• 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
And whey did they not want too. I'll tell you, democrats were so down on Obama and his policies, they did not want to vote for a demarcate so they stayed home. Their no show vote was actually a vote for the republicans.

Sounds like Hope and Change fell flat.
Apathy isn't an endorsement. Far more people didn't vote than voted for conservative ideology. You didn't win, you lost to "meh."
 
Apathy isn't an endorsement. Far more people didn't vote than voted for conservative ideology. You didn't win, you lost to "meh."

If we lost the "meh" what did the Democrats lose too ?
 
"Voting" was rejected in the midterms. People didn't want to, so they largely didn't.

Midterms have averaged 37-38% of the electorate over the last 30 years. That is nothing new. Perhaps one should ask why. My son has never voted, the reason he states is Washington is going to do what Washington is going to do regardless of what the people want it to do or not to do.

Even in presidential election over the last 30 years the average of the electorate who voted is 55%.

If people do not care, vote, why worry about them? What they think is totally irrelevant to the process.
 
Apathy isn't an endorsement. Far more people didn't vote than voted for conservative ideology. You didn't win, you lost to "meh."

Could be, but meh are not represented in Washington. If you are counting them in 2012 it was MEH 45%, Obama 28% Romney 27%. MEH wins and should be president.
 
Can't one thing be rejected without implying an automatic endorsement for another?
Sure. Voters rejected voting. They didn't endorse anything overwhelmingly.
If we lost the "meh" what did the Democrats lose too ?
Sure. Both narratives lost to the much more compelling "meh" ballot.
Midterms have averaged 37-38% of the electorate over the last 30 years. That is nothing new. Perhaps one should ask why. My son has never voted, the reason he states is Washington is going to do what Washington is going to do regardless of what the people want it to do or not to do.

Even in presidential election over the last 30 years the average of the electorate who voted is 55%.

If people do not care, vote, why worry about them? What they think is totally irrelevant to the process.
Voter cynicism is like musical chairs, so long as you're the last one caring when the music stops you "win."
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought " liberalism " in the US meant socialism.

Seeing as socialism is rejected by both Democrats and Republicans the question seems somewhat strange to me.

As in the UK , you have a choice between various factions of The Business Party ( a one party system if you like ) and as such " liberalism"/ socialism will always be rejected .
 
Could be, but meh are not represented in Washington. If you are counting them in 2012 it was MEH 45%, Obama 28% Romney 27%. MEH wins and should be president.

We all know MEH is the best choice for president.
 
Sure. Voters rejected voting. They didn't endorse anything overwhelmingly.

Sure. Both narratives lost to the much more compelling "meh" ballot.

Voter cynicism is like musical chairs, so long as you're the last one caring when the music stops you "win."

Could be. So what went wrong with the voters? Back in the 1960's well over 60% voted in presidential elections and between 45-50% in the midterms. They voted when we had just one day to vote, election day and used pencils and paper ballots. Today you have as long a 6 weeks of early voting, computers and mail in ballots, yet voters has dropped about 10 points from where they were 50 years ago.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought " liberalism " in the US meant socialism.

Seeing as socialism is rejected by both Democrats and Republicans the question seems somewhat strange to me.

As in the UK , you have a choice between various factions of The Business Party ( a one party system if you like ) and as such " liberalism"/ socialism will always be rejected .

Liberals in America are for more Government control over the private industry whether through regulations or laws like ObamaCare.

May not be " Socialism " but their policies are still destructive, short sighted and they've just been rebuked.
 
Apathy isn't an endorsement. Far more people didn't vote than voted for conservative ideology. You didn't win, you lost to "meh."


When idiots get excited over empty platitudes and bumper sticker slogans they vote for people like Barrack Obama.

They elect Democrats.

And screw the rest of us who use our right to vote responsibly.
 
It was a bad night for dems and dem policies. Exit polls show Americans were not happy with the left.
3002776434_643d076694_z-e1413840427997-620x300.jpg

Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?



No.

Some people changed their vote, some people stayed home and it is with the later we should concern ourselves. Why?

Some of it is mere Presidential fatigue, those who backed the guy simply don't like him anymore. Some of it was policy, certainly Obamacare and the way it was handled was a factor. But, assuming those who stayed home were for the most part Democrat, then we have a more clear interpretation. They came out in 08 unabashedly FOR this "hope and change" guy. By the first mid terms he was the "grope and change" boy, flailing at problems and insisting on economic successes that were thin air. Last time, the presidential machine took over. Obama won with a 5% advantage over Romney which is about what the incumbent and all its trappings can expect.

So, what happened here? After all the lies and screw ups, the shellacking in Crimea, the red line, ISIS etc, he became the "dope and change boy". Looking at those who stayed home, I say it was a rejection of Obama the man.

What the Republicans need to do now is figure out how to keep them at home in 2016, as with the departure of Obama the reason to stay home may disappear and HIllary may give them reason to come out.
 
Could be, but meh are not represented in Washington. If you are counting them in 2012 it was MEH 45%, Obama 28% Romney 27%. MEH wins and should be president.
While hardly a ringing endorsement, at least the argument could be made that a plurality of voters thought the 2012 campaigns were better than "meh."
Could be. So what went wrong with the voters? Back in the 1960's well over 60% voted in presidential elections and between 45-50% in the midterms. They voted when we had just one day to vote, election day and used pencils and paper ballots. Today you have as long a 6 weeks of early voting, computers and mail in ballots, yet voters has dropped about 10 points from where they were 50 years ago.
Voter cynicism wins, by convincing the rest of the voters to forgo their votes.
Liberals in America are for more Government control over the private industry whether through regulations or laws like ObamaCare.

May not be " Socialism " but their policies are still destructive, short sighted and they've just been rebuked.
Liberal policies are destructive, short sighted and rebuked, except for where they're working effectively, are sustainable, and happily endorsed by both intellectuals and voters alike.
 
I agree many dems stayed home (they often do in mid terms) but this was one of the biggest sweeps in recent history. Not just in Congress, but as far as governors as well. Do you think it was worse than otherwise might have been expected?

It means more of them stayed home than in the past.

It would be a severe strategic mistake to think this is a rejection of what you guys call "liberalism", if you actually had liberals things would work since you can work with liberals, socialists have pig heads.

I would say it is a rejection of individual 'liberal' initiatives, those being Obama's proposed solutions and the way he tried to force them down the nation's throats. But that is a rejection of Obama. i.e., it would be wrong to say the vote represented rejection of a solution to illegal immigrants but rather a rejection of Obama's amnesty.
 
Liberals in America are for more Government control over the private industry whether through regulations or laws like ObamaCare.

May not be " Socialism " but their policies are still destructive, short sighted and they've just been rebuked.

I find it difficult to understand why you would prefer business control over government ( as is the case ) and not government control over business having experienced at first hand the devastation caused by the 2008 global crash

I always find it funny that so many conservatives don't think government should " interfere " with their business or their " freedoms " but fully support state intervention in the bedrooms of gay couples , repression of unions , witch hunts of " extremists " , attacks against drug users etc etc.................. there's nowt as queer as folk imo
 
When idiots get excited over empty platitudes and bumper sticker slogans they vote for people like Barrack Obama.

They elect Democrats.

And screw the rest of us who use our right to vote responsibly.

The sophistication of your level of discourse is noted.
 
My answer is not just no, it's HELL NO. :roll:

Wait and see what happens in 2016, when another Democrat will be elected president of the USA.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." ~ John Stuart Mill.


"Better days are coming." But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP



Oh please!

For two years we have had outright bragging and posturing about how the Democrats were going to regain the Senate, which was after two years of boasting about how the Republican party is "dead", was out of touch with America, racist, anti-women and Hillary was a shoe in.

So, you not only didn't do what you've been claiming for two years, but suffered the most humiliating defeat of any sitting president in history and you're reasoned response is actually "wait until 2016"?

I shouldn't tell you this as someone in that horror show of liars and thieves, womanizers and deadbeat peanut farmers might actually listen. You are done. Finished. What support you have now I doubt could score very high on a survey of what they really do want out of the party, because that party that has existed for six years is finished, stick a fork in it, it is dead.

People stayed home,. some changed their vote. They are gone. They are not coming back without a reason to do so and simply being Hillary, an old and aging fixture on the political landscape is not it.

You will need to offer them something for them to return.

So here's my question. Obamacare is opposed by over half the population, Obama's foreign policy by 60%, his amnesty plan by as many he has never delivered on an open government, or the rest of the "hope and change" promise and now his scandals are going to get full congressional attention...


So, with that, what, precisely besides a woman older than Reagan when he ran, do the Democrats have to offer that will return the promise of a Democratic Party utopia?
 
It was a bad night for dems and dem policies. Exit polls show Americans were not happy with the left.
3002776434_643d076694_z-e1413840427997-620x300.jpg

Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?

I would like to think so but I doubt it. This is only a personnal opinion but the only people who support liberalism / socialism are naive or uneducated. This was a mid-term election and I suspect that most Americans woke up on November 5th completely surprised that elections had been held the day before. As I understand it, the networks didn't even cover events leading up to the election. If this had been a presidential election year--with all eyes on who was going to be the next president--I suspect far more people would have voted and democrates / socialist would have fared far better.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought " liberalism " in the US meant socialism.

Often but not always. It can mean any of the various factions of the left, marxist or not. And even within that group of marxists, there is a divide between those who openly admit it (which I can respect), and those who wish to masquerade because they dont want the stigma.
 
Liberals in America are for more Government control over the private industry whether through regulations or laws like ObamaCare.

May not be " Socialism " but their policies are still destructive, short sighted and they've just been rebuked.

Yup, which is why the term statist is quite fitting. They may not all be marxists, but they are advocates of centralized coercive power over the individual.
 
Yup, which is why the term statist is quite fitting. They may not all be marxists, but they are advocates of centralized coercive power over the individual.

Because being an advocate of decentralized coercive powers over the individual is the American way.
 
No.

Some people changed their vote, some people stayed home and it is with the later we should concern ourselves. Why?

Some of it is mere Presidential fatigue, those who backed the guy simply don't like him anymore. Some of it was policy, certainly Obamacare and the way it was handled was a factor. But, assuming those who stayed home were for the most part Democrat, then we have a more clear interpretation. They came out in 08 unabashedly FOR this "hope and change" guy. By the first mid terms he was the "grope and change" boy, flailing at problems and insisting on economic successes that were thin air. Last time, the presidential machine took over. Obama won with a 5% advantage over Romney which is about what the incumbent and all its trappings can expect.

So, what happened here? After all the lies and screw ups, the shellacking in Crimea, the red line, ISIS etc, he became the "dope and change boy". Looking at those who stayed home, I say it was a rejection of Obama the man.

What the Republicans need to do now is figure out how to keep them at home in 2016, as with the departure of Obama the reason to stay home may disappear and HIllary may give them reason to come out.

I generally agree, and hope and change did eventually become nope and blame. But Obama is perhaps the most liberal president in modern US history. One thing he has always attempted to do, is make himself appear above the fray, as if he's not interested in getting dirty, all the while he's covered in mud. THAT is certainly fatiguing to me but his policies have proven unpopular as well, and what are they if not "liberal" policies?
 
It means more of them stayed home than in the past.

It would be a severe strategic mistake to think this is a rejection of what you guys call "liberalism", if you actually had liberals things would work since you can work with liberals, socialists have pig heads.

I would say it is a rejection of individual 'liberal' initiatives, those being Obama's proposed solutions and the way he tried to force them down the nation's throats. But that is a rejection of Obama. i.e., it would be wrong to say the vote represented rejection of a solution to illegal immigrants but rather a rejection of Obama's amnesty.

Word.
 
I would like to think so but I doubt it. This is only a personnal opinion but the only people who support liberalism / socialism are naive or uneducated. This was a mid-term election and I suspect that most Americans woke up on November 5th completely surprised that elections had been held the day before. As I understand it, the networks didn't even cover events leading up to the election. If this had been a presidential election year--with all eyes on who was going to be the next president--I suspect far more people would have voted and democrates / socialist would have fared far better.

The media did indeed almost ignore this election cycle. Of course the cable news networks spent more time here as they always do, but broadcast news did very little-I think they knew how it was going to turn out.
 
Back
Top Bottom