• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was liberalism rejected in the midterms?

Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?

  • Im a right leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 14 21.5%

  • Im a right leaning American, no.

    Votes: 12 18.5%

  • Im a left leaning American, yes.

    Votes: 3 4.6%

  • Im a left leaning American, no.

    Votes: 32 49.2%

  • Im a not American, yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Im a not American, no.

    Votes: 4 6.2%
  • Total voters
    65
God no. When Democrats actually show some balls and run as liberals they usually win. Instead the Democrats have moved more and more right and are now getting their ass kicked.
 
US Conservative said:
Theres just many logical shortcomings in that post. To hash it out would require me spending the rest of my morning explaining, it would be a waste of my time. Im just not willing to do that.
Click to expand...

I don't see what it was about Moot's post that was so over-the-top crazy, but if you think it had shortcomings then debate them like an adult. Otherwise it seems like you've just started a flame-bait thread: you already "knew" the answer to your question, and you're just here to laugh at anybody with a different perspective and refuse to offer up any debate. It's immature.
 
jet57 said:
Sure; showing up and getting in there is being energized to participate. I think that not showing up and participating with your team is a way of punishing your team - because you don't like them for some reason - pick one. Pundits and journalists have been saying however that when there is very low voter turnout, as in this case, the Republicans usually win, which is what has happened. The same thing happened to Clinton in '96: he had signed NAFTA and there was some other stuff ( I can't remember now: Lewenski came in '98), and Clinton had to live with it too. Same thing happened to GW (no majority for him) and Reagn had to deal with a split.

Nothing big to me. Like I said; there's going to be a test now and that will lead the Repulicans into 2016. Hillary I'm afraid is going to be a shoe in, so what she gets will be very interesting.
Click to expand...

The only problem is that if they just stay home then it's that much harder to understand their motives. But it's sill to debate these semantics -- we can both agree that regardless of the voters' motives, the political candidates were certainly punished.

Putting Hillary in as a candidate is a bad idea. She already had her shot and I don't see how she's going to be significantly better the next time around.
 
Nope, no more than when it invariably happens to the Republicans in a couple of years, it will be a condemnation of "conservatism". In a two-party system, they aren't voting for or against the political philosophy, they're voting against the party in power. The philosophy doesn't matter and since the American public has shown that it doesn't think either party is worth a damn, it will just vacillate back and forth.
 
I am an American and I say yes.

Economic ? Failed. Change.
Foreign ? Failed. Change.
Domestic ? Failed. Change.

Only liberals in the fringe can fail to see this being willfully ignorant.
 
Moot said:
It is more likely that the right wing's definition of a liberal is a myth.



1. Obama was re-elected in 2012 and hasn't really done anything since to make the mid-term election against liberalism. That would suggest the country is more liberal than it is conservative but that a lot of liberals didn't vote in the mid-term.

2. Liberal referendums such as minimum wage, legalizing pot, abortion, gun control were overwhelmingly voted for and the conservative ideas, issues and values were rejected.


This election was very weird. It seems that money won the election, not the people.

In my state of Utah, the Democrat, Doug Owen only had 100K to campaign with but his Republican contender, Mia Love got a lot of outside money and had over 4 million in campaign funds. Mia Love only won by about 4K votes. That's not an overwhelming victory by any standards. Dems in my area are feeling kinda bad because we didn't donate more to Owens campaign so he could've at least have had a commercial. That might have made the difference and put him over the top.
Click to expand...

You got one part
 
Cardinal said:
You do understand how a "refutation of liberalism" and being "on the wrong track" are two entirely different concepts, right?
Click to expand...

Not in this election. There's a long laundry list of sordid activities Obama and the liberals have been caught / engaged in that the American people revolted against.

For the House Dems to have a nut case like Nancy Pelosi for their pick-of-the-litter leader just shows how absolutely debased their party is. And Obama is her intellectual equal, which isn't saying much.
 
Logicman said:
Not in this election. There's a long laundry list of sordid activities Obama and the liberals have been caught / engaged in that the American people revolted against.

For the House Dems to have a nut case like Nancy Pelosi for their pick-of-the-litter leader just shows how absolutely debased their party is. And Obama is her intellectual equal, which isn't saying much.
Click to expand...

And can you understand how everything you've just said can still be different from liberalism?
 
People have a lot of different reasons for how they vote. I vote against unions quite often, for example, so when unions are funneling vast sums of money to a particular candidate's campaign, I vote against that candidate. Admittedly it is a lesser of two evils approach which in principle I abhor, so other times if there isn't a compelling issue underlying the candidates, I will vote on principle and for an independent/third party.

Other people vote based on abortion or gay marriage or whatever the hell stupid issue.
 
Probably a rejection of Obama, not necessarily liberalism. I don't consider him a liberal to begin with. His appointing wall streeters like geithner and summers, and anti labor people like pritzker to important positions. His proposals for austerity and putting liberal programs like social security on the chopping , something even a republican wouldn't do. Ignoring single payer and pushing through ACA another indication. Wanting to legalize and give work permits to millions of illegal immigrants especially at a time when jobs are scarce to begin with? So I voted I'm a left leaning American and no, not a rejection of liberalism.
 
Cardinal said:
No, it couldn't possibly be a terrible campaign and uninspiring candidates. It must be liberalism. And pay absolutely no attention to the fact that the gained seats were in almost exclusively red states.
Click to expand...

I agree. They are stretching the data to try to pretend this is against liberalism.

I think if the Dems had done a lot more talking about their accomplishments - lower deficit, lower unemployment, stronger economy, many more people covered by health insurance, etc - they would have done a lot better than they did by running from them.
 
paddymcdougall said:
I agree. They are stretching the data to try to pretend this is against liberalism.
Click to expand...

Right. When California, Massachusetts or New York goes red, then we'll talk.

paddymcdougall said:
I think if the Dems had done a lot more talking about their accomplishments - lower deficit, lower unemployment, stronger economy, many more people covered by health insurance, etc - they would have done a lot better than they did by running from them.
Click to expand...

It would certainly have been a better strategy than the Democratic candidates saying "Obama? What's an 'Obama?' I didn't vote with Obama. Oh no no no, I don't think I've even met Obama!" Gawd...
 
Cardinal said:
The only problem is that if they just stay home then it's that much harder to understand their motives. But it's sill to debate these semantics -- we can both agree that regardless of the voters' motives, the political candidates were certainly punished.

Putting Hillary in as a candidate is a bad idea. She already had her shot and I don't see how she's going to be significantly better the next time around.
Click to expand...

I don't care for Hillary; but she's gonna run. She'll win too - it's the momentum. I think that teh Republicans have done themselves in for a while with respect to the presidency. From Reagan to GW Bush the Republicans have done nothing but give people a very bad time; the wages and benefits have been suppressed, we are all but workaholics in this country now. The competition in the job market is strctly an employer's game these days due to the near destruction of the trades and shipping of our work overseas, not to mention the deregulated economy and the idolizing of the golden calf (bull market) that has crashed this economy. I don't think Hillary is going to be much different, but I think that people are ready to see what a woman will do: particulary one closely connected to Sen Elizabeth Warren who I find to be a breath of fresh on target academic genius air when it comes to ecnomics in this country.
 
Fletch said:
I thought the liberal argument was that we already do live in a society rife with poverty and social inequality.
Click to expand...

We do. However, that poverty has been ameliorated because of the social programs conservatives complain about. Do you disagree? Or are you going with the same nonsensical argument that we're poorer and we are worse off than 87% black poverty, through the roof crime rates and what was basically an illiterate society?

Personally, I believe a society structured on rights, limited government, individual liberty and voluntary exchange and interaction is far preferable to anything you might have read.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what I said.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
Oh, so my property rights are irrelevant? So instead of coming up with an idea that doesn't abuse people to help others it's best to just say my property rights are irrelevant because people need help. Yeah, **** that. Tell me again, why is issuing violence onto people to help others justified behavior? Go on, tell me.
Click to expand...

Your hyperbole is noted. However, even Libertarian scholars agree that a society with large amounts of poverty leads to anomie. :shrug:
 
US Conservative said:
Out of wedlock births were much lower and marriage rates were much higher before WW2. The single biggest predictor of poverty is single parenthood. Now the state is the husband. Hows that turning out?
Click to expand...

And yet, we've never been richer as a society. Or do you think we were better off before the 1960s? Please tell me you do.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
God no. When Democrats actually show some balls and run as liberals they usually win. Instead the Democrats have moved more and more right and are now getting their ass kicked.
Click to expand...

Really? Do please tell me more about how often this happens.
'Cause I'm struggling to think of any examples of this, where the more liberal the positions a politician takes the greater the chances of his being elected.
 
jet57 said:
Sure; showing up and getting in there is being energized to participate. I think that not showing up and participating with your team is a way of punishing your team - because you don't like them for some reason - pick one. Pundits and journalists have been saying however that when there is very low voter turnout, as in this case, the Republicans usually win, which is what has happened. The same thing happened to Clinton in '96: he had signed NAFTA and there was some other stuff ( I can't remember now: Lewenski came in '98), and Clinton had to live with it too. Same thing happened to GW (no majority for him) and Reagn had to deal with a split.

Nothing big to me. Like I said; there's going to be a test now and that will lead the Repulicans into 2016. Hillary I'm afraid is going to be a shoe in, so what she gets will be very interesting.
Click to expand...

I think it's far too early to say that Hillary's going to be a shoe in, and in addition to that, she's got an incredibly long and heavy caboose of skeletons in her closet she's gotta drag across the finish line; finally she's going to be quite a bit beyond the media age when most presidential candidates run for the presidency. All that, doesn't seem to me, to add up to being 'a shoe-in'.
 
jet57 said:
I don't care for Hillary; but she's gonna run. She'll win too - it's the momentum.
Click to expand...


I just don't see it, but okay.

jet57 said:
I think that teh Republicans have done themselves in for a while with respect to the presidency. From Reagan to GW Bush the Republicans have done nothing but give people a very bad time; the wages and benefits have been suppressed, we are all but workaholics in this country now. The competition in the job market is strctly an employer's game these days due to the near destruction of the trades and shipping of our work overseas, not to mention the deregulated economy and the idolizing of the golden calf (bull market) that has crashed this economy. I don't think Hillary is going to be much different, but I think that people are ready to see what a woman will do: particulary one closely connected to Sen Elizabeth Warren who I find to be a breath of fresh on target academic genius air when it comes to ecnomics in this country.
Click to expand...

The republicans have done themselves in by isolating themselves demographically, which is why you're going to see an epic, continued push for voter ids in the coming years.
 
US Conservative said:
In some ways yes, and in some ways no.
Click to expand...

Ah - what indications do you have that liberal programs have failed? Is this kind of the same nonsense argument where you argued that war is peace? Because by every indicator, even our poor people are richer than those in any society that doesn't have social programs. Do you disagree? If you do. Please tell us how. Black poverty is at best a 3rd of what it was before social programs. Literacy is a non-issue (unlike the 1930s). Students have the opportunity to enroll in school without worrying about race or gender. Where exactly have these programs failed? Oh, you mean they didn't eliminate poverty entirely? Oh no! You mean to say that poverty exists no matter the political system? I bet it took you a lot to come up with that.

Look, the programs have worked. Women aren't restricted from college, blacks can go to any university they please, even Libertarians admit that poor white people in the US have access to most methods of communication. How were all these people faring before the programs? Better? Nonsense. The Harlem Renaissance was a blip in the grand tapestry of things. It died before these programs even got underway. So no, liberal social programs haven't failed. What has happened is that there is a neoliberal part of society hellbent on proclaiming we were much better off before the 1960s. That's simply not true and the fact that you can't even come up with a relevant indicator of poverty is all the proof I need.
 
eohrnberger said:
I think it's far too early to say that Hillary's going to be a shoe in, and in addition to that, she's got an incredibly long and heavy caboose of skeletons in her closet she's gotta drag across the finish line; finally she's going to be quite a bit beyond the media age when most presidential candidates run for the presidency. All that, doesn't seem to me, to add up to being 'a shoe-in'.
Click to expand...

Shes old news. She's an old face. She's more of the same old same old. But if the left wants to roll with it, thats good news for her opposition.
 
eohrnberger said:
I think it's far too early to say that Hillary's going to be a shoe in, and in addition to that, she's got an incredibly long and heavy caboose of skeletons in her closet she's gotta drag across the finish line; finally she's going to be quite a bit beyond the media age when most presidential candidates run for the presidency. All that, doesn't seem to me, to add up to being 'a shoe-in'.
Click to expand...

I think that the only ones that are going to care about any skeletons will be the Republicans, Fox News and right-wing radio. Nobody's perfect. I think that she has to offer is going to be a lot more different than the usual right-wing.
 
jet57 said:
I think that the only ones that are going to care about any skeletons will be the Republicans, Fox News and right-wing radio. Nobody's perfect. I think that she has to offer is going to be a lot more different than the usual right-wing.
Click to expand...

I think you are discounting how serious these skeletons in her closet are, not to mention her failed performance as SOS.
 
Hatuey said:
We do. However, that poverty has been ameliorated because of the social programs conservatives complain about. Do you disagree? Or are you going with the same nonsensical argument that we're poorer and we are worse off than 87% black poverty, through the roof crime rates and what was basically an illiterate society?



That has nothing to do with what I said.
Click to expand...
What makes poverty disappear is capitalism. All social programs do is transfer around the wealth that capitalism has produced. So no, I don't credit social programs with reducing poverty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom