The Instigator
upstreamedge
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
TheLibertarian
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Can Hillary still gain the nomination if Obama wins NH as well?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 851 times Debate No: 1335
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

upstreamedge

Pro

Greetings everyone, I want to open with a little about my views so you can know where I am coming from. I am a Clinton supporter in 08 because I believe that the personal qualities of a president are not as important as their ability to attract and retain qualified diplomats, negotiators, and bureaucrats. The Clintons have a vast network of global reach, ad they would be able to refill the executive appointed posts with the best and brightest. Not to say Obama could not , but the people in question here are not politicians, but career bureaucrats who are less likely to risk their reputation with a relatively untried newcomer.
I think this is the most important argument in the campaign because the Bush administration has done acute damage to almost all of our international trade and diplomatic agreements, not to mention the horrible state of federal departments, like the leaderless justice department. Basically it comes down to this, Obama wants to be the new pilot, but we need to hire the mechanic first. I would also like to say that I like Obama, and if he is the nominee I will gladly support him with my time, money, and vote.

As a quick aside before we debate, if you use a term that has a broad definition based on perception like "change" "experience" "capitalism" etc. could you please define it in the comments? I will do the same, and if I fail to define a term please ask me to clarify! it makes for a better debate.

But the main issue. The media has been hyping the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, making it sound as if a victory in those states locks the nomination. In fact, the phrase "passing of the torch" was a favorite on MSNBC after the Iowa caucus. I do not think this is correct for 3 reasons:

1) Obama was fighting for his life: I believe if Obama had lost Iowa, and if he loses NH to Hill, it will destroy his candidacy. I think people have elect ability fears about Obama because he is black, and so these early wins are necessary to give him a sense of legitimacy. With this "win or die" feeling the Obama camp showed it was effective at organizing youths and independents, however Michigan and many other states will not offer these voting blocks, and Obama's young activists and organizers may even the blue collar and union blocks from voting for Obama because of an aesthetic and values gap.

2) John Edwards is sapping significant support from Obama and it is unlikely he will exit the race. This gives Hillary an edge in Michigan, Nevada, and Florida almost for sure, and even though Edwards is short on cash, his pre-built name recognition from his VP run would allow him to damage Obama on super Tuesday.

3) Hillary has a powerful machine capable of generating enough cash to allow her to fight, also, as the primaries drag on the endurance of Hill's staff will become more of a factor. Hillary does have the benefit of universal name recognition, and her machine can easily handle the simultaneous primaries in February.

Those are my reasons for believing Hillary could still get the nomination if she loses NH as well. I probably should have put some history in there, but I am on break so screw research.

Good Debating!!
TheLibertarian

Con

First, I would just like to apologize that your candidate hasn't been doing so well. I greatly support Ron Paul, so I can feel your pain.

My opponent states that even if Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire, Clinton may still get the nomination. However I strongly feel that Obama has a great chance of getting the democratic nomination, especially since he has just recently won both primaries as of posting. I will first argue against my opponents arguments, and themn make some closing comments.

First, my oppponent says that Obama is only winning becaus of youth and independents and leaners. However, thare is amassive sweel in other demographics towards Barack, and while a great deal of those are youth and blue collar workers, he still gains massive attention from more upper-class and left-wing Democrats. In addition with Oprah's massive support, this will draw in a great deal older women who would have otherwise voted for Clinton.

Next, While Edwards is a name-recognition candidate and is definitely gaining strength, people are starting to see Clinton's flaws, andhe is actually sapping strength from her, not Obama. Both John and Hillary are old-school politicians, and are running as the insiders. Obama, on the other hand, is runing as the "new guy", and a vast amount of voters, especially democrats, want change, and they realize that Obama is the one who will give it to them.

Finally, my opponents stated how Clinton has a "powerful machine" and is capable of raising a great deal of funds. However, this machine is one of the reasons why I feel she isn't getting as much support. As I stated earlier, people want change, and they see Clinton as just another senator in our failing Congress. They see her as an inside politician and responsible for some of our failures. Also, especially with these two recent victories, people will always want to give money to a winner, and will want to help Obama anyway they can.

So in closing, while Clinton may be good at first glance, she is a warmongering and inept politician who has shoddy domestic and foreign platforms, and the chances of her getting the nomination are slim to none. Thank you
Debate Round No. 1
upstreamedge

Pro

Well it would appear to me that this debate is now kind of moot, So we don't have to have people vote on it. I am basically pretty surprised she won.
TheLibertarian

Con

TheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
upstreamedge

Pro

upstreamedge forfeited this round.
TheLibertarian

Con

TheLibertarian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
well Hilary didn't lose so I guess this debate is a moot point.
Posted by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
No nominee in the modern era has lost the nomination after winning both IA and NH. Especially since Obama is much more favored to win NH than SC, winning the first three would almost certainly lock up the nomination.
Posted by kcraine 9 years ago
kcraine
This is a very interesting debate; however, I don't believe on the democratic side that if Hillary loses NH, which she most likely will, she can still win the nomination...Can't wait to see the arguments after tomorrow's primary
Posted by upstreamedge 9 years ago
upstreamedge
Hey TheLibertarian, thanks for taking this debate!

good debating!
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
I don't want a Democrat to win , however I would take Clinton over Obama anyday and I believe that she can still win the nomination regardless of Iowa and even NH. I don't think Obama will win New Hampshire though.
Posted by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
Yes. There's still enough delegates to allow her to get the nomination if she sweeps the other states. Even if you don't think it's likely it's clearly still *possible*.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by upstreamedge 9 years ago
upstreamedge
upstreamedgeTheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
upstreamedgeTheLibertarianTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30