary Reasons Why Trump Will Win”, http://www.alternet.org/election- 2016/michael-moores-5-reasons-why-trump-will-win

Despite his "sh*t show" of a campaign, no one can doubt Trump's momentum; especially not liberal filmmaker Michael Moore, who, for months, has urged mainstream media not to underestimate Donald Trump. Though he may get no pleasure from being right, Moore told Business Insider in December 2015 that “Donald Trump is absolutely going to be the Republican candidate for president of the United States.” And last night, returning to "Real Time With Bill Maher," Moore made another terrifying prediction. "I'm sorry to be the buzzkill... but I think Trump is gonna win," Moore told host Bill Maher. According to the filmmaker, here's why: 1. The Rust Belt /Brexit Strategy "Mitt Romney lost by 64 electoral votes. The total votes of [Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ]... 64," Moore told Maher. " All he has to do is win those four states." 2. The Trump Family Trump's main surrogates—his own family—have become Republican National Convention superstars , and their testimonials really cause voters to consider, "well if he raised them, he can't be so bad, right?" Moore points out that the family members are not really looking like the "hostages" liberal voters might have thought they would. In fact, " between [Melania] and the children, none of them have offerered any of the sort of anecdotes that you would expect," Moore pointed out. 3. Make America Great Again? How About Just Reality Television Moore believes Trump doesn't even want to be in the White House; that he'll give it to Mike Pence and his children after buying an estate in Fairfax. "The thing that we're describing... 'Make America Great Again'... He's gonna turn his presidency into a reality show ; a literal reality show. But if I say that, millions are gonna go, 'F*ck yea,'" Moore said. 4. Angry White Men Vote While statistically Trump needs as many as seven out of 10 white guys to win the presidency, Moore insists that angry white men are incredibly dependable when it comes to voting. "White men over 35 are only 19 percent of the country, but that's 40 million voters, and I'm telling you they're going to be out there [ at the polls ]," Moore said. 5. The Two Sides Don't Even Talk Anymore It's worth investigating the yearlong conundrum of why poor, middle-American voters identify so well with an ego-centric real estate mogul from New York. "When you say he hasn't read a book in his adult life, you've just described the majority of Americans. Get out of your bubble, everybody!" Moore urged. Trump Win---Unconventional Trump wins---reject traditional prediction methods---they can’t price in new voters from Trump’s unconventional strategy Drehle, 7-21 – David Von Drehle, Time, 7-21-2016, "Donald Trump’s Big Convention Gamble Could Shock Hillary Clinton", Fortune, http://fortune.com/2016/07/21/donald-trump-big- convention-gamble-could-shock-hillary-clinton/

With its screaming matches, plagiarism and washed-up celebrities, the Republican convention has been called a “train wreck,” a “fiasco,” a “carnival,” a “ nuclear dumpster fire ”—you get the idea. But Donald Trump appears to be delighted. And this single fact is a key to understanding Trump’s shockingly original strategy. Political professionals and pundits see chaos and think bad. Trump sees chaos and thinks interesting. And he believes he can win the White House by making this election interesting to legions of Americans who don’t normally vote. This is tangling the political class in knots. Every mode of measuring political success is based on what has worked in the past. By definition, that leaves out radically new ideas for activating previously inert voters. Reporters can count the number of staff members in each state, and add up the dollars spent on traditional advertising, and study the polls—which are built, after all, on estimates of “likely” voter turnout. And despite that effort , they would not see a wave building , beyond the horizon, where there has only been desert in the past. If non-voters enjoyed perfectly choreographed conventions and thrummed to displays of party unity, they would not be non-voters, would they? This is Trump’s insight, as simple as it is befuddling to the political industry: Non-voters are, almost by definition, turned off by anodyne speeches and phony bonhomie. So what might grab their attention? A prime time reality television show might do it. A show in which a rich and good-looking family— replete with soap-operatic relationships, the kids of the first wife alongside the child of the second wife, looking not much younger than the super-model third wife—experiences the ups and downs and twists and turns of an eccentric dad’s presidential campaign. That’s what the nation has been watching this week. Every day has its discombobulating drama, and every night ends on a new cliffhanger. Story lines and character development spill over into social media, while characters frequently face the camera to comment on the unfolding story. Elements of WWE have been salted into the mix, as well. On Wednesday night, for example, Trump—who had already entered the arena on Monday backlit in a cloud of dry ice smoke—stalked into the middle of the proceedings precisely as the crowd was jeering his old nemesis, Ted Cruz. John Cena himself could not have done it better, and if you’re surprised to find Cena in a story about presidential politics, that is precisely Trump’s point. This isn’t an analogy. It’s a huge gamble on the first truly 21st Century campaign. Technology has given exhibitionists and promoters the means to connect with large audiences and create in them a sense—largely unreal—that they are personally involved in the promoter’s life. There is an intimacy and emotional investment that works on the level of drama , and it hooks people who aren’t connected to politics as previously practiced. The goal is to connect with citizens who weren’t on the radar: and Trump has been succeeding, according to the RAND Corporation. In an innovative survey taken this spring, RAND found that respondents who agreed with the idea that “ people like me don’t have any say” were over 80 percent more likely to vote for Trump than for another Republican primary candidate. Donald Trump knows exactly how this works. He was the co-creator and star of the hit reality series “The Apprentice,” and once took a turn in the ring at a WWE extravaganza. Here in Cleveland, he had America keeping up with the Trumps all week. Watching the show, I’ve been thinking about an interview I had with Trump midway through the primary season, when he shared the outlines of this strategy. Even then, his instincts (which are his No. 1 political advantage) told him that he should not play the familiar game of micro- targeting blocs of voters in traditional swing states. He didn’t want to talk much about Ohio, Florida, or Iowa—the familiar battlegrounds where Democrat Hillary Clinton has deployed armies of campaign workers to crunch data and canvas households in search of likely supporters. Come November, Clinton’s operation will execute a massive and expensive effort will push these prospects to the polls. Trump preferred to talk about Electoral College treasures that he would dislodge from the Democratic column by capturing new audiences. New York, with its 29 electoral votes (more than 10 percent of the total needed for victory), has gone for Democrats since 1984. “Those are my people,” Trump said. “They know me.” Michigan, which adds another 16 votes, has been just as reliable for the Democrats. Trump predicted he would win the working class vote that once gave the state to Ronald Reagan. He ticked through Virginia and New Jersey; a staff member mentioned Pennsylvania and certain states in New England. In other settings, Trump has even promised to fight for California, the cornerstone of Democratic victories, where the already sizable gap between registered Democrats and registered Republicans has increased by a million people since 2012. To veteran political operatives, this kind of talk only deepens a widely shared feeling that Trump’s elevator might not go all the way to the penthouse. No less an authority than Karl Rove, architect of the most recent GOP presidential wins, believes that talk of competing in New York and California is ludicrous. Writing in the Wall Street Journal on July 21, Rove pleaded with Trump to focus the campaign’s resources on the usual battleground states. “The most precious asset any presidential candidate has is time,” Rove wrote. “Mr. Trump’s must be wisely invested in states that are on the bubble.” And polling data gives absolutely no sign that Trump is expanding the universe of voters. According to the Real Clear Politics running average of survey data, the Republican nominee currently has about 41 percent of the national electorate compared to 44 percent for Clinton, with similarly narrow margins in the battlegrounds. The Democratic strongholds appear unthreatened. This is persuasive— until it isn’t. Because the polls are designed to emphasize “likely” voters, they might be miss ing out on fans of Campaigning With The Trumps. Just as the experts all missed Trump’s rise to the nomination, the same experts could be wrong about his ability to invent a new way to win in November. The Trump way.

Trump will win – prefer our ev – media and polls consistently underestimate his strengths. MacLeod 5-27. [Andrew, visiting professor in the Policy Institute at Kings College London, "Donald Trump will win the US presidency by a landslide – don't underestimate him yet again" The Independent -- www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump- will-win-the-us-presidency-by-a-landslide-dont-underestimate-him-yet-again-a7051686.html]

Right from Trump’s first days on the campaign trail, those opposing Trump have radically underestimated the threat. The Huffington Post even put him on its entertainment page. It did not analyse the opposition accurately, and the threat grew. Over the past few months, the media moved from treating him like a joke to assuming that he would “fall after Super Tuesday”. He didn’t. Then they claimed that his comments on abortion would put a stop to him. They didn’t. Later, losing Wisconsin was supposed to be a turning point – but it certainly wasn’t. Eventually it was assumed that Cruz and Kasich would team up and force a brokered Convention. They didn't, and Trump has won the Republican nomination. Now the media, having failed to learn its lesson, says Trump will be caught out by his tax affairs, or will fail to “get out the vote”, or that the polls show that both Sanders or Clinton could beat him. The underestimation continues, and ignores the fact that this November, Americans aren’t just voting on the president. They are voting for the Senate, the House, many local governors, judges, prosecutors, sheriffs. Even though dog-catchers are no longer elected, many municipal positions are. Republicans will turn out to vote for all the other offices. While there, they will be faced with the choice of holding their nose and voting for Trump, or, one presumes, Hillary Clinton. Democrats are kidding themselves if they think Republicans opposed to his candidacy won’t vote for Trump when it comes down to the wire. Consider this: in the 2008 North Carolina Democratic primaries, 38 per cent of Clinton’s supporters said they’d vote for John McCain over Barack Obama and 12 per cent said they would not vote at all. When election day came around, most shifted their view and voted for Obama. The same shift is happening within the GOP now. Trump’s approval rating is rising. Republican anti-Trump forces are retreating like Napoleon from Moscow, leaving bodies in their wake. Opponents such as Paul Ryan are casting around to find reasons to support Trump . Winning and losing elections in America is not about pinching votes from the other team. It is getting your team out to vote. In the US, voter turnout hasn’t exceeded 60 per cent for nearly 50 years. In 1968, 60.7 per cent of eligible voters actually managed to drag themselves out of bed and exercise a right that people had fought and died for. In 1996, less than 50 per cent bothered turning up. Getting out your own voters is far easier, and far more important, than pinching votes from the other side. In both 2008 and 2012, Obama ran a massive “get out the vote” campaign, inspiring many first time voters with the promise of hope, change and making history by electing the first black man to the White House. Voter turnout in 2008 was the highest since 1968. Clinton, on the other hand, does not inspire that level of emotion. The so called “woman card” that she plays is not motivating women either. In the Iowa caucus, only 14 per cent of women under 30 voted for Hillary; in New Hampshire it was around 10 per cent. Young women went for the 'old white guy' – Bernie Sanders. Trump is accused of having a “woman problem”, but so does Clinton. Both Clinton and Trump are widely unpopular, but Trump has one advantage: he is inspiring first-time voters to turn out on polling day. Trump is gaining votes in the "rust belt" from people who would not normally vote Republican, or even vote at all. A recent poll even had Trump him behind Clinton, by only 0.3 per cent. His momentum is upward. Do you see where this is heading? Clinton will get fewer votes than Obama. Trump will get out far more first-time voters than the Republicans have ever achieved before, while regular Republican voters will hold their noses and punt for Trump. Unless the left stop dreaming up reasons for Trump to lose, and start campaigning like he might win, the 2016 election will be the landslide for Trump . Trump Win---A2: Kaine Kaine doesn’t help Clinton’s chances---boost in Virginia is statistically insignificant and won’t change the broader election Silver, 7-22 – Nate Silver, 7-22-2016, “Tim Kaine Wouldn’t Do Much to Help Clinton Win the Election”, FiveThirtyEight, http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tim-kaine-probably-wouldnt-win- clinton-the-election/

If Hillary Clinton chooses Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia as her running mate, as betting markets and journalists suspect, then in some ways, it ’s a dull story. Kaine has traditional credentials, having served as Virginia’s governor before joining the U.S. Senate. He’s young enough, at 58, that he could run for president himself in 2020 or 2024. He’s not especially liberal, but he’s no Blue Dog Democrat, either. He’s a white guy, although he speaks good Spanish. If Mike Pence is a “generic Republican,” then Kaine is a “generic Democrat.” The difference is that Kaine comes from a swing state, whereas Donald Trump would likely lose Pence’s home state, Indiana, only in a national landslide. If you’re going to pick someone from a swing state, is Virginia among the better options? And how much difference does the vice presidential nominee really make in his or her home state? Our previous research suggests that a v ice p residential pick adds about 2 percentage points to his party’s margin in his home state. So, for instance, if Clinton would otherwise win Virginia by 3 percentage points, her margin would theoretically increase to 5 points with Kaine on the ticket. Not all VP bonuses are created equal, of course; there’s some evidence that VP nominees chosen from less populous states (for instance, Joe Biden of Delaware or Sarah Palin of Alaska) make more difference than those picked from larger ones. But Kaine seems like a fairly typical case: Virginia is a medium-size state, and Kaine’s approval ratings there are solid but not spectacular. It actually takes quite a confluence of circumstances, though, for those 2 percentage points in one swing state to change the winner of the Electoral College. For Kaine to swing the election for Clinton, she’d have to be losing Virginia without him (otherwise he’d be superfluous) but not losing it by more than 2 percentage points (otherwise, he wouldn’t help enough). Likewise, she’d have to be losing the Electoral College without Virginia’s 13 electoral votes, but she’d need to have at least 257 from other states or Virginia wouldn’t make a big enough impact.1 What are the odds of all of that happening? About 1 chance in 140, according to our polls-only model, based on a set of simulations I ran early Friday afternoon. That translates into only about a 0.7 percent chance that a VP pick from Virginia would swing the election to Clinton. Trump Wins---Brexit Britain’s political situation holds many parallels to the US – Brexit is proof that Trump will win Lowrey 6/21/16 (Annie Lowrey reporter for New York Magazine, former Ney York Times reporter, “How Donald Trump Explains ‘Brexit’” New York Magazine, June 21st, available online at http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/how-donald-trump-explains-brexit.html, accessed 06-24-16 PAM)

Yet, in one recent poll of people who say they will definitely vote, the leaves have it, 49 percent to 48 percent. And among leave voters, 44 percent say that Brexit would have no effect on British jobs, and 45 percent say the effect would be good; only 3 percent of leave voters believe that the economy would actually weaken outside the European Union. With that last figure in mind, it's fair to question whether the average Brexit supporter is grounded in reality. It would be one thing to make a clear-eyed choice, accepting an economic hit based on a devotion to some larger political principle. But most pro-Brexit voters seem to live in a fantasy where bouncing from the EU will help the economy. That's troubling. This mass separation from reality also represents a parallel to what is going on with our strange, sad election in the U nited S tates. Both Donald Trump and Brexit have bubbled up during periods of slow-but-steady growth, high inequality, and wage stagnation — economic conditions that rankle voters but do not obsess them . In the U nited S tates, for the first time in a very long time, economic strife is not what is driving the polls. When you ask Americans what the most important problem facing the country is, economic concerns are still the most cited. Even so, a majority of respondents name something else — crime, drugs, guns, how the government is run — as the most important issue. Similarly , the econ omy is no longer Britons’ main concern . Right now, when asked what the most important issue facing the country is, they cite immigration, the National Health Service, and their relationship with Europe. The economy comes in fourth. In both cases, that seems to have left space for other concerns to override simple economic ones. (It seems to me there is a reason neither Brexit nor Trump really took hold in 2008 or 2010. You don’t try alternative medicines when you know you need surgery.) And in both cases, a sense of crisis around immigration, a deep sense of nationalism, and a distaste for elites and technocrats has taken hold . Let’s start with immigration. Among Republicans, Trump has tapped into a deep vein of anti-immigrant, pro-nativist sentiment, promising to seal the country’s borders and threatening to deport millions of people. Here’s one finding from Pew that suggests how his beliefs have translated into votes: "Among the vast majority of GOP voters who think that the growing number of newcomers to the U.S. 'threatens traditional American customs and values,' 59 percent have warm feelings toward Donald Trump – with 42 percent saying they feel very warmly toward him." Similarly, those voting for Brexit tend to worry about immigration making England less English, and about immigrants taking Britons’ jobs. “Citizens of regions where immigration is perceived as damaging are much more likely to vote for Brexit,” one study found. (I’ll note here that it is not obvious that leaving the European Union would do anything to tamp down on immigration, and that immigrants from the European Economic Area are a boon to the United Kingdom’s economy.) Immigration is certainly fair game for a policy debate, but beyond the legitimate questions there’s a dark underbelly to the anti-immigrant sentiment driving both the Donald’s astonishing rise in the United States and Brexit’s surprising success. Trump is openly xenophobic and racist, intentionally riling up his supporters in the worst ways and encouraging them to embrace and express their own bigotries. That's a dangerous road for any nation to start down. Some leaders of Brexit are openly xenophobic and racist and are using the same tactics. It makes fair-minded observers wonder what the real point is here: modest changes in immigration policy, or the rejection of the values that allow for a pluralistic society? Then there is the issue of antipathy toward elites. Trump is a rich and connected New Yorker , a Wharton grad, and the coddled inheritor of a real-estate fortune, sure. Nevertheless, with his middle finger raised to the Republican Establishment and to common standards of propriety, he has ridden a wave of distaste for the more buttoned-up masters of the universe. His voters are unusually likely to agree with statements like “It doesn’t really matter who you vote for because the rich control both political parties,” “Politics usually boils down to a struggle between the people and the powerful,” and “The system is stacked against people like me.” Similarly, the leave campaign has painted the remain campaign as urbane, out of touch , and beholden to a bunch of inept pencil pushers in Brussels, and has argued against trusting experts, elites, the powerful. “People in this country have had enough of experts,” said Michael Gove, the justice secretary and a leader of the leave movement, while appearing on Sky News. Leave voters are unusually likely to agree with statements like "To me, there isn't much difference between the major political parties in Britain,” “They are out of touch, and they don't fight for people like me," and “Britain's political parties, political institutions, and corporate powers are totally out of touch.” Now, they might have a point on some of that. But in both cases, this anti-elite sentiment seems to have morphed into a blithe anti-empiricism. (Numbers are only for technocrats these days, it seems.) The leave campaign’s headline economic argument is that the United Kingdom “sends” 350 million pounds, or half a billion dollars, a week to the European Union. This figure has been repeatedly and exhaustively debunked, yet it persists. Similarly — well, not entirely similarly — Trump’s policy proposals are the most banana-pants, math-challenged economic fantasy imaginable: He promises to pay off the national debt while also cutting taxes, insists a crippling trade war would help the economy, and so on. His supporters seem not to care. Be wary of political causes that are unfazed by facts that would seem to undercut their core assertions. Finally, the supporters of both Brexit and our presumptive GOP nominee feel a yen for national self- reliance. Many Britons are concerned that London has ceded too much sovereignty to Brussels, and believe that British laws should be made in Parliament. “ This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance for us to take back control of this country,” said Boris Johnson , the former mayor of London and current member of Parliament, campaigning for Brexit. The nationalist yen is more cancerous here. “ We're going to take our country back,” said Trump, campaigning for the presidency, making promises about global domination rather than a global partnership. But there's a reason that nations have, at the margins, ceded slivers of control to participate in larger economic and political alliances. Namely because they work, as measured by making us safer and more prosperous. None of these arguments are likely to convince a well-informed voter that either Brexit or electing Trump would be good for them in an economic sense. But in the case of Brexit (and the GOP base), they seem to be winning out. What’s the matter with East Anglia is that voters seem to be willing to trade away something real — their economic well-being — for things that are notional and even unrealistic: a more visceral desire to make England England again, to chasten the elites who brought on all this malaise, and to keep foreigners out. The Donald, for what it is worth, is on Team Leave. "Huh?" he said when The Hollywood Reporter asked him about it recently. The journalist interviewing him proceeded to explain what Brexit was to the candidate, who apparently was not familiar with it. "Oh yeah, I think they should leave,” Trump replied. Brexit and long term polling prove that Trump will win now – your evidence underestimates angry voters Hohmann 6/24/16 (James Hohmann 2016, National Political Correspondent — Washington, D.C. Washington Post, Accessed 06-24-16, "The Daily 202: Stop underestimating Trump. ‘Brexit’ vote shows why he can win.," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2016/06/24/daily-202- stop-underestimating-trump-brexit-vote-shows-why-he-can-win/576c89e9981b92a22d2dd3dc/ Aliesa Bahri)

THE BIG IDEA: Britain’s stunning vote to leave the European Union suggests that we’ve been seriously underestimating Donald Trump’s ability to win the presidential election. When you consider all his controversies and self-inflicted wounds over the past month, combined with how much he’s getting outspent on the airwaves in the battleground states, it is actually quite surprising that Trump and Hillary Clinton are so close in the polls. He’s holding his own, especially in the Rust Belt. The British campaign to exit the European Union (known as “Brexit”), like Trump’s, was fueled by grievance. Those agitating to cut off formal ties to the continent were less organized and less funded than those who wanted to stay connected, but that deficit didn’t matter in the end, because the energy was against the status quo. “They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy,” he elaborated in a statement. “Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.” -- In the short term, the impending fallout from Brexit will make the presumptive Democratic nominee look good. She advocated for Britain remaining in the union; Trump advocated for leaving. The markets are going to tank today, and this vote will set off a tsunami of repercussions that could meaningfully damage the global economy. People’s 401(k)’s might take a shellacking, and interest rates may spike. Any long-term benefits from breaking away will not be apparent until after the general election. British Prime Minister David Cameron resigned overnight, triggering political chaos and a succession battle. Scottish leaders are already saying they will push for a new referendum to secede from the U.K. --Read the latest on the Brexit earthquake on the Post's liveblog. -- Looking ahead to the fall, though, loud alarm bells should be going off inside Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters. Globally, there are strong tides of anti-establishment anger, nationalism and populism that bode poorly for the Secretary of State. “Trump’s slogan, ‘Make America Great Again,’ could easily have been adapted to the messaging of those in the ‘leave’ campaign,” Dan Balz writes from London . “That desire for a return to an earlier time — to make Britain great again — is expressed through the issue of control. Those who have pushed for Britain to leave the E.U. want to reclaim a measure of sovereignty by wresting power from the bureaucrats in Brussels. … They feel about the E.U. bureaucracy as tea party Republicans do about the federal government.” -- Trump still seems far more likely to lose than win, especially when you think about the Electoral College map. But the results across the pond spotlight five forces that could allow him to score an upset: 1. RESENTMENT OF ELITES Virtually every serious economist and “expert” warned of calamity if Britain left the E.U. These technocrats used to be respected arbiters whose judgments carried considerable weight. A majority of Brits, though, tuned them out this year. “People in this country have had enough of experts,” Michael Gove, a Conservative Party lawmaker who wanted to leave, said when he was challenged during a TV interview to name a credible economic authority who supported an E.U. exit. “I’m glad these organizations aren’t on my side.” Polls show a long-term trend of voters losing faith in experts and institutions. Surveys suggested that the British resented Barack Obama and other foreign leaders who strongly urged them to remain in a union that they did not feel was serving them. Forced to choose between their heads and their hearts, the Brits went with their hearts. 2. XENOPHOBIA Scapegoating immigrants worked. Polls show that fear of refugees and immigrants from the E.U.’s open borders was a top issue driving votes to leave. Here in the U.S. we talk a lot about how Trump has galvanized Latinos who have never voted before. This could cost him and the GOP dearly, but the flip side is that he’s activated a lot of angry white voters. There was a lot of media coverage in the past few days about how the nativist appeals might have gone too far and turned off some moderates in Britain. There were some over-the-top posters and claims about Turks and Syrians flooding the country. But they clearly proved more effective than detrimental: As a veteran of the George W. Bush White House puts it: Out: mass migration is an indispensable part of an open global economy. In: mass migration is the top threat to an open global economy. French Far Right leader Marine Le Pen, a vocal nativist, celebrated Brexit by changing her Twitter picture to the Union Jack: Victoire de la liberté ! Comme je le demande depuis des années, il faut maintenant le même référendum en France et dans les pays de l'UE MLP. 3. ISOLATIONISM Trump likes to describe his foreign policy as “America First,” even though it has been pointed out to him that this is the same catchphrase Charles Lindbergh used in the late 1930s when he was trying to stop the U.S. from assisting Britain in its war for national survival against the Nazis. Eyewitnesses said that the man who murdered Jo Cox, a British member of parliament and outspoken supporter of the Remain effort, shouted “Britain First” as he killed her last week.

Trump wants to scale back U.S. support for NATO and has suggested that he sees Eastern Europe as some kind of Russian sphere of influence. This scares the bejesus out of the Baltic States, such as Estonia, which are constantly at risk of being annexed by Vladimir Putin. The NATO alliance, like the EU, has been a bulwark of the post-World War II international system. This now threatens to unravel. The E.U. is plunging into an existential crisis. The 28-member union will splinter and significantly weaken, Anthony Faiola reports from Berlin and Michael Birnbaum reports from Brussels. Rick Noack in London looks at six countries that might now be emboldened to leave the E.U.: Sweden, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands, Hungary and France. Russian leaders are cheering the news, Andrew Roth reports from Moscow. 4. FLAWED POLLING Th e polls showed a neck-and-neck race, and surveys in the past few days showed movement in the direction of “Remain” after Cox’s murder. In the end, though, “Leave” prevailed by 4 points. Perhaps some voters who wanted to “Leave” were afraid to tell pollsters as much after the assassination? Are live-caller polls in the U.S. similarly underestimating Trump’s strength? We’ve written here about how Trump does better in online and automated phone polls than in those conducted by live human beings. It seems undeniable at this point that there is some number of Trump supporters out there who do not want to admit it in fashionable company. From the director of polling at the NRSC in the 2014 cycle: Polling implications of Trump will win because his situation is the same as British exit supporters – Trump-like nationalist rhetoric led to a victory. Belvedere 6/23/16 [Matthew J. Belvedere, writer at NBC, 2016, (“Angst behind Brexit push parallels Trump phenomenon in US: Economists,” NBC, June 23rd, http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/23/angst-behind-brexit-push-parallels-trump-phenomenon-in- us-british-economist.html,) accessed 6/24/16, WP]

The motivations of supporters in Britain for the country to leave the European Union are similar to those sparking the rise of Donald Trump in the United States, two economists told CNBC on Thursday, as Britons went to the polls to vote on the Brexit. "A lot of the rhetoric you're hearing in the U.K. in favor of leaving is very similar to the rhetoric you hear from Donald Trump and his supporters," Robert Hormats, a former Goldman Sachs International vice chairman, said on "Squawk Box." British economist Anatole Kaletsky told "Worldwide Exchange" in an earlier interview: " The general sense of angst ... it's very similar to the Trump phenomenon. Here, it's being taken out on the EU. And in America, it's being taken out on Muslims and Mexican immigrants ." "We can't totally assume Brexit is not going to win," added Hormats, who had served in the Hillary Clinton State Department as under secretary for economic growth. "This demonstrates the intensity of the nationalistic, xenophobic, anti-immigration feeling that exists in the U.K. [and] other parts of Europe, " he said. British supporters of the leave vote are more emotional than their stay counterparts , who staked out their position on economics, said Kaletsky, chief economist and co-chairman of Gavekal Dragonomics. Kaletsky said this week's prediction from billionaire investor George Soros that a leave victory could send the British currency 15 to 20 percent lower is "very realistic." The betting odds were favoring the stay camp by 80 percent to 20 percent , said Kaletsky. "If the odds turn out to be wrong, the loss [in the pound] should be about four times greater than the potential [5 percent stay] gain. You're looking at a fall of about 20 percent." The British economy and financial markets would suffer in the short term if the leave camp were to win, Kaletsky said. "The next two years would Hormats, currently vice chairman of consultancy Kissinger Associates. "This vote is a vote for divorce. The terms of divorce will take two, three, four, five, six [or] seven years to work out."be very bad." A Brexit win would spark "massive long-term uncertainty," agreed Brexit proves Trump win – radical nationalists including hidden working-class citizens will prove polls wrong. Weber 6/24/16 Pete Weber, writer at The Week, 2016, (“Why Brexit should scare anti-Trump Americans,” The Week, June 24th, http://theweek.com/articles/632118/why-brexit-should- scare-antitrump-americans) 6/24/16, WP

America has its own big decision coming up, and if you are a supporter of Trump, Britain's decisive vote to leave the EU is glad tidings, a ray of sunshine after a few weeks of soupy London fog. If you don't want Donald Trump to be president, the Brexit vote is a wake-up call. The first lesson Brexit has for anti-Trump America is that there's a potential majority out there that is angry, scared, and more than willing to jump into the abyss. Sober analysts and economists warned Britons repeatedly that pulling out of the EU would be an economic and security debacle. "They heard the warnings, listened to experts of every kind tell them that Brexit meant disaster, watched the prime minister as he urged them not to take a terrible risk," says Matthew d'Ancona at The Guardian. "And their answer was: Get stuffed." It wasn't young people giving the finger to the experts, either. According to a YouGov poll, support for exiting the EU steadily rose with each age bracket, from 75 percent of those aged 18 to 24 wanting to stay, versus 39 percent for those 65 and older. If older Britons are proving less risk-averse than the young, there's no reason to think America's most reliable voters are immune to change fever . In many ways, Hillary Clinton represents a continuation of President Obama's policies, and Donald Trump inarguably represents change. Great Britain is, technically, an island (or two), but the winds buffeting the U.K. don't stop at the water's edge. "The referendum came at a time when populist revolts against elites were gaining momentum, from Eurosceptic parties in France, Germany, Austria, and Scandinavia to Trump's brand of Republicanism in the U.S.," says The Guardian. "As ever," adds The New York Times, "referendums are not about the question asked but the political mood at the time, and the political mood is sour." The second big lesson Brexit has for Trump opponents is that nativism, anti-immigration fervor, and elite-bashing are potent tools , not to be underestimated. There was a definite flavor of "Make Britain Great Again" running through the Leave campaign, with Brexit proponents arguing that British sovereignty was being undermined by unelected elites in Brussels. One reason the referendum passed is the unexpectedly strong support of working-class Labour voters in northern England, the rough equivalent of midwestern Reagan Democrats, who don't believe they have benefitted from open markets and open borders. So "while leaders of the Leave campaign spoke earnestly about sovereignty and the supremacy of Parliament," says Steven Erlanger at The New York Times, "it was anxiety about immigration — membership in the European Union means freedom of movement and labor throughout the bloc — that defined and probably swung the campaign. " The Leave camp urged Britain to "take control" of its borders. Instead of Mexico, the Eurosceptics pointed an accusatory finger at Turkey, which hopes to join the EU. In the hands of the U.K. Independence Party and its leader Nigel Farage — whose success in the polls pressured Cameron to call for the referendum in the first place — that anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment was not infrequently called racism. The last red flag for those who don't want Trump to be president is that you can only trust the polls so much. Just about everybody who's anybody was in favor of staying in the EU — every living prime minister, the leader of Britain's two major parties, Obama and the leader of every other important ally, academics, business leaders, and celebrities — but a majority of everyone else said no. I mean, England ignored a plea from James Bond. The polls before the referendum were close, and tightening, but most Britons went to bed Thursday night with the expectation that they would still be a part of Europe when they woke up. If the best polls got it wrong, it's possible that Britons were telling pollsters what all the cool kids were saying, not how they intended to vote. The American elite — Obama, academics, business leaders, celebrities, and even a good number of Republican opinion and political leaders — are wary or hostile to the idea of a President Trump.

Analysts who said Brexit wouldn’t happen made the same mistake “Hillary will win” authors are making – they don’t take into account the strong emotions of Trump supporters.

Filger 16 Sheldon Filger, writer at The Huffington Post, 2016, (“Brexit Has Implications For Hillary Clinton And Donald Trump In Upcoming Presidential Election,” The Huffington Post, June 24th , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/brexit-has-implications-f_b_10654910.html) 6/24/16, WP

What has stunned observers about the outcome of the Brexit campaign is that the referendum’s result ran counter to what the analysts, supposed expert prognosticators and well-compensated pundits had so confidently predicted. The established experts had even convinced supporters of Brexit that they would likely lose the referendum, in the hours before actual voting occurred. That is why bourses across the globe soared, and the British pound reached record highs , until reality radically reversed those trends. The odds-makers clearly were convinced that British voters would choose to remain in the European Union. The actual, unpredicted outcome was an unmitigated defeat for the UK’s political establishment across the political spectrum, and that aspect has the greatest resonance with the battle between Clinton and Trump to succeed Barack Obama as America’s 45th President. Just as with the Brexit referendum, America’s own class of political consultants and expert commentators for months assessed Donald Trump’s presidential campaign to be a megalomaniacal joke, with no chance of prevailing in the Republican Party’s presidential Primary. When Trump emerged victorious in the GOP presidential selection process before Hillary Clinton had secured the Democratic Party’s nomination, the same experts, rather than being reflective and self-critical, have largely double- downed on failure , and remain steadfast in their prediction that Trump has no realistic possibility of winning November’s presidential election. Setting aside the occasional diatribes of Trump that tend to obfuscate a cogent analysis of his campaign’s actual strength, it is clear that the political dynamics that led to the stunning vote in the United Kingdom to exit the European Union are also at play in the U nited S tates, to the benefit of the real estate mogul. The British electorate revealed itself as being alienated from their nation’s political establishment, with public policy on immigration a crucial driving force in shaping attitudes prior to the Brexit vote. In the U.S. primary campaign, similar forms of disenchantment underpinned Trump’s ability to vanquish his GOP competitors. In November 2016 American voters will choose between one candidate being the quintessential representative of the discredited and abhorred political establishment, and the other candidate powerfully branded as the ultimate anti-establishment figure . The legion of America’s political experts who, despite evidence that the domestic electorate seeks change in 2016, remain fixed in their view that Trump cannot win, may prove, as with their British counterparts, to have been unduly confident in the validity of their political estimates on the mood of the voters.

Brexit proves that Trump and his isolationist agenda will win in 2016 Rahman and Enoch 6/24/16— Khaleda Rahman and Nick Enoch- Rahman is a reporter for Daily Mail and Mail Online; Enoch is also a reporter for both sources. 2016. ('Brexit is proof that Trump will be the next president': 'Anti-immigration' message and shift to the Right that led to UK's seismic break with Europe draws parallels with rise of The Donald’, Daily Mail, June 24 2016, Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3657782/Brexit-proof- Donald-Trump-president.html, Accessed 06/24/16, CAW)

As Donald Trump flew in to Scotland today after the UK's seismic break with the European Union, parallels have been drawn with the anti-immigration message that led to Brexit and his rise to presumptive Republican presidential candidate . Many have pointed out the similarities between Britain's decision to leave the EU and Trump's campaign - and believe it is an indication of how Americans will vote on November 8, which could see Trump in the White House. The Donald's arrival in the UK will be seen by many as a meeting of minds - two worlds colliding with shared views including a disgruntled electorate; lost national pride; isolationism; and the issue of immigration. However, he may not get the desired reception in Scotland: while voters in England and Wales swung the result for Leave, Scots voted overwhelmingly for remaining part of the EU. And today, he promised close ties between the U.S. and UK if he becomes President, saying: 'A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense'. 'Brexit is further proof that Donald J Trump will be the next President of the United States,' wrote Broderick Greer on Twitter. Paul Harris added that Americans should learn a lesson from the result in Britain. 'If you think Trump can't win you are lazy, complacent and very dangerous,' he warned. Arnivan Ghosh said Trump should look for tips from Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party who has spent 20 years campaigning to the country to leave the EU, on how to win with a 'divisive, anti- immigration' message. 'That Nigel dude is British Trump,' added Wanda Sykes. Huw James Collins added: 'The correlation of Trump enthusiasts delighting in the 'Leave' victory perfectly illuminates the roots of this debacle.' Others were concerned that the result will lend credence to Trump's nationalistic agenda and mean other nations turn to isolationist policies. 'Deeply concerned that #Brexit will cue other nations to recede into isolationism, and lend credence to #Trump's nativist agenda,' wrote Guy Wilson. Many have warned that this nationalist drive now sets the world stage for a Donald Trump presidency. In an op-ed for the LA Times, London School of Economics fellow Brian Klaas and Marcel Dirsus, a lecturer at the University of Kiel in Germany, compare Brexit voters to 'Trump supporters sporting "Make America Great Again" hats' who 'believe they have lost too much for too long'. 'Their complaint is understandable,' they write. 'But turning inward will only make their problems worse and the world more dangerous. 'Britain narrowly succumbed to isolationist populism Thursday. Let’s hope Americans don’t make the same mistake by voting for a Trump presidency come November.' Meanwhile, BBC World News anchor Katty Kay, an English journalist now based in Washington, said that if ‘disgruntlement, nationalism, populism and anti-globalization’ are enough to force a radical move in the UK, then it could be the same in the United States. She highlighted five reasons why Brexit could mean the billionaire businessman winning the White House in November: an angry electorate, globalization, immigration, lost pride and populism. ‘The two most surprising political phenomena of this year have been the rise of Donald Trump and the success of the Leave Europe camp in Britain’s referendum on Brexit,’ she wrote in an article published earlier this week. Kay notes that few pundits saw either coming, including herself, but believes the result in Britain could indicate how America votes in the November 8 election. She compared Donald Trump’s tactic of tapping into the angry electorate with Boris Johnson, the former Mayor of London who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU. ‘Mr Johnson promises Brits a better deal if they throw off the onerous yoke of EU regulations. Mr Trump promises Americans a better deal if they put him in the White House.’

Brixit’s decision shows anti-immigrant, anti-globalization, disgruntlement, nationalism, and populism are strong- Proves Trump will win the election Kay 6/20/16— Katty Kay, Kay is the lead anchor and writer for BBC News America, is a board member of the IWMF, and studied at Oxford. 2016 (“Five reasons Brexit could signal Trump winning the White House”, BBC News, June 20 2016, Available online at http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36564808, accessed 06/24/16, CAW)

The two most surprising political phenomena of this year have been the rise of Donald Trump and the success of the Leave Europe camp in Britain's referendum on Brexit. Few pundits saw either coming (and full disclosure, I include myself here, particularly on Trump) - but we should have and now would be a good chance to make up for past oversight by looking at how the two are linked. This week, polls suggest, Britain may pull out of the European Union. Opinion polls currently have the 23 June referendum too close to call but the Brexit camp (those in favour of the UK splitting from the EU) has been inching ahead in recent weeks. Later this year, Americans will decide whether to elect Donald Trump as the 45th US President, or Hillary Clinton. Opinion polls also suggest this race is close, though with five months to go, those polls aren't terribly instructive yet. Yet the result next week in Britain could give us some indication of how Americans will vote in November. Here's five reasons why. Angry electorate Donald Trump and Boris Johnson , the leader of the Leave campaign, have tapped into a similar public mood of disgruntlement. On both sides of the Atlantic, a lot of people feel they've been handed a bad deal. In the UK, it's European bureaucrats in Brussels who are to blame. In the US, it's elected politicians in Washington who are held responsible. Mr Johnson promises Brits a better deal if they throw off the onerous yoke of EU regulations. Mr Trump promises Americans a better deal if they put him in the White House. Globalisation The forces of globalisation are causing havoc for European workers as they are for American workers. If you are a white working class man (in particular) the combined effects of immigration, free trade and technology have made your job and your wages less secure. Policy makers in the UK and the US have singularly failed to address these issues in any meaningful way. If the Brexit camp wins next week it could suggest the global anti-globalisation mood (if such a thing is possible) is stronger than we realised. Immigration Immigration deserves its own category because it is so critical in both campaigns. Economists argue about the relative impact of immigrants versus robots on wage stagnation - voters don't care much. They blame immigrants. It's easier to get mad at a person from Macedonia or Mexico, taking your job than it is to get mad at a piece of technology from Silicon Valley. In both countries, governments haven't handled immigration well. America tried and failed to implement immigration reform and the country's Southern border remains porous (though to be fair, more people are using it to go south not north at the moment.) Like its European partner, the British government is caught in the nightmare story that is the European migrant/refugee crisis, with no effective response. Lost pride The complicated feeling of having had a bad deal has created an insidious spin off, a sense of broken pride, both national and personal. Working men, in particular, face a world they did not expect, jobs are hard to find and pay badly meaning they often can't provide single-handedly for their families, as their fathers and grandfathers did. That alone causes a loss of pride. In the US it is also linked to a loss of national pride through a sentiment among Trump supporters that President Obama has diminished the reputation of America by going on what they refer to as his "global apology tour." For Brits the loss of national pride comes from a feeling that British sovereignty has been given away to Brussels and if we leave the EU, we will be stronger, better, more respected. Populism And, finally, populism loves simplicity, especially, it seems, when it's dressed up with an impressively wacky hair do. Boris Johnson and Donald Trump appeal to the heart not the head, they offer simple solutions in a time of complex problems. It's an appealing message. Think about the complicated consequences later, the thinking seems to go, for now protesting the status quo feels like a good start. A victory for Brexit next week by no means guarantees a Trump victory in the autumn. However, if the forces of disgruntlement, nationalism, populism and anti-globalisation are strong enough to force a radical move in the UK, they may be strong enough to force a radical election in America too. Yes Trump – Turn Out Hillary portrayal as inevitable causes a “Brexit-like” situation where voters stay home leading to a Trump victory Belluz 6/24/16 (Julia Belluz, senior health correspondent, writer for VOX, 2016 (UK students: we woke up feeling betrayed this morning, VOX, June 24th, available online at http://www.vox.com/2016/6/24/12023548/brexit-youth-voters-wanted-britain-remain accessed 06-24-16 PAM)

Aside from concern and confusion about the future, the students were surprised that Brexit could be real — and had words of caution for America. " I was so , so sure it wouldn’t happen ," Rothwell said. "I was 100 percent sure." Walking through campus, Rothwell ran into a fellow student who admitted to being so wrapped up in exams that she didn’t vote — and now she’ll have to live with a decision that tilted against her preference to remain. Rothwell added: "Imagine a world where Boris Johnson and Donald Trump are making the most important political decisions." Johnson is London’s former mayor, who helped lead the "Leave" campaign after seeing a political opportunity to capitalize on a disillusioned electorate. He, along with UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, promised a return to a truly great and free Britain. If all this sounds familiar for Americans, the students did not miss the parallels either. And they advised Americans who are concerned about Trump not to be complacent in the upcoming US election. "In Oxford especially, there’s this liberal atmosphere. You’re surrounded by so many like-minded people you forget there’s an outside world ," said Winn. " But especially in working-class communities, the Leave campaign was very popular . You do forget that being in an environment like this. " The words should ripple like a cautionary tale across the Atlantic , added Lennard. " I have about 2,000 friends on Facebook — and all but three were voting ‘Remain.’ That tells you what kind of bubble you can live in, and how you can delude yourself it’s going to go one way and then it doesn’t. " Lennard is, in particular, concerned about the rise of a violent right-wing electorate in his country. "Just as Trump is coming to his rise in the US, saying all these things about building a wall, politicians here have been saying similar things. And we all thought — ‘You can’t say that, that won’t appeal to British voters.’ But clearly it did ."Correction: Lennard misstated the number of friends on his Facebook account.

Dems will lose – turn out gap. Goldmacher 5-17-16. [Shane, senior political correspondent for the National Journal, "Donald Trump Is Not Expanding the GOP" Politico -- www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-polling-turnout-early-voting-data-213897]

Any way it’s sliced, the historic primary turnout of 2016 is good news for the GOP. It is a sign, as it was for Democrats in 2008 when the Clinton-Obama contest shattered old turnout records, of energy and enthusiasm that can often be translated into volunteer hours and campaign cash. And Democrats this year, despite the surprisingly close contest between Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are far below their previous turnout highs—raising the specter of a problematic enthusiasm gap this fall. “The Republicans have tremendous energy. The Democrats don’t,” Trump bragged at Mar-a-Lago as the primary results rolled in on March 1, Super Tuesday. “They don’t have any energy. Their numbers are down. Our numbers are through the roof.”

Yes Trump– Hills Weaknesses

Trump will win – Hillary’s weaknesses outweigh. Al-Gharbi 5-29-16. [Musa, Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University, "We may be just this screwed: Donald Trump has an easier path to victory than you think" Salon -- www.salon.com/2016/05/29/we_may_be_just_this_screwed_donald_trump_has_an_easier_path_to_victory_than_you_think/]

As the 2016 presidential primaries got underway, there seemed to be several incontrovertible truths: Hillary Clinton’s nomination was inevitable, and Donald Trump stood no chance. Yet, here we are six months before the election, and Trump has seized the Republican nomination while Clinton is still working to box out Bernie Sanders’ insurgency (without losing his voters, who it turns out, may peel off after all). Nonetheless, the prevailing narrative is that while there is now a chance that Trump could actually win in November, it’s basically Hillary Clinton’s election to lose. Pundits focus on “fundamentals,” like Hillary’s superior fundraising, analytics, or ground game; however, these haven’t proven terribly predictive this cycle. And by focusing on conventional elements, analysts seem to be overlooking novel dynamics which are likely more important —specifically, the public’s persistent and negative perception of Hillary Clinton, the incumbency handicap, and a phenomenon I call “negative intersectionality.” Change You Can Believe In Both Trump and Clinton hold historically unprecedented unfavorable ratings among likely voters. Of the two, Clinton has held a slight edge—however, the gap between them has been rapidly closing. And here’s the kicker: While it is true that the public is very familiar with both Trump and Clinton due to their decades-long careers in public life, Trump has been in the limelight primarily as a businessman and entertainer. People are just now discovering “Trump the politician”—and as a result, their views on Trump as a politician are malleable. The Clinton team views this as an opportunity, and are attempting to define him before he gets a chance to define himself. However, the flip side is that while Trump’s numbers are currently low, there is a real opportunity for him to radically change public perception for the better. And he has tasked Paul Manafort with this responsibility—a man who, after orchestrating Ronald Reagan’s landslide victories, went on to build a highly successful career rehabilitating the image of dictators and strongmen. He’s made for this job. Expect Trump’s numbers to rise. Hillary’s numbers are unlikely to follow the same trajectory—because not only do people know her well, but they know her specifically as a politician. It is precisely her perceived cynicism and duplicity as a politician that drive her unfavorable rating. Public opinion of Clinton has been on a steady decline since December 2012, and a brutal, negative campaign is unlikely to shift the numbers in her favor. In other words, Clinton will have a much harder time turning around her bad image than Trump. As an example, consider Trump’s “policy surrealism”: by the normal rules of the game, it should hurt him that he is constantly changing his mind, that he insists anything he says prior to the election should just be thought of as a “suggestion” rather than a position, etc. Why doesn’t this bother voters? Because his primary rival is Hillary Clinton. Clinton has been known to “evolve” frequently and dramatically as well. But the difference between them is that Hillary has very successfully framed herself as a policy wonk, and with the assistance of her large team of professional advisors, each new position she strikes is accompanied by a host of highly polished (if often unrealistic) policy proposals. However, this professionalism often proves as much of a curse as an asset: When Trump flip-flops, it seems like he is genuinely trying to work through these issues—he straightforwardly tells you what he feels at the moment, and changes his mind as he learns more, thinks more, etc. Clinton, on the other hand, is a veteran politician —as she herself constantly underscores—with a tightly controlled message. As a result, her position shifts seem more like cynical pandering. That is, in a sense, Trump’s evolutions actually make him seem more honest, while Clinton’s have the opposite effect. It’s somewhat unfair, because of course there is a clear element of pandering in Trump’s evolutions, and at least some of Clinton’s policy shifts may be the product of sincere changes in perspective, new information, more life-experience, changing circumstances, etc. But fair or not, this does seem to be the emerging dynamic of the race. Worse still, this avowed expertise, when paired with her modest and highly technical proposals, positions her as the consummate insider in an election cycle where people across the political spectrum seem hungry for a n anti-establishment revolution ary. And while the Clinton campaign is still trying to figure out how to best define Trump (most recently insisting that he is not a “normal” candidate, failing to understand that many voters will see this as a positive), her interlocutor has no such problems: “Crooked Hillary” is simple but effective, hitting her right where she’s weakest. Yes Trump – AT: Demographics

Demographics don’t doom Trump. Al-Gharbi 5-29-16. [Musa, Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at Columbia University, "We may be just this screwed: Donald Trump has an easier path to victory than you think" Salon -- www.salon.com/2016/05/29/we_may_be_just_this_screwed_donald_trump_has_an_easier_path_to_victory_than_you_think/]

Exacerbating this trend is something I call “negative intersectionality”: progressives have done a great job framing racial inequality, feminism and LGBTQ rights as part of the same basic struggle. However, this association works both ways. Accusations of misogyny, for instance, are often heard in the context of a fundamentally anti-white, anti-Christian culture war—a zero-sum campaign waged against ordinary hard-working Americans by condescending and politically correct liberal elites. As a result, many conservative white women who may be disturbed by Trump’s remarks would simultaneously feel antipathy toward liberals when they encounter a pro-Clinton ad that highlights those comments. Some may even come to view Trump more sympathetically if Democrats attempt to paint him as anti-woman or anti-minority. If Clinton thinks she can criticize Trump as a sexist without stirring up this broader resentment against liberals, she is in for a rude awakening. If she thinks there’s an alternative path to victory by largely writing off the white vote and leaning more heavily on the support of minorities, she’s probably wrong about that too: Clinton would simultaneously need massive turnout and near-unanimous support from minority groups to compensate for decreased support among white Americans. However, turnout has been low among Democrats in the primary . Moreover, Trump seems to be performing surprisingly well among minorities: Mitt Romney only garnered 6 percent of the black vote in 2012. However, this election is shaping up to be more competitive: nearly one-tenth of African-Americans view the Donald positively, with another 15 percent undecided. If even half of the latter group ultimately sides with Trump, or simply stays home on Election Day, Clinton loses. For her to win, African-American participation needs to at least match 2012 turnout, and Clinton must win roughly 90 percent of the black vote. Right now, it’s looking like she might fail on both counts . Perhaps more shocking: despite his anti-immigrant rhetoric, nearly one-quarter of Hispanics support Trump, with another 15 percent undecided— putting him on pace to possibly exceed Romney’s 2012 share (27 percent). One reason to suspect these dynamics might hold: positive intersectionality. Trump’s ambivalence on gay marriage, his opposition to the so-called “Bathroom Bills” in North Carolina and elsewhere, his consistent praise for Planned Parenthood, his commitment to loosening the Republican platform on abortion, and his openness to legalizing marijuana (which would have a huge and positive impact on people of color)— these will counteract depictions of him as a xenophobe or bigot among those who view these struggles as interconnected. In fact, Trump’s unorthodox positions, when paired with the public’s record distrust of mainstream media, may lead many to believe he is being unfairly maligned in the press. Polls Fail Polls empirically fail — Trump nomination, 2012 midterms, and Hillary’s loss in Indiana NYT 16 — The New York Times, 2016 (“The Republican Horse Race Is Over, and Journalism Lost,” Byline Jim Rutenberg, May 5th, Available Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/06/business/media/the-republican-horse-race-is-over-and- journalism-lost.html?_r=0, Accessed 7-21-16)

Wrong, wrong, wrong — to the very end, we got it wrong.

Just a couple of weeks ago, political prognosticators in television and print media w ere describing Indiana as the “most important test” for Donald J. Trump and a “firewall” where Ted Cruz “should do well.” It was one of those states Mr. Cruz could have used to force the likely — if not “guaranteed” — prospect of a contested convention in Cleveland, where, boy, were we in for a spectacular show.

Still more recently — as in Tuesday — the data journalist Nate Silver , who founded the FiveThirtyEight website, gave Hillary Clinton a 90 percent chance of beating Bernie Sanders in Indiana. Mr. Sanders won by a comfortable margin of about five percentage points .

You can continue to blame all the wrong calls this year on new challenges in telephone polling when so many Americans — especially the young — do not have landlines and are therefore hard to track down. Or you can blame the unpredictability of an angry and politically peripatetic electorate.

But in the end, you have to point the finger at national political journalism, which has too often lost sight of its primary directives in this election season: to help readers and viewers make sense of the presidential chaos; to reduce the confusion, not add to it; to resist the urge to put ratings, clicks and ad sales above the imperative of getting it right.

Every election cycle brings questionable news coverage. (Remember the potential president Herman Cain?) But this season has been truly spectacular in its failings. It has been “Dewey Defeats Truman” on a relentless, rolling basis. The mistakes piled up: the bad predictions, the overplaying of every slight development of the horse race to the point of whiplash, the lighthearted treatment of what turned out to be the most serious candidacy in the Republican field. The lessons learned did not.

Since Mr. Trump emerged as the likely Republican nominee on Wednesday, there has been a steady trickle of mea culpas from those — including Nate Cohn of The New York Times — who had declared Mr. Trump’s nomination was most likely a no-go, or who had pronounced big inflection points in which the Trump candidacy would go poof, or who had played up “pivotal states” that weren’t even close.

The good news is that with Mr. Trump heading for the general election, news organizations will get a second chance to rethink how they approach the race still to come and see how they can avoid the problems of the primaries. Though it seems as if Mr. Trump’s success came out of the blue, it didn’t. The first signs that something was amiss in the coverage of the Tea Party era actually surfaced in the 2014 midterms. Oh, you broadcast network newscast viewers didn’t know we had important elections with huge consequences for the governance of your country that year? You can be forgiven because the broadcast networks hardly covered them. They didn’t rate. No Trump, or anyone like him. (Boring!)

But here’s what happened. A conservative economics professor and political neophyte named David Brat decided he would challenge the House Republican majority leader Eric Cantor for his Virginia congressional seat. There were few Republicans more powerful than Mr. Cantor, so Mr. Brat’s bid seemed quixotic. Mr. Cantor’s own pollster released numbers days before the election showing a 34-point lead for the congressman, and the closest public poll showed Mr. Cantor up by 13 points.

When Mr. Cantor lost, headlines labeled it an “earthquake” and a “shocker.” And it was, for people who relied solely on polls . It was less so for reporters — like Jake Sherman of Politico, Jenna Portnoy and Robert Costa of The Washington Post and the staff at Breitbart News — who went to Virginia, and talking to actual humans, picked up on the potential trouble for Mr. Cantor.

Of course, the data journalism at FiveThirtyEight, The Upshot at The Times and others like them can guide readers by putting races in perspective and establishing valuable new ways to assess politics. But the lesson in Virginia, as the Washington Post reporter Paul Farhi wrote at the time, was that nothing exceeds the value of shoe-leather reporting, given that politics is an essentially human endeavor and therefore can defy prediction and reason. Uniqueness Overwhelms Link Clinton Win Inev Uniqueness overwhelms the link – no way that Trump can win Schneider 7-5 – Christian Schneider, columnist and blogger for the Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal Sentinel, 2016 (“No matter how you look at it, Trump's not winning: Column”, USA Today, Available online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation- now/2016/07/05/no-matter-how-you-look-trumps-not-winning-column/86715020/, Accessed on 07-07-2016, KG)

Amid the incessant din of election-year punditry and prognostication, one fact reigns supreme: Republicans vote for Republicans and Democrats vote for Democrats . It is an inescapable truth that informs 90% of races; the more members of one party that reside in any given state or district, the better chance a politician of that party will win. It is why America is freckled with "red" and "blue" states and "safe" congressional seats. It is also why American presidential races are typically close, regardless of who the candidates may be. But 2016 is no typical year. Republicans have nominated a candidate who is only recently and tangentially Republican , and whose staunchest supporters are left to argue he is fit for the presidency only because his Democratic opponent is more unfit. It has long been clear that Donald Trump's party fluidity almost certainly will spell doom for Republicans in November. Trump hurdled the GOP primary field because he said things politicians could never say — and now Republicans are going to learn the hard way why politicians never say those things. Trump is now the Bruce Willis character in "The Sixth Sense": his candidacy is dead, he just doesn't realize it yet. (Sorry for the spoiler, but c'mon — it's been 17 years.) The myriad ways Trump's candidacy will fail provide a Rashomon-style buffet of scenarios to contemplate. Even if "Generic Republican" were on the ballot, he or she would be at a distinct electoral disadvantage — Trump's repulsiveness simply accelerates that disadvantage. (If anyone has a black and white "Generic Republican" yard sign, decorated with a UPC bar code, I will happily purchase one.) As Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post frequently points out, given the GOP's built-in underdog status, Hillary Clinton only needs to win every state Democrats have won in every presidential election since 1992, then add Florida, and she is the winner . Perhaps you enjoy talk of battleground states. Well, there's a scenario for you, too. First, pick the six "closest" swing states (VA, NH, IA, OH, FL, NC). Got it? Now understand that New Hampshire excepted, Clinton only has to win one of them in order to reach the requisite 270 electoral votes to win. (Optional third step for Republicans only: start shotgunning Pabst Blue Ribbon and don't stop until November.) Lest any Trump supporters seek solace in poll numbers, recent polls have Trump sliding further behind in all the relevant swing states. According to a Ballotpedia battleground poll released last week, Trump trails by 14% in Florida, 4% in Iowa, 10% in North Carolina, 9% in Ohio, and 7% in Virginia. And what will Trump do to turn these numbers around? Maybe his vice presidential pick will make a big splash? Not so fast. Trump is reportedly considering names such as former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as his running mate — meaning the sole qualification Trump seeks in a VP is how much of Trump's boot polish the pick has on his sleeves. Both Gingrich and Christie are among the least popular politicians in America — picking either of them to resurrect a campaign is like going to a doctor for pinkeye and the doctor suggesting you contract jock itch to take your mind off your conjunctivitis. This is why some Republicans could make a move to oust Trump at the party's national convention in Cleveland this month, in a desperate attempt to salvage the party's chance at winning in November. But at this point, Trump isn't really a candidate. He is an idea, an ethos. Trump is a primal scream against politicians who didn't listen to voters who now want payback. Thus, even if the GOP were able to boot Trump from the top of the ticket, "Trumpism" would remain, poisoning the party and dividing its voters. As Thomas Dewey once said of banning communism, "you can't shoot an idea with a gun." And in 2016, Republicans found a way to commit suicide using only the ballot box. Extremely low chance that Trump wins – Clinton has numerous structural factors on her side Willis 7-3 – Oliver Willis, research fellow at Media Matters for America, 2016 (“Confidence Isn’t Complacency: Democrats Shouldn’t Be Afraid To Say & Believe Clinton Will Crush Trump”, Oliver Willis, Available online at http://oliverwillis.com/confidence-isnt-complacency- democrats-shouldnt-afraid-say-believe-clinton-will-crush-trump/, Accessed on 7-07-2016, KG)

The odds are strongly in favor of Hillary Clinton absolutely crushing Donald Trump in this fall’s presidential election. She leads him in polling, organization, fundraising, and in about a thousand other head to head factors . Clinton also has the advantage of being a Democrat, the party that has excelled at presidential elections. In five out of the last six presidential contests, the Democratic nominee has received a plurality of the votes and outright electoral and popular vote majorities in the two most recent contests. As a Democrat, Clinton is likely to immediately win a majority of states with the most electoral votes. This includes California, New York and Illinois. Her party has also tended to win four out of the five states with the largest electoral college haul. Clinton will be campaigning with a president with an approval rating over 51%, while none of Trump’s predecessors for the Republican nominee will probably campaign with him, and the most recent nominee actively opposes him. If George W. Bush did campaign with Trump, he would probably be hurt by the exercise, not helped. It is against this backdrop of dominance that I encounter, on a daily basis, liberals who are constantly wetting the bed. Frankly, I don’t understand it. It isn’t that I’m saying Clinton can’t possibly lose. But a dispassionate look at recent history, the state of the campaign, and Donald Trump’s unique positioning as someone directly opposed to the base values of the Democratic Party and its voters does not bode well for his chances . There isn’t anything wrong with acknowledging this, saying it, and taking it as your dominant attitude heading into the election. When Michael Jordan was at the height of his basketball prowess, he didn’t go into the NBA Finals telling his teammates they “might” win or that he “hoped” it would work out. He went into those games knowing he was the best basketball – perhaps even athlete – in the entire known world. And then he performed up to that level of expectation. When the allies landed on the beaches of Normandy in World War II, despite the war juggernaut Hitler had demonstrated thus far, they didn’t say they “hoped” the D-Day landing would work, nor did they hedge, hem, and haw about the mission at hand – smashing the Nazi machine. They went in, knowing that they would win and would prevail, because they had to. There isn’t any serious person on the left that thinks about the task against Trump as “in the bag,” to the point where they aren’t ready to show up on November 8, 2016, with anything less than the intention to beat Donald Trump’s rear end from coast to coast. We know he’s a misogynist who is appealing to the worst racist and fascist elements in America in a way we haven’t seen this blatantly in decades. We’re well aware of the downside of a Trump victory, and there isn’t anyone with an ounce of seriousness on the left who thinks that huge issues aren’t at stake – choice, the Supreme Court, health care, immigration, national security – and on and on. But we also know that the likelihood of victory is on our side, and we should stop acting like a gaggle of Eeyores, constantly beating ourselves up and rending garments like we’re down by 20 percentage points. In reality we’re far closer to being on the winning side of an epic landslide that metaphorically punches hate, racism, misogyny, ignorance and a million other qualities emblematic of the worst of America right in its stupid face. And we should act like it. Act like a winner, and be a winner. Don’t act like a loser when you’re winning. Trump is going to be toast, let’s get on with it . Clinton has so much momentum that not even a future scandal could stop her from winning Linker 7/6 – (Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com and a consulting editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press; 7/6/16, “Why no Clinton scandal can stop Hillary from crushing Trump,” The Week, http://theweek.com/articles/634062/why-no-clinton-scandal-stop- hillary-from-crushing-trump?utm_source=ten_things&utm_medium=most- popular_1_07_07_16-09_40_13&utm_campaign=newsletter, Accessed 7/7/16, HWilson)

For just about any other candidate facing just about any other opponent, this would be hugely, perhaps catastrophically, damaging. But Clinton has the great good fortune to be facing Trump. An indictment may well have sunk her. But short of that? She's home free.

Criticism of Clinton is voluminous and well warranted. But Team Clinton has an unspoken, subliminal message to counter critiques of its candidate's lousy record: "Yes, but Trump is worse!"

This Clinton strategy is going to succeed because it's true. Clinton may have an impressively long record of bad judgment calls. She may be almost comically out of step with the populist mood of the moment. She may be widely disliked by an electorate that doesn't trust her. But at least she and her campaign aren't proudly ignorant of public policy. Or prone to spewing misogynistic, racist, anti-Muslim, and anti-Semitic insults. Or wildly and continuously flip- flopping on policy. Or promising to tear up the entire postwar international order. Or threatening to forcibly round up and deport millions of people and ban members of an entire world religion from entering the United States.

With an opponent like Donald Trump, Clinton needs do little more than convey the same simple message day after day: "You may not like me, but at least I'm vastly better, more competent, more knowledgeable, less hateful, less risky, and yes, less corrupt than he is."

Again, it will work because it's true.

Of course, Trump's die-hard fanboys and a subset of Republicans (those for whom every Clinton scandal that fails to land her or her husband in jail is an occasion to recommit to the project of bringing them down once and for all) will never be persuaded. But most voters will be. And that will be enough to get her over the finish line — maybe even by historic margins.

If it wasn't obvious before, it certainly is now: Hillary Clinton is an eminently beatable candidate. Just about any Republican could have brought her down — except for the one the party chose . Every poll has Trump losing by a substantial amount Vankin 7-1 – Jonathan Vankin, American author and journalist, 2016 (“Hillary Clinton Crushes Donald Trump In New Polls: Zero Chance In Electoral College For Trump, Clinton Leads Battlegrounds”, Inquistr, Available online at http://www.inquisitr.com/3264862/hillary-clinton- vs-donald-trump-new-polls/, Accessed on 07-07-2016, KG)

A new set of polls shows Hillary Clinton crushing Donald Trump in a series of crucial swing states for the 2016 presidential election. And in the all-important Electoral College, which under the United States Constitution is the body that will actually decide who becomes the next president, the new polls effectively eliminate the New York businessman from winning the White House . Unless he can do something to turn public opinion around over the next four months, he’s done. According to the election-tracking site Election Graphs which collects state-by-state polling to compile Electoral College outlooks for both candidates, the best- case scenario for the Republican presumptive nominee would leave him with 243 electoral votes — 27 short of the 270 required to win the Electoral College and the presidency, which would then go to Clinton with 295 electoral votes. That “best case” for Trump would mean that he would not only win all states in which he currently holds a lead in polling averages, but he would also need to win the four “weak” Clinton states as well — that is, states in which Hillary Clinton leads by less than five percentage points in polling averages. Those four states are New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, and Nevada. But even if Trump were to sweep those states, he still loses the election in the Electoral College. For more analysis of the most recent state-by-state polling, watch the following video discussion with political commentator Richard French. At the same time, a new projection by political scientist Larry Sabato, whose “ Crystal Ball” election forecasting model claims a 99 percent accuracy rate in forecasting state election results, gives an even bigger advantage to Clinton , with 347 electoral votes projected for the Democrat, to 191 for the Republican. The Electoral College system is mandated by the U.S. Constitution, assigning each state one electoral vote for every representative in congress from that state, for a total of 538 votes, including three electoral votes from the District of Columbia. For example, New York has 25 representatives in the House plus, like every state, two U.S. senators — for a total of 27 electoral votes. With the exception of Maine and Nebraska, each state awards its electoral votes on a “winner-take-all” basis, but electors are not legally bound to cast their electoral ballots for any particular candidate regardless of the outcome of the vote in their specific states. However, instances of rogue or, as they are generally called, “faithless” electors have been few and far between. Also few and far between are instances when the winner of the electoral college has not also been the winner of the national popular vote — a situation that has occurred only four times in United States history, and only once since 1888, in the 2000 election which saw Democrat Al Gore win the popular vote but lose the presidency in the electoral college. A series of polls by Ballotpedia this week put Democrat Clinton in front of her Republican rival in seven important swing states — states that have not shown a strong tendency in recent elections to favor either party . With most states apparently locked in for either the Democrat or the Republican, the “battleground states” are the ones that will ultimately decide the election. The Ballotpedia polls showed Clinton leading in Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Of those, only Iowa, with a four-point lead for Clinton, showed the presumptive Democratic nominee leading by under seven points. “The Ballotpedia results look very bad for Trump,” wrote election forecaster Sam Minter of Election Graphs. “All in all, the net result is that once again even if Trump were to win all the states he is ahead in, plus all the states where he is less than 5 percent behind, he would still lose.” Uniqueness overwhelms the link – Trump has no chance in Pennsylvania, while the important swing states don’t contain the demographics their link evidence describes Palmer 7-1 – Bill Palmer, editor and owner of Daily News Bin, 2016 (“Why the media lies to you about Hillary Clinton’s swing state leads”, Daily News Bin, Available online at http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/hillary-vs-trump-how-the-media-lies-to-you-about-the- swing-states/25066/, Accessed on 07-07-2016, KG)

MSNBC confidently declared today that Pennsylvania is a “toss up” in the general election race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, continuing with its months long narrative that the election was going to be decided in the Keystone State one way or the other. It sounds plausible enough, if you don’t know any better. But one look at the polls reveals that Trump hasn’t led in a Pennsylvania general election poll conducted during this entire cycle . Meanwhile cable news continues to largely ignore other states that actually do look like a toss up but don’t fit the narrative. In reality, Hillary’s average lead in Pennsylvania state polls is around six percent. That suggests that it might end up being a close contest, but that it’s not currently in play. In fact the consistently reliable FiveThirtyEight currently gives Hillary a 78% chance of winning Pennsylvania. That’s some tossup, eh? Instead, the real swing states in this election are elsewhere at the moment. As it turns out, Hillary Clinton currently has a decent sized lead in nearly every state which would traditionally be considered a Presidential swing state. North Carolina is the only close call among the states that are usually in play, where she leads by an average of just two points. And there are no traditional swing states where Trump holds a lead. The actual swing states in this race appear to be Arizona where Trump leads by just a half a point, Missouri where Trump leads by one point, and Georgia where Trump leads by two points. But none of those three fit with the prevailing cable news narrative that this election is going to be decided based on trade deals by people in blue collar states like Pennsylvania , or that it’s going to be competitive in the Electoral Collage. In fact, the minute the media acknowledges that Hillary is leading every blue state and every swing state, while Trump is in real danger of losing three red states, viewers will figure out that the election is basically over unless something huge comes along and unexpectedly changes things . And cable news simply can’t afford to admit that this is not currently a competitive race. If they do, people will decide to tune out for the summer and maybe check back in as election day grows closer. That would be devastating for ratings . And so the media bends over backward to pretend that the traditionally important-sounding Pennsylvania is in play when it really isn’t, while not daring to acknowledge that Pennsylvania won’t matter anyway if Hillary wins these red states that have suddenly turned into swing states. Again, single-state polls are only worth whatever you think they’re worth in terms of reliability at this stage of the election. If you think it’s too early for those polls to be meaningful, then throw them out for now. But if you do decide to pay heed to them, make sure you’re seeing the real picture. On most days you’re simply not going to get that from cable news, which has a vested interest in making sure you think this race is close so you’ll stay tuned in. Trump has no idea how to run a campaign and has no chance. Strassel 16 - Kimberley A. Strassel, a member of Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, based in Washington and authors of the Potomac Watch column, 2016. (“Trump Can’t Wing It Forever,” The Wall Street Journal, June 10, Available Online at http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-cant- wing-it-forever-1465511824, Accessed on July 21, 2016, KC)

His impossible victory in hand, Mr. Trump is proceeding as if he can win the general election the same way. Fundraising and advertising? Mr. Trump told Bloomberg that he had no plans to raise the $1 billion his campaign initially estimated, since “I get so much publicity” and free airtime. He wrapped up the nomination more than a month ago, yet only this week did his national finance team hold its first official meeting. A data operation? The real-estate mogul last month said the whole know-who-your-voters-are thing is “overrated.” After all, he says he can reach nearly 20 million people on social media. How about a fully staffed campaign operation? No need. Mr. Trump is running a bare-bones effort —reported to be about 80 people in total—and he told the New York Times that such leanness is “smart.” In short, he’s winging it . He continues to operate on the assumption that he will bask in free airtime forever, that the masses will flock to him come November, that he can tweet his way to the Oval Office . And perhaps, given his primary achievement, he gets the benefit of the doubt. Save one thing: It isn’t working. Mr. Trump’s past rule-breaking succeeded because of a crowded primary field, in which Mr. Trump was the most entertaining figure, and in which the press didn’t have a stake. It succeeded because a decade of specific frustrations had made conservatives unusually open to his style and message. That’s all over now. Mr. Trump is in a race against a seasoned politician who commands a machine and is already savaging him daily. The mainstream media are in the tank for her, and their airtime will be devoted to skewering him. Mr. Trump’s supporters remain the minority in a fractured party that he has yet to unify. There’s no need to guess whether Mr. Trump’s lack of a campaign is hurting him . It’s proven by two irrefutable weeks of negative press coverage, missed opportunities and eroding poll numbers .

Clinton win is inevitable – most qualled – empirics go aff – don’t buy their media inflation Wiener 6/9 – (Jon Wiener is a professor of US history at UC Irvine, has a B.A. from Princeton and a Ph.D. from Harvard; 6/21/16, “ Relax, Donald Trump Can’t Win,” The Nation, https://www.thenation.com/article/trump-cant-win/, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

It’s hard for people who follow the daily ups and downs of the candidates to accept the fact that voting in America is remarkably stable from election to election. Regardless of who the candidates are, people who voted Republican in the last election almost always vote Republican in the next one, and it’s the same for Democrats. It’s been true for the last five or six presidential elections. And these patterns are amplified by the Electoral College, where only a few states switch from one party to another between elections. Democrats have won the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections (there was that glitch in 2000 with Bush v. Gore at the Supreme Court). Obama beat John McCain in 2008 by more than 9 million votes. He beat Mitt Romney in 2012 by almost 5 million votes. For Trump to win, he needs all of the people who voted for Romney plus at least 5 million more. And they have to be in the right states—the swing states, especially Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Where can Trump get those votes?

Trump’s base is the white working class, especially men. But the white working class didn’t vote for Obama—they were Republicans long before Trump arrived on the scene. Obama got only 36 percent of the white working-class vote in 2012—and, among white working-class men, he probably got less than that. The white working-class men who voted for Obama are mostly in secure Democratic states like New York, Illinois, and California. Even if Trump won some of them away from Hillary, it wouldn’t help him in the electoral college.

There undoubtedly were some white working-class voters who didn’t vote at all in 2012 because they were turned off both by Obama and by Romney’s corporate-CEO aura. But will enough of them vote for Trump to change the outcome of the vote in five or six swing states? The experts who count votes say no. People who didn’t vote in the last election are not likely to vote in the next one—that’s part of the stable pattern of American politics.

And Trump seems likely to lose some of the people who voted for Romney—especially some Republican women, turned off by his abusive remarks. Romney got about 45 percent of the female vote. If 3 or 4 percent of Republican women don’t vote for Trump, that would be devastating for him, especially in the swing states. And the polls right now show it could be much worse for him: A NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in March found that 47 percent of Republican female primary voters said they could not imagine themselves voting for Trump. A poll of female voters overall (CNN in March) found that 73 percent had a negative view of Trump.

What about independents—the biggest group in the electorate, people who tell pollsters they are neither Republicans nor Democrats? Political scientists have found very few independents who are actually swing voters; almost all vote consistently for one party. They may like to think of themselves as “independent” of party labels, but in practice almost none of the independents who voted for Obama in 2008 voted for Romney in 2012, and almost none of the independents who voted for McCain in 2008 switched to Obama in 2012. Almost all of the independents who might vote for Trump already have voted Republican in past elections.

What about the new voters, young first-time voters: are several million of them going to vote for Trump? Short answer: no. Young voters and first-time voters are a key Democratic constituency. They are also the least likely age group to vote. The big challenge for the Democrats has been to get this constituency of theirs to register and cast a vote on election day. Instead of trying to recruit young first-time voters, Republican have worked to make it harder for them to register and vote, because they know what young voters are likely to do on Election Day.

But didn’t Trump do really well in the primaries? He got more primary votes than Romney did in 2012. He said he was bringing “millions and millions of new voters” into the Republican party. But polls show his voters in the primaries were almost all committed Republicans. They may have not have voted in earlier primaries, but almost all had voted Republican in general elections in the past. Trump got 13 million votes in the primaries. But Obama got 66 million votes in November 2012. The point is simple: Very few people vote in primary elections. Trump’s success in the spring says nothing about how he will do in the fall . It’s likely that the rhetoric that won him those 13 million votes will turn off millions of other voters he needs if he’s going to win in November.

All this assumes the people who voted for Obama will vote for Hillary, that the historic pattern will hold in 2016. People say “this time it’s different”—because we’ve never had a woman candidate, and sexism is a powerful force in American politics. But we never had a black candidate until 2008, and racism has certainly been a powerful force in American politics. Is there more hostility to women than to blacks in American politics? Right now there are 20 women in the Senate, and only two blacks (Republican Tim Scott from South Carolina, and Democrat Corey Booker from New Jersey). Hillary, we are told, has a “man problem”: One recent poll showed Trump winning among men 49-40 percent. But the same poll showed women choosing Hillary by a larger margin, 51-38 percent. That’s consistent with the historical pattern. Romney won the male vote by 8 points—basically the same as Trump’s lead among men in polls now. It’s way too early to pay a lot of attention to the current polls, but the Trump-Clinton gender gap is likely to be much larger this year than it was for Romney-Obama, and since more women vote than men, the historic Democratic advantage will likely remain.

It’s different this time, we are also told, because the Bernie/Hillary primary fight was so intense. What if some of Bernie’s supporters won’t vote for Hillary? Could the Democratic vote fall by 4 million and give Trump the margin he needs in the swing states? Again, that seems extremely unlikely. In 2008, the people who voted for Hillary in the Democratic primary were very much against Obama when the primaries ended. They regarded him as unqualified. But on election day six months later, almost all ended up voting for him. This fall Bernie will be campaigning against Trump, and Elizabeth Warren will be campaigning against Trump. The long-term patterns suggest that almost all Democrats and Democratic “leaners” will vote for the Democratic candidate again this November.

It’s the job of the news media to make it seem that it’s different this time, so that we need to tune in and keep up. But the political scientists say it’s probably not going to be different this time. Whatever the polls say now (and right now they show Hillary ahead), the long-term patterns of American politics tell us that Trump is not going to get millions more votes than Romney did, and he’s not going to carry enough swing states to overcome the historic pattern of Democratic advantage . Hillary will win in November, and she will be sworn in as our next president on January 20. ***Specific States*** Florida 2AC – Uniqueness Overwhelms – Demographics

Trump won’t win – Hispanic population is increasing Klas 7/2 – (MARY ELLEN KLAS, writer for the Miami Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau, 7/2/16, “Hispanic growth in Florida: Will it determine the election?,” Miami Herald, http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article87250257.html, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

What difference does four years make? For Florida, in a presidential election year, the difference means surging population growth that could influence the outcome of the national contest.

The state remains a crucial swing state in the presidential sweepstakes but, since 2012, Flori da’s electorate has changed in important ways — exacerbating the role of its growing Hispanic and elderly populations and potentially sowing seeds of a more disruptive revolution to come.

And in Florida’s Panhandle, home to three military bases, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa and Bay counties saw increases in their Hispanic residents of between 39 percent to 34 percent between 2010 and 2015.

But to pollsters and political observers, the focus is on the potential impact of these demographic shifts in the November election. 2AC – Trump Wins

The race for Florida is really tight right now; a strongly probable Hillary slip up and Trump’s more moderate view on immigration means the tides will most likely flip to his side. Bernstein 16 David S. Bernstein, writer at Politico Magazine, 2016 (“How Hillary Loses,” Politico, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-hillary-clinton- campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924, May 27th, accessed 6/29/16) WP

Early evidence certainly supports that belief. Hispanic-Americans dislike Trump—strongly dislike him—in massive majorities, according to polls. Legal residents are rushing to become citizens, and citizens are registering to vote, just so they can cast a ballot against him in November. That has Clinton supporters believing that she’ll win crucial victories in Florida—where 17 percent of the 2012 vote was Hispanic, according to exit polls—Colorado, Nevada and possibly even Arizona. But it would be difficult for Trump to keep doing as poorly with Latino voters as he’s done over the past year. And if he’s able to keep his incendiary language to a minimum , there is no guarantee that Clinton’s energy will hold for the many months until the election. There is also reason to think Clinton’s enthusiasm with Hispanic voters needs stoking . A new Fox Latino poll shows Clinton leading Trump by an impressive-sounding 39 points: 62 to 23. But there’s a problem : That 39-point spread is actually less than the 44 by which Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 . Florida, where Democratic confidence is sky-high, carries a critical 29 Electoral College votes . In 2012, according to exit polls, Hispanics made up a larger percentage of the state’s vote than in previous years, and Obama won a higher percentage of them—60 percent—than any Democrat had before. That translated into a 285,600-vote advantage (20 percent) among Hispanic voters for Obama over Romney in the state, which Obama carried by just 73,000 votes overall. The big question is: Can Clinton sustain that kind of historic lead? All Trump would have to do is roll back the Democratic advantage to 2008 levels, instead of 2012 levels, to reverse the tide. All else being equal, a return to 2008’s numbers—when Hispanics were 14 percent of the vote, and Obama won them by a 15 percent margin rather than 20 percent—would mean Democrats losing 109,200 votes off their advantage. And that could turn Obama’s 73,000-vote Florida victory into a 36,000-vote defeat. Yes, their numbers are growing. But Hispanics simply don’t like Clinton nearly as much as they like Obama: Her favorable/unfavorable is a net +15 in that Fox Latino poll, while Obama’s is +46. Colorado, where the fast-growing Hispanic population gave 75 percent of its vote to Obama in 2008, is a similar story to Florida. So is Nevada, where all of the major analysts still rate the Senate race between Republican Joe Heck and Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto a tossup—suggesting that they aren’t yet foreseeing a torrent of Democratic-voting Hispanics rush the polls in November. Other Issues key Other issues thump – immigration, economy, terrorism Fobbs 16 — Kevin, began writing professionally in 1975. He has been published in the "New York Times," and has written for the "Detroit News," "Michigan Chronicle," “GOPUSA,” "Soul Source" and "Writers Digest" magazines, obtained a political science and journalism degree from Eastern Michigan University in 1978 and attended Wayne State University Law School, 2016 (“Battleground state polls show Trump winning general election,” CDN, May 11, http://www.commdiginews.com/politics-2/battleground-state- polls-show-trump-winning-general-election-63603/#oJckCtQE9ycB2yI5.99, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV)

As has been true in the race for the nomination, Trump does well among white men in the current polls. A key issue in the campaign, building a wall to keep out illegal immigrants , has not critically harmed his polling numbers. ¶ For example, in Florida the voters are split 48 to 46 percent on whether the U.S. should construct a wall along the Mexican border. Fifty-four percent of men support the wall, while 52 percent of women oppose it.¶ On the economy, which has been at or near the top of polls as the most critical issue facing voters, Trump leads Clinton. Even though Trump and Clinton are viewed skeptically on trustworthiness, voters feel that the successful businessman is better equipped to handle the economy and create jobs.¶ Terrorism is another issue that voters in the three battleground states see as a strong point for Trump ; this is despite Clinton’s stint as President Obama’s secretary of state. ¶ With six months and two national conventions still ahead, the voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will be watching the candidates closely. With Ohio’s 18, Pennsylvania’s 20 and Florida’s 29 electoral votes, their combined total of 67 may determine the outcome of the election. Immigration is key issue in Florida Suson 15 — Esther Elizabeth, a B.A. in Humanities and an M.A. in Political Economy, 2015 (“SWING STATES TO WATCH IN THE 2016 ELECTION,” POTUS 2016, June 16, http://potus2016.org/swing-states-election-2016/, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV)

With racial diversity a fact or on the rise in four out of the seven swing states, presidential candidates will have a hard time skirting this issue as they campaign. Polls among Latinos show that immigration reform is very significant, with 53% selecting it as one of the most important issues in 2016.¶ Democrats tend to be more open-minded on the issue of illegal immigrants remaining in the United States while Republicans tend towards the other end of the spectrum. With President Obama’s policies on immigration constantly under fire, the issue is likely to remain until the 2016 elections.¶ the diversity of swing states, it might be said that Democrats have an advantage, particularly in Nevada and Colorado. In these states, and others such as Florida, Democrats need to convince their traditionally non-white voters that tending Democratic is still a good thing. On the other hand, Republicans, used to targeting a whiter swath of voters, are faced with a demographic that they will be forced to take account of during the 2016 elections. ¶ Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton declared that she would pursue a policy that eventually allows citizenship for illegal immigrants. On the other hand, most Republican hopefuls such as Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Mike Huckabee hover somewhere between legal-but-not-citizenship status, and deportation. Marco Rubio is silent on the matter so far, which is understandable: being of Cuban ancestry and simultaneously a Republican makes it difficult.¶ With a Democratic opponent who is less vocal on immigration reform than Clinton, Republicans could win through lack of voter turnout. Without that, however, they might be hard-pressed to win the growing Hispanic vote. Marijuana legalization is key issue in Florida Suson 15 — Esther Elizabeth, a B.A. in Humanities and an M.A. in Political Economy, 2015 (“SWING STATES TO WATCH IN THE 2016 ELECTION,” POTUS 2016, June 16, http://potus2016.org/swing-states-election-2016/, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV) Another swing state-specific issue that may come to the forefront in 2016 is that of legalization of marijuana, at least in Colorado, and perhaps Florida and Ohio. Presidential hopefuls may find themselves forced to address the issue to win Colorado’s vote.¶ Since there is no “traditional” stand of either Democrats or Republicans on this issue, practically all the current presidential hopefuls are hovering somewhere between legalizing medicinal marijuana and preventing all use of the plant. ¶ However, all the candidates know that the 18-29 age bracket might turn out on the issue in 2016 . To keep the young voters that Obama won during his presidential campaigns, Democrats might need to hold a loose stance on marijuana legalization. On the other hand, Republicans could do the same, but that may weaken their hold on conservatives and evangelical Christians who traditionally vote Red. Security is key issue in Florida Pastrana 16 — Lauren, the co-anchor of CBS4 News, multimedia journalist, 2016 (“Florida Delegation Ready For GOP Convention,” CBS Miami, July 18, http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/07/18/florida-delegation-ready-for-gop-convention/, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV)

Outside the Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland, armed officers and chain link fences surround the event space, a fitting reminder of one of this year’s big campaign themes. ¶ Monday’s program is actually titled, “Make America Safe Again”. ¶ Blaise Ingoglia, the chairman of the Florida Republican Party, says it’s a key issue for Florida voters. ¶ “I think that this election is going to be a security election. It’s going to be about economic security. It’s going to be about National Security,” Ingoglia said. Nevada Plan Popular — Nevada China bashing doesn’t flip Nevada — different political climate. Newsmax 16

Newsmax, a conservative American news media organization founded by Christopher Ruddy and based in West Palm Beach, Florida, 2-23-2016, "Nevadans Cheer Trump's China-Bashing Even as Nation Buoys State," Newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Nevada-trump-china- economy/2016/02/23/id/715621/, Accessed: 7/21/16//SRawal

While rhetoric blaming China for the decline of the American middle class plays well on the campaign trail, it belies the reality of the interconnected economies of the U.S. and China, where even states like Nevada that lack seaports have grown increasingly dependent on global trade and investment . Chinese commerce has boosted Nevada’s tourism and mining industries, and money from China is backing a $1 billion auto plant under construction in the state.

“It’s easy to bash perceptions of Nevada or the U.S. losing economic challenges or competition to China,” said Brian Krolicki, a Republican who led trade missions to China as Nevada’s lieutenant governor between 2007 and 2015. “ The Chinese-bashing, political rhetoric has less validity in Nevada than it does in other states.”

China is Nevada’s second-largest trading partner , with exports to China increasing 61 percent between 2008 and 2013 to $599 million. Asian investments are financing an auto factory in the state and a new casino on the Las Vegas Strip marketed to tourists from China, which ranks as the eighth-largest source of visitors to the gambling hub.

Tariffs and Warships

Trump, and to a lesser degree Senators Marco Rubio and Ted Cruzand Ohio Governor John Kasich, have called for changes in the U.S.-China relationship, whether by imposing new tariffs, positioning more warships in the South China Sea or by pushing for improved human rights in China. Republican voters in Nevada will choose among the candidates today in the fourth nominating contest in the race.

Nevada, which had the nation’s worst unemployment and foreclosure rates at the beginning of this decade, has since had the 10th strongest recovery , according to the Bloomberg Economic Evaluation of States. Part of the comeback is due to trade and tourism with China , said Robert Lang, executive director of Brookings Mountain West at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Nevada’s exports to China increased 1,185 percent between 2004 and 2013, according to the U.S.-China Business Council, compared with a 189 percent increase to the rest of the world during that time. Mining and electronics accounted for the largest share.

Almost 200,000 visitors came from China to Las Vegas in 2014, according to the Las Vegas Visitors and Convention Authority, an increase of 153 percent from 2009. The authority set up offices in Shanghai and Hong Kong to market Las Vegas to the Chinese.

Chinese tourists are a target market for Resorts World Las Vegas, a $4 billion casino project on the Strip financed by Genting Bhd., a Malaysian company. The first Strip development in a decade will have an “authentic” Chinese theme that will attract visitors from China and the U.S., the company said in a press release.

Faraday Future, based in Southern California and financed by Beijing-based billionaire Jia Yueting, announced in December that it picked North Las Vegas, a suburb once on the brink of insolvency, as the site of an electric-car factory expected to employ 4,500 people.

Chinese investors also have proposed a high-speed rail project to funnel tourists from Southern California to Las Vegas, and solar farms in the Nevada desert .

The projects “ will significantly boost the Southern Nevada and Nevada economies ,” Stephen Miller, an economist at UNLV, said in an e-mail. “ China has become a more important player in the Southern Nevada economy because of visitors and capital investment .” New Hampshire Yes Trump – New Hampshire Economy is a top issue for New Hampshire – recent Bernie-like economic campaigns give Trump the edge in a tight race. Viser 6/12/16 Matt Viser, writer at Boston Globe, 2016 (“Trump promises major speech in N.H. after Orlando massacre,” The Boston Globe, https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2016/06/12/trump-prepares-for-trip-new- hampshire-monday/8sjXOOH4rXyyDQBNjhO3jP/story.html, June 12th, accessed 6/29/16) WP

Two recent polls, both conducted last month, found Trump and Clinton in a statistical tie among New Hampshire voters. The polls also show that two-thirds of voters view both of them unfavorably. Trump does much better among men , while Clinton does far better among women. One of the top issues for New Hampshire residents is the economy, which could help Trump . “You really can’t drive through any town in New Hampshire with 2,500 people and not see an abandoned factory,” said Dave Carney, a veteran Republican consultant from New Hampshire. “He has broad appeal. He has the hard-core conservatives and more establishment guys. I think it’s very possible he could win New Hampshire.” Trump’s campaign is planning to appeal to the same supporters who were drawn to Senator Bernie Sanders, with a similar populist message . New Hampshire has delivered mixed results for the Clintons: Bill Clinton was deemed the “comeback kid” with a surprising finish in the 1992 primary; he twice won the general election there; and Hillary Clinton won the 2008 primary. But it was the scene of one Hillary Clinton’s most disappointing performances this year. Sanders soundly defeated her — 60 percent to 38 percent. If the Vermont senator doesn’t fully back Clinton, it could make the state a tougher climb. Compared with other swing states, New Hampshire is relatively inexpensive. Priorities USA Action, a Super PAC supporting Clinton, has reserved 117 ads on WMUR, spending some $422,000, on an ad that criticizes Trump for mocking a disabled New York Times reporter. The ad, called “Grace,” features the parents of a young girl talking about her disability. “The children at Grace’s school all know never to mock her, and so for an adult to mock someone with a disability is shocking,” says the girl’s mother. “When I saw Donald Trump mock somebody with a disability it showed me his soul, it showed me his heart,” adds her father. Trump has said that he wasn’t mocking the reporter himself, he was just speaking expressively. “I would never mock a person that has difficulty,” he said when the controversy erupted in November. Just as Clinton has a larger staff nationally, Trump appears to be outnumbered in New Hampshire. On a weekday last week, a Globe reporter found that Trump’s state headquarters was locked, with windows covered in paper, and a note for visitors to call for access. A few miles away, Clinton’s office had five full-time staffers. But in addition to Lewandowski, Trump has several New Hampshire-based staffers who were hired early and have remained on the payroll. They include his state director, Matt Ciepielowski, and deputy state director Andrew Georgevits. “It’s the state that gave us the first victory. It set us on the path. It really proves the naysayers wrong,” Lewandowski said. “He won by 20 points. He won every county, he won a majority of the municipalities. It wasn’t close. It was decisive.”

Trump’s increased campaigning, Sanders’ thrashing of Clinton, and best current political data point to a Trump victory in New Hampshire. Nesbit 16 Jeff Nesbit, Contributor to US News, 2016 (“Get Ready to Say President Trump,” US News, http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2016/03/01/president-donald-trump- likely-the-next-occupant-of-the-white-house, March 1st, accessed 6/29/16) WP

Which leaves New Hampshire. Those four electoral votes from the seventh, and final, swing state might just give the presidency to either Clinton or Trump. The head-to-head polling in New Hampshire is all over the map right now. One (NBC) has them in a dead heat. Another (CNN) had Clinton up by nine. But they were all taken in early January, long before primary madness swept through the state – and where Clinton was soundly beaten by Sanders, and Trump cruised to a massive victory over many rivals. And, remember, Trump's campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, not only ran the Koch political network's national voter registration efforts, he also directed AFP's New Hampshire office. So, if you're being honest about the current points of data on the political table, you'd give New Hampshire to Donald Trump. That gives him 272 electoral votes, two more than he needs. North Carolina 2AC – Trump wins

Non-unique – Trump winning in North Carolina now – voters prioritize the economy Swoyer 7-5 – Alex Swoyer, staff writer at Breitbart News, 2016 (“North Carolina: Trump Outpolls Clinton on Key Issues”, Breitbart, Available online at http://www.breitbart.com/2016- presidential-race/2016/07/05/north-carolina-boads-well-trump-clinton-top-issues/, Accessed on 07-07-2016, KG)

As both presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump hold campaign events in the swing state of North Carolina on Tuesday, an analysis of the top election issues facing North Carolina voters suggests Trump is an early favorite in the tar heel state. According to 2012 presidential election exit polls in which Republican nominee Mitt Romney pulled off a tight victory over President Obama in North Carolina , voters cared the most about the economy , the federal budget deficit, foreign policy, and healthcare. Of those issues, voters favored Romney overwhelmingly on the economy , federal budget deficit, and foreign policy. If history repeats itself and those top issues are also the major concerns for North Carolina voters in the 2016 general election, it will bode well for Trum p, according to several recent polls. A number of surveys in North Carolina suggest voters found the top issues for the 2016 election are education, jobs, and the economy. For example, a recent survey of 1,530 voters conducted by Elon University found North Carolina voters are most concerned with education. Jobs and wages came in second, followed by the economy as the third top issue. A new national Morning Consult poll published last week found that voters favor Trump on the issues of both job creation and the economy — even though Clinton held a slight lead in the head-to-head matchup. According to the results, 45 percent of voters believe Trump will grow the economy. Only 38 percent believe Clinton can help grow the economy. Additionally, the poll found 43 percent of the voters believe Trump will create more jobs, but only 38 percent favor Clinton on job creation. Furthermore, on the issue of jobs, a recent Public Policy poll found that North Carolina voters disapprove of President Obama — who is campaigning with Clinton in North Carolina — on job performance. A WRAL News poll, the NBC affiliate in Raleigh, North Carolina, also found that 56 percent of North Carolina voters disapprove of how Obama is handling the Islamic State (ISIS) and 34 percent of voters want Obamacare repealed — a promise Trump has made on the campaign trail. Plan not key Restroom law is key issue in North Carolina Fausset 16 — Richard, has been a community news reporter on the Westside and in South Los Angeles, a Metro section reporter covering crime, politics and features, and a national correspondent based in Atlanta. Before joining The Times in 1999, he was editor of Flagpole, the weekly newspaper in Athens, Ga. Fausset holds degrees from the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Missouri School of Journalism, 2016 (“North Carolina Restroom Law Becomes a Central Election Issue,” The New York Times, April 25, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/us/north-carolina-restroom-law-becomes-acentral-election-issue.html, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV)

Parrish Clodfelter, a 79-year-old retiree who lives on a central North Carolina farm, professes opinions about transgender people that might get him fired if he worked for a multinational corporation, though for many here, they constitute simple country wisdom.¶ “A man wants to change to a woman, he’s got a mental problem,” Mr. Clodfelter said on Wednesday over lunch at Spiro’s Family Restaurant, where posters by the door advertised classes on carrying concealed weapons and a “Hillbilly Sunday” Pentecostal church service.¶ But Mr. Clodfelter has a different kind of problem. As a longtime Republican, he wants to support Pat McCrory, North Carolina’s Republican governor, in his re- election bid. At the same time, he is worried about the boycotts and lost jobs resulting from the law the governor signed in March that limits transgender bathroom access and eliminates antidiscrimination protections for gay and transgender people. ¶ If the backlash continues, Mr. Clodfelter said, he will consider voting for Mr. McCrory’s Democratic opponent, Roy Cooper, who supports the law’s repeal.¶ “I’m afraid if they don’t change it,” he said, “it’ll hurt the state.”¶ Even before the law tapped into a national debate about transgender rights, privacy and political correctness, North Carolina, the rare Southern state that is evenly split between liberals and conservatives, was considered to be up for grabs in the November presidential race, particularly if Donald J. Trump tops the Republican ticket. Education is key issue in North Carolina Guillory 16 — Ferrel, the Director of the Program in Public Life and Professor of the Practice at the UNC School of Media and Journalism, and is member of the Board of Directors for the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research, 2016 (“Education Tops List of Most Important Issues Facing NC,” North Carolina Insight, April 14, http://ncinsight.nccppr.org/2016/04/education-most-important- issue/#sthash.mJgp9GO6.dpuf, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV)

In preparation for a project on North Carolina’s priorities, the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research requested that the Elon University Poll ask North Carolinians, “What is the most important issue facing the state of North Carolina?” ¶ Shortly before the presidential primary last month, the Elon University Poll surveyed North Carolina voters, and of the 1,530 likely voters who responded, nearly three out of 10 cited “education.”¶ Education, in fact, led the list of issues offered in answer to that open-ended question. Next came “jobs/employment/wages,’’ cited by 287 voters (19 percent), followed by the “economy,’’ picked by 121, (8 percent). Together the jobs and economy respondents add up to 408 voters, fewer than the 448 voters (29 percent) who cited education. House Bill 2 key to rally up alliances for Trump in North Carolina Bitzser 16 — Michael, Political Science Profession, Catawba College, 2016 (“HB2 is part of a GOP strategy for November,” NC Spin, April 2, http://www.ncspin.com/hb2-is-part-of-a-gop-strategy-for-november/, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV)

Flash forward to 2016, and the recent action by the legislature and governor to strike down not just bathroom ordinances, but a variety of other local measures, through House Bill 2, known as the “Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act,” some comparability between Colorado’s approach and North Carolina’s action may give some sense of the next round of this political battle. ¶ While the legal ramifications are still early to the challenge against House Bill 2, other aspects of the measure have already been felt, through the public pronouncements by several corporations against the measure and reconsideration of North Carolina’s image in regard to this action.¶ Beyond the legal and constitutional issues, there is a clear political impact that can’t be denied in a presidential election year. ¶ In practical political terms, by adopting House Bill 2, it appears that the North Carolina Republican Party, like the national party, might be trying to discover the best approach to take if, and particularly when, Donald Trump takes the reigns as the GOP presidential nominee. ¶ It seems that the party is headed toward the strategy of ‘every candidate for themselves’ this fall if Trump is the nominee, and recognizing that in North Carolina, base party politics can help achieve an electoral win. If so, their decision may be grounded on appeals to their respective base factions—and a core faction are social/evangelical conservatives. Ohio 2AC – Uniqueness overwhelms Clinton will easily win Ohio – her campaign is more organized and actually on the ground – without Ohio, Trump loses it all Easley 6-20 – Jason Easley, Senior White House and Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA, Publisher, Editor and Founder of PoliticusUSA, 2016 (“Hillary Clinton Is Blowing Out Trump On The Ground In Ohio And It’s Not Even Close”, PoliticusUSA, Available online at http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/20/hillary-clinton-blowing-trump-ground-ohio- close.html, Accessed on 07-07-2016, KG)

Hillary Clinton is organizing and campaigning heavily in swing states. What’s happening on the ground in Ohio is a perfect example of how Clinton is organizing to win the White House from the ground up. Henry Gomez of The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported on the state of the presidential race in Ohio: Yet Trump is poorly organized in this region – he’s not particularly well organized anywhere – and hasn’t visited the Buckeye State since March. Conversely, Clinton’s stop Tuesday will be her second in eight days . …. Democrats say they now have 150 full-time employees on the ground in Ohio. It’s a mix of Ohio Democratic Party and Democratic National Committee staff. In the weeks since Clinton locked up the nomination, all factions appear to be working harmoniously toward her election and toward the election of Ted Strickland, who is challenging Republican Sen. Rob Portman. …. The Republican National Committee has more than 50 paid employees on the ground in the state – less than what was expected by this point. And Trump is still relying on the same in-state personnel that guided him to a loss against Kasich in the state’s March primary . Donald Trump isn’t even trying to compete in Ohio. Hillary Clinton is already out organizing Trump in swing states across the country, but what is happening in Ohio is dramatic because Republicans know that it will be impossible for them to win the White House if Hillary Clinton carries Ohio . Trump is making the Republican Party run his campaign for him, and at a time when he should have been building his organization on the ground, the presumptive Republican nominee is firing his campaign manager and off to Scotland to handle “personal business.” Hillary Clinton is building a formidable organization for November, and Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care. Trump is laying the groundwork for defeat. Television interviews can’t replace boots on the ground in swing states . If Hillary Clinton wins Ohio in November, it will be because she trounced Trump in the Buckeye State by laying the foundation for victory all summer long. 2AC – Trump Wins Trump will win in Ohio – recent agenda swings voters too his side in a tied state

Thompson 6/29/16 Chrissie Thompson, writer at Cincinnati, 2016, (“Can Donald Trump win Ohio with slightly tweaked message?,” Cincinnati, June 29th, Accessed on 6/29/16) WP

Donald Trump dipped into Ohio Tuesday, bringing to the quintessential swing state the same message and tone he used when he campaigned unsuccessfully for the state’s GOP primary nod – but with a few subtle tweaks . Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, referred to the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal as “a rape of our country.” He praised the benefits of waterboarding against suspected terrorists of the Islamic State, arguing the U.S. must “fight fire with fire.” He extolled the beauty and size of his planned wall on the Mexican border, prompting the crowd’s standard “Build a wall! Build a wall!” chant. But parts of Trump’s message have changed a little in recent days, amid pleas from Republican leaders to tone it down and a scramble from his campaign to build a national operation. He’s giving more policy speeches , such as an address earlier Tuesday against globalization and trade deals. So wonky trade details, such as a reference to the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, popped up later that day amid his standard rally material, much to the disinterest of the crowd of around 2,000. He worked in a request for donations: “DonaldJTrump.com,” he added. He has backed off his plan to ban immigration by all Muslims, instead making several vague comments about screening or banning immigrants from countries where terrorists live. On Tuesday, he insisted, without giving documentation, that it was easier for Syrian Muslims to come to the U.S. as compared with Syrian Christians. One person started to boo. But then, as if seeking to ward off critiques accusing him of an anti-Muslim or xenophobic bent, he said: “I’m not saying one or the other (religion). I’m saying, how unfair is that? How bad is that?” He took a similar approach when he referred to the TPP as “rape.” “That’s what it is, too. It’s a harsh word,” he said, preemptively responding to criticism of his comparison of a violent crime to a trade deal. To win Ohio – and no Republican has made it to the White House without the Buckeye State – Trump must win over GOP voters who were wary of his controversial comments or positions. He lost the state’s primary in March to Ohio Gov. John Kasich, as many voters said they wanted to do their part to stop the billionaire’s march to the nomination. Many Ohio Republicans now say they dislike Trump’s presumptive opponent, Democrat Hillary Clinton, but haven’t decided whether they can stomach a vote for Trump in November. Both Larry Waltz and Ashley Cochran referred to their choice in November as “the lesser of two evils .” Waltz, 74, who usually votes Republican, told a reporter driving through his hometown of Zanesville he hadn’t decided who would win his vote. Cochran, 28, has chosen Trump and drove from nearby Bridgeport to attend his rally at Ohio University Eastern’s campus . “I like people who think with their brain,” Cochran said, and Trump may be able to “actually fix things” in the economy. Trade Not Key Trade not key to Ohio — not enough votes to flip. Trickey 7/6

Erick Trickey, magazine writer and editor in Boston. I’ve written for POLITICO Magazine, Smithsonian, Boston Magazine, Cleveland Magazine, Agence France-Presse, People, Belt, and Rust Belt Chic: The Cleveland Anthology, 7-6-2016, "Hillary Clinton’s Rust Belt Ambassador," POLITICO Magazine, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/sherrod-brown-hillary- clinton-veep-election-2016-214015, Accessed: 7-21-16//SRawal

As Donald Trump scrambles and realigns American politics, it’s a strangely good time to be Sherrod Brown. Ohio’s senior senator is , suddenly, Hillary Clinton’s ambassador to the Rust Belt , her new confidant on trade, her defender when Trump blasts her as a shill for globalism—and now a potential pick as her vice president.

This year, the country is swinging Brown’s way . For decades, he has fought free-trade agreements, forged a deep alliance with labor and won elections in swing-state Ohio with a liberal voting record and a common touch . Now, the presidential candidates are vying to win over his type of voter: workers who feel the economy has left them behind. For Clinton, eager to hold onto blue-collar Democrats who might be tempted to defect to the populist real estate mogul, choosing Brown as her running mate could neutralize Trump’s appeal among that crucial slice of the electorate . Brown, after all, claimed the American-workers-first mantle long before Trump ever seriously contemplated a run for president.

On June 28, when Trump bashed Clinton in Ohio and Pennsylvania for supporting free-trade deals, Brown stepped up as a Clinton surrogate to hit him back. “While he’s talking about putting America first, his accountants are cashing checks from products that he’s had manufactured in other countries,” Brown said on a conference call arranged by the Clinton campaign. When I talked to Brown two days later, he was still at it, taking brickbats to Trump, questioning his integrity and his business record in swift strokes.

“ He’s going to be seen as the hypocrite he is,” Brown, 63, growled. “ When it comes to making money, he’s glad to take advantage of cheap wages and outsourcing . When it comes to running for president, he talks a different game.”

Clinton distancing herself from Obama’s trade policies ensures she wins Ohio Russo 6/27 ― John Russo, visiting scholar at the Kalmanovitz Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor at Georgetown University, former co-director of the Center for Working-Class Studies at Youngstown State University, 2016. (“Hillary Clinton risks losing Ohio and the working class unless she alters her stance on trade”, Cleveland, June 27th, 2016, Available Online at: http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/06/hillary_clinton_risks_losing_o.html Accessed 7-21-16) Clinton needs the support of working-class Ohioans – the very people who have been hurt the most by trade policy. To do that, she needs to stop insisting that trade is good . Her current stance is similar to wooing West Virginia coal miners by touting the benefits of non-carbon fuels.

Similarly, she should stop talking about retraining and promising high-tech jobs, which only reminds voters of how hollow such programs have been in the past.

If Clinton does not develop a strong and believable working-class agenda, I predict that the Democrats will lose Ohio in November, and that would open the door to a Trump victory nationally.

Trump anti-trade rhetoric fails in Ohio ― hypocrisy and Clinton is anti-trade Wilkinson 7/3 ― Howard Wilkinson, journalist for WVXU, 2016. (“Does Trump Have A Realistic Shot At Ohio's Electoral Votes?”, WVXU, July 3rd, 2016, Available Online at: http://wvxu.org/post/does-trump-have-realistic-shot-ohios-electoral-votes#stream/0 Accessed 7-21-16)

Some say Trump could score with Ohio voters on those trade issues – just because this state has been hit so hard in recent decades by jobs leaving the state and going overseas. But Pepper said Trump's wailing about American jobs going overseas doesn't wash with his own record as a businessman .

" This is a guy who has had a line of clothing with shirts made in China and ties made in Bangladesh, all of them made by low wage workers," Pepper said. "He's done exactly what he says he doesn't like."

The pro-Clinton forces will not let such arguments go unanswered, Pepper said.

" The Ohio AFL-CIO has a worker-to-worker effort going on, where they are going brother to brother and sister to sister telling union members, 'Don't believe this guy Trump.'''

Clinton, Pepper said, voted against CAFTA in the Senate and wants NAFTA re-negotiated to add environmental and worker protections. Pennsylvania 2AC – Trumps Wins Non-unique – Trump can win Pennsylvania in the status quo Zito 7-6 – Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page columnist, 2016 (“Trump Victory in Pennsylvania Hinges on 10 Counties, Experts Say”, RealClearPolitics, Available online at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/06/trump_victory_in_pennsylvania_hinges_ on_10_counties_experts_say_131111.html, Accessed on 07-07-2016, KG)

Republicans may not be committing political hyperbole this year when they say their presidential candidate can win Pennsylvania, experts say. Every election since Pennsylvania went for Bill Clinton in 1992, Republicans have declared “this time” the Keystone State will turn red. And every cycle they fail. This year might be different, according to experts in electoral math. “Republicans don't need Pennsylvania to win the electoral vote, but Democrats do, and a loss here for Hillary Clinton on election night would likely mean she loses the White House by the morning ,” said Lara Brown, director of George Washington University's political management program. The key to presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump's winning Pennsylvania in November lies in just 10 counties, the experts say. And it all comes down to tweaking the margins in existing red counties rather than flipping traditionally blue counties . In 2012, Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama by 309,840 votes. But add a couple of thousand votes in 10 or so counties, and all of a sudden the race gets close. THE WIDE VIEW Dave Wasserman, political analyst at the Cook Political report, crunched Pennsylvania's electoral trends since 1996 and concludes the Keystone State could be the tipping point this cycle for the Republicans. Pennsylvania has become 0.4 percent more Republican every cycle, Wasserman said. In 1996, 28 of Pennsylvania's 67 counties went for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole; by 2012, just 11 counties went for Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Western Pennsylvania has been the driving force in the state becoming more Republican said Henry Olsen, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Olsen said voting patterns of former union Democrats displaced by trade deals and environmental regulations that impacted the coal industry contributed to the rightward push . “If you look at the coal county of Greene, the person who is not looking closely says, ‘Oh well, Romney carried it by huge margins, so how can that make a difference for Trump?' Well he did, except potential turnout was down by 10 percentage points,” Olson said. “If Trump gets that 10 percent back, that is only 1,500 to 2,000 votes in a small county like Greene, but then you get an extra 10 percent in Washington, Cambria, Indiana, Somerset counties, which have larger populations,” he said of neighboring counties with similar voting patterns. “Then, all of a sudden, you are talking about an extra 200,000 votes; you have to look at turnout and margin as much as who carries it,” he said. That math does not apply to Western Pennsylvania exclusively. “The same goes for the Philly collar county of Bucks,” Wasserman said, as well as the northeastern coal counties of Luzerne and Lackawanna, “where Trump won't necessarily win, but could chip away at Clinton's margins.” Wasserman said while the suburban counties of Pittsburgh neither resemble nor are as populous as the suburban counties of Philadelphia, “Philly's collar counties are not as blue as you would suspect, and Pittsburgh's collar counties need to have a larger turnout to make the difference.” Trump's performance in the Republican primary was remarkably strong . He swept all 67 counties. That popularity did not appear to abate even after nearly a month of public relations stumbles and bad press, including Trump's comments on an Indiana judge's ethnic background and apparent self-absorption in the aftermath of the Orlando massacre. A Quinnipiac University poll showed Trump remained tied with Democrat Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania at the end of June. Sean Trende, election analyst at RealClearPolitics, said Clinton must strongly outperform Obama's 2012 numbers in Dauphin, Chester and Lancaster to win. Wasserman, Olson and Kyle Kondik at the University of Virginia's Crystal Ball agreed. In 2012, Obama won Dauphin by 7,000 votes but won Chester by only 500 ballots. He lost Lancaster by 50,000 votes. Virginia Other Issues key China not important in Virginia- economy, terror, etc. Blanton 07/13/16 (Dana, Vice President, Public Opinion Research at Fox News, “Fox News Poll: Clinton tops Trump by 7 points in Virginia,” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/13/fox-news-poll-clinton-tops-trump-by-7-points- in-virginia.html, accessed 07/21/16, MM)

Nearly 9-in-10 Virginia voters say the economy (86 percent) will be important to their vote for president. Roughly three-quarters feel that way about terrorism (76 percent) and government spending (72 percent). Nearly two-thirds ranks Supreme Court nominations at the same level (64 percent).

Virginia felon voting rights will tip scale in election Fain 16 — Travis, covers state government and politics out of Richmond. He grew up in Georgia and graduated from the University of Georgia, 2016 (“In Swing-State Virginia, Battle Over Felons Voting Goes to Court,” Governing, Jul 20, http://www.governing.com/topics/public-justice-safety/tns-virginia-court-mccauliffe-felons-voting.html, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV)

Virginia's legislative and executive branches took their fight over felon voting before the state's highest court Tuesday in a case that could redefine a governor's power to restore civil rights and sway the 2016 presidential race. ¶ Republican legislators called on the Virginia Supreme Court to keep more than 200,000 Virginia felons from registering to vote, arguing that Gov. Terry McAuliffe's sweeping executive order restoring some of their civil rights went so far that it threatens to brush away a section of the state constitution.¶ McAuliffe's attorney pointed to the plain language of the constitution, which uses singular pronouns but doesn't specifically say Virginia governors can only restore rights on a case-by-case basis, as 71 previous governors have done when it comes to violent felons.¶ "There's no hook in that language where you can hang their arguments," Solicitor General Stuart Raphael argues before the state's seven Supreme Court justices.¶ The stakes are high. Though only 11,662 people affected by McAuliffe's order had registered to vote as of Monday, Virginia's swing state status in a crucial general election leaves both sides fighting for every vote. Republicans have said McAuliffe, the long-time friend of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, timed his restoration to help win her votes. Virginia felon voting rights bill tips election Roth 16 — Zachary, a national reporter for MSNBC, 2016 (“a national reporter for MSNBC,” MSNBC, April 25, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/could-virginias-restoration-felon-voting-rights-tip-election, Accessed 07-21-2016, AV)

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe’s announcement Friday that he’ll restore the voting rights of more than 200,000 former felons is perhaps the biggest step forward yet in the growing push to weaken felon disenfranchisement laws nationwide. But with Virginia shaping up as perhaps the single most pivotal swing state in the nation, it’s not impossible that the move could also tip the 2016 election for the Democrats. ¶ McAuliffe, it’s worth noting, served as a top fundraiser for President Bill Clinton, and remains a close ally of the Clintons. Now there’s a small chance that with Friday’s order, he has helped put Hillary Clinton in the White House. ¶ Of course, the fact that Democrats may get a boost from the move is irrelevant to whether it’s good or bad policy—and there’s growing support for the notion that people who have served their time should be full participants in society. Still, it’s hard to believe the political benefits didn’t cross the governor’s mind.¶ Donald Trump already is warning it’ll help Democrats, while badly mischaracterizing McAuliffe’s executive order. “In Virginia, 200,000 people in prison for horrible crimes are being given right to vote for the first time,” Trump told a crowd in Rhode Island Monday, calling it “crooked politics.” (In fact, the order applies to people who have completed their sentences and any supervised release, parole or probation, not to people currently in prison.)¶ “Virginia is a close state, I would win Virginia, I have properties,” Trump continued. “200,000 people convicted for the worst crimes…they know they’re gonna vote Democrat, and that could be the swing.”¶ McAuliffe’s office said the order will impact an estimated 206,000 people. What impact might that have this November? In short, it could give a small but significant boost to the Democratic candidate. Wisconsin Unpredictable Wisconsin is unpredictable – history proves Walters 07/11 - Steven Walters, Senior Producer for the Nonprofit public channel Wisconsin Eye, 07/11/16("Steven Walters: Exploring reasons Wisconsin is a presidential battleground ," published by The Gazette Extra, Available online at http://www.gazettextra.com/20160711/steven_walters_exploring_reasons_wisconsin_is_a_pre sidential_battleground, Accessed 7/21/2016, AJ)

Fifth, Wisconsin voters have proven they will change sides .

In the 1990s, control of the state Senate flipped from one party to the other three times. And, in 2012, the recalls of two Republican senators who had voted for Walker’s controversial Act 10 changes gave Democrats Senate control, although only until November elections.

And, Democrats ran the Capitol in the 2009 -10 session. But Republicans have controlled it since January 2011— the same Republicans who haven’t won a Wisconsin election for President since 1984. ***Link*** Link Turns Link Turn — Trade Trade agreements are actually incredibly popular with voters in states that will play a role in winning the general—Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Ohio —Plan’s popularity helps Clinton Needham, 6/22 (Vicki, experienced correspondent and reporter, 06/22/16, “Poll: Trade is popular in swing states, among Democrats,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/policy/finance/trade/284539-poll-trade-is-popular-in-swing-states-among- democrats)

Trade is more popular with voters in swing states than the presumptive Democratic and Republican presidential nominees might think, especially among Democrats, according to a new poll. Voters in four battleground states — Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Ohio — expressed positive views about the U.S. expanding trade, even while Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump call for major changes to the nation's global commercial outreach. A new Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) poll on Wednesday shows that by a 55 to 32 percent margin swing-state voters say that new high-standard trade deals can help the U.S. economy and support good-paying jobs. Democrats are particularly supportive, 66 to 25 percent. All four states will play an out-sized role in who wins the presidency in November. President Obama is trying to convince Congress to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) before he leaves office but he faces widespread Democratic opposition on Capitol Hill and among major labor unions. In an article for RealClearPolicy, PPI's Will Marshall and Ed Gerwin argue that voters roundly reject the idea that the United States can prosper by walling off its borders from the global economy. They also don’t believe that ending current trade agreements will make the nation's manufacturers or workers better off. Trump has said he would slap high tariffs on countries like China and would scrap all U.S. trade agreements and renegotiate them to get better terms for workers. Marshall and Gerwin said the poll revealed that voters understand that American companies and workers face intense competition in a complex global economy and know that there are no simple solutions. “As we’ve detailed, protectionism is bad economics,” Marshall and Gerwin wrote. “But, apparently, it’s been good politics for Trump as well as Bernie Sanders, both of whom used trade-bashing populism to energize angry voters during primary elections, where extreme partisans often play an outsized role,” they wrote. “And Trump promises to double down on opposition to trade as he pivots toward November.” Marshall and Gerwin say that as time ticks away toward the general election in November that “Trump — and Hillary Clinton — will face a different political calculus on trade.” Clinton has said she opposes the TPP in its current form and that she wants a better deal for the U.S. economy and workers. The new poll, conducted by Democratic pollster Peter Brodnitz, shows that these voters want the United States to step up its global game, not pull back. The poll shows that 75 percent, including 73 percent of swing voters and 82 percent of Democrats, said that a strong economy requires a reliance on heavy trade with other countries. "Our poll’s findings suggest that to prevail with swing voters and in swing states, Democrats, in particular, will need to craft messages and support policies that transcend protectionism — that recognize trade’s role in supporting American prosperity, acknowledge the complexity of global competition and highlight the benefits of high-standard trade agreements," Marshall and Gerwin wrote. On overwhelming majority — 90 percent — say the United States must create an environment that enables companies here to compete against foreign businesses, "and a strong majority believe that workers can and should benefit from company success." Of the voters concerned about U.S. manufacturing jobs moving overseas, about 66 percent, and 72 percent of Democrats, say the biggest threat to job losses comes primarily from greater foreign competition rather than from the "bad trade agreements" that Trump and Sanders often discuss. Similarly, when asked to choose among policies to keep jobs in America, 67 percent chose either lowering corporate tax rates or educating more highly skilled workers. Only 19 percent said that ending trade agreements was the solution. More than 85 percent said that higher levels of education and training and increased investment in infrastructure are keys to advancing the U.S. economy. When asked to evaluate trade agreements with strong labor and environmental standards, 55 percent said they believe these agreements can help the economy and create good paying jobs; only 32 percent felt that the costs of high-standard deals outweigh the benefits. "To address this legitimate frustration and build a stronger economy for all, it’s critical that the nation do more to help alienated Americans left behind by the global economy," they wrote. "This will require stronger backing for real, broadly supported solutions — such as enhancing job training and improving infrastructure — that can help assure that trade’s undeniable benefits are more widely shared."

No link and turn – Americans love trade and it’s not a winning issue for Trump, especially in swing states New Frontier 6/29 – (The New Frontier, pseudonym for a writer at DailyKos, 6/29/16, “Trade is Not a Winning Issue for Trump,” http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/6/29/1543538/-Trade-is-Not-a-Winning-Issue-for- Trump, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

In this election cycle, it has become the conventional wisdom that presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump is uniquely poised to win swing voters and wayward Democrats, due in part to his aggressive support for protectionism. Since last week’s Brexit vote, commentary about an anti- global, protectionist moment has reached a fever pitch, with some pundits speculating that presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton will be swept away before the protectionist “wave” unless she mimics her opponent and tacks hard to the isolationist camp.

The conventional wisdom is wrong. Available data does not support the notion that this is a protectionist moment , or that the American people strongly favor protectionism. Pew Research finds that 51% of voters favor trade and trade agreements, while 39% oppose them. The situation in swing states is similar: the Hill reports that a PPI poll found 55 % of voters across Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Ohio were favorable toward trade, while only 32% viewed it unfavorably. Drilling down, it becomes even clearer that Trump’s protectionism is not a general election asset: PPI’s poll found that swing state Democrats were more favorable toward trade than the electorate as a whole, with 66% supportive to 25% in opposition. Pew drilled down further, finding that support for trade was strongest among Democratic base constituencies: 72% of Hispanic voters, 55% of African-Americans, 54% of women, and 67% of young voters were supportive. In addition, 56% of Democrats and voters leaning Democratic (including 58% of Clinton voters and 55% of Sanders voters) viewed trade positively. In contrast, opposition to trade was strongest among Republicans, with Trump supporters heavily favoring protectionism while Kasich and Cruz voters were split on the issue.

As to whether this or other issues allows Trump to scramble the electorate, the answer is pretty clearly no: Clinton leads Trump by a similar margin to the one at which Barack Obama led John McCain (a more conventional Republican) at this point in 2008.

To be sure, the question of trade policy is not a black-and-white divide between “trade” and “protectionism,” and this data addresses the political, rather than policy, implications of trade. However, it is clear from the data that protectionism is no more popular than usual outside of the demographics (which Democrats do not and cannot win anyway) where it is always popular. This data tracks closely with my own experience as a resident of southwestern Pennsylvania: the only voters who are aggressively pro-protectionism, and probably the only voters for whom it is truly a “voting issue,” have been beyond the reach of the Democratic Party for decades. The general public, and Democratic base constituencies in particular, are opposed to Trump’s trade-war protectionism. Link Turn Module – Independents Independents overwhelmingly support foreign policy and trade Friedman 12 Uri Friedman, writer for Foreign Policy, 2012 (“What is the foreign policy of independent voters” http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/16/whats-the-foreign-policy-of- independent-voters/ October 16th ) WP

Here’s a quick look at the ways self-identified independents responded to the organization’s questions: Nearly 60 percent believe the United States is headed down the wrong track¶ 49 percent say the economy is their top voting concern; only 5 percent say national security is¶ Roughly 18 percent identify terrorists as the biggest threat to American national security interests, making it the most popular choice among the group, and 43 percent think the threat of terrorism on American soil has increased since 9/11 ¶ 48 percent cite Iran as the country that poses the most danger to American national security interests¶ Roughly 57 percent favor preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons even if that means taking U.S. military action against Tehran — placing independents between Democrats (49 percent) and Republicans (79 percent) ¶ Independents are pretty much evenly split on whether the United States should maintain its troop presence in Afghanistan to prevent the country from becoming a safe haven for terrorists or withdraw U.S. forces regardless of whether Afghan security forces are prepared to security the country; Republicans favor keeping troops in the country while Democrats favor withdrawal¶ Around 65 percent feel the United States should work with its allies to establish a no-fly zone in Syria¶ 50 percent think we’re spending the right amount of money on national defense, putting independents at odds with Democrats (who are more likely to support reductions) and Republicans (who are more likely to support increases)¶ Nearly 60 percent believe foreign aid is a waste, again placing independents between Democrats (42 percent) and Republicans (63 percent), but nearly three out of four would support foreign assistance if there was a system to ensure that the aid was used effectively¶ More than 50 percent have an unfavorable view of China and just under 50 percent have an unfavorable view of Russia; more than 60 percent have an unfavorable view of Egypt¶ 72 percent have a favorable view of Israel¶ 64 percent think trade between the United States and foreign countries is a good thing ¶ Roughly 87 percent believe America is a force for good in the world and more than 90 percent say it is important for the United States to play a significant role in world affairs¶ Independents, of course, are not necessarily synonymous with undecided voters (according to the FPI poll, more than 40 percent of independents report that they’re either voting for Obama or leaning toward doing so, and just under 40 percent say the same about Romney).But if you track another, significantly smaller group in the survey — those who identify as "firm undecideds" when it comes to the election — on the issues listed above, you’ll find the same broad trends. The portrait of the independent voter that emerges — focused primarily on the economy , wary of tinkering with defense spending, relatively hawkish on Iran and Syria, concerned about the rise of China, ambivalent on Afghanistan, skeptical of foreign aid, pessimistic about the direction of the country but bullish on America’s global leadership — is worth keeping in mind as you watch tonight’s debate.

They’re key to the election Young 15 [J.T. Young; served in the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget as well as a Congressional staff member; Winning The 2016 Election Means Winning Independents; APR 27, 2015 @ 10:00 AM; http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/04/27/2016-election-a-partisan-fight-for- nonpartisan-voters/#173794486330//TPB]

Partisan politics can work at the state and local levels and recently, they’ve worked remarkably well—hence why Congress is now so polarized. Republicans have capitalized on the broader public’s dissatisfaction with President Barack Obama, reaching their largest Congressional majorities in decades. And Democrats’ corresponding losses have come in their more conservative districts, making congressional Democrats more liberal as a whole.¶ However, winning a presidential election means winning Independent voters. In America’s only nationwide election, in which almost all the electoral votes are decided on a winner-take-all basi s , state and local partisan splits tend to offset . The result: America’s middle takes on increasing importance . ¶ Under the president, that middle has also grown absolutely. According to Gallup polling, when Obama took office in 2009, 36% of voters identified themselves as Democrats, versus 30% for Republicans and 33% for Independents. Now, Republican s comprise about 27% of the electorate (down 3%) and Democrats, about 28% (down 8%). On the other hand, the number of Independents has gained a considerable 11% and currently sits at 44%. Link Turn – Public Support Plan is popular – public has consistently seen China as a beneficial trade ally for 10 years Friedhoff and Smeltz 15 Karl Friedhoff, Fellow, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy; Dina Smeltz, Senior Fellow, Public Opinion and Foreign Policy, 2016, (AMERICANS VIEW RELATIONS WITH CHINA AS IMPORTANT DESPITE SOME MISTRUST, September 22nd, https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/americans-view-relations-china-important- despite-some-mistrust, 6.22.16, WP

Despite suspicions toward China, the American public prefers engagement to the containment of China . In the 2014 Chicago Council Survey, 67 percent of Americans said the United States should undertake friendly cooperation and engagement with China. Three in ten (29%) said that the United States should seek to actively limit China’s growth. This finding has been consistent since the question was first asked in 2006 . Americans underscore the importance of ties to China likely because of growing Chinese influence in Asia. Fifty-two percent expect that China’s influence in Asia will grow in the next ten years , compared to just 31 percent who expect the same from the United States. [2] Some expectation of China’s influence in the next decade, however, is based on misperception. From 2010 through 2014, Pew Research surveys showed that Americans were either as likely or more likely to name China as to name the United States when asked which country is the world’s leading economic power. In the most recent spring 2015 survey, however, Americans were more likely to say that the United States leads by ten percentage points (46% US, 36% China), perhaps a reflection of China’s economic difficulties over the past several months as well as US economic recovery.

Public supports the plan – fears full military confrontation Lumbers 15 (Michael, PhD, heads the Emerging Security Program at the NATO Association of Canada and serves as a senior analyst for the Asia Pacific Desk at Wikistrat, “Whither the Pivot? Alternative U.S. Strategies for Responding to China's Rise” Comparative Strategy, 34(4), 311-329)

Short of such a shock, it is exceedingly difficult to envision such a radical departure in strategy garnering support at home or among regional allies. Generally, recent public opinion surveys have revealed that while Americans are uneasy about China’s rise, they are roughly divided when asked whether the United States should adopt a tougher economic posture toward China, while strong majorities are opposed to a military confrontation. When asked whether the U.S. should engage with China or work to limit its rise , roughly two-thirds have consistently opted for the former approach.10 The marked decline in enthusiasm for U.S. activism abroad after a decade of entanglement in the Middle East and in the wake of a financial crisis has surely only cemented this sentiment.11 Circumstances, of course, could change. For the foreseeable future, however, popular support for a strategy of confrontation would only result from a direct, unprecedented Chinese threat to U.S. security. Link Turn – Competition Broad data research found that many counties increase in congressional democrat votes after permanent normal trade relations with China. Che et al 16 Yi Che, Yi Lu, Justin R. Pierce, Peter K. Schott, Zhigang Tao, writers at National Bureau of Economic Research, 2016, (DOES TRADE LIBERALIZATION WITH CHINA INFLUENCE U.S. ELECTIONS?, April, http://www.nber.org/papers/w22178.pdf, 6/22/16. WP

We find that U.S. counties more exposed to increased competition from China experience increases in the share of voters cast for Democrats in Congressional elections , along with increases in the probability that a Democrat represents a county and the probability of a county switching from a Republican to a Democrat Representative. The results are also economically significant we find that moving a county from the 25th to the 75th percentile of exposure to China increases the Democrat vote share in Congressional elections by 1.5 percentage points, or a 3.7 percent increase relative to the average share of voter won by Democrats in the 2000 Congressional election. Moreover, we find that the effect of the increase in import competition on voting is slightly larger once we account for the exposure of other counties in the same labor market , and that increased import competition is associated with higher voter turnout and a higher share of votes cast for Democrats in Presidential and gubernatorial elections. The second half of our analysis investigates potential links between these voting outcomes and the policy choices of legislators in Congress. We use a regression discontinuity approach to examine differences between Democrats and Republicans voting on hills related to trade and economic assistance programs. We find that Democrats are more likely to support policies that limit import competition and that provide economic assistance that may benefit workers adversely affected by trade competition, providing an explanation for the voting behavior documented in the first part of our paper. Link Turn – Chinese Economy China’s economy is key to ensuring Clinton’s win Long 15— Heather Long, CNNMoney’s senior markets and economy writer, editor at The Guardian, Master’s in Financial economics from Oxford, 2015. (“China could really hurt Democrats in 2016”, CNN Money, Available online at http://money.cnn.com/2015/09/05/news/economy/china-us-economy-democrats/, Accessed 06/22/16, CAW)

It's no secret that Democrats need the American economy to stay strong until Election Day 2016. Right now the biggest threat to that is China. No one knows exactly how much China's economy is slowing down. But there's wide agreement that the country isn't growing at 7% like the government says. China's hiccups are being felt around the world. They've already sent Canada and Brazil into recession and caused the U.S. stock market to plunge dramatically at the end of August. There are fears the world economy could get worse in the coming months and hurt the U.S. -- just around the time Americans really start to tune in to the presidential election. "Neither Clinton nor Biden can escape the Obama economy," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. "They will either pick the fruits or bear the burden." Related: If the stock market hits this level, then get nervous This should be the Democrats' moment. China is thwarting Democrats' economic message. This should have been a glory moment for Democrats. They should be bragging about how President Obama & team -- including Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden -- brought America back from the worst recession since the Great Depression era. Most countries are looking enviously at the U.S. right now. It's growing at a healthy 2.3%. Last year was the best year of job growth since 1999. The dollar is strong, gas is cheap and even the auto sector is bouncing back. "This is not the worst record to run on," says hedge fund billionaire Jim Chanos, who has pledged his support for Joe Biden. But hardly anyone is talking about the Obama economy's triumphs . Instead, the conversation now is dominated by China, the stock market and a growing sense of worry . The International Monetary Fund ( IMF ) just warned it expects weaker growth . China and nerves are the talk of the town There's a general sense on both Wall Street and Main Street that although America is doing all right now, the rest of the world could pull the U.S. down. "A day like [Tuesday] or last week when the Dow was down by 1,000 points causes some people to worry that the economy will begin to soften. That's a natural fear," says Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research. September could be rough for Dems. September is unlikely to be much kinder for Democrats when it comes to the economy . The Federal Reserve meets September 16 and 17. America's central bank now isn't sure that the economy is strong enough to handle raising interest rates for the first time in about a decade. Whatever the Fed decides, it's likely to cause more stock market swings. And if the central bank doesn't raise rates, there will be even more concerns about cracks in the Obama economy. On top of that, Chinese president Xi Jinping is coming to meet with President Obama in a big summit. The global economy will almost certainly be a key discussion point. Pope Francis is visiting as well. He is widely expected to criticize major inequality problems in America. As if China and the stock market aren't concerning enough, the majority of Americans now believe their kids will not be better off than their parents. "This is the first generation for which the American Dream -- work hard, work for the same company for 40 years, get a good pension -- is going away," says Steve Schale, a Democratic strategist who is part of the Draft Biden camp. "It's a really unsettling era." Of course, there's still a long way to go until Election Day. A lot can change for China, the U.S. and the rest of the world. But right now, Democrats face an increasingly challenging messaging problem on the economy . Link Turn – Soft on China Good Looking soft on foreign policy is good — Trump is already winning with hardliners, but ceded the middle. Cohen 6/8 — Michael Cohen, Columnist for the World Politics Review, 2016 (“Trump’s Posturing Opens Space for Clinton to Soften Her Foreign Policy Image,” World Politics Review, June 8th, Accessible Online at http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/19006/trump-s- posturing-opens-space-for-clinton-to-soften-her-foreign-policy-image, Accessed On 07-21-2016)

A reasonable discussion of foreign policy free of martial rhetoric is not something to be sneezed at. To the contrary, it’s something to be appreciated in this election cycle . And it’s indicative of what Trump has given to Clinton: the opportunity to talk about America’s place in the world, and the means for furthering U.S. interests, in more nuanced terms. She doesn’t need to do the usual dance performed by most Democratic candidates, who try to sound as tough as possible on foreign policy. She can talk about diplomacy and development, the rights of women and the LGBT community, and the need to engage with America’s enemies, because she doesn’t have to worry about being branded as a woolly-headed liberal who doesn’t recognize the threats facing America. After all, the greatest threat to America’s place in the world is the man she will be facing off against in November.

As Republican presidential candidates moved further and further to the right on foreign policy this year, it allowed Democrats to stake out more moderate positions, secure in the knowledge that those in the political center are not going to be inclined to embrace the harsh Republican message. This year, Democrats don’t need to inoculate themselves from seeming too soft , because Republicans have become too radical, thereby ceding the political middle .

Now, with the presumptive GOP presidential nominee so extreme in his rhetoric, so radical in his views, and so clueless in his understanding of the world, the Democratic nominee can play it straight and not worry about the political impact. As crazy as it may sound, thanks to Trump, we just might have a reasonable discussion of foreign policy on the presidential campaign trail this year—well, at least from one candidate. Link Turn – A2: Weak on China/Gross GOP painting Clinton as soft on China hands her the election – highlights her experience and their lack Golan, 15

[Shanhar, The Henry Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, Rethinking United States Military Bases in East Asia, Building a Pragmatic Coalition in American Politics, Winter, 2015, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33275/Task%20Force%20E%202015.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y]

Alongside the Hillary factor, a nother complication in any future plan of the Republican Party to oppose Clinton is their party’s vastly divided stances. First of all, unlike the Democrats, the Republicans have many possible front-runners in 2016, and their primaries are promising to be a tough battle. A recent New York Times article described the upcoming fight for the Republican nomination as “a crowded field of people who say they are considering running for president — including Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and the 2012 presidential nominee, Mitt Romney — has emerged. That means the party is expecting a bruising ideological battle for the nomination ” (Chozick, 2015, n.p.). Although since the publication of the article, Mitt Romney has bowed out, the description continues to be relevant to the challenges facing the Republican Party. Added to this contentious reality, there is also increasing plurality in top Republican’s positions on foreign policy. While it has been established earlier in this report that since the Korean War the Republicans have managed to brand themselves as the more hawkish of the two parties, a different trend of conservatism is currently gaining momentum in the Republican Party. As Dueck points out in his book, “conservative anti interventionists have no doubt become a more visible national presence in recent years, producing some writing of high quality in venues such as Reason and the American Conservative” (Dueck, p.304). This raise of anti-interventionism can be seen most straightforwardly in aspiring presidential candidate Rand Paul. Kelly also observes a shift in the Republican Party’s foreign policy asserting that “even within the GOP, there appears to be a small if growing constituency for military spending restraint,” a call that contradicts the Republican mainstream in the post WWII era (Kelly, p.497). While mainstream Republicans still present themselves as vehement hawks, the alternate policy positions present in this multipolar Republican primary a promise to provide an array of problematic foreign policy statements. These likely assertions are sure to haunt the eventual nominee of the GOP. This lack of consensus is a massive boost for the Democrats, and thus eases domestic pressures on the reforms. Clinton, who has served as Secretary of State, Senator, and the First Lady, would be a difficult contender in the realm of foreign policy for a GOP candidate, even if that individual sailed through the primaries. The current political realities make the ‘China’ and ‘North Korea’ cards highly unlikely to improve the Republican standing . With the divided camp in the Republican Party, as well as Clinton’s perceived relative hawkishness, attacking her for being soft on the PRC and the DPRK seems like a dangerous game to play for any aspiring Republican presidential candidate . Link Defense Link Non-Unique Trump is bashing Clinton on China now, and flip-flop link is non-unique. Tracey 6/29 — Abagail Tracey, politics reporter for Vanity Fair, 2016 (“‘Continuing Rape’: Donald Trump Goes Full Todd Akin on Trade,” The Hive — a Vanity Fair Politics Blog, June 29th, Accessible Online at http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/donald-trump-trade-deals-rape, Accessed On 07-21-2016)

After a tumultuous few weeks punctuated by a drop in the polls, Donald Trump returned on Tuesday to the tried-and-true tactic that put him atop the Republican presidential field in the first place: bashing globalization and decades of trade deals , and even going so far as to compare the bipartisan Trans-Pacific Partnership to “ rape .”

The Donald kicked off his anti-trade tirade during a speech in the Rust Belt town of Monessen, Pennsylvania. Against a backdrop of literal garbage, Trump laid out his seven-step plan to “bring back our jobs,” leading with a pledge to withdraw the U.S. from the as-yet unratified T.P.P. deal, The New York Times reports, as well as reiterating his plan to either renegotiate the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, to “get a better deal,” or to abandon the pact entirely. Trump also vowed to formally label China as a currency manipulator and to impose stiff tariffs on Chinese goods. Hours later, at an event in Ohio, Trump doubled down on his “American first” platform but escalated his oratory. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership is another disaster done and pushed by special interests who want to rape our country, just a continuing rape of our country,” Trump said, according to Talking Points Memo. “That’s what it is, too. It’s a harsh word. It’s a rape of our country.”

Trump’s economic prescriptions make little sense—experts agree that tariffs would cost U.S. consumers thousands of dollars a year in higher prices and could spark a global recession. But they’ve struck a chord with millions of working-class voters —particularly white men left behind by the collapse of America’s manufacturing base— and create a stark contrast with Hillary Clinton, who , like most Democrats and Republicans, supports free trade. “This is done by wealthy people that want to take advantage of us and and that want to assign another partnership,” Trump said Tuesday, taking aim at the Democratic front-runner’s past support for the T.P.P. “So Hillary Clinton, not so long ago, said this was the gold standard of trade pacts . The gold standard,” he said, stealing a page out of Bernie Sanders’s playbook.

In a debate with the Vermont senator in October of last year, Clinton walked back her support of the deal , which she said “didn’t meet [her] standards” after negotiations. But Clinton’s flip-flop on trade continues to be a major problem for her campaign , particularly in Rust Belt states that have been negatively impacted by globalization—a weakness that was tactfully exploited by Sanders earlier in the election cycle, after Clinton argued for renegotiating the deal in March. “I have a message for Secretary Clinton: We shouldn’t renegotiate the Pacific trade proposal. We should kill this unfettered free-trade agreement, which would cost us nearly half a million jobs,” Sanders said at the time. No Link — areas that care about China are already voting for Trump Hilsenrath and Davis 7/7 — Jon Hilsenrath and Bob Davis, Politics correspondents for the All Street Journal, 2016 (“Election 2016 Is Propelled by the American,” Dow Newswire, July 7th, Accessible Online at http://www.nasdaq.com/article/election-2016-is-propelled-by-the- american-2-20160707-00792, Accessed On 07-21-2016)

The economy's long underperformance has scrambled the debate . Old prescriptions, such as tax cuts by Republicans in the early 2000s and government spending by Democrats, haven't delivered prosperity, leading voters to cast about for alternatives .

Those alternatives narrowed to Mr. Trump, who promised to rip up trade deals and deport millions of illegal immigrants, and Mr. Sanders, who would break up big banks, tax stock trading and match Mr. Trump as an opponent of free- trade deals.

China, more than any other issue, shows the disillusionment with globalization.

The Promise

Trade with China and other nations would have a net positive impact on the economy as it would expose the world's largest population to U.S. goods and services, while those hurt by trade in America would adapt and be supported.

The Reality

Trade with China turned out to be a bigger shock to the economy than anybody expected, and the adjustment of the workforce slower.

Reality has been rougher on American workers . Hillary Clinton , who pushed a Pacific Rim trade deal as secretary of state, now positions herself as tough on China and opposes that same trade deal.

Mr. Trump has made China-bashing a campaign centerpiece . Of America's 100 counties with industries most exposed to Chinese imports, 89 voted for him in Republican primaries . Of the 100 least-exposed counties , before all of his competitors dropped out, 28 gave him the nod. Mr. Sanders takes a tough line on China.

GOP and Trump are doubling down on China bashing. USA Today 7/21 — USA Today, 2016 (“As GOP trashes China, Beijing warns of potential war with U.S.,” USA Today, Byline: Patrick Winn, Accessible Online at 2http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/21/china-gop-convention/87380604/, Accessed On 07-21-2016)

Yet that’s exactly what the U.S. Republican Party is doing. At its ongoing convention in Cleveland, led by nominee Donald Trump, the party is doubling down on China bashing .

According to the new Republican platform, China is guilty of “ cultural genocide ,” “ barbaric population control ” and a state-backed “ hostile takeover ” of American businesses. Worse yet, China’s military is growing more intimidating thanks to — you guessed it — the “ complacency of the Obama regime .”

No Link Uniqueness — Trump bashing Clinton on trade and foreign policy now. Bredderman 6/22 — Will Bredderman, Politics reporter at the Observer, 2016 (“Trump Looks to Salvage Flailing Campaign With Polished Populist Assault on Clinton,” Observer, June 22nd, Accessible Online at http://observer.com/2016/06/trump-looks-to-salvage-flailing-campaign- with-polished-populist-assault-on-clinton/, Accessed On 07-21-2016)

Rather than rebut the attacks his Democr atic opponent made yesterday on his business career, today Trump savaged her past stances on free trade and foreign policy.

“We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place,” Trump warned, making another explicit appeal to embittered supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “Hillary Clinton wants to be President. But she doesn’t have the temperament, or, as Bernie Sanders’ said, the judgement, to be president.”

He revisited his usual broadsides against the North American Free Trade Agreement that President Bill Clinton signed, China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization , the massive Obama administration- backed Trans Pacific Partnership trade pact and the outsourcing of American manufacturing. But today’s speech—though punctuated with his trademark interjections of “very important” and “so bad”—had little of his usual rambling and grammatical errors.

“I have visited the cities and towns across America and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Trump said. “She has betrayed the American worker on trade at every single stage of her career.”

Clinton supported and coordinated the creation of the TPP as secretary of state but came out against it during the Democratic primary. Her Republican opponent today, however, alleged that the reversal was a political ruse .

Opposition to free trade has been one of the magnate’s few consistent publicly expressed opinions over the past several decades, though a number of his clothing lines and other brands come out of factories in China and Mexico—the same nations he has railed against on the stump. And while he attacked the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of money from repressive foreign countries that enjoyed good relationships with the U.S. during the 1990s and during the former first lady’s stint as secretary of state, Trump neglected to mention he personally donated more than $100,000 to the same organization. Trump already bashing TPP and free trade Cirilli and Knowles 6/29 --- Kevin Cirilli and David Knowles, reporters at Bloomberg News, 2016 (“Trump Likens Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal to Rape,” Bloomberg Politics, Accessed Online at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/trump-channels- brexit-in-anti-trade-speech-at-pennsylvania-factory, Accessed on 07-21-2016, ES) Donald Trump continued blasting the Trans-Pacific Partnership on Tuesday, likening it in an evening speech to “rape.”

“It's a rape of our country. It's a harsh word, but that's what it is -- rape of our country,” Trump said at an evening rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio.

Earlier in the day, in a trade speech at a Pennsylvania scrap facility, Trump called on the U.S. to follow the political wave that began with the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union.

“Our friends in Britain recently voted to take back control of their economy, politics and borders,” Trump said. “ Now it's time for the American people to take back their future. We are going to take it back.”

The presumptive Republican presidential nominee sounded more like Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who ran against Hillary Clinton and global trade deals in the Democratic primary, when assessing whether free trade should continue to be a priority.

Calling NAFTA “the worst trade deal in the history of the country” and the Trans - Pacific Partnership “the greatest danger yet ,” Trump said he planned to re-negotiate trade deals in order to create jobs across the country and especially in places that formerly produced goods sold in the U.S. and abroad.

“It's time to declare our economic independence once again,” Trump said. “That means voting for Donald Trump.” Trump bashing China now—recent speech Cirilli and Knowles 6/29 --- Kevin Cirilli and David Knowles, reporters at Bloomberg News, 2016 (“Trump Likens Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal to Rape,” Bloomberg Politics, Accessed Online at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/trump-channels- brexit-in-anti-trade-speech-at-pennsylvania-factory, Accessed on 07-21-2016, ES)

Trump also blasted China, and signaled that he was prepared to confront the world's most populous nation.

“ I am going to instruct my Treasury secretary to label China a currency manipulator. Any country that devalues their currency in order to take advantage of the United States will be met with sharply,” Trump said.

China has been a favorite Trump target, and in May, the billionaire invoked the rape metaphor when speaking about the country.

“We can't continue to allow China to rape our country, and that's what they're doing,” Trump said at a rally in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Trump bashing China and trade now—TPP and NAFTA Corasaniti, et al, 6/28 --- Nick Corasaniti, Alexander Burns, and Binyamin Appelbaumjune, writers for the New York Times, 2016 (“Donald Trump Vows to Rip Up Trade Deals and Confront China,” New York Times, Accessed Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/donald-trump-trade-speech.html, Accessed on 07-21-2016, ES)

MONESSEN, Pa. — Donald J. Trump vowed on Tuesday to rip up international trade deals and start an unrelenting offensive against Chinese economic practices, framing his contest with Hillary Clinton as a choice between hard-edge nationalism and the policies of “a leadership class that worships globalism.”

Speaking in western Pennsylvania, Mr. Trump sought to turn the page on weeks of campaign turmoil by returning to a core set of economic grievances that have animated his candidacy from the start. He threatened to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and pledged to label China a currency manipulator and impose punitive tariffs on Chinese goods.

He attacked Mrs. Clinton on her past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact negotiated by the Obama administration, and challenged her to pledge that she would void the agreement in its entirety. Noting that Mrs. Clinton had backed free-trade agreements like Nafta in the past, Mr. Trump warned, “She will betray you again.”

At a rally later in the day in eastern Ohio, Mr. Trump attacked the Trans-Pacific Partnership in more provocative terms, saying it was a “rape of our country.” China bashing now—Republican party platform Winn 7/21 --- Patrick Winn, senior Southeast Asia correspondent for Global Post, 2016 (“As GOP trashes China, Beijing warns of potential war with U.S.,” USA Today, Accessed Online at http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/07/21/china-gop-convention/87380604/, Accessed on 07-21-2016, ES) **we do not endorse Trump’s obviously problematic language

Yet that’s exactly what the U.S. Republican Party is doing. At its ongoing convention in Cleveland, led by nominee Donald Trump, the party is doubling down on China bashing.

According to the new Republican platform, China is guilty of “ cultural genocide ,” “barbaric population control ” and a state-backed “ hostile takeover ” of American businesses.

Worse yet, China’s military is growing more intimidating thanks to — you guessed it — the “complacency of the Obama regime.”

This bluster comes at an extremely tense moment in US-China relations

Last week, an international tribunal at The Hague sided with the United States and eviscerated one of China’s most contentious claims of sovereignty.

For years, Beijing has insisted that practically all of the South China Sea — a vital waterway that supports one-third of the world’s shipping trade — is the “blue national soil” of China.

Unsurprisingly, other nations who look upon the sea from their shores (namely Vietnam and the Philippines) have never agreed.

The U.S. has urged both Vietnam and the Philippines to stand tall against China. All the while, the U.S. military has deployed its superior fleet of drones and warships into the sea to scare China into submission.

China’s response? Transforming minuscule islands into remote military bases armed with powerful missiles. Once little specks of rock, these islands have swelled as Chinese barges dump mountains of sand around their edges.

Beijing has always paired its military maneuvers in the sea with rhetorical bombast printed in state-run media, which offers a window into the Communist Party’s thinking.

But in the wake of the Hague tribunal’s verdict, the government’s mouthpiece media have spoken more forcefully about the prospects for war. One op-ed from a state-run outlet asks, “Is there any chance of war in the South China Sea?” The same piece suggests that, if the United States did battle China over the sea, America may be vanquished: “The 21st century has witnessed a series of failures of U.S. military actions.”

Another column compares the tribunal’s South China Sea ruling to the U.S.-orchestrated campaign to convince the world that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction” — thus making the case for invasion.

According to the op-ed, this is the “same trick” played by the U.S., which “believes in nothing but ‘might makes right.’” (For good measure, the state- run paper adds that former President George W. Bush should be charged as a war criminal.)

In the view of Chinese communist stalwarts, the tribunal’s verdict is“radical and shameless” and will be disregarded as “nothing but a piece of paper.”

Yet they concede this piece of paper “may bring the China-U.S. contest to a new climax” — and offers the U.S. “a great opportunity to humiliate and contain China.”

There is a common thread between the screeds coming from Beijing and Cleveland. Both parties, Communist and Republican, hope to project uncompromising power while satiating the nationalistic fervor that surges through their follower base.

On the Republican side, this anti-China drumbeat appears to have grown much louder with the ascent of Trump, a candidate who insists that “ we can’t continue to allow China to rape our country .”

Trump’s Democrat rival Hillary Clinton hasn’t matched that level of outrageous rhetoric. But in Beijing’s halls of power, she too is regarded as overly hostile. As U.S. secretary of state, she routinely castigated China. If elected, she could more forcefully challenge Beijing in the South China Sea than President Obama ever did

No matter who takes the U.S. presidency, the odds of a naval war with China remain low — at least in the near future. The two nations are simply too intertwined to rush headlong into conflict. A Chinese state-run paper rightly points out that “only maniacs would start a war between China and the U.S.”

But nationalistic bluster is intensifying in both countries. And each year, an increasing number of warships, missiles and drones are brought to the sea to jockey for supremacy.

The sea is primed for an unintended event — a drone shot down, a game of chicken between warships gone too far — that would demand extraordinary tact from a future U.S. president seeking to avoid war.

As China’s state-run Global Times puts it: “An accidental gunshot might put policymakers in both countries under huge pressure from public opinion, which could unexpectedly escalate the situation and lead to a grave crisis.”

GOP Platform includes China bashing now Makinen 7/21 --- Julie Makinen, LA Times Beijing Bureau Reporter, 2016 (“'Barbaric,' 'cultural genocide' and a 'return to Maoism': GOP platform's tough words rile China,” LA Times, Accessed Online at http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-republican-platform-20160721-snap- story.html, Accessed on 07-21-2016, ES) **modified for ableist language **also we don’t endorse any of the terrible things Republicans say

The platform adopted by delegates to the Republican National Convention this week in Cleveland mentions China 21 times — far more than Russia (10 times), Iran (seven), North Korea (three) or Syria (twice). Although the document borrows some language from the party’s 2012 platform, which called China a currency manipulator and unfair trader, the new platform says the GOP has had a major change of thinking about the world’s No. 2 economy.

“ China’s behavior has negated the optimistic language of our last platform concerning our future relations with China,” it says. “The liberalizing policies of recent decades have been abruptly reversed, dissent brutally crushed, religious persecution heightened , the Internet [halted ] crippled , a barbaric population-control two-child policy of forced abortions and forced sterilizations continued, and the cult of Mao revived.”

Beijing has not taken kindly to the criticism. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lu Kang said Thursday that American political parties should “view China’s development objectively and reasonably and understand correctly issues related to China-U.S. ties.”

Using a typical Chinese locution to avoid mentioning a person or entity by name, he added, “We hope relevant parties will stop groundlessly accusing China and interfering in China’s domestic affairs, and will do more to promote trust and cooperation between China and the U.S.”

China’s behavior has negated the optimistic language of our last platform concerning our future relations with China.

— GOP's 2016 platform

The 2016 platform is a stinging attack. “Critics of the regime have been kidnapped by its agents in foreign countries,” it says. “To distract the populace from its increasing economic problems and, more importantly, to expand its military might, the government asserts a preposterous claim to the entire South China Sea and continues to dredge ports and create landing fields in contested waters where none have existed before, ever nearer to U.S. territories and our allies, while building a navy far out of proportion to defensive purposes.”

The platform complains that during a military pageant in September, China was “parading their new missile, ‘the Guam Killer,’ down the main streets of Beijing, a direct shot at Guam as America’s first line of defense.” Meanwhile, the party said, “ cultural genocide continues” in the regions of Tibet and Xinjiang, and the “autonomy of Hong Kong is eroded.”

Link non-unique ― trade is the focus of the election now Rampell 6/30 ― Catherine Rampell, writer for the Washington Post, 2016. (“‘Trade’ has become a hot election topic. Here’s what it really means.”, Washington Post, June 30th, 2016, Available Online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-trade-opponents-really- dont-like/2016/06/30/2e9939e0-3ef7-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html Accessed 7-21-16)

But perhaps the most improbable aspect of this highly improbable election is this: Of all possible issues, trade — trade! — has become the economic centerpiece of the 2016 presidential campaign.

“TPP,” a once-esoteric initialism for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, gets shouted out at campaign rallies. This week Donald Trump gave an entire speech on trade — his most compelling, coherent policy talk yet — at a plant near Pittsburgh. Subsequently Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders spent the rest of the week trying to prove they care about trade way more than Trump does . They cared about trade before it was cool!

To many longtime trade nerds, this all feels super weird.

Usually trade makes voters’ eyes glaze over. It hasn’t been a central, salient issue in presidential campaigns for about two decades, when it took a star turn in Ross Perot’s “giant sucking sound” anti-NAFTA campaigns.

No Link Uniqueness — Trump is bashing Clinton and Obama on trade and China now. McGeough 6/30 — Paul McGeough, Senior Foreign Correspondent for the Sydney Morning Herald, 2016 (“Donald Trump dumps on free trade's 'rape of our country' in Pennsylvania address,” Sydney Morning Herald, June 30th, Accessible Online at http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4000644/donald-trump-dumps-on-free-trades-rape-of- our-country-in-pennsylvania-address/?cs=12, Accessed On 07-21-2016)

Junking decades of Republican orthodoxy, Donald Trump struck out for the White House on Tuesday from Pennsylvania with a vow to shred controversial global trade agreements – which he depicted as the continuing "rape of our country".

By day's end, the US political landscape was not unlike that of Britain in the wake of its Brexit referendum, where both major parties are embroiled in internecine war in the wake of a stunning vote to quit the European Union, which Trump referenced in a speech in Pennsylvania as "our friends in Britain recently [voting] to take back control of their country".

Trump's condemnation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Trans- Pacific Partnership (TPP) provoked counter-attacks from the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, both of which traditionally support Republican candidates.

Abandoning foundational GOP support for free trade and opposition to tariffs as he positioned himself to the left of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton on trade and jobs, Trump found an unlikely ally in Bernie Sanders who, still refusing to quit the race for the Democratic nomination, used a New York Times op-ed to warn that the British decision "to turn their backs on the EU and a globalised economy that is failing them and their children" could happen in the US.

It didn't matter that Sanders argued Trump was not fit to be president; because neither did he argue that Clinton was fit for the job - he simply didn't mention her.

Quoting global and American statistics on wealth distribution, wages and poverty, Sanders declared: "Let's be clear – the global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change." Turbo-charged by the Brexit vote, Trump laid out a seven-point plan which he claimed would boost domestic jobs, withdraw from the TPP and renegotiate NAFTA – from which he would also withdraw if Mexico and Canada did not concede new terms.

Singling out China as a currency manipulator on whom he'd impose punitive tariffs , he argued : "Now it's time for American workers to take back their future … on trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, we're going to put America first again; we're going to make America wealthy again."

Rejecting Republican conventional wisdom that countries benefit economically through imports, Trump argued that globalisation had left "millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache". To support his argument, Trump provided 128 footnotes in his prepared speech and relied on research from a left-leaning think tank, the Economic Policy Institute.

Invoking Sanders' rhetoric from the Democratic primaries, Trump warned: "People who rigged the system are supporting Hillary Clinton because they know as long as she is in charge, nothing is going to change."

Pitting his hard-core nationalist outlook against inevitable betrayal by a President Clinton, he denounced her policies as those of "a leadership class that worships globalism ".

Trump bashing China now. Money Morning 16 — Money Morning, investment paper, 2016 (“Why China Says Trump Likely to Beat Clinton,” Money Morning, May 4th, Accessible Online at http://moneymorning.com/2016/05/04/why-china-says-trump-likely-to-beat-clinton/, Accessed On 07-21-2016)

Donald Trump is now the GOP Party's presumptive nominee, and part of what propelled him this far has been his increasingly harsh stance on China .

Since he first announced his bid for candidacy on July 16, 2015, Trump has focused much of his campaign rhetoric on the U.S.' largest trading partner. In January, he proposed that tariffs on imported Chinese goods be increased to up to 45%. In February, he accused the large Asian nation of poaching American jobs and manipulating its currency. And just this past Monday, the real estate mogul made his most inflammatory remark about the country yet: He accused China of raping America.

Trump is bashing China now. Delvoie 7/10 — Louis A. Delvoie, Fellow in the Centre for International and Defence Policy at Queen's University, 2016 (“Donald Trump: The triumph of stupidity,” North Bay Nugget, July 10th, Accessible Online at http://www.nugget.ca/2016/07/10/donald-trump-the-triumph-of- stupidity, Accessed on 07-21-2016)

The United States is still the most powerful country in the world, both economically and militarily. It today enjoys the highest rate of economic growth and the lowest rate of unemployment among major western countries. To portray it as some sort of failed state is patent nonsense. Playing to the insecurities of the uneducated and uninformed is to say the least disingenuous. It is probably also a recipe for electoral failure.

But Trump's denigration of significant segments of the American electorate pales in comparison to his treatment of foreigners and foreign countries, starting with Mexico and Mexicans.

His description of Mexican immigrants as thugs and rapists was widely viewed as a national insult in that country. His threat to build a border wall only made matters worse.

Trump failed to recognize that Mexico is a very important country for the United States. After Canada and China, it is the United States' third-largest trading partner. It is home to many large American investments and industrial interests. The Mexican government's active co-operation is essential to the United States in its efforts to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and narcotic drugs.

Trump also seems intent to do his best to alienate China . In what can only be described as a campaign of China bashing , he accuses that country of underhanded economic practices and of stealing American jobs .

Link is non-unique – Trump already uses anti-China rhetoric Wagner 16, Daniel – CEO of Risk Solutions, co-author of “Global Risk Agility and Decision Making, 2016 (“Why Donald Trump’s China-Bashing Makes No Sense,” Washington Post, March 28, 2016, accessible online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/why-donald-trumps- chinaba_b_9521054.html, accessed July 21, 2016//AW)

China bashing has become as much a part of the modern American political tradition as criticizing foreign producers of oil . The America n electorate has regrettably become accustomed to the predictable torrent of anti-Chinese rhetoric from politicians of a variety of political persuasions - currently manifested by the incendiary rhetoric of Donald Trump , who is playing upon the fears and disillusionment largely of blue collar workers who do not understand that China is not the source of their problems, but rather America’s failure to remain competitive in the global economic landscape. Trump has always painted Clinton as soft on China – TPP and manufacturing outsourcing Bredderman 16, Will – politics reporter at the Observer, 2016 (“Trump Looks to Salvage Flailing Campaign With Polished Populist Assault on Clinton,” the Observer, June 22, 2016, accessible online at http://observer.com/2016/06/trump-looks-to- salvage-flailing-campaign-with-polished-populist-assault-on-clinton/, accessed July 21, 2016//AW)

Rather than rebut the attacks his Democratic opponent made yesterday on his business career, today Trump savaged her past stances on free trade and foreign policy. “We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place,” Trump warned, making another explicit appeal to embittered supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. “Hillary Clinton wants to be President. But she doesn’t have the temperament, or, as Bernie Sanders’ said, the judgement, to be president.” He revisited his usual broadsides against the North American Free Trade Agreement that President Bill Clinton signed, China’s entrance into the W orld T rade O rganization, the massive Obama administration-backed T rans P acific P artnership trade pact and the outsourcing of American manufacturing. But today’s speech—though punctuated with his trademark interjections of “very important” and “so bad”—had little of his usual rambling and grammatical errors. “I have visited the cities and towns across America and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton,” Trump said. “She has betrayed the American worker on trade at every single stage of her career.” Clinton supported and coordinated the creation of the TPP as secretary of state but came out against it during the Democratic primary. Her Republican opponent today, however, alleged that the reversal was a political ruse. Opposition to free trade has been one of the magnate’s few consistent publicly expressed opinions over the past several decades, though a number of his clothing lines and other brands come out of factories in China and Mexico—the same nations he has railed against on the stump. And while he attacked the Clinton Foundation’s acceptance of money from repressive foreign countries that enjoyed good relationships with the U.S. during the 1990s and during the former first lady’s stint as secretary of state, Trump neglected to mention he personally donated more than $100,000 to the same organization. Trump already paints Clinton as weak on China – IP theft Kopan 6/22, Tal – CNN political reporter, 2016 (“Trump attacks Clinton: CNN's Reality Check Team inspects the claims,” CNN, posting on NBC, June 22, 2016, accessible online at http://www.nbcmontana.com/news/politics/trump-attacks-clinton-cnns-reality-check-team-inspects-the- claims/26421805, accessed July 21, 2016//AW)

Trump hit Clinton on China on a number of points. He alleged that she was responsible for the theft of "billions and billions of dollars in our intellectual property , and China has taken it. And it's a crime which is continuously going on, and it's going on right now." His prepared remarks were even more direct: "She let China steal hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property -- a crime which is continuing to this day. " Trump’s rhetoric is non-unique – NAFTA, TPP, IP theft

Moons 16, Michelle – reporter for Breitbart, 2016, (“Donald Trump: Clinton’s TPP Would Sacrifice American Jobs and Economic Independence,” Breitbart, June 22, 2016, accessible online at http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential- race/2016/06/22/trump-clintons-tpp-bleed-american-jobs-economic-independence/, accessed July 21, 2016//AW)

Hillary Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) into law on December 8, 1993. CNN reported that Clinton promoted NAFTA during her tenure as First Lady . Clinton’s position on free trade vacillated as she was elected to the U.S. Senate and as she competed with then Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2008 she was accused of flip flopping by the candidate that later beat her. Trump continued, “I want trade deals, but they have to be great for the United States and for our workers.” “We don’t make great deals anymore, but we will once I become President. I promise you that.” During his speech Trump accused Clinton of giving America’s best jobs , millions of jobs to China, of allowing billions of dollars in i ntellectual p roperty to be taken by China all while she enriched her own financial position during her time as Secretary of State. “She gets rich making you poor.” Trump quoted Peter Schweizer’s book Clinton Cash: At the center of U.S. policy toward China was Hillary Clinton. At this critical time for U.S.- China relations, Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters. These funds were paid to the Clintons’ bank account directly, while Hillary was negotiating with China on behalf of the United States. Trump said that Clinton has falsely portrayed that she would be against the TPP deal when in reality she has and will support it. Trump already targets Clinton on China policies – TPP and WTO Jackson 16, David – reporter for USA Today with focus on politics, 2016 (“Donald Trump targets globalization and free trade as job-killers,” My Statesman, June 28, 2016, accessible online at http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/national-govt-politics/donald-trump-targets-globalization- and-free-trade-/nrpb5/, accessed July 21, 2016//AW)

In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate trade rules, Trump 's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China . He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S. Clinton and other politicians, meanwhile, "watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment," Trump said in a dusty old aluminum plant in Monessen, part of what was once known as "The Steel Valley" along the Monongahela River. Echoing his mantra of "America First," Trump vowed to use only American steel — and aluminum — on U.S. road, bridge, and construction projects, employing only American workers. Trump attacked both Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, for past support of trade deals, including TPP. He also hit them over China's admission to the W orld T rade O rganization. Trump already attacks China on softline policies Gallo 16, William – reporter for Voice of America with focus on politics, 2016, (“Trump Unveils Jobs Plan, Takes Aim at Clinton,” Voice of America, June 28, 2016, accessible online at http://www.voanews.com/content/donald-trump-jobs-plan-hillary- clinton/3395889.html, accessed July 21, 2016//AW)

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Tuesday used a speech in the Rust Belt state of Pennsylvania to attack rival Hillary Clinton's past positions on free trade agreements and to outline his own plan to create jobs. The billionaire businessman also railed against free trade deals, slammed China as a currency manipulator, and lamented the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs in his speech, which he said was meant to "declare America's economic independence." "The era of economic surrender will finally be over. A new era of prosperity will finally begin. America will be independent once more," Trump said. The speech was largely absent of the petty personal attacks that characterized Trump's fiery and unpredictable primary election speeches. It was also more substantial than his past comments on the economy. Trump outlined a seven-step plan to bring back jobs to the U.S. The plan included withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade deal, renegotiating the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and appointing trade negotiators to identify trade violations by foreign countries. The plan also included several threats against China, the world's second-largest economy. Echoing his past comments, Trump vowed to label China a currency manipulator and to bring trade cases against Beijing both in the U.S. and at the World Trade Organization. "If China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets, I will use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes, including the application of tariffs," Trump said. Trump also attacked Hillary Clinton for her past support of the TPP , a massive 12-country trade deal that would encompass 40 percent of the world's economy. The agreement would be a "death blow for American manufacturing," according to Trump. AT: Sanders Supporters Link Anti-trade rhetoric doesn’t shift Sanders supporters to Trump Kilgore 6/30 ― Ed Kilgore, journalist for New York Magazine, 2016. (“Does Trump’s Anti-Trade Gamble Make Political Sense?”, New York, June 30th, 2016, Available Online at: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/06/will-trump-trade-talk-win-or-lose-more- voters.html Accessed 7-21-16)

But the question immediately presents itself: Are Bernie Sanders voters mostly horny-handed sons and daughters of toil, the quintessential 55-year-old former manufacturing worker now getting by as a Walmart greeter? Not really. The further we got into the Democratic presidential nominating contest the more it became obvious that age, more than economic class or ideology , was what was mostly feeding the Bern. And young Sanders supporters were much more likely to be motivated by a desire for free tuition or forgiven student loans, or legalized pot, or maybe busting up the big banks, than by a determination to cancel NAFTA. Indeed, polling has consistently shown that millennials are reflexively more positive about globalization generally and trade expansion specifically than their elders.

Nor was it obvious that anger over trade agreements was sweeping the Rust Belt during the Democratic primaries . In Pennsylvania, where Trump conjured up the protectionist ghosts of Smoot and Hawley, Democratic primary participants said trade "creates" rather than "takes away" jobs by a 44-42 margin. Hillary Clinton, by the way, won both categories of voters. But even in states like Michigan and Ohio where anti-trade sentiment was stronger among Democrats, neither Sanders nor Clinton voters were monolithically on either side of the question. So the idea of a big batch of Bernie voters ripe for the picking because Donald Trump is promising to somehow make Mexico and China cough up and return to the U.S. the jobs they've "stolen" is dubious from the get-go. Even for those Sanders voters primarily concerned with trade (probably not a large number), the difference in rhetoric and substance between Sanders's desire for a "win-win" set of policies (once upon a time called the Global New Deal idea) that protect American jobs without ravaging the poor in developing countries is emotionally pretty far away from Trump's demands for zero-sum trade wars aimed gleefully at reimpoverishing poor people not lucky enough to be American. AT: Concrete Policy key Policy is irrelevant to the election — most voters choose personalities Cillizza 16 — Chris Cillizza, American political commentator, founder of The Fix—a daily political weblog for the Washington Post, interviewed by Gabriella Schwartz, 2016 (“2016 Election Is ‘Unpredictable’ and ‘Bizarre,’ Says Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza,” Flipboard, February 18th, Available Online at https://about.flipboard.com/inside-flipboard/2016-election-is- unpredictable-and-bizarre-says-washington-posts-chris-cillizza/, Accessed 7-21-16)

What policy issues will most impact presidential voting among Republicans and Democrats this year?

One of the great myths is that policy plays a major role in presidential elections . It can— particularly for single issue voters— but for loose partisans and the truly unaffiliated policy stuff takes a back seat to personalities. Usually people make up their minds about who to vote for on the general sense of who they like/who is looking out for them/who understands them . That can be informed by policy but it’s usually more of a heart than a head choice.

Campaign rhetoric doesn’t translate into action Hudak 16 — John Hudak, deputy director of the Center for Effective Public Management and a senior fellow in Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, Ph.D. in Political Science and Government from Vanderbilt University, 2016 (“What the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Means for the Middle East,” Brookings, February 15th, Available Online at http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2016/02/22-us-presidential-election-middle- east-hudak, Accessed 7-21-16)

It is important to note that American presidential candidates’ rhetoric does not always translate into presidential action. One ideal example of this involves the U.S. prisoner detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay , Cuba. During his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama criticized the facility , and questioned its use and feasibility, and declared his intention to shut it down. Yet , more than seven years into his presidency, the facility remains open.

Thus , it is critical not to assume that what a candidate says on the campaign trail will become policy upon his or her taking the oath of office. In many cases, that is a relief. Presidential campaigns are notorious for candidates’ hyperbolic statements, over-the-top promises, and exaggerated efforts to distinguish themselves from their opponents. Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of foreign policy. Despite those uncertainties, there are several takeaways from the U.S. presidential campaign that Americans and audiences abroad can use to predict what the next administration’s foreign policy may look like. ***Internals*** China Not Key China bashing fails — it’s not key to the election. Wagner 16 ― Daniel Wagner, CEO of Country Risk Solutions, former Senior Vice President of Country Risk at GE Energy Financial Services, M.A. in International Relations from the University of Chicago, 2016. (“Why Donald Trump’s China-Bashing Makes No Sense”, Huffington Post, March 28th, 2016, Available Online at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/why- donald-trumps-chinaba_b_9521054.html Accessed 7-21-16)

It is also worth noting that China bashing actually makes little sense in terms of getting U.S. presidential candidates elected. The top five U.S. states exporting to China by dollar volume in 2014 (Washington, California, Texas, Illinois and South Carolina) between them account for nearly 50% of the votes needed to win the U.S. presidency in the Electoral College (270 votes are required, and 134 votes are accounted for by just these 5 states). Bashing China is actually less likely to get a candidate elected, because the workers in these states have the most to lose economically by curtailing America’s economic relationship with China, and they know it.

The fact is, a continued economic recovery in the U.S. cannot be achieved by isolating China. Considering what can be achieved together, and what both countries stand to lose if they are pitted against each other, forming a Sino-American strategic alliance is critical to the future economic viability of both nations. American politicians, and the American people, would be much better off recognizing this, rather than succumbing to demagoguery and incendiary rhetoric aimed at creating divisiveness between China and the U.S.

China policy not key and link is inevitable He, 16 --- He Yafei is former vice minister of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council, and former vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China US Focus, “U.S. Election and Its Impact on China”, 1/25, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/u-s- election-and-its-impact-on-china/

Here comes China, whose economic growth and military modernization in recent years represents, to American people, a world that undergoes rapid changes and evolves to a multipolar one where the US is no longer being able to call shot on everything. The resentment against globalization is on the rise. Overall strategic retrenchment and an emphatic shift to focus more on China are taking place simultaneously. “Scapegoating” China is inevitable. “China has taken jobs away from American workers”. “China is manipulating its currency to gain advantage in trade”. “China is being aggressive in the South China Sea and trying to drive the US out of the Western Pacific”. The list of complaints can go on and on. It doesn’t matter whether those accusations and complaints are true or not to American politicians and voters as long as they have “election value”. For instance, the renminbi has appreciated against the US dollar to the tune of 30% since 2008, but voices are still strong in America calling for the RMB to appreciate further. We all know from experience that China-bashing is common and “cost-free” in US elections. This time around is no different. What is different is that while without agreeing to the concept of “G2”, there is a broad recognition that the US and China are the two major powers in today’s world. It is no hyperbole to say that nothing gets done without close cooperation between the two nations, be it climate change, energy security, non-proliferation of WMD, etc. In this connection the US election does have an impact on China and US-China relations as noted by Robert Manning, who said the US-China relationship enters “dangerous waters” in 2016. What can be done to counteract the negative spillover from the US election this year? On the one hand, there need to be more cooperative actions from both sides to reinforce the relationship. Climate change is one, cooperation in the Middle East is another. To quicken the pace of negotiation on BIT is definitely useful with emphasis on shortening the “negative list”. The US-China relationship is simply too important for both nations not to make extra efforts in election years to make it stronger in the face of increased headwind. On the other hand, we ought to stay calm and ready to meet any possible frictions and challenges in close coordination and consultation to minimize damage to the bilateral relations. We have to understand that “China- bashing” is more words than actions . Any new administration once in the White House will be more realistic and down-to-earth in its China policy as determined by shared interests of both nations worldwide. In reality, China has not been the key issue in the election so far despite some rhetoric by candidates from both parties. To prioritize the issues that voters care about most , the threat posed by terror ist organizations such as IS ranks at the top of the list . Next comes illegal immigration because as of now there are between 12 million to 20 million illegals residing in the US depending on how you estimate them. Further down the list is tax policy . As is often quoted, “There are two things certain in life. One is death and the other is taxes”. Another concern that comes before China is the dangerous situation in the Middle East . So you can see clearly that China figures rather low on this “worry list” in the minds of American voters .

China policy irrelevant – no one cares, including prez candidates Carpenter 15 (Ted Galen, senior fellow for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute and is the author of nine books in addition to more than 550 articles and policy studies on international issues, 8/31, "China: The Mishandled Issue in the U.S. Presidential Election Campaign," http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/china-mishandled-issue-us- presidential-election-campaign)

U.S. presidential election campaigns are supposed to include sober discussions of the most crucial issues facing the country. Unfortunately, the reality rarely corresponds to that ideal, and the current conduct of candidates seeking their party’s nomination for the 2016 election is no exception. One issue that should be front and center in the campaign is U.S. policy toward China. Instead, that topic receives surprisingly little attention—especially compared to the obsession over every aspect of Middle East policy. When it is not ignored, candidates too often take shrill positions merely to score cheap political points with disgruntled constituencies. Given the great importance of the bilateral relationship, such posturing is unfortunate and could become dangerous. The lack of attention to China policy was evident in the first debate among the 10 leading GOP candidates . Most of them did not even mention the country, and those who did clearly adopted a hostile attitude. Donald Trump scorned U.S. leaders for not being better negotiators in their dealings with Beijing. Senator Rand Paul mentioned that China holds an enormous amount of U.S. governmental debt, making it clear that he believed such dependence was unhealthy and a national vulnerability. A few of the other candidates on the stage implied that China was among the “enemies” that supposedly no longer respected the United States because of Barack Obama’s lack of effective leadership. That behavior has been typical of the campaign thus far. Carly Fiorina, the fastest rising star in the Republican field, has devoted time to discussing China, but Chinese leaders almost certainly do not welcome the attention. Both in the debate and on other occasions, Fiorina has taken an extremely confrontational stance regarding such issues as the South China Sea territorial disputes and cyber security. In an interview with CBS News, she recommended that the United States increase its flyover aerial surveillance of the South China Sea. And it is clear that she has no sympathy for Beijing’s territorial claims. “We cannot permit China to control a trade route through which passes $5 trillion worth of goods and services every year,” she stated bluntly. Fiorina was mild on the South China Sea controversy compared to her stance regarding recent cyber attacks—which she blithely assumed originated in China. She contended that such attacks were an act of aggression against the United States, implying that an especially stern, confrontational response was warranted. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, another top tier GOP candidate, has likewise adopted a hardline policy toward China. In a July interview with The National Interest, Walker accused Beijing of mounting a “serious challenge to American interests.” He stated that Washington needed to beef-up U.S. military capabilities in East Asia, strengthen its alliances with Beijing’s neighbors, and develop a robust cyber capability “that punishes China for its hacking.” And as if those positions would not be enough to poison the bilateral relationship, Walker stressed that the United States needed to “speak out against the abysmal lack of freedoms in China.” On the Democratic campaign trail, Hillary Clinton has not said much about policy toward China. But there is little doubt about her attitude. As Secretary of State, Clinton noticeably toughened the U.S. position on the S outh C hina S ea issue. It was Clinton who made the speech to ASEAN in 2010 that underscored Washington’s hostility to Beijing’s territorial claims. And she went out of her way on other occasions to emphasize U.S. solidarity with the Philippines regarding its territorial spat with China. Clinton’s few comments on China policy during the current campaign offer no hint of a softening of such positions. Trade Not Key Trade is not key and is positive politically – doesn’t effect swing votes Rampell 7-4 Columnist for the Washington Post, (Catherine Rampell, 7-4-2016,‘Trade’ has become a hot election topic. Here’s what it really means” Washington Post , http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/The-Millennial-View-What-trade-opponents-don-t- 8340324.php) ZV

That’s not to say that the Americans displaced by trade — millions of factory workers who lost their jobs over the decades, for example — have recovered. Hollowed-out Rust Belt towns reveal persistent unemployment and great suffering. And the United States never did right by these trade victims; one of the implicit promises of earlier trade deals was that the winners would compensate the losers, which never happened. But the fact remains that U.S. trade’s losers are a small, and shrinking, share of the workforce. Meanwhile, the winners are widespread. The losses from trade tend to be felt by a small, concentrated group. More to the point, that small, concentrated group has become less and less politically significant over time . Research from Craig VanGrasstek, a trade historian, has linked declining trade-related propaganda in presidential campaigns to the shrinking number of swing states that still have significant shares of their population (at least 0.25 percent) in key manufacturing industries. “It no longer makes sense to win electoral votes by promising protectionism,” VanGrasstek told me, because there just aren’t that many purple-state voters who still have a stake in the issue.

Clinton staying the center of trade is key Schoen ’16 Doug Schoen is a longtime political strategist, Fox News contributor and author of several books, including the recently published The End of Authority: How a Loss of Legitimacy and Broken Trust are Endangering our Future (Rowman and Littlefield).( Doug Schoen 5-13- 2016, "General Election Trade-Offs," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougschoen/2016/05/13/trade-protectionism-and-the-2016- election/#41ecf34f26bf) ZV

Kenneth Rogoff, the former chief economist for the IMF, offers that even though Sanders is more appealing than Trump, his rhetoric is just as dangerous. Case in point: his rallying against TPP and even forcing Clinton, who was a supporter of the deal, to turn against it. The TPP has its flaws, but it does a lot of good including opening up Asian markets to Latin America. He also regularly points out that Clinton supported NAFTA and blames it for killing thousands of jobs. But he never mentions that it forced Mexico to lower its tariffs. Holding strong to the center on trade will be a central task for Clinton in November. I’m not sure how many Trump supporters will care that economists are telling them his plans will hurt the economy and our global standing because “American first” lines of argumentation are doing so well this cycle. But that doesn’t make it any less critical that we get it right on this issue. Trade and protectionism matters as much as tax and foreign policy. The link wont swing swing voters in swing states Gerwin and Marshall 6/21 – (Ed Gerwin is a senior fellow for trade and global opportunity at the Progressive Policy Institute; Will Marshall is president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), established in 1989 as a center for political innovation in Washington, D.C.; 6/21/16, “Trump's Wrong on Trade Policy & Maybe Trade Politics, Too,” Real Clear Policy, http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2016/06/21/trumps_wrong_on_trade_policy__maybe _trade_politics_too.html, Accessed 7/5/16, HWilson)

The Washington Post’s Catherine Rampell recently detailed the economic carnage that would result from Donald Trump’s reckless approach to trade — including likely recessions, millions of lost jobs, and higher prices for American consumers.

As we’ve detailed, protectionism is bad economics. But, apparently, it’s been good politics for Trump as well as Bernie Sanders, both of whom used trade-bashing populism to energize angry voters during primary elections, where extreme partisans often play an outsized role. And Trump promises to double down on opposition to trade as he pivots toward November.

As America moves from interminable primaries to the general election, however, Trump — and Hillary Clinton — will face a different political calculus on trade. A new Progressive Policy Institute poll shows that Democratic voters in key battleground states have a broadly positive view on trade — and a more positive one than do Republicans. Crucially, so do the swing voters, who will ultimately determine whether these states go red or blue in November.

Swing voters and voters in battleground states played a decisive role in reelecting Barack Obama in 2012 — and in sending a large Republican majority to Congress in 2014. As detailed in our new poll, conducted by veteran Democratic pollster Peter Brodnitz, these voters also have decidedly different attitudes about trade and America’s role in the global economy.

Our survey of voter attitudes in the battleground states of Colorado, Florida, Nevada, and Ohio found that most voters believe that improving the economy should be America’s key priority. While few are angry, most rate the economy as only “fair” or “poor.” Swing voters, in particular, tend to be more worried about the economy than Democrats and are especially focused on pragmatic solutions to promote economic growth and competitiveness.

On trade and global competitiveness, specifically, our survey underscores three critical findings.

1. Battleground voters don’t buy the protectionist claim that America can prosper by walling itself off from the global economy.

Instead, these voters want America to step up its global game. 75 percent (including 73 percent of swing voters and 82 percent of Democrats) believe that to have a strong economy, America must “rely heavily on trade with other countries.” Additionally, almost all battleground voters — 90 percent — believe it’s important to create an environment that enables American companies to compete against foreign businesses, and a strong majority believe that workers can and should benefit from company success. 2. Swing state voters understand that American companies and workers face strong competition in a complex global economy — and that there are no simple solutions.

Voters are concerned, for example, about the threat of U.S. manufacturing jobs moving overseas. Two-thirds of battleground voters (and 72 percent of Democrats) believe this threat comes primarily from greater competition from foreign industries and workers, rather than from the “bad trade agreements” that trade opponents like Trump and Sanders often cite.

Similarly, when asked to choose among policies to keep jobs in America, 67 percent of battleground voters chose either lowering corporate tax rates or educating more highly skilled workers; only 19 percent believed that ending trade agreements was the solution. And, more generally, over 85 percent of battleground voters believe that higher levels of education and training and increased investment in infrastructure are keys to advancing the U.S. economy.

3. Battleground voters believe that high-standard trade deals help the American economy and support good jobs.

Three-quarters of swing state voters believe that trade agreements are “important” in boosting the greater reliance on trade that they see as vital for a strong U.S. economy. When asked to evaluate trade agreements with strong labor and environmental standards, 55 percent of swing state voters said they believe these agreements can help the economy and create good paying jobs; only 32 percent felt that the costs of high-standard deals outweigh the benefits. Notably, Democrats were especially supportive — by a margin of 66 to 25 percent.

Our poll’s findings suggest that to prevail with swing voters and in swing states, Democrats, in particular, will need to craft messages and support policies that transcend protectionism — that recognize trade’s role in supporting American prosperity, acknowledge the complexity of global competition, and highlight the benefits of high-standard trade agreements.

If done right, this can be both smart politics and sound policy. Trump’s anti-trade strategy will fail – can’t compensate for other voters that he’ll alienate Economist 7-2 – The Economist, 2016 (“Rustproofing”, Available online at http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21701486-can-donald-trump-flip-old- manufacturing-regions-midwest-rustproofing, Accessed on 07-07-2016, KG)

“ MANY Pennsylvania towns once thriving and humming are now in a state of despair,” said Donald Trump in “Declaring America’s Economic Independence”, a speech he made on June 28th about jobs and the evils of free trade. This wave of globalisation has wiped out the middle class, claimed the presumptive Republican nominee for the presidency, tagging NAFTA “the worst trade deal in history”, and blaming China’s entrance into the World Trade Organisation for “the greatest jobs theft in history”. But it doesn’t have to be that way, he reassured his audience, for he alone can turn things round. It was no coincidence that Mr Trump chose a Pennsylvania-based company, Alumisource, as the site for his speech, which the frequently unscripted candidate read from a teleprompter, using quotations from Washington, Hamilton and Lincoln and providing no fewer than 128 footnotes for the curious. Winning the rustbelt, especially in Ohio and western Pennsylvania, is central to his 15-state strategy, announced at the end of last month. In the evening of June 28th Mr Trump spoke at a rally at Ohio State University in St Clairsville. The Midwest matters so much to Mr Trump because his candidacy has repeatedly upended conventional wisdom. Before the primaries, most elected Republicans were sure the party needed to nominate someone palatable to Hispanic voters. Mr Trump’s proposed wall to deter Mexicans has put habitual swing-states such as Colorado off limits and made Florida, which has plenty of Hispanic voters, look like hostile territory too. To compensate for this, he needs to take back states in the Midwest and north-east that Barack Obama won in 2012. How likely is it that Mr Trump can win over America’s heartland? Places like Elkhart, a town of 50,000 in northern Indiana, explain why Mr Trump’s campaign thinks the Midwest is such friendly turf. Elkhart used to be one of the hardest-hit of the many down-on-their-luck midwestern manufacturing towns. The town lost 24,000 jobs when the recession struck, and unemployment shot up to more than 20% of the workforce. One of the biggest makers of recreational vehicles, Elkhart proudly calls itself the “RV capital of the world”. But its overreliance on one industry making a non-essential product means business dries up very quickly during an economic downturn. Mr Obama’s first trip to the Midwest after he was elected was to Elkhart, which he intended to make a showcase for his $800 billion stimulus package. He returned several times in subsequent years. On the face of it, his plan worked like a charm. When he visited again at the beginning of June, to take stock of Elkhart’s economic progress, he found that unemployment stood at just 4.1%, high-school graduation rates had jumped to 88% and the rate of mortgages that were late or about to foreclose had fallen by more than half, to 3.7%. “Today we could easily use another 15,000 workers in the county,” says Mark Dobson of the Economic Development Corporation of Elkhart County. And yet Elkharters, who in the primaries voted in droves for Mr Trump and for Bernie Sanders, the other insurgent candidate, give Mr Obama scant credit for the turnaround. “President Obama had nothing to do with our recovery,” says Kyle Hannon of the Greater Elkhart Chamber of Commerce. He admits that the stimulus funds helped to improve infrastructure and were good for local building companies, but insists “We did it ourselves” when referring to the recovery of the RV industry, which had record sales in 2015 and is expecting another sterling year in 2016. Many Elkharters still find it frustratingly hard to make ends meet, which may explain their penchant for Mr Trump. Plenty of jobs are available now, but many are poorly paid or part-time. An analysis by the Pew Research Centre found that the median household income of Elkharters has dropped by 10%, from $76,000 a year in 2008 to $68,000 in 2014 (see chart). Even more startling is that median income was $78,000 in 1999, which means that incomes have fallen considerably throughout the new century. (Sixty-one percent of local households are middle-income, compared with 51% nationwide.) Indiana, of which Elkhart is part, begins 2016 in the Republican column (Mitt Romney won the state in 2012). Mr Trump’s midwestern strategy depends on winning all such states in the region (the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri) and then adding some combination of Ohio, Iowa and Michigan. The latter seems like a stretch: Michigan last voted for a Republican presidential candidate in 1988. To make the plan work, says Henry Olsen at the Ethics and Public Policy Centre, a conservative think- tank, Mr Trump would have to take almost all the Romney vote and around 5% of the Obama vote in the Midwest. Mr Trump’s message blasting international trade, illegal immigration and corporate outsourcing go down well in the rustbelt bits of the Midwest, which are on average whiter, less educated and older than the rest of the country —and are still smarting from the loss of 6m manufacturing jobs between 2000 and 2009. “The era of economic surrender will finally be over,” promised Mr Trump, vowing to renegotiate NAFTA and to withdraw America from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal still in the making. The plan has three flaws. First, peeling off blue-collar Democratic voters would not on its own be enough if, in so doing, Mr Trump alienates Republicans in the suburbs of midwestern cities who voted for Mr Romney. Second, blue-collar workers of Anglo-Saxon, Italian and eastern European origin in , say, Michigan and Pennsylvania take to Mr Trump much more than those of Scandinavian or German extraction, who are the majority in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Third, the Midwest and the rustbelt are not one and the same . And Mr Trump’s strength in the region is likely to run through the rustbelt, whose centre lies farther to the east. Mr Trump may win Pennsylvania , with its 20 electoral-college votes, but he may also waste votes in those bits of the rustbelt attached to states that lean strongly Democratic: polls put Hillary Clinton up by 20 points in New York . Even if he is ultimately unsuccessful, Mr Trump’s rustbelt rhetoric will affect the sort of campaign his Democratic rival runs. Rather than explain the ways in which the Midwest benefits from trade, Mrs Clinton, who was in Indiana on June 26th and then went on to Ohio and Illinois on June 27th, delighted in pointing out that Trump furniture is made in Turkey, instead of Cleveland, Ohio, and that Trump barware is made in Slovenia, instead of Toledo, Ohio. This is good politics, but it makes a gloomy spectacle for those who think trade makes America, and the world, richer. Link is non-unique and empirically denied – Trump’s anti-trade rhetoric in Pennsylvania has failed to get more voters after a year of campaigning Morrissey 7-5 – Ed Morrissey, American conservative blogger, columnist , motivational speaker, and talk show host, 2016 (“Can Trump win Pennsylvania?”, Hot Air, Available online at http://hotair.com/archives/2016/07/05/can-trump-win-pennsylvania/, Accessed on 07-07-2016, KG)

Can Donald Trump find the key to unlock the Keystone State? To win the White House, supporters and detractors of Trump both agree, the presumptive Republican nominee will have to redraw the Electoral College map. Trump has embraced a more protectionist policy on trade than either Republicans and Democrats have for decades in an attempt to woo despairing working-class voters back to the ballot box. Ground Zero for that strategy seems to be Pennsylvania, and it may well have its intended effect, Salena Zito reports for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Western Pennsylvania has been the driving force in the state becoming more Republican said Henry Olsen, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Olsen said voting patterns of former union Democrats displaced by trade deals and environmental regulations that impacted the coal industry contributed to the rightward push. “If you look at the coal county of Greene, the person who is not looking closely says, ‘Oh well, Romney carried it by huge margins, so how can that make a difference for Trump?’ Well he did, except potential turnout was down by 10 percentage points,” Olson said. “If Trump gets that 10 percent back, that is only 1,500 to 2,000 votes in a small county like Greene, but then you get an extra 10 percent in Washington, Cambria, Indiana, Somerset counties, which have larger populations,” he said of neighboring counties with similar voting patterns. “Then, all of a sudden, you are talking about an extra 200,000 votes; you have to look at turnout and margin as much as who carries it,” he said. It’s not just the western part of the state where the hard line on trade will resonate, either: “The same goes for the Philly collar county of Bucks,” Wasserman said, as well as the northeastern coal counties of Luzerne and Lackawanna, “where Trump won’t necessarily win, but could chip away at Clinton’s margins.” The potential has Team Hillary worried, the Washington Post reports, especially in regard to the rank-and-file within the trade unions: Of the many ways Trump, the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee, has scrambled the 2016 campaign, it is his position on trade that has presented one of the most unexpected challenges for his rival, Hillary Clinton, the likely Democratic nominee. In an election season animated by economic anxiety, Trump, a New York business mogul, bucked Republican orthodoxy and powerful business interests such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an appeal to blue-collar Republicans that helped propel him t o victory inthe GOP primaries. Clinton, who scrambled to move left on trade during her tough primary fight against Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, now finds herself again facing attacks on the issue — this time from Trump. He used his Pittsburgh-area speech to disparage her association with a pair of major trade agreements — one negotiated by President Bill Clinton’s administration and the other by President Obama’s while she served as secretary of state. For Hillary Clinton, the risk is not necessarily losing support directly to Trump but rather not inspiring enough enthusiasm among rank-and-file union workers, whose turnout and ground-level organizing have traditionally been crucial for Democrats. Clinton already has the endorsements of several of the nation’s largest labor organizations, including the AFL-CIO and the United Auto Workers , but faces the question of whether that organized support will be enough to hold the labor voting bloc together at a time when Trump has co-opted the traditional labor message about the perils of free trade and globalization. Theoretically, it’s possible. However, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence so far that it’s working — not in Pennsylvania, and not in neighboring Ohio, where Republicans have a smaller hurdle to clear. Four polls since mid-May show Trump slightly trailing Hillary in Ohio, with one Quinnipiac poll showing a tie — at 40% each. A previous Quinnipiac poll in April showed Trump with a four-point lead, and a February poll had Trump up two, but Quinnipiac is the only pollster in the RCP aggregate to show Trump up in the state at all. At the moment, Hillary has a 2.5-point lead in the RCP average for the Buckeye State. A very similar dynamic shows up in the aggregate polling for Pennsylvania. In fact, the RCP average is almost identical — 2.3 points for Hillary. The only poll to ever show Trump in the lead for this state came from Democratic pollster PPP, and that was in October. At the beginning of June, PPP had the two in a 44-all tie, but their latest poll now shows Hillary with a four-point lead. Given that Trump has sounded the protectionist bell for almost a year, one would have expected to see a response by now in polling if this kind of response would be forthcoming. So far, it doesn’t appear to be materializing . It could be that pollsters are missing this eruption of populist-protectionist fervor, but they largely got it right in the Republican primaries, accurately heralding Trump’s domination. Bear in mind that Pennsylvania wasn’t a narrow loss in 2012, either. Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney by five points and 310,000 votes, so it would either take 155,000+ votes to change parties, an additional 311,000 votes apart from the 2012 turnout, or a combination of both . That’s a lot of votes to flip, especially for a campaign that has until recently seemed very uninterested in the kind of ground campaign needed to make it happen. In comparison, the gap in Ohio is about half of that — three points and 166,000 votes. That kind of movement should be showing up in some polling if it’s going to happen, but it’s not coming up in any series at the moment. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen, of course. It’s a long campaign, with lots of unknowns ahead of us. So far, though, there’s not much reason to conclude that Pennsylvania is in serious play — and without it, the path to 270 Electoral College votes looks theoretical rather than practical at the moment. Foreign Policy Not Key Voters don’t care about foreign policy- empirics and data Saunders ’16 Writer for the Washington Post, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University (Elizabeth Saunders, Washington Post, 1- 17-2016, "Will foreign policy be a major issue in the 2016 election? Here’s what we know.," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/26/will-foreign-policy-be- a-major-issue-in-the-2016-election-heres-what-we-know/) ZV

What do we mean by “foreign policy issues,” and how do voters think about it? Many international issues get mentioned in campaigns, whether in general terms or by referring to a specific country or region. Most of these issues fall under the broad categories of foreign economic policy (such as free trade , currency policy, or foreign aid) or national security issues (such as military readiness, nuclear proliferation, crisis diplomacy, and what we now call “homeland security” issues like terrorism, though terrorism concerns long predate 9/11). From decades of research, we know voters do not pay much attention to foreign policy. Some research shows that the public has stable, coherent attitudes on foreign policy , but few dispute that most voters have little concrete foreign policy information. Rather than follow debates closely, voters generally look to elites and the media for information, even for specific foreign policy issues. [Every new U.S. president faces a surprise international crisis. So should foreign policy matter in the primaries?] As the Monkey Cage frequently reminds readers, the economy is “fundamental” in presidential elections. You might think, therefore, that voters would pay attention to an economic issue like free trade. But while trade policy has had its moments (think Japan in the 1980s or periodic attention to agreements like NAFTA or the TPP), voters rarely focus on it. Recent research suggests that people do not think about trade policy in purely self- interested terms, and may lack the economic knowledge to understand how trade policy would affect them.

Voters historically don’t care about Foreign policy and voters who are anti- trade would still vote for Hilary -Consensus, No political sway, Clinton Hawkish Saunders ’16 Writer for the Washington Post, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University (Elizabeth Saunders, Washington Post, 1- 17-2016, "Will foreign policy be a major issue in the 2016 election? Here’s what we know.," https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/26/will-foreign-policy-be- a-major-issue-in-the-2016-election-heres-what-we-know/) ZV

Does foreign policy affect how voters decide who to vote for and who gets elected? The consensus is that foreign policy generally has little effect on election s, as Brendan Nyhan pointed out after the Paris attacks (see also Dan Drezner here and here). Of course, foreign policy can matter in elections . But it’s hard for a politician to sway large numbers of voters based on foreign affairs. Why? Some issues are simply not salient enough: on trade , for example, research by Alexandra Guisinger found that voters did not hold their senators accountable for votes on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Another challenge is that a candidate must be able to draw a significant contrast with the other party. That may mean taking a popular position that the opposition cannot easily match (as Lynn Vavreck comments). Consider Vietnam and the 1968 election. Benjamin Page and Richard Brody found that despite the apparently high salience of the war, most individuals’ votes were not based on Vietnam — because there was little difference between the public positions taken by Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon. That’s potentially true in 2016 as well. The most likely Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, has taken more hawkish foreign policy positions than many recent Democratic candidates, presumably bringing her positions closer to the more traditionally hawkish Republican side. Basing a vote on foreign policy can be difficult because candidates often have an incentive to be vague, as Humphrey and Nixon were in 1968. In 2015 and 2016, the Republican candidates have been long on talk of “toughness ” but short on specifics . This can build broad primary support, but isn’t likely to produce sharply contrasting positions between the parties. Plan Won’t Stick Even if Trump spins the plan as a win, it won’t stick – he moves with the news cycle Gabriel 5/13 - Trip Gabriel, an American journalist who has covered politics and national news for The New York Times, 2016. (“How Much Bad Press Does It Take to Cost Donald Trump a News Cycle?”, The New York Times, May 13, Available Online at http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/05/13/how-much-bad-press-does-it-take-to- cost-donald-trump-a-news-cycle/, Accessed on July 21, KC)

With few exceptions, Donald J. Trump’s week in the news was a blur of unflattering reports. His refusal to disclose his effective tax rate eclipsed an audiotape of him posing as his own spokesman. That, in turn, upstaged reports about his former butler saying racist, violent things about President Obama. Which had already overtaken Mr. Trump’s waffling over his own call for a ban on Muslims entering the country. But Mr. Trump somehow seemed to win the news cycle anyway . “ He is the first candidate to truly take advantage of the fact we are an A.D.D. society,’’ said J. Tucker Martin, a Republican communications strategist in Virginia. “He moves so quick and creates outrages so fast, you almost forget what happened.’’ Mr. Trump, who by every measure has dominated campaign news for 11 months, was head-spinningly ubiquitous this week – calling into television morning shows, speaking to reporters from his office at Trump Tower, popping up on Capitol Hill and sustaining his steady stream of boasts and insults on Twitter. Repeatedly, he had to do damage control , walking back, clarifying or re-clarifying comments about the Muslim ban, whether he wanted to raise taxes on the rich, or whether he would release his own tax returns before November. Yet the sheer volume of incoming fire seemed to diminish the impact of any of it when it landed . Trump may control the media but no one policy is key to his voters – the news cycle changes too often. Silver 16 - Nate Silver, editor in chief of Five Thirty Eight, genius, 2016. (“How Trump Hacked The Media,” Five Thirty Eight, March 30, 2016, Accessed on July 21, 2016, Available Online at http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-donald-trump-hacked-the-media/, KC)

And yet, no individual story about Trump has led news coverage for more than two consecutive days. (See here for a more detailed breakdown of topics.) Some seemingly significant stories didn’t even make it that far. When Trump canceled a rally in Chicago after clashes between supporters and protesters, it led Memeorandum for only one day. The fact that Trump has frequently condoned violence against protesters has never led a day of coverage. Christie’s endorsement of Trump led the news for only about half a day, as I mentioned. Remember when Trump got into a fight with Pope Francis? That story also led coverage for only half a day. What stories have been missed? You could push back against a few examples — the current lead story about the Trump campaign’s abusive treatment of reporter Michelle Fields is probably more interesting to the press than to the broader public, for instance. But most of the Trump-related stories the media has covered have a lot of intrinsic news value. It’s easy to defend breaking from Rubio’s post-debate buzz to cover the Christie endorsement, for example. The problem is that the cumulative effect of always choosing the Trump story piles up. There has been scant coverage of candidates other than Trump and Clinton — certainly including the other Republicans but also Sanders. These candidates have not received all that much opportunity to build momentum after favorable events on the campaign trail. Nor have they gotten all that much vetting or been subject to all that many investigative stories. That may be part of why Rubio’s standing fluctuated so much during February and March, for example. Voters hadn’t heard much about him: He’d led the news day only three times before February, according to Memeorandum. So a relatively minor story, such as a strong or weak debate, could weigh strongly upon their opinion of him. Another problem is that Trump is very often dictating the terms of his coverage, both by threatening to withdraw access from outlets that treat him unfavorably and by pre-empting other stories that might be unfavorable to him. There are whole genres of Trump-related stories that remain underexplored. According to Memeorandum, for example, at no point has an investigative story about Trump’s past business dealings led news coverage. That doesn’t mean these stories have n’t been written — there have been some good ones — but they haven’t gained traction. (And remember: Memeorandum placement is principally based on which stories are receiving inbound links from other news organizations, so we can’t just blame readers for not caring about those stories.) Also, Trump’s policy flip-flops have rarely led the news. How many Republicans know that Trump once called himself “very pro-choice,” or once promoted single-payer health care, or once called for a wealth tax? I’ve seen it asserted that Republicans don’t care very much about these things, and that may be a reasonable supposition, but the theory has never really been tested because these stories have not received much emphasis. The 24 hour news cycle means Trump can’t persuade on-the-fence voters. Bailey 6/15 - Jason Bailey, 2016 (“Donald Trump and the Two-Hour News Cycle,” Flavorwire, June 15, 2016, Accessed on July 21, 2016, Available Online at http://flavorwire.com/580460/donald-trump-and-the-two-hour-news-cycle, KC)

The decades-long discussion of the “24-hour news cycle” is usually interpreted as despair over the possibility – and thus desire – for constant news and updates, for getting it first rather than getting it right. But the 24-hour news cycle also means there’s a constant influx of new information and new distractions, and thus a feeling that public figures can survive campaign gaffes and PR nightmares if they can merely wait them out. Trump changes all that , collapses it; in spite of the assertion (or, to put a finer point on it, wishful thinking) among Republican establishment circles that Trump would “pivot” into a more “Presidential” mode, it’s become clear that this is the Trump we’re going to get for the next five months, a cravenly narcissistic, proudly ignorant, gleefully unprepared, blithering idiot whose depressingly painless glide to victory in his party primary was harmed not one bit by his toddler-like eagerness to say (or Tweet) whatever damn fool thing blows into his empty head — it’s all worth saying and all unimpeachable, because he’s like, a really smart person. His steady stream of rancid bullshit only further endears him to his equally moronic followers; if , on the other hand, you’re already panicked by his unique brand of dimwitted political “thought ,” three more reasons to jeer and fear him per day won’t make much difference. It’s the folks in between that he’s got to convince, and if there’s an upside to his slow-motion, full-volume implosion, at least we can take some comfort in the fact that seven in ten of them aren’t hearing it. Not that we should expect those numbers to change his behavior; if we know one thing about Donald Trump, it’s that he’s not bloody likely to admit he’s doing something wrong. Clinton Not Blamed

Clinton isn’t tied to the plan AND the GOP can’t spin against her Golan 15 (Shahar, Henry M. Jackson School of Int’l Studies at University of Washington – Chaired by Sorenson - Director Center for Korea Studies, Building a Pragmatic Coalition in American Politics, Rethinking United States Military Bases in East Asia, University of Washington, The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, Task Force - Winter 2015, https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/33275/Task%20Force %20E%202015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

As a recent Washington Post op-ed bluntly pointed out, “If Hillary Clinton wants the nomination — and there’s no indication to the contrary — she can have it” (Robinson, 2015, n.p.). Hillary’s nomination will make it very difficult for the Republican Party to attack the Democrats for going soft on China by spinning the rethink of the military bases to seem that way. The former First Lady’s reputation in foreign policy circles is difficult to challenge . She recently distanced herself from Obama’s foreign policy generally, from Asia policy specifically , and is perceived as a foreign policy hawk. In the New York Times review of her book Hard Choices, Michiko Kakutani (2014) stated that “Mrs. Clinton’s views are perceived as often more hawkish than Mr. Obama’s” (n.p.). Another book review in The Guardian also articulated opinions attuned with the New York Times article and public perception, stating “she comes across as consistently hawkish, pushing Obama to take stronger action” (Runicman, 2014, n.p.). Many in the defense establishment including former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have praised Clinton for her diplomatic skills. Her experience in foreign relations and her perception as a foreign policy hawk will challenge Republicans as they look ahead towards the upcoming presidential elections. Accusations of a foreign policy rethink favoring soft policies on the PRC and the DPRK will most likely fall flat for the Republican Party against this seasoned diplomat.

GOP can’t cast Clinton as soft on China Sanger 15 (David, Staff @ NYT, "China’s Vulnerability Is a Test for U.S. Presidential Candidates," 8/28, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/us/politics/chinas-vulnerability-is-a- test-for-us-presidential-candidates.html)

Rightly or wrongly, Mrs. Clinton is considered to be more confrontational with the Chinese than Mr. Obama, after a famous flare-up with her Chinese counterpart over the country’s territorial claims. As a result, the Republicans know that if Mrs. Clinton emerges as the Democratic nominee, it will be difficult to cast her as soft on China. A bigger problem may be in their own party. The American opening to China was a Republican president’s project. It is considered one of the greatest accomplishments of Richard M. Nixon’s checkered presidency, and today’s mainline Republican foreign policy establishment takes a very nuanced view of balancing Chinese power. Whoever emerges from the scrum of 17 Republican candidates will seek the wisdom — and the endorsement — of Henry A. Kissinger, Mr. Nixon’s national security adviser and secretary of state, and at 92 still the party’s greatest foreign policy mind. The architect of the American relationship with Beijing, who four years ago published a book on America’s dealings with China, is not one to call for cutting off relationships with Beijing. Distancing Possible — BIT Specifically for a BIT – Clinton distances herself from Obama’s commitment Jennings 16 (Ralph Jennings is a foreign correspondent who has written for the Christian Science Monitor, Forbes Asia, Institutional Investor, Los Angeles Times, TheStreet, South China Morning Post, Voice of America, “Fights With China Loom If Hillary Clinton Elected President,” published June 23rd, 2016, http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2016/06/23/fights- with-china-inevitable-if-hillary-clinton-elected-president/#81ebffa6bed5) aj

Hillary Clinton has distanced herself from President Barack Obama on a number of high-profile issues since starting her bid for the White House. Now, under pressure from left-leaning challenger Bernie Sanders , she is embracing him and his legacy with fervor. That strategy could pose problems for Clinton in the long run as Republicans look for fodder to portray her as representing Obama's third term should she win the Democratic nomination. As she faces an unexpected challenge from Sanders in the early voting states , Clinton's move to portray herself as an heir to Obama's policies is aimed at courting young voters and progressives who are part of the president's political base. But she could be setting herself up for difficulties with a general electorate weary of the status quo.

Hillary can distance, she did it on immigration. Nakamura 16 -David A. Nakamura has been a staff writer for the Washington Post since 1994, and he currently covers the administration of Washington, DC. March 10th (“Clinton’s stance on immigration is a major break from Obama, The Washington Post, Available online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clintons-stance-on-immigration-is-a-major-break- from-obama/2016/03/10/6388a1f8-e700-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html, Accessed 7/21/16, HDA)

Hillary Clinton’s pledge not to deport any illegal immigrants except violent criminals and terrorists represents a major break from President Obama , and it could vastly increase the number of people who would be allowed to stay in the country. The declaration this week from the Democratic presidential front-runner drew praise from immigrant rights groups, which have largely given up hope on pushing legislation that would create a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants. Many activists have sought in recent months to push Obama and his potential Democratic successors for stronger executive actions. Clinton’s position, which she described during Wednesday’s Washington Post-Univision debate, gives her an effective way to energize Hispanic voters, particularly in contrast to calls by Republican front-runner Donald Trump for mass deportations. But it was not clear Thursday whether, as president, she would be able to keep the promise. Clinton can distance herself quietly on foregin policy without hurting her overall coattail strategy. Rosenblatt 16 – Gary Rosenblatt is an editor and publisher at the Jewish Week, April 11th, (“ Distancing Herself From Obama, Clinton Embraces Israeli Views” Accessed Online at http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/national/distancing-herself-obama-clinton-embraces- israeli-views, accessed 7/21/16, HDA)

Signaling to Jewish voters that she would be more openly supportive of Israel and tougher on Iran than President Obama , Hillary Clinton told The Jewish Week in an exclusive interview that “it is unfair to put the onus on Israel” for the lack of progress on the Mideast peace front. And she asserted that “Iran should be sanctioned” for the recent launch of missiles Tehran says were designed to be able to hit the Jewish state, something the administration has not been prepared to do. The comments were made in a one-on-one, 25-minute phone conversation on Friday afternoon while Clinton was campaigning in the Buffalo area for the April 19 New York primary. The Democratic frontrunner never directly criticized President Obama, with whom she has a complicated political and personal relationship . They were sharp rivals in 2008 in vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. But when the victorious Obama chose her to be his secretary of state, she served loyally and tirelessly, though critics would say less than effectively. They fault her, most notably, for the 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, resulting in the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans. Econ Key Econ outweighs all other issues. Lizza 16. [Ryan, "Eight Questions for the New Year in Politics" The New Yorker – Jan 1 -- www.newyorker.com/news/daily- comment/eight-questions-for-the-new-year-in-politics]

7. Will Barack Obama help or hurt the Democratic nominee? The single most important factor in next year’s election will be the state of the economy. If the economy is continuing to improve and growth is strong and unemployment low, the Democrats will have a modest edge. But dragging them down will be the natural exhaustion the electorate generally feels after eight years of seeing the same party in power. Obama’s own popularity is closely tied to the economy , but he can help the Democrat nominee by making steady progress on a popular domestic agenda, combatting ISIS, and proving that his more unpopular policies (like the Affordable Care Act) are working and that his legacy initiatives should be continued and improved upon, as Clinton promises, rather than overturned, as the G.O.P. promises.

State of the economy determines the election – also its too far away for predictions. Pitney 14. [Jack, Decoder contributor, "Election 2016: why today's confident predictions could look silly in two years" Christian Science Monitor -- www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2014/1114/Election-2016-why-today-s-confident-predictions- could-look-silly-in-two-years]

Usually, the most powerful influence on elections is the state of the economy. If average voters feel more money in their pockets, then the incumbent party should do well. If they are getting worse off, then they will throw the bums out. In this year’s election, gross domestic product was rising and unemployment was falling, but stagnant wages contributed to the sense that the economy was still in the doldrums.∂ So what kind of economy will voters see in 2016? Maybe prosperity lurks just around the corner. Maybe the sluggish expansion will curdle into a toxic recession. Nobody can say. Not even the most sophisticated economic models can reliably forecast the global economy two years in advance .

Econ is key Long 5-26-16. [Heather, CNNMoney's senior markets and economy writer, "Clinton predicted to beat Trump...due to economics" CNN Money -- money.cnn.com/2016/05/26/news/economy/hillary-clinton-beat-donald-trump-moodys/]

The reason a Democrat will win is n't about polling or personalities, it's about economics, says Moody's. The economy is the top issue in just about every election. When the economy is doing well, the party currently in office usually wins again. When the economy is tanking, Americans vote for change . So far, the U.S . economy is chugging along. It's growing . Millions of people are getting jobs, home prices are rising and gas is cheap. All of this favors Democrats. Terror key Terrorism is more important in voters minds than Econ Lapinski et al. ’16 Columnists for MSNBC (John Lapinski and Marc Trussler, Josh Clinton 1-12- 2016, "The Economy or terrorism: Which issue is most important to voters?," MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/the-economy-or-terrorism-which-issue-most-important-voters) ZV

In the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton campaign manager James Carville had simple advice on what American’s care about in an election: “The economy, stupid.” Fast forward to the 2016 presidential primaries – which are occurring in the wake of significant international and domestic terror attacks that have alarmed voters – what issues do Americans care most about today? Results from the most recent NBC|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll conducted online from Jan 4. to Jan. 10 suggest that “jobs and economy” and “terrorism” are both named by around a quarter of voters as the issue that is currently most important to them. However, the aggregate numbers hide a key finding. The answer largely depends on your partisanship. If you are a Republican, terrorism is the most important issue facing the nation, with 34% of voters choosing this issue, compared to the 26% who listed the economy. This is in stark contrast to Democrats, where only 11% list terrorism as the issue most important to them. Fewer Democrats are concerned with terrorism than are concerned with the economy (29%), health care (17%), the environment (15%) or education (13%). But is the importance Republicans attach to terrorism simply a temporary diversion from the usual importance of the economy? NBC|SurveyMonkey began asking registered voters what issue was most important to them on Dec. 14, which allows for us to determine whether the salience of terrorism has significantly dropped as the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino recede further back in memory. Our data suggest that the issue salience of terrorism has staying power. The number of Republicans listing terrorism as the issue most important to them only declined 5% from Dec. 14 to Jan. 10. While this is a relatively short period of time from which to make conclusions, it is hard to see the issue of terrorism fully falling off the radar of Republicans any time soon. Climate Policy Key International climate policy secures key voters in Colorado, Virginia, and Florida Mace 7-15 – Matt Mace, reporter at edie, 2016 ("Trump and Clinton: the stage is set for America's climate aspirations," 7-15-2016, http://www.edie.net/news/9/Clinton-and-Trump-- the-stage-is-set-for-America-s-climate-aspirations/, date accessed 7-21-16 EAKJ)

American dreams or nightmares? All of this paints the picture of an economic, fossil fuel-guzzling powerhouse that is at a crossroads as to what direction it will take in the aftermath of the election – with the two frontrunners having very different opinions on where this journey should be headed. Trump is a larger-than-life figure who appears rather dismissive of climate change, going so far as pledging to cancel the Paris Agreement if elected. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum is Hillary Clinton, who after overcoming concerns on fracking deals with fossil fuel companies, looks set to follow on from the climate-related efforts from Barack Obama if elected. For Clinton, an election win would be aided by one of the most aggressive climate platforms established. Democratic party leaders have drafted a new climate platform that puts a price on carbon, implements stronger fracking regulations and gives priority to renewable energy. It was established to help garner votes in climate- concerned swing states such as Colorado, Florida and Virginia. Clinton’s climate agenda received a timely boost this week after ex-opposition Bernie Sanders officially endorsed her for president. “This election is about climate change,” Sanders said. “The greatest environmental crisis facing our planet, and the need to leave this world in a way that is healthy and habitable for our kids and future generations. “Hillary Clinton understands that we must work with countries around the world in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energy — and that when we do that we can create a whole lot of good paying jobs. “Donald Trump…like most Republicans, chooses to reject science — something no presidential candidate should do. He believes that climate change is a hoax. In fact, he wants to expand the use of fossil fuel. That would be a disaster for our country and our planet.” According to a Sierra Club report released earlier this week, if elected, Donald Trump would be the only head of state in the world to contend that climate change is a hoax. Using Sanders’ presumptions, a US led by Trump is unlikely to remove itself as the world’s second largest carbon emitter. In fact, with China’s – the world’s largest emitter - President Xi Jinping overseeing massive movements to clean up the country’s energy mix, the US is in danger of taking the unenviable top spot. There is a danger of the US election following a similar path of the EU referendum whereby concerns over immigration and income dwarf the importance of the environment. The stage is set for the two candidates to act on these policies, but the voice of green business needs to be the one that shouts loudest. Single Issues Not Key Single issues can’t change votes – opinions are crystallized. Sabato 3-26. [Larry, UVA Center for Politics Director, "Why htis scandal won't hurt Hillary" Sabato's Crystal Ball -- www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/]

Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that scandal has a much less pronounced effect at the presidential level. For one thing, most elections for the White House revolve around macro-issues such as the economy and war, and voters instinctively realize that personal peccadilloes fade in importance. For another, most top-tier contenders are reasonably well known and have been vetted to some degree by the press and opponents in prior elections. When voters already have a clearly formed view of a candidate and his or her strengths and weaknesses, it naturally becomes more difficult to alter impressions .∂ For no one is this more true than Hillary Clinton, who has been in the national spotlight, center stage, for 23 years. HuffPost Pollster data show over 90% of the public has already formed an opinion of Clinton, the most of any potential 2016 candidate. Other than the very youngest voters, is there really anyone left who doesn’t have a mostly fixed view of her?∂ You can argue that, to a lesser degree, the same is true for Jeb Bush. Americans outside of Florida may not know Jeb well, but they are very familiar with the Bush family. While Jeb doesn’t like it and is already struggling against it, voters attribute many of his family’s traits to him .∂ Jeb is insisting he’s his own man, yet it will be nearly impossible to insulate him from the deep recessions and Middle East wars of his father and brother. With the good that derives directly from being a Bush (instant name recognition, establishment support, tons of campaign cash) comes the unavoidable bad of the Iraq War, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and economic near-collapse.∂ Think of it this way: Both Clinton and Bush enter the campaign cycle with a million pixel image in the voters’ minds. If you add a couple thousand new pixels to the picture, the overall image doesn’t change much. A garden-variety scandal — and maybe an entire campaign full of them — won’t transform the projection on the screen.

Single issues aren't key to the election Stokes 16. [Bruce, director of global economic attitudes at Pew Research Center, "How A Terror Attack Could Affect US Polls" Outlook – March 22 -- http://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/how-a-terror-attack-could-affect-us-polls/296758]

US presidential elections are decided on a number of issues, often the state of the economy . But this year, a number of international concerns about negative consequences of globalization including trade, immigration and terrorism are prominent in the political debate. History suggests that the US election will not turn on any of these issues alone, but they may well influence the outcome. And it is people outside the United States who then must also deal with the consequences. Too Far Away Too far off – too many variables make predictions and the plan irrelevant (also the economy is key) Rasmussen 12-31. [Scott, polling analyst, "2016 forecast: The experts will be wrong" New Boston Post -- newbostonpost.com/2015/12/31/2016-forecast-the-experts-will-be-wrong/]

So, as you listen to what all the experts predict for 2016, retain a healthy skepticism. The reason is not because the experts are stupid. It’s just that in a nation of more than 300 million people, there are far too many variables for any one person to predict . Consider the 2016 presidential race as a great example. Nobody really has any idea who will win at this point. Political experts weigh all the things that they believe are important — demographics , money , connections, etc . A year ago, these same things led many to believe Jeb Bush was the clear frontrunner for the Republican nomination. In truth, the state of the economy will matter more than all theTru variables the political pundits are obsessing about. So will the level of terrorist activity and public perceptions of Obamacare. The reason we can’t be sure who will win the election is because we can’t be sure how any of these fundamentals will play out.

History proves we’re still too far out to make accurate predictions. Berenson 1-18. [Tessa, reporter, "History Shows It’s Still Too Early for Polls to Matter" Time -- time.com/4184449/iowa- caucus-election-polls/]

With just 13 days to go until the Iowa caucuses, it’s tempting to look to the polls for predictions about how it is going to play out. Donald Trump certainly treats his frontrunner status as gospel, often simply reciting favorable poll numbers to his crowds. But an analysis of polling data from previous elections shows that, even with less than two weeks until the first votes are cast, it is still too early for polls to be predictive. In four of the five previous presidential elections, the leaders in national polls 13 days out from the Iowa caucuses failed to capture the nomination. And in three of the five, the polls weren’t even predictive of the winner in Iowa . This could spell trouble for Trump and Hillary Clinton, who have both been seated comfortably atop the polls for months. At this point, it is still anyone’s game. We are too far away for polling to be accurate – ignore the neg cards. Azari 4-1. [Julia, assistant professor of political science at Marquette University, "Money and Legacy Matter More Than Polls" US News and World Report -- www.usnews.com/debate-club/how-much-do-2016-polls-matter-right-now/money-and-legacy- matter-more-than-polls]

Polls have a seductive democratic appeal. They seem as if they should enlighten us about the real thoughts of the populace – for example, revealing our collective judgment about whether we think Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Ted Cruz or Sen. Elizabeth Warren has what it takes to be president, or whether we’d prefer Hillary Clinton to Jeb Bush. But although the science of polling has improved, the mysteries of measuring public mood itself still abound , at least when it comes to elections that are more than a year away.∂ When it comes to how much polls for 2016 matter right now, my fellow political scientist Brendan Nyhan provided some interesting data. Looking at polls from the 1990s, he finds that Bill Clinton looked relatively weak in 1991, but went on to defeat the incumbent president in the general election. In contrast, Bob Dole looked strong in 1995, with 73 percent of respondents having a favorable impression of the Kansas senator. But he still lost the 1996 election.∂ [SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Hillary Clinton]∂ What explains this phenomenon? Basically, the political environment – especially, but not only, the economy – shapes how people perceive candidates. Over the course of a campaign, voters learn more about the candidates and about what is at stake. And their evaluations of the incumbent party heavily reflect the state of the economy. AT: Approval Ratings Links

Approval ratings don’t determine the election – their models suck – they have to win that the plan TANKS Obama. Silver and Enten 11-3. [Silver, editor in chief, genius, Harry, senior political writer, "The Election Is A Year Away — Is Either Party Winning?" Five Thirty Eight -- fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-election-is-a-year-away-is-either-party-winning/] harry: Well, I think it gives us a general idea of the political environment overall. And it reflects the president’s approval rating as well. The rough line of when a president’s approval rating helps or hurts a candidate from his own party is about 48 percent. Obama’s approval rating right now is 45 or 46 percent. Both of those numbers indicate to me that the environment is probably a little more favorable to the GOP than the Dems. Not greatly so, but a little bit so. natesilver: I’m not sure I’d say that 45 or 46 percent is meaningfully different from 48 percent. Not a year out, anyway . If you run the numbers with Obama’s favorability ratings instead, for instance, you get a different answer. harry: Let me ask you this: Is the difference between a 55 percent chance of the GOP winning meaningfully different than a 50 percent chance? natesilver: Do you want me to get existential here? micah: YES! natesilver: Sure, it’s meaningful if it really were a difference between 55 percent and 50 percent. Something that made a 5 percentage point difference in the likelihood of Democrats or Republicans winning would be way more meaningful than 99 percent of the stuff that pundits call “game- changers.” However. These fundamentals-based presidential models kind of suck. They’re not nearly as precise or as accurate as they claim to be. harry: Most of those fundamental models are based off economic measures. I don’t think I put any economic numbers in this so far. natesilver: I guess I look at it more like this. My prior is that elections with a term-limited incumbent are 50-50 . I’m looking for evidence that persuasively overcomes that prior. An extremely popular or extremely unpopular incumbent would clearly matter. But Obama’s popularity is about average . micah: But this was one of my questions: Obama isn’t running; how much of an effect will he have on the race? Positive or negative — is Obama’s popularity really a big factor? natesilver: He’ll have a fairly neutral effect, given his current popularity level. harry: We only have approval rating data at this point in a campaign (September/October the year before) for six instances when an incumbent president didn’t run for re-election. Now, I took those and plugged them into a simple little regression. With Obama’s approval at 46 percent, the GOP is expected to win by about 2 percentage points. Again, there’s a huge margin of error, but signs point to a slight GOP edge. natesilver: Dude. It’s not even six examples really. It’s four. harry: Who are your four? natesilver: Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are the only presidents in American history to be term-limited. Obama will be the fifth. And I don’t care if you get the same regression results with four. harry: And did you know that Obama’s approval rating is below the average approval rating for those four? And it’s not particularly close either. natesilver: The problem is that running a regression model based on an n of four is inherently kind of ridiculous. NERD FIGHT! harry: The average approval rating of those four is 59 percent. Obama’s is 45 or 46 percent. I’m not saying this is anything close to a be-all end-all predictor. But the evidence we do have suggests something slightly on the GOP side of 50-50. natesilver: OK, but there’s other evidence that possibly points toward Democrats having a slight edge. harry: Such as what? The blue wall? Your favorite blue wall? micah: PERMANENT DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY! natesilver: No, the blue wall is bullshit. Or, at least, mostly bullshit. But if you’re talking about minutia on the order of a 46 percent vs. 48 percent approval rating, then maybe there’s a very very small Democratic Electoral College advantage. harry: Why do you think that advantage exists? natesilver: Because they did have an advantage in 2012 and 2008, if you look at where the tipping point state was relative to the national popular vote. natesilver: Those advantages are NOT very sticky from election to election. But, again, if we’re talking about shit that moves the probabilities by 5 percentage points one way or the other, then maybe? harry: Now, let me state a point of agreement here: I concur that those advantages are not very sticky from election to election. natesilver: It’s all minutia, and I don’t think we should be concerned about a minutia a year out. harry: This site should be about arguing over the small stuff sometimes! micah: All right, somewhat related question: We’ve already heard pundits and politicians say, “It’s very hard for a party to win the White House three elections in row.” I guarantee that will be said millions of times from now to November 2016. Is it true? natesilver: The White House is not a metronome. micah: So no? harry: Small sample size on that one. I don’t agree with the concept that winning a third term is inherently more difficult. And, moreover, looking at the generic presidential ballot and Obama’s approval, this looks more like a close election than one that is clearly one-sided from start to end, a la 1952 or 2008. natesilver: You have four examples of term-limited presidents. If you look for examples before the 22nd amendment was adopted (which I guess you have to do when you have a sample size of four): Elections with retiring incumbents seem to be about 50-50. micah: Of course, who the parties nominate could change those numbers. It seems like this could be an election where the candidates make a huge difference, right? Let’s say Hillary Clinton wins, whether she faces Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio will have a big effect on the odds. natesilver: Yes. That’s the proverbial and maybe literal elephant in the room. micah: What order of magnitude are we talking about? harry: Yes, this is the question. This is one where I could find myself in agreement with Mr. Silver on whether it’s a 50-50. Cruz, for example, would be a historically conservative candidate. If he’s the GOP nominee, that could be worth a few percentage points and harm the Republicans. natesilver: Which, in an election that otherwise looks about 50-50, could make a lot of difference. If Clinton has a 75 percent chance of facing a 50-50 election, and a 25 percent chance of facing a 75-25 election (e.g., against Cruz, Carson, Trump, or a GOP electorate that gets all screwed up because one of those guys runs as a third party), then her overall chances of winning are 56 percent. natesilver: Now, I think you can argue that Clinton would be a slight underdog against Rubio, for instance. micah: What about vs. Jeb! Bush or John Kasich or Chris Christie? natesilver: Sure, Kasich, in particular. I’m less sure about Jeb or Christie, just because their personal ratings have been pretty bad for a long time. But Clinton’s not very popular either, obviously. micah: OK, let me see if I have this right … One year out, the election is probably about 50-50 (maybe 55-45 Republican, according to Harry), but that could be tipped toward the Democrats if the Republicans nominate Trump/Carson/Cruz or toward the Republicans if they nominate Rubio or Kasich. Moreover! Obama , with middling-but-not-horrible approval ratings, won’t have a huge effect on the race (also, the “it’s hard to win the White House three times in a row” maxim is bullshit). ***Impact Defense*** --- AT: Trump Bad --- General

Trump will moderate – numerous checks. Paletta 6-8-16. [Damian, reporter, "Trump Will Consult Congress, Agencies On Iran Deal and Muslim Ban, Adviser Says" Wall Street Journal -- blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/06/08/trump-will-consult-congress-agencies-on-iran-deal-and-muslim-ban-adviser- says/]

Presumptive Republican White House nominee Donald Trump would consult with Congress and federal agencies on a number of his signature foreign policy initiatives , including reworking a nuclear deal with Iran and a proposed ban on the entry of Muslims into the U.S., a top adviser said Wednesday. Walid Phares, one of Mr. Trump’s senior foreign policy adviser s, said t he candidate would seek domestic and international “ consensus ” on a range of foreign policy initiatives. During an hour-long interview with Wall Street Journal reporters and editors, Mr. Phares offered nuance to a number of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy ideas, suggesting some aren’t set in stone and could be modified as the campaign progresses. For example, Mr. Trump has called a recent nuclear deal with Iran “terrible” and “horrible” but Mr. Phares said Mr. Trump wouldn’t immediately attempt to negate it once in office. “He is going to be revising, reviewing, and maybe trying to modify the Iran deal,” Mr. Phares said. One option, he said, would be to resubmit the deal – or something like it – to Congress for a vote, a process whose outcome would depend on the makeup of Congress next year. Many bankers are watching the U.S. election closely and waiting for a clearer understanding of future U.S. policy towards Iran before doing business with the country. Mr. Phares’s suggestion Mr. Trump would revise the agreement instead of completely voiding it could influence the way some financial institutions deal with companies in Iran seeking access to global markets. Similarly, Mr. Phares said Mr. Trump would consult with immigration, national security, law enforcement, and other officials before proceeding with his proposed temporary ban on the entry of Muslims into the U.S. “His position which was strong – in terms of the ban – was based on the fact that the Obama administration — the Obama-Clinton administration — for the last seven to eight years was not able to equip us with systems by which we were able to identify the jihadists,” he said. Mr. Trump has faced criticism for his foreign policy platform, which breaks from GOP orthodoxy. Mr. Phares said Mr. Trump’s worldview doesn’t fit neatly into traditional labels of “isolationalist” or “interventionalist.” Rather, he described Mr. Trump as a “functionalist” who would work with allies when necessary but not overextend the U.S. in matters in which there isn’t an American interest. He also said that many of Mr. Trump’s proposals so far have only been offered as single ideas, which he compared to pieces of a puzzle. Once more proposals are set forward, something Mr. Phares predicted would happen soon, a broader approach to foreign policy would become clear, he said. “The expectation is the more she’s going to attack, the more he’s going to respond, and if he’s going to respond, he most likely he will address these issues,” Mr. Phares said, referring to Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. One key challenge for any Trump administration would be building bridges with Arab countries, many of which have been alarmed by some of Mr. Trump’s proposals so far. Mr. Phares said he is interviewed by Arab media outlets at least once a day, and works to explain Mr. Trump’s approach to the region. He predicted that numerous countries would be relieved to have a fresh start with the White House next year following several years of frosty relations with the Obama administration. Mr. Phares dismissed the caricature of Mr. Trump that Mrs. Clinton has worked hard to describe, suggesting, for instance, that he would rush into a nuclear conflict if his feelings get hurt or if another country insults him. “ I don’t see a n unusual Trump presidency as Madame Clinton is explaining where he’s going to go crazy and start pressing buttons right away ,” Mr. Phares said, tapping on the table. “ That’s not going to happen. We have a rational institution here.”

Structural factors constrain Trump Liptak 6-3-16. [Adam, Supreme Court correspondent, "Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say" New York Times -- www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald- trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0]

Republican leaders say they are confident that Mr. Trump would respect the rule of law if elected. “He’ll have a White House counsel,” Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, told Hugh Hewitt, the radio host, on Monday. “There will be others who point out there’s certain things you can do and you can’t do.” Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who has become a reluctant supporter of Mr. Trump, said he did not believe that the nation would be in danger under his presidency . “I still believe we have the institutions of government that would restrain someone who seeks to exceed their constitutional obligations,” Mr. McCain said. “We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court. We’re not Romania.” “Our institutions, including the press, are still strong enough to prevent” unconstitutional acts, he said.

No impact to Trump – institutional mechanisms check Cooper 3/16/16 (Matthew, Columnist @ Newsweek, "WHAT THE WORLD WILL LOOK LIKE UNDER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP," http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/world-under- president-donald-trump-437158.html)

All of which is nuts. Trump isn’t Hitler. He isn’t a fascist either—although he has, despite a career of deal-making, the my-way-or-the-highway proclivities of a Latin American strongman, which would be worrisome if America were Bolivia and not an enduring democracy. (Trump was the inspiration, by the way, for the Back to the Future bully, Biff Tannen.) He’s also not a savior. Due to his solipsistic personality and vague, unworkable policies, he could never be what he promises to be if elected. But that doesn’t make him the sum of all fears. The unspectacular truth is that a Trump presidency would probably be marked by the quotidian work of so many other presidents—trying to sell Congress and the public on proposals while fighting off not only a culture of protest but also the usual swarm of lobbyists who kill any interesting idea with ads and donations. Trump has a rarefied confidence in his abilities and, as we recently learned, in his, um, manhood. But what he doesn’t have is a magic wand (insert wand-penis joke here). Remember Schoolhouse Rock ? Trump is no match for the American political system, with its three branches of government. The president, as famed political scientist Richard Neustadt once said, has to take an inherently weak position and use the powers of persuasion to get others to do what he wants. Congress Checks Government checks mean Trump isn’t the end of the world Cooper 16 — Matthew Cooper, White House correspondent and political editor for the Newsweek, 2016 (“What If Donald Trump Becomes President?,” Newsweek, March 16th, available online at http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/world-under-president-donald- trump-437158.html, accessed 7/21/16) JL

Meanwhile, millions of Trump voters believe he really can “make America great again.” His I- can’t-be-bought wealth, his tough-on-trade tariffs, his wall to keep Mexicans out of the U.S. (thanks, Mexico!) and his art-of-the-deal skills as a negotiator have them convinced he’s the right man for troubled times.All of which is nuts. Trump isn’t Hitler . He isn’t a fascist either— although he has, despite a career of deal-making, the my-way-or-the-highway proclivities of a Latin American strongman, which would be worrisome if America were Bolivia and not an enduring democracy. (Trump was the inspiration, by the way, for the Back to the Future bully, Biff Tannen.) He’s also not a savior . Due to his solipsistic personality and vague, unworkable policies, he could never be what he promises to be if elected. But that doesn’t make him the sum of all fears.The unspectacular truth is that a Trump presidency would probably be marked by the quotidian work of so many other presidents—trying to sell Congress and the public on proposals while fighting off not only a culture of protest but also the usual swarm of lobbyists who kill any interesting idea with ads and donations. Trump has a rarefied confidence in his abilities and, as we recently learned, in his, um, manhood. But what he doesn’t have is a magic wand (insert wand-penis joke here). Remember Schoolhouse Rock ? Trump is no match for the American political system , with its three branches of government. The president, as famed political scientist Richard Neustadt once said, has to take an inherently weak position and use the powers of persuasion to get others to do what he wants. Could Trump blow up those legendary checks and balances and make America a fascist state? Oh, please. The fear of fascism in the U.S. goes back to the ’30s and echoes debates that have gone on since Thomas Jefferson charged Alexander Hamilton with being a monarchist. Sinclair Lewis’s 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here, was a heavy-handed warning about a folksy fascist seizing the presidency. In Philip Roth’s much better work from 2004, The Plot Against America, a Nazi-appeasing Charles Lindbergh wrestles the presidency from Franklin Roosevelt in 1940 and keeps the U.S. from aiding Britain, which foments a Nazi victory in Europe and less-than-pleasant times for American Jewry. But that’s fiction. Trump’s more likely to end up like Jimmy Carter — a poor craftsman of legislation and a crushing disappointment to his supporters. Since World War II, only Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton have left office with high approval numbers. Presidents generally end their tenure not with a bullet in a bunker but with a whimper.

Trump’s policies impossible — wall proves it Cooper 16 — Matthew Cooper, White House correspondent and political editor for the Newsweek, 2016 (“What If Donald Trump Becomes President?,” Newsweek, March 16th, available online at http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/world-under-president-donald- trump-437158.html, accessed 7/21/16) JL

So if he’s not going to be Hitler, what would a Trump presidency be like ? Judge him by his words .“ I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.” Leave aside the issue of whether anyone could actually build a wall of that magnitude, which is a big if. (Trump says natural barriers between the U.S. and Mexico mean that we’re talking about only 1,000 miles of wall.) Also leave aside that there is no net in- migration from Mexico at the moment . The remaining questions are myriad: Would the wall do as intended ? And could Trump really secure the money to pay for it? The answer to both is probably no. What about Mexico footing the bill? So far, the country has been a tad reluctant. “I’m not going to pay for that fucking wall,” said former Mexican President Vicente Fox. Trump argues that Mexico, threatened with tariffs, would gladly cough up the money lest its access to lucrative American markets dried up. But this is fantasy. No Mexican leader could survive appearing to be such a supplicant to the U.S., even if he or she were so inclined.

Then would Congress pay for the wall? No, and this gets to the heart of Trump’s problem not just with walls but with governance: He phrases solutions in terms of “I,” but this is a “we” country . It’s hard to see Congress being cajoled into funding that very expensive barricade, especially when Democrats would likely be able to stymie any funding measure with a filibuster in the Senate. Trump could try to galvanize public opinion, but good luck with that . If he just ends up with more drones and Border Patrol agents, he will have accomplished as much on that front as George W. Bush or Barack Obama and left his supporters crestfallen.“If you build that plant in Mexico, I’m going to charge you 35 percent on every car, truck part that you send into our country. Every single one.”Here’s another “I” problem. Trump loves to tell the hypothetical about how he’ll get Ford Motor Co. to stop building a plant in Mexico. In his telling, he calls the head of Ford, threatens a tariff and after a day or so the auto CEO relents and opens a factory in the United States. Trump has been telling this fairy tale for almost a year, and yet Ford has gone ahead with its Mexican expansion. Would it be any different if Trump got elected?Very doubtful. Raising tariffs is hard. You need to run the gantlet of lobbyists and get through the famously tough Senate Finance Committee, where chairmen of past (Bob Dole, Daniel Patrick Moynihan) and present (Orrin Hatch) have wielded the power to tie up tariffs forever. And since a tariff is a tax by another name, there’s about zippo chance of getting something like that through a tax- phobic Republican Congress, even if Trump is a Republican president. And even if he could, a unilateral tariff would run afoul of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico could seek redress under that accord. By that time, Ford Mustangs and Fiestas would already be coming off the line in Mexico.“We are going to replace Obamacare with something so much better.”Trump has recited the standard denunciations of the Affordable Care Act that all Republicans seem to have laminated on a card, but beyond saying he’ll loosen regulations on the sale of insurance over state lines—something he says will bring more competition and lower costs— he has been pretty vague about how he’s going to improve matters . Trump’s agenda will go nowhere – Congress checks. Ferguson 5-8-16. [Niall, professor of history at Harvard and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution at Stanford, "Keep calm — the Constitution will constrain Trump" Boston Globe -- https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/05/08/keep-calm- constitution-will-constrain-trump/vb06y2Q2O5khvkZKdHl7pI/story.html]

The only half-decent argument for keeping calm is that the Constitution was purpose-built to constrain a man like Trump. To see why the separation of powers still matters, just consider what Trump says he is going to do if he wins. By the end of his first 100 days as president, Trump assured The New York Times recently, his wall along the Mexican border would be designed and his blanket ban on Muslim immigration would be in place. On Day 1, those American companies that have the temerity to employ people abroad would be threatened with punitive fines. Finally, Trump would impose an across-the-board tariff on Chinese imports. “We can’t continue to allow China to rape our country,” he declared at a rally last weekend. Now for the good news. He can do almost none of this if Congress opposes him. According to the Constitution (Article I, Section 8), it is not the president but Congress that has the power to regulate immigration, taxation, and trade. The president’s principal power lies in his being commander in chief of the armed forces. Even his right to make treaties is conditional on “the advice and consent” of the Senate. In short, the Donald’s antiglobalization program depends on his being able to muster majorities in Congress. How easy is that going to be when the speaker of the House — a Republican — can’t bring himself to endorse Trump and the Democrats stand a good chance of retaking the Senate? Military Checks Military won’t do what he says – answers their coup arguments too Feaver, 16

Peter D. Feaver is a professor of political science and public policy and Bass Fellow at Duke University, and director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy. He is coeditor of Shadow Government, 2016 (“Will the Military Obey President Trump’s Orders?,” Foreign Policy, Accessible online at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/29/will-the-military-obey-president-trumps-orders-hayden- bill-maher/ , Accessed on 7/21/16, DSF)

Retired General Mike Hayden created a stir with his recent appearance on the HBO show, “Real Time with Bill Maher.” In the interview, Hayden told Maher that if Donald Trump wins the election and then attempts to fulfill some of his more outlandish campaign promises, the new Republican president would be blocked by the senior military. Actually what Hayden said was, “the American armed forces would refuse to act” and that the senior military will be correct in doing so because, as he put it, military commanders, “are required not to follow an unlawful order.”

In response to this, Maher offered a typical sardonic response, joking that Hayden had offered, “a good reason not to support Trump” because were he to instruct the military to do those things, “there would be a coup in this country.”

But jokes aside, Maher’s interview with Hayden raises some interesting and important issues here for civil-military relations. And given Trump’s standing as the Republican front-runner, this is also not merely an academic exercise.

Let’s begin by imposing a bit of precision on the analysis.

General Hayden was talking about some very particular campaign promises by Trump, specifically that as president he would a) direct the military to intentionally target the families of terrorists to be killed, and b) direct the national security establishment to do a “hell of a lot worse” than water-boarding to the terrorists and families of terrorists that are captured on Trump’s watch.

Both of these proposed policies are clear violations of the law. Civilian deaths that occur as collateral damage incidental to strikes aimed at legitimate targets are always avoided but sometimes an unfortunate part of lawful warfare; Trump is talking about deliberately targeting the family members as a matter of policy. I do not know of a single law expert who would say this is legal.

On the second one, there was a debate among reasonable lawyers about whether the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) program launched by the Bush Administration in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and then rolled back in the second term in the face of public pressure and adverse court rulings, were legal at the time. But that program was much more narrowly circumscribed than what Trump is talking about –indeed, he explicitly says he wants to do “a hell of a lot worse” than what was done in that program. And note: last October, Congress passed provisions in the 2016 Defense Authorization Act that make waterboarding and other techniques Trump wants to go way past explicitly illegal. There simply would not be much of a debate about Trump’s proposals. The overwhelming consensus would be that it is illegal.

I suppose it would get especially tricky — and this is the thorniest part of the EIT saga — if some the government lawyers disagreed. There is no chance the military lawyers would accept Trump’s line of reasoning, but it is possible he could appoint some civilian lawyers that might back his case. This would provoke a massive legal fight inside the administration, one that makes the Bush administration’s debates over EIT and the NSA’s terrorist surveillance program, and the Obama administration’s debates over drone strikes against American citizens who have joined al Qaeda, pale in comparison. Every expert I have talked to has reached the same conclusion: Trump (and any lawyers he could find) would likely lose the case and the military would rightly see the orders as illegal.

Given that it would be illegal orders, General Hayden is absolutely correct: not only would the senior military leaders refuse to follow those orders, they would be legally and professionally bound to refuse those orders. Democratic civil-military relations theory further requires that they refuse these orders. Refusing these orders would not be a coup. It would be reinforcing the rule of law and healthy civil-military relations. Pence Solves Pence has all the power – trump is a puppet with no strings Oh 7/20 – Writes for Mother Jones, managing editor of mother jones (INAE OH, “Donald Trump Reportedly Plans to Delegate All Domestic and Foreign Power to his VP”http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/donald-trump-mike-pence-running-mate- domestic-foreign-policy) RMT

A new report from the New York Times Magazine goes behind the scenes of the VP selection process and claims that Trump's first choice was his former rival, Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Perhaps more interestingly, the report sheds light on the unprecedented level of power Trump plans to delegate to his vice president if elected. According to the Times, Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., was responsible for vetting the potential candidates. Here's a scene from one conservation he had with a Kasich adviser.

Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy .

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

" Making America great again " was the casual reply.

If true, this means that Trump doesn't plan on doing much governing at all. It may also reveal that he actually agrees with Hillary Clinton's claim that he is temperamentally unfit to become president of the United States. As for Kasich, he declined the offer and isn't even showing up to the Republican convention that's taking place in his home state. Pence is good on national security Levingston 7/14 – Ivan, writes for CNBC (“What you need to know about Mike Pence” http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/14/what-you-need-to-know-about-mike-pence.html) RMT

While Pence is relatively soft-spoken compared with the other contenders for the number two spot, he would bring valuable political experience to balance out the ticket, and conservative bona fides that reportedly make him the favored pick of senior GOP officials. He also frequently speaks of his Christian faith, and could prove helpful as Trump seeks to court evangelical Christian voters.

He would also run on a strong executive record, having overseen an economic recovery during his time as governor of Indiana, cutting taxes and expanding early education funding.

Pence served six terms in Congress beginning in 2001, eventually rising to chair the conservative House Republican Study Committee and serve in leadership as the chairman of the House Republican Conference.

While in Congress, Pence also served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, giving him foreign policy and national security experience . Prior to his time in Congress, Pence hosted a conservative talk-radio show, where he called himself "Rush Limbaugh on decaf" for his lower- volume conservative views.

In recent days, Pence has been a strong supporter of Trump and even introduced him at a rally in Indiana this Tuesday. However, Pence previously said he was voting for Trump's challenger Sen. Ted Cruz in Indiana's Republican primary earlier this year. He has also distanced himself from some of Trump's policies, and on at least two occasions, Pence sent tweets in disagreement with Trump's policies that were already recirculating on Twitter as Pence's selection appeared all but certain Thursday afternoon

Pence is good for the economy Gerarghty 7/20 – Jim, Writes for the national review, GOP strategist(“Would Mike Pence Be America’s Chief Operating Officer?” http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/438123/would- mike-pence-be-americas-chief-operating-officer) RMT

Indiana has held AAA ratings with all three agencies, Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s and Fitch Ratings, since April of 2010; Pence took office in 2013. In April, Standard and Poor’s praised the state’s “structural balance, growth in reserve levels, and continued funding of long-term liabilities.” In June 2015, the state ended the fiscal year with a $2.1 billion surplus . Indiana has enjoyed a relative economic boom under Pence; since January 2013, the size of the state’s workforce has increased by 186,527 people, 5.9 percent, and the unemployment rate has dropped from 8.4 percent to 5 percent. The unemployment rate is about the same as the national average, but the increase in the state’s workforce is large compared to other states. Trump Moderates Trump will moderate—it’s campaign rhetoric—his actual policies are different Bruenig 16 (Elizabeth; feb 2k16; has an A+ twitter account but is also Assistant editor for Outlook/Post Everything at @WashingtonPost; Is Donald Trump a moderate in wolf’s clothing?; https://newrepublic.com/minutes/130854/donald-trump-moderate-wolfs-clothing ) jskullz

Is Donald Trump a moderate in wolf’s clothing? It might seem like an odd question to pose about a guy who has drawn endorsements from the likes of David Duke, but no one invites as much speculation as to the billionaire’s extremist bona fides as the man himself. Speaking Monday night to Fox’s Sean Hannity, Trump claimed that, with regards to his immigration policy, “Everything—by the way, it is negotiable. Things are negotiable , I’ll be honest with you. You know, I make the wall two feet shorter or something. I mean everything is negotiable.” Trump assured Hannity the wall itself is non-negotiable, meaning it must fall outside the parameters of “everything.” Meanwhile, Trump suggested in a speech over the weekend that he wouldn’t necessarily be as politically incorrect as president as he is as a candidate. A woman asked me today [...] she said, I tell you, the one question they want to know, if you become president can you calm down your rhetoric? [...] she said that is the only thing, people love you, but they want to know as president can you calm it down? I said to her, listen, I am really smart. I can do that, but right now I’m fighting all of these guys. All of them or most of them are lying about me. I have to be a little aggressive. When I’m president I’m a different person . I can do anything. I can be the most politically correct person you have ever seen. Which Trump is the real one is anyone’s guess. No War Impact Recent speeches prove that Trump will advance a sensible foreign policy and end unnecessary interventions but Clinton won’t Eland 16 – (Ivan Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute; 4/29/16, “Trump’s foreign policy is the realism America needs,” New York Post, http://nypost.com/2016/04/29/trumps-foreign-policy-is-the-realism-america-needs/, Accessed 7/21/16, HWilson)

Despite Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s reality-show candidacy, his recent foreign-policy speech put forth a realistic view of the world and a largely credible foreign policy to face it.

Continuing his poke at the political establishment, the maverick candidate proposed a viable alternative to the bipartisan foreign-policy consensus, which uses unneeded and profligate military interventions overseas as the primary US foreign-policy tool.

As opposed to the interventionist neoconservatism of the Bush administration and the equally meddling liberal hawkishness of Hillary Clinton , Trump got back to basics in this week’s speech. He let American citizens know his foreign policy would safeguard US national interests first — not those of foreign countries, including providing for their security while they freeload.

He laudably said military intervention would be used only as a last resort, after diplomacy and economic sanctions — and even the latter would be used sparingly.

Rather than using military power in a vain attempt to export democracy by force into countries that are unreceptive to it, as the United States did in Iraq and Libya, Trump said America should promote its values through leading by example .

This is smart, practical policy.

Democracy takes root when people in a country support it, rather than having it shoved down their throats at gunpoint. In only four out of 18 attempts since 1900 has the forcible US export of democracy succeeded.

In contrast, at the end of the Cold War the United States inspired the countries of Eastern and Central Europe to democratize from their communist past.

Both the Bush and Obama administrations tried to impose democracy on other nations — Iraq and Libya, respectively — using military power and nation-building, and we are now stuck bandaging the resulting hemorrhages.

This interventionist approach sparked chaos in the Middle East and allowed the terror group ISIS to fill the vacuum.

Trump sees this reality and is right to commit his presidency to a more restrained, prudent approach to foreign intervention. Echoing the traditional, less-interventionist US foreign policy that was the norm before the Cold War, Trump affirmed the United States would “not go in search of enemies.” This more restrained foreign policy served the nation well from its birth in the late 1700s to 1947, when it began to police the world.

During this period, the United States had few costly foreign wars — and in the ones that it did enter, such as World Wars I and II, the country had the luxury of doing so late, thus saving American lives and resources.

Trump’s promise of a nation that places more emphasis on diplomacy and improving relationships, even with nuclear-armed China and Russia , can make the world a safer place.

And it may result in cooperation in specific areas where US interests align with those of such countries — such as a common interest with Russia in combatting radical Islamist terrorism.

This week’s speech shows us Trump realizes a central problem in US foreign policy: Intervention in the affairs of other nations has been unnecessary and destructive .

While many scoff at his success at striking “deals,” his commitment to putting military might second to respectful negotiation and traditional diplomacy shows leadership.

The United States is not the world’s protector. Our own resources have been overextended in providing for the defense of wealthy allies.

It’s time we start treating them as our peers, transferring the responsibility for their own security.

Despite Trump’s usual campaign bluster, his foreign-policy views are largely well-argued and based on knowledge of, and stark admission of, numerous past instances of excessive and failed military meddling overseas.

Trump’s foreign policy strategy is superior and there’s no impact from alliance pullout Eland 16 – (Ivan Eland is senior fellow and director of the Center on Peace & Liberty at the Independent Institute, Oakland, CA; 6/17/16, “Hillary's Foreign Policy Is Scarier Than Trump's,” The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/feature/hillarys-foreign-policy-scarier-trumps- 16639, Accessed 7/6/16, HWilson)

The senseless murder of forty-nine revelers at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub has amplified our need for a long overdue national conversation this election season about the overall direction of U.S. foreign policy and our proper role in the world. With the party nominating conventions just weeks away, now is a good time to start.

In what was billed as a major foreign-policy address several weeks ago, Hillary Clinton, who will carry the Democratic banner in this year’s contest for the White House, got the ball rolling, characterizing presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump’s views as “dangerous.” Focusing on Trump’s statement that Japan and South Korea should defend themselves, rather than rely on the United States—even if this includes the possible use of nuclear weapons—Clinton was anything but subtle. “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes because it’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.” By comparison, Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 television ad smearing Barry Goldwater, which featured a nuclear mushroom cloud and a little girl with a flower, was the epitome of subtlety.

Clinton’s biting attack on Trump got high marks from many in the media. Yet, ironically, Trump’s foreign policy views, if you think about it, are less scary , even in their implications for possible nuclear war, than Clinton’s belligerent interventionism —sold as “American world leadership.”

Even if one fervently opposes nuclear proliferation, a strong case can be made that the United States should spend more time worrying about the radical or unstable countries that either have nuclear weapons or are seeking them—such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and North Korea—than worrying about Japan and South Korea.

But that’s not where Clinton chose to take us. Instead, Clinton and much of the U.S. foreign policy elite, Republican and Democrat alike, obsess about Trump saying what should be obvious. It would not be a catastrophe if Japan and South Korea—stable, democratic societies and good world citizens— were able to deter aggression, if need be, even with nuclear weapons.

In fact, for many years, the U.S. foreign-policy establishment has covered up the danger to the American public, an illusion created by America’s extensive web of international security alliances and agreements. There is no plausible scenario in which any of our NATO allies, or any of the other nations that rely on the U.S. security umbrella—Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel, for example—is going to be called upon to defend the United States. As a practical matter it only works the other way: we guarantee their security.

Very few U.S. allies have nuclear weapons, and if they get into a scuffle with a nuclear power such as China or Russia, even over a minor issue, such as contested rocks in the South China Sea, the United States could ultimately be responsible by treaty to defend them. This ultimately could mean using nuclear weapons and inviting a retaliatory strike on American soil.

This essentially irrational policy was initiated during the Cold War to protect countries from attack by the powerful Soviet Union. However, as bad as a Soviet takeover of Western Europe or Japan would have been, it pales in comparison to American cities becoming nuclear wastelands .

The implicit U.S. pledge to use nuclear weapons to defend its allies was predicated on the risky notion that it would deter a Soviet attack. There was little or no conversation about the cataclysmic horror that could result if deterrence didn’t work.

If the policy was irrational during the Cold War, continuing it has been even more irrational since the Cold War ended.

Donald Trump is wise to question the United States’ outdated, inflexible and costly commitment to protect large numbers of nations around the world. Such formal and informal alliances are the core of an overextended American foreign policy that requires having hundreds of U.S. military bases overseas and conducting countless—now seemingly perpetual—military campaigns, such as the wars Clinton supported in the Balkans, Iraq and Libya, to support this informal American Empire.

With a $19 trillion national debt, the United States can no longer afford such a policy .

Besides, it is unwise and puts the American public —and our military— unnecessarily at risk . Trump will moderate – he’s pacifist and represents our only option to shift away from an interventionist foreign policy that would be net better than the status quo Bandow 16 – (Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan; 5/17/16, “Is Donald Trump Good for the Cause of Foreign- Policy Restraint?,” The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/donald- trump-good-the-cause-foreign-policy-restraint-16227?page=show, Accessed 7/21/16, HWilson)

When the Berlin Wall fell, Warsaw Pact dissolved and Soviet Union split apart, U.S. foreign policy became obsolete almost overnight. For a brief moment advocates of a quasi-imperial foreign policy seemed worried.

For instance, NATO advocates were reduced to talking about having the anti-Soviet military compact promote student exchanges and battle drug smuggling. But advocates of preserving every commitment, alliance and deployment quickly recovered their confidence, insisting that the status quo now was more important than ever.

Since then NATO has expanded, Washington has “rebalanced” toward Asia. The United States has fought a succession of wars. Despite public disquiet over multiple foreign disasters, the political elite remains remarkably united in backing America’s expanding international military role.

Leading Republicans simply refused to acknowledge George W. Bush’s mistakes, instead shamelessly blaming Barack Obama for the Iraq debacle and all that followed. Democrats who opposed Bush’s Iraq invasion said little as the current president escalated old wars and initiated new conflicts and drone campaigns. GOP presidential candidates competed over how much murder and mayhem they would wreak. The Democratic frontrunner pushed for U.S. military intervention in the Balkans as First Lady, voted for the Iraq war as Senator, and orchestrated the Libya campaign as Secretary of State.

Breaking with this prowar consensus is Donald Trump. No one knows what he would do as president, and his foreign-policy pronouncements fall far short of a logical and consistent foreign policy program. Nevertheless, his perpetual bombast and bluster could not disguise the fact that he was the most pacific GOP contender, perhaps save Sen. Rand Paul.

Trump criticized the Iraq and Libya interventions, opposed confrontation with Russia , and, even more strikingly, denounced “war and aggression” in his recent foreign-policy address. He also criticized multiple alliances which seem only to serve as conduits for U.S. aid to populous and prosperous states.

Unsurprisingly, Trump’s views have dismayed the guardians of conventional wisdom. Democrats could be counted on to be critical, despite his sharp attacks on Bush. The usual GOP suspects were even more hostile, in part because of his attacks on Bush. More than one hundred Republican foreign policy practitioners wrote an open letter denouncing him. Some of them are hoping for an independent candidate or planning to vote for Clinton.

More significantly, however, for the first time in years, if not ever, many advocates of American dominance believe it necessary to defend their views, which they had previously considered to be self-evident. For instance, NATO supporters are trying to explain why the U.S. must defend European states which, collectively, are wealthier and more populous than America. Friends of Saudi Arabia are attempting to justify backing a nation which maintains political and religious totalitarianism at home and promotes hostile Islamic fundamentalism abroad. Promoters of the Asian pivot are searching for arguments to explain why Washington pays to protect South Korea and Japan, which skimp on their own defense. Despite the irritated harrumphing which uniformly accompanies their arguments, all have felt the need to respond.

Nevertheless, the downsides of Trump as messenger are obvious. While his opinions on allied free-riding are well-established, on other issues he has shifted back and forth. Who knows if he means what he says about much of anything?

Moreover, even when he is right conceptually, he often misses the mark practically. For instance, the answer to allied free- (or cheap-) riding is not to charge other countries for America’s efforts. Washington should not hire out the U.S. military. How much is the blood of American military personnel worth? The answer is to simply turn the defense of other nations over to them. Serious countries should defend themselves, and not expect military welfare from the globe’s superpower.

Trump also mixes sensible foreign-policy opinions with misguided and overwrought attacks on trade, immigration and Muslims. Even if he strengthened the U.S. by scaling back Washington’s imperial pretensions, he would weaken America in other ways. And his manner is more likely to repel than attract. Insulting people’s parentage while telling them that they are idiots rarely is a good strategy for converting opponents.

Thus, a debate has arisen among critics of current foreign policy: Is Trump helpful or harmful in promoting an alternative to promiscuous military intervention and constant war-making? Whatever happens in November, will he advance the cause of implementing a more rational and realistic foreign policy?

No doubt, proponents of realism, noninterventionism, and other forms of restraint would prefer to have a different representative. But they have to fight the policy wars with the politicians America has, not the ones it needs.

Rep. Ron Paul challenged the GOP’s prowar orthodoxy for years, but never could break out of his niche and threaten to grab the nomination. Sen. Rand Paul was more nuanced in his views this election cycle, unfortunately attracting far less public attention and winning far less electoral success. Beyond them there has been no other responsible Republican presidential contender going back to 2004. Even the seeming rational John Kasich went rogue, advocating a fifteen-carrier navy and proposing to shoot down Russian planes in Syria. Everyone else might as well have performed the Maori Haka before talking about foreign policy, when they inevitably threatened to bomb, invade and occupy much of the known world.

At least there now is an advocate of sorts for restraint, and one headed for a major party nomination. It is hard to see how supporters of a more reasonable international approach could end up worse off. Imagine Trump living down to expectations and losing badly. Then the usual war-happy crew would insist that his foreign-policy approach has been discredited and seek to squelch any further debate. Yet it might not be so easy for them to eradicate from the public arena proposals for a more sensible foreign policy. And even if so, everything would simply go back to normal: proponents of restraint would be limited to writing occasionally for the National Interest and elsewhere, while their views were excluded from any government office that mattered. Just like today.

If Trump does respectably but loses narrowly, he will have demonstrated popular discontent with a policy in which average folks pay and die for utopian foreign-policy fantasies advanced by Washington policy elites. That would encourage future political leaders to seek votes by challenging today’s interventionist consensus. And likely would spark an ongoing debate over the future of U.S. foreign policy. Those whose policies have consistently failed might still dominate the commanding heights of the think tank and publishing worlds, but they would face meaningful competition.

Finally, if Trump triumphs he will be in a position to transform U.S. foreign policy . What he would actually do is anyone’s guess. But he would not likely accept the status quo. In which case for the first time in decades there would be a serious debate over foreign policy and a meaningful opportunity to change current policies .

Given his avowed hostility to the existing elite which he blames for today’s manifold problems, Trump likely would open positions to people breaking with conventional wisdom. No doubt, the result would fall short of a noninterventionist nirvana. But at least some advocates of restraint might grace some corridors of power in Washington. Almost anything would be an improvement over the situation today. There are lots of reasons to oppose Donald Trump’s candidacy. However, he offers restraint advocates their best opportunity in a generation to challenge today’s interventionist zeitgeist. The end of global communism did little to change U.S. foreign policy. It might take the election of Donald Trump to make a real difference.

Their impacts are all hype — Trump won’t cause war. TOMASOVIC 6-8 Nick,Georgia State BA In Political science “No, Donald Trump won’t cause World War 3” JUN 8 2016 https://openvote.com/posts/no-donald-trump-won-t-cause-world- war-3-2c332de9146e)ski

If you let the media tell it, Trump is guaranteed to start World War III – or worse, full-out nuclear war – if he becomes president ¶ But is that really true? Would Trump really “push the button”? ¶ It's not likely. ¶ We can't predict the future of course, but based on Trump's stated foreign policy stances and his track record as an international businessman, he's actually the least likely candidate to cause large-scale conflic t. ¶ Let's take a look at the facts. ¶ The Truth About Trump's Foreign Policy ¶ Here's the big picture regarding Trump's previous statements on US military actions throughout the world. ¶ On the Middle East ¶ As you probably know, the Middle East has been a hotbed of fighting and conflict for decades. And the US has played a major role in much of it. ¶ What are Trump's ideas on the matter? ¶ For one, he has criticized the invasion of Iraq, mainly for turning a bad situation wors e. When you consider that the fall of Saddam Hussein allowed room for ISIS to form, you realize that he was actually the lesser of two evils in that situation. ¶ Sure, he wasn't very nice, but at least he was holding the region together for the time being. ¶ Same story in Libya and now Syria, two more conflicts that Trump disagrees with. The truth is, Libya is a lot more volatile now than it was with Gaddafi at the helm, and Syria's president Assad is one of the few forces making a real effort against ISIS. ¶ To recap, Trump is not cool with America's constant involvement in the Middle East. He wants the region to be stable . ¶ Why are we being told this guy is so dangerous again? ¶ The only people who have to fear Trump is ISIS. He's called for a combined and concentrated effort against the extremist group, eliminating them once and for all. ¶ On Our Allies ¶ We looked at Trump's opinions on our enemies. But how about our “allies”? ¶ Well, there's Saudi Arabia, who the US continues to support militarily despite their record of promoting terrorism and violating the human rights of their citizens. ¶ Why exactly do we continue to ally ourselves with a government that regularly beheads people over small crimes? ¶ And if we are going to fight their battles, shouldn't they be paying their fair share? The truth is, they don't. Neither of these issues have been lost on Trump, who's criticized Saudi Arabia on several issues. ¶ You'll notice a theme regarding Trump and his insistence that countries pay their way. Why should the US be responsible for funding the bulk of NATO? Not only is the program obsolete (it was created to counter the Soviet Union during the Cold War), its other members are rich European countries who could certainly afford to chip in more than what they do. ¶ Then there's Japan and South Korea. For quite some time, both of these countries have relied heavily on the American military to protect them. ¶ But they're rich countries, as Trump has pointed out. They could easily field their own military. And if they're not willing, shouldn't they foot the bill for America's help? ¶ Obviously the thought of pulling American troops from Europe, Asia, and the Middle East is going to ruffle some feathers. But many of these agreements do not serve our interests. They also make it a lot more likely for the US to be embroiled in another World War, were it to happen. ¶ On the other hand, Trump has questioned the vilification of Russia by the US and Europe. ¶ If WW3 goes down, it's likely going to involve Russia. Easing the tensions between our two nations would go a long way to alleviating that threat. Especially considering they share plenty of mutual goals with America, like defeating ISIS and stabilizing the Middle East. ¶ On Our Military ¶ Wait, hasn't Trump boasted how strong he's going to make our military? That's right. He even said it'd be so big and powerful that “no one will mess with us”. ¶ Surely that means he's a brutal warmonger focused on world domination? ¶ Not really. As we saw above, the US military has a lot of responsibilities. We have bases all over the world, decades of ongoing conflicts throughout the Middle East, and obligations to dozens of different countries. ¶ Being stretched that thin, trying to be in a million places at once, weakens our military as a whole. ¶ When viewed in conjunction with the rest of Trump's foreign policy proposal, you'll see that a “strong military” means one that's more focused and defensive, rather than the interventionist mess we have now. ¶ We have more than enough military power to protect the country. Where it gets shaky is when we've got troops in South Korea, fighter jets in Syria, and money going to Ukraine. ¶ Another major problem in the US military is inefficiency. Many projects – whether it's a new piece of technology or toilet seats – end up way over-budget and past schedule. ¶ This has been one of Trump's strengths as a businessman – getting things done on time and without spending too much. It's an area he's prided himself on for decades. ¶ No Nuclear Lashout Trump is good with nuclear codes Flynn 7/18 – Michael, Retired Army General, (“ Michael Flynn: No issue with Trump having nuclear codes” CNN, Transcribed from an Interview Between Christiane Amanpour and Michael Flynn, http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/07/18/intv-amanpour-michael-flynn- trump.cnn/video/playlists/atv-politics-original/) RMT

Amanpour: Would you trust Donald Trump with the Nuclear Codes?

Flynn: I have been involved with nuclear planning as the head of intelligence years ago, even before my last assignment we operated exercises all the time. I don’t have any problems with that.

Who would I, w ho am I concerned about giving sensitive info? Hillary Clinton. I mean, she has demonstrated she cannot be trusted with highly sensitive info rmation, Christiane.

In my conversations, he’s a great listener. He asks very tough questions. He’s very thoughtful. His instincts about people, his judgement about people, and his willing ness to allow the right people to make decisions based on what is best are just high qualities that I see in him that I find refreshing. No Iran Deal/Nuke Launch Impact Trump is checked – nuke launch redundancies, iran deal Hayes, 15

Mike, BuzzFeed News reporter, 2015 (“Don’t Worry, President Trump Won’t Technically Have Unilateral Power To Launch A Nuclear Attack,” BuzzFeed News, September 17, 2015, Accessible online at: https://www.buzzfeed.com/mikehayes/dont-worry-president-trump-wont-actually- have-his-finger-on?utm_term=.saMx9GdJX#.ibrar5JNW, Accessed on: 7/21/16, DSF)

Governor Scott Walker chimed in and piled on Trump. “We don’t need an apprentice in the White House, we have one right now,” he said.

For anyone sharing Paul and Walker’s uneasiness over a President Trump and nuclear weapons, put your mind at ease.

The Center on National Security at Fordham Law School ran a “fact check” on the topics of national security and foreign policy that came up during Wednesday night’s debate and shared its findings with BuzzFeed News. The group reviewed the responses against the technical language of the law.

Here is their answer to the question: Does the President actually possess the nuclear codes?

The President cannot unilaterally use the nuclear codes to launch a nuclear attack, according to a report by Jason Fritz that was commissioned by the International Commission on Nuclear Non proliferation and Disarmament. Rather, the U nited S tates enforces a two person rule with respect to nuclear activation at every level . At the highest level, this rule requires that the President jointly issue launch orders with the Secretary of Defense . The rule continues down the line, with commanding officers and executive officers working in tandem, and missile operators agreeing on launch order validity.

The security discussion revolved around the issues of the Iran nuclear deal, the war in Iraq, and the creation of the Islamic state.

Both Walker and Sen. Ted Cruz said Wednesday that if elected they would terminate the Iran deal on day one in office. Cruz said that he would “rip it up.”

Can the president truly undo the Iran deal on “Day One ?” The Center for National Security says it does not believe he can .

“ A subsequent president likely does not have the power to rip up an executive agreement even though it was never ratified as a treaty , although there is debate about which types of executive treaties are more or less binding. Because Congress allowed the nuclear deal to proceed , the executive agreement gains statutory and political support, making it more difficult for subsequent presidents to repudiate.” Trump won’t tear up the Iran deal – prefer insiders Hensch 16 – (Mark Hensch is a staff writer at "The Hill" newspaper in Washington, D.C.; 7/5/16, “Adviser: Trump ‘not going to get rid of’ Iran deal,” The Hill, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286453-adviser-trump-not-going-to-get- rid-of-iran-deal, Accessed 7/21/16, HWilson)

A top foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump says in a new interview that the billionaire would not scrap the Iran nuclear deal if his presidential bid is successful.

“No, he’s not going to get rid of an agreement that has the institutional signature of the United States,” Walid Phares told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“He is a man of institutions. But he’s going to look back at it in the institutional way. So he is not going to implement it as is, he is going to revise it after negotiating one on one with Iran or with a series of allies.”

Phares said Trump dislikes the current diplomatic agreement, but believes it can improve with input from lawmakers.

“He’s said so far that he doesn’t like this deal and that it was poorly negotiated,” he said. “Once elected, he’s going to renegotiate it after talking through it with his advisers.

“One of the clear possibilities is he will send it back to Congress,” Phares added. “The reaction of the Iranian leadership will be the next phase.”

President Obama announced a landmark international pact concerning Iran’s nuclear energy capabilities last year.

The historic deal eased economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for greater restrictions on its nuclear program.

Trump can’t renegotiate the Iran Deal unilaterally – it’s annexed to an international resolution Ritter 16 – (Karl Ritter has been Chief of Bureau at The Associated Press since August 2005; 6/2/16, “IRAN: Donald Trump can't renegotiate the nuclear deal,” Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-says-donald-trump-cant-renegotiate-nuclear-deal-2016-6, Accessed 7/21/16, HWilson)

STOCKHOLM (AP) — Iran's foreign minister says the nuclear deal reached last year with world powers can't be renegotiated despite Republican presidential contender Donald Trump's pledge to do so if elected.

After a lecture in Stockholm on Wednesday, Mohammad Javad Zarif said the deal "is not an Iran-U.S. agreement for the Republican front-runner or anybody else to renegotiate. It's an international understanding annexed to a Security Council resolution."

Trump has denounced the deal and said he'd seek to renegotiate it if elected president. Democratic front- runner Hillary Clinton has said she supports the agreement to rein in Iran's nuclear program, which was endorsed by the U.N. Security Council.

It's not possible "to renegotiate a text that is annexed" to such a resolution , Zarif said. Wont “rip up the deal” – he’ll negotiate a new one and send it to congress Haaretz, 7/5

2016, (“Trump Won't Cancel Iran Nuclear Deal if Elected President, Top Adviser Says,” Haaretz News, July 5th, 2016, Accessible Online at: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election- 2016/1.729082, Accessed on 7/21/16, DSF)

Top foreign policy adviser Walid Phares says the Republican presidential candidate would 'revise it after negotiating one on one with Iran' instead.

Donald Trump's top foreign policy adviser said that the Republican candidate would not cancel the landmark nuclear deal with Iran if he were to become U.S. president, The Hill reported on Tuesday.

“No, he’s not going to get rid of an agreement that has the institutional signature of the United States,” Walid Phares told The Daily Caller in an interview on Monday.

Instead, Phares said, Trump would "revise it after negotiating one on one with Iran."

“He’s said so far that he doesn’t like this deal and that it was poorly negotiated. Once elected, he’s going to renegotiate it after talking through it with his advisers," Phares said, adding that Trump "will send it back to Congress."

Trump said in an interview on NBC last year it would be hard to "rip up" the agreement, which he said would "lead to nuclear holocaust," but that if he was elected president he would "police that contract so tough they don't have a chance."

Iran and world powers announced on July 14 2015 that they reached a historic deal on the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, following two weeks of negotiations.

On January 16, world powers officially lifted crippling sanctions against Iran in return for Tehran complying with a deal to curb its nuclear ambitions. No Economy Impact Trump boosts econ – Moody wrong CNBC, 6/27

2016 (“Trump's policies won't cause recession: Economist,” June 27th, 2016, Accessible Online at: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-policies-wont-cause-recession-155245962.html, Accessed on: 7/21/16, DSF)

Donald Trump's camp is firing back at a Moody's Analytics assessment that his economic policies will send the United States into recession.

Moody's last week predicted that if the presumptive Republican nominee's proposals went into effect, the country would see a "lengthy recession" that could last up to two years. In addition, the report said the Trump plan would roll up another $11 trillion in national debt, trigger a trade war with China and push unemployment higher.

A pro-Trump economist, though, questioned the fundamental assertions in the report, as well as the objectivity of Moody's chief economist Mark Zandi, the lead author.

"The Moody's report is a partisan document that fundamentally lacks credibility," wrote Peter Navarro, an economics professor at the University of California-Irvine. " It is based on flawed assumptions that the authors admit 'are our own,' and these assumptions grossly misrepresent the Trump campaign's policy statements on the economy , trade, tax reform, and immigration."

Navarro said he examined the Moody's analysis — which resembled critiques from other Wall Street economists — at the behest of the Trump campaign, though he said his response was independent of influence from the campaign. Trump's side did not respond to a request for confirmation that Navarro was consulted.

The response rejects the key assertions of the Moody's analysis.

"Moody's Keynesian and partisan analysis also deeply discounts the supply side stimulus effects associated with the tax cuts themselves," Navarro wrote. "In reality, Trump's tax package will significantly stimulate GDP growth, the rate of job creation, and the tax revenues raised much as the Reagan supply side tax reforms did in the 1980s."

Navarro said Trump's aggressive proposed tax cuts are designed to be "revenue neutral," in that they will be paid for through a combination of increased economic growth and closed loopholes and deductions for special interests.

Trump's hard line with China , rather than instituting a trade war, will help create jobs, said Navarro, who painted a scenario in which the two sides actually come closer together.

"Under the threat of Trump's countervailing tariffs, Chinese leaders realize they no longer have a weak leader in the White House, and China ceases its unfair trade practices," he wrote. "In this scenario, American's massive trade deficit with China comes peacefully and prosperously back into balance over time. Both the U.S. and Chinese economies benefit while workers' rights improve along with the global environment." He also pointed out that Trump would impose a 45 percent tariff on China's goods entering the U.S. only if China refuses to end what the candidate considers unfair trading practices.

Finally, Navarro reserves his most blistering criticism for Zandi, a registered Democrat who has contributed to his party's prospective nominee, Hillary Clinton .

"Over the last eight years, Mr. Zandi has also been an instigator of, and chief apologist for, the failed Keynesian fiscal and monetary stimulus policies of the Obama presidency — a presidency marked by slow growth, stagnant wages, a near doubling of government debt, and a likely recession as Obama leaves office," he wrote.

Zandi declined to comment, and Moody's Analytics did not respond to a request for comment.

Zandi did indicate last week that an analysis on Clinton's proposals is forthcoming, though no date has been set.

Economic decline doesn’t cause war Drezner 12 (Daniel, Professor, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University, October 2012, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System Worked,” http://www.globaleconomicgovernance.org/wp-content/uploads/IR-Colloquium-MT12-Week- 5_The-Irony-of-Global-Economic-Governance.pdf)

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The aggregate data suggest otherwise , however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that " the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43.”40¶ None of these data suggest that the global economy is operating swimmingly. Growth remains unbalanced and fragile, and has clearly slowed in 2012. Transnational capital flows remain depressed compared to pre-crisis levels, primarily due to a drying up of cross-border interbank lending in Europe. Currency volatility remains an ongoing concern. Compared to the aftermath of other postwar recessions, growth in output, investment, and employment in the developed world have all lagged behind. But the Great Recession is not like other postwar recessions in either scope or kind; expecting a standard “V”-shaped recovery was unreasonable. One financial analyst characterized the post-2008 global economy as in a state of “contained depression.”41 The key word is “contained,” however. Given the severity, reach and depth of the 2008 financial crisis, the proper comparison is with Great Depression. And by that standard, the outcome variables look impressive. As Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff concluded in This Time is Different: “that its macroeconomic outcome has been only the most severe global recession since World War II – and not even worse – must be regarded as fortunate.”42

No Interventionism Trump stops interventions Bandow 5/31 - Senior Fellow, the Cato Institute, (“Will Donald Trump Save America From an Unnecessary War?” 05/31/2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/by-trashing-us- foreign-po_b_10217780.html) RMT

Ironically, Clinton claims support of foreign leaders as an argument for her candidacy: “I’m having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump.” But their backing reflects the fact that her interventionist policies serve the interests of other states far more than of America. Indeed, subsidizing prosperous, populous allies and attempting to remake failed states provides little benefit to most Americans, who do the dying and paying. Clinton’s foreign support actually reinforces Trump’s point: the need for an international policy that advances the interests of the American people.

Trump’s promise to ignore the usual foreign policy suspects also may reflect media coverage of some members of the very same policy elite publicly stating their willingness to serve Trump— though only reluctantly, of course. An unnamed GOP official told the Washington Post: “Leaving any particular president completely alone and bereft from the best advice people could give him just doesn’t sound responsible.” Of course, it’s all about advancing the national interest, and not gaining attractive, influential, prestigious, and career-enhancing jobs. No wonder Trump apparently sees no need for advice from such folks.

Author Evan Thomas took to the New York Times to defend the “global corps of diplomats, worldly financiers and academics.” He warned, “Get rid of them, as Mr. Trump seems intent on doing, and chaos will follow.” Thomas seemed to miss Trump’s point. Trump endorsed diplomacy, which would require the assistance of a variety of seasoned professionals . In fact, his policies would rely far more negotiation those of neoconservatives , who see war as a first resort.

Not needed, however, are such “ advisers” with the reverse Midas Touch, whose counsel has prove d to be uniformly disastrous. Indeed, every recent intervention has created new problems , generating calls from the usual suspects for more military action . For instance, stage a military cakewalk in Iraq . Now intervene to resave Iraq , pacify Syria , confront Ira n , save religious minorities, and destroy ISIS . Ad infinitum.

Trump may be feeli ng especially dismissive of those who never learn from their mistakes—like supporting the wars in Iraq and Libya, for instance. In August 2011, after the ouster of Moammar Khadafy, Anne-Marie Slaughter took to the Financial Times to celebrate the success: her article was entitled “Why Libya skeptics were proved badly wrong.” Once that country imploded and the Islamic State made an appearance, she dropped any discussion of who had been “proved badly wrong” by that conflict.

Samantha Power later criticized the public for losing its faith in her strategy of constant war: “I think there is too much of, ‘Oh, look, this is what intervention has wrought’ ... one has to be careful about overdrawing lessons.” Of course, she routinely “overdrew” lessons from foreign crises when demanding U.S. intervention. Anyway, what she really sought was to avoid responsibility for supporting multiple foreign policy blunders. Consider what the Iraq invasion has wrought: thousands of American dead, bloody sectarian war, promiscuous suicide attacks, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, trillions of dollars squandered, rise of the Islamic State, destruction of the historic Christian community, dramatic increase in Iranian influence. No wonder Trump disclaims any interest in listening to such people with such ideas.

There are many reasons to fear a President Trump. However, he is right to dismiss Washington’s interventionist foreign policy crowd, or “the blob,” as it has been called. The policies pushed by this insulated elite have cost America precious lives , abundant wealth, international credibility, and global influence . The next president should reject the same failed advisers with their same failed proposals. Can’t Predict

Can’t accurately predict presidencies – Reagan and Bush prove Cooper 3/16/16 (Matthew, Columnist @ Newsweek, "WHAT THE WORLD WILL LOOK LIKE UNDER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP," http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/world-under- president-donald-trump-437158.html)

Ouija Bored The history of predicting how presidencies will play out isn’t pretty. Many worried Reagan would be a warmonger. Instead, he signed the biggest arms reduction deals with the Soviets ever and responded to the slaughter of U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983 by pulling out instead of digging in. In Texas, George W. Bush was a popular governor known for bipartisanship. In Washington, less so. Forecasting the Trump years seems equally perilous. Critics should allow that he could be like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—a political novice and ideologically flexible Republican whom some California voters feared, yet who turned out to be way more tepid than the Terminator. Presidencies are historically unpredictable — Trump will be normal Cooper 16 — Matthew Cooper, White House correspondent and political editor for the Newsweek, 2016 (“What If Donald Trump Becomes President?,” Newsweek, March 16th, available online at http://www.newsweek.com/2016/03/25/world-under-president-donald- trump-437158.html, accessed 7/21/16) JL

The history of predicting how presidencies will play out isn’t pretty. Many worried Reagan would be a warmonger. Instead, he signed the biggest arms reduction deals with the Soviets ever and responded to the slaughter of U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983 by pulling out instead of digging in. In Texas, George W. Bush was a popular governor known for bipartisanship. In Washington, less so. Forecasting the Trump years seems equally perilous. Critics should allow that he could be like Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—a political novice and ideologically flexible Republican whom some California voters feared, yet who turned out to be way more tepid than the Terminator.But one thing we know is that Trump is used to having his way. Eisenhower, the last president who had never held elective office before entering the White House, might be the closest thing we have to a useful comparison. Many worried that the supreme commander of Allied forces in Europe would flounder in a system where his commands were not instantly met with a salute. "He'll sit there all day saying, ‘Do this, do that,’ and nothing will happen,” lamented Harry Truman as he readied to turn over the presidency to the five-star general. “Poor Ike—it won't be a bit like the military. He'll find it very frustrating.”It’s extremely unlikely anyone will ever utter the phrase “poor Donald.” And we should allow for the possibility that, like Eisenhower, he would be a successful president. His business has its eye-rolling qualities (mmm, Trump Steaks), but he does cut deals and, in case you hadn’t heard, even wrote a book about it. Trump has positive qualities that detractors should recognize: ideological flexibility , an ability to negotiate , great communication skills . However, they seem easily overwhelmed by his obvious flaws: bigoted policies that target religions and utterances that slander Mexicans, a brash and imperious style, a tendency to hold grudges long beyond their sell-by date. Ultimately, Eisenhower’s weak grip on Washington was a contributing factor to the rise of anti-Communist crusader Senator Joseph McCarthy. (To his harshest critics, Trump’s own words have a McCarthyite resonance. He gleefully calls Sanders “a Communist.”)That’s not to take away from Ike. To his eternal credit, he did send federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, in 1957 to enforce a school integration order after the state’s segregationist governor refused to do so. Would Trump show equivalent courage? The chronic woes of American life—a public education system that often fails, infrastructure that’s always “crumbling,” exorbitant health care costs—are problems no more likely to be fixed by Trump’s bromides than by Sanders’s broadsides, which are similarly politically unrealistic and financially dubious.

It’s more than likely Trump would wind up being just another president on the alphabetical roll call , nestled between the memorable Truman and the utterly forgettable John Tyler, distinguished more by his hue, his bullying and his encouragement of other bullies than by any lasting damage done to a republic that has endured far worse. AT: Alliances Impact

Squo triggers the impact – Trump campaigning. Le 16. [Tom, Assistant Professor of Politics at Pomona College, former Non-Resident Sasakawa Peace Foundation Fellow at CSIS Pacific Forum, "How Trump is already damaging US alliances" The Diplomat -- May 20 -- thediplomat.com/2016/05/how-trump-is- already-damaging-us-alliances/]

Ben Carson recently gave a ringing endorsement of Trump, stating that “even if Donald Trump turns out not to be a great president… we’re only looking at four years.” Unfortunately, Trump has already done significant damage to the alliances that will take years to repair — even before the general election. As one Japanese security manager recently stated, “Trump exemplifies the worst in American stereotypes, loud, brash, and arrogant.” Even if Trump does not win, he has revealed an ugly underbelly of U.S. popular sentiment that does not care for its allies. True, the United States pays high costs for having to defend Japan and Korea, but it gains the priceless ability to project power in Asia. By spilling blood on the battlefield with the Koreans and promoting democracy and regional stability with the Japanese, Americans have been allowed to maintain tens of thousands of troops on its allies’ sovereign territory. These are allowances that should not be taken for granted. AT: Alliances Impact – US Regional Cred

No link – cred theory wrong Beauchamp 3-10 – Zack Beauchamp, Masters in International Relations from the London School of Economics, Editor of TP Ideas and Reporter/Blogger for ThinkProgress.org, “Obama is Right: Washington's Obsession with "Credibility" is Wrongheaded and Dangerous”, Vox, 2016, http://www.vox.com/2016/3/10/11195340/obama-credibility-syria

"Credibility" is one of the most popular ideas in the Washington foreign policy community. Basically, the theory goes, the United States keeps the peace in the world through reputation — because foreign states know that when the US threatens the use of force to protect the status quo order, we mean it. Foreign countries know not to test us, so everyone stays in line.

In this theory, if the US fails to act, especially when it's said it will, America's enemies abroad will be, in the common parlance, "emboldened," believing they can now get away with more aggression and other forms of bad behavior.¶ "Credibility" has been central, to name one example, in the debate over US policy on Syria; some argue that the US, having drawn its "red line" over Bashar al-Assad's use of chemical weapons, must intervene to win back its credibility in the eyes of a wary and suspicious world.¶ But there's at least one person who thinks the concept of credibility is total bullshit: President Barack Obama.¶ "This theory is so easily disposed of that I’m always puzzled by how people make the argument," Obama tells the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg in a just-out profile in the magazine.¶ "Dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force."¶ To demonstrate his point, Obama cites Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia — which came when George W. Bush was in the White House:¶ "I don’t think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush’s watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq."¶ Obama went back to the Reagan administration, pointing out that Reagan was perfectly willing to withdraw from countries militarily (as he did from Lebanon in 1983) if it wasn't in America's interests.¶ Moreover, Obama cites Reagan's military adventure in tiny Grenada, saying it's "hard to argue" that the 1983 war "helped our ability to shape world events." Reagan also presided over "the Iran-Contra affair, in which we supported right-wing paramilitaries and did nothing to enhance our image in Central America, and it wasn’t successful at all."¶ "Apparently all these things really helped us gain credibility with the Russians and the Chinese," Obama added sarcastically. "That’s the narrative that is told."¶ He continued:¶ Now, I actually think that Ronald Reagan had a great success in foreign policy, which was to recognize the opportunity that Gorbachev presented and to engage in extensive diplomacy—which was roundly criticized by some of the same people who now use Ronald Reagan to promote the notion that we should go around bombing people.¶ Clearly, Obama thinks the theory — so popular in Washington — is bunk.¶ And he has a point.¶ Obama is right, and it really matters¶ Political science research into this question suggests that Obama may be correct that if America backs away from one crisis in one part of the world, it does not tempt countries elsewhere in the world to test American "credibility."¶ "Do leaders assume that other leaders who have been irresolute in the past will be irresolute in the future and that, therefore, their threats are not credible? No ," the University of Washington's Jonathan Mercer concludes flatly in a Foreign Affairs piece. " Broad and deep evidence dispels that notion."

No impact to resolve Dennis 7 – Michael Dennis, Ph.D. Candidate in Government at the University of Texas-Austin, and Vaughn P. Shannon, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Northern Iowa and Director of UNI’s Center for International Peace and Security Studies, April 2007, “Militant Islam and the Futile Fight for Reputation,” Security Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2, p. 287-317 Next, looking at cases of firmness as well, we find that there is no reward for resolve in the perceptions of militant Islamists. Acts of firmness are discounted , reinterpreted , or situationally attributed to preserve the paper tiger image of the superpowers in the minds of the militants. Thus there is little value in fighting for reputation if the goal is to deter militants by the firmness of their adversary. The implications for a war on terror are significant if a war for reputation is pointless, or if exiting wars has reputational consequences for how the United States and others are perceived.

All recent evidence is Aff Farley 3-12 – Dr. Robert Farley, Associate Professor for the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky, “Did Obama's 'Red Line' Fib Matter in the End?”, The Diplomat, 2016, http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/did-obamas-red-line-fib-matter- in-the-end/

How much did U.S. President Barack Obama’s “red line” mistake matter? According to the New York Times Magazine‘s Julia Ioffe, the Russians don’t seem to think it mattered much at all.

In the wake of Obama’s wide-ranging interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, much attention has focused on the president’s approach to Middle Eastern affairs, and particularly the war in Syria. The most interesting part of the interview, however, may have involved his general views on foreign policy, and especially the question of “resolve.”

Ioffe zeroes in on the question of how the president views “credibility,” and perhaps more importantly, how the Russians view Obama’s credibility. This question continues to come up, because critics of the president have consistently, and hotly, argued that Obama fatally undermined U.S. credibility when he failed to attack Syria after declaring a “red line” regarding chemical weapons use. According to critics, this has enabled aggression from China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, who no longer fear the assertive use of U.S. power.

But as Ioffe points out, that idea that the “red line” in Syria mattered a great deal to Russian decision-making appears to be news to actual Russians who make decisions. Instead of carefully calibrating their foreign policy based on close analysis of Obama’s rhetoric, Russian policymakers appear to have scrutinized their own national interests and capabilities. In short, Ioffe finds no evidence whatsoever that Russia viewed Obama’s Syria decisions as a green light for invading Ukraine. This finding accords with nearly all the relevant research on the topic in the field of i nternational r elations.

But perhaps it mattered a great deal in East Asia? Some have suggested that Obama’s lack of toughness in Syria has opened the door for Chinese aggression in the South China Sea. However, no evidence yet exists for this proposition. Like the Russians, the Chinese see themselves as manifestly different than the Syrians; a great power that can take care of itself, rather than a client state that suffers what it must. And the Chinese fully understand that the Obama administration sees relations with China as happening on a fundamentally different level than relations with Syria. Indeed, in the interview (and in other places) Obama has made clear that disengagement from the Middle East is an essential precondition for rebalancing towards the Pacific.

Diplomats lie; indeed, it’s part of their job description, not to mention their charm. What Russian diplomats say to a journalist about Russian deliberation should never serve as the final word for analysis. Yet, given that advocates of “credibility” and “resolve” have struggled to provide any evidence that Russia, China, or Iran have changed their behavior because of the decisions Obama took in Syria, it’s perhaps time for some additional doses of skepticism. Their link is nonsense – allies see US policy as distinct Beinart 14 “The U.S. Doesn't Need to Prove Itself in Ukraine” Peter Beinart - contributing editor at The Atlantic and National Journal, an associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York, and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, MAY 5, 2014, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/05/us-credibility-fallacy- ukraine-russia-syria-china/361695/

The American people may not much care, but among the foreign-policy elite, public opinion is undergoing its sharpest shift since the Iraq War went south. Fears of overstretch are out; fears of vacillation are in. Russia’s shrewd and thuggish behavior in Ukraine has alarmed not just the Dick Cheney-Bill Kristol crowd, for which every American adversary is Nazi Germany and every contested space is the Sudetenland, but many in the sensible center as well. The clearest evidence yet comes courtesy of that tribune of worldly prudence, The Economist, which declares in this week’s cover essay that “America is no longer as alarming to its foes or reassuring to its friends.” The Obama administration’s “retreats,” warns the magazine’s accompanying editorial, have sparked “a nagging suspicion among friends and foes that on the big day America simply might not turn up.” This is bunk. There are legitimate criticisms of Obama’s individual policies. In Syria, he may have missed an opportunity to arm, and shape, the anti-Assad opposition before jihadists took over, and calling Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons a “red line” was clearly a mistake. In Ukraine, it’s conceivable that harsher immediate retaliation in Crimea might have stopped Vladimir Putin there, although such a response might also have fractured Western unity. Where The Economist, and other newly hawkish critics of Obama’s foreign policy, go wrong is in asserting that Obama’s policies in one corner of the globe have emboldened adversaries and demoralized allies elsewhere. That’s an old and costly illusion. Call it the “credibility fallacy.” Since the dawn of the Cold War, American policymakers and commentators have repeatedly insisted that the U.S. defend allies in one part of the world to show allies in others that America’s promises enjoy “credibility.” And again and again, the result has been to silence discussion of whether the country in question actually merits the expenditure of American money and the spilling of American blood. In the immediate aftermath of World War II, George Kennan urged his superiors in the Truman administration to distinguish between those areas of the globe that were important enough to defend against Soviet advance and those that were not. But by the Korean War, Kennan’s more limited strategy was overtaken by Paul Nitze’s NSC-68, which insisted that, “any substantial further extension of the area under the domination of the Kremlin would raise the possibility that no coalition adequate to confront the Kremlin with greater strength could be assembled [anywhere else].” Whether the country under Soviet threat mattered in its own right was now irrelevant. Every country mattered because if the U.S. acquiesced to Soviet domination anywhere, it would lose credibility everywhere. “The effect,” writes John Lewis Gaddis, “was to vastly increase the number and variety of interests deemed relevant to [American] national security, and to blur distinctions between them.” But the real disaster came in Vietnam. As a general rule, the men who led America into war did not see Vietnam itself as of great value. What haunted them was the fear that if America did not uphold its commitments there, it would demoralize America’s allies, and embolden the Soviets, in places that really mattered, like Central Europe. “Around the globe, from Berlin to Thailand,” declared Lyndon Johnson in April 1965, “are people whose well-being rests, in part, on the belief that they can count on us if they are attacked. To leave Vietnam to its fate would shake the confidence of all these people in the value of an American commitment and in the value of America’s word.” If the United States did not uphold its guarantees to Saigon, added Secretary of State Dean Rusk, its “guarantees with regard to Berlin would lose their credibility.” Ironically, the very European leaders whose morale Johnson and Rusk feared undermining if America abandoned South Vietnam—men like British Prime Minister Harold Wilson and French President Charles de Gaulle—privately urged the U.S. not to escalate the war. In the end, after tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese had died, the United States did abandon South Vietnam. And the world shrugged. Yes, communists racked up victories in some other corners of the developing world in the 1970s. But they lost ground in others. And in the heart of Europe, the place American policymakers really cared about, NATO held together and the Soviets stayed on their side of the Iron Curtain. So dramatic was the contrast between the importance America’s leaders ascribed to global credibility and the results on the ground that academics began studying the concept. In his 1994 book, Peripheral Visions, which tested whether between 1965 and 1990 American weakness in one region of the world had emboldened Moscow in others, Ted Hopf, then of the University of Michigan, concluded that the “Soviets continued to attribute high credibility to the United States in strategic areas of the globe because they saw no logical connection between US behavior in areas of negligible interest and its future conduct in places with critical stakes.” In his 2005 book, Calculating Credibility, Dartmouth’s Daryl Press tested the same hypothesis— that weakness somewhere emboldens aggression elsewhere—using different twentieth-century case studies. He too found that, “A country’s credibility, at least during crises, is driven not by its past behavior but rather by its power and interests. If a country makes threats that it has the power to carry out—and an interest in doing so —those threats will be believed even if the country has bluffed in the past…. Tragically, those countries that have fought wars to build a reputation for resolve have wasted vast sums of money and, much worse, thousands of lives.” Sadly, it is precisely this hoary fiction that The Economist now perpetuates when it declares that Obama’s “failure to enforce his own ‘red line’ over chemical weapons in Syria gravely damaged his credibility.” In fact, The Economist presents no evidence that Obama’s Syria policy played a role in Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. (Which makes sense when you consider that the Russian president did something similar in Georgia in 2008 even after George W. Bush had enforced his “red line” in Iraq with hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops). “Credibility is also easily lost and hard to rebuild,” adds the magazine, gravely. It’s the kind of statement that sounds sober and authoritative. But it happens to be untrue. “Establishing a reputation as a nation able and willing to defend its interests,” concludes Hopf, “is a much easier task than deterrence theorists and Munich analogists [and British magazine editors] have maintained.” The grim developments in Ukraine fit Hopf and Press’s theory quite well. In assessing America’s likely response to aggression in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin looked not at what America had done in Syria, or anywhere else, but at how much America cared about Ukraine. The evidence was clear: Ukraine was not a country the United States was willing to risk war over. The decision not to include it in NATO had made that abundantly clear. Putin’s assessment turned out to be right. Similarly, in assessing America’s likely response to attacks on the Senkaku (Diaoyu in Chinese) islands, China will likely draw on what it knows—from America’s public statements, private messages, past actions, and military deployments—about how much the United States cares about islands in the East China Sea. Believing that Beijing will determine Washington’s willingness to defend the Senkakus based on American policy in Syria or Ukraine makes about as much sense as believing that America will assess China’s likelihood of attacking the Senkakus based on China’s policies in Syria or Ukraine. No empirical ev for their argument Glaser 14 – John Glaser, Editor at Antiwar, Reporter for the Washington Times, “Putting the ‘Weakness’ Argument to Rest”, 3-10, http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/03/10/putting-the- weakness-argument-to-rest/

Last week, I argued in a piece at Reason that Russia did not decide to intervene militarily in Ukraine because of alleged “weakness” on the part of U.S. foreign policy, despite what hawks would have us believe. The talking point, especially but not exclusively from Republicans, is that Putin saw the Obama administration’s reluctance to use military force in, for example, Syria, and therefore calculated that he could get away with it, without risking a harsh U.S. reaction. One counter argument that I pointed to is the fact that Russia took comparable actions in Georgia in 2008, when George W. Bush was president. No conservatives ever suggested that Bush’s reluctance to go to war drove Moscow to take military action in that case. On Sunday, my argument was repeated by an unlikely source: former secretary of defense under Bush and Obama, Robert Gates. “Putin invaded Georgia, I didn’t hear anybody accusing Bush of being weak or unwilling to use force,” Gates said. “Putin is very opportunistic in these arenas. Even if we had launched attacks in Syria, even if we weren’t cutting our defense budget — Putin saw an opportunity here in Crimea, and he has seized it.” Plenty of informed voices have slipped in to dispel this myth, but it lingers on. At the National Interest, Paul Pillar critiques the “toughness” argument “that Russia’s moves in Ukraine should be attributed to a supposed pusillanimous ‘retreat’ of American power and to adversaries responding by becoming more aggressive.” If anything, Pillar points out (as do I in the Reason piece), Washington’s lawlessness and aggression on the world stage give regimes like the one in Moscow license to act out. The “act of U.S. aggression [in Iraq],” Pillar notes, “is recent enough that it still is a prominent detriment to U.S. credibility whenever the United States tries to complain about someone else’s use of military force against another sovereign state, including Putin’s use of force in Crimea.” At The American Conservative, Daniel Larison chips in, pointing out that supposed U.S. “weakness” is perceived very differently by our geo-political rivals: What [hawks] perceive as “inaction” in Syria, Russia and Iran likely perceive as ongoing interference and hostility to their interests. The crisis in Ukraine also looks very different to Moscow than it does to the Westerners that have been agitating for an even larger and more active U.S. role. Western hawks were frustrated by how slow their governments were to throw their full support behind the protesters, and as usual wanted the U.S. and EU to take a much more adversarial and combative approach with Russia because they see Western governments as being far more passive than they want. However, Moscow doesn’t perceive the U.S. role in Ukraine to be a limited or benign one, and the toppling of Yanukovych has been fitted into their view that the protests were a Western-backed plot from the beginning. The idea that Russia would have responded less aggressively to the change in government if the U.S. had been giving the opposition even more encouragement and support is dangerously delusional, but that is what one has to believe in order to argue that the U.S. “emboldened” Moscow in Ukraine. To keep that logic going, over all U.S. policy toward Russia has been anything but “inactive” in the eyes of Moscow. “From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991,” writes Stephen Kinzer, “the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia,” bringing “12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance,” placing U.S. military power “directly on Russia’s borders.” Moscow could hardly see this as accommodative. Finally, what hawks making this argument seem to ignore is that the American people vehemently opposed going to war in Syria and overwhelmingly oppose any direct intervention in the Ukraine crisis. They don’t care. According to their worldview, America must at all times be bombing practically every state that does not obey the demands of politicians in Washington, otherwise we will invite more disobedience. The argument that U.S. “weakness” leads other governments to take bold military action that they otherwise might have abstained from is lacking in substance and evidence. Yet, it persists. It’s time to put it to bed. They dramatically oversimplify IR signaling Larison 14 – Dr. Daniel Larison, Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and Senior Editor at the American Conservative, “The “Emboldening” Fantasy”, The American Conservative, 3-10, http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-emboldening-fantasy/

Condoleeza Rice rehearses some boilerplate rhetoric: These global developments have not happened in response to a muscular U.S. foreign policy: Countries are not trying to “balance” American power. They have come due to signals that we are exhausted and disinterested. The events in Ukraine should be a wake-up call to those on both sides of the aisle who believe that the United States should eschew the responsibilities of leadership. If it is not heeded, dictators and extremists across the globe will be emboldened. Rice’s op-ed incorporates every stale, hawkish cliche that has been used in connection with recent events, and in so doing serves to remind us how mistaken or meaningless these arguments are. One of the most common and annoying claims in every hawkish argument regardless of subject is the warning that a lack of “leadership” will “embolden” other actors. No one ever has to prove that such “emboldening” has occurred, and there is no attempt to account for the agency and priorities of other governments. If another state does something Washington opposes, it is simply taken for granted that this is because the U.S. somehow encouraged it by not being activist and aggressive enough. If this claim is put under any scrutiny, it quickly falls apart. The first error that hawks make is to pretend that foreign governments perceive U.S. actions in the same way that they do. If the U.S. falls short of their maximalist preferences in one or two places, they conclude that the U.S. appears “weak,” but this is usually not how everyone else see things. If they believe that the U.S. has been insufficiently “active” in Syria, for example, they assume that adversaries and rivals perceive the U.S. role in the same way, but that isn’t the case. If anything, Russia and Iran tend to imagine an American hand behind events whether it is there or not, and they usually overstate or invent the American role in developments that they oppose. What Rice et al. perceive as “inaction” in Syria, Russia and Iran likely perceive as ongoing interference and hostility to their interests. The crisis in Ukraine also looks very different to Moscow than it does to the Westerners that have been agitating for an even larger and more active U.S. role. Western hawks were frustrated by how slow their governments were to throw their full support behind the protesters, and as usual wanted the U.S. and EU to take a much more adversarial and combative approach with Russia because they see Western governments as being far more passive than they want. However, Moscow doesn’t perceive the U.S. role in Ukraine to be a limited or benign one, and the toppling of Yanukovych has been fitted into their view that the protests were a Western-backed plot from the beginning. The idea that Russia would have responded less aggressively to the change in government if the U.S. had been giving the opposition even more encouragement and support is dangerously delusional, but that is what one has to believe in order to argue that the U.S. “emboldened” Moscow in Ukraine. AT: Alliances Impact– Asia Prolif

*No prolif from US actions - It’s highly unlikely and exaggerated by media

- Strong political constituency against ANY prolif EVER

- No tech basis for claim it would only take 6 months

- Won’t go nuclear based on US actions – too tied to the alliance

Lewis 14 [Jeffrey Lewis is director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies 6-26-2014 http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/26/if- japan-wanted-to-build-a-nuclear-bomb-itd-be-awesome-at-it/]

I am a critic of Japan’s policy of separating and reusing the plutonium inevitably created in the country’s nuclear power plants. Japan’s stockpile of plutonium sets a terrible example for other states like, say, Iran.

Still, we should not lose sight of the fact that Japan is not going to build nuclear weapons. Much of the concern expressed by Japan’s neighbors is simply a convenient opportunity to give Prime Minister Abe a kick in the shins. And, frankly, he probably deserves more than a few kicks in areas north of the shins for stunts like visiting the Yasukuni shrine and throwing shade at the women raped by the Imperial Japanese Army. Yet the notion of Japanese nuclear weapons keeps turning up. The idea has gotten some attention in light of the general combativeness of the most recent International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Shangri-La Dialogue (I am trademarking "The Brou-ha-ha in Shang-ri-la"), where Chinese participants acted boorishly, as well as an interesting debate between my friends David Santoro and Elbridge Colby about whether the United States should ditch Asian allies that leave the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in search of the bomb. These are important discussions, but they give the wrong impression. Focusing on the unlikely possibility of a nuclear-armed Japan distracts from more important policy challenges that threaten the shared interests of the United States and Japan in arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation. Don’t get me wrong, there will always be a certain constituency within Japan for extremist views. Shintaro Ishihara, the former governor of Tokyo, has made a career out of saying impolitic things, including his infamous book, The Japan That Can Say No — say "no" to the United States, that is. Ishihara says "yes" to nuclear weapons and a bunch of other terrible ideas, from purchasing the islands at the center of the maritime dispute with China to suggesting that sexual enslavement was "a very good way of making a living" for a young woman in wartime. There have always been extremists in Japan who aren’t one bit sorry about the war. Take Ishihara’s buddy, the late Yukio Mishima. Three times nominated for the Nobel Prize in literature, Mishima was also an actor who later in life got into extremist right-wing causes, body-building, and so on. In 1970, he and some of his young acolytes in a student militia called the Tatenokai entered the military base in Ichigaya and exhorted the soldiers to launch a coup to restore the emperor. The soldiers looked on, sort of baffled — some accounts say they even heckled him — and then Mishima retired to an office to commit seppuku, or ritual suicide. The plan was that Mishima would stab himself in the stomach and then one of the students, alleged to be his lover, would behead the well-known author. The lop job didn’t go exactly as anticipated: The poor fool botched it a couple of times, leaving another student to finish off Misihima. Japanese Prime Minister Eisaku Sato, who knew Mishima socially, said, "I can only think he went out of his mind." So, yes, there are weirdos in Japan. (And elsewhere: Someone pinned Mishima’s severed head on Pinterest.) As an American, I can tell you that it’s not fair to judge a country by its nut-jobs. As an American, I can tell you that it’s not fair to judge a country by its nut-jobs. A far larger and more important constituency in Japan are the people who categorize the devastation of World War II as a catastrophe, the post-war reconstruction as a miracle, and the existence of nuclear weapons as abhorrent. This is the Japan of Yellow Magic Orchestra and Hello Kitty. (Oops.) It’s easy to talk about Japan building nuclear weapons, but the real policy debates reflect Japan’s nuclear allergy, not enthusiasm. In late 1969, a few months before Mishima killed himself, the United States agreed to return Okinawa to Japanese control. The sticking point between Tokyo and Washington was whether U.S. bases would continue to host American nuclear weapons or not. Ultimately, the United States relented to Japan’s demand for an Okinawa without nuclear weapons, although Prime Minister Sato agreed to consult with the United States in the event of a crisis. (Sato is Abe’s maternal great-uncle, by the way.) Even that agreement, however, had to be signed in secret. After signing the official memorandum to return Okinawa to Japan, then-National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and his Japanese counterpart actually contrived for U.S. President Richard Nixon to invite Sato into the president’s study to look at some objets d’art so they could sign the secret agreement without anyone present. This is hardly ancient history. In 2010, when the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) finally took sole control of the government for the first time in post-war Japan, it ordered an inquiry into secret agreements like the one Sato signed. (The Japanese copy was found by Sato’s son, who would be Abe’s first cousin once-removed, if you are keeping score.) The DPJ calculated, correctly, that secret agreements to allow U.S. nuclear weapons to enter Japan would outrage a good portion of the public. The result was an ugly spat between the Obama administration and the DPJ government. The Japanese public, by and large, thinks what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a terrible thing. I am a member (that’s my head!) of the Governor of Hiroshima’s roundtable on disarmament. Let me tell you, nuclear weapons are not a vote winner in Japan. Nor, I hasten to add, is Japan

"six months away" from a bomb, even if you hear that all the time. Recently some senior U.S. officials repeated the "six month" claim to NBC reporter Robert Windrem. There is no technical basis for such a statement. I once actually tried to trace the heritage of that irksome claim. As far as I could tell, it dates to a conversation with a "Japanese strategic thinker" in 1976 that is cited in Richard Halloran’s 1991 book, Chrysanthemum and Sword Revisited: Is Japanese Militarism Resurgent? The claim is made in passing, not as a formal assessment of Japan’s technological capability or plans .

"Six months" in context is like the biblical "40" — that is to say, it means "fairly soon" just like "40 days and 40 nights" means it rained a long, long time. Other than one bit of yellow journalism in the Sunday Times, no one has attempted to document a technical basis for the "six-month" claim. There have been several Japanese and

American assessments, from academic studies to declassified intelligence reports, on the possibility that Japan might build nuclear weapons. All of them conclude that a nuclear deterrent would cost Japan a few billion dollars and would take several years to build. That’s because the Japanese would not jury-rig a tiny arsenal out of civil plutonium. They could do it, sure, but why? Why completely alter the structure of Japanese security policy for a handful of makeshift bombs that might not work? If Japan goes nuclear, it will do so only as part of a fundamental change in how the Japanese look at their security environment. In that case, Japan would build nuclear weapons like they do everything else, down to the beer machine at Narita — with meticulous care. Japan would construct dedicated plutonium production reactors and facilities to separate weapons-grade plutonium, probably conduct nuclear tests, and deploy modern delivery systems, such as missiles. This is, I would argue, the most important point to understanding U.S.-Japan relations, and extended deterrence. We often talk about nuclear weapons in Japan like a thermostat — if U.S. credibility declines in Tokyo, Japan will build a nuclear arsenal to compensate. It’s almost as if we cut 10 bombs, the Japanese will want 10 of their own to make up the difference. That’s not right at all. For Japan, becoming a nuclear weapons power would require a dramatic break in a foreign and security policy that has historically centered on the U.S. alliance. So would unarmed neutrality. It is Japan’s lack of such strategic options that account for the most interesting Japanese behaviors in foreign and security policy. As one Japanese observer pointed out to me, neither alternative — nuclear-armed independence nor unarmed neutrality — has a mainstream constituency in Japan. That means the only practical approach for Japanese policymakers is an alliance with the United States . Tokyo has little choice but to accept whatever level of security Washington can provide at the moment. Another colleague compared it to riding on the back of a motorcycle — you can see the bumps and twists in the road, but you can’t do anything about it. That’s scary. The result, of course, is a lot of whining from Japan about the credibility of the U.S. guarantee. What else can they do? And it accounts for the tendency of the country’s politicos to fixate on symbols of

Washington’s commitment, just as Max Weber observed that Protestants tended to obsess about material success as a sign of predestination.

No impact to allied prolif – strong democracy, stable regime, democratic institutions, civilian control of the military, no history of armed conflict with allies, risk adverse Sapolsky 14 [Harvey M. Sapolsky is Professor Emeritus and the Former Director of The MIT Security Studies Program. Christine M. Leah is a Stanton Fellow at the MIT Security Studies Program. 4-14-2014 http://nationalinterest.org/feature/let-asia-go-nuclear-10259]

Tailored proliferation would not likely be destabilizing. Asia is not the Middle East. Japan, South Korea, Australia, and even Taiwan are strong democracies. They have stable political regimes. Government leaders are accountable to democratic institutions. Civilian control of the military is strong. And they don’t have a history of lobbing missiles at each other—they are much more risk- averse than Egypt, Syria or Iran. America’s allies would be responsible nuclear weapon states. A number of Asian nations have at one time or another considered going nuclear, Australia for example, with tacit U.S. Defense Department encouragement in the 1960s. They chose what for them was the cheaper alternative of living under the US nuclear umbrella. Free nuclear guarantees provided by the United States, coupled with the US Navy patrolling offshore, have allowed our allies to grow prosperous without having to invest much in their own defense. Confident that the United States protects them, our allies have even begun to squabble with China over strings of uninhabited islands in the hope that there is oil out there. It is time to give them a dose of fiscal and military reality. And the way to do that is to stop standing between them and their nuclear-armed neighbors. It will not be long before they realize the value of having their own nuclear weapons. The waters of the Pacific under those arrangements will stay calm, and we will save a fortune. --- AT: Turns Case--- No China Relations Impact China Leaders prefer Trump- They see new changes for relations and business Everett Rosenfeld 7- 7 is a staff writer for CNBC.com covering international macroeconomics, politics and financial technologies. Prior to this role, he worked on CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" and the network's assignment desk.Before joining the company, Rosenfeld worked as a founding editor for a medical news start up. He has written for TIME from its offices in New York and Hong Kong and has had articles featured on CNN, “Trump vs. Clinton: How China views the US elections” July 7 2016 http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/trump-vs-clinton-how-china-views-the-us-elections.html )ski

Some in China believe that Trump , who made his name as a businessman before branching out into reality television and politics, would approach foreign policy in a "transactional " manner, according to Glaser . That idea appeals to many in China, she said, because it means everything is up for negotiation — there are no ideological red lines. Finally, most Chinese expect Clinton to regularly bring up human rights concerns with China, but they "think they'd get a pass" on those issues under Trump. "Who has heard Donald Trump say anything about human rights?" Glaser asked. A poll in May found that more than 60 percent of mainland and overseas Chinese s ay they support Trump, while only about 8 percent voiced their preference for Clinton.Chinese citizens seem to "prefer Trump to Clinton. This is understandable as the latter has criticized China a number of times over the cyber security, human rights and so forth," Jia Qingguo, dean of the School of International Studies at Peking University, wrote in the Global Times. "Trump, on the other hand, is a mystery to Chinese. Although he has expressed dissatisfaction with the current U.S.-China policies, he looks forward to strengthening ties with China as well."

China fears that Clinton would lead to more conflict- Trump is preferred Reuters 7-12 “China fears Clinton more than Trump China fears Clinton more than Trump”

Tuesday, 12 Jul 2016 | 7:30 AM ET http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/11/china-fears-hillary- clinton-focus-on-south-china-sea-human-rights-far-more-than-it-does-donald-trump.html )ski

¶ Now as an international court prepares to hand down a ruling that threatens China's sweeping claims in the vital waterway, Beijing is watching Clinton's presidential run with trepidation. ¶ ¶ Combined with her tough line on human rights and role in leading President Barack Obama's Asia "rebalancing ", Clinton is well-known in China - but not well liked . ¶ ¶ While presidential rival Donald Trump has irritated Beijing with comments such as comparing the U.S. trade deficit with China to rape, he is largely an unknown quantity, a person who even privately officials shrug their shoulders over."Clinton will be a difficult partner," one senior Chinese diplomatic sou rce told Reuters, having just admitted to not knowing much about Trump or what he stands for. ¶ ¶ China remembers clearly a 2010 Southeast Asian security summit in Hanoi , when Clinton waded into the South China Sea dispute, saying open access and legal solutions were a U.S. "national interest" and "pivotal to regional security". China also views Trump as a businessmen with whom they can probably negotiate. ¶ ¶ "It would be very transactional for the Chinese," said a senior Western diplomat in Beijing. "He's a businessman they think they'll be able to strike a deal with."

Despite redrick Trump is prioritizing cooperation with China to try to check North Korea Nuke program Laham 4-27 T.S. Laham is a writer, consultant, and IR professor at a San Francisco Bay Area college. “Trump Vows To Improve Relations With Russia, China If Elected U.S. President”

Apr 27, 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-foreign- policy_us_5720f9d7e4b01a5ebde42eee) ski

Republican front-runner Donald Trump vowed on Wednesday to seek better relations with Russia and China if elected president in November and said he would make U.S. allies bear more of the financial burden for their defense. ¶ In a major speech, Trump delivered a withering critique of Barack Obama’s foreign policy, saying the Democratic president has let China take advantage of the United States and has failed to defeat Islamic State militants. He pledged to “shake the rust off America’s foreign policy.”¶ The New York billionaire spoke the day after victories in five Northeastern states that moved him closer to capturing the Republican Party presidential nomination for the Nov. 8 election.¶ With U.S.-Russian relations strained over numerous issues including Moscow’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Trump said “an easing of tensions with Russia from a position of strength” is possible . ¶ Trump , a real estate magnate, also said he would use U.S. economic leverage to persuade China to rein in North Korea’s nuclear programme. ¶ “China respects strength and by letting them take advantage of us economically we have lost all their respect ,” he said.¶ Link Doesn’t turn Case

Doesn’t turn case – plan shields from election backlash and Trump hardline is all talk He, 16 --- He Yafei is former vice minister of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council, and former vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China US Focus, “U.S. Election and Its Impact on China”, 1/25, http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/u-s- election-and-its-impact-on-china/

Here comes China, whose economic growth and military modernization in recent years represents, to American people, a world that undergoes rapid changes and evolves to a multipolar one where the US is no longer being able to call shot on everything. The resentment against globalization is on the rise. Overall strategic retrenchment and an emphatic shift to focus more on China are taking place simultaneously. “Scapegoating” China is inevitable. “China has taken jobs away from American workers”. “China is manipulating its currency to gain advantage in trade”. “China is being aggressive in the South China Sea and trying to drive the US out of the Western Pacific”. The list of complaints can go on and on. It doesn’t matter whether those accusations and complaints are true or not to American politicians and voters as long as they have “election value”. For instance, the renminbi has appreciated against the US dollar to the tune of 30% since 2008, but voices are still strong in America calling for the RMB to appreciate further. We all know from experience that China-bashing is common and “cost-free” in US elections. This time around is no different. What is different is that while without agreeing to the concept of “G2”, there is a broad recognition that the US and China are the two major powers in today’s world. It is no hyperbole to say that nothing gets done without close cooperation between the two nations, be it climate change, energy security, non-proliferation of WMD, etc. In this connection the US election does have an impact on China and US-China relations as noted by Robert Manning, who said the US-China relationship enters “dangerous waters” in 2016. What can be done to counteract the negative spillover from the US election this year? On the one hand, there need to be more cooperative actions from both sides to reinforce the relationship. Climate change is one, cooperation in the Middle East is another. To quicken the pace of negotiation on BIT is definitely useful with emphasis on shortening the “negative list”. The US-China relationship is simply too important for both nations not to make extra efforts in election years to make it stronger in the face of increased headwind. On the other hand, we ought to stay calm and ready to meet any possible frictions and challenges in close coordination and consultation to minimize damage to the bilateral relations. We have to understand that “China- bashing” is more words than actions . Any new administration once in the White House will be more realistic and down-to-earth in its China policy as determined by shared interests of both nations worldwide. They Say: “Trump Causes Asian War” Trump won’t cause Asian war — too many incentives for peace. Bremmer 16 — Ian Bremmer, President and Founder of Eurasia Group—a global political risk research and consulting firm, Global Research Professor at New York University, Founding Chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Geopolitical Risk at the World Economic Forum, Harold J. Newman Distinguished Fellow in Geopolitics at the Asia Society Policy Institute, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University, 2016 (“Trump and the World: What Could Actually Go Wrong,” Politico, June 3rd, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-international-foreign- policy-global-risk-security-guide-213936, Accessed 07-05-2016)

2. Asia’s geopolitics

China isn’t the only country in the midst of a delicate and dangerous domestic economic reform process. Japan ’s Shinzo Abe and India ’s Narendra Modi are hoping to avoid confrontations with China that undermine efforts to stoke growth. The South China Sea remains a hot spot worth watching, but Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia can’t afford a direct confrontation with Beijing. Leaders of all these countries will sometimes saber-rattle for short-term political gain, but actual conflict is in no one’s interests. President Trump and newly elected President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines have enough in common to build a solid relationship . The loss of the TPP would hurt Japan and a number of South Asian countries, but that will make stable relations with China only that much more important for them. Asian leaders will watch President Trump closely, but the risk that any of them will allow push to come to shove is lower than many fear.

Trump won’t destabilize Asia. Pillalamarri 16 — Akhilesh Pillalamarri, Columnist at The Diplomat, former Assistant Editor at The National Interest and Editorial Assistant at The Diplomat, holds an M.A. in Security Studies from the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, 2016 (“Donald Trump’s Foreign Policy: Implications for Asia,” The Diplomat, April 29th, Available Online at http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/donald-trumps-foreign-policy-implications-for-asia/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

On Wednesday, Donald Trump gave a long awaited speech on foreign policy at the Center for the National Interest (CFTNI) in Washington, D.C., laying out what he characterized as “a new foreign policy direction.” While the foreign policy views of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s front runner, are well known–she is a firm believer in the continuation and spread of the American-led, liberal international order–Trump’s speech was a long awaited articulation of his views.

While Trump’s foreign policy views are not as fully developed as Clinton’s–or any of the other remaining candidates from both parties–they deserve close examination, as he is the front- runner of the Republican Party. They certainly do not merit the mockery and accusations of incoherence that they are being subjected to. I do not endorse Trump or support his views as pertaining to a host of domestic and civil society issues. It is unfortunate that good ideas are being articulated in a haphazard manner by someone as polarizing as Trump. Yet Trump’s foreign policy ideas are important and need to be taken seriously because they inject a much needed dose of realism back into the U.S. foreign policy debate, which is too often influenced by neoconservatives on the right and liberal internationalists on the left, who in practice share similar approaches. As Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest, which is published by CFTNI, pointed out, Trump:

is having a salutary effect in forcing open a long-overdue debate in the GOP over foreign policy. Magazines like mine have long urged the GOP to confront its tawdry history in Iraq and to take a second look at the foreign policy approach espoused by the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and George H.W. Bush. Trump is a far more blunt instrument, but the appeal of someone who can rip away the moth-eaten drapery that has occluded the GOP from accepting basic realities about American foreign policy seems obvious.

It is Trump’s explicit goal to replace “ideology with strategy,” and end a U.S. foreign policy program that since the Cold War truly has veered off course, as old notions of the balance of power and national interest were discarded in an attempt to remake the world. This leads to both a waste of resources and a lack of clarity in understanding the goals of U.S. foreign policy. Most importantly, Trump realizes the mistakes of nation building and overextended alliances. While figures like Senator Lindsey Graham believe this demonstrates Trump’s lack of understanding of “the role America plays in the world,” I believe that at the instinctual level, it actually shows greater common sense from Trump than most of his party. Trump gets that the United States’ role in the world is now “democracy promotion, multilateralism, [and] security guarantees,” and wants to change this.

Contrary to the now-habitual belief of many in Washington, it is not necessary for the United States to “proactively shape the world ” in order for it to achieve the global conditions needed for it to prosper or for the global commons to be kept open for all nations. In fact, attempting to shoehorn a U.S.-led order throughout the world is both counterproductive and impossible. As my co-author and I pointed out earlier this month, it is possible to maintain a global order favorable to the United States in a much less intrusive manner, as the British Empire was able to for a century, merely by patrolling the seas and controlling important chokepoints, and preserving the balance of power, all while leading by example. After all, despite not changing its political structure, China opened its economy and its people can mostly live their daily lives as they please, leading to increased global growth.

In Asia, the implications of Trump’s foreign policy would be an end to the current conception of the “Asia Pivot ” as it stands, as Trump would draw back from commitments to allies. I have previously argued that the Asia Pivot should be limited, both for the sake of the United States, economically and strategically, and the region. Without a pivot, China would feel less boxed in and reactive. At the same time, a better balance of power in the region would come into being as countries like Japan, South Korea, and Indonesia step up their capabilities, leading to a firmer armed peace. There is no doubt that an advanced economy such as Japan could shoulder its defense burdens eventually if it so chose, and a strong Japan or a strong Indonesia fiercely defending their own turfs would certainly give pause to China or any other potentially aggressive power.

A country such as India, which is not dependent on the United States for its security, is already in a much better position for making its own regional security decisions. Moreover, without a carte blanche from the United States, countries in Asia would be more inclined to resolve festering disputes , rather than operating on the assumption that every inch of territory should be considered inviolable under the notion of the integrity of national sovereignty.

While not fleshed out well, many of Trump’s views , if implemented through experienced advisors, could lead to some welcome changes in the world order and benefit U.S. foreign policy. At the very least, he has started a welcome debate at the highest levels of U.S. politics. Perhaps 19th century notions of balance of power and less intrusiveness in the internal arrangements of other countries are a better way to go than present attempts at liberal internationalism. They Say: “Trump Places Tariff On China” Trump can’t implement his tariff plan — multiple checks and China doesn’t take it seriously. Lincicome 16 — Scott Lincicome, International Trade Attorney at White & Case, LLP with extensive experience in trade litigation before the United States Department of Commerce, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the U.S. Court of International Trade, the European Commission, and the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body, Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute, Visiting Lecturer at Duke University, holds a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, 2016 (“Almost Everything Donald Trump Says About Trade With China Is Wrong,” The Federalist, January 20th, Available Online at http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/20/almost-everything-donald-trump-says-about-trade-with- china-is-wrong/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Presidents Can’t Make Trade Policy Themselves

Beyond Trump’s erroneous premise, there’s also the little problem of actually imposing his plan under U.S. law and global trade rules. First and most obviously, the president can’t just slap a tariff on Chinese goods, regardless of whether he tells the Treasury Department to declare China a “currency manipulator” (a superficial action that, contrary to Trump’s online plan, isn’t simple and doesn’t permit the imposition of duties).

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8) gives Congress the sole authority to impose tariffs on foreign-made goods (i.e., “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations”), so Trump would have to get congressional approval for his big China plan. Considering that the most protectionist Congress in decades couldn’t even pass legislation making currency undervaluation an illegal subsidy (and fretted for months over whether the bill was consistent with the WTO), does Trump really think this current Congress—which failed to pass a similar measure—would agree to his far-more-aggressive plan? C’mon , man.

Second, several U.S. laws govern the imposition of remedial tariffs on Chinese (and other) imports, and these laws have strict procedural, evidentiary, and substantive requirements that can’t just be ignored, even by the president.

Illegally dumped or subsidized imports from China (and other countries) are governed by U.S. anti-dumping and countervailing duty (CVD) laws, respectively, while market-distorting surges in fairly traded imports from all countries fall under the U.S. safeguards law. President Trump’s tariff would totally (and unlawfully) circumvent these laws. As already noted, U.S. law also currently doesn’t allow for using CVD actions to combat alleged currency manipulation.

Finally, the Trump tariff would be blatantly inconsistent with two of the United States’ most fundamental obligations under WTO agreements : (i) Most Favored Nation (GATT Article I—the principle that a WTO member must treat imports from all other members equally) and (ii) the United States’ tariff bindings (GATT Article II—the rule that a WTO Member cannot impose tariffs above the “bound rate” set forth in its tariff schedule). Such an obvious violation of WTO rules would make for the easiest WTO dispute in the organization’s 20-year history, have serious consequences for the United States (as we’ll discuss next), and would all but ensure that China wouldn’t take Trump’s threat seriously. Maybe President Trump plans to withdraw from the WTO and thereby subject U.S. exporters and investors to high tariffs and other discriminatory barriers WTO rules bar? Good luck, as they say, with all that.

It’s just a threat — he won’t implement it. Schroeder 16 — Robert Schroeder, Fiscal Policy Reporter for MarketWatch, 2016 (“Donald Trump says China tariff was only a threat,” MarketWatch, March 11th, Available Online at http://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-says-china-tariff-was-only-a-threat-2016- 03-11, Accessed 07-07-2016)

So maybe China won’t face a 45% tariff on its exports to the U.S. after all if Donald Trump becomes president.

Tariffs of that amount, the Republican front-runner said at Thursday night’s debate in Miami, are only a “threat.”

Debating ahead of Florida’s Tuesday primary, Trump said the tariff would be slapped on Chinese goods “ if they don’t behave .” It doesn’t have to be 45%, he added, “ it could be less .”

“The 45% is a threat that if they don’t behave, if they don’t follow the rules and regulations so that we can have it equal on both sides, we will tax you,” Trump said.

The tariff issue is the latest on which Trump has shown flexibility. At a debate last week, he said he was softening his position on visas for highly skilled foreign workers and said that he wanted more. He’s also said “there will always be some negotiation” on immigration after calling for deporting undocumented immigrants. They Say: “Trump Tariff Kills U.S. Economy” Trump’s China trade policies won’t kill the economy. Fletcher 16 — Ian Fletcher, Senior Economist of the Coalition for a Prosperous America—a nationwide grass-roots organization dedicated to fixing America’s trade policies, former Adjunct Fellow at the San Francisco office of the U.S. Business and Industry Council—a Washington think tank, 2016 (“No, Trump’s Tariff Wouldn’t Crash The Economy,” The Huffington Post, June 23rd, Available Online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/no-trumps-tariff-wouldnt- crash-the-economy_b_9876630.html, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Hillary Clinton has been accusing Donald Trump of having economic plans that would crash the U.S. economy.

There’s a NY Times story about the underlying economic analysis here. (Google the article title and enter via Google if you’re not a subscriber to the Times’s paywall.)

The underlying report from Moody’s Analytics, a mainstream economics firm, is here. The lead author is Mark Zandi, who used to advise Sen. John McCain and Barack Obama, so its presumed bias is anti-Trump. He has also endorsed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the economic models in support of which have been shown to be wrong.

The report concerns three big issues: taxes, immigration, and foreign trade. Now the first two aren’t my area of expertise, so I’ll leave any arguments about them to the experts. But the third is, so let me explain why I think these guys have it wrong.

Before we begin, it’s necessary to get clear on the fact that, frankly, a lot of what Mr. Trump says is obviously just campaign rhetoric. So no, we shouldn’t take literally the idea of a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods, which the candidate has proposed.

Does this make The Donald a liar? Well, let’s remember that when Pres. Obama was running against Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2008, he touted a version of heath reform that was supposedly superior because it lacked the individual mandate to buy insurance. That was obviously a nice piece of campaigning (he won) but was a) the precise opposite of what Obama did in office, and b) an obviously impossible proposal given the structure of healthcare reform. So this is basically par for the course in politics. I wish it were otherwise, but there it is.

And don’t even get me started on Hillary’s rhetoric.

So the correct interpretation of Trump’s tough words on trade is, “I’m going to impose a get- tough policy,” not any particular tariff level. The president can’t set tariffs on his own , and (as Trump has said in other contexts) the 45 percent proposal may just be a negotiating stance designed to bring Beijing to heel. (His actual proposal was for a 45 percent tariff until China lets its currency float freely on international markets, which tends to support this interpretation.)

Moody’s interpretation of the 45 percent proposal (even if one grants the unlikely premise that it should be taken literally) is also unacceptably crude. They write:

The U.S. imports nearly $500 billion in goods a year from China, and another almost $300 billion from Mexico, accounting for approximately 35 percent of total U.S. non- petroleum goods imports... Slapping a 45 percent tariff on Chinese imports and 35 percent on non-petroleum Mexican imports thus increases overall goods import prices by approximately 15 percent. This in turn lifts overall U.S. consumer prices by almost three percent at its peak...

For one thing, they’re ignoring the basic economic concept of elasticity. In a nutshell, prices wouldn’t respond in a linear fashion as described. Profit margins would get compressed, domestic competitors and other foreign nations would move in, and prices wouldn’t move by the amount of the tariff. (The report perfunctorily mentions these issues, but its math doesn’t appear to take them into account.)

For another, they’re forgetting that a tariff offsets other taxes . So if tariff revenue finances, say, a cut in income tax (Trump has indeed proposed one), then the net cost to consumers is zeroed out (pace secondary effects).

So no, a tariff is not necessarily inflationary. And in an economic environment where inflation is so low that central banks are unable to cut interest rates because they can’t go (more than a crumb) below zero, else people would hoard cash, worrying about inflation is not especially rational right now anyway.

Just so you know, I’m not the only one pooh-poohing the idea that Trump’s tariff would bring disaster. The liberal Nobelist Paul Krugman wrote this,

Yes, I know there’s a Moody’s study claiming that Trumponomics would be a yuuge job destroyer, but I really don’t know where they got that result ; the best guess seems to be that they’re assuming that former spending on imports just goes away, which is not a good assumption.

Note that this is coming from someone who doesn’t seem to take the upside to Trump’s proposed policies very seriously; he’s just not that frightened of the (in his view, small) downside.

More importantly, the Moody’s report doesn’t pay any attention to the economic benefits of relocating production to the U.S. A nation that runs a chronic trade deficit, as we do, is eschewing domestic production in favor of letting foreigners produce for it in exchange for a) debt and b) sale of existing assets. Producing for ourselves instead would, by basic economic definitions, be an increase in U.S. GDP.

Since our trade deficit is around $500 billion a year, this is not a minor issue. (Anyone who’s still buying into the “trade deficits don’t matter / aren’t real money” delusion, let’s go over that one more time.)

Zeroing out the U.S. trade deficit would also reduce unemployment. Or, more likely, bring back people who have dropped out of the labor force entirely - a huge problem that has enabled us to have nominally low unemployment numbers because people who aren’t looking for work aren’t counted. This, in turn, would increase Federal tax revenue as people started paying income tax again, and reduce the cost of unemployment benefits. So it’s a very virtuous cycle.

The Moody’s report makes a number of really odd assumptions. For example, But although Mr. Trump is uncomfortable with NAFTA and the WTO-based trade relationship with China, it is assumed that they are not materially changed.

Now I can’t tell you exactly what changes a President Trump would make, but it’s pretty obvious that a) he wants these agreements changed, and b) because NAFTA and the WTO are treaty obligations, which the U.S. negotiated in the first place, the U.S. can renegotiate them. The obvious goal would be to end the practice of U.S. trade obligations being tools to prop open American markets for foreigners while they give us only nominal, not real, access in return.

How much traction against the trade deficit could a President Trump get? Well, since the U.S. hasn’t even been seriously trying to control its trade deficit in decades, the short answer is: definitely something.

How much would depend on what policies were used. Some of the best policies are things that Trump probably knows about, but can’t talk about because they’re politically unpalatable. For example, if the U.S. introduced a 15% border-adjustable Value-Added Tax like other developed nations have, this would a) provide big leverage against the trade deficit, and b) be absolutely, impeccably WTO-compliant, so none of the deficit-racking usual suspects (China, Japan, Germany) could do a thing about it. Such a tax could, of course, be used to finance a cut in income tax, so it could not be a net tax increase at all. But it’s still a tax, so probably toxic to Republican voters, although a national consumption tax has recently been becoming more acceptable to Republicans stymied in other avenues of tax reform.

Is Trump crazy to think he can negotiate better deals for the U.S. with foreign nations? I’m not going to offer an opinion on whether his vaunted negotiating skills will translate from Celebrity Apprentice to summitry vs. China, but I’m not the only person to have noted (like liberal economist Dean Baker below) that:

Anyhow, it would make perfect sense to negotiate a path for a higher valued yuan. At the negotiating table it would be perfectly reasonable to threaten various forms of retaliation as pressure, including tariffs.

So net-net, I can’t guarantee that Trump would be able to successfully pull off a major reform of America’s ongoing “free” trade disaster, but he would be the first president in decades pushing in the right direction and no, he’s not visibly setting us up for disaster.

Their model is wrong — minimal economic impact. Tankersley 16 — Jim Tankersley, Economic Policy Reporter for The Washington Post, former Economics Reporter for National Journal, 2016 (“Donald Trump’s trade war could kill millions of U.S. jobs,” Washington Post, March 25th, Available Online at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/25/donald-trumps-trade-war- could-kill-millions-of-u-s-jobs/, Accessed 07-07-2016)

J.W. Mason, an economist at the liberal Roosevelt Institute think tank, questioned the model's forecasts and its underlying assumptions. He predicted tariffs would likely have a much smaller effect on growth and employment in the United States. A "more realistic" model, Mason said, " might get you higher or lower employment relative to the baseline, but either way the effects would be an order of magnitude smaller than this."

Mason is critical, in particular, of the model's assumption that the tariffs would lead to little return to the United States of the roughly 1 million factory jobs that economists say have been lost to China over the past decade and a half. Zandi said that assumption rests on companies being uncertain about how long the tariffs might remain in place, which would likely make them reluctant to invest in an American alternative to Chinese manufacturing. They Say: “Trump Tariff Kills China Economy” Both candidates will adopt policies that undermine Chinese growth. Bradsher 16 — Keith Bradsher, Hong Kong Bureau Chief of The New York Times covering Asian business, economic, political, and science news, 2016 (“In Trade Stances Toward China, Clinton and Trump Both Signal a Chill,” New York Times, June 29th, Available Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/business/international/hillary-clinton-donald-trump- trade-china.html?_r=0, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Millions of jobs in China and across the region require the continued willingness of the United States to rely overwhelmingly on imports to supply American families with everything from the clothes they wear to the smartphones they carry.

Rapid economic growth in China and the development of a strong consumer market had seemed to reduce the country’s need for huge exports to the American market. But China’s economy has recently slowed , hurting domestic players from small exporters to large steel makers.

Weaker growth at home has made it all the more important for China to maintain a large trade surplus with the United States, selling more to consumers and businesses there than it buys. For years, China has exported four times as much to the United States as it imports, and it continues to do so.

“ If there are tougher trade policies from the United States,” said Shen Jianguang, an economist at Mizuho Securities Asia, “ that will dampen Chinese exports.”

The candidates plan to take direct aim at the two countries’ trade gap.

They want to label China as a currency manipulator that undervalues the renminbi to help its exporters win sales in overseas markets. They want to file more trade cases against China and impose more tariffs . They want to investigate how the Chinese government subsidize s businesses. They also want to rethink big trade deals.

China would retaliate either way. Bradsher 16 — Keith Bradsher, Hong Kong Bureau Chief of The New York Times covering Asian business, economic, political, and science news, 2016 (“In Trade Stances Toward China, Clinton and Trump Both Signal a Chill,” New York Times, June 29th, Available Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/business/international/hillary-clinton-donald-trump- trade-china.html?_r=0, Accessed 07-04-2016)

If the candidates’ ideas became policy, China would almost certainly retaliate in some fashion. American exports , while sharply smaller than those China sends in the other direction, are a potential focus. Beijing has proved especially adept in the past at targeting American exports from swing states in presidential elections and closely fought congressional districts, maximizing its leverage in the political process even if the economic effects were limited.

China Policies Similar Both Clinton and Trump will pursue similar China policies. Bradsher 16 — Keith Bradsher, Hong Kong Bureau Chief of The New York Times covering Asian business, economic, political, and science news, 2016 (“In Trade Stances Toward China, Clinton and Trump Both Signal a Chill,” New York Times, June 29th, Available Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/business/international/hillary-clinton-donald-trump- trade-china.html?_r=0, Accessed 07-04-2016)

For Asia, the bad news this week was not that Donald J. Trump detailed a seven-point plan to toughen American trade policy, especially toward China. It was that Hillary Clinton ’s campaign accused Mr. Trump a few hours later of purloining her ideas , noting that she favored similar action on those issues.

A strong dose of economic populism , with an occasional sprinkling of geopolitics, has suffused the trade plans of the leading American presidential candidates this year. Vying for votes, Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton are each promising to do more to preserve American jobs at a time of slowing global economic growth. And China — with its vast trade, rising international influence and authoritarian government — is a natural target. Just Campaign Rhetoric Trump won’t follow-through on anti-China rhetoric. Mak 16 — Aaron Mak, Researcher at Politico, 2016 (“Why China’s Not Afraid of Donald J. Trump,” Politico, May 8th, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-donald-trump-china-foreign-policy- asia-beijing-213876, Accessed 07-04-2016)

On economic issues, Trump has been much more aggressively anti-China; his tax and anti- currency manipulation proposals have even raised the prospect of a trade war. But many Chinese observers see these “tough” positions as bluster—part of Trump’s appeal to Republican voters at home —and believe he would soften his stance once in office. For one thing, his opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership—a multinational trade deal meant to counterbalance China’s economic dominance in the region—has led some in Chinese state media to believe Trump would be more open to commercial relations with China than he lets off.

A recent People’s Daily article argued further that the likelihood of Trump actually causing a crisis with China has been exaggerated by the American media. (The inevitable imprecision of translation could also be a factor, Shen points out; certain Mandarin words, such as the word for “liar,” lack the political impact of their English equivalents.)

Trump won’t follow-through. Yahoo! 16 — Yahoo! News, 2016 (“Mark Mobius: Here's why Trump won't actually start a trade war,” Byline Julia La Roche, May 15th, Available Online at https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/mark-mobius-doesn-t-see-trade-war-if-trump-is- president-192339427.html?nhp=1, Accessed 07-07-2016)

Emerging markets fund manager Mark Mobius doesn’t think there will be a trade war if Donald Trump is elected president.

Trump’s positions on trade—including raising tariffs on Chinese imported goods—have raised concerns that we could end up in an all out trade war between the US and China.

Speaking at the SALT Conference in Las Vegas on Friday, Mobius, the executive chairman of Templeton Emerging Market Group, said it won’t come to that . He thinks Trump will get deals done.

“When people ask me, I say, ‘I don’t like what he says, but I like the way he says it,” Mobius said.

He continued: “ [Trump’s] a great negotiator. He’s flexible. I don’t see any of these things about trade wars coming to pass. I don’t see it. I think he will negotiate and get deals done . And I think that’s the important thing.” China bashing always calms down after a candidate takes office — Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama prove. Dorning 15 — Mike Dorning, White House Correspondent for Bloomberg News, 2015 (“China- Bashing 2016: We've Seen This Movie Before,” Bloomberg, August 28th, Available Online at http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-28/china-bashing-2016-we-ve-seen-this- movie-before, Accessed 07-07-2016)

With the presidential campaign in full swing, China-bashing is back in season.

The market turmoil in China and its currency devaluation has provided the latest opening for Republican presidential candidates.

Florida Senator Marco Rubio enters the fray Friday with a foreign-policy speech his campaign says will focus on China. On the campaign trail, the Republican presidential hopeful has elevated his rhetoric on China recently, calling for tougher U.S. retaliation against incidents of alleged Chinese computer hacking.

Front-runner Donald Trump has already been fanning long-standing mistrust of China by saying the country's leaders have out-maneuvered the U.S. on trade. He said he'd serve Chinese leader Xi Jinping a Big Mac rather than a state dinner. Another Republican candidate, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, called on President Barack Obama to cancel Xi's U.S. visit altogether.

The candidates are following a grand campaign tradition that extends at least as far back as Ronald Reagan and includes the current president. Once in the Oval Office, however, presidents typically take a more accommodating stance to a country that is the world's second-largest economy and a nuclear-armed military power with a vital role to play in U.S. priorities from Iran to North Korea. Consider the history:

Ronald Reagan

On the campaign trail, Reagan condemned predecessor Jimmy Carter for normalizing relations with China and abandoning Taiwan , suggesting he would restore official ties with the island where opponents of the mainland Communist government fled, and sell it advanced fighter jets. Barely a year after he was elected, his administration rejected sale of the fighters. He never reopened the Taiwan embassy.

Bill Clinton

With the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre still a fresh memory, presidential candidate Bill Clinton denounced the "butchers of Beijing" and, after being elected, signed an executive order early in his administration setting human rights conditions on China's most-favored nation trade status, only to later back down and let the order lapse. He eventually pressed legislation through Congress that granted China p ermanent n ormal t rade r elations.

George W. Bush

Republican George W. Bush—whose father, George H.W. Bush served as the U.S. diplomatic representative in Beijing in the 1970s—in turn attacked President Clinton for treating China as a "strategic partner" instead of a "strategic competitor." But after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Bush chose a policy of engagement with China in order to gain cooperation in the war on terrorism.

Barack Obama

During his first presidential campaign Obama played the China card when courting blue collar workers who see China as a threat to U.S. jobs. He accused Bush of being a "patsy" of China and promised to "take them to the mat" on currency manipulation and unfair trade practices. Obama has never sanctioned China for currency manipulation.

The criticism is perennial and bipartisan because it works. Americans have long distrusted China. Hostility, which once expressed itself in 19th century racist fears of the "Yellow Peril" extended through the Cold War to today's concerns about outsourced jobs in a globalized economy. Fifty- four percent of Americans hold an unfavorable view of China, according to a Pew poll taken April 13 through May 3. In a Gallup poll taken a year earlier, China topped the list of countries considered the U.S.'s "greatest enemy today," so named by 20 percent of respondents—ahead of North Korea, Iran and Russia.

This election won’t be different — it’s just hot air. Bradsher 16 — Keith Bradsher, Hong Kong Bureau Chief of The New York Times covering Asian business, economic, political, and science news, 2016 (“In Trade Stances Toward China, Clinton and Trump Both Signal a Chill,” New York Times, June 29th, Available Online at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/business/international/hillary-clinton-donald-trump- trade-china.html?_r=0, Accessed 07-04-2016)

“ There is no big difference from previous presidential campaigns , only more emphasis , due to the poor world trade performances” and weak global economic prospects, said He Weiwen, a co-director of the China-U.S.-E.U. Study Center at the China Association of International Trade in Beijing. Trump Better Trump is better for U.S.-China relations — better foreign policy negotiations outweigh harsher economic policies. Mak 16 — Tim Mak, Senior Correspondent for The Daily Beast, 2016 (“China Endorses Donald Trump,” The Daily Beast, April 19th, Available Online at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/19/china-endorses-donald-trump.html, Accessed 07-04-2016)

If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, his victory will be celebrated not only in Mar- a-Lago, but also in Beijing.

The Chinese Communist Party ’s media conduits are swooning over the vulgar, politically- incorrect frontrunner, telegraphing that if Trump were to rise to a position of real power, it would be a boon for the country’s regional ambitions.

Chinese -language press and state media—especially foreign policy columnists—have written extensively and favorably about Trump’s geopolitical views. Many pro-Beijing writers have looked past his threats of a trade war with China, view ing his willingness to undercut America’s existing alliances in Asia as an incredible strategic opportunity.

It’s the latest twist for a politician who loves bashing the East Asian country on the campaign trail, enunciating it with his trademark flair: “Chai-Nah.” And it’s an emerging pattern of praise from America’s rivals, to include the mutual admiration society between the billionaire and Russian President Vladimir Putin. And in fact, Trump has had a lot of good things to say about dictators in the past.

One of the best examples of the apparent pro-Trump sentiment from the Chinese government is from the nationalistic Global Times, an official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party. It published an article in late March, covering Trump’s rise, titled: “Trump is not a lunatic.” The article goes on with a quote that he is a “shrewd businessman” with his finger on the political pulse of his countrymen, and that the country’s mood is to slip away from “imperial hegemony.”

To be sure, some voices in the Chinese government have criticized Trump’s suggestion of a high tariff on Chinese imports. But even quasi-independent Chinese outlets are writing about the possibilities the Republican frontrunner could present to China, and, echoing his American supporters, argue that he is only putting on an act and would actually be quite flexible as president.

“ Why isn’t China worried about Mr. Trump’s threat of high tariffs on their exports to the US? Because he’s also said he’s a deal-maker . They think they can make a deal to preserve what they have in the US-China relationship while a Trump administration retreats from world economic leadership,” Derek Scissors, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, told The Daily Beast. Caixin, a media organization in China, has done just that: dismissing the threat of a tariff, arguing that Trump’s positions and principles are constantly changing, and that the billionaire is a realist, much like Henry Kissinger.

Between Trump and Hillary Clinton, the article continues, Trump may be a better choice because he is a negotiator rather than a hardened ideologue —and certainly he would be better than the “hostile” attitude that President George W. Bush had toward China.

“ The Chinese media has made statements that are more friendly to Trump than one might expect, and more friendly to Trump than Hillary Clinton if it came up between the two,” said Jennifer Harris, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who is also an informal unpaid adviser to the Hillary Clinton campaign. There is, Harris said, a “comfort” with Trump among the Chinese media, which are heavily influenced by the government’s position.

Trump has indicated an openness toward undercutting existing American global alliances, arguing in public comments that he would be willing to withdraw American forces from Japan and South Korea unless those allies increase their payments to cover costs.

“We cannot afford to be losing vast amounts of billions of dollars on all of this,” Trump told The New York Times.

This has drawn alarm from Tokyo and Seoul, but the Chinese press has covered these developments with great detail and enthusiasm, savoring the panic that their Asian rivals are enduring as Trump suggests a renegotiation with American allies the region.

“ China’s great project is to try to undermine America’s alliances in Asia. And if you have someone in the White House that says this is open to negotiation… that’s really good news in Beijing,” Harris said.

Clinton hurts U.S.-China relations — she’s a committed hawk. Reynolds 15 — Ben Reynolds, Writer and Foreign Policy Analyst based in New York whose commentary has appeared in The Diplomat, Russia Today, and AAJ, 2015 (“What Would a Clinton Presidency Mean for U.S.-China Relations?,” China-U.S. Focus—a publication of the China-United States Exchange Foundation in Hong Kong, April 27th, Available Online at http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/what-would-a-clinton-presidency-mean-for-u-s- china-relations/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Hillary Clinton’s announcement that she intends to run for president in 2016 has reignited speculation about what a Clinton presidency would mean for U.S.-China relations. As the U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 and the face of the “Pivot to Asia,” Clinton had a history of often antagonistic interactions with China. Clinton would enter office with an established perspective on the nature of U.S.-China relations and a well-known personal style in international diplomacy. Given that her perspective and style have already angered Chinese officials , Clinton would have to perform a complete about-face to reset relations. None of this bodes well for the U.S.-China relationship. Understanding the impact of a potential Clinton presidency is crucial in predicting the future of U.S.-China relations, as she is by far the most likely candidate to win. Clinton has a significant lead over any prospective rival in name recognition and, more importantly, funding. There are no other candidates in the Democratic Party with Clinton’s level of institutional power, and she will probably not face any serious challengers in the primary. In the general election, Clinton will have an advantage over her Republican opponent due to the simple fact that she will probably raise more money. Generational demographic shifts appear to also favor Democratic candidates in presidential elections. While most political analysts insist that it is too early to predict who will win in 2016, there is a very high chance that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

Assuming Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, we can expect a foreign policy that is quite similar to what she advocated in the Obama administration. In short, this foreign policy will be interventionist and will rely heavily on military might. Clinton pushed heavily for U.S. intervention in Libya to topple the Qaddafi regime. She was also one of the loudest voices in favor of early intervention in the Syrian civil war. Clinton argued as early as 2012 that the administration should train and equip Syrian rebels in order to remove Bashar al-Assad from power. While the administration ultimately heeded Clinton’s advice on both counts, it is important to note that she was among the most consistent interventionist voices in the Obama White House.

Hillary Clinton and her aides were largely responsible for directing the Obama administration’s Asia policy until her departure in 2013. The Pivot to Asia was the hallmark initiative of Clinton’s tenure. Clinton authored a widely read article in Foreign Policy announcing the pivot strategy, arguing that the United States had to refocus its attention from the Middle East to Asia to cement the U.S.’s position in the global order. Though the military dimension of the pivot flopped due to budgetary constraints, Clinton initially envisioned a “comprehensive” strategy, including a strong military component. Chinese officials and policymakers interpreted the Pivot as an attempt to contain China’s legitimate rise . This, in addition to Clinton’s propensity to criticize the Chinese government at international gatherings, has not made her particularly popular in China.

Clinton’s pool of likely appointees is equally problematic for the future of U.S.-China relations. Many of the Clinton administration’s political appointees will probably be drawn from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). CNAS was founded in 2007, largely to serve as hawkish and pro-interventionist think tank aligned with the Democratic Party. Michelle Flournoy, its co-founder, was a political appointee in the first Clinton administration. Hillary Clinton delivered the keynote address at CNAS’s official launch. Clinton-CNAS ties run deep, and it is no accident that both heavily focus on the strategic importance of Asia to the United States.

Unfortunately for those who might hope for an accommodation between the U.S. and China, CNAS fellows often press for ill-considered military options to counter Chinese assertiveness. For instance, Elbridge Colby and Ely Ratner, both CNAS fellows, have argued that the United States should “elevate the risks” of Chinese actions in disputed areas by increasing the likelihood of a U.S. military response. Colby and Ratner state that the U.S. should prepare to use force in response to “coercion” from Chinese Coast Guard vessels. They also hold that the U.S. must prepare for a major war with China and deepen its military ties with Japan. While each of these recommendations is supposedly aimed to deter aggression, China would probably see them as naked coercion. A “ risk elevation ” strategy would seriously strain U.S.-China relations and increase the possibility of a serious conflict.

Colby and Ratner suffer from the delusion that the United States can avert the reality of shifting power relations between the U.S. and China by acting more aggressively. A White House with advisers like Colby and Ratner might come dangerously close to provoking a dramatic military confrontation with China. I see little reason to believe that the prospect of escalation alone will be enough to deter China from a high-stakes conflict in its own backyard. Nor is China likely to simply acquiesce to continued U.S. dominance in the Asia-Pacific because the U.S. alters its rules of engagement. Unfortunately, these fallacious notions are quite common in U.S. policy-making circles.

Trump is better for U.S.-China relations. Harner 16 — Stephen M. Harner, President of Yangtze Century Ltd.—an investment and consulting firm in China and Japan, former U.S. Foreign Service Officer at the U.S. Department of State who served in Beijing and Tokyo, former Vice President of Citibank, former Chief Representative at Deutsche Bank-Shanghai, holds an M.A. in International Economics from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, 2016 (“Why Donald Trump Will Be Better for U.S.-China Relations than Marco Rubio or Hillary Clinton,” China-U.S. Focus—a publication of the China-United States Exchange Foundation in Hong Kong, March 10th, Available Online at http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/why-donald-trump-will-be- better-for-u-s-china-relations-than-marco-rubio-or-hillary-clinton/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Following important endorsements and key wins on “Super Tuesday” March 1, Donald Trump is by far the most likely person to be nominated at the July 18-21 Republican convention, and to face off against Hillary Clinton on November 8.

What should people concerned with U.S.-China relations, especially those hoping U.S.-China relations can be improved, be thinking about this eventuality? What should they know and consider about the man who is probably the only viable remaining challenger to Trump, Florida Senator Marco Rubio?

I will state my view up front: Between Trump, Clinton, and Rubio, it is Donald Trump who offers the greatest promise for improving U.S.-China relations , both in the short- and long-terms. Hillary Clinton would surely continue the same confrontational and biased anti-China policies stances (e.g., on South China Sea sovereignty questions) that characterized her tenure as Secretary of State. Marco Rubio, a representative and surrogate of the vested bureaucratic, political, and industrial interests of the America’s national security state, would, like Clinton, continue the anti-China policy bias and, if anything, accelerate the potentially catastrophic and totally unjustifiable drift toward U.S.-China military confrontation in the South China Sea and elsewhere. Most readers will find my opinion on Trump incomprehensible. Has not Trump asserted that China has achieved unfair advantage in trade and economic relations with the United States? Has not Trump threatened to impose tariffs or other barriers to Chinese goods? Has not Trump declared that he would bring back thousands of American jobs lost to China?

Readers will be raising these questions because they ( like most commentators within the political establishment in the United States, who failed utterly to understand Trump’s appeal and predicted that his campaign would quickly collapse) are missing the essence and implications of Donald Trump’s positions on America’s foreign policies and relations, in trade and, more importantly, national security.

One analyst who, on the contrary, understands Trump’s appeal, and has thought deeply about why Trump is so fiercely opposed by both the Republican and Democrat political establishments, is David Stockman, former Republican Congressman, Reagan-era director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, and now, at age 69, Wall Street financier who produces the very engaging and provocative “David Stockman’s Contra Corner” blog.

Stockman believes Trump’s comments about disadvantageous trade deals and economic policies are stylistic simplifications, unlikely to be translated into policies , meant mainly to adumbrate his underlying, fundamental position and belief that the United States government, led by a self-interested elite of both parties, has since the end of WWII sacrificed the interests of the vast majority of American citizens, in order to maintain what can only be described as a global “empire.”

Trump is signaling that he believes maintaining this global American empire has weakened and corrupted the United States, without substantially improving conditions in much of the world. On the contrary, America’s interventions and determination to wield hegemonic power have created chaos in and visited devastation on other countries, while engendering unnecessary and unjustifiable confrontations, for example with Russia.

Trump’s way of thinking suggests that he would see no reason to continue the provocative Obama policy of challenging China’s sovereignty in the South China Sea. Indeed, there is a good chance that a Trump presidency would see reversal of the Obama/Hillary Clinton “ pivot to Asia” strategy, the aim of which is to maintain unchallengeable military hegemony in the region, effectively threatening China’s legitimate security interests. They Say: “Trump Kills Relations” Trump won’t kill relations — China will take the high road for economic reasons. Bremmer 16 — Ian Bremmer, President and Founder of Eurasia Group—a global political risk research and consulting firm, Global Research Professor at New York University, Founding Chairman of the Global Agenda Council on Geopolitical Risk at the World Economic Forum, Harold J. Newman Distinguished Fellow in Geopolitics at the Asia Society Policy Institute, holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from Stanford University, 2016 (“Trump and the World: What Could Actually Go Wrong,” Politico, June 3rd, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-international-foreign- policy-global-risk-security-guide-213936, Accessed 07-05-2016)

Red Herrings: What Not To Worry About

1. U.S.-China relations

There is considerable fear that Trump’s anti-China rhetoric will ratchet up tension with a nation that could be our most dangerous rival, militarily and economically. But this doesn’t pose the risk you might think. The next president , Trump or Clinton, will have two advantages in U.S. relations with China, the world’s most important bilateral relationship. First, China’s leaders are now focused on a complex, high-stakes economic reform process, one designed to transition from an inefficient export-based economy to a more innovative and resilient model powered mainly by domestic consumption. Success depends on Beijing’s ability to avoid conflicts that are bad for business , even those concocted by a U.S. president who wants to shake things up. Second, the expected slowdown in Chinese economic growth looks to be under control, and President Xi Jinping appears confident in his hold on power. Trump’s campaign assertion that Japan and South Korea should take greater responsibility for their own security will increase that confidence. This gives him less incentive to create an artificial foreign policy emergency to divert public attention from domestic problems.

President Trump will make a point of antagonizing China , particularly on trade and investment relations, but Chinese officials can afford to respond by taking the high road on most points of potential conflict to try to convince other governments that Washington , not Beijing, is the cause of trouble in U.S.-China relations. Trump will sometimes spoil for a fight, but Xi appears unlikely to give him one under any but the most extraordinary circumstances. Irrelevant (General) Neither candidate is better for U.S.-China relations. Dingli 16 — Shen Dingli, Professor and Vice Dean at the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, Founder and Director of China’s first non-government-based Program on Arms Control and Regional Security at Fudan University, holds a Ph.D. in Physics from Fudan University, 2016 (“The U.S. Electorate and China,” China-U.S. Focus—a publication of the China- United States Exchange Foundation in Hong Kong, May 24th, Available Online at http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/the-u-s-electorate-and-china/, Accessed 07-04- 2016)

Many in the world are thinking about the impact each candidate would have if he or she will become the president. Surely Trump is much different from Clinton, so President Trump or President Clinton would bring his/her different style of governance into the government. At this time, it is premature to suggest who is better or worse for this country.

Since China is fast developing, Beijing is increasingly becoming more important in stabilizing Sino-US relations. Unlike what it did in the past three decades to integrate into the world, China is now proposing ways to improve international institutions . With this in mind, it is not that important who is elected as the President of the US.

The opposite could be true – whoever is elected will have to follow the fundamentals in conducting US-China relations, by expanding mutual and global goods including a more fair and convenient trading system, and a safer and more secure international environment. China and the US have much at stake if they would sustain a cooperative partnership.

U.S.-China relations will be low no matter who wins. TAI 16 — The American Interest, 2016 (“U.S.–China Economic Relations Continue to Sour,” June 17th, Available Online at http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/17/u-s-china- economic-relations-continue-to-sour/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew isn’t happy with Beijing’s anti-competitive policies. The WSJ reports:

“We continue to raise concerns about the general climate in China for U.S. businesses,” Mr. Lew said Thursday at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank. “They need the innovation that comes from foreign companies, they need the economic activity that comes from foreign companies, and they’re going to have to make a choice on how they manage this set of obstacles.”

Of those obstacles, he added, “some are formal in the form of laws, and some are informal in the form of bureaucratic complexity.”

Mr. Lew’s relatively strong criticism on business conditions contrasts with his more favorable view of other, more successful economic engagement with China in the past seven years. Zhu Haiquan, a spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, said the “Chinese government is fully engaged in an all-round reform which will also serve as a strong guarantee for an improved foreign investment environment in China.”

Public criticism from Lew points to an ominous trend . In the past, the economic relationship between China and the U.S. has been strong enough to offset political disputes. Increasingly, that is not the case on the U.S. side. Companies doing business outside China are struggling to compete with China’s heavily-subsidized enterprises. Meanwhile, companies doing business inside China have been complaining about a stifling regulatory environment. On Friday, Apple was told it may have to stop selling the latest model of the iPhone because of alleged copyright infringement.

Whether Clinton or Trump wins in November, it appears that U.S.-China relations will be on a downhill slide and that the American business community will be less likely to rush to China’s defense.

Relations will be low regardless of who wins. Jennings 16 — Ralph Jennings, Contributor to Forbes covering Taiwan and Asia, 2016 (“Fights With China Loom If Hillary Clinton Elected President,” Forbes, June 23rd, Available Online at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2016/06/23/fights-with-china-inevitable-if-hillary- clinton-elected-president/#29ee5d246bed, Accessed 07-04-2016)

China and the United States need each other as the world’s two superpowers. They trade, they invest in each other’s economies, they work together on global security matters. Then again they fight sometimes. If Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party’s likely nominee for U.S. president, wins the election in November, expect at the start more fighting than working together.

There’s always a warm-up period with China when a new U.S. president takes power regardless of who or which party , notes Zhao Xijun, deputy dean of the school of finance at Renmin University in Beijing. The two sides also face a list of stubborn issues, such as what to do with unpredictable, reclusive North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and whether the United States arms Vietnam . China wants North Korea in its pocket for regional security but U.S. leaders want to end the regime. A better armed Vietnam could threaten China as the two are old rivals with a shared border.

“ The U.S.-China relationship no matter who’s elected is going through some tough times,” says Alexander Huang, strategic studies professor at Tamkang University in Taiwan. “There are things on the agenda that will surely bring about quarrels.”

It doesn’t matter who wins – tensions will remain high. Reynolds 15 — Ben Reynolds, Writer and Foreign Policy Analyst based in New York whose commentary has appeared in The Diplomat, Russia Today, and AAJ, 2015 (“What Would a Clinton Presidency Mean for U.S.-China Relations?,” China-U.S. Focus—a publication of the China-United States Exchange Foundation in Hong Kong, April 27th, Available Online at http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/what-would-a-clinton-presidency-mean-for-u-s- china-relations/, Accessed 07-04-2016)

A Clinton administration will lean interventionist, but there is no reason to believe that the next election will fundamentally alter the U.S.’s foreign policy priorities. While a change of diplomatic style might be expected, even seasoned analysts will be hard pressed to find a significant divergence between the Obama administration’s foreign policy and the policy of a Clinton administration. As long as U.S. policymakers believe that hegemony in the Asia-Pacific is a worthwhile aim, disagreements over the nature of U.S. strategy will remain quite marginal. Elections rarely change the fundamental interests of states.

Chinese distrust of Hillary Clinton will not be a boon to U.S.-China relations. Clinton’s hawkish tendencies will likely exacerbate tensions. But the fundamental sources of friction between the U.S. and China remain the same no matter who sits in the Oval Office . Absent a new accommodation to match the shifting balance of power in the Asia-Pacific, the rivalry between the U.S. and China will continue to deepen for the foreseeable future. Irrelevant (BIT) A Clinton win won’t save the BIT — it’s dead. Jennings 16 — Ralph Jennings, Contributor to Forbes covering Taiwan and Asia, 2016 (“Fights With China Loom If Hillary Clinton Elected President,” Forbes, June 23rd, Available Online at http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2016/06/23/fights-with-china-inevitable-if-hillary- clinton-elected-president/#29ee5d246bed, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Clinton, former secretary of state under President Barack Obama, has addled China before. Chinese leaders might recall her speech at the UN Fourth World Congress on Women in Beijing in 1995 and her “challenge to China on that occasion,” says Alan Romberg, East Asia Program director with Washington think tank the Stimson Center. Fifteen years later Chinese leaders noted her speech at a Southeast Asian regional ministerial meeting where the United States “led a string of foreign ministers in criticizing China’s policies in the region,” Romberg says. The Communist leadership also sees Clinton as part of Obama’s 2011 pivot to Asia, which Beijing felt was aimed at containing China’s growth. “Overall, indeed, they tend to see her as holding to a generally tough line on China overall,” Romberg says.

Criticism of China’s policies in the region is forecast to continue through her campaign and into the early part of her presidency. She would question Beijing’s militarization of the South China Sea and bolster support for Southeast Asian governments with overlapping maritime claims, a boost for countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines. Clinton’s populist pro-USA campaign talk about the hazards of foreign trade deals including the 12-nation Trans Pacific Partnership could also hurt prospects for a U.S.-China b ilateral i nvestment t reaty, a platform to offer each side more market access, says Alicia Garcia Herrero, chief Asia economist with French investment bank Natixis. That agreement, “ under negotiation for so long, is probably dead,” Garcia says. China Likes Trump China prefers Trump — he’ll negotiate and he doesn’t care about the SCS. DiChristopher 16 — Tom DiChristopher, Web and TV Producer for CNBC, internally citing Leland Miller, President of China Beige Book International—the world's leading data analytics firm focusing on the Chinese economy, Member of the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, recipient of the Gerald Segal Fellowship Prize in Asian Security—a prize awarded annually to a single individual worldwide by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, holds a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, an M.A. in Chinese History from Oxford University (St. Antony’s College), and a Graduate Chinese Language Fellowship from Tunghai University (Taiwan), 2016 (“China may prefer Trump to Clinton, says China Beige Book president,” CNBC, June 30th, Available Online at http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/30/china-may- prefer-trump-to-clinton-says-china-beige-book-president.html, Accessed 07-04-2016)

The Chinese people may prefer Donald Trump to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton despite the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's repeated threats to impose tariffs on China, according to Leland Miller, president of China Beige Book International.

Many Americans think the Chinese hate Trump because of his anti-China rhetoric, Miller said. But he thinks the Chinese see the real estate developer and reality TV star as "an interesting opportunity."

"I think a lot of people in China, they see Donald Trump, they see this negotiator . They say, Hillary Clinton, we know she's going to be mean to us. Donald Trump wants to make a deal. He doesn't care about the South China Sea. He may not know where it is," Miller told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Thursday.

China prefers Trump — they think he’ll give them the upper hand. Mak 16 — Aaron Mak, Researcher at Politico, 2016 (“Why China’s Not Afraid of Donald J. Trump,” Politico, May 8th, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-donald-trump-china-foreign-policy- asia-beijing-213876, Accessed 07-04-2016)

If you’ve been paying any attention to Trump ’s rhetoric on the campaign trail, you might imagine China would be quaking in its boots . Rarely has a candidate so relentlessly attacked a peaceful trade partner. Trump has accused China of manipulating its currency and stealing American jobs, and promised a 45 percent tariff on all Chinese goods—intended to devastate the country’s export-driven economy. He has even tweeted far more about China than about any other of his favorite foreign nemeses like Mexico or ISIS.

These attacks have worried economists, diplomats and free-trade advocates. But one group that seems surprisingly sanguine is the Chinese people.

Even as China’s government has refused to comment on Trump’s diatribes, a survey of both official state media and social media networks reveals that a growing contingent of Chinese believe the mogul’s potential presidency could actually end up benefiting China —perhaps more so than a President Hillary Clinton , whose criticism of the country’s human rights record infuriates Chinese leaders . Some Chinese admire Trump’s glitzy businesses, big-name brand and candid personality. Others genuinely think the candidate’s “America First” foreign policy positions would give China the upper hand in Sino-American relations and allow more room for China to assert itself on the world stage.

The Chinese love Trump’s brand — he’s extremely popular. Mak 16 — Aaron Mak, Researcher at Politico, 2016 (“Why China’s Not Afraid of Donald J. Trump,” Politico, May 8th, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-donald-trump-china-foreign-policy- asia-beijing-213876, Accessed 07-04-2016)

It didn’t start out this way. In the early days of the campaign, government-run news outlets tended to paint Trump as “a buffoon or a joke,” as Xincheng Shen, a U.S.-based writer for state- managed news site The Paper, told me. But as Trump has racked up more primary wins and asserted his foreign policy positions, China’s state outlets have grown more receptive. Among layman pundits on Chinese social media, the support has been even stronger. On Weibo, the candidate has inspired popular groups such as “Trump Fan Club” and “Great Man Donald Trump.” In a late March poll of 3,330 Global Times readers, 54 percent of respondents said they supported a Trump presidency—well above the roughly 40 percent of Americans who currently do.

“ Trump is very, very popular among Chinese Internet users,” says Kecheng Fang, a former reporter in China who now researches Chinese media at the University of Pennsylvania.

Much of the Trump support in China boils down to his reputation overseas as a shrewd entrepreneur—an image that surely resonates with China’s plutocrats and aspirers. (“China today has this obsession with successful businessmen,” Shen notes.) Over the past decade, the Trump brand has been making inroads in the Chinese market, with the mogul promoting his Southeast Asia and U.S. luxury hotels specifically to Chinese travelers, in addition to looking for new locations in Beijing, Shenzhen and Shanghai. Trump himself has boasted about doing business with Chinese companies and leasing real estate to Chinese patrons. “I do great with China. I sell them condos. I have the largest bank in the world from China, the largest in the world by far,” he claimed last week. “They’re a tenant of mine in a building I own in Manhattan.”

Trump’s reality TV show, The Apprentice, also has a following in China, as does his daughter, Ivanka Trump, whose high-life-oriented Weibo account has 15,000 fans. The image of success and opulence that Trump cultivates has even led some Chinese businesses to coopt his surname —from the luxury toilet seat manufacturer Shenzhen Trump Industries to the Henan real estate firm Trump Consulting to the Anhui air purifier producer Trump Electronics. China prefers Trump on foreign policy — he’s a pragmatist who will pivot the U.S. military away from Asia. Mak 16 — Aaron Mak, Researcher at Politico, 2016 (“Why China’s Not Afraid of Donald J. Trump,” Politico, May 8th, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-donald-trump-china-foreign-policy- asia-beijing-213876, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Beyond just Trump’s brand, many Chinese believe his business acumen would translate into political pragmatism on matters of national security and foreign policy—which would play to China’s advantage. Trump has repeatedly questioned the wisdom of maintaining American military bases and warships in the region, arguing that they cost the United States money while allowing allies like Japan to mooch off American support in their squabbles with China in the East and South China seas. “If we’re attacked, they do not have to come to our defense,” Trump told the New York Times in late March. “If they’re attacked, we have to come totally to their defense. And that is a—that’s a real problem.”

Chinese state media have responded favorably to this rhetoric; China clearly sees U.S. armed forces in the area as a nuisance, if not a threat, and with American and Chinese warships patrolling the same crowded waterways, the two countries have been playing a risky game of chicken. A Global Times op-ed published a day after Trump’s Times interview reads, “It is hence predictable that if Trump is elected president, he will choose to cooperate with China , from which Japan will fail to benefit.”

That leaves room for China to assert itself . An article published last month in the People’s Daily, the Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper, noted that Trump’s snubs toward America’s Asian allies, namely Japan and South Korea, will allow China to become the dominant military power in the Pacific. Because the South China Sea isn’t oil rich, a Trump-led military would likely turn its attention away from Asia and toward the Middle East, says Shen, who last month published a widely circulated article in The Paper headlined “Do Not Rush to Say Trump Is Crazy.” “It seems like [Trump] only wants to get involved in something militarily when there is a business benefit,” Shen argues. China Hates Clinton China hates Clinton because of the pivot. Mak 16 — Aaron Mak, Researcher at Politico, 2016 (“Why China’s Not Afraid of Donald J. Trump,” Politico, May 8th, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-donald-trump-china-foreign-policy- asia-beijing-213876, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Part of the reason for Trump’s appeal in China has to do with China’s intense skepticism toward the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency. The “ pivot to Asia”—a push during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state to increase America’s military presence and advance human rights in the region — has long been a source of anxiety for the Chinese , who see it as an attempt by the United States to control and suppress China’s rise. That policy, which Chinese associate closely with Clinton , has caused “ dissatisfaction among Chinese netizens,” Wu Xinbo, a professor at Fudan University in Shanghai, recently told the Global Times, “ while Trump’s outspokenness and straightforwardness have gained him more support.”

China hates Clinton because of human rights criticisms. To them, Trump is preferable. Mak 16 — Aaron Mak, Researcher at Politico, 2016 (“Why China’s Not Afraid of Donald J. Trump,” Politico, May 8th, Available Online at http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-donald-trump-china-foreign-policy- asia-beijing-213876, Accessed 07-04-2016)

Clinton has also criticized China for human rights violations and online censorship since her days as first lady and later at Foggy Bottom, leading some Chinese netizens and state media outlets to believe she would be more ideological and less flexible than Trump in diplomatic dealings with China. “ Unlike traditional idealistic politicians , who tend to place ideological values, such as democracy and human rights, as the priority in their diplomacy, Trump has more realistic interests in mind,” a recent op-ed in the Global Times says.

In fact, Trump’s apparently pliable views on human rights (he has expressed interest in bringing back torture, for one) and disregard for traditional bounds of discussion in American politics have helped him win fans from the more nationalistic corners of Chinese social media. In China, a strain of Islamophobia has emerged in response to both terror attacks abroad and outrage at Chinese affirmative-action policies that favor Muslim students in the scoring of the gaokao, the standardized college entrance exam. “ Many Chinese share Trump’s anti-Muslim and anti- political-correctness sentiment,” says Fang, who has followed Trump-related discussions on Zhihu, China’s Quora equivalent. One particularly popular Zhihu post in support of Trump’s policy to ban Muslims from entering the United States reads, “A Western civilization dominated by political correctness is […] doomed to die.” The post received almost 10,000 upvotes.

--- AT: Warming --- GOP solves

GOP President will tackle warming. Neuhauser 15. [Alan, energy, environment and STEM reporter, "The Climate Change Election" US N ews and World Report -- www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/08/14/the-2016-election-is-critical-for-stopping-climate-change]

And there are conservative solutions for warming. Some party members, in fact, see it as an inherently Republican issue: Carbon emissions, for example, distort the free market, forcing others to pay the higher and indirect costs of climate change (storm recovery, disaster relief) plus the health costs associated with air pollution. "We allow the coal industry to socialize its costs, and we conservatives don't like allowing people to socialize anything," says former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis, who now explores free-market solutions to climate change as head of the Energy and Enterprise Institute at George Mason University. A revenue-neutral carbon tax, one that does not support other programs and instead goes back to households, could fix that distortion, he and others argue. "The question is not, 'Is there going to be a tax on carbon?' It's, 'Do you want a tax that you have a voice in and control, or do you want to keep writing checks after disasters that you have no control over?'" says retired Rear Admiral David Titley, who has advised some of the GOP presidential candidates and directs the Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk at Penn State University. "That $60 billion relief bill for Hurricane Sandy that passed very quickly through a Republican-led House, did you get a vote on that tax? Because that's a tax." Yet Inglis, himself is a living example of what can happen to conservatives who call for climate action. The recipient of the JFK Profile in Courage Award in April, he was unseated in the Republican primary in 2010 after shifting his position on global warming. "Republicans say, 'Look at what happened to him when he said it was real. Do you want that to happen to you?'" Hayhoe describes. Oil, gas and coal companies, along with billionaire Libertarian industrialists David and Charles Koch, rank among the biggest campaign donors, and often seem as allergic to new taxes as a bubble boy to fresh pollen. But popular sentiment among voters appears to be changing: Most Republican voters say they support climate action, and last week, Shell did not renew its membership in the Koch-backed American Legislative Exchange Council because of the group's opposition to climate action. Even the climate statements by the eight Republicans who have hedged on warming, vague as they were, may signify a kind of progress – especially during the primaries , when candidates play to their parties' more extreme bases. [MORE: Hillary Clinton's Solar Pledge: 'Ambitious but Realistic,' Experts Say] "In the Great Recession in 2010, it was this very atheistic position with regard to climate change: 'We don't believe,'" Inglis says. "Then, in the 2014 cycle, 'I'm not a scientist,' that was an agnostic position. These are data points on a trend line toward a tipping point ." Republicans can exploit a distinct advantage on climate action, too, he adds: Voters tend to support the presidents who buck party stereotypes. "Nixon goes to China, Bill Clinton signs welfare reform – the country will trust a conservative to touch climate," Inglis argues. Thesis of their argument is wrong—republicans in congress are being backed by donors who are concerned about climate change—ensures that congress pushes for reform and that the party is changing DAVENPORT, 7/29 (CORAL, National Energy and Environmental Reporter, writes for the National Journal, JUNE 29, 2016, Conservative to Fund Republicans Who Back Climate Change Action,” The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/jay-faison- republicans-elections-climate-change.html?_r=0)

WASHINGTON — A self-described conservative North Carolina businessman has promised to spend at least $5 million through his political action committee to back five Republican congressional candidates who have supported taking action to curb climate change. Even as his party’s presumptive presidential nominee denies the existence of global warming, the businessman, Jay Faison, and his ClearPath Action Fund will spend at least $2 million on digital media campaigns to defend Senate incumbents running in two of the tightest races in the country, Rob Portman in Ohio and Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire, a recognition of the senators’ support for clean energy, Mr. Faison said Wednesday. The advertisements are expected to start running this week. ClearPath is also spending several hundred thousand dollars on digital advertising campaigns to support Representatives Carlos Curbelo of Florida and Tom Reed and Elise Stefanik of New York, all Republicans running for re-election in similarly tight races. “What we’re trying to do is prove to the party, through these races, that clean energy wins races, to build a political safe space for the Republican Party to talk about this,” Mr. Faison said in an interview. “It is difficult for a politician to consistently act in an area with no reward. We have their back.” He added, “We’re also making that case to the Trump campaign.” The spending comes as Republican leaders have questioned or denied the established science of human- caused climate change and attacked President Obama’s climate change policies. Donald J. Trump, the presumptive nominee, has mocked climate science and vowed to cancel the Paris Agreement, the 2015 global accord committing nearly every country on earth to taking action to fight climate change. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, calls Mr. Obama’s climate policies a “war on coal.” But some Republican members of Congress who hope to carve out careers that could outlast Mr. Trump’s have begun to quietly consider how to address climate change, which they believe resonates with a growing segment of voters, particularly young people. Political strategists are paying attention to polls that show Americans expressing record- or near-record-high belief that global warming is happening. A March Gallup poll found that 64 percent of American adults worry “a great deal” or “a fair amount” about global warming, the highest number since 2008, and it found that a record 65 percent of Americans attribute global warming to human activity. However, most polls asking voters to rank the importance of issues find that environmental concerns trail far behind concerns about jobs and the economy. Still, in many campaigns, Democrats are attacking Republicans as climate deniers. Some moderate Republicans hope to use their views on climate change to draw a contrast with Mr. Trump. “All of them need to demonstrate a level of independence from the national party in order to survive,” said Nathan Gonzales, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report, speaking of the five lawmakers backed by Mr. Faison’s group. “They’ll need to declare independence from Donald Trump.” In 2015, Ms. Ayotte broke with her party to vote against a measure written by Mr. McConnell that would have blocked Mr. Obama’s climate change rules. She also voted for a program to establish grants to schools for climate change education, against a proposal to block the Obama administration from signing on to the Paris climate change accord, and in favor of a federal fund to respond to the threat of climate change. Mr. Portman voted with his party on most of those measures, but also voted in favor of the fund to respond to climate threats. He has worked for years with Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire, on a bill to improve energy efficiency in buildings. He is a former board member of the Nature Conservancy and is a co-author of legislation to support cleanup of the Great Lakes. The three House members backed by Mr. Faison’s group are among just 13 Republicans who have signed on to a resolution, offered by Representative Chris Gibson, Republican of New York. “The resolution was a vehicle to find out which Republicans were willing to step up and take some action,” said Steve Valk, a spokesman for Citizen’s Climate Lobby. But while those five Republicans’ environmental records stand out from many in their party, they have voted more times against environmental regulations than in favor. The League of Conservation Voters, which tracks lawmakers’ environmental records on a scale of 1 to 100, have given lifetime scores to Ms. Ayotte of 35 percent, Mr. Portman of 20 percent, Mr. Curbelo of 23 percent, Mr. Reed of 6 percent and Ms. Stefanik of 9 percent. “To give House Republicans like Elise Stefanik, Tom Reed or Carlos Curbelo credit for acknowledging that climate change is real is a very low bar,” said Meredith Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. In Miami, Mr. Curbelo’s opponent, Annette Tadeo, a Democrat, has slammed his climate positions as hypocritical. “Big oil and gas lobbyists have been filling his campaign coffers with thousands of dollars in cash, in exchange for his advocacy for offshore drilling,” she said in a statement. In Ohio, Mr. Portman is fighting to keep his seat against a former governor, Ted Strickland, who notes his support of Mr. Obama’s climate plan and slams Mr. Portman for voting against it. In upstate New York, a local newspaper, The Post-Star, noted that Ms. Stefanik’s support for the climate change resolution was paired with votes against Mr. Obama’s climate change plan. “We were especially interested in how she could acknowledge climate change in one stand, yet vote to delay implementation of the Clean Power Plan (new standards for coal-burning power plants), especially while representing a region that was devastated by acid rain from those plants in the Midwest,” the paper’s editorial board wrote. Some political observers have drawn comparisons between Mr. Faison and Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist and Democratic donor whose political action committee, NextGen Climate Action, has spent heavily to push candidates who champion climate change issues. Mr. Steyer emerged as the single biggest political donor of the 2014 cycle, spending $74 million to influence voters, far more than the $5 million pledged by Mr. Faison’s group. Mr. Steyer, whose group has already laid out plans to spend at least $25 million in 2016, disavowed the comparison to Mr. Faison. “From what we can tell by the people he is supporting, he is grading Republicans on the curve,” Mr. Steyer said in an interview. “We have fairly objective standards for grading people, and none of the them come close to meeting our standards.” Mr. Steyer said his group planned to support the Democratic Senate candidates in Ohio and New Hampshire. And while the ads run by Mr. Faison’s group note the candidates’ support of clean energy, showing lush green fields and sparkling blue skies, they never explicitly mention the term climate change. Mr. Faison acknowledges that while he supports Republicans who have supported climate change policy, it is still too politically divisive to actually use the phrase. “Climate change is a divisive term on the Hill and it’s a divisive term among the electorate,” said Mr. Faison. “But ‘clean energy’ tells a voter you care about the environment, and deflects attacks about climate change.” No Paris Reversal

Trump can’t unilaterally roll back the Paris deal – requires international negotiation and takes too long Twidale 16 – (Susanna Twidale is a journalist and writer for Reuters; cites Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; 5/26/16, “Trump Unlikely to Be Able to Renegotiate Climate Deal, U.N. Official Says,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-unlikely-to-be-able-to-renegotiate-climate- deal-u-n-official-says/, Accessed 7/9/16, HWilson)

Donald Trump would be "highly unlikely" to be able to renegotiate the global accord on climate change if elected U.S. president, the U.N.'s climate chief said on Wednesday, as doing so would require the agreement of 195 countries.

Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, told Reuters earlier this month he was "not a big fan" of the climate accord and would seek to renegotiate elements of the deal.

"As we all know, Donald Trump relishes making very dramatic statements on many issues , so it is not surprising, but it is highly unlikely that that would be possible," Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U nited N ations F ramework C onvention on C limate Change, told journalists at the Carbon Expo event in Cologne.

The accord, struck in Paris last December, saw countries agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 with the aim of limiting the rise in the global average temperature to less than 2 degrees Celsius.

" An agreement that has been adopted by 195 countries would require 195 countries to agree to any new negotiation," she said.

She added the current U.S. administration was a strong supporter of the deal because it benefits the country.

Many of the accord's backers say it is in U.S. interests to limit greenhouse gas emissions, partly because cuts in the use of fossil fuels would also mean less air pollution, a big cause of disease.

Trump has said in the past he believes global warming is a concept that was invented by China to hurt the competitiveness of U.S. business.

The Paris Agreement will formally enter into force when 55 nations representing at least 55 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions have ratified it. China and the United States, representing 38 percent, say they will join this year.

Figueres said if this happens the agreement could come into force as early as 2017. It would then be even harder for the U.S. to pull out, as rules state any nation wanting to leave has to wait four years from the date of the agreement's entry into force - the length of a U.S. presidential term. Other countries check Stern, 5/31

Todd, the U.S. special envoy for climate change from 2009 until April 2016, 2016 (“Trump is wrong on the Paris climate agreement. I know because I negotiated it,” The Washington Post, May 31, 2016, Accessible online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is- wrong-on-the-paris-climate-agreement-i-know-because-i-negotiated-it/2016/05/31/ce3a680a- 2667-11e6-ae4a-3cdd5fe74204_story.html, Accessed on: 7/20/16, DSF)

Donald Trump vows that once in office, he’s “going to cancel the Paris climate agreement,” which, he asserts, “gives foreign bureaucrats control over how much energy we use right here in America.”

That’s not especially surprising coming from Trump, who has said he is “not a great believer in man-made climate change.” But this particular promise caught my attention, since I led the U.S. negotiating team in Paris and in the seven years leading up to that agreement.

Let’s take a look at Trump’s position on the Paris Agreement, the first genuinely global, durable diplomatic response to the threat — and yes, it’s a real one — posed by climate change.

The bit about “foreign bureaucrats” controlling our energy use is ludicrous. Under the Paris Agreement, no foreigner, from bureaucrat to king, gains an iota of control over U.S. decisions about how much energy we use or, indeed, what our overall energy or climate policy is.

Rather, every country develops its own plan for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. No country can tell another what it must do. This “nationally determined” structure was exactly what the United States advocated. And some 190 countries, including all the big ones, have submitted plans.

All countries are covered by a strong transparency system for regularly reporting and being reviewed on their emissions inventories and the progress they are making toward targets. But again, these targets are a matter for the countries themselves to determine.

Indeed, the Paris Agreement ought to be embraced not only by those who seek strong action on climate change but also by all those who traditionally opposed climate agreements because China and other emerging economies seemed to get off scot-free. Rather than excuse these less developed countries, the Paris Agreement adopts a flexible means of differentiating among countries, keyed to their capabilities.

But suppose Trump disagrees and wants to keep his promise to “cancel” the Paris Agreement. For starters, he couldn’t do that even if he were foolish enough to try. Leaders of more than 190 nations endorsed the agreement. The United States has no power to cancel it. This isn’t reality TV. You can’t tell sovereign leaders around the world “you’re fired,” and you can’t tell them a multilateral agreement they just entered is canceled. No Warming Impact Long timeframe for warming impacts and adaptation solves Mendelsohn 9 (Robert, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online: http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf)

The heart of the debate about climate change comes from a number of warnings from scientists and others that give the impression that human-induced climate change is an immediate threat to society (IPCC 2007a,b; Stern 2006). Millions of people might be vulnerable to health effects (IPCC 2007b), crop production might fall in the low latitudes (IPCC 2007b), water supplies might dwindle (IPCC 2007b), precipitation might fall in arid regions (IPCC 2007b), extreme events will grow exponentially (Stern 2006), and between 20–30 percent of species will risk extinction (IPCC 2007b). Even worse, there may be catastrophic events such as the melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets causing severe sea level rise, which would inundate hundreds of millions of people (Dasgupta et al. 2009). Proponents argue there is no time to waste. Unless greenhouse gases are cut dramatically today, economic growth and well‐being may be at risk (Stern 2006). These s tatements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold and many of these “potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and

dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long ‐ range climate risks. What is needed are long‐run

balanced responses. Warming doesn’t cause extinction – no consensus for catastrophic scenarios Kopits et al 14 -- National Center for Environmental Economics, US Environmental Protection Agency; Alex Marten, Ann Wolverton (Elizabeth, 9/1/2014, "Incorporating ‘catastrophic’ climate change into policy analysis," Climate Policy 14(5), Galileo) It is common within the academic and public discourse on climate change for the term ‘ catastrophe’ to be invoked when describing possible outcomes of a changing climate and in justifying particular responses to the problem. It has been suggested that the potential for abrupt, large-scale ‘catastrophic impacts’ due to climate change is the most important aspect for determining the optimal level of response (Pindyck & Wang, 2012; Weitzman, 2009) and that ‘the economic case for a stringent GHG abatement policy, if it is to be made at all, must be based on the possibility of a catastrophic outcome’ (Pindyck, 2012). Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that analyses of GHG mitigation benefits are often criticized for failing to adequately capture catastrophic impacts (e.g. National Academy of Sciences, 2010; Tol, 2009). However, despite the seeming importance of such potential climate change-related events, there has been little progress in defensibly integrating catastrophic impacts into analyses of the benefits of climate policy. One obstacle that has impeded progress on this front is the inconsistent and sometimes nebulous way in which the expression ‘catastrophic impacts’ has been used (Hulme, 2003). The term often refers to any climate-induced impact that exhibits one or more characteristics: relatively sudden occurrence, irreversible transition to a new state after crossing a threshold, and relatively large physical or welfare impacts. In addition, some researchers consider catastrophic impacts to necessarily result from low-probability events. For this reason the types of impacts covered under the catastrophic label are often numerous and heterogeneous, everything from dieback of Amazon rainforests over the coming decades to the potential massive release of methane emissions from the sea floor over the next thousand years (Lenton et al., 2008). Some have even argued for establishing a global threshold for climate change, below which there is negligible risk of violating ‘planetary boundaries’ that ‘define the safe operating space for humanity’ ... [and] avoid crossing threshold levels of key variables ‘with deleterious or potentially even disastrous consequences for humans’ scales’ (Rockstrom et al., 2009, p. 472).1 In public discourse, catastrophic impacts are often invoked as a seemingly monolithic occurrence,2 a tendency that is also often present in economic analyses of such events. By assuming uniformity , researchers have severely limited their ability to substantively inform policy discussions. This tendency may arise from an absence of literature that summarizes significant differences between potential large-scale climate events and what that means for incorporating them into economic analysis. In addition, many economic modelling efforts fall substantially short in incorporating scientific evidence regarding the causes, likelihood, and potential physical impacts of such climate change-induced events. While one expects a natural lag in the incorporation of new scientific findings into economic models, this shortcoming appears to stem more from fundamental differences between disciplines as to what constitutes relatively rapid or large changes (the scientific literature does not even use the term catastrophe, instead relying on the phrase ‘abrupt climate change’) and the appropriate end points to measure in policy analysis. Both of these concerns have been observed by natural scientists (e.g. Hulme, 2003), and calls are increasing across the scientific community for more research on welfare impacts, with better links to the scientific evidence on how physical processes are likely to unfold (e.g. Lenton, 2011; Lenton & Ciscar, 2013). Clinton doesn’t solve Climate change won’t influence voters—means that Clinton won’t push for any sort of reforms while in office—also means that green tech and policies are not a priority for investors or congress Noon, 2/27 (Marita, The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc., and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column, February 27, 2016, “NOBODY CARES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE 2016 ELECTION,” the Conservative Review, https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/nobody-cares-about-climate- change-in-the-2016-election)

Frustrated that nobody seems to care about climate change, “the country’s biggest individual political donor during the 2014 election cycle,” has pledged even more in 2016. Tom Steyer spent nearly $75 million in the 2014 midterms, reports Politico. He intends to “open his wallet even wider” now. But just what do his millions get him in this “crucial election”? Based on history, not much. In 2014, his NextGen Climate Action group specifically targeted seven races. Only three went his way — to Democrats. In Iowa, the group “invested in billboards and television and radio, newspaper and web ads,” to target Republicans and “agitate for more conversation about the topic in debates.” According to Politico, NextGen “attempted to convince Iowans to caucus for a candidate based on that candidate’s energy plan.” They “identified over 42,000 voters in the state who tapped climate change as a voting priority”…“over 1,500 were registered Republicans.” With 357,983 people participating the Iowa caucus, Steyer’s efforts reflect just 11.7 percent of voters and less than 1 percent of Republicans. Steyer’s millions were spent trying to get people to vote based on “energy plans.” Only one candidate’s energy policy got any real media coverage: Ted Cruz’s opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard, also known as the ethanol mandate. He won the Republican caucus, ahead of Donald Trump who pandered to the powerful lobbying group: America’s Renewable Future. (Since then, Archer Daniels Midland, the biggest proponent and producer of ethanol, may be scaling back, which according to the Financial Times, “suggests the reality for this industry has changed.”) Perhaps Steyer needs to realize his reality has changed. On February 11, Politico released survey results from “a bipartisan panel of respondents” who it claims are “Republican and Democratic insiders”…“activists, strategists and operatives in the four early nominating states” who answered the questions anonymously. The results? As one Republican respondent from South Carolina (SC) put it: “Climate change is simply not a front burner issue to most people.” A Nevada Democrat agreed: “I don’t believe this is a critical issue for many voters when compared to the economy and national security.” One SC Republican said that no “blue-collar swing voter” ever said: “I really like their jobs plan, but, boy, I don’t know about their position on climate change.” Over all, the Republicans don’t think that opposing public policy to address the perceived threats of climate change will hurt their candidates. The topic never came up in the recent SC Republican debate. Steyer sees that on the issue of climate change, “the two parties could not be further apart.” However, the “insider” survey found that Democrats were split on the issue. When asked if “disputing the notion of manmade climate change would be damaging in the general election,” some thought it would, but others “thought climate change isn’t a major issue for voters.” One SC Democrat pointed out: “the glut of cheap energy sources makes green technology less of an immediate priority for Congress, investors and the voting public.” When it comes to energy, there are clearly differences between the parties, but strangely both agree that climate change isn’t “a major issue for voters.” While we are far from the days, of “drill, baby drill,” when asked about increasing production, Republicans see that their pro-development policies are unaffected by “price fluctuations.” A SC Republican stated: “Most Republicans view this issue through a national security lens. Low prices might diminish the intensity, but GOP voters will still want America to be energy independent regardless of oil prices.” On February 12, Politico held a gathering called “Caucus Energy South Carolina” that featured several of the SC “insiders” among whom the host said are “influential voices,” who offer “keen insight into what’s going on on the ground.” There, Mike McKenna, who has consulted a wide variety of political and corporate clients with respect to government relations, opinion research, marketing, message development and communications strategies, and who has served as an external relations specialist at the U.S. Department of Energy, declared: “Energy is a second tier issue. Climate change is fifth tier. Nobody cares about it. It is always at the bottom.” The climate change agenda has been the most expensive and extensive public relations campaign in the history of the world. Gallup has been polling on this issue for 25 years. Despite the herculean effort, fewer people are worried about climate change today than 25 years ago. Pew Research Center has repeatedly found that when given a list of concerns regarding the public’s policy priorities, respondents put jobs and economy at the top of the list, with climate change at the bottom. Polling done just before the UN climate conference in Paris, found that only 3% of Americans believe that climate change is the most important issue facing America. Even Democrat Jane Kleeb, an outspoken opponent of the Keystone pipeline, acknowledged that climate change, as an issue, doesn’t move people to act. David Wilkins, a former U.S. Ambassador to Canada who has worked on issues such as energy, national security, and the environment, said that voters are “not going to let the environment trump the economy.” He believes there will be a reapplication for the Keystone pipeline and that eventually it will be built. Another insider, Democrat Inez Tenenbaum, disagreed, saying: “people don’t want to be energy dependent.” To which Wilkins quipped: “All the more reason to get oil from our friends.” When it comes to energy, there are clearly differences between the parties, but strangely both agree that climate change isn’t “a major issue for voters.” No Impact: Paris Fails

Paris fails – cuts too small and non-binding. Lomborg 16. (Bjorn, directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center, "The Paris climate deal won’t even dent global warming" New York Post – February 22 -- http://nypost.com/2016/02/22/the- paris-climate-deal-wont-even-dent-global-warming/)

**edited for ableist language**

Two months after the Paris climate-treaty negotiations concluded with fanfare, the world is figuring out it was sold a lemon. In December, global leaders patted each other on the back and declared a job well done. The treaty will come into force later this year after it has been signed by representatives of at least 55 nations representing 55 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. This will provide “a turning point for the world,” according to President Obama. “Our children and grandchildren will see that we did our duty,” says UK Prime Minister David Cameron. Climate activists have been quick to declare success. This marks “the end of the era of fossil fuels,” said activist group 350.org. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, called the Paris agreement a “diplomatic triumph.” A diplomatic triumph? More like a p.r. coup. The Paris Treaty is rich in rhetoric, but it’ll make little change in actual temperature rises. Increasingly, that fact is being recognized, even by some of the biggest proponents of climate action. Jim Hansen , a former NASA scientist and advisor to Al Gore who was the first to put global warming on the public radar in 1988, wasn’t fooled. “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he said in December. “ It’s just worthless words.” And this month, 11 climate scientists signed a declaration stating that the Paris treaty is crippled hindered by “deadly flaws.” The problem with the deal is simple, and was obvious from before it was even signed. The Paris agreement talks a big game. It doesn’t just commit to capping the global temperature increase at the much-discussed level of 2°C above pre-industrial levels. It says that leaders commit to keeping the increase “well below 2°C,” with an effort to cap it at 1.5°C. But this is all talk. My own peer-reviewed research, published in the journal Global Policy, shows that all of the treaty’s 2016-2030 promises on cutting carbon-dioxide emissions will reduce temperatures by the year 2100 by just 0.05°C. Even if the promised emissions cuts continued unabated throughout the century, the Paris agreement would cut global temperature increases by just 0.17°C. Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reach a similar conclusion. And that’s assuming countries actually live up to their promises: The treaty’s nonbinding. This is reminiscent of another non-binding pact also signed in Paris. The Kellogg-Briand Pact was drafted in 1928 and signatories included the United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany, Japan and Italy. Leaders agreed to outlaw war. The treaty scored its architect, Secretary of State Frank Kellogg, a Nobel Peace Prize. But after barely a decade, global war broke out. By the United Nations’ own reckoning, the treaty will only achieve less than 1 percent of the emission cuts needed to meet target temperatures. So instead, signatories point to the fact that beginning in 2020, countries will be asked to lay out more ambitious targets every five years. In other words, 99 percent of the problem is left for tomorrow’s leaders to deal with. Paris won’t solve global warming. What will? In the Copenhagen Consensus on Climate project, 28 climate economists and a panel of experts including three Nobel laureates found that the best long-term climate strategy is to dramatically increase investment in green R&D, with every dollar spent on green R&D avoiding 100 times more climate change than money spent on inefficient wind and solar. For 20 years, we’ve insisted on trying to solve climate change by mainly supporting solar and wind power. This approach puts the cart in front of the horse: Green technologies aren’t competitive yet. Instead of production subsidies, governments should focus on making renewable energy cheaper and competitive through research and development. Drive down prices through innovation, and everyone will switch. And we need to acknowledge that much-maligned fracking must be a part of our shorter-term solution to climate change. Natural gas is far more environmentally friendly than coal. Gas emits less than half the CO2, and it emits much lower amounts of other pollutants. Though it doesn’t provide the ultimate answer to global warming, shale gas is greener than the alternatives. After the self-congratulatory party in Paris has come an awakening: This deal isn’t going to solve climate change. It’s time to focus on what will. --- AT: Iran Deal --- Trump Won’t Tank Iran Deal

Trump might modify the Iran deal but he won’t tank it. Neidig 6-9-16. [Harper, "Adviser: Trump could 'modify,' not throw out Iran deal" The HIll -- thehill.com/blogs/ballot- box/presidential-races/282843-adviser-says-trump-would-consult-congress-on-muslim-ban]

A foreign policy adviser to Donald Trump on Thursday said t he presumptive GOP presidential nominee might modify the controversial Iran nuclear deal rather than throw it out . “He is going to be revising, reviewing and maybe trying to modify the Iran deal,” Walid Phares told The Wall Street Journal. He added that Trump would be open to resubmitting an altered version of the agreement to Congress. Trump previously has ripped the Iran deal as “terrible.” The agreement lifted U.S. and international sanctions on Iran in return for concessions from that country on its nuclear program. President Obama has placed the Iran deal as a centerpiece of his foreign policy agenda, but it was opposed by Republicans and many Democrats. Phares also said Trump would consult with Congress and federal officials about issues such as imposing a ban on Muslims entering the United States. “His position which was strong — in terms of the ban — was based on the fact that the Obama administration — the Obama-Clinton administration — for the last seven to eight years was not able to equip us with systems by which we were able to identify the jihadists.” Phares also pushed back against attacks from presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who called Trump “temperamentally unfit” to be president and suggested that he would be prone to using nuclear weapons on a whim. “ I don’t see an unusual Trum p presidency as Madame Clinton is explaining where he’s going to go crazy and start pressing buttons right away,” he said. “ That’s not going to happen. We have a rational institution here.”

Trump won’t abandon the Iran deal – it’s bluster. Wilner 6-6-16. [Michael, "Greenblatt: "Many options," including renegotiation of Iran deal" Jerusalem Post -- www.jpost.com/Diaspora/No-Trump-plan-yet-to-prevent-a-nuclear-Iran-senior-aide-says-456085]

Republican nominee Donald Trump does not yet have a detailed plan for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran, but plans as president to strictly enforce an international deal that he hates designed for that purpose, one of his senior advisers told The Jerusalem Post last week. Trump “would definitely enforc e it [ the Iran deal] very strongly,” said Jason Greenblatt, the GOP candidate’s top adviser on Israel and Jewish- world issues, of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Trump, a New York real estate icon, has characterized the JCPOA as one of the worst deals he has ever seen. The candidate considers himself an exceptional “dealmaker”– a key tenet of his campaign for president. “[Texas Senator Ted] Cruz famously kept saying during the debates that he would rip it up on day one,” Greenblatt said of the deal. “It’s a lot more complicated than that.” While he would “police the hell” out of the agreement as president, Trump also does not believe the JCPOA will prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons – or a nuclear infrastructure large enough to constitute Iran as a nuclear-threshold state. What Trump would do to prevent Iran from acquiring this capability has not yet been determined, Greenblatt said. “It’s a little bit premature to get into the weeds at that level, but his ultimate goal is to try to ensure that Iran does not have nuclear weapons,” Greenblatt said, asked whether Trump would support renewing US sanctions laws or passing new sanctions targeting Iran in non-nuclear spheres. “How we get there – whether creatively, or renegotiating, there are so many options – is what his focus will be.” The Obama administration says the JCPOA is the best deal possible to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon – a deal that shuts down all of the country’s pathways to the bomb, governed by a strict verification regime. In exchange, international powers have relieved sanctions targeting Iran’s nuclear program, which will be allowed to grow over time for non-military purposes. Critics argue that the growth of that nuclear program will effectively turn Iran into a nuclear power – that its program will be allowed to grow legitimately to industrial strength, and that Tehran’s “breakout” time, should it choose to build a weapon, will ultimately reach no time at all. Greenblatt seemed to dismiss scrapping the deal in part because Iran has already received significant sanctions relief – billions of dollars have already been released, and businesses are already investing in the country, he noted. No Impact: Deal Doesn’t Solve

Deal doesn’t get rid of Iran’s nuclear program – only delays it. Marcus 15. [Jonathan, BBC diplomatic correspondent, "Iran nuclear deal: Time to celebrate a breakthrough?" BBC – 4-2 -- www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32172256]

This, it must be stressed, is not yet a complete deal. Difficult weeks of detailed drafting lie ahead. But it's a framework on which all parties are agreed. That in itself is an important outcome. Yet this is not a moment for euphoria. ∂ Nobody should be under any illusions that Iran has significantly changed its attitude towards its nuclear programme or its longer-term nuclear ambitions. ∂ Crisis delayed?∂ This agreement, if codified and implemented in full, will constrain Iran's nuclear programme for some 10 to 15 years. It appears to contain some new and important verification provisions to allow international inspectors greater oversight of what Iran is actually doing.∂ But the agreement falls far short of the initial western goal of rolling back Iran's nuc lear programme . This may be a question of a crisis delayed rather than averted. What it does is buy time - during which a lot can happen. ∂ If all goes well, the nuclear deal will reduce a key source of friction between Iran and the West.∂ World representatives at the end of talks in Switzerland∂ A deal seems to have suited all sides∂ There will still be many other areas of disagreement. Indeed, Iran remains the rising regional power and its influence in many Arab capitals ranging from Damascus and Baghdad to Beirut and Sana - let alone its human rights record and alleged support for terrorism - all suggest many other avenues for continuing tensions with Washington.∂ Negotiations have not been easy and they will only get harder. But a deal seems to have suited all sides.∂ Iran gets vital sanctions relief. Tehran's critics get significant constraints on its nuclear activities. And with so much else going on in this crisis-ridden region - the struggle against Islamic State in which the US and Iran are objectively on the same side and the fighting in Yemen where they are clearly not - means that taking the nuclear problem off the chess-board for a period of time is probably a helpful development.∂ Impressive detail∂ What was expected from these talks was a fairly bland announcement that a framework agreement had been reached. In contrast the US State Department has been quick to publish a lengthy list of what it calls the "Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" regarding Iran's nuclear programme.∂ They make interesting reading and represent a clear effort to sell the deal to a sceptical Congress. Too much detail though may make it harder for Iranian diplomats to sell the deal at home in the face of scepticism from political hard-liners. On the face of it Iran has made some significant concessions.∂ Iran will be allowed to have some 6,104 centrifuges installed out of its current 19,000 and only a little over 5,000 of them will actually be enriching uranium. All the working centrifuges are to be early, less advanced models. And everything else is to be stored under supervision of IAEA inspectors∂ Iran will reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium - the vital feedstock that would be needed to enrich further to get bomb-making material∂ There will be no enrichment at the underground Fordow site for some 15 years∂ Inspectors will have access not just to key nuclear facilities but to the supply chain supporting Iran's nuclear programme and to uranium mines and mills∂ Iran will be required to grant access to IAEA inspectors to investigate suspicious sites or suspected clandestine activities anywhere in the country∂ The heavy water reactor at Arak that many feared would provide Iran with a plutonium route to a potential bomb is to be re-built so as not to produce weapons grade plutonium.∂ Many of these constraints will be in place for 10 years and some will last for 15.∂ In return ∂ Ir an will see US and EU nuclear-related sanctions suspended, though no clear timetable has been given for exactly how this will proceed ∂ It will not actually have to close any nuclear facility altogether ∂ It emerges, once the restrictions expire, with the basis for a significant nuclear industry.∂ Nonetheless, the level of detail is impressive and appears to have convinced nuclear experts that it does indeed provide the year-long warning of a potential Iranian break-out that has been the diplomats' goal. That is seen as sufficient time for any Iranian effort to throw aside the deal and push towards enriching sufficient material for a bomb to be quickly spotted and action taken.∂ File photo of heavy water plant at Arak, Iran, 2006∂ A heavy water reactor at Arak is to be rebuilt, according to details published by the US∂ Strong verification provisions, along with continued intelligence efforts should also be sufficient to prevent an Iranian "sneak-out" - a clandestine effort to do the same thing.∂ This may not convince many of the critics. An Israeli government spokesman described any agreement stemming from this framework as "a historic mistake". Huge questions remain. How will any Iranian infringements be responded to? Can sanctions once suspended really be re-imposed? And what level of transgression is required to provoke this?∂ But if it all works then Iran too only gains. It retains a significant nuclear infrastructure which it can expand once the agreement expires. And it gets vital relief from sanctions that have crippled its economy.∂ For now this could be a diplomatic win-win. But it is not a resolution to the fundamental questions posed by Iran's nuclear programme which relate as much to its foreign policy and military ambitions as to its proclaimed desire for nuclear power. AT: Iran Proliferation Impact Deal can’t solve prolif CNN, 11-11-2013 http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/opinion/frum-iran-deal/

1) Iran remains intensely committed to achieving a nuclear weapon.¶ Iran's new president, Hassan Rouhani, promised his countrymen relief from international sanctions. Since coming into office this summer, he has made various conciliatory noises. Was he readying Iran for a real deal?¶ Iran's red line at Geneva, the thing it would not trade away, was a capacity to continue and resume nuclear bomb development at any time. Iran's offer at Geneva amounted to a six-month delay of its nuclear program that will not in any way impair its ability to get back to bomb-making at any time.¶ Iran won't neutralize or surrender any of its fissile material; that is, material used to fuel reactors—or nuclear bombs. It won't disable any of its nuclear facilities. It will only pause. Economists use the phrase "revealed preference" to describe the way in which our actions indicate our priorities. Iran's priority remains gaining a weapon ; post-Geneva, there can be no doubt about that. No prolif Kahl, 12 (Colin H. Kahl – Associate Professor in the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service and Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security, March/April, “Not Time to Attack Iran: Why War Should Be a Last Resort”, Foreign Affairs, ProQuest)

Bad timing

Kroenig argues that there is an urgent need to attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure soon, since Tehran could "produce its first nuclear weapon within six months of deciding to do so." Yet that last phrase is crucial. The International Atomic Energy Agency (iaea) has documented Iranian efforts to achieve the capacity to develop nuclear weapons at some point, but there is no hard evidence that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has yet made the final decision to develop them.

In arguing for a six-month horizon, Kroenig also misleadingly conflates hypothetical timelines to produce weaponsgrade uranium with the time actually required to construct a bomb. According to 2010 Senate testimony by James Cartwright, then vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staa, and recent statements by the former heads of Israel's national intelligence and defense intelligence agencies, even if Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a bomb in six months, it would take it at least a year to produce a testable nuclear device and considerably longer to make a deliverable weapon. And David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (and the source of Kroenig's six-month estimate), recently told Agence France-Presse that there is a "low probability" that the Iranians would actually develop a bomb over the next year even if they had the capability to do so. Because there is no evidence that Iran has built additional covert enrichment plants since the Natanz and Qom sites were outed in 2002 and 2009, respectively, any near-term move by Tehran to produce weapons-grade uranium would have to rely on its declared facilities. The iaea would thus detect such activity with su/cient time for the international community to mount a forceful response. As a result, the Iranians are unlikely to commit to building nuclear weapons until they can do so much more quickly or out of sight, which could be years oa.

Kroenig is also inconsistent about the timetable for an attack. In some places, he suggests that strikes should begin now, whereas in others, he argues that the United States should attack only if Iran takes certain actions-such as expelling iaea inspectors, beginning the enrichment of weapons-grade uranium, or installing large numbers of advanced centrifuges, any one of which would signal that it had decided to build a bomb. Kroenig is likely right that these developments-and perhaps others, such as the discovery of new covert enrichment sites-would create a decision point for the use of force. But the Iranians have not taken these steps yet, and as Kroenig acknowledges, " Washington has a very good chance " of detecting them if they do. AT: Iran Relations/Mid East Stability Impact

Deal doesn’t solve stability or relations. Randolph 15. [Eric, AFP reporter, “Even full deal with Iran could fail to stabilise Mideast: analysts” Yahoo News – April 3 -- http://news.yahoo.com/even-full-deal-iran-could-fail-stabilise-mideast-223412754.html]

Negotiators hope a nuclear deal will bring Iran back into the diplomatic fold, but experts are divided on whether it will douse the many fires of the Middle East. Iran and six world powers agreed Thursday on the outline of a potentially historic deal to curtail its nuclear programme in return for the lifting of economic sanctions on the Islamic republic.¶ Even while struggling under sanctions and in diplomatic isolation, Iran's influence has been on the rise and it is deeply involved across the region.¶ On top of its long-standing ties to the Syrian regime and Hezbollah militants in Lebanon, it has been leading the fight against the Islamic State group in Iraq and is the chief backer of the surging Huthi rebellion in Yemen.¶ When negotiations over Iran's nuclear programme began in 2013, there were hopes a deal could pave the way for greater cooperation on these security issues, but some analysts say the moment may have passed .¶ "Things have changed so much in the last few months, even weeks. The nuclear issue used to be the paramount issue in the region, but the security debate has moved on," said David Hartwell, managing director of Middle East Insider magazine based in London. ¶ Some still hope the agreement will encourage Iran and its Middle Eastern rivals to sit down together.¶ "Up to now Iran intervenes without being asked in regional issues and that leads to war. An agreement means Iran must start playing a more diplomatic game," said Bernard Hourcade, of the National Centre for Scientific Research in Paris.¶ Hasni Abidi, director of the Geneva-based Study and Research Centre for the Arab and Mediterranean World, said one possible result of sanctions being dropped is that Iran will become more interventionist using weapons bought with the funds released from unfrozen accounts.¶ "On the other hand, will the international recognition make it less aggressive, will it make Iran drop its pressure (on its regional rivals)?," Abidi said.¶ UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Thursday the nuclear deal "will contribute to peace and stability in the region".¶ But the last week has seen Iran's chief rival Saudi Arabia set up a 10-country Arab military coalition to check the Iran-backed Huthis in Yemen, launching air strikes across the country.¶ Many fear the region is on the verge of full-blown war rather than reconciliation, with the leading powers unlikely to cooperate even on areas of common interest.¶ " There is precious little evidence that the Saudis or anyone else is happy with Iran's involvement in the fight against (the Islamic State group), or willing to cooperate with Iran on anything at all," said Hartwell. ---Offense— Trump Good — Russia Relations A Trump presidency repairs Russia relations Byrnes 16 — Sholto Byrnes, senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia, 2016 (“Why Donald Trump as president might not be all that bad,” The National, March 15th, available online at http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/why-donald- trump-as-president-might-not-be-all-that-bad#full, accessed 7/21/16) JL

One-page article What if the next U nited S tates president were to take a radically different approach to America’s place internationally ? What if he condemned the invasion of Iraq and the US and European-led intervention in Libya , stated that “frankly there is no Iraq and no Libya. It’s all broken up" and declared “we can’t continue to be the world’s police"? An American president who deliberately held back from such well-meant but ultimately disastrous attempts to remake countries in the image of the West could save hundreds of thousands of lives. Then imagine a “leader of the free world" who also refused to continue the US tradition of reflexively supporting any Israeli administration, however recalcitrant, saying instead that he would seek a peace settlement between Israel and Palestine but would act as a “neutral guy" – a shockingly novel, but welcome, proposition. Imagine if this same leader paid Vladimir Putin the respect he craves, built a personal rapport with him, and managed to forge a new detente with Russia . The benefits of cooperation between the two powers would be felt almost immediately in Syria, in Ukraine and in the former Soviet satellite states where military and diplomatic escalation have led to talk of a new Cold War. Add to the equation an occupant of the White House so unencumbered by ideological baggage , and sufficiently skilled in the art of negotiating , that he helped bridge the partisan chasms in Congress and actually govern – and all in all, you would have a US president that millions would be glad to see elected, and who could make great contributions to global stability and tackling previously intractable problems at home. There is such a candidate. The problem comes when I mention his name. For I refer , of course, to Donald Trump. Given his consistent topping of opinion polls for the Republican presidential nomination, his victories so far, and his lead in the delegate count, it is no longer sufficient to stand back, slack-jawed with astonishment, while maintaining that “it couldn’t happen". For it clearly could. “The Donald" seems set to be the Republican candidate. Combine Hillary Clinton’s many weaknesses with Mr Trump’s appeal to lower- and middle-income Americans who feel ignored and excluded by the Washington establishment, and his winning the presidency itself cannot be ruled out. Mr Trump has said many outrageous things. From his call to ban all Muslims from entering the United States “until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on", to his characterisation of many Mexican immigrants as rapists, he has expanded the lexicon of what is considered sayable in mainstream politics – and not in a good way. His refusal to condemn support from the former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke, when first asked (he later blamed a bad earpiece, and did disavow him), was just one of the most recent examples that suggest his campaign plumbed depths of prejudice and ignorance that would have hitherto consigned his candidacy to the margins. But they haven’t. So it is time to take a Trump presidency seriously, to look beyond the rhetoric and ask what that would mean in practice. As Sean O’Grady put it in The Independent this week: “He is a man of extreme rhetoric and no policies. That is much more reassuring than a man with no rhetoric and extremist policies." His promises of success and his goals are mostly undefined, but where they are they suggest , as mentioned above, a foreign policy that might protect America and the world from foolish misadventure , reset the slavish devotion to Israel that causes the US so much harm in the world (and stands in the way of peace as well), and open the way to a new and better relationship with Russia . Clinton is comparatively worse for foreign policy—trump stabilizes Teheri 16 (Amir; jun 19 2k16; Iranian conservative writer and Chairman of Gatestone Institute; Enough with the hysteria over Trump’s foreign-policy plans; http://nypost.com/2016/06/19/enough-with-the-hysteria-over-trumps-foreign-policy-plans/ ) jskullz

Experience of the wrong kind can be worse than no experience at all. Consider Clinton’s résumé. Her Russian “reset” helped whet Vladimir Putin’s aggressive appetite, leading to the annexation of Crimea , the bullying in the Baltics and the formation of an anti-US axis with Tehran . Clinton also likes to claim parentage of the Iran nuclear deal — the biggest diplomatic swindle in modern times. A mistress of window dressing, Clinton also traveled to Burma to conjure a trompe l’oeil of democratization that consolidated the rule of the military with a thin civilian façade. The way the Obama administration dealt with the so-called “Arab Spring” and its consequences, and the tragic situation in Syria, reeks of failure at every turn. And Clinton was either an active participant or a silent partner through it all. What does Trump offer instead? To start with, Trump makes it clear that he wishes to de-Obamaize US foreign policy. He says he won’t go around the world apologizing to all and sundry for America’s alleged sins. Nor will he insist on flattering America’s Islamist enemies, as Obama did in his dishonest speeches in Istanbul and Cairo. Maybe because of his diplomatic inexperience, Trump states his objectives clearly where Obama conjures opacity. Obama says his aim is to “contain and degrade” the Islamic State. Trump says he wants “to utterly destroy ISIS.” Obama says he is trying to persuade, in fact meaning bribe, Iran to “moderate its behavior.” Trump regards that as a mirage and says “we will totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network.” For seven years Obama has said he was working with our “Chinese partners” to persuade North Korea to tone down its nuclear ambitions. In Syria, Obama has spent vast sums training and arming various rebel groups that, like the Afghan Mujahedeen of the 1980s, may end up as enemies of the United States. At the same time, Obama has called for regime change in Syria while rejecting the idea of creating safe havens to protect Syrian civilians from genocide. Trump says he will begin by finding out “what is really going on.” “We have no idea who our allies and enemies are,” he admits. Also, he won’t “train and arm rebels we don’t know and control .” He favors the creation of “safe havens” to allow displaced Syrians to stay inside their own land rather than defying death to reach Europe. Obama prefers to pay lip service to NATO while in fact hampering its development. Trump , however, calls for a critical review of the role and place of the alliance in the new international context. The Republican nominee also insists on equitable burden-sharing in the alliance, especially the commitment by all member-states to devote 2 percent of their annual GDP to defense . At present, however, only two of the 28 members, the United States and Great Britain, do so, although some members are richer, per head, than both . Trump also proposes a thorough review of commitments that the US has made to the defense of 66 nations across the globe. The issue merits closer attention. In many cases there’s no need for US involvement. In other cases, such involvement may produce more tension. Also, it makes little sense that the United States should pay rent for bases it has set up to protect allies richer than itself, such as the oil-rich Arab states of the Gulf, Germany, Japan and South Korea . To be sure, America isn’t a mercenary power. But a system of burden-sharing would make it easier to garner popular American support for such a leadership role. Few would disagree that Obama has done great damage to relations with many close allies, especially in the Middle East. “President Obama has treated Israel horribly,” Trump says. The same is true of Egypt and Turkey — not to mention Great Britain and France, whose leaders Obama has publicly insulted. Although portrayed as a jingoist, Trump says he supports normalization with Cuba provided the Cuban people get a better deal from their regime. He’s also on record that decisions by allies, notably Japan and South Korea, on their defense doctrines are primarily theirs and not Washington’s. Further, Trump insists that in crises affecting Europe, notably Ukraine, he would favor European allies, like Germany, taking the lead with full US support. Trump will be a centrist—Clinton worse for foreign policy Korobkov 7/20/16 (Andrei; july 20 2k16; professor of Political Science at Middle Tennessee State University. He graduated from Moscow State University and received a Ph. D. in Economics from the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow, Russia) and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Alabama. He has previously worked as a Research Fellow at the Institute of International Economic and Political Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow and taught at the University of Alabama; What would be the policies of a President Trump?;http://www.russia-direct.org/opinion/what-would-be-policies-president-trump ) jskullz

What can Americans, and the rest of the global community, expect from a President Clinton or a President Trump? There is no simple answer to this question, especially considering the fact that, if one ignores the candidates’ loud rhetoric, both of them are fairly centrist . Although it is not yet known how much Clinton will need to move to the left to accommodate supporters of her primary opponent, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, it is fairly clear that on domestic policy, she will continue much of the Obama agenda. It is obvious that she will continue Obama’s reforms of the health care system; she will also likely have to incorporate some of Sanders’s ideas in the areas of guaranteed minimum pay and the expansion of state sponsored social, educational, and health care benefits. Most probably, Clinton will attempt to push through some gun control measures. She will also try to formulate and implement her immigration policy concept — probably, the most controversial and politically explosive aspect of American politics right now. She will inevitably have to pay back various minority and special interests groups by expanding their privileges and making public statements in support of their rights. In the foreign policy arena, despite vast experience, Clinton has shown amazingly poor judgment, a stubborn adherence to the Cold War stereotypes and strong hawkish tendencies . On most issues, including policy towards Russia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East and Central America, Clinton stays way to the right of Trump and many moderate Republicans. A victory for Clinton will probably mean a significant worsening of U.S.-Russian relations . With regard to Trump, the main factors defining his policy at present are his absence of a political track record, unpredictability and spontaneity. This is not necessarily bad . Trump might introduce measures welcomed by the white majority but hated by various minority groups — such as limiting the scale of the Affirmative Action and other programs aimed at improving conditions for minorities. Regardless of Trump’s latest statements, he will probably try to retain (with some modifications) Obama’s health care system. Trump might also try to push through some tax reform. Trump’s core agenda will certainly involve immigration questions, particularly those related to Latinos and Muslims. Closely related to the items on his immigration agenda are his hawkish proposals in the area of homeland security, which might lead to the introduction of limitations on personal rights and freedoms. Other questionable aspects of his platform involve his preference for economic isolationism, particularly related to trade policy towards China. If any of the plans Trump has promoted on the campaign trail are actually introduced, they are likely to significantly worsen U.S. relations with the regions involved and create serious tensions with particular communities within the country. However, Trump’s statements in regard to many foreign policy issues show his unexpectedly weighted and clear judgment , in contrast to Clinton’s aggressive and dogmatic views. If any of his views on U.S. relations with Russia, NATO, Eastern Europe, and the Middle East lead to proposals that are implemented, they could significantly benefit both the United States and the international community. In general, a President Trump, not burdened by Cold War stereotypes, could bring positive change.

Trump Good — Gridlock Trump bridges gaps in Congress and gets policies done Byrnes 16 — Sholto Byrnes, senior fellow at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies in Malaysia, 2016 (“Why Donald Trump as president might not be all that bad,” The National, March 15th, available online at http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/why-donald- trump-as-president-might-not-be-all-that-bad#full, accessed 7/21/16) JL

His past – and some current – positions make it clear that the right-wing attack on him for not being a real conservative is quite justified. If, in fact, he has no sympathy for the Tea Party wing of the Republican party that shut down the federal government in 2013, that could only be good news. A President Trump might be far more willing to work with both Democrats and Republicans, for he prizes cutting deals and reaching achievements over maintaining the purity of an ideology that, if it exists, could be described as pragmatic populism at most. His approach in office, says a former long-time associate, the political operative Roger Stone, would be similar to the Eisenhower model. “He will gather the finest minds, he will ask hard questions and he’ll make decisions. He doesn’t need to know the name of every sub-sect of Islamic rebels in the African continent. He just needs to know the big picture. Like Ronald Reagan." The Reagan analogy is interesting, for while president he was widely caricatured as a showman with such an insufficient grasp of policy that he was constantly in danger of setting off a Third World War. In recent years, however, the Gipper has consistently topped polls for being the greatest president since the Second World War, or even in US history. He was also far less conservative than his putative heirs now like to make out. He was a pragmatic dealmaker, famously observing: “If I can get 70 or 80 per cent of what it is I’m trying to get … I’ll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future." Sound like someone we know? Mr Trump’s regrettable outbursts are bound to continue, and his election would, at least in part, represent a triumph of demagoguery over common sense and civility. But there are causes for optimism, too. It could, just, also lead to a more sensible, less hidebound politics, with benefits for both America and the world. And that would truly be, as Mr Trump is fond of saying, “so beautiful".

Trump key to unite a divided Congress and pass policies Dejevksy 16 — Mary Dejevksy, writer and diplomatic correspondent and editorial writer for the Independent, special correspondent in China, 2016 (“The truth about Donald Trump? Most of his ideas are sensible – and a Trump presidency wouldn’t be so bad,” The Independent, May 5th, available online at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/the-truth-about-donald-trump- most-of-his-ideas-are-sensible-and-a-trump-presidency-wouldn-t-be-so-a7015436.html, accessed 7/21/16) JL

But how bad - for the US, and the rest of us - would a Trump presidency really be ? Would it even be bad at all? Here is a look, albeit from a distance, on the bright side.

US presidential campaigns can be brutal affairs; the language, even the insults, may be vicious, but they belong in the context of battle. Trump may have overplayed his hand. He may already have lost some sections - especially of the women’s vote - already. But there is time, in the campaign proper, to try to woo some of them back. And while Trump has alienated elements of his party’s elite, he has done something few thought possible: united the grassroots and neutralised the Tea Party .

Some aspects of his policy that recur in European critiques barely cause a flicker in the US. One is his talk of building a wall along the border with Mexico - for the distinction here is not between a wall and nothing; it is between a wall and the 18-foot fence that already blocks at least one third of the border. Many Americans, especially those in the southern states, are all in favour. Employers may like illegal immigration, but what are its actual social benefits?

A central criticism is that Trump has no political experience. Indeed, he would be the first US president in that position since Dwight Eisenhower. Given the mistakes and misjudgements made in recent decades by some of the most seasoned US politicians to reach the White House, however, it can surely be argued that experience of elected office might at the very least be over-rated . With confidence in all politicians so dismal, and living standards in low-growth first- world economies stalling, someone with a different sort of experience, different methods and different ideas might just have some new answers .

Like it or not, Trump certainly has business acumen. Successful businesspeople also tend to choose staff and advisers well. Trump could turn out to be a far better deal-maker than Obama with Congress. And something similar could apply abroad. Whatever anyone says, Trump is not ignorant - of his own country or the world. He just knows different things, from a different perspective – one that is perhaps closer to that of many ordinary Americans today.

And while he may not have many well-developed policies – “fuzziness” is a word used by his critics - he has taken positions on a string of issues. On income tax, he would lower it for the rich, but abolish it for those on less than $25,000 a year. He is for the status quo on retirement benefits (social security). On the vexed question of health insurance, he wants more competition. On defence, he wants a bit more spending, but adamantly opposes military intervention abroad unless vital US interests are threatened. He says allies should pay their way and Nato is outdated. Not only does none of this sound outlandish, most of it chimes very well with the mid-point of American opinion . He is also more socially liberal and less extreme than his rivals and his reputation in some quarters would suggest .

Which, of course, might increase his appeal to those Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders - and make him more dangerous to Hillary Clinton. It is true that those who know about such things say the US electoral college system makes it nigh impossible for Clinton to lose the presidency, but the reliability or otherwise of opinion polling should caution against undue confidence.

It is also worth considering how much, for all his self-promotion, we do not yet know Donald Trump. A recent letter to the Financial Times cast him in a different light. A lawyer who had encountered him as a witness in court said this: “He testified in a calm and soft-spoken way that was lucid, intelligent and always precisely to the point. My abiding memory is of a very gifted and thoughtful man who had earned whatever success he had attained ... by his intelligence and acumen.” Stand by, then. We may see a very different Donald Trump in the months to come. It might even be a Trump we could imagine, if not supporting, then at least as someone we could do business with.

Trump good — cleans up corruption, unites Congress, and brings noninterventionist peace McClanahan 16 — Brion McClanahan, B.A. in History from Salisbury University in 1997 and an M.A. in History from the University of South Carolina in 1999 and a Ph.D. in History at the University of South Carolina in 2006, 2016 (“5 Reasons Why Trump Would be a Better President than You Thought,” Breitbart, March 25th, available online at http://www.breitbart.com/big- government/2016/03/07/5-reasons-why-trump-would-be-a-better-president-than-you- thought/, accessed 7/21/16) JL

Would President Trump be that bad? The establishment would have you thinking that.

Marco Rubio repeated the same platitudes and half-truths several times following his embarrassing performance on Super Tuesday—Trump is a racist, Trump is not a conservative, Trump isn’t electable, etc. The reaction? Everyone laughed.

Nothing changed at the Thursday night debate. Many of the attacks leveled at Trump seemed to be made up by a junior high school focus group. Those that actually had substance—and there were a few great barbs by both the candidates and the moderators—questioned not only Trump’s honesty and integrity, but also his “conservative credentials.”

Trump, the establishment says (along with the anti-Trump crowd), is all image and no substance, a “reality TV star” who doesn’t understand the Constitution or American government. His “debate” performance seemed to solidify this critique. After all, Trump does not give concrete answers to policy questions and maybe spends too much time on the size of his hands.

But let us consider five reasons why the establishment and the anti-Trump crowd may be wrong about a President Trump :

1.) “I’ll look into it”: A President Trump who will “look into” a particular situation is not the same as a president who will unconstitutionally legislate from the Oval Office . We have seen that Trump has good advisors , particularly Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a man whom no one would confuse with a weak-kneed liberal. Sessions has been the most vocal opponent of illegal immigration in the Senate. Does anyone think that his influence would lead to a Gang of Eight scenario and compromise from President Trump? “Looking into it” might produce a push for even more stringent immigration policies from Congress. If Trump says he will support it, Congress would be foolish not to act .

2.) Trump won’t start WWIII : Among the remaining candidates (including the Democrats), Trump has been the most vocal opponent of military adventurism . He has suggested he will take the fight to ISIS, but Trump has been insistent in his belief that the Iraq war was a mistake, that American blood has been shed in a misguided attempt to restructure the Middle East, and that a real conservative American foreign policy would place American interests first, ahead of those of foreign nations. Trump’s foreign policy would be closest to the founding generation’s desire for peaceful neutrality . As a businessman, Trump understands that peace produces prosperity , both for the American federal republic and the people who reside here.

3.) We may get Judge Napolitano: No, not Janet Napolitano, but Judge Andrew Napolitano for the Supreme Court. Critics have charged that Trump would likely appoint a rabid leftist for the bench, perhaps his sister, but in a recent interview, Trump advisor Roger Stone hinted that Andrew Napolitano might be Trump’s first choice to take Antonin Scalia’s seat on the bench. It would make sense. Napolitano has a high profile in the media and is rock solid on civil liberties. And though he appears regularly on Fox News, he is not an establishment favorite, nor would he be an establishment choice. It would be as unconventional as a Trump presidency. That is good for America. Who needs another Harvard lawyer on the Supreme Court bench? We have a clear example of how a Harvard Law grad has screwed up America. He currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Hillary Clinton thought he would make a good Supreme Court justice.

4 .) Trump brings back the Reagan coalition : It wasn’t that long ago that people used to salivate over the 1980s Reagan coalition of blue-collar Democrats and white-collar Republicans. Trump has that kind of appeal. This is why his message resonates across the political spectrum and why many Americans are supporting him. If the Republican Party is serious about a “big tent” philosophy, Trump is their guy. Most conservatives vote Republican because they lack real alternatives. It is better, they think, to hold their nose and pull the lever for Mitt Romney than vote for Barack Obama. This hasn’t worked, and American knows it. Trump represents real America, what Glenn Beck recently derided as the “bubba effect,” and real America is ready to kick the establishment to the curb. They want jobs, security, and someone who isn’t afraid to stand up to the cultural Marxism of the establishment, both Left and Right. Reagan would agree. He nailed the “bubba” vote as well. That worked out ok.

5.) Trump cleans up corruption : Trump has made clear that he intends to prosecute Hillary Clinton if elected president. That is a good start, and candidate Hillary doesn’t stand a chance against the verbal onslaught Trump would bring to a Trump v. Clinton campaign. She has never encountered someone like Trump as a candidate. He is not awe struck by the Clinton machine . But more than that, Trump prides himself on efficiency. Grover Cleveland, the last good Democrat elected to the executive office, rode a wave of anti-corruption into the executive mansion and proceeded to remove as much of the cancer from Washington as possible. It would not be hard to image a similar great purge of establishment corruption from D.C. should Trump be elected. It would be like shining lights on cockroaches. Clinton would be the first target, but other vestiges of Washington corruption would be getting a Trump scrubbing. Who wouldn’t want that?

At the end of the day, Americans should ask, “Do we want a chief legislator, a dictator in chief who already has an agenda and like Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Obama etc., will force Congress into submission ?” We have already seen how that screwed up America. Think the New Deal, Fair Deal, and the Great Society. Making America great again will take a different kind of leadership, one in which “I’ll look into it” is preferable to “I’ll act even if it’s unconstitutional .”

Clinton Bad — Terror/Ethnic Cleansing Clinton presidency fuels terrorism and ethnic cleansing Johnson 16 (Adam H.; twitter titan and contributing writer @alternet, contributing writer @fairmediawatch; Media Trumpwash Clinton’s Reckless Foreign Record; http://fair.org/home/media-trumpwash-clintons-reckless-foreign-record/ ) jskullz

But B, the idea that Clinton is, by contrast, a prudent foreign policy moderate, is an establishment media assertion with little or no supporting evidence. Clinton has a long, objectively verifiable track record of acting recklessly on matters of foreign policy that seems to have slipped into a memory hole as the prospect of a Trump presidency looms overhead. While one would expect this rewriting of history to come from Clinton surrogates, it’s increasingly bizarre coming from nominally independent media pundits. Vox: Hillary Clinton rolled out the anti-Trump argument that could deliver a landslide Matthew Yglesias in Vox (6/2/16): “You can at least be sure that a Clinton presidency won’t lead to some enormous unforeseen cataclysm.” Over at Vox, Matt Yglesias has positioned Clinton as the sensible, reliable choice on foreign policy and, in doing so, failed to mention Iraq, Libya, Syria, Honduras or any other of the list of nations that Clinton has helped to make, in some capacity or another, much worse off . When comparing the high stakes of statecraft, Yglesias even laid out this ahistorical comparison: But at the end of the day, even though real estate is a game for risk takers, it’s also a game where the downside risk is very limited. At the absolute worst, you can’t repay your debts and it becomes a bit harder to get a loan the next time. Running a country isn’t like that. If you make a big mistake, you can’t just go to court and have the slate wiped clean. A casino bankruptcy hurts the bottom line of a few banks. A sovereign default of the United States — something Trump has floated — would destroy the global economy. But “wiping the slate clean” is exactly what Iraq War boosters have done. Bush and Rumsfeld are currently playing golf, while those who supported the war, like Clinton, continue to hold positions of power. Clinton issued a belated and perfunctory apology—and that was it. And that’s just the one “mistake” she’s been called to answer for. Clinton’s support of a right-wing coup in Honduras, or the disastrous regime change in Libya, are seldom brought up, much less apologized for. Perhaps Yglesias is referencing the material consequences to the world, rather than to the politician, but if this is the case, then why not address the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis resulting from the war Clinton pushed? Why not bring up the disastrous government she forced upon Haiti? Yglesias is right: The stakes are high, and, time and time again, Clinton has made decisions that resulted in material harm. Slate’s Fred Kaplan and Bloomberg View’s Eli Lake also neglected to mention the Iraq War when recapping Clinton’s “experience.” It could be because they, like Yglesias, also pushed for that particular disaster. Indeed, as we’ve seen before, to indemnify Clinton for her past “bad judgments,” is to do the same for most of the pundit class who also followed Bush off the cliff. Her rebranding is their rebranding. This may serve immediate political interests—especially if one views Trump as existentially dangerous—but it doesn’t serve history, and it certainly doesn’t serve readers. The media has a duty to vet the foreign policy record and plans of the respective candidates. As such, the pundits are right to pinpoint some of Trump’s more dangerous plans. Where they’ve consistently fallen short—and this was on full display in response to Thursday’s speech—is also contextualizing and harshly critiquing Clinton’s brand of measured, polite recklessness. On this we have some pretty stark examples. The right-wing coup Clinton backed in Honduras in 2009 eventually led to the assassination of indigenous leaders and displacement of thousands of Hondurans as they fled right-wing violence. One email from her aide Sid Blumenthal in March 2011 informed then-Secretary Clinton that a Libyan rebel commander told him that “his troops continue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting.” (“Foreign mercenaries” being code for black Africans loyal to Gaddafi). In response, the State Department continued to support the rebels without any clear concern for their war crimes. A BBC report that December detailed how 30,000 black Libyans were ethnically cleansed from the town of Misrata. A report the following year in the New York Times detailed how US arms “fell into the hands of jihadis” in an effort to overthrow Gaddafi. Clinton’s eagerness to back dubious groups in the interest of regime change wouldn’t stop there. For years, the State Department watched Qatar and Saudi Arabia arm jihadists in Syria while pledging millions to overthrow the Syrian government themselves. Time and time again, Clinton’s desire to overthrow unfriendly governments resulted in arms “ending up in the hands” of designated terrorist organizations. As for the former Secretary’s famous “wonkishness,” there’s evidence, as Peter Beinart noted in The Atlantic in 2014, that Clinton didn’t even review the NIE report on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before voting to authorize the war in October 2002. Unlike Trump’s rhetoric, these were actual reckless decisions that affected real people . Of course, media should critique Trump’s outlandish, ofttimes cartoonish campaign promises. But they don’t have to whitewash Clinton’s foreign policy record to do so. Clinton Bad — Middle East Instability Clinton would be much worse than Trump – she’d de-stabilize the entire Middle East Thrall 16 – (Trevor Thrall is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an associate professor at George Mason University in the School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs, 5/17/16, “Why Hillary Clinton Will Be a Foreign-Policy Nightmare,” The National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/why-hillary-clinton-will-be-foreign-policy- nightmare-16233?page=show, Accessed 7/6/16, HWilson)

Imagine it is the morning of January 21st, 2017: President Hillary Clinton enters the Oval Office for her first daily briefing from the CIA. Without having to do much guessing we know that this briefing will be replete with terrible news about all the many fires burning around the world. The first priority, of course, will be the Islamic State (ISIS).

Unlike her predecessor, who appeared to have mixed feelings about the use of military force throughout his presidency, Clinton appears to have no such misgivings. Hillary Clinton was a dogged champion for military intervention as Secretary of State. As a candidate, she has been among the most hawkish Democrats in living memory , outdoing most of this year’s Republicans. She has repeatedly called for “an intensification and acceleration” of President Obama’s ISIS strategy .

As president, Clinton will face few obstacles in her desire to exert decisive leadership on the global stage. In the worst-case scenario, President Clinton, in pursuit of a muscular approach to confronting ISIS, will make three related decisions that doom American foreign policy to another decade of turmoil, casualties, and terrorism.

The first decision will be to send thousands of American ground troops to eradicate the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. U.S. military leaders have made clear publicly that they believe that as many as 50,000 troops will be necessary to dig ISIS out of its strongholds in Syria and Iraq. A determined President Clinton who sends enough troops, planes, and tanks can certainly win the military campaign against ISIS. Even so, ISIS has had years to dig in. Given this and the dangers of urban warfare, the cost in American casualties will likely be significant. Further, ISIS could disperse its fighters among the general population, return ing to either guerrilla or terrorist strategy. The United S tates was not able to prevent terrorist attacks in Iraq or the rise of ISIS after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The re is little reason to imagine it could do so under President Clinton in 2017 when conditions in Iraq are even worse.

Moreover, this time the fight is not limited to Iraq. ISIS presents an even greater challenge in many ways in Syria, where an expanded U.S. campaign will clash with Russian interests, which include supporting Assad against American-support rebel groups.

And let’s not forget the nascent ISIS foothold in Libya , the scene of Hillary Clinton’s greatest triumph as Secretary of State (and President Obama’s greatest self acknowledged foreign policy mistake). Libya suffers from a political situation heavily reminiscent of both Syria and Iraq, with multiple competing factions all battl ing for position to take power , operating under extreme duress thanks in part to the presence of the Islamic State. Any American intervention in Libya inevitably means favoring some factions over others, not to mention killing lots of Libyans, including civilians , all of which will add to the long list of people with grievances against the United States. Nonetheless, the signs suggest that the Obama administration is already preparing for another round of intervention. There is little reason to think that Clinton is not ready to approve it.

Clinton’s second ill-fated decision will be to attempt to restore and stabilize Iraq. Regardless of how well the military phase of the campaign goes Iraq , which is already a huge mess, will be in much worse shape afterwards. President Clinton , with the support of many Republicans in Congress, will argue that the only way to prevent ISIS from rising again is to help Iraq’s devastated society and economy to recover, which in turn will require a large and permanent military presence. The notion of stationing 50,000 troops in Iraq forever as the United States has done in South Korea is a horrendously costly prospect, and one that will likely have serious destabilizing effects on the rest of the Middle East. But Iraq is not South Korea; the U.S. cannot expect to spend fifty or sixty peaceful years watching over Iraq. The military victory will have done absolutely nothing to resolve the fundamental sectarian and political conflicts that have riven Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Nor will the victory have made the U.S. any more capable of fostering stability and democracy. Beyond this we cannot forget that ISIS itself grew out of the chaos that followed the 2003 invasion . It seems safe to assume that another intervention would raise , not lower, the risks of future terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies .

The third decision President Clinton will make is to reverse President Obama’s plan to draw down the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan, where the Taliban now controls more territory than at any point since 2001. The rationale for more aggressive action in Afghanistan will echo the rationale for taking on ISIS in Syria and Iraq. As Clinton said on the campaign trail, “We have invested a lot of blood and a lot of treasure in trying to help that country and we can’t afford for it to become an outpost of the Taliban and [Islamic State] one more time, threatening us, threatening the larger world.”

And yet, as with Iraq, all the evidence indicates that a more aggressive military campaign will fail for all the same reasons the policy has failed thus far. Despite 2,300 American casualties and roughly a trillion dollars spent in Afghanistan to date, fifteen years of intense effort has resulted in a country still unable to survive without life support. The simple fact is that Afghanistan’s fractured society and almost non-existent economy are incapable of providing the necessary counterweight to the Taliban. The result is that the costs of such an operation would far outweigh the benefits.