John Kasich Should Have Been the GOP Nominee
Debate Round Forfeited
Eshan13 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
|Voting Style:||Open||Point System:||7 Point|
|Updated:||9 months ago||Status:||Debating Period|
|Viewed:||323 times||Debate No:||94159|
Debate Rounds (4)
ROUND ONE: ACCEPTANCE
ROUND TWO: ARGUMENTS
ROUND THREE: REBUTTALS
ROUND FOUR: REBUTTALS & CLOSING STATEMENTS
I accept and will be arguing for the side that John Kasich shouln't have been the Republican Presidential Nominee. Thank you.
There are many polls and studies that show that Kasich is more favorable than Donald Trump, the GOP nominee, and Clinton, his would-be opponent.
a. In virtually all of the polls featured on Real Clear Politics projecting a Kasich vs Clinton general election, John Kasich is projected to have a considerable lead over her with an average of +7.4% . At the time, he was the only Republican candidate projected to beat a Democratic candidate. My opponent may argue that, according to the same source, Donald Trump currently holds a small lead in general election polls . My rebuttal to that statement is that this is the effect of Trump's 'convention boost', whereas Clinton has not yet finished her convention and thus has not received hers.
b. From March 17-27, 2016, the Pew Research Center conducted a poll to determine views towards the 2016 candidates. Only 20% of those sampled said Kasich would make a poor or terrible president . In that same poll, 60% said Trump would make a poor or terrible president and 46% said the same of Clinton .
c. A March 16 Bloomberg poll found that John Kasich had the highest net favorability than any of his primary opponents. His was +14, whereas Cruz's was -23 and Trump's was -39 . Currently, according to Real Clear Politcs, Trump has a net favorability of -21.1 . According to that same source, Clinton has a net favorability of -17.2 .
2. Appeals to GOP (and moderates)
After the 2012 election, the Republican party was advised: "We need to campaign among Hispanic, black, Asian, and gay Americans and demonstrate that we care about them, too." Kasich clearly understands this: in one of his speeches, he touched on how "people with more money or less money, people with different-sounding last names or different religious beliefs or different-colored skin or lifestyles." are often blamed for our country's problems .
He affirms that he does not support same-sex marriage, which appeals to social conservatives, but that he will not attempt to abolish or change it, which appeals to social progressives . He promises (or promised, now that the race is over) comprehensive immigration reform, which appeals to the GOP establishment and moderates . He supports deregulation, tax cuts, and block-granting food stamps, which appeals to fiscal conservatives .
John Kasich has a higher net favorability than Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. His stances appeal to many groups, including but not limited to social conservatives, social progressives, fiscal conservatives, moderates, and the GOP establishment. Above all, in virtually every poll from source one, he was projected to defeat Hillary Clinton in a general election. It is for these reasons that I propose that Governor John Kasich should have been the Republican party presidential nominee.
*I ask my opponent and the voters to understand that all Real Clear Politics links, not including source one, are subject to change due to the fact that they are regularly updated.
I again, thank my opponent and excited to begin.
So lets start with my first argument, which is his unfavorability among the GOP Community. According to the Cincinnati Enquirer in May 2nd of 2016, a poll is mentioned that came out that day showing the results of the question "Should John Kasich drop out?". Keep in mind that John Kasich only won 1 state the entire time he stayed in the race. That state was Ohio, exactly where this poll was conducted. So this poll ONLY asked people in the ONLY state he won. The results? "Nearly half - 49 percent - of Ohio voters say it's time for Kasich to drop out of the race for the Republican nomination, compared to only 38 percent who want him to stay in. Among Republican voters, 58 percent want him to drop out." So republicans especially, who make up the GOP, did not want Kasich to be the nominee, and wanted him to drop out. And these were republican OHIOANS, the ONLY republicans who thought he was worthy enough to be president. But not only do the republicans from his own state, believe that he should've dropped out, the fact that he only won 1 state, his home state, that as proved above, wanted him to drop out later, shows that he wasn't liked through the GOP Nomination. The GOP Nomination should be someone who won more than just his home state. But let's look at the republican voters in the whole country and their view of John Kasich, and whether they think he should be president.
I think we all agree that the GOP Nominee should be a candidate that is actually liked well BY THE GOP voters and this very fact is one of the most important ones of the entire debate, that the nominee or the pick of the voters, should be someone who the voters like.
And second, John Kasich's past. According to Erick Trickey on Politico, "This is the same John Kasich who, over the course of his 30-plus-year political career in Ohio and Washington, has been called some extraordinary things for a public figure. "Unpleasant." "Cranky." "A jerk." "Even worse" than Donald Trump. And that's just in headlines.", And if this the nice and calm guy we've heard about, why has he been called these unflattering adjectives mulitple times by a huge variety of people. Kasich once mimicked the convulsive shaking of a Parkinson’s sufferer—in his State of the State speech. He calls his own legislators “knuckleheads,” “thugs” and “bullies.” He publicly called the police officer who had given him a traffic ticket an “idiot.” Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982 and ultimately anointed Budget Committee chairman by Newt Gingrich, Kasich stood out as a stern budget hawk who mouthed off at constituents and fellow Republicans. In 1991, he got into an argument while trying to get backstage at a Grateful Dead concert. John McCain, of all people, once criticized his “hair-trigger temper.” Kasich still brags about trashing a Republican budget and getting scolded by then-Vice President Dan Quayle.
Thank you and for these two reasons, please vote con.
1. Unfavorability in the GOP Community
I disagree with this statement, especially since I provided three polls (with links) that prove Kasich's net favorability is relatively high. The first poll, regarding a theoretical Kasich vs Clinton general election, showed Kasich with a considerable lead . The second poll, from the Pew Research Center, showed that only 20% of voters believed Kasich would be a poor or terrible president, compared to Clinton's 46% and Trump's 60% . The third poll, from Bloomberg, showed that Kasich had a positive net favorability compared to those of his opponents . My opponent's claims of Kasich's unfavorability do not match up, especially when Kasich's views match up almost 100% with those of the Republican party. In fact, my opponent continues that "I think we all agree that the GOP nominee should be a candidate that is actually liked well by the GOP". I have proven that Kasich is well liked by the GOP.
My opponent also asserts that someone who only won his home state should not be the GOP nominee. First of all, that says he, as governor of Ohio, is well liked by Ohioans. Second, he lost the election for a variety of reasons: he had to split the anti-Trump vote, he had poor media coverage compared to Trump, he was conventional in an election that favored unconventional, he was a part of the establishment in an election that favored anti-establishment ideas. But this does not mean he is unfavorable; as I said before, he has a relatively high net favorability and is the only candidate shown in the polls to beat Clinton.
2. His past.
To summarize my opponent's argument, Kasich is generally unpleasant and he is a name-caller. What my opponent does not include is a comparison to Trump's past and Clinton's past.
In the early 70's, the Trump Organization was found guilty of racial bias . His companies also filed bankruptcy not four, but six times: the Trump Taj Mahal in 1991, the Trump Castle in 1992, the Trump Plaza and Casino in 1992, the Plaza Hotel in 1992, Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts in 2004, and Trump Entertainment Resorts in 2009 . Michael Bloomberg, the multi-billionaire mayor of New York City said "Throughout his career Trump has left behind a well-documented record of bankruptcies and thousands of lawsuits and angry shareholders and contractors who feel cheated and disillusioned customers who feel ripped off. Trump says he wants to run the nation like he"s run his business. God help us!" .
From 2001-today, Hillary Clinton has given private and secretive speeches to banks like Goldman Sachs - and she refuses to release any transcripts. From 2009-2013, she 'carelessly' used a private email server containing classified information without approval. On September 11, 2012, Benghazi, Libya was attacked; Hillary lied about the cause, then told the Egyptian prime minister the true cause, and then continued to lie about it again . Hillary Clinton, by definition, is a compulsive liar - she lies even when it does not matter; she lied that Chelsea was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11, she lied about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, she lied about being named after Sir Edmund Hillary because he climbed Mt. Everest, even though it happened when she was six years old, she lied about being dead broke and in debt after leaving the White House, and she lied about being instrumental in northern Ireland  .
Had my opponent included this information, John Kasich would look like an angel - probably why it was left out in the first place. On top of that, many of my opponent's accusations regarding John Kasich resemble those of the Republican nominee, Donald Trump. Kasich is accused of being a name-caller; is Trump not a name-caller? Kasich is accused of mimicking a Parkinson's sufferer; did Trump not mock a disabled reporter?
My opponent falsely accuses John Kasich of being unfavorable because Ohioans wanted him to drop out. The reason for this, however, was because his chances of securing the nomination seemed slim. Why? Well first of all, he had to split the anti-Trump vote with Ted Cruz. Second, he was not represented in the media nearly as much as Donald Trump. Third, because he is a conventional candidate where voters seem to prefer uncoventional. Fourth, he is a part of the GOP establishment, which becomes clear when he has been in politics for many years and his beliefs match up with the GOP platform. These factors hindered his chance at the nomination - they do not equate to unfavorability. Kasich was the only candidate shown to defeat Hillary Clinton in hypothetical general election polls. Kasich had a net favorability of +14 whereas Cruz's was -23 and Trump's was -39. Only 20% of those sampled said Kasich would make a poor or terrible candidate, the lowest percentage compared to all other candidates (Sanders was a close second at 36%).
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click thelink at the top of the page.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.