The Instigator
Cooperman88
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
Farooq
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

Hillary Clinton winning the democratic nomination would give republicans the best chance of winning.

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: 1/5/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,478 times Debate No: 1427
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (15)

 

Cooperman88

Pro

Republicans now are willing to vote against their own party. With everything going on in our government now, republicans feel no loyalty. There is a lot of confusion as to who is going to get the republican nomination for president, and this shows a division between the republicans. If Hillary Clinton wins the democratic nomination, this will unite the republicans against a common enemy. I'm not saying that this means the republicans will win, it will just give them the best chance at winning.
Farooq

Con

For the simplicity's sake, I am going to assume that if Clinton fails to get the nomination, Obama will (barring scandal and/or assassination).

Obama is a very inspirational speaker and talks very often about how come "United" is in your country's name and how come bipartisanship should be a goal to work for.

However what a poltician says and what (s)he does are not always the same thing, and his policies/views hardly can be considered "moderate". Most importanlty of all he is inexpereiced (not a word that applies to Clinton) and will fare very badly with this lack, especially if he is going head to head with a GOP vetern like McCain.

Than again people know the name Clinton, they know that her views storngly resemble her husbands and most importanlty of all people remeber that times were prosperous in the 90's and woulnd't mind seeing a return there to.

Also many people in the US are sexist and will vote for Clinton becuase they want to see a woman become president, not another white guy like McCain or Obama (okay maybe most people dub him black, but the point remains that there are more women in the United States than ethnic minrities).

Clinton also has a far better organizational structure, more politcal connections that will yield finer bureaucrats than Obama ever could hope to have and people know this. According to most polls, they show Clinton will have a far easier time winning against the GOP candidates than will the mulatto.

Your turn Cooper.
Debate Round No. 1
Cooperman88

Pro

Obama is a very inspirational speaker and talks very often about how come "United" is in your country's name and how come bipartisanship should be a goal to work for.

However what a poltician says and what (s)he does are not always the same thing, and his policies/views hardly can be considered "moderate". Most importanlty of all he is inexpereiced (not a word that applies to Clinton) and will fare very badly with this lack, especially if he is going head to head with a GOP vetern like McCain.

Than again people know the name Clinton, they know that her views storngly resemble her husbands and most importanlty of all people remeber that times were prosperous in the 90's and woulnd't mind seeing a return there to.

Also many people in the US are sexist and will vote for Clinton becuase they want to see a woman become president, not another white guy like McCain or Obama (okay maybe most people dub him black, but the point remains that there are more women in the United States than ethnic minrities).

Clinton also has a far better organizational structure, more politcal connections that will yield finer bureaucrats than Obama ever could hope to have and people know this. According to most polls, they show Clinton will have a far easier time winning against the GOP candidates than will the mulatto.

Your turn Cooper.

I agree, if Clinton fails, Obama will. That has absolutely nothing to do with this debate though.

"Also many people in the US are sexist and will vote for Clinton becuase they want to see a woman become president, not another white guy like McCain or Obama (okay maybe most people dub him black, but the point remains that there are more women in the United States than ethnic minrities)." Turns out, that more women voted for Obama than Clinton in the Iowa caucus. And most people dub him black...BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. Just because he doesn't act like a thug from the bronx doesn't change his skin color. To quote the great theologian David Letterman, "How more black can he get? He has to dunk?" He is black.

"linton also has a far better organizational structure, more politcal connections that will yield finer bureaucrats than Obama ever could hope to have and people know this. According to most polls, they show Clinton will have a far easier time winning against the GOP candidates than will the mulatto." I would first like to know which polls you are talking about, and then, I would ask you to look to who won in Iowa. Who got second in Iowa, and then who got third in Iowa. In case you don't want to, Obama got first, and Hillary got THIRD. Not even second place for her.

You also fail to argue my points about uniting the republicans. I have shown how the republicans are seperated. No one knows who of the top five republican candidates will win. Democrats really only have two. Republicans are eager to jump ship, and we see this with the approval ratings of the president. They are officially under ten percent. And that isn't just of democrats. It's of the nation. So republicans are tired of a republican president. This means they will be willing to vote for a democrat. But not just any democrat. I say that they will not vote for Clinton. She is much too "radical" for a republican. Republicans are willing to change, but not that much.

You also say that inexperienced is not a word applied to Clinton, but I disagree. It definitely isn't applied to Bill, but to Hillary it definitely is. She has done what exactly? Have you looked at her record of voting while she has been in Congress? Have you looked into her at all? Maybe you should try it before you discuss how "moderate" and "experienced" she is. There was a debate tonight, I don't know if you watched it. But Clinton's views on everything were strictly democratic. I mean that as in party, not type of government. Now granted, Obama was still democratic, otherwise he wouldn't be a democrat, but compared to Hillary and the other not-so-hopeful-hopefuls, he was much more conservative.

You say that the Clinton era was a good era, but I say it is because he didn't have any real issues facing him. He didn't have a war, and Hillary will. Even if she chooses to pull out, which she already has said she won't, then "era" still won't be as prosperous as her husbands. She has immigration to deal with that is much worse than that of her husbands. Slick Willy's era was the calm before the storm. He got lucky, and the next president, got screwed.

You fail to answer any of my original arguments, and make some of your own, which I clearly have refuted. That is why I should win.
Farooq

Con

"Who got second in Iowa, and then who got third in Iowa. In case you don't want to, Obama got first, and Hillary got THIRD"

Yes she got third. However Edwards and Richardson are not going to lasting much longer and this will turn into a two way race soon enough. Mr. Middle Class Edwards scored well in Iowa, but remember that Iowa does not represent the entire United States. Clinton however is still leading in most other states.

According to CBC"s the National and Time Magazine the polls show Clinton with javing a lead on her GOP counterparts, and Obama looking like he is trailing behind and going to have a far closer race with anyo of them.

"Slick Willy's era was the calm before the storm. He got lucky, and the next president, got screwed."

Yoour statements surrounding this are actually quite rational. The first Clinton even ran the occasional surplus, had successful wars in Europe going on, and governed in a time of relative prosperity. People admire good records, and when times are good polticians get the credit. When thye are bad they recieve the blame. It doens't matter if they deserve them or not, its just the way it goes. People seem to associate good times with good politicains, which is to a point, a decent notion. Voters are not always as smart as you presume. In times of crisis, isn't this the most approriate time for them to expereince nolstagia.

One of the major issues that the Democrats are struggling with addressing seems to be natioanl security. GOP get a lot of their support on these issues, and Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and apathy (comapred to ther candiadtes, including Clinton) for this issue will deter many potnetial swing voters. Polls show the Democrats genrally have supoort on the economic issues, this is not a difficulty they are going to be having with the elctorate. People are prepared for change, and the minor diffrence betneewn the Democrats do not really costitute a big gap. Experience and leader strenght will however make the difference.
Debate Round No. 2
Cooperman88

Pro

You say "CBC"s the National and Time Magazine the polls show Clinton with javing a lead on her GOP counterparts, and Obama looking like he is trailing behind and going to have a far closer race with anyo of them." But I don't know when this took place. I don't know when they said that, they may have said that back in may of 2007 for all I know. But I do know that Democrats told the International Herald Tribune that they feel that Obama has the best chance at defeating the republican candidates. My source is http://www.iht.com... I say you have to give me your source before I believe yours is better than mine. Note when mine took place. 2008. so as of recently, Democrats feel that Obama gives them the best chance of winning the presidency. In your argument, you continually stress that Hillary will beat Obama. That doesn't show anything. We aren't arguing who will win the presidential nomination from the democratic side. So all of those arguments are moot points. They are worthless in this round. Stick to proving that Hillary doesn't give the republicans the best chance to win. And you do some of that. Just not enough. You made one argument in your last speech that I already answered. You have not answered how I said that Clinton will unite the republicans against her, and you have not argued my point about Obama being the kind of guy who republicans can vote for. Both of these prove my point, and you haven't done anything about them.
Farooq

Con

My sources, among others are: Last Weeks Time "Cover: This Space Availible"
www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/obamaelectability103 - 88k -

I will congratualte you in your last post (short and to the point, but arguemntitive as well). As for your allegations, I now respond

You state that when I talk about the nomination, I am not making much sense. But considering that 24% of Dems consider that electabilty is the number one issue, and are pushing Clinton in the polls show you that I am not alone in the Con assertion in the Democratic Caucus.

You assert also that the Republicans easily be able to unite their divided caucus together against Clinton if she wins the nomination. This is entirly true. Yet is not that the point of the partisan system? They will eaisily ally agianst Obama as well and his poor orgonization structure will make him hapless before the GOP War mahcine, as Clinton herself pointed out in one of primary NH primary speeches.

National Security is also a big issue that will play in the negative for Obama, for many of the fringe supporters that came into the GOP camp following 9/11 are more likly to stay there, for whether it is baseless or not, Obama is perceived as weak. Dems already have the economic issues in the bag, they need someone more aggressive in foreign policY (poll-reading Clinton) to lead the way.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by AREA 9 years ago
AREA
I believe that for the Reps to have the best chance of winning, the Dems' nomination would have to be Dick Cheney.
Remember that only 2% of Republicans didn't want Bush to drop him in 2004. Probably 100% Dems wanted him gone, and most Independents, plus all the people under voting age, 4 years worth of which can now vote in 2008...
Posted by Cybourgeoisie 9 years ago
Cybourgeoisie
Cooper, just a note - a theologian is an expert of theology, or religion.

Otherwise, I enjoyed this debate.
Posted by Farooq 9 years ago
Farooq
Obama is not black. His ancestors were slavers and he is descended from President Davies. How much whiter can you get? But I do agree, this has nothing to do with this debate.
Posted by JackBauerPower 9 years ago
JackBauerPower
It seems to me that Hillary polarizes too many people. They either love her or hate her, on both sides. There isnt much middle ground. However if you get Hillary, you get Bill, and that couldn't be bad at all.
Posted by Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
I find it ironic that there is a "Hillary for 2008?" ad on this topic. It makes me chuckle inside.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
I agree that hillary gives Us Republicans the best chance of winning but not becuase of the reason's you stated. We will unite against any Democrat that gets his nomination, that is the point of the primary. The most popular Republican within our party gets to go up against the Democrat, but after that we all fall in line. Hillary would unit the Democrats against the Democrats and thats why we have the best chance of winning, unless you are like us and would rather vote for the worse Republican than any Democrat. But it all counts on the swint states and independant minded voters.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by The_Devils_Advocate 8 years ago
The_Devils_Advocate
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 griffinisright 9 years ago
griffinisright
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 shaffaq0589 9 years ago
shaffaq0589
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 Arjunk193 9 years ago
Arjunk193
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 Devyn 9 years ago
Devyn
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 Cooperman88 9 years ago
Cooperman88
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 patriots16-0 9 years ago
patriots16-0
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 Lacan 9 years ago
Lacan
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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 NickDvr86 9 years ago
NickDvr86
Cooperman88FarooqTied
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