The Instigator
wingnut2280
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
MatterOfFact
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

GOP will win in November

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: 1/18/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,769 times Debate No: 1936
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (12)

 

wingnut2280

Pro

The Republican nominee will win the general election.

Everyone seems to think that the wind is in the Republican Party's face, and it is. However, with the surge working and the candidates who are involved, the republican nominee will overcome the massive unpopularity of President Bush and win the general election.
MatterOfFact

Con

Sorry. This is my first debate and I posted my rebuttal in the wrong section.

Greetings wingnut, I look forward to engaging you in a spirited debate concerning this topic.

Before I present my counter argument, I have to point out a flaw in your opening statement. You begin your debate with an assertion that that is based on an absolute:

<< The GOP will win in November.>>

This assertion leaves no room for error. It implies that you can predict the future.
Because politics is unpredictable and since no one has the ability to predict the future, this statement cannot be absolutely true. If you began your opening statement with, " the GOP will probably win in November," then your argument would hold more weight. Unless you admit the possibility of the Republicans losing in November, then there can be no counter argument.

I will state this:

The Democrats have some advantages over the Republicans and this may lead to a Democratic Victory in November.

These advantages are based on the following:

1. Since the primaries began, voters have been coming out more for Democrats than Republicans by 2-1.

2. The Democrats appear to be more unified and pleased with their choice of candidates whereas the Republicans are not as pleased based on most polls taken by Zogby, USA TODAY and Ipsos.

3. Polls also show that most Americans want "change" from Bush's policies and this cannot favor the Republicans since they seem to want to continue those policies.

Therefore, I believe the Democrats have an advantage going into November and will most likely result in a Democratic victory.
1 Hour Ago
Debate Round No. 1
wingnut2280

Pro

I wasn't aware that my rhetoric was so unclear. I thought it was obvious that I was stating a claim. I claim that the GOP will win. Obviously, I can not predict the future and was merely stating this in the most convenient terms. It seems kind of frivolous to point this out. So, I will admit, for the purposes of satisfying your animosity on the subject, that I can not KNOW that they will win.

That said, I'll address your points on the topic itself.

1) Primary turnout

The fact that Democratic voters have turned out in higher numbers bears no weight on the general election. The primaries thus far have take place in 'blue' states for one, leading to a higher number of Democratic voters in general. Second, this simply proves that Democratic voters have a heightened animosity between candidates and voters feel it necessary to attempt to ensure their candidate gets as much support as possible. Additionally, history proves this is not a problem. Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans in primaries in the previous elections and the Republicans won the general. These points prove there is no correlation between primary turnout and general election results.

2) Unified Democrats

Quite the opposite is true actually. The most bitter political divide is between Clinton and Obama supporters. This is evident in the media, on the campaign trail and is evidenced by one of my points above. One of the reasons more Dems have come out is because their is such animosity between the two Dem camps.

The volatility in Republican support can simply be attributed to the greater number of competitive candidates. With double the number of candidates there is double the number of political camps. However, the divisions between the Republican camps are not nearly as bitter or alienating. Come nomination, we will see a far greater number of dissatisied Democrats than Republicans.

3) Change

The Democrats are seen as the party of change, but the Republicans have a great counter-strategy to this. Recently, Republican candidates have started to campaign for change as well. Most notably, Giuliani campaigns that Democrats will bring change...bad change. In the general election, Republicans will point this out to voters, overcoming this voter frustration and bringing the focus back to the issues.

Additional Reasons

4) Hot Issues

Months ago things looked dark for the right. Now, as the troop surge shows undeniable success and improvement in Iraq, the economy and social issues begin to take center stage again.

As voters become increasingly pleased with the situation in Iraq, the Republican party looks better and better. This is true of the economy as well. There has been a lot of recession talk lately, but just today, Bernanke issued a statement that said the economy will begin to rise during the summer and fall. We know this is probable because Washington just introduced an economic stimulus plan that will reduce the effective of the housing bubble and return growth to the economy.

As the issues look better and better, Republicans follow suit.

5) Candidates

The Democratic candidates are unable to win the general. Granted, they are polling better now, but, each has several weaknesses and inexperience that will crush them during the general. Despite what the polls show, Republicans simply campaign better and move the vote more. The last decade proves this.

So, Republicans will PROBABLY win because their camps are less divided, the campaign better, things are looking up, Americans are optimistic, and the Democrats motivated base and campaign for change will be overcome.
MatterOfFact

Con

<>

On the contrary, it's not frivolous at all. Knowing what you mean by what you say is pertinent to how I respond. One mustn't assume another person's thoughts and statements until they are explained. When I debate, I try and make sure that every statement is clear and precise. It has nothing to do with animosity towards you or the subject.

<>

Your argument that the higher numbers bears no weight on the general election is false. During the 2006 midterm election, voter turnout was much higher for Democrats than Republicans with an altogether 40% increase. According to the Associated Press Nov. 8, 2006 -

"WASHINGTON - Voter turnout was more than 40 percent this year, slightly higher than in the last midterm election, according to the non partisan Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University.
A preliminary analysis showed turnout down in some states and up in others — notably up in Virginia, where it appeared a higher number voted than in any midterm in the state's history, said Curtis Gans, director of the center.
It also was a big turnout success for Democrats. They drew more voters than Republicans for the first time in a midterm election since 1990, Gans said Wednesday."

According to this report the result led to a Democratic victory in the House and Senate. The pendulum is swinging towards the Democrats and it has not been demonstrated that it has stopped swinging. But if this is not enough to convince you. You can also turn to fund raising differences. Democrats are outnumbering Republicans in fund raising efforts. Leslie Wayne of the New York Times Politics Blog, reported that:

"...in the first three quarters of 2007, the top three Democratic presidential candidates raised $200 million and had $98 million left, while the top four Republican candidates raised $154 million and had $35 million left. And every month this year, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised more than the National Republican Senatorial Committee —$49.3 million raised for Democratic Senate efforts as of Nov. 30 (with $23.4 million on hand), compared with $28.7 million for Republican Senate campaigns ($10.4 million on hand). The Republicans are also at a disadvantage on the House side, with $60.8 million raised by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($30.7 million cash left) compared with $43.4 million for its Republican counterpart ($2.3 million on hand.)"

<>

There are always political divides between candidates in both parties during the primaries, and they are always bitter when two or more candidates are competing for front runner status. This is not an indication of weakness but of strength. Once a decision is made on who the Democrats will choose as their candidate, the party will be in full support of that candidate despite current differences. All the candidates have respect for each other as they have stated consistently during past debates. The differences between them are minor. Divisions between the camps is a matter of perception. If you want to compare the differences then make a list do a comparison. Each camp will have a fair amount of agreements and disagreements. How the candidates communicate those differences, is what you are responding to. If a candidate shows more anger then you may probably interpret it as bitter and divisive. I believe that the Republicans and Democrats have been relatively civil in their candor. There has been no "swift-boating" as a way of scoring political points yet.

<>

Your argument here is a weak one. What are the Republicans changing from? A continuation of the Iraq war to a continuation of the Iraq war? A support of "the surge" to a support of the "surge?" A support of the Bush tax cuts to a support of the Bush tax cuts?" This doesn't seem like change to me.

< As voters become increasingly pleased with the situation in Iraq, the Republican party looks better and better. This is true of the economy as well. There has been a lot of recession talk lately, but just today, Bernanke issued a statement that said the economy will begin to rise during the summer and fall. We know this is probable because Washington just introduced an economic stimulus plan that will reduce the effective of the housing bubble and return growth to the economy.
As the issues look better and better, Republicans follow suit.>>

In a short sighted sense, the surge has reduced attacks in Baghdad only recently. However, 2007 has been the deadliest year in Iraq since the war started and it remains to be seen if the "surge" can sustain that success. There is every reason to believe that violence can increase at anytime for any reason. In fact, violence in Iraq has always had a tendency to increase during the summer season. Either way, the "surge" strategy is a not stable one. This is a gamble that can easily backfire on the Republicans if there is a sudden increase in violence. As long as there is no political reconciliation or cease-fire, violence will continue indefinitely along with the war. Either way, a majority of Americans want the war to end and this favors the Democrats over the Republicans during this election cycle.

In regards to the economy the Iraq war has cost 487 billion dollars so far!! We are paying for this war by borrowing money from China. This is a recipe for economic disaster unless the government can increase its revenue. And you cannot increase revenue by cutting taxes and handing out $800 dollar checks. Gallup polls show
that there is an increase momentum for economic populism which favors the Democrats.

<>

This is a blanket statement. Are you implying that the Republicans have no weaknesses and therefore will not be "crushed?"

In conclusion, all candidates in both parties have strengths and weaknesses. There have always been candidates with inexperience and weaknesses who won the presidency.
Debate Round No. 2
wingnut2280

Pro

1) Turnout

You miss the argument. The midterms were an actual election between the two parties. So, when the dems received more votes, they won. This isn't analogous to the primaries. How many voters turn out now has no correlation to the general election. We saw this in 2000. The democratic primaries had larger turnouts and Republicans won.

Campaign finance is also not reflective of a winning campaign. Huckabee is notoriously being outspent 30-1 (or something outrageous), but managed to win Iowa. Also, funding can be relfective of organzational support and wealth. Democratics are typically supported by organizations like unions and PAC's more so than Republicans. Also, there are more registered wealthy democrats than republicans (hard to believe). "The study also found that Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle, but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers."

http://www.opensecrets.org...

This shows that fundraising is not indicative of votes, but rather, how many rich people and organizations you have in your corner. This could also be indicative of the animosity between Democratic candidates. Since they are running against each other, Dem contributors see the differences between their own camps as more divided than Republicans do. For example, a Yankees fan is more likely to take interest when they are playing the Red Sox and the rivalry is higher.

The fact that the rivalry between the Dems is high is unquestionable. You are merely assuming that Dem voters will overcome their differences. Of course the candidates aren't going to admit the rivalry. Throughout Nevada today, Obama and Clinton supporters got into screaming matches at one another. I don't think you need a better example of heated rivalry. Even if the Dems are closer on the issues (which is debatable), this doesn't change the fued between the camps. Personality is just as important as policy in this campaign.

3) Change

You miss the argument here. The republicans are telling voters that Dems are going to bring change...bad change. Change is a hot word right now, and the Republicans are spinning it against the Democrats. As people are becoming more and more pleased with their outlook, Democrats look worse and worse.

4) Iraq

Americans think the surge is working. December was the lowest fatality count in years, the Iraqi government is making political progress (as I pointed out) and the dissentiment about the war from Americans is falling by the wayside. Why do you think the economy has become the hot issue as of late? Less and less people are feeling ill towards the war and this favors the Republicans. Bush approval rating, though low, is rising, as is good will toward the war.

5) Economy

You talk about the deficit. This has long-term repercussions, which don't bear weight on November. Every economic analyst says we are going to see a recovery this summer. The Democrats are preaching pessimism in the hopes that people will doubt this. The deficit doesn't immediately effect the economy. Even if the deficit is rising, the economy can do well in the coming months. The dollar is bottoming out, and beginning to recover. All this bodes well for the Republicans.

Economic populism favors the democrats? Since when? The Republicans message of lower taxes and fiscla responsibility has always been their ace in the hole. I would say people like lower taxes. Also, the economic stimulus package just introduced is aimed at low income Americans. This reflects well on the Republicans and will see a rise in support for the Republicans on the economy.

5) Candidates

It was a blanket statement because it applies to all of them. The Democrats are less experienced and worse campaigners in general. We saw this in past elections where Bush Sr. overcame a 12 piont deficit to beat Dukakis, his son did the same to Gore. My point is, every election that the Democrats "should have won", with the exception of 1996, has come up red. This is due, in large part, to the republicans campaigning abilities and nomination of winning candidates. This is obvious this year as each of the Democrats flaws are more glaring. The republicans are not perfect, but the Democrats have some big leaks in the ship as far as candidates are concerned.

In short, general sentiment from voters about their satisfaction with the status quo is on the rise. The next nine months has a positive outlook. This will help Republicans overcome Bush's low approval rating. The focus on issues is helping the Republicans. The animosity between the Democratic frontrunners is apparent and will cost them once they nominate a candidate. Once this happens, the republicans are great campaigners and have more winnable candidates. All of these things mean the GOP will win the general election, despite their current underdog status.
MatterOfFact

Con

<>

You have your facts wrong. In 2000 during the primaries the Republicans had a higher voter turnout than the Democrats. At the Democratic convention in 2000 the total popular votes counted between all the candidates was 14,013,416; compared to the total popular votes at the Republican Convention which totaled at 19,519,539. However, Democrats had more delegate votes than Republicans, but we are talking about voter turnout and not delegate votes.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com...

<>

I am not suggesting that campaign finance is the only winning strategy, but an amalgamation of fund raising, organization, voter turnout, voter registration, and party unity will give the Democrats an advantage over the Republicans in 2008.

<>

But hasn't won since. Huckabee won because of the evangelical support in Iowa, not because he didn't raise as much as his opponents. Obama outspent Hillary in Iowa and won that state. There is no substance to your argument.

<>

Yes, of course, and Republicans are supported by corporate lobbyists and special interest groups more so than the Democrats. However in this election cycle, two of the leading Democratic candidates stand by their claim that they do not take money from unions and PACs. Therefore, I don't see what your point is.

<< Also, there are more registered wealthy democrats than republicans (hard to believe). "The study also found that Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle, but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers.">>

Your argument does not show how this favors the Republicans. This debate is not about who is giving the donations or who has the most rich donors, but how much each party is raising. I have shown you previously that the Democrats have been out raising the Republicans in donations. This does not suggest that it is the only reason why Democrats will defeat the Republicans. It simply adds to the list of probable advantages the Democrats have over the Republicans.

<>

It is also high on the Republican side. Let me list a few better examples of heated rivalry. 1. Mike Hukabee and Mitt Romney concerning Romney's religion. 2. John McCain and Rudy Gulliani about who can keep America safer. 3. Ron Paul against the others on withdrawing from Iraq. Or turn to the topic of immigration and you'll find all sorts of passionate debating between the Republicans on what would be the best policy without any consensus. One of the most common attacks Republicans use on one another is the "flip flop" attack. All the Republicans have attacked each other with flip flopping on nearly every issue they've talked about - including taxes, abortion, crime, immigration, torture, and Iraq war. This is the reason why they appear to be so fractured and having a lack of new ideas. The Democrats are in more agreement with most of the issues than the Republicans are.

<>

This argument sounds desperate and without substance. There is no evidence that this strategy of saying that the Democrats will bring "bad change" has worked to change voter perception to favor the Republicans. I will argue that a majority of Americans are smart enough to see through the spin. This is more of an ad hominem attack and once again...lacks substance.

<>

Frank Rich of the New York Times said it best in today's paper:

"To voters who do remember Iraq, the supposed military success of the "surge" does not accrue to the Republicans' favor either. Quite the contrary. As every poll shows, most Americans still want the troops home ASAP. Republican declarations that we are "winning" merely lead many voters to a logical conclusion: Why not let the Iraqis take over the remaining triage so we can retrieve the $10 billion a month in taxpayers' money that might benefit us at home?"

<>

In Jan 12 issue of the Economist, the magazine reports that the US unemployment rate jumped to 5%. The stock markets lost 8% its total value this month alone. And even though a drop in interest rates may slow the downturn it will not speedup the recovery. The Economist states:

"Put together falling asset prices, rising defaults and tighter credit and it is hard to see how the economy will bounce back quickly. History, too, suggests the hangover will last. A new study finds that, on measures from capital inflows to asset-price rises, the build-up to America's mortgage crisis looks eerily like earlier financial crises in rich countries. In the average rich-country banking crisis, it took two years for growth to return to trend; at worst it took more than three ." http://www.economist.com...

<>

http://www.gallup.com...

<>

You mean rich people like lower taxes. Middle income taxpayers do not get the benefits of Bush's tax cuts, and it is the middle income taxpayers who need it more than the rich. Since the Republicans have not been able to be fiscally responsible while in power it is going to be difficult for the Republicans to run on that issue.

<>

Except when they win as in 1992, 1996, and 2006. Judging and comparing how candidates campaigned in the past has no relevance and provides no indication about how they will fair in 2008. Your argument does not prove that the Republicans will win in 2008 or that it will give them an advantage.

<>

Based on what analysis????

<>

On the contrary, the focus on the issues is helping the Democrats. The Republicans are divided on the issues and are blindly following Bush's policies. But if these words don't heed you, then read George Will who correctly states:

"Today, all the usual indicators are dismal for Republicans. If that broad assertion seems counterintuitive, produce a counterexample. The adverse indicators include: shifts in voters' identifications with the two parties (Democrats now 50 percent, Republicans 36 percent); the tendency of independents (they favored Democratic candidates by 18 points in 2006); the fact that Democrats hold a majority of congressional seats in states with 303 electoral votes; the Democrats' strength and the Republicans' relative weakness in fund raising; the percentage of Americans who think the country is on the "wrong track"....."
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
Debate Round No. 3
wingnut2280

Pro

On the turnout argument, your still missing my point. I'm sorry I misspoke(typed?). But, simply because the Democrats are receiving more votes now does not mean that they will win the general. They simply have a more heated rivalry which is drawing more people to the polls. This does not mean it will be the case in November.

On fundraising, yes, the celebrity candidates have raised more money. My point with Huckabee is that money and winning are not correlative. Obama won while outspending, Huckabee and McCain won while being outspent. The Dems may not have received money, but they are endorsed more. My evidence shows that democrats receive more funds from big groups. Edwards may not receive money from lobbyists, just employees of lobbysists or union workers and not unions, there is a delicate line that the voters don't see. The evidence I provided proves that the Republicans funds, though smaller, have come from a larger base of voters, indicating that funds are not indicative of votes. My point is that there is no correlation or substance to the entire argument in general.
You are trying to swing this argument two ways. First, funds are not indicative of voter support. Second, funds are an advantage, but can be overcome, as we have seen lately.

I don't think there is any denying that the rivalry between the Democrats, especially Obama and Hillary is undeniable. Did you watch the CNN debate on Mon.? All the candidates did was bicker. The media is flooded, as are the voters, with this animosity. Regardless of how close the candidates are on the issues, the rivalry between democratic personality's is clearly the most divisive. The only thing that comes to the table in the debates is voting records and spouses and professional history. If the Dems agreed on the issues, you wouldn't know it, because they never have time to talk about them over the pathetic bickering. Ask any pundant or voter, liberal or conservative. John Edwards admits that the biggest factor in him jumping in the polls is his ability to capture the anti-hillary vote. None of the republicans draw the inner-party hatred that each of the dems do.
this rivalry will alienate many independents and split the base. Obama admitted this in the debate, as did Edwards.

On the surge, I would expect a liberal editorialist to put a democrat spin on the surge working. This is not a logical conclusion and we don't have any reason to believe voters are coming to this conclusion other than this unqualified, biased journalist's opinion. If the surge is working, the logical conclusion is that staying there would bring more positive results.
Obviously, this conclusion would benefit the Republicans.

On the economy, the poll you cited proves my point. Over 70% of Americans think they are better off or the same as last year. Even among the low income, 61% think that. This would benefit the GOP. If a majority of people think they are better or the same, the incumbent party has the upper hand on the economy. Wealth distribution and the economy are two seperate issues.

The concept that the bush taxes cuts are for the rich is a false one. The bush tax cuts, as well as the Republican platform, cut taxes proportionally across the board.

On Bush, the republicans, especially the current heir-apparent John McCain, are starting to run against Bush just as much. McCain said Bush wasn't a conservative. Rudy said it was hard to call him a republican at times. If the republicans can convince voters that Bush is not an accureate reflection of the party, their popular messages like small government and lower taxes can come through.

First, let me say, of course the washington post is going to say the democrats are favorites. And they are. I can't KNOW that the republicans will win in November. But, they have a SHORT list of important things to do in order to win the election. If they can unidentify the party with Bush, preach popular messages like lower taxes, and let the democrats ruin it for themselves, they can win in November.

The point is, support for the democrats doesn't mean much now. The current issues are looking better (not necessarily good) than they were. The Republicans are starting to distance themselves from Bush. Most importantly, the democrats are running themselves into the ground with this bitter rivalry. Each side has about 44% of the vote gauranteed (virtually). The remaining indpenedents are being driven from the democrats by the day. I don't care how much you disagree on the issues, if there is one thing the common voter hates its political BS and bickering. We are getting a textbook example in the democratic primaries. The Democrats are looking less moderate and any nominee will alienate a large part of the base strictly because of their personality and the fact that the other two lost.

The Republicans are not the favorite now, and shouldn't be. But, the future looks brighter for the GOP nominee than the Democrats based on the bitterness within the left and the increasing positive sentiment on the status quo.
MatterOfFact

Con

Before I present my closing argument I want to thank Wingnut for a strong performance in this debate.

In Wingnut's opening statement, he argued that the GOP will win the election based on the premise that with the surge working, the Republican nominee will overcome the massive unpopularity of President Bush and win the general election.

In my view, this argument is too myopic and doesn't stand against all the other overwhelming advantages the Democrats have on their side. Many of these advantages I have listed in previous rounds and sited sources that support them. I would like to also point out that in Wingnut's last post, he criticizes me for citing Frank Rich to support my argument but fails to acknowledge that I also invoke George Will ( a conservative columnist) who also supports my argument. I was careful to include both a liberal and a conservative who share similar views on the state of the Republicans in order to keep it balanced. Both believe that the Democrats have a clear advantage going into November.

Here is a list of five advantages the Demcorats have over the Republicans.

1. Democrats are raising more money than the Republicans (This week's Newsweek - 1/28/08 - has a cover story concerning the decline of the Republican party. It states, "Fundraising - the most tangible measure of enthusiasm- is weak. In the first three quargters of 2007 Democratic presidential candidates out-raised their Republican counterparts by 77 million.

2. There is more enthusiasm for change which favors the Democrats.

3. Voter turnout. - "Voter turnout on the Republican side in the early primaries has been weak compared with the Democrats." - Newsweek 1/28/07

4. Independents are leaning more towards the Democrats.

5. More first time voters are registering as Democrats than Republicans.

I do not believe that any single advantage or all of the advantages guarantees a victory for the Democrats or for the Republicans. However, it is clear that the Democrats have momentum on their side and this does not bode will for the Republicans.

When Wingnut's initial argument about the "surge working" failed to stand to scrutiny, he added a new argument based on a hypothetical - that the economy will recover over the summer and this will help the Republicans because they supposedly hold an edge over the Democrats on the economy. I immediately discredited this claim by citing a gallup poll showing that the country is leaning more towards a populist agenda which favors the Democrats.

In the end, It seems that Wingnut's arguments are based on simple wishful thinking. He has not provided any conclusive, substantial evidence that indicates how the Republicans hold an advantage over the Democrats.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
I hope you are wrong wingnut. America needs to get out of the Bushes. If Hillary or Barack win the democratic nomination I think there is a good chance they will lose, simply because of race or gender. I'll vote for whichever democrat wins the nomination. It's too bad Kucinich didn't really have a chance. He is what America (and the world) needs right now.
Posted by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
The Democrats certainly have a fighting chance in November, as has been shown in this debate.
Posted by MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
Please ignore my last comment. I read the previous comment wrongly and wrote a reply to it without realizing that it wasn't from my opponent. Thank you.
Posted by MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
You are repeating yourself. The argument is not about the midterms. The argument is about you claiming that the Republicans will defeat the Democrats in November. You have not provided solid reasons to show how the Republicans will accomplish this. The "surge" argument does not hold because whether it works or not it is a Bush policy, and the people want a change from that. Mainly to end the war in Iraq.
Posted by skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
"You miss the argument. The midterms were an actual election between the two parties. So, when the dems received more votes, they won. This isn't analogous to the primaries. How many voters turn out now has no correlation to the general election. We saw this in 2000. The democratic primaries had larger turnouts and Republicans won."

Do let me point out that the Dems DID win the popular vote. :-)
Posted by MatterOfFact 9 years ago
MatterOfFact
Greetings wingnut, I look forward to engaging you in a spirited debate concerning this topic.

Before I present my counter argument, I have to point out a flaw in your opening statement. You begin your debate with an assertion that that is based on an absolute:

<< The GOP will win in November.>>

This assertion leaves no room for error. It implies that you can predict the future.
Because politics is unpredictable and since no one has the ability to predict the future, this statement cannot be absolutely true. If you began your opening statement with, " the GOP will probably win in November," then your argument would hold more weight. Unless you admit the possibility of the Republicans losing in November, then there can be no counter argument.

I will state this:

The Democrats have some advantages over the Republicans and this may lead to a Democratic Victory in November.

These advantages are based on the following:

1. Since the primaries began, voters have been coming out more for Democrats than Republicans by 2-1.

2. The Democrats appear to be more unified and pleased with their choice of candidates whereas the Republicans are not as pleased based on most polls taken by Zogby, USA TODAY and Ipsos.

3. Polls also show that most Americans want "change" from Bush's policies and this cannot favor the Republicans since they seem to want to continue those policies.

Therefore, I believe the Democrats have an advantage going into November and will most likely result in a Democratic victory.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by jocko01us 9 years ago
jocko01us
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Idontcare 9 years ago
Idontcare
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by malmal16 9 years ago
malmal16
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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 redinbluestate 9 years ago
redinbluestate
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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 Off_the_Wall.Paul 9 years ago
Off_the_Wall.Paul
wingnut2280MatterOfFactTied
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:03