• 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!

Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

Conservative said:
Exactly because people like you really don't care about results, results don't matter in your world for it is all about ideology and personal feelings until those feelings start hitting you in the pocket book which they will. Republicans lost in Va. because the vote was split between a Republican and Libertarian. That is how Democrats continue to win elections, getting less than 50% of the vote and funding competition against the Republicans via a third party
Click to expand...

I don't care why your party split the vote. Losing serves you all right.

The Dems got their **** together. They consolidated voters from Blue dogs to progressives. The GOP is too busy purging "RINOs" and infighting.

Welcome to electoral hell. If McAulife winning does nothing else, it should, at the very least, show you you're there.
 
calamity said:
I don't care why your party split the vote. Losing serves you all right.

The Dems got their **** together. They consolidated voters from Blue dogs to progressives. The GOP is too busy purging "RINOs" and infighting.

Welcome to electoral hell. If McAulife winning does nothing else, it should, at the very least, show you you're there.
Click to expand...

What this shows is that some people always vote ideology over principle. Your hatred of the Republican Party is built out of ignorance and specific brainwashing as evidenced by your posts. You have no idea what the economic results are or how they were generated. You have no understanding of basic civics nor the role of the Federal Govt. as created by the Founders. Unfortunately there are millions just like you. When the Obama economic results hit you in the pocketbook you will finally get it, hope it isn't too late.
 
TheNextEra said:
Going off of any polls right now as Gospel, is premature. Even if people don't like Obamacare, that doesn't necessarily mean they like Republicans better.
Click to expand...

:shrug: it seems to be a contest of who is disliked/distrusted the least.

The country is not a majority of social conservatives and until the Republicans learn to put social conservative issues on the backburner, I do believe they will continue to lose elections.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Except that a wide majority favors the current Republican bill to limit abortion past 20 weeks to rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother, and women and hispanics are more likely to support it.
 
American said:
If that were true we wouldn't have a welfare state. Don't fool yourself.
Click to expand...

I agree. It was those Republican economic policies which made the inevatability of certain elements of the welfare state necessary in the first place. When people can only see pure ideology and ignore the practical effects of their policies - they are very poor politicians indeed.
 
haymarket said:
I agree. It was those Republican economic policies which made the inevatability of certain elements of the welfare state necessary in the first place. When people can only see pure ideology and ignore the practical effects of their policies - they are very poor politicians indeed.
Click to expand...

Please point out those policies. Dems were in control of the House for 40 years, starting in 1954. The Great Society was implemented in the 1960's.
 
American said:
Please point out those policies. Dems were in control of the House for 40 years, starting in 1954. The Great Society was implemented in the 1960's.
Click to expand...

Yup. And the move to the elements of the welfare state began after the Great Depression hit in 1929 with Republicans firmly in control rpeaching unrestrained capitalism producing its inevitable winners and losers.

With the USA as a strong Christian nation- it was part of the very Gilded Age ethic which created the modern Republican Party that you are going to have losers. The only remaining question is what do we do with the losers --- especially when there are so many of them? When you have a third of the nation - il fed, ill housed, ill clothed and without proper medical care it is a recipe that we know only too well what dish it produces. The French found that out. Russian found that out. And we did not want it to happen here so we adopted elements of the welfare state as pacification for the lower classes to prevent revolution and destruction of the system and the wealthy.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: it seems to be a contest of who is disliked/distrusted the least.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Politicians for the most part have stopped trying to convince people why they are the best and instead focus more on why the other person is worse.

Yeah. Except that a wide majority favors the current Republican bill to limit abortion past 20 weeks to rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother, and women and hispanics are more likely to support it.
Click to expand...

I don't think a wide majority favors that in the country, maybe a state, but not the country. So as you pointed out earlier, just because the majority think something, doesn't mean it's the right or correct thing to do.

I never said the majority in some state isn't socially conservative, I said the country is not a majority of social conservatives.
 
haymarket said:
Yup. And the move to the elements of the welfare state began after the Great Depression hit in 1929 with Republicans firmly in control rpeaching unrestrained capitalism producing its inevitable winners and losers.

With the USA as a strong Christian nation- it was part of the very Gilded Age ethic which created the modern Republican Party that you are going to have losers. The only remaining question is what do we do with the losers --- especially when there are so many of them? When you have a third of the nation - il fed, ill housed, ill clothed and without proper medical care it is a recipe that we know only too well what dish it produces. The French found that out. Russian found that out. And we did not want it to happen here so we adopted elements of the welfare state as pacification for the lower classes to prevent revolution and destruction of the system and the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Your post is so typical of liberalism where all you have to do is throw money at the problem. Any idea how much of the federal budget is spent on social issues? Where are the examples of the Federal Govt. solving a social problem? You seem to fail to understand that this country was founded on the principles of neighbor helping neighbor and that neighbor was never intended to be a 3.5 trillion dollar Federal Govt. When are you going to hold liberalism accountable for their failures?

You really don't seem to understand our economy at all. This isn't a zero sum economy but rather a very flexible growing economy where the pie gets bigger and all have equal opportunity. You prefer to promote the victim mentality where the actual victim has nothing to do with their plight. That couldn't be further from the truth and until you stop patronizing individuals who choose to fail and stop just throwing money at the problem you are never going to generate the promised liberals results but you will create a permanent dependent class keeping liberals in power administering those programs. Guess that creates a job for you for life.
 
haymarket said:
Yup. And the move to the elements of the welfare state began after the Great Depression hit in 1929 with Republicans firmly in control rpeaching unrestrained capitalism producing its inevitable winners and losers.

With the USA as a strong Christian nation- it was part of the very Gilded Age ethic which created the modern Republican Party that you are going to have losers. The only remaining question is what do we do with the losers --- especially when there are so many of them? When you have a third of the nation - il fed, ill housed, ill clothed and without proper medical care it is a recipe that we know only too well what dish it produces. The French found that out. Russian found that out. And we did not want it to happen here so we adopted elements of the welfare state as pacification for the lower classes to prevent revolution and destruction of the system and the wealthy.
Click to expand...

Russia 1929 hmmmm, ...i bet Russia was just a freedom loving bastion, of happy, educated, healthy individuals who truly loved their RULER...:roll:
 
are these the same polls that said Romney was ahead In the presidential race?
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes it is. Politicians for the most part have stopped trying to convince people why they are the best and instead focus more on why the other person is worse.
Click to expand...

Yup. And (currently, generically) the parties appear to be tied.

I don't think a wide majority favors that in the country, maybe a state, but not the country.
Click to expand...

Americans Favor Restricting Abortion at 20 Weeks by a Margin of 56 to 27%
Hispanics, Women, Young People Most Likely to Support 20-Week Limit on Abortion

:)

So as you pointed out earlier, just because the majority think something, doesn't mean it's the right or correct thing to do.
Click to expand...

True. The rape and incest caveats are without logical support. However, you weren't speaking to the rightness of a policy, you were arguing that the policy was politically harmful.
 
calamity said:
I don't care why your party split the vote. Losing serves you all right.

The Dems got their **** together. They consolidated voters from Blue dogs to progressives. The GOP is too busy purging "RINOs" and infighting.

Welcome to electoral hell. If McAulife winning does nothing else, it should, at the very least, show you you're there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, back here on earth the Republicans will retain the House and have a good shot at taking the Senate. And Hillary is by no means a shoe in.
 
Conservative said:
Your post is so typical of liberalism where all you have to do is throw money at the problem. Any idea how much of the federal budget is spent on social issues? Where are the examples of the Federal Govt. solving a social problem?
Click to expand...

What makes you think that was the goal?
 
ernst barkmann said:
Russia 1929 hmmmm, ...i bet Russia was just a freedom loving bastion, of happy, educated, healthy individuals who truly loved their RULER...:roll:
Click to expand...

Which has nothing at all to do with my post that you were pretending to reply to.
 
LowDown said:
Yeah, well, back here on earth the Republicans will retain the House and have a good shot at taking the Senate. And Hillary is by no means a shoe in.
Click to expand...

While I agree the House is safely in Republicans hands, at least at this moment in time. I do think they have an uphill climb to retake the senate. I think WV, SD and AR will end up with Republican senators replacing democratic ones. Democratic Lt. Gov Walsh has announced his intentions to run for senator in MT to replace Baucus and I think he is a slight favorite to retain that seat. Landrieu in LA has raised tons of cash and is from a age old family of LA politicians. She will probably pull that race out for the Dems. Hagan in NC has let a 15 point lead slip to 2 or 3 depending on who will challenge her, but NC is like VA, it is moving into the purple state and her incumbency could be just enough. Alaska, Begich latest polls shows him way ahead of his nearest GOP rivals.

Then there is Georgia and Kentucky. Believe it or not the prognosticators have McConnell's race rated a toss up and in Georgia, Michelle Nunn, daughter of our much beloved ex-democratic senator, Sam Nunn has a 50-50 chance of winning next year to give Georgia a Democratic Senator.

But the bottom line, until names start being attached, we are speculating. AR has names Cotton vs. Pryor and I am pretty confident Cotton will win. But we'll see as time goes by.
 
calamity said:
Welcome to electoral hell. If McAulife winning does nothing else, it should, at the very least, show you you're there.
Click to expand...

As an actual Virginian, it doesn't show me much of anything. Both candidates were extremely unpopular with their base for a variety of reasons...it's not like Cuccinelli was a well loved candidate that faltered against a guy most Democrats didn't like. The most populated portion of the state was a month removed from a monumentally impactful event with regards to the government shutdown, the blame of which largely went to Republicans. McAulife outspent him nearly 10 to 1 in the state, being able to turn the campaign into one focusing on social issues (a losing prospect for KC) despite Cuccinelli actually trying NOT to make it about social issues. Add to this a third party candidate who took a fair portion of the republican and independent votes (independents went more for KC than TM). And despite all of that, and largley with the help of the Obamacare issue blowing up the week before the election, the fact Cuccinelli lost by less than 3% after the huge drought he had been in for some time in the polls doesn't indicate to me what so ever that we're in "electoral hell".

This kind of bull**** peddling may work with ignorant people who know nothing about the issues in Virginia and relating to that campaign outside of what they read on their random political website dujour, but as someone who actually lives in the state and has significant ties all across it and watched the campaign first hand, it's a ridiculous assertion that's easily dismissed.
 
haymarket said:
Which has nothing at all to do with my post that you were pretending to reply to.
Click to expand...

really?...you reference 1929 ...that time frame.......you reference Russia.

only one conclusion can be drawn from that, that you are giving credit to communist....a nation at that time which murdered, starved and no one had individual rights.
 
cpwill said:
:shrug: it seems to be a contest of who is disliked/distrusted the least.

Yeah. Except that a wide majority favors the current Republican bill to limit abortion past 20 weeks to rape, incest, and life-of-the-mother, and women and hispanics are more likely to support it.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you'd see a lot more independents and moderates being open to the Republican Party if the unifying message on abortion appeared to be more along the lines of:

Abortion before 20 weeks should be legal, abortion after 20 weeks must be limited to rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Instead of

We need to end abortion, with part of us thinking all together and part of us thinking at any time unless for rape/incest/life of the mother.

It's a stance that would still strongly limit the amount of abortions occuring, something you would assume would be found more favorable than continuing a loosing battle and gaining NO ground....while at the same time would be viewed as a more reasonable and "moderate" stance on it by many, likely making it far more likely to gain traction.
 
Zyphlin said:
As an actual Virginian, it doesn't show me much of anything. Both candidates were extremely unpopular with their base for a variety of reasons...it's not like Cuccinelli was a well loved candidate that faltered against a guy most Democrats didn't like. The most populated portion of the state was a month removed from a monumentally impactful event with regards to the government shutdown, the blame of which largely went to Republicans. McAulife outspent him nearly 10 to 1 in the state, being able to turn the campaign into one focusing on social issues (a losing prospect for KC) despite Cuccinelli actually trying NOT to make it about social issues. Add to this a third party candidate who took a fair portion of the republican and independent votes (independents went more for KC than TM). And despite all of that, and largley with the help of the Obamacare issue blowing up the week before the election, the fact Cuccinelli lost by less than 3% after the huge drought he had been in for some time in the polls doesn't indicate to me what so ever that we're in "electoral hell".

This kind of bull**** peddling may work with ignorant people who know nothing about the issues in Virginia and relating to that campaign outside of what they read on their random political website dujour, but as someone who actually lives in the state and has significant ties all across it and watched the campaign first hand, it's a ridiculous assertion that's easily dismissed.
Click to expand...

If you have time, please keep us current on what is really happening...those of us who have to rely on the biased MSM don't always get the true story...but what else is new?

Greetings, Zyphlin. :2wave:
 
Zyphlin said:
I honestly think you'd see a lot more independents and moderates being open to the Republican Party if the unifying message on abortion appeared to be more along the lines of:

Abortion before 20 weeks should be legal, abortion after 20 weeks must be limited to rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Instead of

We need to end abortion, with part of us thinking all together and part of us thinking at any time unless for rape/incest/life of the mother.
Click to expand...

The first is actually currently the legislation Republicans are pushing through Congress.

It's a stance that would still strongly limit the amount of abortions occuring
Click to expand...

The vast majority of Abortions take place before that time period, as we are constantly informed in the Abortion forum. It's not a half a loaf, it's a fifth of a loaf (at best). But when you are trying to save lives, the important thing is to save who you can when you can, and not let the perfect be the enemy of the "less bad".

something you would assume would be found more favorable than continuing a loosing battle and gaining NO ground...
Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow: we have been gaining ground.

while at the same time would be viewed as a more reasonable and "moderate" stance on it by many, likely making it far more likely to gain traction.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I wouldn't be willing to take a "moderate" stance on the question of whether or not we should kill children as anything other than an incrementalist tactic.
 
ernst barkmann said:
really?...you reference 1929 ...that time frame.......you reference Russia.

only one conclusion can be drawn from that, that you are giving credit to communist....a nation at that time which murdered, starved and no one had individual rights.
Click to expand...

Actually I never refernced 1929 in Russia. You took one from column A and mixed it with one from column B and invented something new.
 
haymarket said:
Actually I never refernced 1929 in Russia. You took one from column A and mixed it with one from column B and invented something new.
Click to expand...

here is what you did, you took a negative view of america based on 1929.

then you put on a positive view of France and Russia.....one being socialist and the other communist.

you were making a comparison............and so was i.
 
Zyphlin said:
As an actual Virginian, it doesn't show me much of anything. Both candidates were extremely unpopular with their base for a variety of reasons...it's not like Cuccinelli was a well loved candidate that faltered against a guy most Democrats didn't like. The most populated portion of the state was a month removed from a monumentally impactful event with regards to the government shutdown, the blame of which largely went to Republicans. McAulife outspent him nearly 10 to 1 in the state, being able to turn the campaign into one focusing on social issues (a losing prospect for KC) despite Cuccinelli actually trying NOT to make it about social issues. Add to this a third party candidate who took a fair portion of the republican and independent votes (independents went more for KC than TM). And despite all of that, and largley with the help of the Obamacare issue blowing up the week before the election, the fact Cuccinelli lost by less than 3% after the huge drought he had been in for some time in the polls doesn't indicate to me what so ever that we're in "electoral hell".

This kind of bull**** peddling may work with ignorant people who know nothing about the issues in Virginia and relating to that campaign outside of what they read on their random political website dujour, but as someone who actually lives in the state and has significant ties all across it and watched the campaign first hand, it's a ridiculous assertion that's easily dismissed.
Click to expand...

Why would you run an unpopular candidate against McAulife? That's just it. GOP--too stupid to win easy elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom