Resolved: 2012 Obama would beat 2008 Obama in a presidential race 1 on 1

Due to length issues, I will not be quoting my opponent in responses. They will be seprarated by dashes.----I don't believe my opponent has disproven the idea that most people don't run for office because they cannot win. There are plenty of local, state, and federal politicians that won't run because they have no chance of winning against a highly-funded group of 5 or 6 main GOP/Democrat candidates. To give an example, let's look at a few senate races. In 2008 Arkansas Democrat Mark Pyror, a popular politician, was unnoposed for the statewide senate election. No Republican opted to challenge him. The only challenger was a Green Party (a socialist/environmentalist party to the left of the Democrats) candidate, who managed to get 20.0% of the vote.[1] Keep in mind that, at the federal level, Arkansas is a very red state that only gave 38% of the vote to Obama in 2008 and that voted to reject gay marriage with 75% of the vote.[2] Similarly, in 2010 in South Carolina (another red state), popular Republican Jim DeMint won re-election with 61% of the vote. Due to the incompetence of Alvin Greene, the Democrat nominee, Green Party candidate Tom Clements was able to secure over 9% of the vote.[3] Protest candidates are always an option, even if they present a disagreement from the view of the voter.-----You underestimate the power of the conservative movement. In 2010 the Tea Party was able to screw over the GOP chances of winning by nominating Christine O'Donnell as opposed to Mike Castle, a very popular centrist Republican.[4] Had the Republicans nominated Castle, he could very well have won the election.[5] Putting Bush v. Kerry may, on the surface, seem like a good argument but that election was between a mediocre conservative and a medicre liberal, not two liberals. Republicans have shown they are more than willing to nominate unelectable conservative candidates, and there is no reason why they could not at least do that here.-----I don't think this is a very convincing rebuttal to my argument, but I will let the jury decide this one. If my argument is clearly incorrect, it should be simple to disprove it.-----Who would kill them? Whose to say liberal, socialist, moderate, Neo-nazi, communist, or other person might not decide to run? And whose to say they couldn't be an effective protest vote?-----You can always vote for a dead person, and electors can indeed cast votes for dead people. In the 1872 presidental election, major candidate Horace Greeley died before the electoral college could vote; he still received 66 votes.[6]-----I could very well have argued in that manner, but the fact of the matter is it much easier to disprove at a technical level. If Pro dislikes argument he should have been more specific as to the conditions of such an election.-----In conclusion, I wish to make two more points to augment my main ones. The first is quite obvious - in any election between two people of the same name, there would be obvious confusion as to which is which. Add that to the idea that it could indeed split the liberal vote and, even assuming not everyone is killed, that leaves a much better chance of a split vote.Second, according to Doctor Emmett Brown (known more commonly as 'Doc Brown'), a leading expert in the field of time travel, any close encounters between the two Obamas could be "disastrous". Doc Brown postulates that there are two distinct possibilites - that such a meeting would merely induce shock and knock one out, or that the encounter could "create a time paradox, the results of which could cause a chain reaction that would unravel the very fabric of the space time continuum, and destroy the entire universe". Doc Brown assures us that this is a worst-case scenario, and that a destruction of just our galaxy could be more likely.[7] However, either would be sufficient to end an election pematurely. As debates are fundamental aspects of any election, there are at least four chances this could happen - the three presidential debates, plus the VP debate.In conclusion, my opponent has ceded a time machine is the most likely scenario an election could take place. While he objects to the idea everyone must die, I believe it is very obvious that, to establish a purely one-on-one election (a fundamental point of this debate, as even a single other candidate violates the conditions applied), every potential candidate must die, and any person in the United States is a potential candidate. Further, the research of Doctor Emmett Brown suggests that any face-to-face meetings could result in the end of the world, which would quite obviously end the election before a winner is decided. I believe I have established that, per the conditions of the debate, a win by 2012 Obama would be impossible, or at the very least improbable. Remember that, per agreement, any possible result other than a 2012 Obama in favors Con.Thank you, and vote Con!References:1: http://en.wikipedia.org...2: http://en.wikipedia.org...3: http://en.wikipedia.org...4: http://en.wikipedia.org...5: http://www.politicsdaily.com...6: http://en.wikipedia.org...7: Back to the Future II