The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
2 Points

Cory Booker vs Steve Bullock for the Democrat Nomination in 2020

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 955 times Debate No: 106573
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




This is a challenge to my friend Nd2400 to debate me over who should be the Democrat Presidential nominee in 2020-Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, or Governor Steve Bullock of Montana.
I will be taking the con position in arguing that Bullock would be a better Democrat nominee for Presidential nominee. I ask my friend to take the position of Booker being a better candidate.
First round-acceptance.
Good luck my friend :)


Well i want to thank you Kylar for this interesting debate topic...

So the first round is acceptance only.
Okay i accept the terms and conditions of this debate. I will be arguing why i think senator Cory Booker will be the best candidate for the Democratic party...
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you once again to my friend Nd2400 for lending his time to debate with me over this interesting topic.
I will now commence with my opening argument-and it is rather simple.
I believe that Governor Stephen Clark Bullock would be the better of the two choices before us for the Democrat Presidential Nomination for President of the United States.
Bullock is the Governor of Montana, which as we both know I'm sure, is a red state, and is very conservative. According to Politico, Bullock won as a Democrat candidate for Governor by 4 points over Greg Gianforte in the 2016 Gubernatorial election, while Donald Trump, the Republican Candidate for President last year won the state of Montana by 21 points. This shows that Bullock can have bi-partisan appeal in a traditionally conservative state. According to Politico again, "He does have some good progressive views but comes across as a Montana good ol" boy," says a Republican operative. "He would be a really good general election candidate."
This makes the case in my opening argument that Bullock would be better than Booker-he is a Democrat Governor in a red state, and thus would be able to appeal across party lines.
I turn the floor over to my friend Nd2400 now, and look forward to your arguments, friend :)


Thank you again Kylar...

Okay this round i will give out a little why Cory Booker is the right choice for the Democratic nominee and why Governor Stephen Clark Bullock is not.

Okay you mention Stephen Clark Bullock won the governor job in a red state of Montana. This is true and a valid point. But i will question how much of a chance he has against Trump if he did go that far? Since trump won Montana pretty easily, i don't think people would turn on trump just to vote in their governor. Stephen Bullock would have to do amazing job of being governor. He would also have to change most of Montana mindset to change their party to even have a chance at the national level. So for this reason he actually has his work cut out for him. And the Democratic leaders know this, so for this reason they would push for someone else like a senator Cory Booker to represent their party.

According to the Washington Post they name 15 names as possible 2020 Democratic nominees, and ranked them according. Cory Booker was ranked 8th on this list and Stephen Bullock wasn't even mentioned, never mind being on a list. Cory Booker "Certainly among the biggest political talents on this list and would quickly garner attention." (1.) this would be true Cory Booker people would had hard of not many people would know who Stephen Bullock is. Montana population is only at 1,042,520 (2016 est.) ranked 44th in the US. (2.) As for New Jersey they have 9,005,644 (2017 est.) and ranked 11th for population (3.)
So just for a popular vote Cory Booker would have a big edge over Stephen Bullock. So for this reason Cory Booker should be name the Democratic nominee over Stephen Bullock. You can't send someone out there and run if people never heard of you. You have to work that much harder just to try to get noticed.

Okay i will true it over to you Kylar....
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you to my friend once again for this debate and for your arguments.
I will now post my further arguments regarding my case for Governor Steve Bullock, and possibly refute your statements on the case for Senator Cory Booker.
If the Democrat Party would like to be about diversity, shouldn't diversity also include geographically speaking? I do concede that racially, Booker would lend diversity to the 2020 ticket, but we should also factor in geography. According to, it seems the Democrat party has never nominated someone from the west coast in their history. The furthest west they have gone is with Governor George S. McGovern from South Dakota in 1972, and Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, from Texas.
It is here that we can make a case for Bullock, in that it expands the Democrat's geographic diversity by putting someone from Montana on the ticket.
However, I am willing to yield myself to your statements and acknowledge the truth of them to a point. Bullock is not as widely known, that is true.
As far as your statements go regarding Bullock doing an amazing job as governor in order for voters to go for him in Montana when they also voted Trump, I can say this much. According to he has a 61% approval rating as of May 12th 2016, a little outdated sure, but this is pretty high for a Democrat governor in a red state. He must be doing something right to score that high in a GOP-dominated state like Montana.
In summary, I rest my Round III arguments on these simple statements-Bullock would expand geographic diversity for the Democrat Party, and plus, he seems to have a high approval rating, which would help Democrats in searching for a popular candidate.
I agree with you though on your statement that he isn't widely known though, we can agree on that one.
I thank you for a compelling debate so far, and turn the floor back over to you, my friend.


"Diversity also include geographically speaking?" Diversity does include geographically in general speaking, but i will ask you why does it matter? Because i just don't think it matter all that much. The only thing that really matter is the person not geographically, If you could give me some reason why it matter i might be open to them. But just asking me without anything solid i would have to say no it doesn't matter.

So you give me another good point without me having to mention it. Booker would lead the Diversity over your candidate Bullock. And this probably won't even be close. This would also help Booker in the national race not just the Democratic race.

Senator Cory Booker has a 52% approved rating. (4.)
It by far not great but it not bad either. It better to have a positive outlook than a negative outlook. So having this positive outlook only strength Senator Cory Booker case for the Democratic nomination. Sure Bullock has an 61% approving rating for being a Governor in a Republican state. Which is good I'm not going to knock it. It just, it's only Montana, and the population is just barely over a million, so i would be more comfortable with his rating if the population in his state was higher. Would he get this rating if he was in Oklahoma or Texas? I don't think so....

So senator Cory Booker has many advantages over Bullock. He has the popular vote So far, he has the Diversity vote, he has a solid approving rating, he is also view a solid pick over Stephen Bullock. So before you say Obama came out of nowhere to beat Clinton, and try to make the same comparables. Let me point out the country wanted a new change and wanted a new face and the Democratic got that with Obama, and obama was black so he really had the country support with diversity. And because he was a great leader and vocalize leader. Oh yeah and Obama didn't just came out in a small state he came out of Illinois which has over 12 million people in that state. So Obama had some pull, unlike your guy Stephen Bullock. Another thing is the Democratic leader want change and a real challenger against trump so they will not support some one who doesn't have much of a chance in the national poll. So Cory Booker would be the better pick.

Looking forward to hear your next argument....
Debate Round No. 3


Thank you my friend, once again, for your insightful and compelling arguments. I have enjoyed this debate considerably and look forward to this round.
I acknowledge the population lack in Montana, a state that rarely plays much of a national role and the diversity side of things-Booker is of course, African-American, so this would be in fact true.
I will now post my Round 4 arguments, and it centers around religious beliefs this time around, and also takes into account your mention of Democrats wanting a change when Obama was elected in 2008 as their nominee.
Senator Cory A. Booker of New Jersey is a Baptist, and I do not think this is a bad thing. I am saying this, according to we have had four Baptist Presidents in our history. I would respectfully think in terms of diversity and change, we might also want to see a change in the religious category.
The best I can figure out, Governor Bullock of Montana is a United Church of Christ member. I do not think that we have had any United Church of Christ Presidents. Obama was a member of a UCC church for a while, but broke away before he took office, and thus can not be considered our first UCC President, I don't think. Therefore Bullock would be our first in history.
If the Democrat Party is looking for change, and diversity again in the 2020 race, why not nominate someone with an interesting, little known Christian denomination to make some more history?
It is therefore reasonable to play the card of history, and nominate Governor Steve Bullock for our first United Church of Christ President in American History.
I respectfully turn the floor back over to my opponent and thank him for what has been an incredibly excellent, civil, and insightful debate.
I look forward to your arguments for round 4, my friend.


Thank you for the kinds words.

I just wanted to mention since you haven't answered my question on why it matter on" geographically. I'm assuming you have no way of fighting thing, so to the voter please take note of this. The person matter way more than where he or she is from. People elect the person they like more and what there bring to the table. Not what part of the country they work for.

The second part you went ahead and started talking about religion. Which is fine i guess. Just talking about religion really isn't the best category for me. I do understand why and how it is important to voters to pick there candidates because of religion. So i won't dismissed the importance of religion. It just even trump himself not really a religious person. Sure he claimed his church is Marble Collegiate Church and being part of Presbyterians he just not actively involved. (5.) but it kinda weird because he rarely mentioned religion ever during his campaign trail to even now as President. I mentioned trump because "Religious Americans more likely to be Republican, poll shows". (6.) so with Republicans actually more religious, why did they voted trump in office? If he wasn't very religious himself. So i don't think people care as much on what religious groups a potential candidates have these days like back in the old days. So with Cory Booker and Bullock i don't think religion will make any difference between them. This next Democratic election and the Presidential election will make history but not for a certain religious group. So far everything you and i have mentioned it still favor Cory Booker over Bullock. People going to vote for Booker because they heard of him or because they like him or because they think he would have a better chance of winning against trump.

This is your last round to impress or convinced me and the votes on why your choice would be the better pick......
Debate Round No. 4


My friend, thank you for this debate, and a wonderful learning experience. As a conservative and a Republican personally it is always tough to assume the position of the Democrat Party, and I hope that I have done an adequate job in doing so.

I would like to say at the outset that geographically I can not fight with you, and I agree with your arguments on the people liking someone more on what they bring to the table, not their origins or state of residence.

Like I have said, it is very difficult to take the position of a Democrat when I consider myself Republican so I hope my last argument will be persuasive and adequate.

I'm going to use for my last argument, the argument of accomplishments during that tenure in their respective positions, and I hope the voters will find it adequate.
Governor Bullock has accomplished some significant things during his time as the Governor of the State of Montana. He has signed a conservation executive order, in order to protect the endangered sage grouse. This shows he is environmentally friendly, something I know Democrats care a lot about. Source: Wikipedia.

He has also increased funding for education, and like Republicans, has increased resources available for energy access to make America more energy independent, something that I'm sure a bi-partisan agreement can be reached on it.

Governor Bullock has also ensured that thorough vetting is done of any Syrian refugees admitted to the state of Montana, something that is common sense, and needs to be done.

Not only that, Governor Bullock has preserved public lands for hunting and fishing for people in his state, and worked with a Republican dominated legislature to expand Medicaid and insure the poor of his state with federal money, and that infrastructure projects hire only residents from his state, a Montana first policy if you will. He also has wanted health care coverage expanded for his entire state, and has granted unemployment benefits to people who have been affected by domestic violence.

Most Democrats support abortion and marriage equality, and Governor Bullock has taken steps to ensure they remain on the books in Montana. He has kept the state from defunding Planned Parenthood, and protected the rights of couples to marry those whom they love, even if it is a gay relationship. He is on a side note, the first Governor to officiate a same-sex wedding, which could boost his credentials for the LGBT vote in the 2020 election.

Governor Bullock has in addition worked hard to close the gap of wages between men and women, something that has been a problem for many years.

All this I hope, suffices to make a worthy case that Governor Stephen Clark Bullock of Montana would make a better choice for the Democrat nominee for President of the United States in 2020 than Senator Cory Anthony Booker of New Jersey.

I thank my good friend Nd2400 for his time, and for a truly wonderful debate, you have almost persuaded me with your arguments. This has been a lot of fun, and I hope to do another debate with you in the future.

Sources:, and


Well i wanted to thank you again for this interesting debate. This has been a good debate. Yeah i was wondering why you pick a Democratic topic when you were a Republican. I'm glad you mention it. For no particular reason. Well since you went ahead to give your candidate one last push by giving out what he accomplished i will do as well for my candidate.

We'll let me start off by saying no one is perfect nor close to it. Every candidate has their garbage. Even your candidate, and even mine has some negative stuff behind them. And let me point out with your candidate bullock. He has a lot of accomplishment, but their is a big reason why he has these accomplishment. And that is because he having such a low population. So, he can get things done a little easier than having a heavy population.

One of the biggest complaint against Bullock is "Bullock Dinged for Failing to Timely Report Plane Expenses" "Steve Bullock's re-election campaign violated state laws by failing to timely report expenses stemming from his use of a state aircraft". (7.)
i will admit this is pretty small, but then it's not when you consider he talking tax player money. To pay for these planes expenses, it pretty big there because their population inst very big.

"Newark Mayor Chases Suspect" this was Cory Booker back in 2006 when he was the mayor of Newark. (8.)
"Mayor Cory A. Booker of Newark carried a woman out of a burning house and was treated for smoke inhalation on Thursday night". Back in April 13, 2012 (9.)

"New grocery stores and hotels"the first in decades"have opened". (10.)
Cory Booker made the city of Newark much better because he was the Mayor. Before he got there the city was very bad with one of the highest murder rate and crime and with very high unemployment. Once he left to go to the Senate, he change the city to a safer place and a business friendly environment. He left the city to this "six colleges and universities with more than 60,000 students and faculty; the fifth-busiest airport in the country; a regional transportation system that includes light rail and an Amtrak station; the nation"s fourth-largest seaport". (11.)

Cory Booker also has "Those bills S. 842: Fair Chance to Compete for ...; S. 1547: Anti-Voter Suppression Act; S. 1996: Environmental Justice Act of 2017; S. 2259: Access to Birth Control Act. He has 4 "Powerful Cosponsors in these bills, Getting support from committee leaders on relevant committees is a crucial step in moving legislation forward". (12.)

Cory Booker has saves life's linearly, he has help catch crime in person, he has help city's to get back on track and he is now helping the State of New Jersey. He is more than qualify for the Democratic nominee. He for sure more qualify than Bullock. Cory Booker should be considered for the nomination. Bullock shouldn't be, their are a lot of good candidates that could give trump a run for the oval office. And one of them is Cory Booker...

Thank you again for this interesting topic... Have to do this again. ( please note just because I'm a Democratic doesn't mean i would only do a Democratic topics, i would be fine doing Republican as well).
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ramshutu 2 years ago
This was a fun debate to read. Thanks guys. Conduct was excellent both sides, there was not enough difference in grammar/spelling to warrant points either. But please use paragraphs next time con!

Sources were rare in the first four rounds, but pro used them extensively in the last round, so I'm afraid I have to award points to pro for sources.

The first 4 rounds focused on the demographics; I felt pro made did better here (and con somewhat conceded on geography), and mostly correctly pointed out that booker is better on geography and diversity grounds, and was also more convincing with regards to religion; pointing out religion tends to mostl be issues for republicans

In terms of achievements, both of you did very well presenting the accomplishments in the final round, though I felt con did a little better with regards to outlining the benefits of his candidate, presenting more substantial achievements (though pro did not do poorly).

Saying that, because of how close it was; I felt could have awarded either side arguments, so have to call the arguments tied.

But well done to both.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ramshutu 2 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.