I'm voting affirmative.
First, I'd like to say that I was extremely displeased with the politics story. The 1NC evidence is terrible. The Hennessey evidence is just talking about favorability and doesn't indicate that Obama will win. The Orski evidence just indicates that the public is skeptical, not that they hate transportation infrastructure. There is literally zero internal link, no piece of evidence says that this will swing the election (in the 1NC). The Shelley evidence doesn't indicate that Romney winning will hurt relations, and the Atlantic evidence doesn't say extinction. Literally every piece of 1NC evidence doesn't get the neg where he wants to go.
Now that I'm done with that rant, on politics, I think the aff is ahead on uniqueness. Independents not favoring Obama is going to trump his favorability ratings, because of the warrants the aff gives (more influence in swing states, etc.). On Spicer, there's no comparative analysis linking these 6 reasons to a win for Obama, they're just repeated as buzz words. On the link, the aff is also ahead. The HNBT evidence is actually really good, and the fact that such a high percentage of the public thinks it's a voting issue and that such a high percentage would be in favor of transportation infrastructure spending is going to trump the highly charged political environment argument. Thus, the disad is non-uniqued and link turned--Obama won't win now, but plan makes him win because plan is popular.
On solvency, there's really no extension of the neg's arguments, the 2NR gets too caught up in the line by line. There's no extension of the evidence discussing legal issues, and the evidence about delays is only mitigation at best, and really doesn't matter in a world where politics is turned.
On econ., the neg gets some mitigation, but the aff solves some of it, and the Libyan crisis may act as an internal link booster. Irrelevant when I'm voting on the link turn, though.
Aff really needs to extend the warming advantage, neg conceded it in the block.