The Instigator
cgb003
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
Napier
Con (against)
Winning
54 Points

Is Hillary Clinton going to win the 2008 Presidential Ellection?

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: 12/11/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,796 times Debate No: 251
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (20)

 

cgb003

Pro

Hillary Clinton is going to win the democratic primary and whoever the democrats nominate, barring a massive terrorist attack is going to win. It seems despite Obama recent surge that in early states, he is still down roughly 20 points, in the latest RealClearPolitics.com poll. His support stems to much from demographics that are not likely to vote (ie: young people and new voters). Senator Clinton has a far stronger political machine.
Despite her overwhelming negatives she is going to win the general election because the US is fed up with the Republican party. Her poll numbers currently show her beating all the Republican candidates, aside from John McCain (who unfortunately wont win). This shows that against candidates the general public knows little about (and therefore does not know enough to hate, as the negatives grow stronger after the primaries) she is already leading.
I am not stating that she is my favorite candidate, but am rather looking from a strictly analytical point of view.
I would like to challenge someone, to make a better case for any of the other candidates (aside from Ron Paul, because then it would be ideological libertarian dribble).

Thank You
Napier

Con

Hillary Clinton is indisputably the front runner, and she seems very likely to win this election at this time. However, history shows us that the front-runner has a way of getting his (or in this case, her) bottom handed to him/her.

Let us remember way back to 1860, when a failed Senate candidate from Illinois ran for the nomination of a party barely a couple decades old. Against senior members with astounding credentials, he fought his way up. At the beginning, nobody could have imagined that Lincoln could have won, but the man won America over with his charm.

Similarly, that Bill Clinton, the relatively unknown Governor of Arkansas, could have won the 1992 primary seemed unlikely at best. He faced a Republican incumbent who was, indisputably, a son of Reagan (if he did have some minor policy blunders). Nonetheless, the strikingly intelligent and charismatic Clinton clinched the Democratic nomination and took out the incumbent.

Though it may seem, at this time, unlikely, there is no reason that could not happen again. Obama's reformist flame has the potential to ignite, especially if there is a major government ethics scandal. Huckabee's quiet conservatism and sense of humour may well push him ahead of all others. Or, perhaps, one of the candidates may emerge in a way we cannot yet imagine (Ron Paul, anyone?).

Could Clinton win the nomination? Quite possibly. But this isn't anybody's race yet.
Debate Round No. 1
cgb003

Pro

I am in agreement that at this point Obama, McCain, Giuliani, Huckabee, or Romeny could win the election. Obviously if Hillary get assassinated or makes a monumental gaff she could be defeated. However, I am arguing that this seems highly unlikely, due to her making one minor gaffe (backing drivers licenses for illegals, which despite being bold was a terrible move in this political environment). What public figure of that stature get assassinated in this day and age? Based on your argument thus far, you seem to agree with me, that most likely she is going to win the presidency; though made the point that she was not 100% guaranteed to win the presidency (you cited historic examples of favorites who lost), and obviously you are right. You do however seem to agree that she is far and away the most likely candidate and until she actually wins, that is all I can argue.
When I have argued this point at parties, the political novice will typical point out how hated she is, to which I have two strong argument. First, her negatives are not as high as W's were in 2004. Second, her negatives are a glass floor, where as her rivals with lower negatives have a glass ceiling. Her political machine has already done a amazing job of transforming her image among many independents. While she is unlikely to convince hardcore Republicans to vote for her, neither is Obama.
Another popular misconception is that she is too far left. I would argue that she is the most centrist candidate in the race. Her position on Iraq is far more centrist to slightly right of center then fellow democrats. As the favorite she has made sure to position herself for the general election by putting herself in the mainstream. This will also help her tremendously in the general election, where she is either going to face the transparent Romeny who "flipflopping" pandering on immigration will certainly hurt him among the growing hispanic population, same goes for Giulianion on immigration as well as his bellicose rhetoric on terrorism, Huckabee who does not believe in evolution, or John McCain who is pretty great (but seems unlikely to win the nomination).
I look forward to you offering a likely scenario for her loosing the race?
Napier

Con

I will look at several candidates and describe how they could beat Clinton.

1) Obama:
Obama is all about reform. People are sick of Congress, especially the Senate. They hate politik, they hate the political maneuvering, and Clinton is undeniably adept at participating in all of those. If Obama were able to paint her, successfuly, as an establishment candidate (which she undeniably is) and then were able to successfully connect the establishment to Congress, you can get people would be pissed. I know this from personal experience. I work the phonebanks and weekends, and I would say at least 15% of the people I talk to (liberal Californians, one of Clinton's biggest support bases) say that they are just sick of the system and would take anybody who had a message that could turn it around. In my head, Obama lights were flashing.

2) Al Gore:
Come on, he won a Nobel Peace Prize. This guy is a liberal folk hero. Reviled by Republicans, yes, but he undeniably has a stronger record than Clinton (especially on the environment, a hot button issue) and has a much stronger background in campaigning. He might not be able to win, but he would take a huge chunk out of Clinton's support base, arguably opening it up for Obama.

3) Bill Clinton:
This guy is vital to Hillary's campaign. If he dies, she can consider her chances gone.

4) Mike Huckabee:
With his Southern charisma and sense of humour, this is the guy the 49% of the country that voted Bush in 2000 want to see. He's just like Bush, only a better speaker, and his name isn't Bush. People have been suckered by this guy before, they can get suckered again.

5) Ron Paul:
By far the most vocal advocate of foreign policy. If something went very wrong in Iraq, he and Obama would be the winners. Clinton's foreign policy is actually too hawkish for many Americans, and if the situation in Iraq deteriorates, look to this guy and Obama.

I would agree with you that if the election were held tomorrow, Clinton would walk away with it. But with 11 months left to go, I would say that not only is the outcome of this race uncertain, but that about 4 or 5 candidates are all within striking range. This contest makes it far too close to say "Hillary Clinton will be the next president."
Debate Round No. 2
cgb003

Pro

cgb003 forfeited this round.
Napier

Con

I would like to say at this time that I do not actually endorse any of the candidates I discussed, but merely believe that there are numerous scenarios by which Clinton could still be defeated. The presidency is not yet hers, however much she might act like it.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Oh , its an age thing!

my old lady is 35

I have my work cut out deprgramming 20 years of this SF crap

this place is to the left of Marx!
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Tied her to the chair and forced her to watch O'reilly and Hannity. LOL! Nah like I said it took 5 years, but I met her when I was 19 and she was 17 so she wasn't that corrupted. Patience and proving her wrong WITH facts helped alot.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Hey Goldspurs

LOL!

I just looked at your bio

i too married and incredible woman , but a liberal to the core (social worker in San Fran)

her parents and sister are Christian conservatives

I am an eclectic conservative and am doing my best to show her the light but she wont have ANY of it and every time I insult the DEMOCRATS she gets personally insulted!

how did you finally win your wife over?

For now I just AVOID POLITICS ENTIRELY with her-

cheers and thanks for your service to our nation

solarman
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Lindsay, I hear you saying that Republicans are ready for a "change" all the time. Yet you never seem to describe what this change is. Are you in the know on something alot of us Republicans aren't? Have you taken into consideration that the Democratic run Congress has lower support than President Bush? So should we think that over a year the Democrats have displeased the Country more than President Bush did in 7 years? Are they already wanting a Republican run Congress again?

By the way, I voted Con, because the Pro failed to prove that Hill would win the Presidency.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I love how Lindsay the liberal is always trying to speak for republicans - thats totally laughable!

Bottom line is the democrats crop of candidates are all losers, Obama being the most palatable, but hopelessly liberal, and inexperienced to boot.

all the top republicans are pres. material

nice wishful thinking by you libs

Hildebeest, if nominated has a 50%+ negative going in- she doesnt stand a prayer

good luck in 08 !

I know your hoping to fool enough of america again, but it aint gonna happen
Posted by dullurd 9 years ago
dullurd
I'm not sure how well Huckabee would do in the general election. I recently read that the Democratic candidates' strategists have agreed not to attack Huckabee until and unless he gets the Republican nom because there are many skeletons in his closet they believe will be easy to exploit. For example, he said in '92 that perhaps people with AIDS should be quarantined. It may have been out of context, but you know how the political game works, that kind of quote can be very damaging.
Posted by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
lindsay, I dont think as many Republicans as you think are that ready for a change. There are more Americans than you may think that still back Bush or at least the Republican party. There are many Americans that still support the war. Don't always look at polls for your results. They aren't always accurate. The Democratic party has gone so far left , that I dont see many Republicans switching over when it comes to the President. Also I know of many people that didnt vote for Bush , yet now like him and have switched their party to the Republican party.
Posted by nrw 9 years ago
nrw
the lineup for scenarios was very convincing - he challenged u to set up a scenario and u set up many, nice job
Posted by Kelley_Contends 9 years ago
Kelley_Contends
I agree that sadly enough many people like Obama because he is the supposed "change for America", and he relates to a younger audience. If that change for America is paying for the college education of illegal immigrants( which Obama advocates), then I don't want change. Many Americans are not nearly as informed as they should be in regards to the politics, and many people get their information from biased news media. Also, political races or tricky. While Obama did take quite a leap in the polls, if another democratic candidate does well in tomorrow's debate, another leap could easily occur. While it is evident that Hillary has the most experience, a vast cornucopia of intelligence, and the policies that will help her win over America, let us hope this is enough to convince America.
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
I agree with Napier...basically, Hilary Clinton just peaked too soon! Obama's picking up the slack now, which is great timing in the scheme of the election....

...kels, I think you're mistaken, but only time will tell. Bush can't even get the 50% that voted for him to support him now. America is ready for a change, including Republicans. While Hilary is more polarizing, Barack definitely brings out the independents and even some Republicans that are ready for a change.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by QuantumBios 9 years ago
QuantumBios
cgb003NapierTied
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 ghatem 9 years ago
ghatem
cgb003NapierTied
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 cgb003 9 years ago
cgb003
cgb003NapierTied
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 goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
cgb003NapierTied
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 RepublicanView333 9 years ago
RepublicanView333
cgb003NapierTied
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 Jokerdude 9 years ago
Jokerdude
cgb003NapierTied
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 Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
cgb003NapierTied
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 Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
cgb003NapierTied
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 midgetjoe 9 years ago
midgetjoe
cgb003NapierTied
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 Napier 9 years ago
Napier
cgb003NapierTied
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