• 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
Yes yes, we know - keeping poverty at a level that is historically unheard of in the country's history makes it a bust. Now we know, the poverty rate dropping 50% in 60 years bothers you, but I don't know why? Poverty rates dropped for blacks, they dropped for whites, asians and hispanics. How were the poverty rates before 1964? I'm sure everyone was middle class and the majority of the country had access to education and people weren't literally starving.
Poverty was plummeting according to your own graphs prior to 1964. Naturally, you take the dishonest liberal approach and count all the pre-war on poverty decline in with your numbers to make them look good. Trillions of dollars over 50 years has taken poverty from 19% to 15% in the wealthiest and freest nation in the world where economic opportunity is unlimited. Only in the liberal mind is that a success.
 
Let's stay away from personal attacks before the moderator calls us on it, ok, all?

Back to topic on hand - I don't think liberalism was rejected, given that proposals for increases in minimum wage, bans on fracking, legalization of pot all passed. And as Cardinal said, the Repub senators were almost all in red states, so it would be natural for Repubs to win there.

I do think the Dems didn't get our message across - the economic progress that has been made under Pres Obama (in spite of opposition from repubs) - while not enough, the unemployment rate is under 6%, the deficit is cut in half, and the stock market is roaring. But if you asked the average voter, they probably said just the opposite - they think deficits and unemployment are up, and probably don't care about the stock market. Why they have the wrong info is a different debate; the Dems didn't do a good job at getting our message across during an election cycle where it was expected that the opposition would gain seats.

Will Democrats spend the next two years getting our message out so we can reclaim (and keep) seats in 2016? I certainly hope so.


Will repubs blow their current advantage? I'm betting yes. I'm betting the first two things they vote on are a repeal of the ACA and a personhood amendment, which will pretty much doom them. I would love to be proved wrong; but if they haven't been willing to cooperate with Pres Obama for the last six years, why would they now?

I certainly hope the Republicans pass and send a repeal of the ACA to the president’s desk. The majority of Americans still oppose it. 51.6% to 38.1% in favor.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

Now look at the states that switched from Democrat to Republican concerning the ACA:

Arkansas 27% for 63% against
Colorado 37% for 59% against
Iowa 35% for 52% against
Louisiana 31% for 63% against
Montana 31% for 58% against
North Carolina 38% for 51% against

I don’t have the numbers for Alaska, South Dakota or West Virginia. But I am sure they fall in line with the above. Now both of us know the president will veto it, so the ACA isn’t going anywhere and for Republicans that is a good thing, a good thing to campaign on. That is as long as the Republicans do not overdo it, just send one bill and get the president on the record with a veto.

I will add when a party loses an election it always says they didn’t succeed in getting their message out. I think the loss had more to do with the number of Democratic Senators who distance themselves from the president and ran away from their voting record. It seemed to me they were trying to paint themselves as Republicans Light. Whether this would have made a difference or not, who knows. I think they should have stood proudly by their record, not run away from it. Give the voters a real choice.

I too think the Republicans will blow it. They think they have a mandate, there was no mandate. Just a lot of states reverting back to their roots. But CNN had one exit poll I think that told it all, 23% of the electorate was mad at Obama, 33% dissatisfied with the president and only 39% satisfied. Keep in mind the president’s overall national approval rating of 41.8% vs. 53.4%. Look at his approval rating in the states the Democrats lost and you have your reason for the defeat. Not so much ideology, but dissatisfaction with the president.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - President Obama Job Approval


Arkansas 32% approve 61% disapprove
Colorado 40% approve 57% disapprove
Iowa 40% approve 55% disapprove
Louisiana 38% approve 57% disapprove
Montana 35% approve 60% disapprove
North Carolina 42% approve 52% disapprove

Probably the election changer that gave the Republicans the big edge was the president himself when he said, “I am not on the ballot, but my policies are.”
 
Last edited:
Poverty was plummeting according to your own graphs prior to 1964. Naturally, you take the dishonest liberal approach and count all the pre-war on poverty decline in with your numbers to make them look good. Trillions of dollars over 50 years has taken poverty from 19% to 15% in the wealthiest and freest nation in the world where economic opportunity is unlimited. Only in the liberal mind is that a success.

Did you notice how he starts at 1964 and not after the great depression? Could it be that unemployment was as low as 2.9 percent at around that time? I wonder what would happen if he looked at before the great depression. Crap, it went as low as 1.8 percent. Oh well.
 
Poverty was plummeting according to your own graphs prior to 1964. Naturally, you take the dishonest liberal approach and count all the pre-war on poverty decline in with your numbers to make them look good. Trillions of dollars over 50 years has taken poverty from 19% to 15% in the wealthiest and freest nation in the world where economic opportunity is unlimited. Only in the liberal mind is that a success.

It is a success in the sense that the gov't dependent tend to vote "correctly". The absolute beauty of social justice attained by gov't controlled income redistribution is that it makes having a huge federal nanny state absolutely essential. Keeping that "baby daddy" around, much less gainfully employed, is now a mere option but that "safety net" is essential to household survival for (at least) 15% of the population.
 
1947 3.9
1948 3.8
1949 5.9
1950 5.3
1951 3.3
1952 3.0
1953 2.9
1954 5.5
1955 4.4
1956 4.1
1957 4.3
1958 6.8
1959 5.5
1960 5.5
1961 6.7
1962 5.5
1963 5.7
1964 5.2
1965 4.5
1966 3.8
1967 3.8
1968 3.6
1969 3.5
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
2010 9.6
2011 8.9
2012 8.1
2013 7.4

Just sayin'
 
Let's stay away from personal attacks before the moderator calls us on it, ok, all?

Back to topic on hand - I don't think liberalism was rejected, given that proposals for increases in minimum wage, bans on fracking, legalization of pot all passed. And as Cardinal said, the Repub senators were almost all in red states, so it would be natural for Repubs to win there.

I do think the Dems didn't get our message across - the economic progress that has been made under Pres Obama (in spite of opposition from repubs) - while not enough, the unemployment rate is under 6%, the deficit is cut in half, and the stock market is roaring. But if you asked the average voter, they probably said just the opposite - they think deficits and unemployment are up, and probably don't care about the stock market. Why they have the wrong info is a different debate; the Dems didn't do a good job at getting our message across during an election cycle where it was expected that the opposition would gain seats.

Will Democrats spend the next two years getting our message out so we can reclaim (and keep) seats in 2016? I certainly hope so.


Will repubs blow their current advantage? I'm betting yes. I'm betting the first two things they vote on are a repeal of the ACA and a personhood amendment, which will pretty much doom them. I would love to be proved wrong; but if they haven't been willing to cooperate with Pres Obama for the last six years, why would they now?

I'm not sure about the last paragraph Paddy but overall this is a great post and you are one DEM who gets it.
Me personally, I don't see any way Sen. McConnell will let his tenure as Majority Leader be ruined by GOP outliers.

What we continue to not hear from the GOP is what they plan on replacing ACA with--their solemn promise.
Once again, some of us understand that DEMs are currently a disaster on getting their message out.

After the government shutdown last October, did you hear another word from Dems--hell NO!
GOPs/FOX would have crucified Dems for doing this.

What you did see in November was GOPs/FOX trash Dems unmercifully for the rollout of ACA--with no response from Dems--Dukakis all over.
Not one time in the election were GOPs asked what they would do with over 10 million new people having insurance.
Nor were they questioned as to why such "good" GOP governors like Kasich, Snyder, Martinez and Sandoval took Medicaid Expansion.
You know damn well why they took it--to coast to reelection.

Hell, FOX even had its own GOP members believing before the election that lower gas prices were bad for America .
 
Last edited:
What was unemployment before 1964?

Hey I can show you much more than that, I can show you how it changed historically!

United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2013 | Infoplease.com

2009-02-16-USUnemployment_1930_1950d.jpg


poverty-falling-since-1967.png


Let's look at the poverty too though!

African American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During the postwar period, many African Americans continued to be economically disadvantaged relative to other Americans. Average black income stood at 54% of that of white workers in 1947, and 55% in 1962. In 1959, median family income for whites was $5,600, compared with $2,900 for nonwhite families. In 1965, 43% of all black families fell into the poverty bracket, earning under $3,000 a year. The Sixties saw improvements in the social and economic conditions of many black Americans.[38]

From 1965 to 1969, black family income rose from 54% to 60% of white family income. In 1968, 23% of black families earned under $3,000 a year, compared with 41% in 1960. In 1965, 19% of black Americans had incomes equal to the national median, a proportion that rose to 27% by 1967. In 1960, the median level of education for blacks had been 10.8 years, and by the late Sixties the figure rose to 12.2 years, half a year behind the median for whites.[38]

A MINORITY VIEW

In 1940, when blacks were politically impotent, their poverty rate was 87 percent. By 1960, before blacks achieved much political power, it fell to 47 percent. During that interval, in various skilled trades, the incomes of blacks relative to whites more than doubled.

Long Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the US, from 1873–1879, 18,000 businesses went bankrupt, including hundreds of banks, and ten states went bankrupt,[7][dead link] while unemployment peaked in 1878, long after the panic ended. Different sources peg the peak unemployment rate anywhere from 8.25%[8] to 14%.[9]

... You ready for la creme de la creme? I'm citing the Libertarian Heritage think tank:

Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA

Crowding is quite rare. Only 2.2 percent of all households and 6.2 percent of poor households are crowded with less than one room per person.[36] By contrast, social reformer Jacob Riis, writing on tenement living conditions around 1890 in New York City, described crowded families living with four or five persons per room and some 20 square feet of living space per person.[37]

Yes, yes we know. No changes whatsoever. We're poorer. It's funny that since Roosevelt started his New Deal, the country has never again seen the levels of poverty we saw before and people still say we're doing worse as a country. Maybe it's just heightened expectations?
 
Let's stay away from personal attacks before the moderator calls us on it, ok, all?

Back to topic on hand - I don't think liberalism was rejected, given that proposals for increases in minimum wage, bans on fracking, legalization of pot all passed. And as Cardinal said, the Repub senators were almost all in red states, so it would be natural for Repubs to win there.

I do think the Dems didn't get our message across - the economic progress that has been made under Pres Obama (in spite of opposition from repubs) - while not enough, the unemployment rate is under 6%, the deficit is cut in half, and the stock market is roaring. But if you asked the average voter, they probably said just the opposite - they think deficits and unemployment are up, and probably don't care about the stock market. Why they have the wrong info is a different debate; the Dems didn't do a good job at getting our message across during an election cycle where it was expected that the opposition would gain seats.

Will Democrats spend the next two years getting our message out so we can reclaim (and keep) seats in 2016? I certainly hope so.


Will repubs blow their current advantage? I'm betting yes. I'm betting the first two things they vote on are a repeal of the ACA and a personhood amendment, which will pretty much doom them. I would love to be proved wrong; but if they haven't been willing to cooperate with Pres Obama for the last six years, why would they now?

Banning fracking completely is exceedingly foolhardy. For those who live on the trucking routes required by it, there must be some sort of compromise or route that can leave your neighborhoods in tact.

Fracking is the second gold or oil rush, and could easily make the US energy independent. Not only does it burn clearer, with less CO2 and soot than other fossil fuels, it can readily be used to fuel electrical generation, cars and other transportation, not to mention that it's already being used to heat homes and for cooking, the case of a gas stove. Why would you want to limit or ban all those positive uses?

Those who insist on banning all fracking, you should be the first to do without LNG. Leave it to the rest of us, thanks. Enjoy your cold food and your cold house.
 
Poverty was plummeting according to your own graphs prior to 1964.

Yes and it was on the rise before the New Deal. Do you disagree? :)

Naturally, you take the dishonest liberal approach and count all the pre-war on poverty decline in with your numbers to make them look good. Trillions of dollars over 50 years has taken poverty from 19% to 15% in the wealthiest and freest nation in the world where economic opportunity is unlimited. Only in the liberal mind is that a success.

When the facts don't add up to your conclusion, say the facts are wrong with nothing to back it up and yet... here were are. A nation with high literacy rates, practically no child starvation and most indicators of poverty showing that our "poor" have iphones, live in homes and eat well. Yep! Better go back to what came before liberal programs! How was social mobility back then? ;)
 
Let's stay away from personal attacks before the moderator calls us on it, ok, all?

Back to topic on hand - I don't think liberalism was rejected, given that proposals for increases in minimum wage, bans on fracking, legalization of pot all passed. And as Cardinal said, the Repub senators were almost all in red states, so it would be natural for Repubs to win there.

I do think the Dems didn't get our message across - the economic progress that has been made under Pres Obama (in spite of opposition from repubs) - while not enough, the unemployment rate is under 6%, the deficit is cut in half, and the stock market is roaring. But if you asked the average voter, they probably said just the opposite - they think deficits and unemployment are up, and probably don't care about the stock market. Why they have the wrong info is a different debate; the Dems didn't do a good job at getting our message across during an election cycle where it was expected that the opposition would gain seats.

Will Democrats spend the next two years getting our message out so we can reclaim (and keep) seats in 2016? I certainly hope so.


Will repubs blow their current advantage? I'm betting yes. I'm betting the first two things they vote on are a repeal of the ACA and a personhood amendment, which will pretty much doom them. I would love to be proved wrong; but if they haven't been willing to cooperate with Pres Obama for the last six years, why would they now?

Actually, I think the economic progress that's been made is in spite of Obama's regulatory tidal wave. In fact, had this tidal wave of regulation been absent, the recovery would have been faster and stronger.

The stock market is roaring because of all the QE that the Fed has injected. Something on the order of $1T over these last years (something like $80B each and every month).

It's only been recently that they've stopped this 'watering down' of the dollar, and it's yet to be seen what the economy and stock market will do in response. So far, it's continued as before, and we can only hope that it remains so.
 
If you look at actual history and not Hatuey's made up history, black employment opportunities were improving for decades before the 1960's or even the 1950's. Yes, similar trends can be found in the Hispanic and Asian populations and the increases after 1964 where no greater than before it.

Shove your made up history, Hatuey.
 
Hey I can show you much more than that, I can show you how it changed historically!

United States Unemployment Rate 1920–2013 | Infoplease.com

2009-02-16-USUnemployment_1930_1950d.jpg


poverty-falling-since-1967.png


Let's look at the poverty too though!

African American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



A MINORITY VIEW



Long Depression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



... You ready for la creme de la creme? I'm citing the Libertarian Heritage think tank:

Understanding Poverty in the United States: Poverty USA



Yes, yes we know. No changes whatsoever. We're poorer. It's funny that since Roosevelt started his New Deal, the country has never again seen the levels of poverty we saw before and people still say we're doing worse as a country. Maybe it's just heightened expectations?

I already showed unemployment from 1947-2013, so yeah, I beat you to the punch. I even went a step further and showed unemployment from 1890-2009. Did you notice what unemployment was before the new deal? You didn't, did you?

Unlike you where you pick and choose what periods you want to talk about, I decided to show all the data points, because I have nothing to hide. :shrug:
 
Poverty was plummeting according to your own graphs prior to 1964. Naturally, you take the dishonest liberal approach and count all the pre-war on poverty decline in with your numbers to make them look good. Trillions of dollars over 50 years has taken poverty from 19% to 15% in the wealthiest and freest nation in the world where economic opportunity is unlimited. Only in the liberal mind is that a success.

If I did a shot every time you used the word "liberal" as a pejorative, I'd be dead in an hour. Grow the **** up.
 
If you look at actual history and not Hatuey's made up history, black employment opportunities were improving for decades before the 1960's or even the 1950's. Yes, similar trends can be found in the Hispanic and Asian populations and the increases after 1964 where no greater than before it.

Shove your made up history, Hatuey.

Lol - someone is hurt because their argument that marriage causes poverty was shown to be nonsense. ;)
 
Yes and it was on the rise before the New Deal. Do you disagree? :)



When the facts don't add up to your conclusion, say the facts are wrong with nothing to back it up and yet... here were are. A nation with high literacy rates, practically no child starvation and most indicators of poverty showing that our "poor" have iphones, live in homes and eat well. Yep! Better go back to what came before liberal programs! How was social mobility back then? ;)

He's right though. Poverty had been dropping at a rate of roughly 1% per year for the 2 decades before the lefts war on poverty. Since then its pretty much held steady, and we still have the bloated bureaucracy that defines success as the number of people who need govt cheese.
 
I already showed unemployment from 1947-2013, so yeah, I beat you to the punch. I even went a step further and showed unemployment from 1890-2009. Did you notice what unemployment was before the new deal? You didn't, did you?

Are you bothered because your narrative of poverty isn't really the truth? Uneducated rates through the roof, starvation a real issue depending on the economy, black poverty rate at 87%? Yep. Sounds like a time you'd love.
 
He's right though. Poverty had been dropping at a rate of roughly 1% per year for the 2 decades before the lefts war on poverty. Since then its pretty much held steady, and we still have the bloated bureaucracy that defines success as the number of people who need govt cheese.

You do realize that the drop puts it squarely within a period of time where poverty was affected by the New Deal? What do you people think the New Deal was? A non-social program? It's almost like you argue that the largest social program ever created in this country had no effect on poverty.
 
I'm curious about this statement. I like FDR's policies. I like the safety net, which has become so much more important as labor unions are eviscerated and as incomes don't keep up with productivity. But is this why he did it?

I do agree all of us - men or women - feel lousy if we can't provide for our families. It's a piece of our self-esteem. But hopefully people have other things to fall back on in tough times. Being kind to strangers, for example. Having artistic talent, for another.

Anyway, probably should be taken to a different thread. Just found your comment interesting.

Greetings, paddymcdougall. :2wave:

I read that in a book about him, and knowing how much my grandparents thought of him, it seemed likely that it was true. He filled a need at the time, and people appreciated him for that. I have also read that it was WW2 that finally ended the Great Depression, which is probably true, but his actions in the interim gave people hope that everything would be okay, and they trusted him, and I like that.
 
You do realize that the drop puts it squarely within a period of time where poverty was affected by the New Deal? What do you people think the New Deal was? A non-social program? It's almost like you argue that the largest social program ever created in this country had no effect on poverty.

Its had very little, and for many reasons.
 
I don't see the midterms as a repudiation of liberalism, per se, but simply just a repudiation of how things are currently going.
 
Back
Top Bottom