The Instigator
gr8laker
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Will Hillary Clinton be our next president?

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...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,083 times Debate No: 64252
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)

 

gr8laker

Con

Will Hillary Clinton be the 45th President of the United States? That seems to be the question every political buff (like myself) is asking. Today, it seems like a Hillary presidency is a sure thing. I, however, am not convinced.

First, rarely has a person ever been elected President when running for the second time. Nixon, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush are the only people who come to mind, and all three are Republicans. Nixon won after an extremely close election in 1960 as the party nominee, George H.W Bush was Vice President during the eights years between his first and second run for office, and Reagan... well, it was him or Carter.

Second, Hillary will face more attacks in this election than she did in 2008. Back in 2008, she was attacked for voting for the War in Iraq. Although that won't mean anything in 2016, she will be questioned on Benghazi by Republicans. Democrats and Republicans alike may look back at her career as Secretary of State. Was she great at her job? Overall, I would say she was about average. Is that enough for Americans? Also, she will be attacked on her paid speeches and how much she has earned (also how much Bill earned). Americans may say she is out of touch because of her wealth. She is also considered an ally to Wall Street, which a lot of people will not like. Let's not forget how she said she and Bill were "broke" when they left the White House in 2001.

Third, most of the time, the presidency shifts from liberal to conservative and liberal again. The president-elect with the same political party as the president usually wins because his opponent was weak (Bush vs. Dukakis, and even Goldwater wasn't a strong candidate compared to LBJ). Americans are more likely to vote for someone more conservative than Obama, and Hillary certainly isn't.

Now, the Republican Party almost never picks a hard-core conservative as their nominee, so I don't think Ted Cruz or Rand Paul will have a shot. Christie is still in trouble with Bridgegate, so he's out of the question. The Party also always picks someone with name recognition. My prediction is that the GOP nominee will be Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney again, Rob Portman, Lindsey Graham, or Marco Rubio (yes, he's really conservative, but he's also young, handsome, Hispanic, a gifted orator, and from Florida). Bush, Ryan, and Romney have name recognition, Graham is very experienced, Portman is from Ohio and supports same-sex marriage, and he's also very experienced. Rubio just looks good on paper.

Finally, too many people know Hillary. They all know what she's like, where most don't know about Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Andrew Cuomo, and Elizabeth Warren (she's running, believe me). That could be a disadvantage to her. Many Democrats like myself view her as cold. A former Clinton adviser once said that if he was on trial and there was a jury, he would want Bill Clinton as his lawyer, and if there is no jury and only a judge, he would want Hillary. I think we have always voted for people who appeal to a jury.

What are your thoughts?
kasmic

Pro

Thanks for the great debate topic, and good luck!

clarification: My argument does not reflect my political affiliation in any way.

Burden of proof:

The resolve is a question. It reads “Will Hillary Clinton be our next president?” As it is impossible to see the future, I am arguing that Hillary Clinton will likely be our next president, not that she will be. As for example, if she died before then she couldnt be... etc.

Rebuttals:

Con says “rarely has a person ever been elected President when running for the second time.” He then lists those he could think of, saying “Nixon, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush are the only people who come to mind.”

This is amusing because pro has just shown that 3 of our last 6 presidents where elected when running for the second time. Con negated his own argument.

Con says “Hillary will face more attacks in this election than she did in 2008.” This attacks he speculates will include… “she will be questioned on Benghazi by Republicans.”

All politicians are attacked. Benghazi attacks will continue, though they have already been beaten into the ground from repetition. Also, the Benghazi “scandal” is rather minor. “Derek Willis's finding that only a handful of Republicans in Congress have been talking publicly about this “scandal.” That’s nothing like the situation when Congress established committees to investigate Watergate, Iran-contra and other real scandals.”(1)

“Americans may say she is out of touch because of her wealth.”

Again, I think this is true about virtually all politicians. Certainly she is no less in touch than Obama, Bush, Romney… etc.

“She is also considered an ally to Wall Street, which a lot of people will not like.”

Also true about most politicians.

Con says “most of the time, the presidency shifts from liberal to conservative and liberal again.”

Actually, rarely has political shift by party in the White house gone every other president. In fact there seems to be no such trend in U.S. history.(2)

Con then lists a bunch of potential candidates that Republicans could back. This is precisely why Hillary has a great chance of being elected. The Republican Party is torn, and has not been able to rally behind any one candidate or even split between two. Hillary’s odds are great because there is not the same rift in the Democratic Party.

Con says “too many people know Hillary. They all know what she's like, where most don't know about Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Andrew Cuomo, and Elizabeth Warren (she's running, believe me).“

Name recognition is an advantage not a disadvantage. “In politics, name recognition is the number of people who are aware of a politician. It is considered an important factor in elections, as candidates with low name recognition are unlikely to receive votes from people who only casually follow politics. (3) This is why none of those contenders listed by con are a real challenge for Hillary.

Arguments:

As I have used much of my argument as rebuttal I will summarize it here.

1: Name recognition. No current candidate has more than Hillary.
2: No clear contender. The Republican party is not unified enough currently to agree on a candidate.
3: Current polls. Clinton is dominating the current polls. No one is even close. (4)

Conclusion:

With wide name recognition, no clear contender, and current polls. It can be concluded that Hillary Clinton will likely be our next president.


(1) http://www.bloombergview.com...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://www.realclearpolitics.com...


Debate Round No. 1
gr8laker

Con

In response to Pro's rebuttal to the statement, "rarely has a person ever been elected... who come to mind." Keep in mind that the people I listed are Republicans. Pro couldn't list a single Democrat who ran for office and lost the first time and won the second time.

In response to Pro's rebuttal to the statement, "Hillary will face more attacks... she will be questioned on Benghazi by Republicans." Yes, every politician gets attacked at some point. While Benghazi may seem minor, it's not going to seem minor if she runs. The issue will be brought up again when she runs for president, and it won't be considered minor, even if it turns out to be nothing. A lot of people did not exactly understand Benghazi then, but it will be better understood in 2016, and that could be a disadvantage.

In response to Pro's rebuttal to the statement, "Americans may say she is out of touch because of her wealth." Pro mentioned that Romney is no different, but keep in mind that Romney lost the last election. Bush was elected president, but keep in mind that he never would've been president had his dad never been president. After eight years of Bush, I don't think Americans want anymore family members of former presidents in the White House for a while. When Obama was elected in 2008, he wasn't really considered out-of-touch. He had two young kids still in school and he was in no way a millionaire.

In response to Pro's rebuttal to the statement, "She is also considered an ally to Wall Street, which a lot of people will not like." This isn't true for Elizabeth Warren. Wall Street hates her guts, and they will never back her up if she runs (and she will, regardless of what she is saying now). Since leaving the State Department in 2013, she has spoken at events sponsored by Wall Street giants like Fidelity, Goldman Sachs and Ameriprise Financial, and during her Senate runs and 2008 presidential run, Clinton defended lobbyists. "I don't think she has been aggressive on the banks," said Nelini Stamp, a progressive political organizer from New York. "When I think of Hillary Clinton, I actually think she is in bed with some of the banks and Wall Street is her ally." (1)

In response to Pro's rebuttal to the statement, "most of the time... and liberal again." Actually, there has been a trend: Obama to Bush to Clinton and Bush Sr. Bush Sr. won because he had a crappy opponent, and he ultimately wasn't reelected. Before Reagan, there was Carter, and then Ford (who succeeded Nixon when he resigned) and then LBJ (who succeeded JFK when he died) and then Eisenhower and then Truman. This has gone on for 70 years. In addition, the candidates I listed are the strong Republican candidates. You can't say the Republican Party is torn because they aren't fixed on a candidate yet. They stood behind Romney, McCain, Bush, and Dole, and they were NOT bad candidates. By 2015, there will be more Democrats in the running, and people are going to want to know about them. Just because a party seems to rally behind one candidate doesn't mean that the PEOPLE will.

In response to Pro's rebuttal to the statement, "too many people know Hillary..." Keep in mind that the politicians have about two years to boost their name recognition. Also, people may remember politicians for bad things more than good things. Anthony Weiner has a lot of name recognition, as does John Edwards, but they aren't recognized for good things. As I stated before, many people (my friends and family who are also Democrats) think Hillary is cold. Look at this video (). You could find a few more videos like this.

In addition, I would like to point out that now is a terrible time to rely on polls. We still have two more years before we know who the party nominees are, and until then the polls don't mean anything. New issues will come up, and this could change the polls. Also, polls represent the responses of approx. a thousand people out of the 250 million or so Americans we have.

In summary:
1. People will go after her wealth and how much she is getting paid for speeches.
2. Benghazi will return as an issue, and it may be bigger and more clear because Hillary is running for president. This could possibly hurt her (but it might not we don't know yet).
3. The Republicans will have a candidate opposing Hillary (if she's the Democratic nominee), and as history shows, it won't be a dumb one (no Cruz, no Huckabee, no Paul, no Carson)
4. Name recognition is useful, but that's not the same thing as favorability.

(1) http://www.cnn.com...
kasmic

Pro

First I would like to apologize for posting at the last second. I had a crazy weekend. I am also rushed as I am doing this at work. That stated I admit this is not my most thought out response. However I think it will be sufficient.

Rebuttals:

Con says “Pro couldn't list a single Democrat who ran for office and lost the first time and won the second time.”

Actually I just did not even look for one, reason being that I doubt the connection of political party to a successfully running a second time. In fact I invite my opponent to show the connection to political party.

Con says of Benghazi “While Benghazi may seem minor, it's not going to seem minor if she runs.”

“If Hillary Clinton runs for president, the furor over the Benghazi attack will not ruin her chances of winning, 90 percent of National Journal's National Security Insiders said.”(1)

“If Hillary Clinton runs for president, will the furor over the Benghazi attack ruin her chances of winning?”(1) 90% said no. Benghazi is likely to be a non-issue, only pushed by fringe groups.

Con says “When Obama was elected in 2008, he wasn't really considered out-of-touch. He had two young kids still in school and he was in no way a millionaire.”

Actually, Obama is a millionaire. In fact we have only had 9 presidents who were not, the most recent of which was Harry S. Truman… who was president over 60 years ago.(2) It is likely that we will never have a another President that is not a millionaire, as the numbers support this.

Con says of Elizabeth Warren “Wall Street hates her guts, and they will never back her up if she runs (and she will, regardless of what she is saying now).”

I’m not sure why this is relevant as this debate is about Hillary Clinton. Clearly Elizabeth Warrens chances of being the next president is much less then Hillary Clintons.

Con still thinks there is a pattern of parties taking turns every other election in the white house. I refer you again to the same link I used earlier. From 1850 to now… we have had 18 Republican Presidents and 13 Democrats. Clearly this “pattern” does not exist. More ironically, if pro is so convinced that there is, than the pattern would suggest that the next president would be a Democrat to keep things even.(3)

Con says “You can't say the Republican Party is torn because they aren't fixed on a candidate yet. They stood behind Romney”

During the republican primaries Santorum, Perry, Gingrich and even Herman Cain led the polls at different times. To say that the Republican Party stood behind Romney is very generous as they seemed to only settle for him when every other option fell through.

Con says “. By 2015, there will be more Democrats in the running, and people are going to want to know about them. Just because a party seems to rally behind one candidate doesn't mean that the PEOPLE will.”

As all of our recent Presidents come from one of the two major parties, it is reasonable to conclude that the Parties have much more say in who the next president is then the “people.”

As far as name recognition con says “Anthony Weiner has a lot of name recognition, as does John Edwards, but they aren't recognized for good things. As I stated before, many people (my friends and family who are also Democrats) think Hillary is cold. Look at this video (). You could find a few more videos like this.”

Name recognition can be bad. however, Hillary’s name recognition is largely working to her benefit. “The survey, taken July 7-10, found that 91 percent of Americans are familiar with Clinton, with 55 percent having a favorable opinion of her with 36 percent disapproving.”(4)

Con says “In addition, I would like to point out that now is a terrible time to rely on polls. We still have two more years before we know who the party nominees are, and until then the polls don't mean anything.”

While polls are not perfect they do indicate. We are debating over the future president two years in advance… if we cant use current polls to support our case than this debate is pointless. The polls are the best indicator we have this far out. As such they are the best source we could have. Such polls indicate that Hillary Clinton is clearly the favorite for the 2016 election. This makes her chances of being the next president significantly higher than any other person. Thus, it makes sense to conclude that Hillary Clinton will most likely be our next president.

Conclusion:

With wide name recognition that is largely favorable, no clear opponent, and current poll support. It can be concluded as confidently as can be two years out that Hillary Clinton will likely be our next president.


(1) http://www.nationaljournal.com...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) http://blog.seattlepi.com...

Debate Round No. 2
gr8laker

Con

Sorry I'm late I've been busy

"I just did not even look for one, reason being that I doubt the connection of political party to a successfully running a second time. In fact I invite my opponent to show the connection to political party."
There isn't a connection of political party, but I was only trying to show how uncommon it is for a single person to win a presidential election on the second try. There isn't a single Democrat that won the election on the second try, that's why I wanted my opponent to "list a single Democrat..."

"If Hillary Clinton runs for president, the furor over the Benghazi attack will not ruin her chances of winning, 90 percent of National Journal's National Security Insiders said."
This goes back to my point about polls. You can't rely on polls like this when it's so early.

"Actually, Obama is a millionaire"
I admit I was wrong about Obama not being a millionaire when he ran for POTUS. He was worth $1.3 million in 2007. (http://www.ijreview.com...). But that doesn't mean he was out-of-touch. He knew then what it was like to be married, have kids that attend public schools (now they don't), and he knew what it was like be in the lower class. He worked as a community organizer in inner-city Chicago (http://www.newrepublic.com...) and knew how difficult life was in the inner city, especially for African-Americans like himself.

"I"m not sure why this is relevant as this debate is about Hillary Clinton. Clearly Elizabeth Warrens chances of being the next president is much less then Hillary Clintons."
Elizabeth Warren is mentioned because right now, she is the candidate Hillary should worry about right now. The reason why Warren is not expected to beat Hillary is because of lack of name recognition. But once she announces her run, she will get name recognition. If you look closely at Warren, you will see that she is the kind of politician America has been waiting for: she entered politics not because of ambition (like Hillary and most politicians) but because she was unhappy with the way things work in America and wanted to make some changes. She brings "freshness" (for lack of a better word)to politics that Hillary doesn't have.

"During the republican primaries Santorum, Perry, Gingrich and even Herman Cain led the polls at different times. To say that the Republican Party stood behind Romney is very generous as they seemed to only settle for him when every other option fell through."
It's very interesting how my opponent brought up the GOP candidates in 2012. My opponent just proved that different candidates will lead the polls at any point in elections. While Romney was the strongest candidate, he wasn't always in the lead. This could be the case with Hillary in 2016. I want to talk about Herman Cain a little bit. He's interesting because he had almost no recognition when he announced his candidacy. Yet as the election progressed, it became clear that he had a good shot at winning. He became the most covered candidate in the 2012 election. He quit the campaign before the Iowa Caucus because of sexual scandals but had he not had the scandal he would've gotten a lot of votes.

I don't fully understand what my opponent is trying to say with, "it is reasonable to conclude that the Parties have much more to say in who the next president is than the 'people.'" Parties don't vote. People do!

I'm a little time-limited now, but I want to talk about polls for a bit. My opponent said, "if we cant use current polls to support our case than this debate is pointless." Polls aren't needed to talk about this. This is all about opinion. "Will Hillary Clinton be the next president?" You can decide yes or no without looking at the polls. I decided that I don't think Hillary will be our next president. I think it will be someone else (Elizabeth Warren, perhaps). But that's opinion. I never looked at the polls prior to the debate.
kasmic

Pro

Rebuttals:

Con says “There isn't a connection of political party, but I was only trying to show how uncommon it is for a single person to win a presidential election on the second try.”

Con admits there is no correlation to party and successful second campaign elections. This added to con showing that 3 of our last 6 presidents where elected when running for the second time, negates his argument.

Con says “This goes back to my point about polls. You can't rely on polls like this when it's so early.”

As I said last round the polls are the best indicator we have this far out. As such they are the best source one could have in this debate.

Con concedes that he “was wrong about Obama not being a millionaire when he ran for POTUS. He was worth $1.3 million in 2007.” He does conclude “But that doesn't mean he was out-of-touch.”

Voters may view Hillary as out of touch, though again I think this will be true of any other candidate elect. Including Barrack Obama in 2008 (1)

Con says “Elizabeth Warren is mentioned because right now, she is the candidate Hillary should worry about right now. The reason why Warren is not expected to beat Hillary is because of lack of name recognition. But once she announces her run, she will get name recognition. . If you look closely at Warren, you will see that she is the kind of politician America has been waiting for..”

My opponent seems likely to vote for Elizabeth warren, this does not at all imply that it is likely that Elizabeth Warren will be elected.

Con says of Elizabeth Warren “She brings "freshness" (for lack of a better word)to politics that Hillary doesn't have.”

This statement is entirely opinion and does nothing to support my opponent’s argument against Hillary Clinton.

Con says “It's very interesting how my opponent brought up the GOP candidates in 2012. My opponent just proved that different candidates will lead the polls at any point in elections. While Romney was the strongest candidate, he wasn't always in the lead. This could be the case with Hillary in 2016.”

I confess that was silly of me. (nice catch) I still stand by my statement that while polls are not perfect they do indicate. We are debating over the future president two years in advance… if we cant use current polls to support our case than this debate is pointless. The polls are the best indicator we have this far out. they are the best source we could have. Such polls indicate that Hillary Clinton is clearly the favorite for the 2016 election. This makes her chances of being the next president significantly higher than any other person.

Con says “I don't fully understand what my opponent is trying to say with, "it is reasonable to conclude that the Parties have much more to say in who the next president is than the 'people.'" Parties don't vote. People do!”

While it is true that parties don’t vote, people do. More often than not people vote for who their party tells them too… This is evident as all of our recent Presidents come from one of the two major parties.

Con says of this debate “Polls aren't needed to talk about this. This is all about opinion. "Will Hillary Clinton be the next president?" You can decide yes or no without looking at the polls. I decided that I don't think Hillary will be our next president. I think it will be someone else (Elizabeth Warren, perhaps). But that's opinion. I never looked at the polls prior to the debate.”

The point of this debate is to argue for or against if Hillary Clinton will likely be our next president. You are right, you can have this discussion without polls. Much like you can talk about history without sources… I maintain that polls are the best indicator we have this far out. While not always correct, certainly they are more reasonable to use as a source than one person’s opinion or preference.

Conclusion:

Con has conceded many points of his argument. It largely comes down to relying on polls or gr8laker’s opinion. I think it evident that the more viable source is polls. Such polls indicate that Hillary Clinton is clearly the favorite for the 2016 election. This makes her chances of being the next president significantly higher than any other person. Thus, it makes sense to conclude that Hillary Clinton will most likely be our next president.


(1) http://abcnews.go.com...
Debate Round No. 3
gr8laker

Con

gr8laker forfeited this round.
kasmic

Pro

Thanks to Con for a great debate topic.

Con has conceded many points of his argument. It largely comes down to relying on polls or gr8laker’s opinion. I think it evident that the more viable source is polls. Such polls indicate that Hillary Clinton is clearly the favorite for the 2016 election. This makes her chances of being the next president significantly higher than any other person. Thus, it makes sense to conclude that Hillary Clinton will most likely be our next president.

Vote Pro!

Thanks for reading.

Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by gr8laker 2 years ago
gr8laker
Sorry I had to forfeit the round I haven't had time
Posted by Anthonyd114 2 years ago
Anthonyd114
If Hilary Clinton is elected president im going to start praying to every deity that has every been worshiped, we will need all the help we can get.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
If Hillary is elected, or any democrat, she will finish what Obama started, the demise of America.And that will be the fault of everyone who votes democrat.
Posted by dancampbell869 2 years ago
dancampbell869
Great first argument. I have had this debate many times (offline) and used many of the exact same arguments that you presented. I will be very surprised if you lose this debate. Great start.
Posted by Reeseroni 2 years ago
Reeseroni
She is definitely not going to win. Based on statistics and all, the hispanic population in America is growing exponentially, and they typically side with the democrats. Given that she is going to run for the candidate for the democratic party, she has a good chance for the popular vote among that ethnic group. On the contrary... I would assume that even they would not see that we are ready for a female president, for the possibility that she may not lead us like all of the men before her, and may not be capable of handling it all. Notice that I said MAY, this is not at all meant to be sexist, and I swear that I am not an antifeminist or what ever, but still we may not be ready for a feminine influence in the Whit House.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
gr8lakerkasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by dsayshi257 2 years ago
dsayshi257
gr8lakerkasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Hilary is one heck of a lady. Shes smart, she knows what she is doing and she has a ton of experience.