Instigator / Pro
Americandebater24's avatar
0
Americandebater24
1480
rating
17
debates
52.94%
won
Topic
#3699

Donold Tump will most likely not win in the 2024 election

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Tags
Politics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
2
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
Lair77's avatar
0
Lair77
1470
rating
4
debates
25.0%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#1
In 2020 Donold Trump lost his election to Joe Biden, rather than accept his defeat with humility and grace, Donald trump lied and claimed the election was stolen due to voter fraud. However, these claims were eventually proven to be false. Unfortunately, they were enough to spur thousands of Americans to commit treason and insurrection on a day we know as January 6th.  Which he not only did Nothing to stop, but actively encouraged it. he was even quoted as far as saying “These were peaceful people; these were great people.” 

To top it all off he was found Red handed mind you with CLASSIFIED documents that he illegally stole from the white house, which were found when the FBI legally searched his place of residence. Trump has since tried to claim that he "declassified them" to justify his possession of said documents prior to him leaving the white house, unfortunately for trump however as legal Egal explains in this video, whether he declassified them or not, it remains a felony to take them regardless of his reasons. fun fact as well trump is the one who changed it from a misdemeanor to a felony.

And if all of this was not enough legal trouble for the former President, Trump's own CFO has recently been jailed for tax evasion and has not only pled guilty to it but took a plea deal, that involves him testifying against trumps company, for a shorter sentence. Trump Organization CFO Allen Weissenberg will testify against company (nydailynews.com)

So, to summarize. Trump likely faces charges for

  • inciting insurrection
  • tax evasion
  • stealing documents from the white house
All of which are Felony level crimes, and while it's true a felon can still run for office, there has been no historical time its ever happened. 

My last point is that even if we ignore the lengthy legal issues that trump is caught up in as reasons to why he wouldn't fare well in a campaign. Most Americans did not vote for him to remain in office so if he can't win a reelection in 2020, its highly unlikely they will vote for him again 4 years later. This is especially true when you consider the near endless image damaging ammunition, his rivals would be able to use as a result of the Aforementioned Legal troubles, that they can and will use against him, in such a campaign.

Therefore, based on the evidence that I have submitted, I stand affirmed in my argument that Donald trump will not win in 2024. 






Lair77's avatar
Lair77
Con
#2
My stance is that 2024 could possibly be a competitive election.  With the amount of uncertainty in these unique times, and all the variables that could change, it's too early to declare that either candidate has the upperhand.  I believe the odds are 50-50, give or take, and could shift either way over time.  

(Note: My argument is not about Trump or Biden's merits or demerits.  It only regards their chances of winning.  I intend for my tone to be politically neutral)

Both Biden and Trump have disadvantages working against them.  Since you outlined Trump's potential disadvantages, it would be fair of me to outline Biden's potential disadvantages in a 2024 election

1) Biden's approval rating
  • Your argument that is that if Trump couldn't win in 2020, how does he have a chance of winning in 2024?  Because Biden is unpopular too. 
  • Biden narrowly won battleground states in 2020.  States like Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. came down to a <1-2% margin.  Some even came down to 0.25-0.5%.  This was when Biden had a 50%+ approval rating. What would those numbers look like now with Biden's approval rating in the low 40's?
  • In 2020, Trump had negative approval while Biden had positive approval, and even then, battleground states were close.  Now both Biden and Trump have negative approval, I'd expect the gap to narrow either further - not widen.
  • Trump is capable of winning without his turnout increasing, if Biden's turnout decreases.

2) The electoral system favors Republicans
  • Trump is capable of winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote (as he did in 2016).  But Democrats have only won electoral votes when they've won the popular vote.  Either party can win with a substantial advantage, but in borderline cases, Democrats are at a disadvantage.
  • Florida, a once purple state, is now solid red.  It's shifted rightward the past several years, giving Republicans an extra 30 electoral votes.   Whereas the states Biden made gains in (GA, AZ, etc.) aren't solid red.
3) The business cycle
  • When recessions and periods of growth occur can be a crucial factor in elections.  Take the example of Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush.  Both presidents had a recession in their first term.  But the 1983 recession recovered months before the election, giving Reagan a strong economy to run on.  Whereas with HW Bush, the recovery, unluckily for him, happened after he lost the election.
  • Currently, the United States has high inflation and the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates in an attempt to reduce it.  Recessions tend to follow periods of high inflation.  If the economy recovers quickly in 2023 or early 2024, Biden has an advantage.  But if an recession lasts too long or the recovery too slow, Biden has a disadvantage.
  • There is a lot of uncertainty in these times.  A large pandemic followed by high inflation and an upcoming recession before is without precedent.  We have no idea how the American public will respond to this or how it will inform their voting patterns.
Counter arguments

Trump has a track record of findings not sticking to him.  The Russian 2016 election interference investigation led nowhere.   He survived 2 impeachments.  It seems like every year he has a major scandal and each one seems to finally be the one that will stick, but so far, none of them have.  It seems like every year there's a scandal which is significant enough to convict him, and then he doesn't get convicted. 

Would exactly would it take for Trump to be forced to a trial?  Can you define any specific parameters where X happening will cause Y result?  If the FBI raiding his home and many of his associates being imprisoned isn't enough, then what is? 

Secondly, even if a trial were to happen, for a such a highly publicized and significant case, would it happen in a timely manner?  What if the trial were happen after the election?

Just-World Fallacy

  • You have an assumption that just because a person does wrong, that the public would not vote for them.  There are countless times that Trump has done and said things in 2016 that "should have" have been the end for him and it wasn't.
  • You have an assumption that just because a political figures breaks laws, that they will be punished for it.   In a perfect world, yes.  But it's also possible, that powerful people commit crimes and don't get punished for them.
So far, Trump has a 50% winrate in politics. He won when voter turnout was lower.  He won when voter turnout was higher.  But both of those elections had close battleground states. He's well capable of losing but also well capable of winning.  But in any event, 

It would not serve Democrats well to underestimate his chances of winning.  In 2016, Democrats made the mistake of underestimating his popularity in rust belt states, which caused them to lose the election.  If they want to win, they should not make this mistake again.




Round 2
Americandebater24's avatar
Americandebater24
Pro
#3
My stance is that 2024 could possibly be a competitive election.  With the amount of uncertainty in these unique times, and all the variables that could change, it's too early to declare that either candidate has the upper hand.  I believe the odds are 50-50, give or take, and could shift either way over time.  
con claims the chances of trump winning are 50/50 yet gives no evidence to substate so that's hearsay.

(Note: My argument is not about Trump or Biden's merits or demerits.  It only regards their chances of winning.  I intend for my tone to be politically neutral)
understood.

  • Your argument that is that if Trump couldn't win in 2020, how does he have a chance of winning in 2024?  Because Biden is unpopular too. 
While I don't deny Bidens popularity leaves much to be desired, saying Trump has a chance to win because "Bidens unpopular too" seems a bit fictitious in nature considering he was more popular then trump in 2020 at least amongst voters.  

  • Biden narrowly won battleground states in 2020.  States like Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. came down to a <1-2% margin.  Some even came down to 0.25-0.5%.  This was when Biden had a 50%+ approval rating. What would those numbers look like now with Biden's approval rating in the low 40's?
Con does not list any sources to validate this "narrow victory" that they claim. regardless i fail to see the point in Cons argument seeing as the final vote count in the 2020 election was 306 for Bidden and only 235 for Trump which means it was a landslide for Biden in terms of electoral votes which decide the presidency.

  • In 2020, Trump had negative approval while Biden had positive approval, and even then, battleground states were close.  Now both Biden and Trump have negative approval, I'd expect the gap to narrow further - not widen.
  • Cons argument centers on the idea that Biden and Donald will be the only choices left for the nation, but it is yet to be seen whether either one of them will win their respective primaries, there for its just pure speculation. 

  • Trump is capable of winning without his turnout increasing, if Biden's turnout decreases.
Con provides nothing to validate this claim.



2) The electoral system favors Republicans
  • Trump is capable of winning the electoral vote without winning the popular vote (as he did in 2016).  But Democrats have only won electoral votes when they've won the popular vote.  Either party can win with a substantial advantage, but in borderline cases, Democrats are at a disadvantage
Trump did win without the popular vote this is true, but it seems that Con is under the mistaken impression that popular votes actually have a factor on the actual elections which is false. The Popular vote is nothing more than a statistic so while it will grant you its usual, you can win an overall election and still not have enough popular votes to match. 

  • Florida, a once purple state, is now solid red.  It's shifted rightward the past several years, giving Republicans an extra 30 electoral votes.   Whereas the states Biden made gains in (GA, AZ, etc.) aren't solid red.
The con has a valid point that the state of Florida has a long history of being a swing state, but its irrelevant because no matter what color a state goes to it will go for democrats or republicans.  

3) The business cycle
  • When recessions and periods of growth occur, it can be a crucial factor in elections.  Take the example of Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush.  Both presidents had a recession in their first term.  But the 1983 recession recovered months before the election, giving Reagan a strong economy to run on.  Whereas with HW Bush, the recovery, unluckily for him, happened after he lost the election.
I can somewhat see Cons point that the economy can have a hedge factor on votes during an election, but what they fail to realize is that Trumps chances are not Soley dependent on economics or the feelings of potential voters, there are legal matters as well that render his examples irrelevant.

  • Currently, the United States has high inflation, and the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates in an attempt to reduce it.  Recessions tend to follow periods of high inflation.  If the economy recovers quickly in 2023 or early 2024, Biden has an advantage.  But if a recession lasts too long or the recovery too slow, Biden has a disadvantage.
The cons argument is somewhat logical, but economics are not the only factor and we are not in 2023 or 24 yet, so wether we recover in these years or Biden gets the credit/blame for the outcome has yet to be seen.


  • There is a lot of uncertainty in these times.  A large pandemic followed by high inflation and an upcoming recession before is without precedent.  We have no idea how the American public will respond to this or how it will inform their voting patterns.
I agree we live in uncertain times, but this works against Cons argument since he has made certainties of particular events and is now saying "we don't know" which is contrary in nature. 

Trump has a track record of findings not sticking to him.  The Russian 2016 election interference investigation led nowhere.   He survived 2 impeachments.  It seems like every year he has a major scandal and each one seems to finally be the one that will stick, but so far, none of them have.  It seems like every year there's a scandal which is significant enough to convict him, and then he doesn't get convicted. 
Con forgets that The Russian 2016 accusation had no basis other than hearsay, which is not the case for anything i listed. He did survive to impeachments, but this was due to republican's controlling the senate, had democrats had control of both the house and senate he would not have been so lucky. The Cons argument here is basically "they haven't gotten him in the past" and to this I say evidence is stronger than ever and it only takes one inditement.  
Would exactly would it take for Trump to be forced to a trial?  Can you define any specific parameters where X happening will cause Y result?  If the FBI raiding his home and many of his associates being imprisoned isn't enough, then what is? 
All it requires is that the DOJ agree to indite him. Be it for the insurrection, tax evasion, or the Law he personally modified and broke I cant say.
Secondly, even if a trial were to happen, for such a highly publicized and significant case, would it happen in a timely manner?  What if the trial were to happen after the election?
Firstly, if you are running a campaign to get elected the LAST thing you would want is the public to become aware of it, secondly weather you campaigned or not would depend entirely on if the courts allowed you to make bail, then you would not be allowed to leave the state that has custody of your case, which would prevent you from campaigning and gather support. Then you would have to hope that you don't get found guilty and that by the time the trial was concluded you had enough time to run around the country trying to get support and salvage your damaged reputation that your rivals had spent their time tearing apart while you had limited contact. And then hope they will still elect you.

An arrest during a campaign is for all intents and purposes the death of any hope to successfully bid for office.

Just-World Fallacy
  • You have an assumption that just because a person does wrong, that the public would not vote for them.  There are countless times that Trump has done and said things in 2016 that "should have" have been the end for him and it wasn't.
Reputation means everything in elections and if a candidate is found to not respect democracy (January 6th) shows no integrity (tax evasion) or worst of all a law breaker (stealing classified documents) then people won't elect them. all Trump did in 2016 was run his mouth, which is not a crime nor a grantee to loss at an election. so, Cons point is fictitious in nature 

  • You have an assumption that just because a political figures breaks laws, that they will be punished for it.   In a perfect world, yes.  But it's also possible, that powerful people commit crimes and don't get punished for them.
Cons point here is speculation, Trump is longer president nor powerful, he is only wealthy and as the FBI clearly showed doesn't put him above the law nor has Con proven that to be possible.

So far, Trump has a 50%-win rate in politics. He won when voter turnout was lower.  He won when voter turnout was higher.  But both of those elections had close battleground states. He's well capable of losing but also well capable of winning.  But in any event, 
Con claims trumps chances of winning are 50% but provides no documentation, secondly whether voter turnout is high or low is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is getting the most votes regardless of how wide or narrow.
It would not serve Democrats well to underestimate his chances of winning.  In 2016, Democrats made the mistake of underestimating his popularity in rust belt states, which caused them to lose the election.  If they want to win, they should not make this mistake again.
I agree they underestimated him in 2016, but that was in 2016 circumstances have changed.

The con Ignores the evidence i provided, while asserting claims without providing documentations.

Lair77's avatar
Lair77
Con
#4
Apologies, by 50-50, I meant colloquially, as in back-and-forth, competitive.  "Most likely" is a strong statement too.  If arbitrary decided odds are irrelevant, they're irrelevant.  But otherwise, what does most likely mean, 85-90%?

    "Bidens unpopular too" seems a bit fictitious in nature considering he was more popular then trump in 2020 at least amongst voters.  
    Was.  Past tense.  But Biden's popularity declined.  Also, their positions are reversed.  In 2020, Trump presided over domestic concerns and disapproval over his covid response.  Now covid is mitigated, it's Biden contending with domestic concerns (economy, inflation) to public disapproval.


      Con does not list any sources to validate this "narrow victory" that they claim. regardless i fail to see the point in Cons argument seeing as the final vote count in the 2020 election was 306 for Bidden and only 235 for Trump
      Electoral votes are almost entirely winner-take-all.  It's disingenuous to use the final count to indicate how close an election is when the swing states were very close.  Georgia's margin was 0.2%   Arizona 0.3%.   Wisconsin 0.7%.  Pennsylvania 1.2%.  These margins aren't comfortable enough for Biden to lose ~8-10% approval rating on.  If Biden were even slightly less popular in those states, the 306-235 turns into 289-249 for Trump.  Consequentially, he won and that's that, but if we're speculating, which we are, and we're looking at what could go wrong, these breakpoints matter.

      Trump was able to stay within these tight margins during a pandemic with a botched response, paused economy and low approval ratings.  Isn't the fact that he didn't lose those states by an 5%+ a testament to his campaigning skill and political prowess?

        Cons argument centers on the idea that Biden and Donald will be the only choices left for the nation,
        Do you have evidence that either candidate faces significant opposition?  Biden is running for re-election, so if an incumbent is being seriously contest, that's likely a sign of party reversal (i.e. 1968, 1976).


          economics are not the only factor and we are not in 2023 or 24 yet, so whether we recover in these years or Biden gets the credit/blame for the outcome has yet to be seen.
          While the growth of the economy isn't the only factor, it has been a litmus test for whether an incumbent wins or loses an election for virtually every election in the past 100+ years.  And if 2023-2024 is too far away, it's a bit too strong to say Trump is most likely to not win.


          if you are running a campaign to get elected the LAST thing you would want is the public to become aware of it
          Trump has proven to be good at manipulating media attention.  Is he not proof of "publicity is publicity"?  He can handily redirect the attention to other people, such as the wrongdoing of his opponents.  He can even deflect some criticism from himself by making other controversial statements that galvanize his base.

          Reputation means everything in elections and if a candidate is found to not respect democracy (January 6th) shows no integrity (tax evasion) or worst of all a law breaker (stealing classified documents) then people won't elect them.
          The public has already known his character.  And the findings of him in recent years are consistent with his behavior in previous years.  Wouldn't people who judge their candidates by a moral standard have not voted for him in 2020.  While Trump did lose to a once-popular Biden in 2020, Trump's number of votes increased from 2016 to 2020.   Trump's base of supporters are willing to overlook these things, or at the least, they consider the other party as the greater evil. 

            Trump is longer president nor powerful, he is only wealthy and as the FBI clearly showed doesn't put him above the law nor has Con proven that to be possible.
            So far, no government agency has actually forced him to trial.  They've found evidence.  They've been finding evidence for years.   What are they waiting for?  And regarding his taxes, haven't they been accessible to the government for a while; if they wanted to sue him, why didn't do they do it by now? 

            You neglected my point about the liklihood of it taking years for the case to resolve and him potentially using the office of the presidency to protect himself. 

            I'm open to a viewpoint change, but how quickly can we expect this process to happen?  How long should we expect this to take?  How can we quantify what the DOJ or FBI would do?  Right now, we have lots of evidence, but no action.