The Instigator
imabench
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The GOP will likely nominate a candidate with little to no major public office experience

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 920 times Debate No: 80088
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (36)
Votes (2)

 

imabench

Pro

I will argue that the GOP will likely (meaning probable, or >50% chance) nominate a candidate with 'little to no', 'major' public office experience, with 'little to no' being defined as
Whoever accepts this debate may NOT dispute either definitions I have put forth here.

Current GOP candidates, their polling averages, and their experience holding a major public office:

Leaders:

Donald Trump = 24.0% = 0 years in public office
Ben Carson = 16.3% = 0 years in public office
Carly Fiorina = 11.8% = 0 years in public office
Jeb Bush = 9.8% = Governor for 8 years
Marco Rubio = 9.3% = Senator for 4 years

Middle of the pack:

Ted Cruz = 6.5% = Senator for 2 years
Chris Christie = 3.5% = Governor for 5 years
Mike Huckabee = 3.5% = Governor for 11 years
John Kasich = 3.0% = Governor for 4 years
Rand Paul = 2.3% = Senator for 4 years

Those polling at under 1%

George Pataki = 0.5% = Governor for 11 years
Rick Santorum = 0.5% = Senator for 12 years
Bobby Jindal = 0.3% = Governor for 7 years
Lindsey Graham = 0.0% = Senator for 15 years
Jim Gilmore = 0.0% = Governor for 4 years

Total = 91.3%
Undecided therefore = about 8.7%

All other candidates not listed are polling at very close to 0% and therefore have not been listed
http://www.realclearpolitics.com...

Arguments:

1) Candidates with little to no experience hold a majority of the GOP vote

Candidates who have little to not experience in the race are doing substantially better than candidates who have substantial public office experience at a major public office level. In fact, the top 3 inexperienced candidates alone (Trump, Carson, Fiorina) account for 52.1% of the entire vote. Throw in Cruz and that bumps up to 58.6% of the entire vote.

So if ALL candidates who have 4 or more years in a major public office all pooled their voting bases together, AND if all undecided voters decide to back candidates with 4 or more years of major public service for whatever reason.... Combined they all only hold 41.4% of the GOP voting base, and thats assuming all undecided voters support someone who has >4 years experience in the first place.

The numbers suggest that unless voters supporting inexperienced candidates suddenly start shifting to candidates who DO have experience (unlikely to happen since the top 3 candidates in the GOP primary all have literally no public office experience at any level), then the GOP will likely, ultimately elect someone who has little major public office experience.


2) Polling of candidates with no experience vs little experience vs major experience vs very lengthy experience indicates a correlation between experience and level of support

If we break all the candidates into four different groups based on their experience in office (0 years, 1 to 3 years, 4 to 7 years, 8+ years in major public office) then here are the averages:

0 years (Trump, Carson, Fiorina) = 52.1% total, 17.37% average
0 to 3 years (Cruz) = 6.5% total, 6.5% average
4 to 7 years (Rubio, Christie, Kasich, Paul, Jindal) = 18.4% total, 3.68% average
8+ years (Bush, Huckabee, Pataki, Santorum, Graham, Gilmore) = 14.3% total, 2.38% average

There is an actual pattern shown among the candidates here indicating that the MORE experience they have working in a major public office, the LESS that GOP voters support them in the GOP primary race. This clearly indicates that as more and more candidates with lesser support drop out, voters will lean towards candidates with lesser experience, since those candidates most likely to drop out next are those who have substantial experience in public office.


3) Those who have already dropped out had sizable public experience, along with those who are the most likely to drop out next

There have been 2 major candidates who have dropped out of the race, Scott Walker and Rick Perry. Walker has been the Governor of Wisconsin for the past 4 years, and Rick Perry was the Governor of Texas for 15 years, more than any other major candidate in the GOP race. If candidates with major experience are some of the first ones to drop out of the race, then it MIGHT suggest that other candidates with major experience will be the next ones to drop out.

And the link suggests exactly that

This is a list of candidates, their level of support in the polls, and their experience, who appeared in the recent CNN 'Happy Hour' debate:

George Pataki = 0.5% = Governor for 11 years
Rick Santorum = 0.5% = Senator for 12 years
Bobby Jindal = 0.3% = Governor for 7 years
Lindsey Graham = 0.0% = Senator for 12 years

So not only have candidates who had lengthy public office experience already dropped out of the race, but the 4 candidates who are the most likely ones to drop out next have substantial experience as well, indicating a clear and undeinable anti-experience sentiment for GOP voters, since the candidates with no experience whatsoever rank #1, #2, and #3

Sources: (The length of experience for all candidates was pulled from their wikipedia pages)
Wylted

Con

Early polls

4 years ago Rick Perry had a 15 point lead in the polls around this same time. Meanwhile Ruck Perry was at 3% in the polls and carried 11 states. Going back 8 years ago, Mayor Giuliani was at 32% while Fred Thompson was at 26%. At the time the winner of the nomination John McCain was written off by almost everybody. The same year in the Democratic primary Hillary Clinton was leading now president Barack Obama 44% to 23%. What we can learn from this is that polls are meaningless. (All numbers are accurate and from the following source http://www.msnbc.com... )

The following chart by Chris Wlezian shows how well polls predict presidential candidates, tracking several major polls since 1956. With 0 indicating no predictive power and 1 indicating perfect predicting power. http://themonkeycage.org...
http://themonkeycage.org...

As you can see polls this far out are at close to zero in terms of predictability.

The party Decides

According to the Washington post;

"(The) Party"s most powerful insiders and financiers have begun a behind-the-scenes campaign to draft....Jeb Bush into the 2016... race"

"....most of 2012 GOP nominee....Romney"s major donors are reaching out to Bush and his confidants........to meet, according to interviews with 30 senior Republicans. One bundler estimated that the "vast majority" of Romney"s top 100 donors would back Bush."
http://www.washingtonpost.com...


Political scientists have known for a while that the party has major influence in who wins the nomination. A 2008 book by the name "Party Decides" has researched this by watching who the political elites back and finding ways to observe what's known as the invisible primary. The book/research concludes Candidates cannot win without endorsements by the party elite. Something the current GOP from runners do not have.

According to political analyst Nate Cohn;

"No factor has proved more important to a candidate"s chances than the loyalty of party elites. These elites are.....members of a broadly defined party apparatus: the operatives who sign up for the campaign, the donors who contribute money, the interest group leaders and elected officials who give endorsements and bestow credibility, or withhold it. When candidates hold an overwhelming advantage among party elites,they win"

"The invisible primary leaders usually lead in fund-raising, often by a wide margin. They rack up more endorsements than their opponents, often more than all of their opponents combined. Few question whether they"re acceptable candidates, even if some harbor doubts: The candidates agree with, or accede to, the party"s consensus on the most important policy issues."
http://mobile.nytimes.com...

"For past candidates, elite support has been necessary, and unified party opposition has been fatal. Without elite support, an ordinary candidate can"t build a top campaign or raise big money or draw major attention from traditional media.
Party opposition is even worse. It ensures a chorus of influential critics in the media and a well-funded opponent with endless resources for advertisements to echo the attacks. Grass-roots support and super PACs can help compensate for a lack of broad support, but they probably can"t overcome broad opposition. The voice of the elites is too strong and influential."
http://mobile.nytimes.com...

Conclusion

In short, polls are useless, and the party elite choose the candidate, not the people. This means endorsements, and campaign contributors are better early indicators of who wins elections than early polls. My opponent has already went through great lengths to show how the current 3 candidates are outsiders of the GOP machine. These early polls are more about name recognition than anything else. Everybody knows who Trump and Ben Carson are. Fiorina benefited greatly from Trumps insults to her being big news. Once people start to know the other candidates and the political elite have spoken, these candidates will drop off the face of the Earth. In the next round I'll explain why my opponent has missed the pulse of the Republican Party by buying into the media hype, and himself being an outsider. In the mean time, good luck to you in your arguments Mr. Bench.
Debate Round No. 1
imabench

Pro

1) Reliability of early polls

While polls this early in an election year certainly dont have much accuracy in determining the eventual winner of a primary race, they still are fairly accurate when it comes to indicating who has the absolute least support. Last election at this time, the people with the least amount of support in the polls were Tim Pawlenty and Thaddeus McCotter, who ultimately became the first two candidates to drop out.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Also when looking at the 2012 GOP race, just about every major poll had Mitt Romney in the lead, the eventual nominee, prior to September. So while polling early on in the election may not be entirely accurate, they do have some success in predicting the eventual winner, and they are far more reliable when it comes to measuring those with the least support as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

This means that polling this early in the season DOES guess fairly well who will be the next candidates to drop out of the race, and current polling heavily suggests that the next few people who will drop out of the race are candidates who have substantial experience in major public office (Graham, Santorum, Pataki, Gilmore, Jindal).


2) 'The Party Elite Decides'

"The book/research concludes Candidates cannot win without endorsements by the party elite. "

One book saying that candidates cannot with without the approval of the party elite doesn't make it factual. Look at the GOP voting base, they HATE the 'party establishment' right now, that's one of the big reasons why people who are not a part of the GOP establishment (Trump, Carson, Fiorina, Cruz) have a combined voting base of 58%, while those who these 'party elite' would be more likely to support combined only have about 35% of the vote, with 9% of voters still being undecided....

The 'party elite' does provide funding to candidates, which is important sure, but Donald Trump is a literal BILLIONAIRE, and Carly Fiorina has a net worth of $59 million, more than any other GOP candidate other than Trump.

http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com...

There are candidates who can finance their own campaigns using their own wealth who are not dependent on courting the approval of 'the party elite' in order to keep their campaigns going... Ross Perot financed his own presidential campaign, didnt even belong to a party, and still got nearly 20% of the popular vote, which would never have happened if the 'party elite' were the ones who decided who gets nominated

https://en.wikipedia.org...

You also have debates which play a HUGE factor in determining who does well in the polls.

Look at Scott Walker. Scott Walker was an ideal candidate who the 'elite establishment' would approve of. He had a huge lead in Iowa for months, but after two shoddy debate performances, his voter base dropped down to LITERALLY 0%

http://www.slate.com...

This guy was the choice of the Koch brothers for president as well. Scott Walker was their guy. And after two debate performances, his entire voting base went up in thin air, whereas Carly Fiorina's voter base grew substantially. This wouldnt have happened if your claim that 'party elite' chooses candidates and the people do not were somehow true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

You also have to factor in that SuperPacs allow candidates to better finance their campaigns without relying on the party elite. Some candidates are perfectly capable of funding their own campaigns and therefore do not need the approval of the elite, the GOP voting base has an anti-establishment mentality, debates hold more influence in making or breaking candidates and their campaigns as evidenced by the spectacular crashing of the Koch-brothers funded Scott Walker, and a change in campaign finance rules allow candidates to seek money from outside the 'establishment elite' to fund their campaign.

The party elite simply does NOT control who is elected, at least not anymore. The game has simply changed.



3) "In short, polls are useless, and the party elite choose the candidate, not the people"

Out of all the candidates polling below 5% of the vote, ALL OF THEM are candidates who the 'party elite' would favor. Out of all candidates currently polling at >5% of the vote. 4 candidates have 0 or close to 0 experience, and only 2 candidates have 4 or more years of experience. Its simply statistically probable that the winner of the GOP primary will be an 'outsider', and con's argument that it wont be is based purely on conspiracy theory that 'the elite' will not let such a thing happen
Wylted

Con

Right now the Republican voters are not against experienced candidates. Trump has a lot of name recognition, so that's why he is doing so well, despite not being well liked. http://www.gallup.com...

You talk to Republicans and experience doesn't even enter the conversation. Ben Carson is doing well because he's widely talked about in Republican circles. Republicans like quoting him instead of other similar candidates because the same words coming from a white guy sound less racist when quoted from a black guy. These top candidates are benefiting greatly from a large field. People have 16 candidates to look at, as the field shrinks, people will get to know the rest as well as they know who Trump is, and they'll vote for the people they agree with.

The Party Elite

This is not merely a random book or out of date book like my opponent has tried to paint it as. The writers of the book are Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, the top political scientists of our time and was written in 2008. It's really a major research project that tracked endorsements, even the endorsements of some super PACs like ones from many major Unions. As the book/major scholarly research project shows. A good indicator of the next nominee is who the party elite get behind. The party elite is certain super PACs, endorsements of sitting and former governors as well as senators and media organizations. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a major piece of scholarly work used like the holy Grail among political scientists.

Regardless of what my opponent thinks the party elite can stop any candidate in their tracks. They're already beginning to put roadblocks up, like not allowing any Republican on the ballot in certain states unless they promise they won't run as an independent. Fox News can start to deny coverage to people or inundate them with negative coverage. Rush Limbaugh has major influence and can make any Republican look bad. These party elites are the gate keepers and it's more of a conspiracy theory to say powerful people will refuse to use their influence than it is to say they will use it.

Funding is a part of it, but it isn't the whole thing. And yes Trump the billionaire and Fiorina need massive campaign contributions. Trump probably only has a few million in liquid assets, Fiorina likely has even less. Having a net worth of billions does not mean having billions in your bank account, and typically it doesn't because money loses value when it's kept as cash.

When Obama and Mitt Romney went to battle they used close to a billion dollars between the two. https://www.opensecrets.org...

That's significantly below what Fiorina has, and it is also significantly above what Donald Trump has in liquid assets. Contributions matter, even when it's a billionaire running for office.

Conclusion

Sorry this is kind of rushed, but I don't feel like this debate is going to take too much effort to win anyway. I wish my opponent good luck and apologize for the rushed argument.
Debate Round No. 2
imabench

Pro

1) Anti-establishment voter sentiments

"Right now the Republican voters are not against experienced candidates"

Literally all evidence suggests otherwise. The 4 Candidates with 0-2 years of experience hold 58.6% of the entire vote, as explained in round 1.... The 11 other candidates with 4 or more years of experience hold just 33.1% of the vote, with the other 9.3% of voters being undecided.

There one point was over three times as many experienced candidates as non-experienced candidates, yet non-experienced candidates hold almost twice as much of the vote as experienced candidates do, indicating that Republican voters in this election are very much against experienced candidates.



"People have 16 candidates to look at, as the field shrinks, people will get to know the rest as well as they know who Trump is, and they'll vote for the people they agree with."

And if you take a look at who is most likely to drop out and shrink the field, its the candidates who have lots of experience in public office that are most likely to drop out. 9 out of 10 GOP candidates who are polling the lowest are candidates who have lots of experience, whereas 4 out of the TOP 6 candidates in the polls right now are those who have little to no experience. As the field shrinks, it will be experienced candidates who drop out, increasing the odds of non-experienced candidates winning that much more.


2) The 'party Elite'

"The writers of the book are Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller, the top political scientists of our time and was written in 2008"

The book was written 2 elections ago, before SuperPacs and sweeping changes to campaign finance reforms greatly changed how candidates can fund their campaigns, and before anti-establishment sentiment swept through the field of GOP voters. The book you have cited from is therefore outdated and no longer relevant since the game has changed. Candidates can now fund their campaigns without having to kiss up to the 'Party Elite', and GOP voters themselves are more inclined to support non-establishment candidates than establishment ones.



"They're already beginning to put roadblocks up, like not allowing any Republican on the ballot in certain states unless they promise they won't run as an independent"

A condition that can easily be broken by having a candidate say 'Too bad' right before they break the promise and run as an independent, if they choose to do so.....



"Fox News can start to deny coverage to people or inundate them with negative coverage"

Fox News isnt the only source of news in the world though con... There are dozens of other channels and mediums people can get news of candidates from.



"Trump probably only has a few million in liquid assets"

1) Speculation, 2) Its not that hard for a billionaire to get his money con.... Trump could easily make maybe three phone calls and have how ever much money he thinks he needs to be wired into an account....



"When Obama and Mitt Romney went to battle they used close to a billion dollars between the two."

Yes but 1) That was a PRESIDENTIAL election, where naturally more money comes into play. a PRIMARY election on the other hand can be won with substantially less money. And 2) A great deal of money still comes from contributions from actual voters, not just from the pockets of elite millionaires and billionaires.



"Contributions matter, even when it's a billionaire running for office."

And SuperPacs allow candidates to raise funding far better than candidates in past elections were able to, meaning that the 'Party Elite' do not have as much control over who gets elected as you would like to believe they do.



3) Conclusion

"I don't feel like this debate is going to take too much effort to win anyway"

You have been making it very easy for me and I thank you for that



Dropped arguments:

- Con drops the point made in round 2 that early polls are somewhat reliable in showing who will last the longest and who will drop out first
- Con drops the point that the candidates who are the most likely to drop out next are candidates with decent to lengthy experience in a major public office
- Con drops the point that non-experienced candidates have a massive lead in votes over experienced candidates 58.6% to 33.1%
- Con drops the point that independents like Ross Perot can finance their own campaigns without even being a part of a party and still get up to 20% of the popular vote in a presidential election

And most importantly:

- Con fails to dispute that debates have proven themselves to be kingmakers far more than the 'Party Elite', as evidenced by how the Koch brothers backed Scott Walker dropped out of the race entirely after just two bad debate performances...

If the party elite really decided who gets nominated, then Scott Walker, backed by the Koch brothers, the literal poster-children of people who try to buy elections, would not have dropped out of the race after polling at ZERO PERCENT following two bad debate performances.

Vote Pro.
Wylted

Con

I'll just type this out quickly, because I don't have much time and because I've already won and can just literally forfeit this round. My opponent has failed to meet his BOP. He dropped my argument that polls have no predictive power as the chart in round 1 shows. He never even challenged the specific study that stated it. Him showing that a party insider can back a losing candidate doesn't help his case either. The study conducted and written out in the "party decides" shows that it's who the most party insiders get behind that matters, I'm sure that every candidate has atleast one insider backing them, but it's about who has the most support from the political elite, if it was every single person who had the support of the political elite, we'd have 30 presidents each year. He had to show a situation where the majority of part insiders picked a candidate and they lost, and since that is something that has never occurred he can not.

He also has shown nothing beyond coincidence for the front runners being inexperienced, as I noted the same thing could be contributed to tame recognition. He also accepts coincidences a little too readily. They're also all over 50 years old. There is no anti-40 year old sentiment secretly among Republicans either.

We only have past trends to show how the future will turn out. Bench can argue there are exceptions all he wants, but history has shown us that polls don't have any predictive ability in who the front runner will be. History has also shown us that watching who the party elite pick has a close to 100% accuracy in predicting the next nominee, which is Jeb Bush.

Go with what has been the case in history. Vote con
Debate Round No. 3
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I really need to drill down some points. I feel like some of my points get missed, such as how pretty much every candidate has some insider support, it's about who has the most, not who has some. I probably should've spent some time explaining how "The Party Decides" defined the party elite, because super PACs in many cases, did get that designation. My fault for not elaborating enough and assuming the judges knew what I was talking about, despite the fact I didn't elaborate enough.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
And this actually makes sense, in a crowded race, while the winner may be hard to predict, the many candidates that are polling below %1 can be safely assumed to drop out eventually. One argument that Con held up until the end was the one about the Party Elite. I felt that while Pro had good reasoning in his rebuttals, Con's source was very credible, and history was on his side in this case. It's very hard to actually observe inner party workings during the race, but given the arguments that were stated here, I will put this one argument down as a tie. Pro did show that the candidates likely to drop out were the type of candidates that would be supported by the establishment, and gave the example of Scott Walker, who was supported by the Koch Brothers, but still dropped out, because he wasn't liked. While Con had great points here such as campaign funding and hurdles the party throws up at you, Pro already showed a recent exception, with Scott Walker, and thus showed that exceptions are possible, and have taken place in this race, and this is a good defence from the rebuttal.

So in the end, the win goes to Pro, their arguments won out, and they were able to defend themselves from Con's attacks.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Notes while reading

-Pro's entire first argument relied on the early opinion polls, and Con can easily defeat Pro's entire case up till now if their argument against the accuracy of early polls holds up

-Pro does pretty well in his 2nd round rebuttal to Con's "party elite" argument, giving a good example of Scott Walker, who was supported by "the elite," but still polled at 0% and dropped out. Right now Pro is winning this argument, as they have used more recent examples, whereas Con, in their first round, used examples from the past. Pro also notes that SuperPacs also allow candidates to finance their campaigns, thus further discrediting the notion that you can't win without the party elite on your side.

-Con drops his early polls argument, and later claims that Pro dropped it instead, which is false, because Pro did in fact address it.

Ok, so in the end I'll have to give the win to Pro. The major victories on Pro's side were looking at recent data. They had shown by looking through the opinion polls that the most popular candidates have little experience, and the least popular candidates had the most experience. He also added that those that dropped out were very experienced, and he used the polls to show that the ones with 0.5% or less all had quite a bit of experience, but they are also the most likely to drop out. These arguments are the most relevant to the debate, because they're recent, and in the end all the recent data supports Pro's case. Con did have a good argument that early polls weren't accurate, however they dropped Pro's rebuttals to this, and Pro's rebuttals actually tipped the argument to his favour. Pro used polls from the 2012 GOP race, and showed that while they may not be as reliable in predicting the winner, they are reliable when it comes to measuring those with less support.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
Who has time to Karen to all of that. Jones is a 3 hour show, I think limbaugh is several hours long the rest are at least an hour but probably 2. I mean get a job or something
Posted by imabench 1 year ago
imabench
"I listen to Savage, Limbaugh, Jones, Beck, and Levin every single week."

That explains so much about why you turned out as crazy as you are
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
By the way Paul Joseph Watson is an intelligent guy that is stuck with Jones because he is the first big name person to give him a job. He isn't like Jones at all
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I have not contested that Savage sometimes agrees whit Jones and Beck sometimes disagrees with him.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 1 year ago
GeoLaureate8
Michael Savage is closer to Alex Jones than Glenn Beck. Michael Savage agrees with Alex on Russia relations. In fact, Savage cites Infowars frequently and agrees with Jones analysis. He also has Paul Joseph Watson on his program. Beck hates Alex Jones and openly rejects Alex Jones conspiracy theories, Savage embraces them.

I listen to Savage, Limbaugh, Jones, Beck, and Levin every single week.
Posted by Wylted 1 year ago
Wylted
I said he was closer to Neocon than Libertarian. I'd feel safe almost calling him a neocon. He's a big government conservative. You're the one comparing him to Alex Jones and Glenn Beck.
Posted by GeoLaureate8 1 year ago
GeoLaureate8
I never said Savage is a libertarian. He is very open about the fact that he's not. I said he's not a neocon. I just told you how he disagrees with neocons on foreign policy and intervention yet you ignored that and brought up surveillance again.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
imabenchWyltedTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS - Either side feel free to contact me if you have any issues with this vote.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
imabenchWyltedTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Given here: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/74678/