Elections DA - Michigan 2024 CPSW

DA---Elections---CPSW
1NC
Elections
Debate performance doesn’t matter --- Biden will still win.
Marina Pitofsky 7-7-2024, Marina Pitofsky is the deputy editor for Congress and Campaigns at USA Today and graduated with a BA in Political Science and Government from Georgetown University. “Historian who predicted 9 of the last 10 elections says Dems shouldn't rebel against Biden” [USA Today] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/07/allan-lichtman-democratic-delegates-joe-biden/74320955007/ /MDC
Allan Lichtman, a historian who has correctly predicted the results of nine of the 10 most recent presidential elections, said Sunday that if Democratic delegates rebel against President Joe Biden and choose another Democratic nominee, it could spell chaos for the party.
There's no indication that Democratic delegates in large numbers would opt for another candidate to lead the party in November's election. But “Fox News Sunday” host Shannon Bream asked Lichtman what obligations Democratic delegates have “if President Biden says he’s not going to leave the ticket.”
Biden overwhelmingly won Democratic primaries in all 50 states this year, racking up thousands of delegates ahead of the party's convention next month.
“Delegates could, in fact, decide to replace President Biden, but based on history, that would be a disaster to have a convention brawl,” Lichtman, a professor at American University, argued on Sunday.
But the historian’s comments come as some Democrats have called on Biden to drop out of 2024 race after his rocky debate performance against former President Donald Trump last month.
Lichtman has correctly predicted the outcome of almost every election over the last half century, except for the race in 2000, using a series of 13 historical factors or “keys.”
[images omitted]
The system includes four factors based on politics, seven on performance, and two on candidate personality. Lichtman said the incumbent party would need to lose six of those actors, or “keys,” to lose the White House.
The keys range from whether a candidate is an incumbent president to the state of the economy and the presence of third-party hopefuls.
Debate performance, however, is not one of the factors that determines the outcome of an election, Lichtman has previously argued. The professor said Sunday that Biden has already ticked two of the 13 keys, giving him an advantage over potential Democratic challengers. Those include already being an incumbent president and there being no “party contest” this year for Democrats.
Lichtman warned that Democrats could risk “setting up the same situation that led to the election of Donald Trump in the first place in 2016, an open seat with no incumbent running and a party contest.”
Biden has vowed that he’s staying in the 2024 race, and only a handful of Democratic lawmakers have publicly called on him to pass the torch.
[Link]
Trump kills innovation
Solomon’16[Brian Solomon; July 14; Forbes staff writer; Forbes, “Donald Trump Would Be 'A Disaster For Innovation,' 145 Tech Leaders Say.” https://www.forbes.com/sites/briansolomon/2016/07/14/145-tech-leaders-sign-letter-calling-trump-a-disaster-for-innovation/]
Billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel may be backing Donald Trump, and even speaking at the Republican National Convention. But many other technology leaders have come out strongly opposed to a Trump presidency.
On Thursday morning, 145 technology CEOs, billionaire investors, and upcoming entrepreneurs from some of the largest companies and startups in Silicon Valley signed an open letter that condemned Trump as "a disaster for innovation." The list includes Slack's Stewart Butterfield, IAC's Barry Diller, Qualcomm's Irwin Jacobs, Tumblr's David Karp, Box's Aaron Levie, Facebook's Dustin Moskovitz, Reddit's Alexis Ohanian, eBay's Pierre Omidyar, Zynga's Mark Pincus, Medium's Ev Williams, Apple's Steve Wozniak, and venture capitalists Vinod Khosla and Chris Sacca.
Each person who signed the letter did so in their "personal capacity" rather than as representing their respective organizations. But it's a clear industry-wide rebuke to the presidential candidate for a political party generally known as pro-business. 52 of the signatories are listed as CEOs and 83 as founders or co-founders.
No current employees of Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, or Google signed the letter, although a number of alumni did. Mark Zuckerberg, along with other upper echelon CEOs, didn't join in, but his sister Arielle Zuckerberg, a partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, did sign.
The letter supports "progressive immigration policies," media freedom, and "an optimistic vision for a more inclusive country."
[Picture Omitted
By signing up, you agree to receive this newsletter, other updates about Forbes and its affiliates’ offerings, our Terms of Service (including resolving disputes on an individual basis via arbitration), and you acknowledge our Privacy Statement. Forbes is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field. Donald Trump does not. He campaigns on anger, bigotry, fear of new ideas and new people, and a fundamental belief that America is weak and in decline. We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation. His vision stands against the open exchange of ideas, free movement of people, and productive engagement with the outside world that is critical to our economy — and that provide the foundation for innovation and growth.
Let’s start with the human talent that drives innovation forward. We believe that America’s diversity is our strength. Great ideas come from all parts of society, and we should champion that broad-based creative potential. We also believe that progressive immigration policies help us attract and retain some of the brightest minds on earth — scientists, entrepreneurs, and creators. In fact, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Donald Trump, meanwhile, traffics in ethnic and racial stereotypes, repeatedly insults women, and is openly hostile to immigration. He has promised a wall, mass deportations, and profiling.
We also believe in the free and open exchange of ideas, including over the Internet, as a seed from which innovation springs. Donald Trump proposes “shutting down” parts of the Internet as a security strategy — demonstrating both poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works. His penchant to censor extends to revoking press credentials and threatening to punish media platforms that criticize him.
Finally, we believe that government plays an important role in the technology economy by investing in infrastructure, education and scientific research. Donald Trump articulates few policies beyond erratic and contradictory pronouncements. His reckless disregard for our legal and political institutions threatens to upend what attracts companies to start and scale in America. He risks distorting markets, reducing exports, and slowing job creation.
Link
Main
Link---Big Tech---Main
Through techniques like targeted ads and fake news, Big Tech can shift at least 12 million votes to whoever they want.
Redmond’22[SD; March 17; Pro Se non-lawyer federal whistle-blower/witness; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, “THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT,” LexisNexis] ZA
“Cyberwar,” a new book by political scientist Kathleen Hall Jamieson, reminds us that targeted ads and fake news stories can indeed shift votes, but the numbers are necessarily small. It’s hard to overwhelm your competitor when he or she can play the same games you are playing. Now, take a look at my numbered list. The techniques I’ve described can shift millions of votes without people’s awareness, and because they are controlled by the platforms themselves, they are entirely noncompetitive. If Google or Facebook or Twitter wants to shift votes, there is no way to counteract their manipulations. In fact, at this writing, there is not even a credible way of detecting those manipulations. And what if the tech giants are all leaning in the same political direction? What if the combined weight of their subtle and untraceable manipulative power favors one political party? If 150 million people vote this November in the United States, with 20 percent still undecided at this writing (that’s 30 million people), I estimate that the combined weight of Big Tech manipulations could easily shift upwards of 12 million votes without anyone knowing. That’s enough votes to determine the outcomes of hundreds of close local, state, and congressional races throughout the country, which makes the free-and-fair election little more than an illusion. Full disclosure: I happen to think that the political party currently in favor in Silicon Valley is, by a hair (so to speak), the superior party at the moment. But I also love America and democracy, and I believe that the free-and-fair election is the bedrock of our political system. I don’t care how “right” these companies might be; lofty ends do not justify shady means, especially when those means are difficult to see and not well understood by either authorities or the public. Can new regulations or laws save us from the extraordinary powers of manipulation the Big Tech companies now possess? Maybe, but our leaders seem to be especially regulation-shy these 379 days, and I doubt, in any case, whether laws and regulations will ever be able to keep up with the new kinds of threats that new technologies will almost certainly pose in coming years
Big Tech hates strong intellectual property protections, they invest millions to lobby for weaker IP so they can decrease litigation---it’s the key to their business model.
Schiffner’22[Christine Schiffner; May 25; Bureau Chief for the National Law Journal in Washington, National Law Journal; “Plaintiffs Firms See New Momentum for Patent Litigation As Tech Giants Push for IP Reform.” Lexis Nexis Access]
A storm has been brewing in the intellectual property arena involving a growing number of small to midsize technology inventors litigating against Big Tech over patent infringement.
"Now you have Google, Facebook and others having more than 50 cases a year in the United States being filed against them. They can't just bury their head in the sand. Where there is smoke, there is fire," said McKool Smith principal Blair Jacobs.
He believes there may be a changing trend in how these cases are being litigated and ultimately decided in court-usually after several-years of litigation and millions of dollars spent in legal fees. "Juries have been more sympathetic toward small to midsize tech inventors recently," Jacobs said, pointing out that juries appreciate the efforts of the smaller companies in coming up with remarkable inventions. Apple has been hit with several high-stakes patent infringement verdicts, including one favoring VirnetX Holding Corp. forcing the Silicon Valley giant to pay more than $500 million to the data security developer.
Other billion-dollar verdicts, such as one against Cisco brought by the technology developer Centripetal Systems, as reported last month, or another against Intel by VSLI Technology are under repeated judicial review. As ALMs Law.com/Radar found, dozens of IP infringement cases have been filed in the recent months including against Google, YouTube, Amazon.com, Tesla and Netflix. In August of last year, the wireless technology developer PanOptis was awarded $300 million against Apple in a case brought by McKool Smith and Irell & Manella. And earlier this month, USAA was awarded more than $200 million in a patent infringement case against PNC Bank.
Many of these have been brought in the Eastern District of Texas, which continues to be a patent litigation hotspot with the District of Delaware coming in as the second most popular IP litigation venue. But overall, "cases have been spread across the U.S.," according to Jacobs.
"It's a systemic framework, it's kind of a way of doing business," Chris Israel, executive director of the U.S. Alliance of Startups and Inventors for Jobs, said of how Big Tech approaches things. "It's a pretty effective business model for large technology firms to take and absorb intellectual property of smaller, innovative companies," he explained, pointing out that Big Tech has had very little fear that there is going to be a legal recourse.
"It's the single-biggest problem," retired chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Paul R. Michel told the National Law Journal. Since the formation of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in December 2012, the technology IP infringement arena has been "aggravated by the high cost of court litigation and the very long delays."
In addition, since the Supreme Court decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC in 2006, "it's almost impossible for smaller entities to get an injunction," Michel said. "It's the perfect storm," formed by lengthy Patent Appeals Board review processes as well as endless litigation culminating in "the unavailability of injunctions" leaving small technology firms little or no leverage against Big Tech. "It's a terrible breakdown of the system," he added.
Small to mid-size technology developers "have limited resources and need to focus their attention on operating their company," said Andrei Iancu, former undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property in the United States and now partner at the boutique firm Irell & Manella. Pursuing IP infringement litigation in multiple arenas is simply not feasible for many of these firms.
But is that changing?
What may have shifted the equation toward smaller firms is the increased availability of litigation financing options. "Litigation funding has become a major, major equalizer in these type of cases," Jacobs said. His firm is currently involved in IP litigation against large technology companies.
While Burford Capital litigation funders view IP litigation as "higher risk, higher reward style commercial litigation," there are a lot of instances, in which "there is very cutting-edge technology and people are willing to fight hard over it," Burford director Eric Carlson said. The IP and patent specific space "has absolutely seen growth," for his firm year over year.
Meanwhile, technology giants are spending millions of dollars lobbying for IP reform. "They are lobbying Congress heavily to weaken the strength of patent laws because they don't like the fact that they are exposed to litigation," Jacobs said.
Link---Elderly---Main
Older voters will swing the election – fear over benefit cuts and economic malaise ensures it
Lytle 6-20 [Tamara Lytle. 6.20.2024. Tamara Lytle is a veteran political reporter whose work has been published in The Washington Post, the Orlando Sentinel and many other news outlets. AARP. “Older Voters Will Decide the 2024 Elections”. https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-2024/role-older-voters-2024-election.html]/CPSW-NL
It has become a political truism that older voters — because of their numbers and their dedication to making it to the polls — decide elections at every level, from the White House to city and county councils. But what matters to them this year seems to vary as much as at any time in recent memory. And no party or candidate appears to have a lock on their hearts. For Mike Britt, 67, of Edmond, Oklahoma, the November elections are about dollars and cents. He’s been hit hard by rising prescription drug prices and inflation. Like others on a fixed income, Britt, a retired ­insurance ­auditor, notices each time property taxes, groceries and gasoline prices go up, especially since he drives nearly 200 miles each way to Texas and back to check on his mother, whom he and a sister help pay basic bills. “She has about the same amount coming in, but costs go up,” Britt says. Robert Fulkerson, 64, of Reno, Nevada, is focused on a more abstract vision: the future of the planet. He can still recall the song he and his classmates sang on the first Earth Day in 1970 as they cleaned up trash. His lifetime of environmentalism carries forward to this year’s election. Fear motivates some older voters this election cycle. “We’re about the only country in the world that doesn’t control immigration,” says Pam L., a 78-year-old from Nevada who participated in an AARP focus group last fall on election concerns. (Last names of those in the focus groups were kept confidential.) “Now that terrorism is going on, it’s not safe for the American people, and nobody seems to care about that.” These and other concerns will be on the minds of older voters when they enter the ­ballot booth. And since presidential elections have been so close in recent years, candidates seek the right formula to motivate a small sliver of the electorate that could prove decisive, says Bruce Oppenheimer, professor emeritus of political science at Vanderbilt University. “Older voters are a remarkably stable group,” Oppenheimer says. “It might take more to move them than those who do not have a long attachment to a political party.” A stronger economy, Social Security are top issues How the economy affects people personally matters most, AARP found after hearing from women 50 and older for a survey. Of women who work, 54 percent said they are not confident they will have enough money to retire when they would like. Forty-one ­percent of the retired women said they weren’t doing as well financially as they expected. “You can always count on older voters to be concerned about the economy, and in their world, it’s Social Security and Medicare,” says Nancy LeaMond, AARP chief advocacy and engagement officer. “And those are reliably the most important issues to older voters, no matter what election year it is.” Other surveys and polls confirm that. A Pew Research Center poll early this year found that strengthening the economy was the top issue for 4 out of 5 people 50 to 64 years old. Making Social Security fiscally sound was important to 77 percent of voters 65-plus, ranking third in a tie with immigration after terrorism and the economy. For those ages 50 to 64, 73 percent list Social Security, after the economy and defending against terrorism. A 54-year-old Arizona independent voter in an AARP focus group said medical deductibles and copays, along with high prices for goods, take a toll. “It’s just ridiculous. You go to the store, everything is expensive,” says Girlie C. High prescription drug prices were also a concern for many. Britt says his wife has a migraine-inducing rare illness that racks up high prescription bills of $1,100 monthly for one drug alone. “There has to be some way they can ­lower these drug prices. They’re just ­exorbitant,” he says. The polarized nature of politics has an impact on what voters see as important, says Beth Rickenbach, associate professor of psychology at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire. Immigration is one ­example: Nearly twice as many Republican voters as Democrats said it was important. Crime also is a much hotter issue for ­Republicans than for Democrats. And Democrats were more concerned than Republicans about climate change and environmental issues. In one focus group, a Republican woman said she was so frustrated with politicians’ dysfunction and polarization that she’d like to “give Congress a good talking-to.” She would tell lawmakers to set aside their pet projects and reelection concerns and focus on ethics and working together. Caregiving was on the minds of voters. About 87 percent of women support paid family leave benefits for caregivers, the AARP poll found. Women in the focus groups said they felt their caregiving work was undervalued. A 55-year-old caregiver named Kelley M. of ­Nevada asked, “For somebody like myself that had to give up their job so th

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.