November Evidence Core

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.
12
Elections - Suburban Voters
p. 1 of 121
ELECTIONS DA OBAMA BAD: SUBURBAN VOTERS

Shell Suburban Voters................................................................................ 5
Uniqueness - Negative
Uniqueness: The Race is Very Close...............................................................8
Uniqueness: Romney Winning.......................................................................9
Uniqueness: Romney Winning Undecided Voters........................................10
Uniqueness: Romney Winning GOP Convention..........................................11
Uniqueness: Romney Winning Enthusiasm Gap..........................................12
Uniqueness: Romney Winning Enthusiasm Gap..........................................13
Uniqueness: Romney Winning Ohio...........................................................14
Uniqueness - Affirmative
Uniqueness: Obama Winning.......................................................................15
Uniqueness: Obama Winning.......................................................................16
Uniqueness: Obama Winning AT: Enthusiasm Gap......................................17
Uniqueness: Obama Winning AT: Hispanic Bump........................................18
Uniqueness: Obama Winning AT: GOP Convention......................................19
Links - Negative
Link: Plan Popular - General........................................................................22
Plan Popular Seen as a Jobs Program.........................................................25
Plan Popular Seen as a Jobs Program Ohio Example.................................26
Plan Popular Republican Opposition Proves...............................................30
Plan Popular AT: GOP Helped by the Plan...................................................31
Plan Popular Plan Seen as Bold Economic Action........................................32
Plan Popular Suburbs Internal Link............................................................33
Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

p. 2 of 121

Plan Popular Suburbs Internal Link AT: Spending Unpopular.....................36
Links - Affirmative
Plan Unpopular General............................................................................37
Plan Unpopular Even if Like TI, They Dont Like Federal..............................41
Plan Unpopular Spending/Big Government.................................................42
Plan Unpopular Only Like TI if it Helps Them Directly..................................43
Plan Unpopular AT: Suburbs Internal Link..................................................44
Plan Unpopular AT: Suburbs Internal Link..................................................45
Internal Links - Negative
Suburban Voters Are Truly Swing Voters....................................................46
Suburban Voters - AT: Voters Have Already Decided.....................................47
Suburban Voters - Uniqueness..................................................................... 48
Suburban Voters Romney Barely Ahead.....................................................49
Suburban Voters Decide Key Swing States.................................................50
Suburban Voters AT: Its A Base Election....................................................51
Suburban Voters AT: Its A Base Election....................................................52
Internal Links - Affirmative
Undecided Voters Dont Matter - Its A Base Election....................................53
Internal Links - General
Internal Link: Presidential Action Helps.......................................................57
Internal Link President Gets Credit and Blame...........................................58
Economic Policy in Next Few Months Matters...............................................59
Impact - Negative
Impact: Obama Re-Election Bad U.S. Hegemony.........................................60

p. 3 of 121

Impact: Obama Re-Election Bad AT: Obama Policy Successes......................65
Impact: Obama Re-Election Bad Romney Policy Good..................................66
Impact: Obama Re-Election Bad Romney Policy Good..................................67
Impact - Affirmative
Impact: Obama Re-Election Good Romney Policy Extremist.........................68
Impact: Obama Re-Election Good Romney Policy Extremist.........................69
Impact: Obama Re-Election Good Impact Takeout.......................................70
Iran Strikes Scenario
Iran Strike Answers Obama Wont Attack...................................................71
Iran Strike Answers Obama Wont Attack...................................................72
Iran Strike Answers Romney Wont Attack.................................................73
Iran Strike Answers Romney Will Attack....................................................74
Iran Strike Answers Israel Attack Depends on U.S. Support.........................75
Iran Strike Answers Israel Attack Depends on U.S. Support.........................76
Iran Strike Answers Iran Threat Growing....................................................77
Iran Strike Answers Romney Winning = No Israel Attack.............................78
Iran Strike Answers Romney Win = Israel Attack........................................79
Iran Strike Scenario Obama Will Strike......................................................80
Iran Strike Scenario Obama Will Strike......................................................81
Iran Strike Scenario Strike Impact.............................................................82
Iran Strike Scenario - AT: Strike Inevitable..................................................87
Iran Strike Scenario - AT: Israel Strike Inevitable.........................................90
Iran Strike Scenario - AT: Iran wont escalate...............................................91
Iran Strike Scenario - AT: US would keep strike limited.................................92

p. 4 of 121
Iran Strike Scenario - AT: Strike Good..........................................................93

Iran Strike Scenario - AT: US could re-attack if Iran re-builds.........................96
Iran Strike Scenario - AT: Containment Fails.................................................97

p. 5 of 121
SHELL OBAMA BAD: SUBURBAN VOTERS

A. UNIQUENESS.
THE CONSENSUS OF OPINION IS THE RACE IS NECK-AND-NECK
San Francisco Chronicle 9.3.12
[http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/09/03/the-balance-sheetbarack-obama%E2%80%99s-top-ten-political-assets-liabilities/]
The balance sheet on Barack Obama stands at zero right now. The country
is evenly divided about his performance as president. And hes tied in the
polls with Republican Mitt Romney. Its a neck-and-neck race, said
Rick Snyder, Michigan Republican governor, in an opinion widely
shared across the political spectrum.
B. LINK. THE PLAN HELPS PRESIDENT OBAMA.
1. SUBURBAN VOTERS ARE A KEY SWING GROUP, OBAMA AND ROMNEY ARE RUNNING EVEN WITH
THEM AND WHILE THEY ARE AGAINST GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN GENERAL, THEY SUPPORT
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 8.2.12
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/americans-hategovernment-but-they-love-medicare-social-security-andenvironmental-regulations/2012/08/02/gJQApvRQSX_blog.html]
A new poll out from Hofstra University, which dug deep into the
opinions of suburban voters a key national swing constituency
is pretty interesting along these lines. It finds Obama and Mitt Romney
exactly split among these voters. But on the questions of
government spending and regulation, their verdict is clear: They are
inclined against them in the abstract, but are adamantly opposed to
cutting them when the talk turns to specifics. * More than seven in 10
suburban residents say they favor cutting federal spending in general. But
when you get specific, 87 percent oppose cutting Social Security and
Medicare benefits. And 65 percent support increasing government
spending on infrastructure and public works projects.

p. 6 of 121

B. LINKS (CONTINUED)
2. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS ARE SEEN AS BOOSTING LOCAL ECONOMIES AND CREATING JOBS
Miller Center, University of Virginia 2012
[Are We There Yet? Selling America on Transportation, Miller Center

University of
Virginia, 2012, p.16]
Meanwhile, recent public-opinion surveys have found overwhelming
support for the idea of infrastructure investment. In a 2011 survey
conducted by the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, two-thirds of
voters said that improving the nations infrastructure is important,
and 80 percent agreed that federal funding to improve and
modernize transportation will boost local economies and create
millions of jobs from construction to manufacturing to
engineering. Similarly, a poll conducted by CBS News and The New
York Times between October 19 and October 24, 2011 showed that
eight in ten Americans approve of government spending for roads
and bridges as a way to boost employment.
3. JOBS AND THE ECONOMY ARE FAR AND AWAY THE TOP ISSUE FOR SUBURBAN VOTERS
Robert Brodsky, Newsday, 8.1.12
[http://www.newsday.com/elections/mitt-romney-or-barack-obamasuburban-voters-will-pick-next-president-poll-finds-1.3874645]
Obama's support tracks closely with suburbanites' views of the
economy. Among 1,005 suburban residents interviewed, including 844
who are registered to vote and 161 who are not, 33 percent said they were
worse off financially than they were four years ago. Only 28 percent said
they were doing better, and 37 percent saw no change in their fiscal
condition. Those numbers are slightly more optimistic than in past Hofstra
polls. Suburban residents will vote their pocketbooks in November,
said Michael Dawidziak, a Bohemia campaign consultant who works
primarily with Republicans. "The economy and jobs blow everything
else away," he said. "Nothing even comes close." Said Levy: "This is
not your mother and father's suburb. The pain of the recession has
reached into areas that were once the most prosperous."

p. 7 of 121

C. IMPACT. U.S. HEGEMONY
IF OBAMA WINS IN 2012, IT WILL END US HEGEMONY
Nile Gardiner, foreign affairs analyst for the London Telegraph, July 14, 2011
[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100097071/barackobama%E2%80%99sfuture-looks-precarious-as-america-faces-its-mostimportant-presidential-election-since- 1980/]
And like the contest in 1980, 2012 will likely decide the future of the
United States as the worlds dominant superpower, with Americans faced
with a stark choice between renewal and decline. As the latest Pew survey
of global attitudes shows, the world is beginning to lose faith in the
strength of Americas leadership, with general publics in 15 of 22 nations
surveyed believing that China either will replace or already has replaced
the United States as the worlds leading superpower. Even in the US itself,
46 percent believe that China has already or will replace America as the
worlds leading power. America in the second decade of the 21st Century is
a superpower on a precipice, facing towering mountains of public debt,
declining domestic and international confidence, and growing threats to its
international security from the likes of Iran and North Korea. There is
nothing inevitable about American decline, but the policies of the current
administration are making such a decline far more likely. As the United
States grows weaker both economically and militarily, Americas
adversaries and strategic competitors are growing stronger and more
aggressive. A world without powerful American leadership built upon
strong economic foundations would have been unthinkable just a decade
ago. But the damaging policies of the current presidency are beginning to
make that nightmare scenario a reality.
U.S. DECLINIST POLICIES RISK WORLD WAR
Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, Feb 8, 2011
[http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-andnational-security-zalmay-khalilzad?pg=2]
If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not
a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The
closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify
geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local
powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to
preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of
escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of

p. 8 of 121
peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By
contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive
dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great
powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world
wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences.
Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an
attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there
would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other
crises spiraling into all-out conflict.
UNIQUENESS: THE RACE IS VERY CLOSE

OBAMA AND ROMNEY TIED WITH LIKELY VOTERS
Reuters 9.2.12
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/02/obama-vsromney_n_1851011.html]
U.S. President Barack Obama enters an important campaign week
tied with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, a
Reuters/Ipsos poll found on Sunday, leaving the incumbent an
opportunity to edge ahead of his opponent at the Democratic National
Convention. With the Democrats set to nominate Obama for a second term
this week in Charlotte, North Carolina, the race to the presidential
election on Nov. 6 is tight with 45 percent for Obama and 45
percent for Romney among likely voters, the survey found. The
findings were from the seventh day of a rolling online poll conducted for
Reuters by Ipsos to judge voters' attitudes around the political conventions.
POLLS SHOW THE RACE IS BASICALLY DEADLOCKED
Mark Blumenthal, Huffington Post, 9.3.12
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/03/republican-conventionmitt-romney_n_1852052.html?utm_hp_ref=politics]
Reuters and Ipsos have been conducting a daily tracking survey during the
conventions that uses a new unproven Internet-based methodology. Their
first wave of interviews conducted just before the Republican convention
gave Obama a slight lead (46 percent to 42 percent), but their most recent
interviews, conducted August 29 to September 2, shows a 45-to-45 percent
tie. Taken together, the results from the three tracking surveys
indicate a collectively closer race than the composite of all prior
polls, as reflected in the HuffPost Pollster chart. However, the chart's
current result is dominated by these three daily tracking polls, and two of

p. 9 of 121
those have consistently produced results that have been more favorable to
Romney than other polls.
CONSENSUS IS THE RACE IS NECK-AND-NECK
The balance sheet on Barack Obama stands at zero right now. The country
is evenly divided about his performance as president. And hes tied in the
polls with Republican Mitt Romney. Its a neck-and-neck race, said
Rick Snyder, Michigan Republican governor, in an opinion widely
shared across the political spectrum.

p. 10 of 121
UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING

RASMUSSEN POLL SHOWS ROMNEY MOVING AHEAD
The Rasmussen Report's daily automated phone tracking purports
to show Romney gaining ground, moving from a 2 percentage point
deficit to a 4 point advantage over Obama (48 percent to 44 percent)
among likely voters over the past week. However, Obama held a preconvention advantage, which was an outlier from his previous showings in
the Rasmussen tracking survey. Their most recent result is only a net 3
percentage points better for Romney than the average of Rasmussen
surveys conducted in July and August, which showed Romney with 46
percent and Obama with 45 percent.
ROMNEY IS IN A STRONGER STRATEGIC POSITION
DJ Drummond, Wizbang, 9.3.12
[http://wizbangblog.com/2012/09/03/according-to-gallup-romneyshould-win/]
Obama has enjoyed support above 48% only once, and has spent most of
the General Election locked in at 47%. Frankly, the only way Obama
can significantly increase his numbers would be for Romney to
commit some blunder that seriously damaged his numbers and led
to voters making late choice changes. This is what happened in
2008, when Sarah Palins misstatements created doubts about McCains
judgment, resulting in nearly a ten-point loss of support in a couple weeks,
with Obama the happy beneficiary. The problem for Obama this year, is
two-fold: First, Obamas camp has to deal with mis-statements by both the
President and his vice-president. Second, Romneys choice of Ryan
created an issues-focused team that may not be the most exciting in
memory, but which is going to be focused and clear. In short, the
voters know all about Obama and Biden, but some are still learning
about Romney and Ryan, creating opportunity to the Republicans to
gain support beyond what they have now. At this time, the numbers
suggest Romney is in a much stronger strategic position.
COMPUTER MODELS USING PAST ELECTIONS PREDICT ROMNEY WILL WIN

p. 11 of 121
The economy is still weak. Franklin D. Roosevelt is the only president of
the past century to win re-election with a jobless rate as high as 8
percent. The computer models that predict presidential election
results based on economic statistics project Obama losing with 45
percent of the vote. Of course, computers can be wrong and history is
always writing a new chapter, but theres no doubt that the economy
presents serious challenges to Obamas re-election effort.

p. 12 of 121
UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING UNDECIDED VOTERS

UNDECIDED VOTERS USUALLY BREAK FOR THE CHALLENGER
Peter Roff, contributing editor, US News & World Report, 8.13.12
[http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peterroff/2012/08/13/enthusiasm-gap-means-mitt-romney-could-blow-outpresident-obama]
Indeed, and if it does turn out to be something more than a turnout
election, it is important to remember that in most previous elections
the later "undecideds" made up their minds the more likely they
were to break toward the challenger. Having already seen what the
incumbent could do, they made up their minds to give someone else
a chance. There is nothing on the horizon over the next 85 days,
especially where the economy is concerned, that is likely to change the
possibility that the "undecideds" will again go with the challenger.
UNDECIDED VOTERS HAVE HISTORICALLY BROKEN FOR THE REPUBLICAN
Gallups poll reflects a seven percent undecided portion, a number not only
well beyond both the statistical margin of error and the margin between
the two candidates, but consistent with most presidential elections at this
point in the election. Of the nine elections with a sitting President as
candidate, six had undecided numbers between six and seven
percent. It is an important consideration, then, to see what happened with
those voters. Over the six elections with comparable undecided
portions, the Republican took fifteen times as many voters as the
Democrat (an average gain of 3.0% against a Democrat gain of 0.2%).
When all nine are considered, the advantage grows to a Republican
average gain 4.5%, versus a Democrat gain of 0.3%. Again, this
favors Romney in this election.

p. 13 of 121
UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING GOP CONVENTION

THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION MADE ROMNEY MORE LIKEABLE
Reuters 9.2.12
Republicans used their convention to play up the former private equity
executive's family and personal life. In Wolfeboro, New Hampshire,
Mormon churchgoers at a service attended by Romney on Sunday thanked
the former Massachusetts governor for raising the church's profile in his
race for the White House and praised his nomination acceptance speech.
Romney, who would be the first Mormon president if he wins the election,
sat smiling with his wife, Ann, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints lauded his performance at the convention. "To be honest
the convention was pretty good for Romney," said Clark. "I think
one of the big tests of the Republican convention was to make him
more of a human, make him a little more personable, make him
more likable. I think they succeeded there."
CONVENTION GIVES ROMNEY A BUMP WITH HISPANIC VOTERS
Matt Barreto, Latino Decisions 9.3.12
[http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/09/03/tracking-poll-wave-2romney-gains-post-convention/]
After a week in the spotlight in many prominent Latinos took to the
stage at the RNC Convention, the impreMedia/Latino Decisions
tracking poll finds a noticeable bump in support for Romney and
Republicans among Latinos, as reported by Pilar Marrero. The question
will be can they sustain it, or will the new found support erode after the
Democrats get their turn in Charlotte. In the second week of the
impreMedia/Latino Decisions tracking poll Romney stands at 30%, up from
26% in week 1, and also improved his favorability from 27/55 (net -28) to
31/54 (net-23). While the clear majority of Latino voters continue to
support Obama, this is the first time Romney has managed to climb
to 30% of the Latino vote in the 10 months that impreMedia/Latino
Decisions has polled on an Obama-Romney match-up.

p. 14 of 121
UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING ENTHUSIASM GAP

REPUBLICANS HAVE AN EDGE IN ENTHUSIASM AND THIS WILL LEAD TO A TURNOUT ADVANTAGE
First, all elections depend in large part on the enthusiasm of the
party base. Its no wild guess to expect that Republicans will vote for
Romney, or that Democrats will vote for Obama. The questions, then, come
down to how independents will vote, and how many Republicans and
Democrats show up at the polls. In 2008, strong Democrat enthusiasm
for Obama coupled with lukewarm Republican support for McCain,
created a clear Democrat advantage at the polls, which produced a
clear majority in the election. In 2004, both parties showed strong
energy which kept the election close; Gallups final poll in 2004 showed a
49-49 tie. With this in mind, consider the following article from Gallup:
The article shows a lead for Republican energy over the Democrats,
especially when asking who is following the election very closely.
REPUBLICAN VOTERS ARE MORE ENTHUSIASTIC AND WILL TURN OUT MORE
The presidents opponents are committed to voting than his
supporters are. With two months to go before Election Day, Republicans
are clearly more charged up: 51 percent of GOP voters say they are
more enthusiastic than usual to cast votes this November, compared
to 39 percent of Democrats. Four years ago, 62 percent of
Democrats were more motivated than usual. Two key pro-Obama
voting blocs are suffering enthusiasm gaps: young voters and Latinos.
ROMNEY IS AHEAD ON ENTHUSIASM OBAMA MUST SOLVE THIS TO WIN
At the end of the day it may all come down to the level of enthusiasm
each candidate can generate among the electorate. On that score, say
a number of measures, Romney is likely ahead. "Republican-leaning
voting blocs are more enthusiastic to vote this November," the folks at

p. 15 of 121
Resurgent Republic said Thursday, "which could be the deciding factor

in a turnout election. As we head into the final campaign stretch,
President Obama faces the unwelcoming reality that he must close the
voter enthusiasm gap and improve his performance among key
voting subgroups if he is to be successful in his bid for reelection."
UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING ENTHUSIASM GAP

COUNTING ENTHUSIASM, ROMNEY IS HEADED FOR A BLOW OUT WIN
There is no guarantee, however, that the 2012 contest will be "a turnout
election." To astute observers of American politics, it is starting to look
more like 1980when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by impressive
margins in both the popular vote and the electoral collegethan 2004.
One key indicator of this is the way in which the number of so-called
swing states continues to grow, meaning that Obama will have to
fight to keep states he won easily in 2008, like Wisconsin and
Pennsylvania, and reflects that others he captured in that election,
like Indiana and North Carolina, are already probably already firmly
in the Romney column. When the enthusiasm gap is factored in,
Romney could actually be headed for a blow out, no matter how
improbable that may seem at this time.
THE REPUBLICAN BASE IS MORE MOTIVATED THAN THE DEMOCRATIC BASE
"When looking at those voters who say they are extremely enthusiastic to
vote in the presidential election," Resurgent Republic reported,
"Republicans hold a double-digit advantage over Democrats, 62 to
49 percent, and the subgroups most likely to support Governor
Romney register higher enthusiasm than those backing President
Obama. The reliable Republican voting blocsProtestants,
Evangelicals, and white menscore "above the median rate of those
who are extremely enthusiastic to turnout," the group announced

p. 16 of 121
based on an analysis of the data it had collected. Democrats, on the

other hand, have lots of problems in their base, with only AfricanAmerican voters showing anything near the same level of
excitement about Obama that they showed four years ago. Add to
that the groups that are up for grabs, like Catholicswho are still reeling
over the Obama administration's assault on religious libertyand the
results could be devastating for the president's party.

p. 17 of 121
UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING OHIO

OHIO IS A KEY SWING STATE AND ROMNEY HAS THE MOMENTUM
John Spinelli, Ohio News Bureau, 8.19.12
[http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-back-ohio-tuesday-followinglast-week-s-innovation-infrastructure-news]
The president returns to a state (Ohio) he won by over four percentage
points four years ago, that if he won it again this year, would guarantee a
second win over a Romney-Ryan ticket if election models
forecasting which states will go to the respective tickets holds true.
Although a Purple Strategies poll from last week had Romney in a
reversal of fortune ahead of the president by two percentage points,
when results from a Rasmussen and Public Policy Polling poll are
factored in, Romney has closed the one-time gap of 6-9 points down
to a mere one point, well within the margin of error.

p. 18 of 121
UNIQUENESS: OBAMA WINNING

OBAMA WILL MOVE AHEAD AFTER THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION
Reuters 9.2.12
A week ago, a Reuters/Ipsos poll said Obama led Romney 46 percent to 42
percent. The Republican's own convention gave him a small boost, vaulting
him into an even position with Obama but no further. Now Obama, who is
to accept the nomination on Thursday, could get his own convention
bounce. Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said Obama's numbers would
likely improve during his convention. "The fact that Obama and
Romney are still tied signals to me that we're not going to see any
sort of sustained bump for Romney," Clark said. "As we go into next
week's convention, Romney will struggle to maintain even footing
with the president - we'll likely see a shift back towards Obama."
GALLUP TRACKING POLL SHOWING NO GAINS FOR ROMNEY
Gallup's Daily tracking survey has shown no movement at all over
the last three days. Their latest release as of this writing, which still
includes two days of interviews conducted just before the Republican
convention began, shows Obama edging Romney by a single
percentage point (47 percent to 46 percent). That result has not
changed over the last five days of Gallup's tracking and is virtually
unchanged from the prior seven days of interviewing conducted a week
ago (which showed the candidates tied with 46 percent each).

p. 19 of 121
UNIQUENESS: OBAMA WINNING

OBAMA HAS A LARGE FAVORABILITY EDGE OVER ROMNEY
Although the presidents personal approval rating has slipped from 79
percent to 50 percent since he took office, but more Americans have a
favorable view of him than an unfavorable one (44 percent),
according to the Washington Post/ABC News poll. Romneys
likability level is dangerously deficient, particularly among swing
voters. The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that only 16
percent of undecided voters have a favorable view of the Republican
nominee.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE GIVES AN EDGE TO OBAMA
The Electoral College gives the Democrats a built-in edge in the
presidential contest. Texas is the only large state ruled by Republicans.
President Obama has an Electoral College cushion because he can
count on Democratic dominance in most of the nations Electoral
Vote-rich states (California, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania). Romney
cant afford to lose more than one of the three competitive big states:
Florida, Ohio and Michigan. If Obama can win North Carolina, it becomes
almost impossible for Romney to reach the magic number of 270 electoral
votes.
OBAMA HAS AN EDGE IN CAMPAIGN STRATEGY
Mitt Romney is a flawed candidate running a flawed campaign. With
all of President Obamas weaknesses, Mitt Romney has not been able to
open a lead. One example of his strategic missteps: His international trip
to Israel, Poland and England was an off-message debacle, with selfinflicted wounds at almost every stop. Romneys unforced errors have
helped Obama to remain in contention. In almost every dimension,

p. 20 of 121
the Obama campaign is crisper, sharper, more thought-through,

said Charlie Cook, publisher of the nonpartisan Cook Political
Report. The Romney campaign is more tactical.

p. 21 of 121
UNIQUENESS: OBAMA WINNING AT: ENTHUSIASM GAP

THERE IS NO ENTHUSIASM GAP
Chris Cillizza, Washington Post, 8.27.12
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/08/27/the-10numbers-that-matter-in-the-new-washington-post-abc-news-poll/]
What enthusiasm gap?: For all the talk that Republicans are more
fired up and ready to go than Democrats, theres no evidence of any
enthusiasm difference between the two candidates supporters.
Eighty-five percent of registered voters supporting Obama say they
are doing so enthusiastically, while 83 percent of Romney
supporters say the same of their guy. Even deeper into the numbers
the story is the same: 45 percent of Obama backers are very
enthusiastically supporting him while 42 percent of Romney
backers are very enthusiastically behind him.
UNDECIDED VOTERS WILL SWING TO OBAMA
Obama the default winner: While the horse race is a dead heat 47
percent Romney, 46 percent Obama when people are asked who
they think will win, the incumbent has a massive edge. Fifty-nine
percent said Obama will win as compared to just 34 percent who
named Romney. You can argue this two ways. On the one hand, the
incumbent president is likely to be seen as the de facto winner until the
challenger passes a sort of invisible threshold in voters minds that
typically comes later in the fall. On the other hand, human nature
dictates that we like to be with the winner, so if undecided voters
think Obamas that guy, maybe they swing his way.

p. 22 of 121
UNIQUENESS: OBAMA WINNING AT: HISPANIC BUMP

ROMNEYS GAINS WITH HISPANICS WERE VERY SMALL
While Romney made some gains following the RNC convention, the
gains are relatively small. After their best week of coverage in which
Romney and the RNC got to dictate the message, and President Obama
struggled for coverage, Romney still maintains a net negative favorability
rating of -23 while the President enjoys a net positive favorability rating of
+43. And while Romney is inching towards one-third of the Latino
vote, the data still suggest that close to two-thirds of Latinos (64%)
plan to vote against Romney. In looking at the question about
perceptions of party outreach to Hispanics, the impreMedia/Latino
Decisions tracking poll reveals almost no movement in the larger images of
either party. One week ago 14% thought the Republican party was doing a
good job of outreach to Hispanics, and today that number is 17%.
Combined, 72% of Latinos think the Republican party either doesnt
care or is being hostile towards Hispanics, and that number that
will take more than a 3-day convention to move. As Governor Jeb
Bush acknowledge during the RNC, Republicans need to stop acting
stupid and to have a tone that is open and hospitable, if they want to
win over Latino voters.
OBAMA STILL HAS A STRONG LEAD ON THE ISSUE OF THE ECONOMY
The Republicans believe their path to the Latino vote is through the
troubled economy, a message they reiterated during the RNC convention.
However Latino voters may not share their views of who is to blame,
and who can fix things. Last week, the impreMedia/Latino Decisions
tracking poll asked who was to blame for the current state of the economy
and 68% of Latinos said the policies of the Bush administration,
compared to 14% who blamed Obama. This week we asked, thinking
about the future of our economy, which party do you trust more to make
the right decisions and improve our economic conditions? Here, 59% of
Latinos said they trust Obama and the Democrats compared to 30%
who said Romney and the Republicans. In courting Latinos, the

p. 23 of 121
Republicans need to do more than point the finger at Obama, they need to
provide a clear policy alternative that does not sound like Bush tax cuts
that would seem to benefit the Latino community. To this point, Latinos
continue to give the Democrats a 2-1 advantage on fixing the
economy. Back in February 2011 the impreMedia/Latino Decisions
tracking poll asked what strategy was best for turning around the economy,
and 57% said the federal government should invest in projects while 27%
said we should lower taxes, a number quite consistent with the 59-30
advantage reported today, 19 month later on which party is best to fix the
economy.
UNIQUENESS: OBAMA WINNING AT: GOP CONVENTION

CONVENTION DIDNT HELP ROMNEY
Polling tracking the impact of the Republican convention has been sparse,
but on Monday the Gallup Poll weighed in with a new
survey showing the convention had only a "minimal impact" on the
fortunes of Republican nominee Mitt Romney. In interviews conducted
over the three days since the close of the Republican convention, Gallup
found roughly the same number of Americans saying the convention
made them more likely to support Republican nominee Mitt Romney
(40 percent) as saying it made them less likely to support him (38
percent).
TOO SOON TO TELL IF CONVENTION HAD ANY IMPACT
All of this may turn out to be a momentary flutter in the data. As Professor
Thomas Holbrook has shown, each party typically receives a bump
from its convention, and the back-to-back timing of this year's
conventions makes it much tougher to measure and interpret the shifts. Up
until 2008, party conventions were held weeks or months apart, so
pollsters were better able to examine each "bump" in isolation. Historically,
the net impact of both conventions combined has produced large and
sustained shifts in voter preferences, although the impact in recent
years has been more modest. Watching the bouncing polling ball

p. 24 of 121
can be fun, but analysts will need to wait until mid-September to

know whether this year's conventions have had a meaningful impact
on the race.
NO CONVENTION MOMENTUM FOR ROMNEY
Nate Silver, New York Times, 9.3.12
[http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/sept-2-splitverdict-in-polls-on-romney-convention-bounce/]
But the one eventuality we probably can take off the table is the
notion that Mr. Romney would emerge from his convention with
unmistakable momentum, as Ronald Reagan did in 1980 or Bill Clinton
did in 1992. His bounce may turn out to be just fine once we see a few
more polls, and how the numbers move after Charlotte. But Mr. Obama is
unlikely to make it easy for Mr. Romney.

p. 25 of 121

REPUBLICAN CONVENTION DIDNT HELP ROMNEY MUCH
Steve Kornacki, Salon, 9.3.12
[http://www.salon.com/2012/09/03/the_gop_convention_was_a_bust/]
A new Rasmussen poll gives the GOP nominee a four-point lead over
Barack Obama, but Gallups poll actually shows Obama ahead by one
an improvement on where he was before the Republican convention
started. Theres also a new Reuters/Ipsos survey that shows the race tied,
indicating a small bump for Romney, was trailed by four points in the same
poll last week. Overall, the Real Clear Politics average shows Obama
ahead by 0.1 points. Nate Silver estimates that Romney received a
bounce of about two or three points. This qualifies as a
disappointment for Romney, who had an opportunity to open his
first clear lead on Obama since emerging from the GOP primaries. It
was especially important for Romney to do this because of the
strong possibility that Obama will receive a bounce of his own from
this weeks Democratic convention. If Obama benefits from a
stronger bounce, he could enter next week with a sizable lead.
FACT CHECKING ALL THE ERRORS MINIMIZED THE BOUNCE THAT ROMNEY GOT FROM THE CONVENTION
Its easy to dismiss the impact of fact-checkers on public opinion; its one of
the reasons I initially expected that the GOP ticket wouldnt pay much of a
price for Paul Ryans epically dishonest speech last week. But that was
premature. Fact-checkers came down hard on Ryan last Thursday and
Friday, and it bled over into objective reporting on the race. The
Romney campaign wasnt expecting this. As I wrote last week, outrage
from editorial boards, fact-checkers and ad watch columns is built into
their formula; but when the dominant theme of major, down-themiddle news outlets becomes the factual corner-cutting at their
convention, they have a problem. That may be what happened last week
too much critical news coverage, not enough Romneys triumphant
moment! coverage. Ezra Klein says the role fact-checkers played in
Tampa was a revelation: Theyre stiffening the medias spine when
presented with lies and deceptions. Previously, it was difficult for
reporters to say that a politician said X, and that was a lie. Thats taking
sides, even if its simply taking the side of the truth. But now they can say
that a politician said X, and the fact checkers said it was a lie.

p. 26 of 121

p. 27 of 121

THE GOP CONVENTION WONT HELP ROMNEY - IT WASNT VERY GOOD
Or maybe Republicans just missed an opportunity to lay out a compelling
vision and to build excitement among voters. Part of this wasnt their fault;
Hurricane Isaac forced the cancelation of the first day of the
convention and commanded heavy news coverage, making it harder for the
GOP to break through. But there was also Chris Christies keynote
speech, which mainly attracted attention because of how much of it
was about Christie and how little was about Romney. There was also
Thursday nights Clint Eastwood debacle, when the 82-year-old actor
ate up 15 minutes of the prime 10 p.m. hour with an incoherent colloquy
with an empty chair. It was a truly bizarre spectacle that distracted
from Romneys big moment and stirred more water cooler talk on Friday
than anything the candidate said.

p. 28 of 121
LINK: PLAN POPULAR - GENERAL

MANY VOTERS SAY FEDERAL POLICY ON TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE WILL INFLUENCE THEIR
VOTES
Houston Chronicle 5.12.12
[http://www.chron.com/business/press-releases/article/AmericansValue-Highways-and-Bridges-as-a-3568488.php]
A new survey from HNTB Corporation finds two-thirds (66 percent) of
Americans who intend to vote during this year's presidential
election feel that a candidate's standing on American transportation
infrastructure will influence their decision; more than one in five (22
percent) say this will be extremely influential on who they vote for.
"Our highways, bridges and other transportation infrastructure are
essential assets that support growth and investment in the U.S. economy,"
said Pete Rahn, HNTB leader national transportation practice. "People
expect them to be resilient, reliable and safe." Clearly, Americans hold the
nation's infrastructure in high regard. Nearly nine in ten (89 percent)
Americans feel its important for the federal government to fund the
maintenance and improvements of interstate highways.
DESPITE OPPOSITION TO SOME FUNDING, THE PUBLIC OVERALL SUPPORTS NEW TRANSPORTATION
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS
Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey 2011
[http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/uploads/files/80e28432-07904d42-91ec-afb6d11febee.pdf]
Voters of all political stripes are tired of partisan gridlock in
Washingtonthey want leaders to work together and seek compromise
to get things done for the country. They overwhelmingly say elected
leaders should cooperate when it comes to transportation
infrastructure, seeing improvement in this area as a way to improve
the economy, make communities safer, and improve Americans quality of
life. And while voters oppose some funding streams they widely endorse
others, and they clearly see a need for reform when it comes to financing
transportation projects.

p. 29 of 121

VOTERS SEE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AS IMPORTANT
Even with a highly polarized electorate that remains steadfast in its
belief that things in the nation are off on the wrong track there is wide
agreementacross the partisan spectrumthat leaders in Washington
should be seeking common ground. Nowhere is this more true than
legislation related to the countrys transportation infrastructure.
Indeed, two in three voters say that making improvements in
infrastructure is very important, and most voters say that in its current
state the nations transportation system is barely adequate. Voters seek
better and safer roads and more public transportation options,
widely agreeing that the United States would benefit from an expanded
and improved public transportation system.
VOTERS SUPPORT GETTING SOMETHING DONE ON TI
Voters want common ground on transportation legislation more
than on any other issue. Americans want leaders to seek common
ground across a host of issues, but they want it on transportation
legislation more than any other area. 71% of voters say there should be
common ground on this issuehigher than other major issues
while 19% say leaders should hold fast to their positions, which is lower
than other major issues. By comparison, the next-highest issue is
legislation dealing with the budget deficit, where 69% would like to see
common ground and 25% want to see leaders holding fast to their
positions.

p. 30 of 121

MOST VOTERS, ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM, AGREE THAT CURRENT TI IS INADEQUATE
Two in three voters say that improving the nations infrastructure is
highly important, and many say our current infrastructure system is
inadequate. 66% of voters say that improving the countrys
transportation infrastructure is extremely (27%) or very (39%)
important. Another 27% say it is somewhat important. Just 6% say it is
not important. Again, majorities of Democrats (74%), independents
(62%), and Republicans (56%) say this is very or extremely important, as
do 59% of Tea Party supporters. The importance of improving
infrastructure also is consistent regardless of the length of a voters
commutewhether their commute is less than 15 minutes (60%
important), between 15 and 44 minutes (69%), or 45 minutes or longer
(63%). Indeed, 44% say that roads are often or totally inadequate and that
only some public transportation options exist for those who want them.
Only 4% of voters say that roads are totally adequate with lots of public
transportation options, while 50% say roads are mostly adequate and there
are just enough public transportation options.
PUBLIC STRONGLY SUPPORTS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING INCLUDING PAYING FOR IT
David Madland and Nick Bunker, Center for American Progress, March 22, 2012
[www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2012/03/pdf/middle_class_infrastr
ucture.pdf]
And make no mistake, the broader American public supports
increased investments in infrastructure. Ninety-three percent feel
making improvements to infrastructure is important; 72 percent
support increasing federal spending to build and repair roads,
bridges, and schools; and 81 percent are prepared to pay more in
taxes to do so.

p. 31 of 121
PLAN POPULAR SEEN AS A JOBS PROGRAM

THE PRESIDENT CAN USE INFRASTRUCTURE BILLS ON THE JOBS ISSUE
The Hill July 6, 2012
[http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/highways-bridges-androads/236519-obama-signs-highway-bill]
Obama has touted the highway bill as a jobs bill, and at the White
House signing ceremony he was surrounded by construction workers
and students. The ceremony began after the president concluded a twoday campaign trip through the swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania.
First of all, this bill will keep thousands of construction workers on
the job rebuilding our nations infrastructure," Obama said in a
quick speech delivered less than an hour after he landed at Andrews Air
Force base in suburban Washington.
INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS TIED TO MIDDLE CLASS ECONOMIC PROGRAM
Donna Cooper, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress 1.25.12
[http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/technology/news/2012/01/25
/10912/will-congress-block-infrastructure-spending/]
Just as America refocused its war resources on building our nations
highway system after World War II, President Barack Obamas State of
the Union address included a courageous call for Congress to
redirect half of the funds formerly claimed for the war in Iraq to rebuild
our nations crumbling infrastructure. His strong pitch for putting
Americans to work repairing our infrastructure is an essential
element of the presidents strategy to help the middle class grow
and prosper.

p. 32 of 121
PLAN POPULAR SEEN AS A JOBS PROGRAM OHIO EXAMPLE

OBAMA HAS USED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR ELECTION BOOSTS IN STATES LIKE OHIO
John Spinelli, Ohio News Bureau, 8.19.12
[http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-back-ohio-tuesday-followinglast-week-s-innovation-infrastructure-news]
Following announcements last week that the White House will
pump $30 million into an innovative additive manufacturing hub in
Youngstown and another $12 million of unspent Bush-era dollars into
15 transportation infrastructure projects across Ohio, President
Obama is returning Tuesday to the tipping-point state of the
dozen battleground states that will decided whether he and Vice
President Joe Biden keep their jobs for another four years or whether GOP
presumptive candidate Mitt Romney and his Wisconsin running mate Paul
Ryan take the helm of a nation that desperately wants to set sail but is
stuck in port, due in large part to the unwillingness of Republicans in an
election year to agree with the White House on virtually anything.

p. 33 of 121

NEITHER ROMNEY OR OBAMA HAS WON THE ECONOMIC ARGUMENT YET BUT VOTERS BELIEVE
INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING WILL CREATE JOBS
Greg Sergent, Washington Post, 8.27.12
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/why-the-weakeconomy-hasnt-yet-doomed-obama/2012/08/27/d46c5028-f05e-11e1adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html]
Indeed, its not clear either candidate has won the argument about
the economy. In the latest Post poll, Romney holds a seven point
advantage on the generic question of who should be trusted on the
economy. But it also finds that the two are tied on which mans election
will result in an improved economy. Forty three percent say they are
confident the economy will get on track of Obama is reelected; 56 percent
say they are not. The numbers for Romney? A virtually identical 43-55. And
a majority says spending more on infrastructure, rather than
cutting taxes, is the way to create jobs, 52-33. Public opinion is
conflicted and in flux; expectations have been revised downward; no
one has won the argument about the way forward yet.
OBAMA CONNECTS TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH JOBS IN THE CAMPAIGN
Burgess Everett, Politico, 8.31.12
[http://www.politico.com/morningtransportation/0812/morningtransportatio
n218.html]
Maybe, if President Barack Obamas interview with Time magazine
released Thursday is any indication. Rebuilding our infrastructure,
our roads and our bridges and our ports and our airports, the
president told Michael Scherer, is one of those things that help
make us grow [that] are compatible with fiscal discipline as long as
everybody is doing their fair share. Obama indicated that after the
election, bipartisan space on traditionally non-ideological issues
like infrastructure should open back up once the GOP is not
concentrating on his political demise, he said. We still need to rebuild our
infrastructure, he said of one of an array of issues where historically at
least, weve been able to bridge some of these partisan divides.
TRANSPORTATION SPENDING IS SOLD AS JOBS
[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71028.html]

p. 34 of 121
Building roads and rails is central to President Barack Obamas

economic recovery plans. Congressional leaders are calling new
long-term surface transportation legislation this Congresss jobs
bill. So in Washington, transportation means jobs.

p. 35 of 121

THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTS INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING AND SEE IT AS CREATING JOBS
Washington Post 4.23.12
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/expertswant-to-build-public-support-for-infrastructureprojects/2012/04/23/gIQAvmMXcT_story.html]
The plan to energize public support was outlined Monday in a report by
transportation experts brought together by the Miller Center at the
University of Virginia. After a conference this past November, the group
concluded that most Americans are aware of the infrastructure
crisis and support spending to address it. Recent public-opinion
surveys have found overwhelming support for the idea
of infrastructure investment, the report said. After the bridge to
nowhere controversies of recent years, the public has become
sensitized to issues of pork-barrel spending and understandably
demands to see a clear connection between federal expenditures, actual
transportation needs, and economic benefits. Despite apprehension
about wasteful spending, the report said, more than two-thirds of
voters surveyed by the Rockefeller Foundation said infrastructure
improvement was important and 80 percent said spending on it
would create millions of jobs.
PUBLIC SUPPORTS SMART INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION, SEE IT AS PROMOTING GROWTH AND JOBS
IN THEIR LOCAL AREA

University of
Research and experience, however, suggest that this erosion of support
for transportation investments does not necessarily extend to the American
public. Most citizens voice support for public spending on
transportation when they perceive that this spending will result in
positive outcomes at the local level. In general, the public also
remains receptive to the message that smart transportation
investments can make a positive long-term contribution to
economic growth, U.S. competitiveness, and job creation.

p. 36 of 121

OPINION POLLS SHOW PUBLIC SUPPORTS INVESTMENT IN TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE AS
BOOSTING LOCAL AREA JOBS

University of
Meanwhile, recent public-opinion surveys have found overwhelming
support for the idea of infrastructure investment. In a 2011 survey
conducted by the Rockefeller Foundation, for example, two-thirds of
voters said that improving the nations infrastructure is important,
and 80 percent agreed that federal funding to improve and
modernize transportation will boost local economies and create
millions of jobs from construction to manufacturing to
engineering. Similarly, a poll conducted by CBS News and The New
York Times between October 19 and October 24, 2011 showed that
eight in ten Americans approve of government spending for roads
and bridges as a way to boost employment.
THE PUBLIC SEES TI AS A JOBS PROGRAM THAT WILL BOOST THEIR LOCAL ECONOMY AND CREATE JOBS
The public understands the economic benefits of infrastructure
improvement. Four in five (80%) voters agree that federal funding to
improve and modernize transportation will boost local economies
and create millions of jobs from construction to manufacturing to
engineering. Just 19% disagree with this. And 79% agree that in order
for the United States to remain the worlds top economic
superpower we need to modernize our transportation infrastructure
and keep it up to date. Again, 19% disagree.

p. 37 of 121
PLAN POPULAR REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION PROVES

REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION PROVES INFRASTRUCTURE LEGISLATION WOULD HELP PRESIDENT OBAMA WIN
THE ELECTION
None of this is news to the House Republicans. They are desperate to
shift attention away from their failure to advance legislation to
address our nations crumbling infrastructure because they are
more concerned with blocking a jobs victory for President Obama
that would help him win the 2012 presidential election.
REPUBLICANS OPPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE BILLS BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT WILL HELP OBAMAS REELECTION
Indeed, Sen. McConnell blocked passage of the Senate version of the
Jobs Act while lambasting the president for pointing it out and blasting the
Senate Democrats for not working with the House Republicans to reach a
compromise. But that statement begs the question of why McConnell isnt
working with his own partys leadership in the House to make sure the
Senate receives a bill that has a chance of a positive vote. The answer is
clear: The Republican leadership is very concerned that responding
to the American popular call for infrastructure investment will
benefit President Obama politicallynever mind the pain suffered by
the American people and our future economic competitiveness by their
failure to act.

p. 38 of 121
PLAN POPULAR AT: GOP HELPED BY THE PLAN

INFRASTRUCTURE JOBS DONT HELP REPUBLICANS
[http://www.politico.com/morningtransportation/0812/morningtransportatio
n218.html]
Republicans have made jobs the No. 1 issue in an election year thats
seen little substantial legislating. But one of the few big bills that has
sailed through the transportation law isnt being talked about
at the RNC. Infrastructure isnt a big national topic (or as former
Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell recently wrote, Infrastructure may be one of
the least sexy words in the English language), particularly as part of a
massive political messaging event like a party convention. But if it was
going to be made an issue, an event focused on jobs and the economy
would seem to be a natural fit. The simple fact is that for the GOP,
linking jobs to federal infrastructure investment just doesnt jive
with the overall RNC theme: The private sector creates jobs, not the
government.

p. 39 of 121
PLAN POPULAR PLAN SEEN AS BOLD ECONOMIC ACTION

THE PUBLIC IS LOOKING FOR A BIG ECONOMIC IDEA, LIKE A MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
Robert Reich, professor of public policy, University of California, 8.5.12
[www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x1602167679/Reich-The-antielection-of-2012]
Yet the public wants bigger ideas from the president, and wants to
know what hell do in his second term to get us out of this mess. A recent
New York Times-CBS News poll showed that a majority of voters
believe the president can do a lot about the economy. Thats a
double-digit jump from the fall of 2011. The president could propose a
new WPA, modeled after the Depression-era jobs program that hired
hundreds of thousands of jobless Americans to rebuild the nations
infrastructure, and a new Civilian Conservation Corps.

p. 40 of 121
PLAN POPULAR SUBURBS INTERNAL LINK

FEDERAL AID FOR INFRASTRUCTURE IS IMPORTANT FOR AGING SUBURBS
Lawrence Levy, Newsday, 8.17.12
[http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/levy-mitt-romney-and-barackobama-can-t-forget-the-suburbs-1.3911198]
Meanwhile, the iconic post-World War II suburbs are getting older
-- Levittown just turned 65 -- and they're showing their age. Many,
including Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester, require huge infusions of
cash to redevelop decayed downtowns, provide affordable housing, ease
traffic congestion, preserve open space and protect the environment. The
federal government once paid a large share of many of these public
works, which even the wealthiest suburban communities can't afford
on their own. But the feds, as well as most states, have cut way back on
local assistance.
SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS HAVE APPEAL TO SUBURBAN VOTERS
Republicans, however, have an opening. The Hofstra poll suggests that
suburbanites have little confidence in the federal government, as
well as in their own futures. Even as Democrats are caricaturing Ryan as a
fiscal and social Darth Vader, Republicans are calling Obama an
incompetent who couldn't get the job done. The GOP isn't talking up less
help from government, but better and more affordable help. Game on.
What suburbanites should fear the most, however, is neither cuts nor
incompetence, but inattention to their specific, place-based problems. They
need to hear how the presidential candidates will help these
fragmented and sometimes isolated suburban communities with
their infrastructure, education, housing, health care and other needs.

p. 41 of 121

JOBS AND THE ECONOMY ARE THE KEY TO SUBURBAN VOTERS NOW
Robert Brodsky, Newsday, 8.1.12
[http://www.newsday.com/elections/mitt-romney-or-barack-obamasuburban-voters-will-pick-next-president-poll-finds-1.3874645]
Obama's support tracks closely with suburbanites' views of the
economy. Among 1,005 suburban residents interviewed, including 844
who are registered to vote and 161 who are not, 33 percent said they were
worse off financially than they were four years ago. Only 28 percent said
they were doing better, and 37 percent saw no change in their fiscal
condition. Those numbers are slightly more optimistic than in past Hofstra
polls. Suburban residents will vote their pocketbooks in November,
said Michael Dawidziak, a Bohemia campaign consultant who works
primarily with Republicans. "The economy and jobs blow everything
else away," he said. "Nothing even comes close." Said Levy: "This is
not your mother and father's suburb. The pain of the recession has
reached into areas that were once the most prosperous."
SUBURBAN VOTERS ARE AGAINST GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN THE ABSTRACT, BUT FAVOR SPECIFICS LIKE
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
A new poll out from Hofstra University, which dug deep into the
opinions of suburban voters a key national swing constituency
is pretty interesting along these lines. It finds Obama and Mitt Romney
exactly split among these voters. But on the questions of
government spending and regulation, their verdict is clear: They are
inclined against them in the abstract, but are adamantly opposed to
cutting them when the talk turns to specifics. * More than seven in 10
suburban residents say they favor cutting federal spending in general. But
when you get specific, 87 percent oppose cutting Social Security and
Medicare benefits. And 65 percent support increasing government
spending on infrastructure and public works projects.

p. 42 of 121

SUBURBANITES FAVOR PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT
A majority, 51 percent, says government regulation of business usually
does more harm than good. But when you get specific, nearly two
thirds of them say the environment should be protected by doing
whatever it takes. Even when you add into the equation that
regulation might cost jobs, a bare majority still says strict
environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost. Keep in
mind these are suburbanites, not overall Americans.
SUBURBAN VOTERS SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING ON GREEN JOBS
National Center for Suburban Studies (Hofstra University) July 2012
[Sixth National Suburban Survey, Princeton Survey Research

Associates Intl, p. 19]
Turning the issue around, there is majority support for increasing
some government spending. Nearly two-thirds of suburban dwellers
(65%) support increasing spending on roads, bridges, and other
public works projects, while 30 percent oppose it. Despite recent
controversies around federal money lost in supporting the Solyndra
Corp., 53 percent support increasing federal spending to create
green jobs that focus on the environment. Forty-one percent of
suburban residents oppose such increases.

p. 43 of 121
PLAN POPULAR SUBURBS INTERNAL LINK AT: SPENDING UNPOPULAR

THE RYAN BUDGET IS VERY UNPOPULAR WITH SUBURBAN VOTERS
Carville and Greenberg, Democracy Corps, 8.11.12
[www.democracycorps.com/.../904/DCorps.Ryan.081112.pdf,
Paul Ryan Pick Could Seriously Erode Romneys Support, p.2]
Most importantly, this erosion was steepest among swing voters. After
hearing about the Ryan budget and an even debate on both sides,
Obama gained a net 9 points among independents, with Romneys
vote among this group dropping to just 40 percent. Among seniors,
Romneys net 11-point edge eroded to just a 2-point margin. Dramatically,
Romneys initial 20-point advantage among white seniors was reduced by
more than halfto just 9 points with this critical group. Among suburban
voters, it is no contestafter hearing about the Ryan budget and
Romneys support for it, Obama won suburban voters by an 18-point
margin on the final ballot.

p. 44 of 121
PLAN UNPOPULAR GENERAL

THE PUBLIC DOESNT SUPPORT FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING
Ken Orski, Editor, Publisher of Innovation NewsBriefs, 2.5.12
[Innovation NewsBriefs is a transportation newsletter that has been

published for 20years. Orski was formerly Associate Administrator for
the Federal Urban Mass Transit
Administration,
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002662-why-pleas-increaseinfrastructure-funding-fall-deaf-ears]
There are various theories why appeals to increase infrastructure
spending do not resonate with the public. One widely held view is that
people simply do not trust the federal government to spend their tax
dollars wisely. As proof, evidence is cited that a great majority of
state and local transportation ballot measures do get passed,
because voters know precisely where their tax money is going. No
doubt there is much truth to that. Indeed, thanks to local funding initiatives
and the use of tolling, state transportation agencies are becoming
increasingly more self-reliant and less dependent on federal funding.
THE PUBLIC IS SKEPTICAL OF CRUMBLING INFRASTRUCTURE CLAIMS BECAUSE THEY DONT SEE ITMANY PROPONENTS OF NEW SPENDING HAVE A FINANCIAL INTEREST

Administration,
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002662-why-pleas-increaseinfrastructure-funding-fall-deaf-ears]
Along with Lane, I think the American public is skeptical about
alarmist claims of "crumbling infrastructure" because they see no
evidence of it around them. State DOTs and transit authorities take
great pride in maintaining their systems in good condition and, by
and large, they succeed in doing a good job of it. Potholes are rare,
transit buses and trains seldom break down, and collapsing bridges,
happily, are few and far between. The oft-cited "D" that the American
Society of Civil Engineers has given Americas infrastructure (along with
an estimate of $2.2 trillion needed to fix it) is taken with a grain of salt,
says Lane, since the engineers lobby has a vested interest in
increasing infrastructure spending, which means more work for
engineers. Suffering from the same credibility problem are the
legions of road and transit builders, rail and road equipment

p. 45 of 121
manufacturers, construction firms, planners and consultants that

try to make a case for more money.

p. 46 of 121

MANY EXAMPLES WHERE PUBLIC DOESNT SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Administration,
http://www.newgeography.com/content/001822-living-in-denial-abouttransportation-funding]
Indeed, what the lawmakers see is just the opposite. They witness New
Jersey voters strongly approving Governor Chris Christies decision
to cancel work on the long-planned rail tunnel under the Hudson
River because, says the Governor, "the state simply doesnt have the
money" to pay for overruns in the potential $9-14 billion project. Mr.
Christie, no doubt, has in mind the experience of Bostons Big Dig which
was projected in 1982 to cost $2.8 billion and ended up costing $15 billion.
The lawmakers also see Republican candidates for governor in
California (Meg Whitman), Florida (Rick Scott), Ohio (John Kasich)
and Wisconsin (Scott Walker) pledging to cancel high-speed rail
projects in their states if elected and running ahead of their
Democratic opponents who unanimously support President Obamas
$8 billion high-speed rail initiative. They see the public greeting
with a yawn a bold and visionary Amtrak proposal to link Boston
and Washington with a dedicated high-speed rail line.
THE PUBLIC DOESNT SUPPORT INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAMS EVEN IN URBAN STATES

Administration,
More evidence of public reluctance to spend on infrastructure
comes from the findings of a new October 2010 survey by the Pew
Center on the States and the Public Institute of California titled "Facing
the Facts: Public Attitudes and Fiscal Realities in Five Stressed States." By
a large margin, respondents in five states (California, Arizona,
Florida, Illinois and New York) showed a strong unwillingness to
support additional transportation funding and offered to put
transportation on the chopping block when asked which of their
state's biggest expenses they would least protect from budget cuts.

p. 47 of 121

p. 48 of 121

POPULARITY OF FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS IS DECLINING

Administration,
As one of our colleagues, a sincere and lifelong transportation
advocate, put it, "the transportation community is mostly talking to
itself and living in denial about the changing political mood." That
moodin the nation at large as well as in the next Congress is
unmistakably becoming more conservative and skeptical of big
government. An overwhelming 70 percent of Americans think the
government does not spend taxpayers money wisely, according to a
recent Rasmussen poll. Newly elected members of Congress will be
marching to the drum of fiscal discipline and looking for ways to curb outof-control spending, a GOP aide told us. Congress will be closely
questioning costly new federal initiatives no matter how well
intentioned, he added. The expansive federal-aid surface
transportation program as we have known it in the past may no
longer be thought politically acceptable or fiscally affordable.

p. 49 of 121

THE PUBLIC BELIEVES WE CANT AFFORD INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT OR DOUBTS ITS EFFECTIVENESS
Norm Mineta, former Transportation Secretary, 2012

University of
Despite broad support in principle, however, active public
engagement on these issues has been elusive. While many Americans
experience the inefficiencies of our current transport systems on a daily
basis, other impactssuch as the impact of lost productivity on the
broader economy or the impact of high transportation costs on the
price of goodsare less immediately obvious. Faced with other urgent
concerns and economic challenges, many Americans believe we simply
cant afford to invest in transportation repairs and upgrades given
our countrys current budget situation. Many also do not have faith that
money allocated to transportation projects will be used in the most
efficient and effective ways possible. Simply put, there is a lack of
confidence and trust in the ability of policymakers to make good
decisions in transportation policy and planning.

p. 50 of 121
PLAN UNPOPULAR EVEN IF LIKE TI, THEY DONT LIKE FEDERAL

PUBLIC DOES NOT TRUST FEDERAL INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING
Kenneth Orski, public policy consultant, May 17, 2012
[http://www.infrastructureusa.org/advocates-of-higher-spending-arefacing-a-skeptical- audience/]
Infrastructure Investment did not even make the top ten list of
public priorities in the latest Pew Research Center survey of
domestic concerns cited at the conference. Calls by two
congressionally mandated commissions to vastly increase
transportation infrastructure spending have gone ignored. So have
repeated pleas by advocacy groups such as Building Americas Future,
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Transportation for America. Why do
appeals to increase infrastructure spending fail to resonate with the
public? One widely held view is that people simply do not trust the
federal government to spend their tax dollars wisely. As proof,
evidence is cited that a great majority of state and local transportation
ballot measures do get passed.
PROGRAMS FROM WASHINGTON ARE UNPOPULAR
The anti-Washington sentiment at the grassroots level remains
strong and may be growing stronger. The Tea Party movement has
furnished ample evidence that anti-Washington sentiment can
become a powerful organizing force at the grassroots level. The
approval rate for Congress has dropped below 10 percent. Washington is
more unpopular than ever. Theres no way that Barack Obama can
alter this reality: He is the candidate who lives in Washington and Mitt
Romney is the candidate who has never lived in Washington.

p. 51 of 121
PLAN UNPOPULAR SPENDING/BIG GOVERNMENT

VOTERS ARE ANGRY AT GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND DEFICITS
Most Americans are angry and/or upset by the record federal
deficits and the explosive growth in the national debt during the
Obama presidency. The presidents lowest rating on any issue is the
budget deficit. Just 30 percent of voters approve of Obamas handling of
the federal budget. Even a substantial portion of Obama supporters
have reservations about his economic stewardship of the nation. And
Obamas five-year budget projects offer little relief in the red ink. The
Democrats only hope is to convince voters that the deficit would increase
even more under the proposed Romney-Ryan tax cuts.
VOTERS MOVING TOWARD FAVORING SMALLER GOVERNMENT
Small government > big government: In the decades-long fight over
how much government is enough/too much, the forces of small(er)
government seem to have won out at least for the moment. Fifty-six
percent of people said they favored smaller government and less
services while 38 percent said they preferred a larger government
with more services. Those numbers are particularly important given that
a part of Obamas 2008 campaign was premised on the idea that
government was necessary and could be a good thing something people
felt acutely after the Bush administrations (mis)handling of the aftermath
of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

p. 52 of 121
PLAN UNPOPULAR ONLY LIKE TI IF IT HELPS THEM DIRECTLY

THE PUBLIC IS SKEPTICAL OF INFRASTRUCTURE SPENDING AND SUPPORT IT ONLY IF IT HELPS THEM
LOCALLY

University of
Virginia, 2012, p.16-7]
Of course, public support for infrastructure spending including
transportationis neither universal nor unconditional. After the
bridge to nowhere controversies of recent years, the public has
become sensitized to issues of pork-barrel spending and
understandably demands to see a clear connection between federal
expenditures, actual transportation needs, and economic benefits.
The priority accorded to transportation investment also varies from
region to region and community to community, since most Americans
view infrastructure challenges and successes through the lens of
what is happening in the places where they live and travel.

p. 53 of 121
PLAN UNPOPULAR AT: SUBURBS INTERNAL LINK

SUBURBAN WOMEN SUPPORT LOWER GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO REDUCE THE DEBT
Heidi Kelly, political and communications consultant, CrossCut, Seattle, 8.16.12
[http://crosscut.com/2012/08/16/op-ed/110050/andrea-mitchell-paulryan-suburban-women-wrong/]
Suburban women are still concerned about womens issues as baby
boomers perceive them, but Generation X knows that a better health care
system and a stronger education for our children depend on whether our
generations can come together and fix the federal budget. This election is
about asking the federal government to do what suburban women
have been doing for the last four years: pay down our debt, balance
the budget, do more with less, and begin to rely on each other
instead of the government. Women dont want Social Security or
Medicare cut to shreds because our parents depend on them, but we
believe these entitlements can and must be reformed and brought into the
modern era, so we dont bankrupt our childrens future. Paul Ryan is
speaking our language. It should be perfectly obvious why the first
national politician to spring from Generation X focused his
attention completely on the budget crisis. He understands that we
want to protect the generations that sandwich ours, and that makes him
the perfect pick to appeal to suburban women; women who are
worried simultaneously about the future of their parents and their
own children.
THE PUBLIC GENERALLY SUPPORTS SMALLER GOVERNMENT, ESPECIALLY INDEPENDENTS
William Galston, Brookings Institution, 5.10.12
[Six Months To Go: Where the Presidential Contest Stands as the

General Election Begins,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2012/05/10-obamacampaign-galston]
Beyond this overall shift, there is evidence that the high-profile
controversies during Obamas presidency have affected public
attitudes on what has become the defining ideological question in
our politicsthe role of government. As recently as 2004, almost half
of all Americans were satisfied with the size and power of the federal
government. Four years later, 41 percent were still satisfied. This year,
only 29 percent remain satisfied. (Among Independents, the number is
even lower24 percent.) For the first time in at least a decade,
dissatisfaction with the federal government now exceeds
dissatisfaction with major corporationsa remarkable fact, given the

p. 54 of 121
damaging misjudgments so many businesses made in the years before the

Great Recession. Having made aggressive use of the federal government to
stimulate the economy and reform health care, President Obama now
finds himself playing ideological defense. In the most recent
ABC/Washington post survey, only 22 percent of the respondents
said that his views on the size and role of government were a reason
to support him for reelection. Nearly twice as many39 percent
said that his views were a reason to oppose him.

p. 55 of 121
PLAN UNPOPULAR AT: SUBURBS INTERNAL LINK

SWING, INDEPENDENT VOTERS ARE CRITICAL OF OBAMA ON THE ISSUE OF SPENDING AND DEFICITS

A recent report found Obama statistically tied with Romney among
Independents in swing states, with 36 percent of these
Independents up for grabs. Among these Swing Independents, Obama
now enjoys a lead of 44 to 38 percent. But there are some warning signs.
These voters are split on Obamas economic management, and they
strongly prefer Republicans both on the budget deficit and
government spending, issues of great concern to them. And
according to the report, they are not much moved by the fairness
argument. By 57 to 38 percent, they said it was more important to fix the
budget deficit than to reduce the income gap. A plurality42 percent
thought that reducing the budget deficit was the single most
effective way of strengthening the economy.

p. 56 of 121
SUBURBAN VOTERS ARE TRULY SWING VOTERS

SUBURBANITES ARE KEY SWING VOTERS
Republican Mitt Romney's anointment last weekend of conservative
icon Paul Ryan electrified activists on the right and the left. But it's also
good news for the more moderate, independent voters who really
determine national elections. I'm talking about the suburbanites.
And if they've been feeling left out of the debate while Romney
and President Barack Obama have sought to secure their "red" and "blue"
core voters, Ryan's ascension to the ticket solidifies those bases -and assures that both campaigns will shift toward suburban swing
voters. If the candidates are smart, they'll also shift to the
economic, social and environmental problems increasingly plaguing
these communities. As a new University of Minnesota study of American
suburbs warns: "Policy makers could pay a political price for failing to
connect" with voters in these diverse and needy places. And based on
Hofstra University's latest National Suburban Poll, which has
Romney and Obama in a dead heat among suburbanites, one in four
respondents said they could change their minds before Election
Day.
SUBURBANITES HAVE LITTLE POLITICAL LOYALTY THEY WILL SWITCH EASILY FROM ONE PARTY TO
ANOTHER
More than 50 percent of the U.S. population lives in the suburbs,
and party-switching is almost a pastime, especially in so-called innerring suburbs like those closest to New York City. On average, these
suburbs "are evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, and
are often the political battlegrounds that determine elections," said
the Minnesota study, conducted by Myron Orfield and Thomas Luce for the
Institute for Metropolitan Opportunity. "They are more likely than other
voters to switch parties from one election to another and, as a
result, often decide the balance of state legislatures
and Congress as well as the outcomes of gubernatorial and
presidential elections." Hofstra's poll, released Aug. 3, showed
marked gains for Obama among suburbanites nationwide -- moving

p. 57 of 121
him to a tie with Romney after having been down against him in a
theoretical matchup in December. The shift, also seen in several measures
of favorability among suburbanites, seems to reflect a rising confidence in
the economy. But it's all fragile. Although improved, confidence in
the economy is relatively low.

p. 58 of 121
SUBURBAN VOTERS - AT: VOTERS HAVE ALREADY DECIDED

MOST VOTERS HAVE DECIDED, BUT SUBURBAN VOTERS SWING BACK AND FORTH
John King, CNN, 5.16.12 [lexis]
If you go back a campaign, go back four more years, four more years, four
more years, the state hardly changes. Certain areas are locked in
Republican, certain areas locked in Democrat. But you have the
area, the suburban area right around Cincinnati, the suburban area
right around Columbus and the suburban area up along the lake up
around Cleveland. Suburban voters and as you
mentioned, suburban women, like in Pennsylvania, in those bigger
states when they are locked so close, that's usually the key.
SUBURBAN VOTERS HAVENT MADE UP THEIR MINDS THEY HAVENT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION YET
Reid Wilson, National Journal 7.17.12
[http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/suburbanmothers-are-fall-s-key-swing-voters-20120712]
President Obama and Mitt Romney can talk all they like, but the voters
who will decide this year's presidential election aren't listening yet. That's
because prototypical key swing voters this year are far more
concerned with guiding their families through the slow and
grinding economic recovery than they are with presidential politics.
Those voters most likely to remain undecided about their
presidential preference are taking on a distinct profile, according to
pollsters on both sides of the aisle: They're suburban white women,
between the ages of 35 and 55, who probably haven't attained a college
degree and who have kids under the age of 18. They very likely voted
Democratic in 2008, then turned around and voted Republican two
years later if they voted at all.

p. 59 of 121
SUBURBAN VOTERS - UNIQUENESS

NEITHER OBAMA OR ROMNEY HAS REACHED SUBURBAN VOTERS YET
Reid Wilson, National Journal 7.17.12
[http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/on-the-trail/suburbanmothers-are-fall-s-key-swing-voters-20120712]
With such weighty economic situations on swing mothers' minds,
both pollsters say neither Obama's nor Romney's campaign has truly
reached these voters yet. And both candidates face challenges in
relating: Obama contends with a sense of disappointment that his
first term hasn't sped the economic recovery as much as they
expected or that the recovery is leaving them behind. Romney
contends with a growing sense that his business experience demonstrates
he would favor the wealthy over the middle class.
OBAMA AND ROMNEY REMAINED TIED WITH SUBURBAN VOTERS
NBC Poll (August 20), 8.21.12
[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nbcwsj-poll-shows-romney-supportamong-blacks-at-zero-percent/]
NBC News breaks down the numbers from the poll: Obama continues
to lead Romney among key parts of his political base, including African
Americans (94 percent to 0 percent), Latinos (by a 2-to-1 margin), voters
under 35-years-old (52 percent to 41 percent) and women (51 percent to
41 percent). Romney is ahead with whites (53 percent to 40 percent), rural
voters (47 percent to 38 percent) and seniors (49 percent to 41 percent).
And the two presidential candidates are essentially even when it
comes to the swing groups of suburban voters, Midwest residents and
political independents.

p. 60 of 121
SUBURBAN VOTERS ROMNEY BARELY AHEAD

ROMNEY IS AHEAD IN THE SUBURBS NOW, BUT OBAMA IS GAINING, BUT SUBURBAN VOTERS CAN SWING
BACK EASILY
National Center for Suburban Studies 8.1.12
[http://www.hofstra.edu/Home/News/PressReleases/080112_SuburbanPoll.
html]
While Romney still holds a lead over Obama among suburban
independent voters, 45 percent to 41 percent, his support from
these critical swing voters is eroding, according to the sixth poll for the
National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University. The number of
independent suburban voters who give Obama a positive job rating stands
at 40 percent, compared to 33 percent in 2011. And 41 percent of
independents in the suburbs would vote for the president over Romney, up
from 29 percent in 2011, the poll found. This shift means Obama and
Romney are tied at 46 percent among all registered suburban
voters. In 2011, suburban voters favored Romney over Obama, 48 percent
to 40 percent. Suburban voters have been deciding national
elections for about a generation so it's positive news for President
Obama that his prospects have improved in the Crab Grass Frontier,
said Lawrence Levy, Executive Dean of the National Center for
Suburban Studies. But his standing with suburbanites -- which
tracks with their feelings about the economy -- is volatile and could
shift dramatically by November if they lose faith in their financial
futures.

p. 61 of 121
SUBURBAN VOTERS DECIDE KEY SWING STATES

SUBURBAN COUNTIES ARE KEY IN BATTLEGROUND STATES AND THEY SWING BACK AND FORTH BASED ON
POLITICAL PREFERENCES, NOT DEMOGRAPHICS
The Hill GOP12, 8.1.12
[http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/08/romney-obama-tied-amongsuburban-voters.html]
Obama is doing best with suburban women, minorities, young voters, and
those with a college degree. Romney is doing best with suburban men,
whites, those over 35 years-old, and those with some college. We've been
hearing for a while that the election will be won or lost in the
suburbs, and that's true. There are a boatload of suburban counties
in battleground states that supported Bush in 2004 but switched to
Obama in 2008. In some cases, a simple matter of demographics caused
the shift. But in quite a few (like Hamilton County, Ohio), it wasn't
demographics. It was just a pure shift in preference among
suburbanites.
THE SUBURBS ARE KEY TO OHIO
John King, CNN, 5.16.12 [lexis]
Now, why will this be a battleground in the fall? Well, because it

always is. Let's go back and take a look. This is the 2008 election.
Again, Senator Obama winning a decent margin there, 52-47. But that's
pretty close. If you go back to 2004, George W. Bush just barely winning.
What's different about 2008 and 2004? Look down here. Hamilton County,
Cincinnati area down here, President Obama, then Senator Obama, then
carried it then. Make that go off. President Bush carried it in '04. President
Bush carried it in 2000 as well. Also the suburbs around Cleveland, the
suburbs around Columbus and again that area down around
Cincinnati, those are the big battlegrounds in a general election in
Ohio.

p. 62 of 121
SUBURBAN VOTERS AT: ITS A BASE ELECTION

NOT JUST A BASE ELECTION - OBAMA CAMPAIGN TRYING TO WIN THE BASE AND INDEPENDENT WOMEN
Chris Cillizza, The Fix, Washington Post, 8.19.12
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012-election-more-aboutbase-than-undecideds/2012/08/19/2cd2f98c-ea02-11e1-9ddc340d5efb1e9c_story.html]
Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, acknowledged that 2012 is more a
base election than a persuasion one but said that its both. She added:
Though undecideds are small, you still have 15 percent of Obama
voters and 25 percent of Romney voters who would consider voting
for someone else. Thats almost a quarter of the electorate that are
undecided or swing. At the moment, Obama appears to be trying to
run a both/and campaign playing to the base with his public change
of heart on gay marriage earlier this year and his executive order allowing
young illegal immigrants to stay in the country, while also trying to reach
fiscally conservative, socially liberal undecideds. I think you might say
that the Romney camp is playing like its 2004, said a senior Democratic
official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to talk candidly
about strategy. But Team Obama is still in 08 mode, particularly with
independent women.
RYAN CHOICE ALREADY ENERGIZES BOTH BASES
Jeff Zeleny, New York Times 8.15.12
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/politics/ryan-pick-shifts-focusfrom-economy-to-ideology.html?_r=1]
The selection of Mr. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, has energized the
partys base and brought fresh enthusiasm and bigger crowds to the
Romney campaign. It also has awakened casual Democratic voters
like Mr. Brooks who recoil at a Republican budget and tax policy they
see as unfair to the middle class.

p. 63 of 121
SUBURBAN VOTERS AT: ITS A BASE ELECTION

EVEN IF THE NUMBER OF UNDECIDED VOTERS IS SMALL, ITS STILL ENOUGH TO DETERMINE THE ELECTION
Reid Epstein, Politico, 8.9.12
Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the campaign wants to excite the
presidents base as well as to win undecided voters and soft supporters
of Romney. And even though there arent many undecided voters left,
she said there are plenty to swing the election in Obamas favor.
Even if its 2 percent or 3 percent or 7 percent, that still is enough
undecided voters and soft supporters of the opponent to decide the
election, Psaki said.
OBAMA MUST BUILD HIS STANDING WITH SWING, INDEPENDENT VOTERS TO WIN

It is hard to see how Obama can win a majority of the popular vote
unless he rebuilds his standing among Independents. But it is not
clear his current strategy is the one best calculated to bring about this
result. Independents care more about economic growth and equal
opportunity than they do about reducing gaps in wealth and income.
While half of them believe that the U.S. economic system is unfair, 57
percent think that they themselves have been treated fairly. Perhaps that
is why only 47 percent think that income and wealth gaps need to be fixed
through public policy.

p. 64 of 121
UNDECIDED VOTERS DONT MATTER - ITS A BASE ELECTION

NO UNDECIDED ELECTION IS ABOUT TURNING OUT THE BASE
Conventional wisdom dictates that President Obama and former
Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will spend the next 78 days
assiduously courting the sliver of voters somewhere between 5 percent
and 10 percent of the electorate who call themselves political
independents and insist they remain genuinely undecided about which
candidate to support. Elections are, after all, decided by the ideological
middle; the two parties bases are already aligned behind their candidates,
and the trick is to persuade enough of those centrist independents
to side with your, well, side, to win. Except, of course, when its not.
The only thing undecided in this election are the TV anchors ties
on election night, said Dan Hazelwood, a Republican direct-mail
consultant. Both sides believe there is little chance for a dramatic shift in
opinion, so that leaves trench political warfare as the default strategy. That
means identifying and turning out your own supporters. Heaps of
national polling would seem to affirm Hazelwoods contention.
Political polarization is at an all-time high, with even soft partisans
already aligned behind either Obama or Romney. That has shrunk the
middle of the electorate to single digits nationally. Simply put: There
just arent that many people left for the campaigns to convince no
matter how much money (and it will be lots of money) the two sides spend
between now and Nov. 6.
2004 IS AN EXAMPLE OF A BASE ELECTION
A base election as opposed to an
independents/undecided/persuadables election is not unheard of. In
fact, you need to go back only two elections to find one. In 2004, we
had a president with middling approval ratings on the issue of the day (the
war in Iraq) and an opposition party strongly energized to oust him. (Sound
familiar?) Knowing that winning over the middle or voters even
loosely affiliated with Democrats was going to be next to

p. 65 of 121
impossible, President George W. Bush and his campaign strategists

instead focused their efforts on their own party base. Everything
from Bushs voter-identification efforts to the heavy national security
messaging in his television ads was targeted not at convincing
persuadable voters that he should be their choice but rather at reminding
Republican base voters why he was their guy. It paid off. Although Bush
lost independents to Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts (he had won them
against Al Gore in 2000), he improved his standing among self-identified
Republicans by two points from 2000. That proved to be enough as Bush
eked out a win with 286 electoral votes.

THERE ARE FAR FEWER UNDECIDED VOTERS THAN USUAL
Jeff Zeleny, New York Times 8.15.12
[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/us/politics/ryan-pick-shifts-focusfrom-economy-to-ideology.html?_r=1]
The traditional balance between motivating core supporters without
scaring off independent voters may be different in this election
cycle, strategists in both parties say, because such a small share of
people are truly independent and potentially open to either
candidate. A series of recent polls in six swing states showed that
only 5 percent of voters were undecided and only about 1 in 10 likely
voters who had chosen a candidate said they were open to switching. At
this point four years ago, more than 1 in 4 voters nationwide said
they might change their minds. There is a smaller slice of undecided
voters out there than usual, said Joel Benenson, the chief pollster for the
presidents re-election campaign.
THERE ARENT ENOUGH UNDECIDED VOTERS LEFT TO MAKE IT WORTH THE TIME TO APPEAL TO THEM
President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney would like to win over
undecided voters but there just arent many of them left. So in a
super-tight election year, the campaigns are focusing more on
appealing to their base voters than on winning new converts,
preaching to a choir their teams hope will sing at full volume by Election
Day. Its smart politics: Internal and public polls consistently show

p. 66 of 121
far fewer undecided voters than four years ago, the result in part of a
polarized electorate that has had four years to get to know Obama. The
fire-up-the-base thinking informs all aspects of the campaigns, from
Obamas tax-the-rich rhetoric and decision to tap liberal
champion Elizabeth Warren for a plum speaking spot at the Democratic
National Convention to Romneys recent embrace of tea party heroes Ted
Cruz and Richard Mourdock and the hawkishness he touted on his trip to
Israel last month.

p. 67 of 121

NEGATIVE AD CAMPAIGNS HAVE CAUSED ALMOST EVERYONE TO MAKE UP THEIR MIND ALREADY
Voters have had one term to learn about Obama after his unlikely
victory in 2008. Jeff Jones, Gallups managing editor, said the latest
polling tracks with typically lower undecided numbers during presidential
reelection campaigns. He said a barrage of negative advertising by the
campaigns and outside groups also has led voters to make up their
minds earlier. This years August figures are similar to where the 2008
undecided numbers were by mid-October, he said. The further you get in
the campaign, the lower it gets, Jones said of the number of undecided
voters. Its more exposure, a better sense of the candidates. Pete
Snyder, the chairman of the GOPs Virginia Victory operation,
pegged the real undecided figure in his state at as low as 2 percent.

p. 68 of 121

UNDECIDED VOTERS WONT END UP VOTING
NBC News, First Read, 8.9.12
[http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/09/13199203-2012heading-toward-a-base-election?lite]
We, at First Read, have noted that because of the intensity numbers
weve seen in the NBC/WSJ poll, there are indications that we could
very well be headed to a base election similar to 2004. Undecideds
dont trust Obama on the economy, but like Romney even less. And
their enthusiasm is way down, and they very well could stay home.

p. 69 of 121
INTERNAL LINK: PRESIDENTIAL ACTION HELPS

THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO GET THINGS DONE TO WIN RE-ELECTION
Laura Meckler, Wall Street Journal June 3, 2012
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230350640457744487040
2696592.html]
White House ideas face stiff headwinds across the board because of
resistance from congressional Republicans to virtually all of the president's
initiatives. Mr. Obama and his campaign are trying to focus blame for
inaction on the GOP, but that effort poses its own risk because it
may appear to some voters that the president is admitting he can't
make things happen in Washington. One pollster who has conducted
extensive focus groups for Democrats running in competitive states told
congressional Democrats in a private briefing last month that Mr.
Obama's approval ratings aren't rising because, while voters blame
Republicans for not getting things done on the economy, they aren't
convinced Mr. Obama can change that.

p. 70 of 121
INTERNAL LINK PRESIDENT GETS CREDIT AND BLAME

IN THE END, THE PRESIDENT GETS THE CREDIT AND BLAME, REGARDLESS OF CONGRESS

In short, when incumbents run for reelection, the contest is mostly
about their record. The challenger attacks the presidents record, as
Romney did in his victory speech. And the incumbent has no choice but
to defend it. He cannot run away from it, and he cannot change the
subject. So he must try to frame his accomplishments as persuasively as
possible. He is free to argue that he was dealt a tough handthat is, as
long as he does not appear to be evading responsibility for the results. If
the results fall short, he is not free to argue that Congress is to
blame for obstructing his efforts. Nadeau and Lewis-Beck find that:
Divided government itself apparently makes no difference. The
presidential office is viewed as the command post of the economy,
irrespective of whether the president actually has sufficient control
of Congress to implement his or her economic plan. The president
is simply regarded as the CEO of the public economy.

p. 71 of 121
ECONOMIC POLICY IN NEXT FEW MONTHS MATTERS

THE ELECTION WILL TURN ON THE PERCEPTION OF OBAMAS MANAGEMENT OF THE ECONOMY OVER THE
NEXT SIX MONTHS

Since Vietnam and the Iranian hostage crisis, Republicans have effectively
used the issue of national security against Democrats. Barring unforeseen
events, Romney will not be able to do so this year. Nor will a focus on hotbutton social issues yield significant gains for the challenger. Instead, to
an extent that Americans have not seen for at least two decades, the
election of 2012 will revolve around a single defining issuethe
condition of the economy. In 2008, Barack Obama defeated John
McCain in large measure because the people saw him as more able
to manage the economy at a moment of frightening crisis. Between
now and November 6, the people will ask themselves whether
President Obamas stewardship of the economy has met their hopes
a judgment that will depend heavily on the performance of the
economy over the next six months. If the people decide that the
president has done well enough, he will be reelected, whatever Mitt
Romney says or does. If not, Romney will have an opportunity to make
his case and to become an acceptable replacement for a president the
people have judged and found wanting.
BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF THE ECONOMY IS A TOSS UP NOW WHAT HAPPENS DURING THE ELECTION
SEASON WILL BE DECISIVE ON THE OUTCOME

Obama receives low grades for his stewardship of the economy, with
public approval ranging from 38 to 45 percent. When asked Ronald
Reagans famous questionAre you better off than you were four years
ago?only 35 percent say yes, while 41 percent say no. In the most recent
ABC/Washington Post survey, only 32 percent of respondents said that the
presidents handling of the economy was a major reason to support him,

p. 72 of 121
compared to 46 percent who said that it was a major reason to oppose him.
Most surveys put Obama either in a statistical tie with Romney on
the economy and jobs, or slightly behind him. Given the salience of
the economy in 2012, this is an uncomfortable situation for the
president, and it suggests that the performance of the economy
between now and the election will have a powerfulperhaps
decisiveimpact on the outcome.
IMPACT: OBAMA RE-ELECTION BAD U.S. HEGEMONY

IF OBAMA WINS IN 2012, IT WILL END US HEGEMONY
Nile Gardiner, foreign affairs analyst for the London Telegraph, July
14, 2011
[http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100097071/barackobama%E2%80%99sfuture-looks-precarious-as-america-faces-its-mostimportant-presidential-election-since- 1980/]
And like the contest in 1980, 2012 will likely decide the future of the
United States as the worlds dominant superpower, with Americans faced
with a stark choice between renewal and decline. As the latest Pew survey
of global attitudes shows, the world is beginning to lose faith in the
strength of Americas leadership, with general publics in 15 of 22 nations
surveyed believing that China either will replace or already has replaced
the United States as the worlds leading superpower. Even in the US itself,
46 percent believe that China has already or will replace America as the
worlds leading power. America in the second decade of the 21st Century is
a superpower on a precipice, facing towering mountains of public debt,
declining domestic and international confidence, and growing threats to its
international security from the likes of Iran and North Korea. There is
nothing inevitable about American decline, but the policies of the current
administration are making such a decline far more likely. As the United
States grows weaker both economically and militarily, Americas
adversaries and strategic competitors are growing stronger and more
aggressive. A world without powerful American leadership built upon
strong economic foundations would have been unthinkable just a decade
ago. But the damaging policies of the current presidency are beginning to
make that nightmare scenario a reality.

p. 73 of 121

U.S. DECLINIST POLICIES RISK WORLD WAR
Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq,

Feb 8, 2011
[http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259024/economy-andnational-security-zalmay-khalilzad?pg=2]
If U.S. policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not
a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The
closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify
geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for local
powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to
preclude or respond to international crises because of the higher risk of
escalation. The stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of
peace among the great powers has been the era of U.S. leadership. By
contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive
dynamics resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great
powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems produced both world
wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences.
Without an American security blanket, regional powers could rearm in an
attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there
would be a heightened possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other
crises spiraling into all-out conflict.

p. 74 of 121

OBAMAS FOREIGN POLICY MEANS REDUCED AMERICAN INFLUENCE OVER INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Chris Dueck, Assoc Professor, International Affairs, George Mason

Univ, Oct 1, 2011
[http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/94006]
The problem with Obamas strategy of accommodation therefore goes
beyond specific case-by-case frustrations. The problem is more
fundamental and inherent to his approach. As a general rule, foreign
governments or transnational actors do not feel obliged to alter
their basic policy preferences or to make unwanted concessions of
their own simply because an American president is accommodating
or charismatic. This is not how international politics works. If the
interests, goals, and priorities of other national governments align with
those of the United States on specific issues, then those governments will
cooperate with Washington on those issues. If not, they wont. Either way,
whether we like it or not, the goals and priorities of foreign
governments are defined by those governments, and not by the
president of the United States. Any American president can alter the
costs and benefits for other countries to cooperate with the U.S. on specific
matters, by offering specific incentives or disincentives, but he cannot
literally redefine how other governments view their own vital interests, and
it is delusional to think that he can. If Washington offers a particular policy
concession to another government in exchange for some concrete,
reciprocal concession of real interest to the U.S., then that is one thing.
Such negotiations are at the heart of international diplomacy. But to make
the concession beforehand unilaterally, as it were or to offer it
up broadly to the entire planet as a whole in the hopes of
unspecified reciprocity from particular countries, is to ignore the
normal workings of international relations.
OBAMAS FOREIGN POLICY FAILS AT ACHIEVING HIS GOALS

Univ, Oct 1, 2011
In one case after another, conciliatory or accommodating gestures
and concessions by the Obama administration toward various
international targets have not resulted in much concrete
reciprocity. This is not because the strategy of accommodation needs
more time. It is because the strategy is misconceived to begin with.

p. 75 of 121
Broad processes of international cooperation and accommodation

on issues such as proliferation, climate change, and
counterterrorism cannot be kick-started by American concession if
other important international players do not see it as being in their
own interest. Preliminary American concessions on economic sanctions do
not impress the Cuban government. U.S. diplomatic overtures do not
impress the Iranian government. American proposals on climate change do
not impress the Chinese government. Calls for nuclear abolition do not
impress the North Korean government. Proposed revision of U.S. detention
and interrogation practices does not impress Islamist radicals.

OBAMAS FOREIGN POLICY WEAKENS THE PURSUIT OF AMERICAN OBJECTIVES
Tony Blankley, Visiting Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation,

September 28, 2011
[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/09/28/presidents_forei
gn_policy_failures_increase_111498.html]
But the palpable, increasingly manifest weakening of the American
position -- from Russia to China/Taiwan to Turkey to Saudi Arabia to
the Middle East peace process to Pakistan and Afghanistan to
Mexico and Latin America --needs only a spark to reveal to the American
public that in the last three years, we have experienced the most
sustained weakening of our international interests, values and
positions since the attack on Pearl Harbor.
OBAMAS FOREIGN POLICY OF ACCOMMODATION HAS BEEN COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

Univ, Oct 1, 2011
It has now been almost three years since Obama entered the White
House plenty of time to assess the effectiveness of his foreign policy
strategy. And it must be said that in important respects his strategy of
accommodation has failed. Obamas personal leadership has not
really altered the basic dynamics of leading international or
transnational conflicts and disputes. Nor have American outreach,
accommodation, and diplomatic concessions triggered significantly
greater international cooperation on issues such as nonproliferation. To
some extent, of course, Obama has been constrained in the implementation

p. 76 of 121
of his strategy by domestic political criticism or pushback on many of these

issues. Yet the failures appear to involve international pushback as well.

p. 77 of 121

OVERALL, OBAMAS FOREIGN POLICY IS ONE OF WEAKNESS

Univ, Oct 1, 2011
The domestic political arguments for international retrenchment are
matched and supplemented, in Obamas mind, by a genuine philosophical
case for a more accommodating American stance abroad. By all
appearances Obama sincerely believes, and has certainly said
repeatedly over the years, that the United States should be more
accommodating toward potential adversaries and rivals overseas
accommodating of their interests, their perspectives, and their wishes. The
reason is that through accommodation, these potential rivals can be
turned, if not into friends, then at least into something other than
adversaries. At least this is what Obama believes. He can certainly be
cold-blooded when making short-term or tactical calculations in relation
to clear, existing U.S. enemies. After all, this is a president who hunted
down Osama Bin Laden, and has escalated the use of unmanned drone
strikes basically targeted killings against suspected terrorists in
Pakistan. So there are clearly certain international or transnational actors
who in Obamas view are irreconcilable to core American values and
interests. But this category is very small, and it never seems to rise
to the level of state actors. The assumption appears to be that
virtually any nation-state can be successfully engaged, regardless of
regime type. Even the Taliban, we are told by numerous administration
officials, is chock full of people who can be peeled off through diplomatic
negotiation and accommodated to American designs if only we have the
courage to try.

p. 78 of 121
IMPACT: OBAMA RE-ELECTION BAD AT: OBAMA POLICY SUCCESSES

OBAMAS FOREIGN POLICY SUCCEEDED WHEN HE FOLLOWED THE REPUBLICAN PLAYBOOK AND FAILED
WHEN HE ADOPTED HIS OWN POLICY
Peter Feaver, professor political science, Duke University, 9.1.12
[http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/peter-d-feaver-barack-obamas-feckless-foreign-policy-1.3944186]
If, instead, President Obama invited the public to examine his record, what
would they see? They would see some significant successes, to be sure.
Obama deserves credit -- and ample credit has been given to him -- for
rejecting the advice of Vice President Joe Biden and ordering the SEAL
raid on the Osama bin Laden compound. Obama deserves credit for
rejecting Biden's advice against the surge in Afghanistan, though here
he deserves only partial credit since he also rejected Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton's good advice and undermined his own policy with the
strategic blunder of announcing an arbitrary timeline for withdrawal.
Obama deserves credit for preserving the war on terror legal
framework he inherited from President George W. Bush and for building
on the counterterror special-operations/stand-off-drones and other
special capabilities developed during Bush's tenure. It is good that Obama,
after years of delay, finally did get ratified the signed free-trade
agreements he inherited from the Bush administration. And it is good that
Obama went along with the British and French and the U.S. Congress, who
took the lead in pushing for stronger sanctions against Iran. These are
all notable successes or partial successes and certainly legitimate
boasting points for the campaign. The problem for Obama is,
however, that all of these successes have one thing in common: they
are simply following in the path of Obamas Republican predecessor
and fully consistent with what Romney would do. They are evidence
of the wisdom of the bipartisan mainstream in American foreign
policy, not evidence of Obama's own foreign policy merits. On the
contrary, in almost every case where Obama followed his own
instincts, he undermined the success of the policy or made the
situation worse.

p. 79 of 121
IMPACT: OBAMA RE-ELECTION BAD ROMNEY POLICY GOOD

ROMNEY FOREIGN POLICY IS U.S. PRIMACY
Los Angeles Times October 8, 2011
[http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/oct/08/romney-calls-forprimacy-for-us-in-global-affairs/]
Mitt Romney, resurgent in the race for the GOP presidential nomination,
on Friday outlined his vision for the United States in the world, arguing
for an America that has the strongest economy and military and is
unafraid to take unilateral action in dealing with foreign affairs.
Speaking at The Citadel, a military college in South Carolina, Romney
outlined his vision of the worlds problems and criticized President Barack
Obama for failing to lead in the way the GOP aspirant said he would.
Specifically, Romney called for more spending on the military, better
relations with Israel and strong opposition to Iran and socialist states such
as Venezuela and Cuba. The former governor of Massachusetts also sought
to place himself within his own partys splits over foreign affairs, saying
the United States needed to have a robust role in foreign affairs,
rather than again becoming neo-isolationist as some Republicans have
argued. This was a reference to some GOP conservatives and libertarians
who would prefer the United States to be less willing to intervene on the
world stage. This century must be an American century, Romney
said. In an American century, America has the strongest economy
and the strongest military in the world. In an American century,
America leads the Free World and the Free World leads the entire world.
Romney made it clear that he favored a vision of foreign policy
closer to the traditional GOP idea of the United States being willing
to act on its own, in what it decides is its own interests, rather than as
part of a coalition or under the aegis of an international institution.
REPUBLICANS FOLLOW REALISM OPPOSITE OF OBAMAS POLICY
Colin Dueck, assoc prof, international relations, George Mason Univ, August 1, 2010
Conservatism has sometimes been described as the politics of
reality. Conservatives pride themselves on their gritty resistance to
sweeping, messianic promises of progress from politicians when it comes
to domestic matters. That very same tough-mindedness must be
applied to foreign policy. There are no permanent solutions to the
problems of international security, just as there are no permanent solutions
relating to the balancing of freedom, authority, and justice in domestic
politics. The preservation of a viable, ordered liberty in even one

p. 80 of 121
country is not a foregone conclusion; it requires constant vigilance

and care. Conservatives should therefore approach universalistic or
perfectionist ideas regarding perpetual peace in world affairs with the
same skepticism that they rightly apply to such ideas in domestic politics:
they should consider the risk of unintended consequences and think, like
Hippocrates, to first do no harm. A new conservative realism would
encompass several broad guidelines or implications for American foreign
policy. Call them the ten commandments of Republican realism.

p. 81 of 121
IMPACT: OBAMA RE-ELECTION BAD ROMNEY POLICY GOOD

REPUBLICAN FOREIGN POLICY WOULD BE MORE REALIST THAN OBAMAS AND NOT AS RECKLESS AS
GEORGE BUSH
Colin Dueck, assoc prof, international relations, George Mason Univ, August 1, 2010
Conservative realism would thus be quite distinct from Obamas
own approach, as well as from the approach taken by George W.
Bush in going to war with Iraq. Republicans have numerous models of
successful foreign policy presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and
Ronald Reagan from whom to draw positive example today. There is no
longer any need for Republican conservatives to defend the
overarching approach of George W. Bush, a president whose chief
legacies were not conservative. Bush led the gop away from its central
ideal: namely, limited government in domestic affairs. This political
transformation went hand in hand with an embrace of idealistic overstretch
in foreign affairs. There were signs in 2009 and earlier this year that
Republicans are starting to rediscover their central identity as the
party of limited government in opposition to the endless spending,
regulation, and domestic economic experiments of the Obama
administration. If so, this would be an entirely healthy development. The
true meaning of American exceptionalism is not to be finally found in its
foreign policy, but in a domestic system of governance based upon
principles of constitutionalism, individual freedom, and the rule of law. The
U.S. founders understood this and said as much. A genuinely
conservative approach would therefore be one of realism abroad,
and limited government at home, with the former securing the latter.

p. 82 of 121
IMPACT: OBAMA RE-ELECTION GOOD ROMNEY POLICY EXTREMIST

ROMNEYS HAS AN EXTREME NEOCON FOREIGN POLICY WORLDVIEW
Bruce Jentelson, professor public policy Duke University, 8.30.12
[http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/30/a_dangerous_mind_mitt_
romney]
It's not just Romney's positions on particular issues, however vague they
may be, that are cause for concern. It's his core world view. Guided by a
Republican Party virtually devoid of moderate centrists, Romney has
embraced a global assessment distorted by ideological excess,
pledged to wield power in a way that will leave the nation weakened
and isolated, and demonstrated a failure to appreciate the key linkages
between strength at home and influence abroad. Romney's view of the
changing global landscape rests not on a sober assessment of the
world that is emerging, but on the same neoconservative myths that
led George W. Bush astray. Like Bush, Romney seems to fixate on the
wrong threats -- and dangerously inflate them. He has, for example,
identified Russia as America's chief geopolitical foe. But with the Cold War
long over, terrorists still planning attacks against Americans, Iran seeking
nuclear weapons, and China flexing its muscles, it is a flight of fancy to see
Moscow as the nation's top threat.
ROMNEYS VIEW OF AMERICAN LEADERSHIP IS OBSOLETE
romney]
Romney's worldview also reveals a basic misunderstanding of the
role of power in international affairs. The Republican Convention has
been one long paean to American Exceptionalism. In speech after
speech, Romney and his entourage invoke "leadership" and
"resolve" as if all the United States has to do is take a stand and flex
its muscles -- others will get in line, get out of the way, or pay the
price. The United States unquestionably occupies a unique role in history
of which it should be plenty proud, and American security and leadership
ultimately rest on the nation's economic strength and military superiority.
It's also true that most threats can best be met and problems best be
solved if the U.S. plays a leadership role. Leadership, however, is much
less about chest-thumping and self-congratulation than building
partnerships and taking effective action with like-minded nations.

p. 83 of 121
Brute force and national self-confidence certainly have their place, but
they can do more to invite resistance than acquiescence unless
wielded with care. How the United States deploys its power and influence
is key to its success as the world's dominant country. Judicious diplomacy,
the fashioning of coalitions, engagement with international institutions -these are the critical elements of good statecraft.

p. 84 of 121
IMPACT: OBAMA RE-ELECTION GOOD ROMNEY POLICY EXTREMIST

ROMNEYS FOREIGN POLICY IS DANGEROUS EXTREMISM
romney]
Pulling off an economic rebound that reduces inequality and redresses the
economic plight of the middle class is essential to restoring not just
economic strength, but also the steady conduct of U.S. diplomacy. The
United States is today deeply polarized, bereft of the bipartisan consensus
that long anchored its statecraft. That consensus, which emerged after
World War II, rested in part on the rising economy's dampening effect on
partisan cleavages. Today, economic pain and growing inequality are
rekindling ideological confrontation. Romney's abandonment of
centrism in favor of the far right, coupled with his disregard for the
needs of average Americans, promises only to exacerbate the
political divisions that compromise American power and purpose.
Romney is poised to take the United States down a dangerous path
on foreign policy.

p. 85 of 121
IMPACT: OBAMA RE-ELECTION GOOD IMPACT TAKEOUT

OBAMAS FOREIGN POLICY NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM ROMNEYS
Daniel Larison, The American Conservative November 15, 2011

[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2011/11/15/skewedforeign-policy/]
Even if neoconservative critics cannot or will not acknowledge it,
administration policy towards Iran has become increasingly
confrontational, and almost everything that distinguished Obama on
foreign policy has disappeared. Unfortunately, as I have been saying for
some time now, the substantive differences between Romney and
Obama on many foreign policy issues are few, and their respective
Iran policies are virtually indistinguishable.

p. 86 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS OBAMA WONT ATTACK

IRAN STRIKE WOULDNT HELP OBAMA IN THE ELECTION
Daniel Larison, contributing editor The American Conservative, 8.4.12
[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/an-october-surpriseattack-on-iran-would-be-political-suicide-for-obama/]
Obama certainly could do this, but there shouldnt be any illusions
that it would give him a significant advantage in the election. There
probably would be a surge in support for Obama at first, since this
seems to happen at the beginning of almost every military engagement,
but it wouldnt last. I suspect a very war-weary public would sour on
the war very quickly once it became apparent that attacking Iran
involved more than a few days of casualty-free airstrikes. If Obama
did not seek Congressional authorization for attacking Iran, he would be
correctly accused of arbitrarily and hastily plunging the country into a new
war. If he suddenly sought Congressional authorization just before the
election after years of appearing to be somewhat reluctant to take military
action, he would naturally be attacked for trying to start a war for
political reasons. Even some Republican hawks that favor attacking
Iran would perceive it as a desperate political move, which is what it
would be.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE IRAN STRIKE WOULD BE FELT RIGHT AWAY
In the event that Iran retaliated in any significant way, or if there were
many American casualties suffered during the attacks on Irans facilities,
the public would begin to recognize that Obama had made a serious
error in judgment and had entangled the U.S. in yet another conflict
in the Near East with no discernible end in sight. The spike in oil
prices and the related market panic that would follow would mean
several weeks of bad headlines before Election Day. All of this would
be rightly be considered proof that Obama should not be trusted
with another term, and it would cause people to forget why they
were ever worried about Romneys foreign policy views. Once
Obama starts a war with Iran, it is hardly effective to warn that
Romney might start one in the future.

p. 87 of 121

p. 88 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS OBAMA WONT ATTACK

ATTACKING IRAN WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE POLITICALLY
Half of the Obama campaigns attack on Romney is that he is
inexperienced and dangerously aggressive. Ordering an attack on
Iran would give Romney an opening to portray the conflict as a
result of Obamas incompetent Iran policy, and he would have a point.
At the moment, Romneys attacks on Obamas record have
remarkably little merit and no political effect, but if Obama started
an unnecessary and avoidable war it would give him a target that
even the hawkish Romney wouldnt be able to pass up. Obama currently
has an advantage over Romney on foreign policy because more
Americans trust his judgment than dont. Ordering an attack on
Iran for what would appear to be undeniably domestic political
reasons negates that advantage and contradicts the main theme
that Obamas campaign wants to promote, which is that Obama is
supposedly the candidate that ends wars rather than starts them.
That isnt really true, but it would become obvious nonsense if Obama
plunged the U.S. into a major unnecessary conflict.
OBAMA ACTIONS TOWARD ISRAEL PROVE HE WONT ATTACK IRAN BEFORE THE ELECTION
Jonathan Tobin, Commentary Magazine, 8.31.12
[http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/08/31/obama-doesntcare-that-hes-been-proven-wrong-about-iran-nuclear-iaea-israel/]
The Times is right about that. Being proven right about the failure of
Obamas policy is cold comfort for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu since
the administration refuses to recognize the failure, either publicly or
privately. The Times of Israel reports that a meeting last week
between Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro resulted in
hostile exchanges with the diplomat breaking protocol and angrily
scolding the prime minister for pushing too hard for U.S. action.
Israels problem is that the Obama administration doesnt care that it
has been proven wrong and feels no inclination to engage in a
conversation with the leaders of the Jewish state about taking
action to either reverse course or head off a catastrophe. Instead, it
just sticks to its line about giving more time for diplomacy even
though no one in Washington, let alone anywhere else, believes that it is
possible to talk the Iranians into giving up their nuclear ambitions. The

p. 89 of 121
president wants no back talk from the Israelis about this. But even
more than that, he desires no trouble in the Middle East in the next
two months as he fights for re-election.

p. 90 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS ROMNEY WONT ATTACK

ROMNEY WONT ATTACK IRAN BECAUSE HELL THINK IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE
David Frum, contributing Editor, Newsweek, The Daily Beast, 8.29.12
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/29/foreign-policyvision.html?]
But I think George Packer and Andrew Sullivan err when they predict an
aggressive foreign policy from a Romney administration. I'll venture the
opposite prediction: Romney's foreign policy will be even more
cautious than Barack Obama's. Here's why: If we've learned
anything from this campaign, it is the supreme overarching
importance to Republicans of tax reduction. The current proposal is to
make permanent the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and then go further
with an additional cut to a maximum top rate of 28%. Of course, George W.
Bush cut taxes while mounting a very aggressive foreign policy. But here's
the difference: over the past five years, the Republicans voting base
of older voters has suddenly become acutely conscious that today's
deficit implies tomorrow's tax increase. (Robert Barro, collect your
Nobel Prize.) Mitt Romney seems to have internalized that argument
too. And if your top priority is reducing debt so as to obviate the tax
threat - well, the sheer daunting cost of foreign policy
entanglements will temper your adventurism. It will temper in
particular your enthusiasm for an Iran adventure. An Iran war will
be a big war. The contingency plans for an Iran war include the possibility
of a breakdown of civil order in Iran and the deployment of foreign
peacekeepers. I know this is utterly hypothetical. But imagine the reaction
around the briefing table in a Romney Situation Room when the generals
introduce such a topic - and a Romney OMB chair unveils the cost. The
very fact that the Bush administration low-balled the cost of Iraq
will bias a Romney administration to worry about high-cost
scenarios. The political reaction to attempted budget cuts in 2013 -and
then (continuing the hypothetical) to likely Democratic gains in Congress in
2014 - together will strain even a peacetime military budget. George W.
Bush was willing to sacrifice his domestic agenda after 9/11 because once
he had achieved No Child Left Behind and his tax cut, he had largely
completed it. But Mitt Romney won't feel that way in 2013. He'll have a
lot he wishes to do - and be very nervous of anything that
compromises his scope to do it.

p. 91 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS ROMNEY WILL ATTACK

ROMNEY WOULD LOOK WEAK IF HE DIDNT ATTACK IRAN
Andrew Sullivan, The Dish, The Daily Beast, 8.31.12
[http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-return-ofcheneyism-ctd.html]
Frum goes another few rounds arguing that Romney would be less hawkish
than Obama. David's first argument is that "Iran confrontation is not driven
by Sheldon Adelson, or by Israel, or by some Israel Lobby." I didn't say the
Iran confrontation was driven by Adelson. But it sure is a major reason he
has bankrolled the candidates. But the idea that AIPAC - and the entire
Greater Israel lobby - is not chomping at the bit to invade and bomb Iran is
surreal. They live for it. And the Christianist base has been whipped
into a frenzy about the evil and mighty threat of Iran. Would
Romney - after all this rhetoric - be able to allow Iran to enrich
uranium past Netanyahu's red line (which has already been crossed)?
Obama's in a tough enough spot, potentially cornered into war by his own
statements. But Romney has said there will be "no daylight" between
Israel and America if he becomes president. And we know what
Romney's old buddy, Netanyahu, wants.
ROMNEY BELIEVES IN ATTACKING IRAN AND WILL DO WHAT HIS NEOCON ADVISORS TELL HIM TO
Andrew Sullivan, The Dish, The Daily Beast, 8.31.12
[http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/the-return-ofcheneyism-ctd.html]
No, he won't. He'll just talk about a new "axis of evil," if David (Frum) will
pardon the impression, and make sure his invasion is meticulously planned.
And David seems to think Romney wants to cut defense spending.
No, he doesn't. What's that money for if not another neocon war? He
adds: Romney will have no escape from the realization: an Iran strike bets
his presidency and at least postpones and probably voids his domestic
agenda. It's not impossible he'll still say yes. It's just deeply implausible.
My view: Romney is a weak man who believes reflexively in an-always
aggressive America. And he will do what his neocon advisers tell
him. At the very least we can say this. The choice is between a
president who will clearly do all he can to avoid war and a candidate
who has already effectively pledged to do whatever Israel's rightwing asks.

p. 92 of 121

p. 93 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS ISRAEL ATTACK DEPENDS ON U.S. SUPPORT

ISRAEL WONT ATTACK WITHOUT U.S. BACKING THEY REALIZE THEY CANT DO IT ON THEIR OWN
The administrations silence about the latest troubling IAEA report,
as well as the insolent attitude of its envoy to Israel, seems to
indicate the president thinks the Israelis are bluffing about acting
on their own. He has good reason to think so. Despite the assertions
that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are alone in their
convictions about the Iranian threat, theres a consensus in the Israeli
defense and intelligence establishment that Iran must be stopped. But
many there fear the consequences of a unilateral Israeli military
campaign. They are right that only the United States has sufficient
resources to do the job right. Moreover, the consequences of
launching a strike and the inevitable retaliation from Irans
terrorist auxiliaries are extremely grave. If the United States does
not back up Israel in the aftermath of such a strike, it could
materially damage the countrys security as well as leading to its
complete diplomatic isolation.
ISRAEL WONT ATTACK BEFORE THE ELECTION
Joseph Sarkisian, PolicyMic 8.22.12
[http://www.policymic.com/articles/13257/israel-may-attack-iranwithin-2-months-but-a-higher-chance-of-war-comes-if-romney-ispresident]
But Netanyahu is a pro when it comes to pulling the strings of the
American political system. He knows that striking Iran and dragging the
U.S. into the war will make Obama look good in the eyes of pro-Israel
voters. However, if the American president had the wherewithal to
not involve the U.S. in the mission, Israel would find itself in over its
head with Iran very quickly another thing Netanyahu knows, but
would never admit publicly. Given the almost inevitable fact that the
mission would be a bust for Israel and carry significant negative
consequences, the Obama administration might actually look
stronger precisely for not involving the country in another mindless
war again, bad news for Netanyahu. So will Israel strike Iran? To
some it seems inevitable, but I highly doubt it will happen before
the U.S. election in November. The chances of a strike backfiring on
the Netanyahu administration are too great. If Mitt Romney wins

p. 94 of 121
the election, they will be in a perfect place to do as they wish.

Despite the urgency of its rhetoric, Israel knows it has time to deal
with Iran. Waiting it out a few more months to let the political dust settle
is the most pragmatic approach, regardless of how reckless Netanyahu can
be.

p. 95 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS ISRAEL ATTACK DEPENDS ON U.S. SUPPORT

ISRAEL WONT ATTACK WITHOUT U.S. BACKING BECAUSE THEY DONT WANT TO JEOPARDIZE THEIR
RELATIONS WITH THE U.S.
Leon Hadar, The National Interest, 8.21.12
[http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/calling-netanyahus-bluff7371]
But can this threat be regarded as credible? Several retired generals
and former heads of the intelligence servicesjoined by current chief
of staff and the chiefs of the Mossad and the Shin-Beth (domestic
intelligence services) represented by sources quoted in the mediainsist
that Israel does not have the capacity to destroy Iran's nuclear
capabilities. On the contrary, they suggest that a unilateral Israeli
action would not only result in heavy Israeli civilian losses but could
also devastate Israel's relationship with the United States. President
Obama and his military aides were not impressed by the fiery war rhetoric
coming from Israel. This was made clear last week when U.S. Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey, echoing the views expressed by
the ex and current Israeli military officials, commented on the efficacy of
striking Iran. Sitting next to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Dempsey
said that Israel could "delay but not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities."

p. 96 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS IRAN THREAT GROWING

A NEW REPORT SHOWS IRANS THREAT IS SPEEDING UP AND IMMINENT
The release yesterday of a new report on Irans nuclear program by
the International Atomic Energy Agency effectively vindicates
everything Israels leaders have been saying in recent months. The
report says Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges it could use
to make the core of nuclear warheads at its underground bunker at
Fordow. It has also effectively shut down the IAEA investigation of
their work at Parchin, where the Islamist regime has been conducting
work on nuclear weapons development. Fordow is the breakout facility
where it can convert any civilian nuclear activity into military applications
safe from air attack. As even the New York Times admits today, far
from the Obama administrations strategy of using diplomacy and
sanctions slowing down Irans progress, if anything, the program is
speeding up. It goes on to point out: But the agencys report has also
put Israel in a corner, documenting that Iran is close to crossing
what Israel has long said is its red line: the capability to produce
nuclear weapons in a location invulnerable to Israeli attack.

p. 97 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS ROMNEY WINNING = NO ISRAEL ATTACK

IF IT LOOKS LIKE ROMNEY WILL WIN, ISRAEL WILL HOLD OFF ATTACKING
Robert Wright, senior editor, The Atlantic, 6.14.12
[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/obamasdrift-toward-war-with-iran/258433/]
The other thing--aside from successful negotiations--that could reduce
the chance of an October surprise is if polls show that Mitt Romney
is likely to be the next president. Netanyahu would rather America
do the bombing, and he has much more confidence in Romney's
belligerence than in Obama's.

p. 98 of 121
IRAN STRIKE ANSWERS ROMNEY WIN = ISRAEL ATTACK

ROMNEY ELECTION WOULD GREENLIGHT ISRAEL ATTACK ON IRAN
Joseph Sarkisian, PolicyMic 8.22.12
[http://www.policymic.com/articles/13257/israel-may-attack-iranwithin-2-months-but-a-higher-chance-of-war-comes-if-romney-ispresident]
Netanyahus best bet is to hold out for Mitt Romney to take a seat
in the Oval Office come November, since he and his foreign policy
team have a much better relationship with the Jewish State. A
Romney presidency would all but give Israel a green light to strike
Irans nuclear facilities, as the chance that the U.S. would back up
the decision would be substantially higher. Although new
presidents historically dont like to undertake major military operations
within their first year in office, Romney would be all but forced to put
his money where his mouth is on the Iran issue. If he didnt, he would
face a lot of angry Jewish and Christian voters come reelection season.

p. 99 of 121
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO OBAMA WILL STRIKE

FALLING POPULARITY WOULD TRIGGER AN IRAN STRIKE BY OBAMA
Victor David Hanson, historian, Hoover Institute, Stanford, February 9, 2012
[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/sns-201202080930-tms--vdhansonctnvh-a20120209feb09,0,5726568.column]
In other words, after demagoguing the old Iranian 1.0 containment
strategy, the Obama administration is now trying to play 3.0 catch-up after
its own failed 2.0 appeasement policy. The ironic result is that war is now
far more likely with Iran than it ever was under George W. Bush, and for
far more reasons. Obama faces no knee-jerk, left-wing criticism. Just as the
Left went silent when Obama suddenly took ownership of Guantanamo,
Iraq, renditions and tribunals, it won't hit the streets if he takes action
against Iran. If Obama finds himself behind in the 2012 campaign, such a
bold move would win him political unity and advantage in wag-the-dog
fashion. Due to Obama's hostility toward Israel, the United States now has
far less knowledge about, and influence with, the Israeli military. And the
long-appeased Iranian theocracy is now more likely to miscalculate,
thinking either that the confused Obama administration won't stop it, or
that any American attempt to stop it would be only half-hearted.
OBAMA WILL STRIKE IRAN IN ORDER TO ASSURE RE-ELECTION
Israeli National News, 2-17
[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/11274#.T0b
RlXmP1dg]
US President Barack Obama has pulled out all troops from Iraq after
severely damaging the al Qaeda and capturing Osama bin Laden and
Anwar al-Awlaki. He paid for the majority of NATO strikes on Libya that
assisted the rag-tag rebels of a civil war in that country that defeated
Gadaffi. Obama is very much a war president. (Actually the American
military is at work creating special mortars that could strike underground
cells in Iran.) However, the latter war I mentioned, that is, in Libya, was an
attempt for the American president to show his might, and divert attention
from his failing economic policy. Because all diplomatic attempts by the
United Nations and President Obama to quell the stand-off between Iran
and Israel have failed miserably, and considering that should Israel attack
the Islamic Republic, the threat of terrorism on the United States would
increase, as would oil prices. However, recall that the world was mildly
shocked at Obama's no-fly zone in Libya. If President Obama wants to
secure reelection, he can shock everyone once more, and pull a dangerous

121
p. 100 of
maneuver on Iran. He will, by doing so, acquire on-the-fence, moderate and

Republican voters, taking them away from his still-to-be-determined rightwing presidential contender, next year. He will be wagging-the-dog, taking
attention from his far-left leaning economic policy that has made him
hugely unpopular.

121
p. 101 of
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO OBAMA WILL STRIKE

OBAMA WONT ATTACK IRAN UNLESS POLLS SHOW HIM LOSING THE ELECTION
Sri Lankan Newspapers Feb. 9, 2012
[http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2012/2/74362_space.html]
Also on February 2, Gareth Porter reported that General Martin Dempsey,
Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, informed the Israeli government
that the US would not join Israel`s aggression against Iran unless
Washington had given prior approval for the attack. Porter interprets
Dempsey`s warning as a strong move by President Obama to deter an
attack that would involve Washington in a regional conflagration with Iran.
A different way to read Dempsey`s warning is that Obama wants to hold off
on attacking Iran until polls show him losing the presidential election. It
has generally been the case that the patriotic electorate does not turn out a
president who is at war.
HIGH GAS PRICES WOULDNT DETER OBAMA THEY WOULDNT OCCUR UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION
Jacob Heilbrunn, The National Interest, 8.2.12
[nationalinterest.org/blog/jacob-heilbrunn/obamas-october-surprisebombing-iran-7285]
But as Romney calls for "any and all measures" to stop Iran,
Obama surely could deflate his sails by launching a strike in
October. If it worked, he would be hailed as a hero. The
consequences of a strike wouldn't be felt for at least a few weeks
the nightmare scenario is that an oil shock would result in a quadrupling of
oil prices, plunging the world into a new Great Depression. Enough time
for Obama to sail back into office as a tough foreign-policy president.
Given Obama's congenital caution and sobriety, he seems unlikely to follow
such a course. But it should not be ruled out. The neocons may be closer
to helping bring about an assault on Iran than even they realize. They've
already captured Romney. But they may also be on the verge of capturing
Obama. Their sustained campaign of pressure, in other words, may be
more effective than anyone has acknowledged. For the fact is that
Obama already has amply demonstrated his ruthlessness when it
comes to confronting America's adversaries.

121
p. 102 of
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO STRIKE IMPACT

IMPACT GLOBAL DEPRESSION AND RISK OF WWIII
Rafael Reuveny, professor School of Public Affairs, Indiana University, August 7, 2010
[gazettextra.com/news/2010/aug/07/con-unilateral-strike-couldtrigger-world-war-iii-/]
A crippled Iran and its coalition could still attack neighboring oil
facilities, unleash global terrorism, plant mines in the Persian Gulf
and impair maritime trade in the Mediterranean, Red Sea and
Indian Ocean. Middle Eastern oil shipments would likely slow to a
trickle as production declines due to the war and insurance companies
decide to drop their risky Middle Eastern clients. Iran and Venezuela
would likely stop selling oil to the United States and Europe. From
there, things could deteriorate as they did in the 1930s. The world
economy would head into a tailspin; international acrimony would rise;
and Iraqi and Afghani citizens might fully turn on the United States,
immediately requiring the deployment of more American troops. Russia,
China, Venezuela, and maybe Brazil and Turkeyall of which
essentially support Irancould be tempted to form an alliance and
openly challenge the U.S. hegemony. Russia and China might rearm
their injured Iranian protege overnight, just as Nixon rearmed Israel,
and threaten to intervene, just as the U.S.S.R. threatened to join Egypt and
Syria in 1973. President Obamas response would likely put U.S.
forces on nuclear alert, replaying Nixons nightmarish scenario. Iran
may well feel duty-bound to respond to a unilateral attack by its Israeli
archenemy, but it knows that it could not take on the United States headto-head. In contrast, if the United States leads the attack, Irans response
would likely be muted. If Iran chooses to absorb an American-led strike, its
allies would likely protest and send weapons but would probably not risk
using force. While no one has a crystal ball, leaders should be risk-averse
when choosing war as a foreign policy tool. If attacking Iran is deemed
necessary, Israel must wait for an American green light. A unilateral Israeli
strike could ultimately spark World War III.

121
p. 103 of

THREAT OF ESCALATION WOULD CRUSH THE FRAGILE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Colin Kahl, professor international relations, Georgetown, March/April 2012
[http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137031/colin-h-kahl/not-timeto-attack- iran?page=4]
Some analysts, including Afshin Molavi and Michael Singh, believe that
the Iranians are unlikely to attempt to close the strait due to the
damage it would inflict on their own economy. But Tehran's saber
rattling has already intensified in response to the prospect of Western
sanctions on its oil industry. In the immediate aftermath of a U.S.
strike on Iran's nuclear program, Iranian leaders might perceive
that holding the strait at risk would encourage international
pressure on Washington to end the fighting, possibly deterring U.S.
escalation. In reality, it would more likely have the opposite effect,
encouraging aggressive U.S. efforts to protect commercial shipping. The
U.S. Navy is capable of keeping the strait open, but the mere threat
of closure could send oil prices soaring, dealing a heavy blow to the
fragile global economy. The measures that Kroenig advocates to mitigate
this threat, such as opening up the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve and
urging Saudi Arabia to boost oil production, would be unlikely to suffice,
especially since most Saudi crude passes through the strait.
IRAN STRIKE WOULD LEAD TO A QUICK GLOBAL RECESSION
Max Blumenthal, Media Matters, Feb. 3, 2012
[http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7868]
Nouriel Roubini, the award-winning renowned economist, said two days
ago that an attack on Iran or a war with Iran would lead to global
recession. Without a doubt, an Israeli attack on Iran would lead to Iranian
countermeasures like closing the straits of Hormuz, mining the straits of
Hormuz, something like that, which would eventually, within a matter of
weeks, like, two weeks, impact the U.S. economy.

121
p. 104 of

OIL PRICES WOULD SPIKE, CAUSING A GLOBAL ECONOMIC MELTDOWN
Michael Klare, prof peace and world security studies, Hampshire College, Jan 31, 2012
[http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/if_the_iranian_powder_keg_explodes/]
No one knows just how high oil prices would go under such circumstances,
but many energy analysts believe that the price of a barrel might
immediately leap by $50 or more. You would get an international reaction
that would not only be high, but irrationally high, says Lawrence J.
Goldstein, a director of the Energy Policy Research Foundation. Even
though military experts assume the U.S. will use its overwhelming might to
clear the strait of Iranian mines and obstructions in a few days or weeks,
the chaos to follow in the region might not end quickly, keeping oil prices
elevated for a long time. Indeed, some analysts fear that oil prices, already
hovering around $100 per barrel, would quickly double to more than $200,
erasing any prospect of economic recovery in the United States and
Western Europe, and possibly plunging the planet into a renewed Great
Recession.
WAR WITH IRAN WOULD CAUSE AN ECONOMIC COLLAPSE WORSE THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION
Greg Hunter, former reporter CNN, ABC, Jan. 30, 2012
[http://usawatchdog.com/state-of-denial-in-coming-war-catastrophe/]
The world economy is in the tank, and the Federal Reserves decision to
extend its zero interest rate policy to, at least, the end of 2014 proves it.
What will happen if the fragile world economy also has to deal with a war
with Iran? Talk about no growth, how about a giant contraction and an
implosion of some of the biggest banks on both sides of the Atlantic. It
would be nave to think the U.S. could come out of this conflict without a
loss of vessels and lives. The U.S would win the war, but the world
economy would collapse in a matter of days if the saber rattling turned into
full metal-to-metal contact. An imploding global economy would happen in
Internet time and would make the Great Depression look like a party.

121
p. 105 of

GLOBAL DEPRESSION = WAR HISTORY PROVES
Michael Auslin, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute,

2009
[http://www.aei.org/article/100187]
The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard
on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe,
from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically
sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are
simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of
more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent
decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a
pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing
economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs.
Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor
uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate
threats to Chinese internal stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced
with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies
outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state
completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far
East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been
predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse.
If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia,
along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is
likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat
of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted
by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed
emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of
temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being
laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by
the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and
the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country.
Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe
as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native
citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have
increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed
five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents
have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic
labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A
prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise

121
p. 106 of
tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist

legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes
in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders
actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small
explosions that coalesce into a big bang.

121
p. 107 of

IMPACT RISK OF ESCALATION TO GLOBAL NUCLEAR WAR
The Nation (Pakistan) August 2005
[http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/aug-2005/7/columns5.php]
Most probable hypothesis is that US would make Irans nuclear
development programme the pretext for launching offensive. Under such
an eventuality Russia would guard Irans interest to pre-empt US intrusion
towards CAS and Russia. Any offensive action of US on Iran would amount
to annexation of Gwadar Port and Karachi Port for making a bridge-head.
She would make safe access for India to provide logistic support to the US
forces. In this regard she would neutralise Pakistan military capabilities
through electronic jamming and containing its troops through limited
offensive on Eastern and Western borders and to block and keep China
away from the battlefield. Both US and India know that any intrusion in
Pakistan would invoke Chinas bitter reaction against them. All these
reactions would result into a world war. In brief the big powers would
make Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India as the battleground. In this
scenario both India and Israel would launch pre-emptive strike on
Pakistans nuclear strongholds and defence installations. As declared by
Pakistan that any attempt on its nuclear installation would amount to
strong reaction against that country. This reaction, under all possibility,
would initiate nuclear war. Both Russia and China would also react to
guard their strategic interests in Iran and Pakistan respectively. Initiation
of nuclear weapons would amount to mass destruction and elimination of
most of the global civilisation.

121
p. 108 of
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO - AT: STRIKE INEVITABLE

IRAN HASNT MADE A FINAL DECISION AND THERE IS STILL TIME TO RESOLVE THE SITUATION PEACEFULLY
Colin Kahl, associate professor Georgetown, The Hill, 2012
[thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/212003-the-irancontainment-fallacy]
The Iranian nuclear threat is growing, but it is not yet imminent.
U.S. and Israeli officials have both noted that it would take Iran at least
a year to produce a testable nuclear device once Irans Supreme
Leader Ali Khamanei decides to do so; it would take several more years
to develop a warhead for a missile. Although Iran is clearly positioning
itself to develop a nuclear weapons capability, James Clapper, the Director
of National Intelligence, told the Senate on January 31 that there is no
hard evidence that Khamenei has yet made the final decision to
translate those capabilities into a bomb. Assuming Iran does not have
covert enrichment sites, Khamanei is unlikely to dash for a bomb soon
because doing so would require Iran to use the declared facilities at
Natanz or Qom to produce weapons grade uranium. Because any
such move would be detected by the IAEA, Iran is unlikely to go for
broke until they can dramatically reduce their timeline or build a
weapon at new covert facilities. This could be years away.
CURRENT SANCTIONS POLICY MAY WORK IF GIVEN TIME
Meanwhile, Washington-backed pressure measures are starting to
bite. The Iranian economy is struggling under the weight of
unprecedented sanctions and, in the face of impending American
and European actions against the Iranian oil sector, Iranian leaders
have signaled their willingness to return to the negotiating table.
We need to take a collective breath and let this process play out.

121
p. 109 of

US CAN DETER IRAN
Sarah Kreps, assistant professor government, Cornell University, Jan 331, 2012
[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-30/irannuclear-program- attack-preemptive-military/52891714/1]
There is a long list of potential consequences of bombing Iran's
nuclear facilities, including the onset of a protracted war. Forget, for
a moment, about these dangers. The main reason attacking Iran is
unwise is that military force is far less likely to delay proliferation
than advocates of striking Iranian nuclear facilities acknowledge.
Thus, if today's tougher sanctions do not succeed and Iran does
acquire the bomb, a policy of deterrence making it clear that the
United States would respond to any use of nuclear weapons with
overwhelming force of its own could be the best option. Iran's
leaders might be provocative, but they are unlikely to be suicidal.
CURRENT CONTAINMENT COULD DETER A NUCLEAR IRAN
But the United States already has a large presence encircling Iran.
Forty thousand U.S. troops are stationed in the Gulf, accompanied
by strike aircraft, two aircraft carrier strike groups, two Aegis
ballistic missile defense ships, and multiple Patriot antimissile
systems. On Iran's eastern flank, Washington has another 90,000
troops deployed in Afghanistan and thousands more supporting the
Afghan war in nearby Central Asian states. Kroenig claims that it would
take much more to contain a nuclear-armed Iran. But U.S. forces in the
Gulf already outnumber those in South Korea that are there to deter
a nuclear-armed North. It is thus perfectly conceivable that the existing
U.S. presence in the region, perhaps supplemented by a limited forward
deployment of nuclear weapons and additional ballistic missile defenses,
would be sufficient to deter a nuclear-armed Iran from aggression and
blackmail.

p. 110 of 121

DIPLOMACY MIGHT STILL WORK
But this ignores the severe economic strain, isolation, and technical
challenges that Iran is experiencing. After years of dismissing the
economic effects of sanctions, senior Iranian officials now publicly
complain about the intense pain the sanctions are producing. And
facing the prospect of U.S. sanctions against Iran's central bank and
European actions to halt Iranian oil imports, Tehran signaled in early
January some willingness to return to the negotiating table.
Washington must test this willingness and, in so doing, provide Iran
with a clear strategic choice: address the concerns of the international
community regarding its nuclear program and see its isolation lifted or stay
on its current path and face substantially higher costs. In framing this
choice, Washington must be able to assert that like-minded states
are prepared to implement oil-related sanctions, and the Obama
administration should continue to emphasize that all options,
including military action, remain on the table.

p. 111 of 121
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO - AT: ISRAEL STRIKE INEVITABLE

ISRAEL HAS PLENTY OF REASONS TO NOT ATTACK
Andrew Bast, The Daily Beast, Feb 26, 2012
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/26/obama-won-t-backan-israeli-strikeon-iran.html]
First, should Iran someday build a nuclear weapon, Israel already
has a deterrent: an estimated 80 nuclear warheads of its own.
Second, Jerusalem enjoys Washingtons unconditional supportif it
doesnt consider its own deterrent up to snuff, American firepower
knows no rival, and certainly no Iranian one. And third, General
Dempsey was right when he asserted that Iran is a rational actor. Even
if it wants a nuclear weapon, it does not want to invite its own
annihilation by using one. While interests may diverge these days,
the U.S.-Israel alliance is incredibly strongand there is comfort in
that.
ISRAEL NEEDS U.S. BACKING AND SUPPORT TO SUCCEED SO THEY WONT ATTACK WITHOUT OBAMAS
APPROVAL
Sheldon Richman, senior fellow, The Future of Freedom Foundation, Feb. 6, 2012
[http://www.fff.org/comment/com1202b.asp]
An important consideration in all this is the widely held assessment that
Israel alone couldnt do enough damage to Irans nuclear facilities,
major parts of which are deep underground. As the Washington Posts
David Ignatius reports, The Israelis are said to recognize that damage to
the nuclear program might be modest, requiring another strike in a few
years. So while Israel insists on its freedom of action, it realizes it
would need Americas help. This means that the Obama
administration holds the upper hand: it is in a position to stop
Israel from igniting a catastrophic war in the Middle East simply by
declaring publicly that it will not back Netanyahu if he orders an
attack or covertly provokes Iran into firing the first shot.

p. 112 of 121
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO - AT: IRAN WONT ESCALATE

IRAN WILL OVER-REACT TO ANY STRIKE ON ITS WEAPONS
But Iranian leaders have staked their domestic legitimacy on
resisting inter-national pressure to halt the nuclear program, and so
they would inevitably view an attack on that program as an attack
on the regime itself. Decades of hostility and perceived U.S. efforts
to undermine the regime would reinforce this perception. And when
combined with the emphasis on anti-Americanism in the ideology of the
supreme leader and his hard-line advisers, as well as their general
ignorance about what drives U.S. decision-making, this perception means
that there is little prospect that Iranian leaders would believe that a
U.S. strike had limited aims. Assuming the worst about Washington's
intentions, Tehran is likely to overreact to even a surgical strike
against its nuclear facilities.
IRAN WOULD FACE POWERFUL AND IMMEDIATE INCENTIVES TO ESCALATE
To make matters worse, in the heat of battle, Iran would face powerful
incentives to escalate. In the event of a conflict, both sides would come
under significant pressure to stop the fighting due to the impact on
international oil markets. Since this would limit the time the Iranians
would have to reestablish deterrence, they might choose to launch a
quick, all-out response, without care for redlines. Iranian fears that
the United States could successfully disrupt its command-andcontrol infrastructure or preemptively destroy its ballistic missile
arsenal could also tempt Iran to launch as many missiles as possible
early in the war.

p. 113 of 121
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO - AT: US WOULD KEEP STRIKE LIMITED

THE U.S. WOULD ESCALATE ANY RESPONSE BY IRAN
Controlling escalation would be no easier on the U.S. side. In the face
of reprisals by Iranian proxies, "token missile strikes against U.S. bases and
ships," or "the harassment of commercial and U.S. naval vessels," Kroenig
says that Washington should turn the other cheek and constrain its own
response to Iranian counter-attacks. But this is much easier said than done.
Just as Iran's likely expectation of a short war might encourage it to
respond disproportionately early in the crisis, so the United States
would also have incentives to move swiftly to destroy Iran's
conventional forces and the infrastructure of the Revolutionary Guard
Corps. And if the United States failed to do so, proxy attacks against U.S.
civilian personnel in Lebanon or Iraq, the transfer of lethal rocket
and portable air defense systems to Taliban fighters in Afghanistan,
or missile strikes against U.S. facilities in the Gulf could cause
significant U.S. casualties, creating irresistible political pressure in
Washington to respond.
ESCALATION PRESSURES WOULD EXIST ON ALL SIDES
Jeffrey White, defense fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, July/Aug 2011
[http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=982]
In summary, an attack on Iran could produce dynamics that would
push either or both sides to escalate the conflict even if neither had
an interest or an initial intention to do so. Iranian civilian
casualties, for example, could provoke Iran to step up its response.
This becomes more likely as the scale of a U.S. attack increases. Downed
U.S. aircrews could lead to search and rescue operations that could
become significant military actions in their own right. The need to
restrike targets that were missed or inadequately damaged could
also prolong the conflict and involve additional forces. As the
conflict developed, internal and external political pressures could
press both antagonists to escalate the fighting.

p. 114 of 121
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO - AT: STRIKE GOOD

US ATTACK WOULD FAIL WE WOULDNT KNOW ALL THE LOCATIONS
Second, the fairly advanced state of Iran's nuclear program also
raises the likelihood that it has clandestine facilities that neither
Israel nor the U.S. knows about. Advocates of attacking Iran suggest
that this is unlikely, but history tells a different story. Indeed, the
track record of identifying all nuclear facilities in states of concern
is far from perfect. During the Persian Gulf War, for example, the
U.S. heavily bombed Iraqi nuclear installations, but some important
facilities including a centrifuge plant at Al Rashidiya remained
unscathed because their existence was unknown to the U.S. and its
allies. Iran is almost certainly aware that an attack against its nuclear
facilities is possible, especially given that its nuclear program was targeted
during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. Why, then, should policymakers
have confidence that Iran has not built secret nuclear facilities or taken
other countermeasures to protect itself?
STRIKE WOULD FAIL IRAN COULD REBUILD QUICKLY
Third, even if we assume that the U.S. could locate and destroy all of
Iran's facilities, Tehran already possesses the knowledge required to
produce enriched uranium a critical ingredient for nuclear
weapons. Any facilities that were destroyed could be rebuilt
relatively quickly.

p. 115 of 121

POST-ATTACK, IRAN COULD REBUILD EASILY
James Dobbins, director Defense Policy Center, RAND Corporation, Nov 16, 2011
[http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-united-statesconsider-military-action-tohinder-irans-nuclear-program/an-attackwould-only-strengthen-irans-influence]
In the aftermath of an attack, Iran would likely move its program
entirely into to clandestine or heavily protected sites. The global
coalition the United States has built in opposition to the Iranian
program would be seriously strained. Further international sanctions
would be difficult, maybe impossible to achieve. Some nations could
become more willing to assist the Iranian program, or at least less
willing to police those who might.
ATTACKS WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE
James Dobbins, director Defense Policy Center, RAND Corporation, Nov 16, 2011
[http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-united-statesconsider-military-action-tohinder-irans-nuclear-program/an-attackwould-only-strengthen-irans-influence]
The Iranian leadership will need to be persuaded over the next year
or two that actually building, testing and deploying nuclear weapons, as
North Korea has done, will only increase their isolation, reduce their
influence and ultimately increase the regime's vulnerability to internally
driven change. Threats of military action, and even more its actual
conduct, will only have the opposite effect: reducing Iran's isolation,
increasing its influence, promoting domestic solidarity, and
reinforcing the case for building and deploying nuclear weapons as
soon as possible.

p. 116 of 121

A STRIKE WOULD STRENGTHEN IRAN REGIONALLY
A strike could also set off wider destabilizing effects. Although
Kroenig is right that some Arab leaders would privately applaud a U.S.
strike, many on the Arab street would reject it. Both Islamist
extremists and embattled elites could use this opportunity to
transform the Arab Spring's populist antiregime narrative into a
decidedly anti-American one. This would rebound to Iran's advantage
just at the moment when political developments in the region, chief among
them the resurgence of nationalism in the Arab world and the upheaval in
Syria, are significantly undermining Iran's influence. A U.S. strike could
easily shift regional sympathies back in Tehran's favor by allowing
Iran to play the victim and, through its retaliation, resuscitate its
status as the champion of the region's anti-Western resistance.
AN ATTACK WOULD GUARANTEE IRANIAN WEAPONS AND UNDERCUT DOMESTIC OPPOSITION
A U.S. attack would also likely rally domestic Iranian support
around nuclear hard-liners, increasing the odds that Iran would
emerge from a strike even more committed to building a bomb.
Kroenig downplays the "rally round the flag" risks by noting that hardliners are already firmly in power and suggesting that an attack might
produce increased internal criticism of the regime. But the nuclear
program remains an enormous source of national pride for the
majority of Iranians. To the extent that there is internal dissent over the
program, it is a discussion about whether the country should acquire
nuclear weapons or simply pursue civilian nuclear technology. By
demonstrating the vulnerability of a non-nuclear-armed Iran, a U.S.
attack would provide ammunition to hard-liners who argue for
acquiring a nuclear deterrent. Kroenig suggests that the United States
should essentially ignore "Iran's domestic political tussles" when pursuing
"its vital national security interest in preventing Tehran from developing
nuclear weapons." But influencing Iranian opinion about the strategic

p. 117 of 121
desirability of nuclear weapons might ultimately offer the only

enduring way of keeping the Islamic Republic on a peaceful nuclear
path.

p. 118 of 121
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO - AT: US COULD RE-ATTACK IF IRAN RE-BUILDS

WE COULDNT SUCCESSFULLY RE-ATTACK
Finally, if Iran did attempt to restart its nuclear program after an
attack, it would be much more difficult for the United States to stop
it. An assault would lead Iran to distance itself from the IAEA and
perhaps to pull out of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
altogether. Without inspectors on the ground, the international
community would struggle to track or slow Tehran's efforts to
rebuild its program.

p. 119 of 121
IRAN STRIKE SCENARIO - AT: CONTAINMENT FAILS

CONTAINMENT WOULD STILL BE NECESSARY AFTER ATTACK AND FAR MORE DIFFICULT
A second, and far more likely, path to containment is to rush into war
before all other options have been exhausted. A near-term U.S. or Israeli
attack on Irans nuclear program would knock it back, at most, a
few years. Meanwhile it would motivate Irans hardliners to kick out
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors, incentivize
the regime to rapidly rebuild a clandestine nuclear program, and
rally the Iranian people around that cause to deter future attacks.
Consequently, in the aftermath of an Israeli or American strike,
Washington would have to encircle Iran with a costly containment
regimemuch like twelve-year effort to bottle up Saddam Hussein after
the 1991 Gulf Warand be prepared to re-attack at a moments notice
to prevent Iran from reconstituting its program. And with inspectors
gone, it would be much more difficult to detect and prevent Irans
clandestine rebuilding efforts. The net result would be a decades-long
requirement to contain an even more implacable nuclear foe.

121
p. 120 of

121
p. 121 of

November Evidence Core

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

November Evidence Core

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.

ELECTIONS DA OBAMA BAD: SUBURBAN VOTERS

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

Plan Popular Suburbs Internal Link............................................................34

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

Impact: Obama Re-Election Bad U.S. Hegemony.........................................62

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

Iran Strike Scenario - AT: Strike Good..........................................................93

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

SHELL OBAMA BAD: SUBURBAN VOTERS

San Francisco Chronicle 9.3.12

Greg Sargent, Washington Post, 8.2.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

SHELL OBAMA BAD: SUBURBAN VOTERS

Miller Center, University of Virginia 2012

[Are We There Yet? Selling America on Transportation, Miller Center

Robert Brodsky, Newsday, 8.1.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

SHELL OBAMA BAD: SUBURBAN VOTERS

Zalmay Khalilzad, former US Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, Feb 8, 2011

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

UNIQUENESS: THE RACE IS VERY CLOSE

Mark Blumenthal, Huffington Post, 9.3.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

San Francisco Chronicle 9.3.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING

Mark Blumenthal, Huffington Post, 9.3.12

DJ Drummond, Wizbang, 9.3.12

San Francisco Chronicle 9.3.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING UNDECIDED VOTERS

Peter Roff, contributing editor, US News & World Report, 8.13.12

DJ Drummond, Wizbang, 9.3.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING GOP CONVENTION

Matt Barreto, Latino Decisions 9.3.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING ENTHUSIASM GAP

DJ Drummond, Wizbang, 9.3.12

San Francisco Chronicle 9.3.12

Peter Roff, contributing editor, US News & World Report, 8.13.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

Resurgent Republic said Thursday, "which could be the deciding factor

UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING ENTHUSIASM GAP

Peter Roff, contributing editor, US News & World Report, 8.13.12

Peter Roff, contributing editor, US News & World Report, 8.13.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

based on an analysis of the data it had collected. Democrats, on the

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

UNIQUENESS: ROMNEY WINNING OHIO

John Spinelli, Ohio News Bureau, 8.19.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

UNIQUENESS: OBAMA WINNING

Mark Blumenthal, Huffington Post, 9.3.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

UNIQUENESS: OBAMA WINNING

San Francisco Chronicle 9.3.12

San Francisco Chronicle 9.3.12

San Francisco Chronicle 9.3.12

Planet Debate Politics 9.5.12

the Obama campaign is crisper, sharper, more thought-through,