Will Hillary Clinton win the 2016 Election

My ArgumentsI. Democratic Competition"First, I used Joe Biden to oppose Hillary because he's the only Democrat with a household name. The other candidates are mostly unknown by the average person."My opponent doesn't seem to understand what it means to be a target. Because Clinton is well known just hurts her because other candidates are bound to attack her in debates. Hillary Clinton's name appeal in 2008 didn't win her the primaries and it won't help her again in 2016. In fact, some say she has hurt her chances: "Many Democrats would no doubt dearly love an uncontested primary amounting to the stately coronation of Clinton. It would spare them a spectacle akin to, say, the 2012 GOP primaries, in which another prohibitive front-runner came out on top, but only after a grueling process of fending off a seemingly endless procession of challengers. It may never get that bad for Clinton, but a tough fight for the nomination is far more likely than a contest in which no other contender shows up, and that’s true even if Democrats are practically unanimous that she will be the eventual winner.People throw themselves into presidential primaries for all sorts of reasons, only one of which is the hope and expectation that they will be on the ballot in the November quadrennial. In 1991, the Democratic Party was having an equivalent will-he-or-won’t-he over the intentions of New York Governor Mario Cuomo, whom polls indicated would enter the race as odds-on favorite for the nomination. The possibility that Cuomo would run didn’t stop an ambitious young governor from Arkansas from entering the contest. I’m pretty sure Bill Clinton was confident that he could be elected president one day. But I’m not sure he was confident that it would be in November 1992. His campaign in its early months had some of the aroma of a practice run. And a practice run can be a very valuable experience; Ronald Reagan in 1976 is an obvious example." [1] Finally, my opponent says:"Hard to say it's a perfect example when he went against several Republicans and didn't come out first, then 1-2 in Presidential Debates."I don't know what my opponent means. The reason Romney won the nomination was because he won the presidential debates against several candidates. It was a hard task for him to win: "Romney has been on record supporting abortion rights, gay rights, the individual mandate, tough gun laws and he said in his 1994 race against Ted Kennedy that he did not want to go back to the days of Reagan/Bush. Considering his past statements, one could argue that Romney is more moderate than McCain." [2]It's simple to understand how she completely loses the experience. One just has to look at President Obama. He lost his first debate with Romney because of a lack of debate experience. Romney had more recent experience from the primaries. Hillary Clinton's case is worse because she has not debated in eight years. Biden may have lost the 2012 VP debate, but that works to his advantage because he learns from his mistakes. This is much like Romney, who lost in 2008 but gained experience for 2012.II. Republican Competition"There must be a Republican leader, or no Republican values will be expressed through the media, if the Liberal Media creates the Republican image, then Conservatives will quickly become the minority."This is very conflicting. In the 2012 election, conservatives were a minority. They were only 35% of the electorate. In 2008, it was 34%. There have always been more liberals and moderates. [3,4]There are many historical cases in which a party with a lack of leadership won the election. In 1920, Warren Harding was in third, but at the convention the delegates switched to him. He won the presidency. In 1976, several Democrats were running and ultimately Jimmy Carter was picked. He moved on to win the presidency.My RefutationsI. Media InfluenceMy opponent cites Google imdages and tells me to:Notice, if you go to Google images and search I don't support the conservative media you'll find nothing. If you Google I don't support the liberal Media you'll find that there is a war going on versus the Liberal media. go ahead and try it Let's see what we get for both:https://www.google.com...'t+support+the+conservative+media&spell=1&sa=X&ei=PjOIUcPaMpTDywHVyICgDA&ved=0CFIQBSgAhttps://www.google.com...'t+support+the+conservative+media&spell=1&sa=X&ei=PjOIUcPaMpTDywHVyICgDA&ved=0CFIQBSgA#safe=active&hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=i+don%27t+support+the+liberal+media&oq=i+don%27t+support+the+liberal+media&gs_l=img.3...87047.89812.0.90000.14.13.0.0.0.0.484.1906.1j2j3j1j1.8.0...0.0...1c.1.12.img.IqhPI321Q7I&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.45960087,d.aWc&fp=c50bebd5cc81bb55&biw=1280&bih=619For the conservative catergory, I get pictures of people. The only thing telling me that the liberal catergory is different would be bumper stickers. That does not means there's war. Next my opponent says:"Battling your refutation, the media used to have almost no political identity, until the mid-Bush Junior era"However, when looking at the source it does not cover the mid-Bush Junior era. Instead it covers three elections. These are 1988, 1992, and 1996. My opponentn then fails and says that they have no political indentity, but it clearly shows in this graph that there is political indetity toward either the Republican or the Democrat. This does not sufficiently cover 1968 to the present. [5]Then my opponent says:"A poll of likely 2008 United States presidential election voters released on March 14, 2007 by Zogby International reports that 83 percent of those surveyed believe that there is a bias in the media, with 64 percent of respondents of the opinion that this bias favors liberals and 28 percent of respondents believing that this bias is conservative."If anything, this helps my case. It proves that voters know more than to listen to the liberal media to make their choices. This also helps my case of Republican dominance from 1968 to 2008. Overstimating"You have failed to address the point that you have a biased source within Elephant Watcher the went into issues with the editor of the website"It isn't biased because we do not see it's final election results. Instead, we see that Romney had a good chance to win after the convention in Tampa Bay, Florida. This where they stopped posting. It does not make them biased, it's fact that Romney was looking good at the convention.ConclusionMy opponent dropped a lot of arguments. He argued that Romney did not win a single battleground state, I countered, and he did not reply. He dropped the polls argument and finally the undecideds argument. Three arguments gone. I clearly have won here.Sources1. Lindberg, Tod. "Hillary Clinton Would Not 'Clear the Field' for 2016 | RealClearPolitics. N.p., 6 Apr. 2013. Web.2. Asche, David. "Mitt Romney Winning the Republican Nomination is Nothing Short of a Miracle ." PolicyMic. N.p., n.d. Web.3. http://en.wikipedia.org...4. http://en.wikipedia.org...5. http://en.wikipedia.org...