The Instigator
danielawesome12
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 Election

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/29/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,781 times Debate No: 33052
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

danielawesome12

Pro

Good luck in the debate if you wish start in the 1st round.
1Historygenius

Con

OK, I will start the first round.

I. Front-Runners Attacked

The front-runners are the immediate targets in the primaries for both the Republicans and the Democrats. In the 2012 Republican primaries there were several front-runners. First, it was Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, but she couldn't not capitalize on victory in the Iowa Straw Poll. Then it was Governor Rick Perry, but he proved hopeless in debates. Next was businessman Herman Cain, but he suffered from sexual harassment allegations. After him, there was former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich who was attacked for serving as a lobbyist. Finally, former Senator Rick Santorum was proven to not be a conservative. The GOP was stuck with former Governor Mitt Romney, an uncharasmatic man with a moderate record who was attacked for being a vulture capitalist and overseas bank accounts. While the race is closed, it is possible that another candidate could have done better.

This goes into the next race. If Hillary Clinton runs she will likely be immediately attacked for the same things in 2008 except now she carries Benghazi baggage. This hit her in the 2008 primaries and resulted to her drop out. It's likely this will hit her in 2016 as well. This makes Clinton's position weaker than ever.

II. Republican Candidates

Traditionally, the country goes more conservative after a liberal presidency. After Woodrow Wilson, the country elected Warren Harding. After Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman, the country elected Dwight Eisenhower. This will be likely in the case in the 2016 election.

Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Perry are likely to run again. In addition, Senators Marco Rubio and Rand Paul are likely to join them in the primaries. Another possibility is former Governor Jeb Bush. Either way, all these candidates are in a good position to win the election than Hillary Clinton. The three formers have more recent campaign experience and Santorum will win over his home state of Pennsylvania. Clinton does not have a battleground state luxury. The latter three also have so,e battleground state luxury and appeal to other groups. Clinton just stands as the establishment Democrat that was favored in 2008, but failed to prove herself.

Conclusion

Hillary Clinton is in a dangerously weak position in 2016 and will likely lose even if she wins the primaries.
Debate Round No. 1
danielawesome12

Pro

As for the Democratic frontrunner in early polls there are only 2
http://en.wikipedia.org... and Joe Biden
Clearly Hillary Clinton is a much more favored candidate while 9% of Americans have never heard of Joe Biden just in case your one of them.
http://www.gallup.com...
https://en.wikipedia.org...
Clinton was favored by 12 percentage points over Rubio, 11 points over Paul, 16 points over Bush and 3 points over Christie. Biden trailed the New Jersey governor 46 percent to 43 percent but held a 14-point edge over Rubio, a 9-point advantage on Paul and an 8-point lead over Bush.
Source: http://thehill.com...
Hilary's odd have skyrocketed since 2008 http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com......
Mrs. Clinton"s credentials as secretary of state, as a United States senator, and as a politically engaged first lady would be hard for any of her Democratic or Republican rivals to match. She would have little trouble raising funds or garnering support from the Democratic officials, and she might even come close to clearing the Democratic field of serious opposition.
1Historygenius

Con

My Arguments

I. Front-runners Attacked

My opponent never properly attacked my point here that front runners are always targeted and are vulnerable. In 2012, many Republicans were vulnerable for lacking conservatism. According to Elephant Watcher, one of the top election sources in history:

"Voters seem to make positive assumptions about their candidates. Simply by virtue of a candidate's presence on the stage, voters assume that the candidate--barring evidence to the contrary--is a "legitimate" one. A proper Republican candidate is both conservative and electable, and voters presume that anyone on the stage possesses both qualities." [1]

In the case of Hillary Clinton, she holds many criticism that liberals don't like such as her support of the Iraq War which led to Barack Obama becoming so competitive. At first, the Democrats will be drawed to Clinton because she appears to be the perfect choice. She will then receive attacks from other Democratic candidates, even Vice President Biden if he takes the option to run. This will lead to a situation similar to the 2008 Democratic primaries. We know Biden is likely to be an opponent because he has expressed interest in the race. [2]

II. Republican Candidates

It opponent seems to try to attack me here by looking at several polls, but now is far too early and the polls are not reliable now. They will only be reliable by 2015 when the race is on. The Gallup poll is a poll among adults, not likely voters. Elephant Watcher has pointed out likely voters polls are more reliable:

"The difference matters. In presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. This is not an expected or potential bias--it is a known bias. By the time the election is imminent, nearly all pollsters will switch to polling likely voters rather than registered voters in order to eliminate the bias and increase accuracy." [3]

Because of this, the adults polls place a three point inaccurate advantage on the Democratic candidates.

Sources

1. http://www.elephantwatcher.com...
2. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
3. http://www.elephantwatcher.com...
Debate Round No. 2
danielawesome12

Pro

First I would like to address democratic competition

Even as you said how you do in debates matter, have you even seen Paul Ryan vs. Joe Biden (Vice Presidential Debate) Joe Biden's a awful debater and Hillary would smash he he got confused often and laughed interrupting Ryan a total of 82 times he is a weak man and America knows it, there is no ay Biden would be serious competition for Hillary Clinton who goes toe-to-toe with Obama, when people see him making public speeches it will become clear Joe Bid is just a joke.
Biden's constant interruptions, smirks, and eye-rolling grimaces backfired on a number of levels. First, he reminded the majority of people who don't like Biden that they have good reason to feel that way. The split-screen image on television 82 interruptions really didn't play well for Biden, especially with the women I've talked to today. That's exactly the crowd that Paul Ryan was trying to win over. And those women will continue to see those images on late-night shows and Saturday Night Live this weekend.
http://www.thedailybeast.com...

Onto Republican competition

There is no true leader between the republican nominees, meaning there will be surely be a free-for-all that ll quickly dwindle republican giants and cause another poor candidate that's why even underdogs like Fred karger have good odds in the primaries. I believe even if a good candidate is elected on the Republican behalf He/She will surely have battle wounds and little support. Everyone knows how quick the media can stop even the best candidates, they played a gargantuan part in slowing Mitt Romney after the 1st debate, and it worked well, he didn't win a single battle-ground state.

Media Influence

The media is overwhelmingly liberal. That is a fact, this fact accounts for their support of Democratic candidates. The media's critical, unfair and partisan coverage of former President of the United States, George Bush, was a precursor to influencing a gullible country that their president was indeed inept. They also love being the first party to elect a black president. Now that Obama is president, the media who helped to have him elected will bend over backwards to make sure every word, every policy and every decision Obama makes is presented in the best possible light. It would not do to have to admit that they were wrong. I believe it will be similar for Hillary Clinton.
http://abc6onyourside.com...

Finally overestimating

"The difference matters. In presidential elections, Republican voters consistently turn out to vote at a higher rate than their Democratic counterparts. This means that registered voter polls will consistently overestimate the strength of the Democratic candidate. This is not an expected or potential bias--it is a known bias. By the time the election is imminent, nearly all pollsters will switch to polling likely voters rather than registered voters in order to eliminate the bias and increase accuracy."

Did you even watch the coverage of the last election? there were millions who believed Romney would win, he was clearly overestimated and got bashed.

"Mitt Romney will win big tonight. His popular vote margin will be between 3 " 5%. He will win the Electoral College I believe by a vote of 321 to 217"

Source: http://www.forbes.com...

Undecideds. Undecided voters are thought to vote disproportionately for the challenger over a sitting president. In truth, there"s no empirical evidence for this widely acknowledged tendency. But to the extent it exists, it helps Romney. Goeas, for one, figures most still undecided voters simply won"t vote.

Indicators. Many point to a Romney win. He does well among "high-propensity-voting" blocs such as, in the Battleground Poll, seniors (54 percent), married voters (56 percent), weekly church attendees (59 percent), white evangelicals (79 percent), and gun owner householders (60 percent). He also leads among key demographic groups such as suburban voters (54 percent), Catholics (53 percent), and middle class voters (52 percent).
Obama has large leads among groups such as Hispanics with a lower propensity to vote. "If the president"s campaign is not able to replicate his 2008 electorate (which is looking increasingly unlikely), the president loses," Goeas says.

Issues. The most important ones favor Romney: the economy, the deficit, and the debt. Independents, the demographic group most sensitive to these issues, went for Obama by eight percentage points in 2008. Now they"re tilting to Romney by roughly the same percentage.

Conclusion: Romney will be elected the 45th president of the United States.

Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com...

You say Elephant Watcher is a better source "Elephant Watcher calculates that Romney's odds of being elected president are currently 65%. But Romney's lead should not obscure the obvious: Obama still has about one chance in three of winning. That means he has a significant opportunity to turn things in his favor."

http://www.elephantwatcher.com...
1Historygenius

Con

My Arguments

I. Front-Runners Attacked


My Opponent talks about the Joe Biden vs. Paul Ryan debate, but misses two things. First, Biden will likely not be the only Democrat running against Clinton. Second, candidates learn their lessons from previous debates. That debate will help Vice President Biden in the future because he will have more debate experience. This also goes for any mistakes he made in his 2008 debate with Sarah Palin. Hillary Clinton campaigned and went into debates during the Democratic primaries, but by now that experience is gone. Biden has more recent experience with debates and this will help him.

A perfect example would be Former Governor Mitt Romney. Romney debated in 2008 for the Republican nomination. He lost, but that experience carried over to 2012 where he won. He then won the first presidential debate against Obama, but lost the two later ones. This is because of his debate experience.

II. Republican Competition

There does not need to be a leader between the Republican nominees. That is why there is a nomination process. Who should be the leader? Also, Hillary Clinton is not exactly the leader of the Democratic Party. That title belongs to President Obama. Also, my opponent never attacked my arguments on the candidates' appeal to minorities and their lives in battleground state. Then, my opponent flat out lies and said that Romney did not win a single battleground state. North Carolina was a battleground state and he won it. In addition, he took back Indiana, a state that voted for Obama in 2008.

My Refutations

I. Media Influence

My opponent believes that the media's overhwhelmingly liberal stance hands Clinton the victory. This is simply not true. Let's look at the modern presidents (1969 to the present):

Richard M. Nixon - Republican
Gerald R. Ford - Republican
Jimmy Carter - Democrat
Ronald Reagan - Republican
George H.W. Bush - Republican
Bill Clinton - Democrat
George W. Bush - Republican
Barack Obama - Democrat

What we see here is that there have been five Republican presidents and only three Democratic ones. This means that the media does not guarantee victory to one side. Because of this, they can be ruled out as not a game changer.

II. Polls

My opponent believes that I was a wrong sites Steve Forbes who gave a wrong prediction. Forbes simply had a wrong prediction. This does not mean everyone had a wrong predicition. This simply means Forbes was wrong. I don't really get what my opponent is expecting.

III. Undecideds

Undecideds are unpredictable, that is why they are undecided. You never know what is going to happen. Typically, undecideds go for an incumbent, but there is no incumbent in 2016.

My opponent then starts talking about demographics and issues from the 2012 election, but this will be different in 2016.

Finally, my opponent forgest to mention that the main editor of Elephant Watcher has been through a tragic accident and thus the site could not continue. That is why its stuck how they are.

Conclusion

I have proven my opponent wrong on many levels. I have been able to hold my arguments while my opponent gives outdated information that will not matter in 2016.

Debate Round No. 3
danielawesome12

Pro

Democratic Competition

First, I used Joe Biden to oppose Hillary because he's the only Democrat with a household name. The other candidates are mostly unknown by the average person.

You said Hillary Clinton's experiences are now gone, I'm just wondering how she completely forgot the experience, does she have Alzheimer's Disease. In addition if Biden will use his experience to attack Hillary, how come he didn't use his 2008 experience for the Vice Presidential Debate to defeat rather young Republican Paul Ryan.

As you also said "A perfect example would be Former Governor Mitt Romney. Romney debated in 2008 for the Republican nomination. He lost, but that experience carried over to 2012 where he won. He then won the first presidential debate against Obama, but lost the two later ones. This is because of his debate experience."
Hard to say it's a perfect example when he went against several Republicans and didn't come out first, then 1-2 in Presidential Debates.

Republican Competition

There must be a Republican leader, or no Republican values will be expressed through the media, if the Liberal Media creates the Republican image, then Conservatives will quickly become the minority.

Media Influence (and battling your refutation)

Notice, if you go to Google images and search I don't support the conservative media you'll find nothing.
If you Google I don't support the liberal Media you'll find that there is a war going on versus the Liberal media.
go ahead and try it https://www.google.com...

Battling your refutation, the media used to have almost no political identity, until the mid-Bush Junior era
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

During the course of the 2000 presidential election, some pundits accused the mainstream media of distorting facts in an effort to help Texas Governor George W. Bush win the 2000 Presidential Election after Bush and Al Gore officially launched their campaigns in 1999

In the 2008 presidential election, media outlets were accused of discrediting Obama's opponents in an effort to help him win the Democratic nomination and later the Presidential election.

A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83 percent of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64 percent of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28 percent of respondents believing that this bias is conservative.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Finally Overestimating

You have failed to address the point that you have a biased source within Elephant Watcher the went into issues with the editor of the website
"Finally, my opponent forgest to mention that the main editor of Elephant Watcher has been through a tragic accident and thus the site could not continue. That is why its stuck how they are."

Conclusion:

I would also like to mention that I haven't been incorrect on any account while you have listed Bias sources, misspelled your arguments,(look at the previous quote)
At this point I have dominated the debate, while my opponent has used incorrectly biased viewpoints and no facts. Good luck in supporting your arguments in the final round.
1Historygenius

Con

My Arguments

I. Democratic Competition

"First, I used Joe Biden to oppose Hillary because he's the only Democrat with a household name. The other candidates are mostly unknown by the average person."

My opponent doesn't seem to understand what it means to be a target. Because Clinton is well known just hurts her because other candidates are bound to attack her in debates. Hillary Clinton's name appeal in 2008 didn't win her the primaries and it won't help her again in 2016. In fact, some say she has hurt her chances:

"Many Democrats would no doubt dearly love an uncontested primary amounting to the stately coronation of Clinton. It would spare them a spectacle akin to, say, the 2012 GOP primaries, in which another prohibitive front-runner came out on top, but only after a grueling process of fending off a seemingly endless procession of challengers. It may never get that bad for Clinton, but a tough fight for the nomination is far more likely than a contest in which no other contender shows up, and that’s true even if Democrats are practically unanimous that she will be the eventual winner.

P
eople throw themselves into presidential primaries for all sorts of reasons, only one of which is the hope and expectation that they will be on the ballot in the November quadrennial. In 1991, the Democratic Party was having an equivalent will-he-or-won’t-he over the intentions of New York Governor Mario Cuomo, whom polls indicated would enter the race as odds-on favorite for the nomination. The possibility that Cuomo would run didn’t stop an ambitious young governor from Arkansas from entering the contest. I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton was confident that he could be elected president one day. But I’m not sure he was confident that it would be in November 1992. His campaign in its early months had some of the aroma of a practice run. And a practice run can be a very valuable experience; Ronald Reagan in 1976 is an obvious example."
[1]

Finally, my opponent says:

"Hard to say it's a perfect example when he went against several Republicans and didn't come out first, then 1-2 in Presidential Debates."

I don't know what my opponent means. The reason Romney won the nomination was because he won the presidential debates against several candidates. It was a hard task for him to win:

"Romney has been on record supporting abortion rights, gay rights, the individual mandate, tough gun laws and he said in his 1994 race against Ted Kennedy that he did not want to go back to the days of Reagan/Bush. Considering his past statements, one could argue that Romney is more moderate than McCain." [2]

It's simple to understand how she completely loses the experience. One just has to look at President Obama. He lost his first debate with Romney because of a lack of debate experience. Romney had more recent experience from the primaries. Hillary Clinton's case is worse because she has not debated in eight years. Biden may have lost the 2012 VP debate, but that works to his advantage because he learns from his mistakes. This is much like Romney, who lost in 2008 but gained experience for 2012.

II. Republican Competition

"There must be a Republican leader, or no Republican values will be expressed through the media, if the Liberal Media creates the Republican image, then Conservatives will quickly become the minority."

This is very conflicting. In the 2012 election, conservatives were a minority. They were only 35% of the electorate. In 2008, it was 34%. There have always been more liberals and moderates. [3,4]

There are many historical cases in which a party with a lack of leadership won the election. In 1920, Warren Harding was in third, but at the convention the delegates switched to him. He won the presidency. In 1976, several Democrats were running and ultimately Jimmy Carter was picked. He moved on to win the presidency.

My Refutations

I. Media Influence

My opponent cites Google imdages and tells me to:

Notice, if you go to Google images and search I don't support the conservative media you'll find nothing. If you Google I don't support the liberal Media you'll find that there is a war going on versus the Liberal media. go ahead and try it

Let's see what we get for both:

https://www.google.com...'t+support+the+conservative+media&spell=1&sa=X&ei=PjOIUcPaMpTDywHVyICgDA&ved=0CFIQBSgA
https://www.google.com...'t+support+the+conservative+media&spell=1&sa=X&ei=PjOIUcPaMpTDywHVyICgDA&ved=0CFIQBSgA#safe=active&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=i+don%27t+support+the+liberal+media&oq=i+don%27t+support+the+liberal+media&gs_l=img.3...87047.89812.0.90000.14.13.0.0.0.0.484.1906.1j2j3j1j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.IqhPI321Q7I&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.aWc&fp=c50bebd5cc81bb55&biw=1280&bih=619

For the conservative catergory, I get pictures of people. The only thing telling me that the liberal catergory is different would be bumper stickers. That does not means there's war.

Next my opponent says:

"Battling your refutation, the media used to have almost no political identity, until the mid-Bush Junior era"

However, when looking at the source it does not cover the mid-Bush Junior era. Instead it covers three elections. These are 1988, 1992, and 1996. My opponentn then fails and says that they have no political indentity, but it clearly shows in this graph that there is political indetity toward either the Republican or the Democrat. This does not sufficiently cover 1968 to the present. [5]

Then my opponent says:

"A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83 percent of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64 percent of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28 percent of respondents believing that this bias is conservative."

If anything, this helps my case. It proves that voters know more than to listen to the liberal media to make their choices. This also helps my case of Republican dominance from 1968 to 2008.

Overstimating

"You have failed to address the point that you have a biased source within Elephant Watcher the went into issues with the editor of the website"

It isn't biased because we do not see it's final election results. Instead, we see that Romney had a good chance to win after the convention in Tampa Bay, Florida. This where they stopped posting. It does not make them biased, it's fact that Romney was looking good at the convention.

Conclusion

My opponent dropped a lot of arguments. He argued that Romney did not win a single battleground state, I countered, and he did not reply. He dropped the polls argument and finally the undecideds argument. Three arguments gone. I clearly have won here.

Sources

1.
Lindberg, Tod. "Hillary Clinton Would Not 'Clear the Field' for 2016 | RealClearPolitics. N.p., 6 Apr. 2013. Web.
2. Asche, David. "Mitt Romney Winning the Republican Nomination is Nothing Short of a Miracle ." PolicyMic. N.p., n.d. Web.
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 4
danielawesome12

Pro

danielawesome12 forfeited this round.
1Historygenius

Con

Ah, victory.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 1 year ago
1Historygenius
Elephant Watcher cannot update itself because its chief editor was in a tragic accident.
Posted by 16kadams 1 year ago
16kadams
Elephant watchers still hasRomney of winning. FAIL
Posted by JuliusMaximus 1 year ago
JuliusMaximus
Daniel, your going to get beaten to hell and back.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Contra 1 year ago
Contra
danielawesome121HistorygeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: I read through the whole debate, and I have to say the arguments are about even. However, Pro forfeited so Con gets the conduct point.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 1 year ago
MassiveDump
danielawesome121HistorygeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Looking good, looking good, looking goo- OH MOTHER FU