CreateDebate


Debate Info

46
36
Yes! No!
Debate Score:82
Arguments:41
Total Votes:123
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes! (27)
 
 No! (14)

Debate Creator

jamesriley00(24) pic



Should Hillary Drop Out?

Yes!

Side Score: 46
VS.

No!

Side Score: 36
5 points
Yes...because of this video.
Gag
Side: Yes!
2 points
i don't blame her for sticking in until the 4th. If those states vote barack, essentially, that's game over... the people will have spoken, and that would be ripping apart the democratic party if she chose to take it all the way to the convention... but she would look a lot more like a gracious loser if she dropped out now...
Side: Yes!
2 points

The poll number speak for themselves. In the current system, she lacks support to continue. In a direct vote system, she would still have reason to remain in the game. Whether the system requires changing is a debate for a different question.

Side: Yes!
2 points

She should drop out. The entire primary process is a joke. There's not much democratic about it. The longer she stays in, the longer she makes our system look bad. Besides, she would be a horrible president. She's a liar and a crook, corrupt as hell. She doesn't care about the American people, only her own power and wallet.

Side: Yes!
I'd like to think that I can look at this objectively, and say "yes", that regardless of who I support (Obama), Hillary's negative comments about Obama will either hurt him in the general election if he's the nominee, or hurt people's opinion of her if she manages to take it. Either way, the Democrats will deal with the consequences in November, besides giving McCain time to build up support.
Side: Yes!
3 points
Based solely on the following video, I say, PLEASE! (Watch with caution.)
Hillary For You and Me
Side: Yes!
0 points
Based on THAT video, I want to drop out.
Side: Yes!
-1 points
WOW, I'm not sure how anyone could vote for her after seeing that video. Not to mention she's a terrible leader and would divide this country even more than it already is divided.
Supporting Evidence: Anyone but Hillary (anyonebuthillary2008.com)
Side: Yes!
1 point
Yes. Not only is she unlikely to win the nomination, but she will look better if she bows out now.
Side: Yes!
kidem(51) Disputed
3 points

I have never known anyone looking better being a quitter. If i would of quit at everything that i knew i was going to loose at i wouldn't be where im at today!!!! Quitting is for the weak!!!!

Next!

Side: No!
1 point

Ok - I spent all day thinking about this, because I was initially feeling quite ambivolent. Part of me was thinking, the damage is already done - the party appears fragmented and non-decisive, how will dropping out this late help? And then I realized, that every day she prolongs dropping out is another day that Obama's campaign funds are spent fighting a war against Clinton instead of McCain. So yeah ---- it's time to drop out and support a campaign to win against McCain.

Side: Yes!
1 point

Heavens yes. It was mathematically impossible for her to win after the Texas and Ohio primaries - she had to get 65% in each state after that, which she's never done. It just keeps getting worse and worse odds from there. The last I heard, it was something on the order of 69% in the remaining states. Even when she was unopposed in West Virginia, she didn't attain it.

There is a time and place for everything. Her presidential aspirations for 2008 are well past that time.

Running as a third party candidate would doom her forever from political office. As it stands now, she can become governor of New York, Senate Majority Leader, Vice President, a host of options, keeping the presidential run viable in the future.

Side: Yes!
0 points
If she is elected I am leaving the country....
Side: Yes!
0 points
I'm out too. I'd rather be canadian for four years than live through hill dog as president.
Side: Yes!
0 points
because obama is stuffable....
Supporting Evidence: barack hussein obama - al qaida? (www.cafepress.com)
Side: Yes!
0 points
She is a bad manager.
Side: Yes!
0 points

Of course she should. So should Obama, and so should McCain. The entire election is a sham and all of the people discussing it here have allowed themselves to be distracted and deceived by it. Wake me when you have independently verifiable pper trails. Until then you don't have a democracy. This is just a theatre, with McCain as the school yard bully, Clinton as the Ice Queen, Obama the cool, well adjusted all round nice guy, and a horrible continuation of Bush policies prepared under Bill Clinton with a more polite face.

Obama is the Tony Blair of the USA. Fake respectability ready to deliver more of the same tyranny we are used to. All we need now is "things can only get better" to be played at the democratic party convention.

For Americans who don't understand what fools they are being taken for, go and watch videos of Blair around the 1997 elections.

Suckers.

Side: Yes!
Time2Golf(288) Disputed
1 point

Umm...okay, so we should just have anarchy then?

It seems to me that the American Government and the leader of the free world is a bit more than "theatre" as you claim. How can you say that everyone is "distracted and deceived" by the election. Shouldn't we care who is going to be the next President of the US? Shouldn't we inform ourselves of the issues and the candidates take on the issues so we can make an informed voting decision?

Side: No!
stevedtrm(40) Disputed
0 points

Let me know when you get to elect the leaser of the free world. You actually think Bush is the leader of ANYTHING?

And no, until you have a verifiable transparent voting process, theres no point in making ANY voting decision.

Yes , we should have anarchy. To help you define it, go and look up 3 random anarchist philosophers.

Anyone who knows anything on the candidates knows that all of the ones promoted by a controlled media on TV have the SAME positions. Obama is pro-Israel, pro-war, pro NAFTA just like McCain and Hilary. The only difference is how they dress it up.

Side: Yes!
0 points

Popular votes:

With Florida

16,691,639 + 16,648,060 = 33,339,699

16,691,639 - 16,648,060 = 43,579

43,579/33,339,699 = 0.0013 or .13% Clinton lead--statistically meaningless

Without Florida

15,492,344 + 16,648,060 = 32,140,404

16,648,060 - 15,492,344 = 1,155,716

1,155,716/16,648,060 = .0694 or 7% Obama lead

Deligate votes:

2025 needed for Democratic nomination

Clinton 1171 or 57.83%

Obama 1903 or 93.98%

Supporting Evidence: Source: ABC Delegate Tracker (www.abcnews.go.com)
Side: Yes!
0 points

She should if she cared at all whether a democrat besides herself wins. She doesn't and won't drop out because she has an infintesimally (sp?) small chance of pulling this out of her ass.

Side: Yes!
-1 points
Unless she wins in a landslide in Ohio AND Texas she has no chance of winning the majority of the popular delegates. If she allows herself to win based on super delegates than she proves she only cares about winning and not what the people want.
Side: Yes!
-1 points
There are a few simple facts that guide my argument here: Clinton is behind in the overall popular vote and pledged delegates and is very unlikely to catch up in either category and she needs an overwhelming amount of super-delegates in order to reach the 2,025 needed to clinch the nomination.
First of all, I think it would be very damaging to the Democratic Party if she were to win by a surge of super-delegate support. It would certainly play in the media as the party's elite "screwing over" the first viable black candidate. At the end of the primary contest, super-delegates should choose the candidate who receives the most overall votes.
Secondly, Clinton's remained presence in the race is going to hurt Obama in the fall general election campaign. A bloody fight for the next three months will have no result other than to make McCain a favorite for the presidency.
Side: Yes!
2 points
I think she should stick in the race. It would be great if she won the Democratic nomination because there's no way in hell she would be able to get elected President. She's way too polarizing of a figure.
Side: No!
Lindsey(25) Disputed
4 points
It bothers me when people want Hillary to win the nomination just so she can get beaten in the general election. I agree that she probably would not win the general election because she is such a polarizing figure, but I think the election that decides the leader of our country is too important to want the least qualified candidate to win the nomination just so she can be demolished. Go Obama!
Side: Yes!
2 points
Looks like Hillary is making a comeback, she should stay in the race it appears after all!
Supporting Evidence: Clinton wins Ohio, Texas primaries (www.cnn.com)
Side: No!
heelspider(109) Disputed
2 points

The above "supporting evidence" is proof that the press is not favoring Obama. Obama won Texas, not Clinton.

Side: Yes!
1 point
There's no reason for her to dropout yet. She can fight her way back into the competition with victories in Texas, Ohio and Penn. She may not have Obama's charisma but Hillary has experience (and her husband) on her side.
Side: No!
1 point
Good point, she should stay in the race until the bitter end, especially if she can win some more delegates tomorrow in Texas or Ohio.
Supporting Evidence: Clinton to stay in race (news.yahoo.com)
Side: No!
1 point
She definitely should stay in. Every minute she's in means more stress and division in the dems. They're destroying themselves. All the Republicans knew when their time was up and dropped out, but Hill doesn't realize she's doing our job for us with her muckraking and sarcastic comments about obama.
Side: No!
Lindsey(25) Disputed
2 points
The Republican race was MUCH closer than the Democrat race. When McCain emerged as the front-runner, there were few Republican candidates who could catch him. Hillary and Obama are only about a hundred pledged delegates apart, so I don't think Hillary's time is up in the same way it was for the other Republicans. As for her mudslinging, I think it's immature, but she's trying to win the nomination any way she can.
Side: Yes!
1 point
I agree. Let her keep dragging Obama down. Then, when he gets the nomination McCain won't have to do so much mudslinging because the damage will already have been done. McCain can then just focus promoting himself.
Side: No!
1 point

Why drop out now after all that money she has put in and its been a close race.... it be stupid to give up even if u know u would loose... giving up is worse than loosing.

NEXT!

Side: No!
1 point

I don't get it why people hate her so much. Bad choices, wrong decisions, shady past? She's a politician, all of them are like that. I would worry that Obama hasn't, perhaps he hasn't been one for a reasonable period of time.

Side: No!
1 point

Can't say I care sorry.

Side: No!
1 point

There's a reason each state has its own primary - the only reason a candidate should 'drop out' before a convention is if there's absolutely no way they could get the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.

Clearly, large numbers of Democrats qould prefer Hillary over Obama. There's no reason to disenfranchise them because he's presently ahead. If he had garnered the number of delegates required, then of course, but he hasn't.

That's said without any bias toward one or the other.

Now Ron Paul? It's time he faced the music.

Side: No!
1 point

If Hillary was leading, no one would be asking of Obama to quit? Think about it . . . it says a lot about what we think about race and gender in our country.

Side: Yes!
1 point

Hillary understands the game is 'last person standing.'

She has almost enough delegates for a nomination.

Something unforeseen (a skeleton in the closet, a brain tumor...) could waylay Obama, and the Democrats would still have a strong candidate in the running.

Side: No!

It is now 2015 and Hillary is running for President in 2016.

Side: No!