Progressives Should Support Hillary Clinton

1. TrumpThe Pro criticizes my use of polling to support my claim that Clinton is far ahead of Trump. It is a fact that no poll can tell us with absolute certainty what the results will be, polls do give us an indicator of how the election may turn out and how voters feel at the current time. The current polling trends and averages show Clinton as having a comfortable lead over Donald Trump. While this can change and Trump could be able to regain some momentum, he is currently losing momentum in the polls, while Clinton, Johnson, and Stein continue to gain [1]. This all come on the heels of the reported disarray within the Trump Campaign, bolstered by his dismissal of his Campaign manager [2], and the financial woes the Trump Campaign faces [3]. Many statisticians view betting odds as being more accurate predictors of elections than polling [4], however, these odds favour Hillary Clinton by a long margin, giving Clinton a 74.4% chance of winning, compared to Trump's 21.5% chance[5].These odds would indicate that Clinton will in all likelihood win the presidency, with or without progressives.The Pro does concede that Gore may have in fact won Florida, as the evidence I gave indicated, He then does an about face and claims Nader did not make things easier. The evidence he uses to suggest this, however, is a letter to the editor of the Washington Post from someone named Bill Yue. Bill Yue has no credentials and his letter simply brushes aside the other factors that existed in Florida, and in other states, and places all of the blame on Ralph Nader. My evidence actually shows that Gore, in actuality, did win Florida, thus showing Nader did not spoil the election and came from an academic study of the ballots cast in Florida, rather than an assumption based on simple addition. 2. Tipping Point ElectionThe Pro claims that Hillary Clinton is "working hard to elect a progressive Senate", yet he gives no evidence to support this claim. In addition, this argument is not even relevant to this debate, as the resolution states that "Progressives should support Hillary Clinton", not "Progressives should support whomever Hillary Clinton supports".The Pro then states that the spoiler effect would be stronger in Congressional races. While this is true, it is not in any way relevant to this debate.The Pro has therefore conceded my argument.3. Clinton's Progressive CredentialsThe pro provides a definition of Progressive which I do not entirely disagree with, however, he fails to show how Clinton is aligned with this definition. This definition, also, does not dispute my claims that a progressive cannot support Militarism and Neoliberalism, which I have shown Clinton is a proponent of. The Pro has so far failed to respond to this.The pro alleges that I have not addressed Hillary Clinton's efforts to "advance progressive causes". When compared to the actions that I have highlighted, these efforts are minute footnotes on her resume. In the senate, she may have spearheaded several investigations and helped set up programs to aid women and children, her record on foreign policy, her promotion of Neoliberal economic policies and her close ties to Wall Street disqualify her as a progressive.2. Lesser of Two EvilsWhile I may not have addressed morality specifically in my argument, I have argued that voting for the lesser evil is wrong as you are in effect voting against your own beliefs. Hypocrisy is itself and immoral act and thus voting for the lesser evil is, therefore, immoral.The Pro also accuses me of downplaying the importance of our vote, however, give the odds, you vote is unlikely to sway the result of the election, something the Pro has conceded. The Pros final argument on this topic is that a Landslide makes for a more powerful politician and sends a stronger message.While either a vote for Jill Stein or Hillary Clinton, or even Gary Johnson for that matter, sends the message that you reject Trump's pseudo-fascist ideology, a vote for Jill Stein is also a rejection of Hillary Clinton's Neoliberalism and Militarism. It sends a message that people support progressive policies, like ending free trade deals like NAFTA and rejecting new ones like TPP and TTIP, canceling student loan debt, ending foreign wars, single payer healthcare, abolishing corporate personhood and ending our dependence on fossil fuels. Third parties raise the important issues which the major parties ignore. When third parties get more votes, they have a greater ability to impact the discourse and can even prompt action on these issues. The likelihood is greater when third parties get more votes. [6]3. Jill SteinSeeing as the Pro ran out of space for this contention, I shall extend this argument.Sources[1] http://www.realclearpolitics.com...[2] http://www.independent.co.uk...[3] http://www.motherjones.com...[4] http://liberalarts.utexas.edu...[5] https://electionbettingodds.com...[6] http://chnm.gmu.edu...