• 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

US Conservative

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2013
Messages
33,522
Reaction score
10,826
Location
Between Athens and Jerusalem
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
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?
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't say so. The election results were lopsided, but not because scores of people rejected liberalism and voted the other way. Much of it was due to the fact that many who tend to support liberalism simply stayed home. Thus, voters rejected Obama, not liberalism as a whole. That being said, the brand is certainly damaged.
 
I wouldn't say so. The election results were lopsided, but not because scores of people rejected liberalism and voted the other way. Much of it was due to the fact that many who tend to support liberalism simply stayed home. Thus, voters rejected Obama, not liberalism as a whole. That being said, the brand is certainly damaged.

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?
 
Yes, it was one of the biggest sweeps in history. Yes, many of the normally Democratic supporting voters stayed home.

While I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the voters that stayed home did so because of Obama, his performance and his liberal policies. Or perhaps the perception of Obama's policies being liberal.

I think it right that liberalism's brand has been damaged through all this, fairly or unfairly, I don't know. What I do know is that the ever greater statism that liberal policies require certainly hasn't gained any fans. No one seems to want to have an excessively intrusive, excessively intervening, all powerful state redistributing health, picking winners and losers, and that, from my perception anyway, is the cornerstone of today's liberalism.

Seems to me, keep the classic liberal, dump the statist liberalism, and I'd be more OK with that.
 
In my opinion this was a rejection of liberal social crusades and not an endorsement of libertarianism.
 
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?[/COLOR]




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
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was one of the biggest sweeps in history. Yes, many of the normally Democratic supporting voters stayed home.

While I think it's pretty safe to say that most of the voters that stayed home did so because of Obama, his performance and his liberal policies. Or perhaps the perception of Obama's policies being liberal.

I think it right that liberalism's brand has been damaged through all this, fairly or unfairly, I don't know. What I do know is that the ever greater statism that liberal policies require certainly hasn't gained any fans. No one seems to want to have an excessively intrusive, excessively intervening, all powerful state redistributing health, picking winners and losers, and that, from my perception anyway, is the cornerstone of today's liberalism.

Seems to me, keep the classic liberal, dump the statist liberalism, and I'd be more OK with that.

The fatal flaw of liberalism, is that it must sacrifice the freedom of the individual for the state. Thats why even the term "liberal" is a misnomer. When it inevitably comes down to that choice-freedom or the state, the liberal chooses the state.

This is one of the skeletons in the closet the left needs to deal with. I'd like to think this election brought that home, but I doubt it-especially after the sad excuses Ive heard up to this point.
 
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.


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

Thats a superficial statement. I wasn't asking about 2016, but rather last tuesday. What about tuesday?
 
The answer that I've posted is the only one that you'll get from me.

Wait and see what happens in 2016.

I was just thinking that we had a pretty good, and interesting topic going here.

'Just wait until next time!' Is all you can muster?

Well . . . . OK. If that's all you can muster.
 
The fatal flaw of liberalism, is that it must sacrifice the freedom of the individual for the state. Thats why even the term "liberal" is a misnomer. When it inevitably comes down to that choice-freedom or the state, the liberal chooses the state.

This is one of the skeletons in the closet the left needs to deal with. I'd like to think this election brought that home, but I doubt it-especially after the sad excuses Ive heard up to this point.

Yeah, there's no other way for the liberalism that we currently have to function, and yeah, they really are going to have deal with it.

We've seen the results in the black community the results of 50 years of liberal programs, which is to say a worse result than what probably would have been had there not been these liberal programs. Now, it seems, the current liberals want to inflict this on the entire country, and make the entire population dependent on the government the same sort of way.

I'm really not in support of that. I'm far more in support of everyone having the needed capabilities to take care of themselves and doing so, regardless of the choices that they make for themselves.
 
Yeah, there's no other way for the liberalism that we currently have to function, and yeah, they really are going to have deal with it.

We've seen the results in the black community the results of 50 years of liberal programs, which is to say a worse result than what probably would have been had there not been these liberal programs. Now, it seems, the current liberals want to inflict this on the entire country, and make the entire population dependent on the government the same sort of way.

I'm really not in support of that. I'm far more in support of everyone having the needed capabilities to take care of themselves and doing so, regardless of the choices that they make for themselves.

Are you suggesting that equality of outcomes, after inequality of effort is a flawed premise? :shock:
 
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 don't think it was liberalism that was specifically rejected. I think the party that's been in power for 6 years was rejected, and that happened to be the democrats.
 
Yeah, there's no other way for the liberalism that we currently have to function, and yeah, they really are going to have deal with it.

We've seen the results in the black community the results of 50 years of liberal programs, which is to say a worse result than what probably would have been had there not been these liberal programs. Now, it seems, the current liberals want to inflict this on the entire country, and make the entire population dependent on the government the same sort of way.

I'm really not in support of that. I'm far more in support of everyone having the needed capabilities to take care of themselves and doing so, regardless of the choices that they make for themselves.

Can you tell us what these results are and how they differ from what the black community was like before the programs? I'm genuinely curious to see what numbers you use to make such claims. :)
 
I think a good argument can be made that the electorate has rejected the liberal notion that we have to be mislead to do what's right and the conservative notion that we have to be made to follow their rules to be moral. And the “wait and see what happens in 2016” is very valid. The electorate sees the bad side of the liberal establishment from the last six years and it may well only take two years to again see the bad side of the conservatives who very often act more like liberals when in power.

This election was just a pendulum swing accelerated by a true liberal who thinks he knows better what is good for us than we do as opposed to a true conservative who is maybe less likely to misrepresent the fact that he/she has the same elitist attitude toward different subjects.
 
Can you tell us what these results are and how they differ from what the black community was like before the programs? I'm genuinely curious to see what numbers you use to make such claims. :)

There was a time where there were strong black communities being served by black owned businesses, and each black family was an intact family unit, and a prevalent black middle class. Then came the war on poverty. Suddenly, government benefit programs and hand outs became the norm. And now, we have what we have.

Even if it was segregated, granted unfair, the before is certainly looking better than the after.

But no, I have no reference to share specific to this, but I keep my eye out for one, should I come across it.
 
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?

Raising the minimum wage passed in a few states, and legal pot got passed in Oregon and DC. Liberal policies are fine.

Fraidy-cat Dem politicians (many of whom were blue Senators in red-to-purple states) got routed, and deservedly so.
 
The fatal flaw of liberalism, is that it must sacrifice the freedom of the individual for the state. Thats why even the term "liberal" is a misnomer. When it inevitably comes down to that choice-freedom or the state, the liberal chooses the state.

This is one of the skeletons in the closet the left needs to deal with. I'd like to think this election brought that home, but I doubt it-especially after the sad excuses Ive heard up to this point.

You should leave the whole "telling people on the left how they think" to people who actually can.
 
There was a time where there were strong black communities being served by black owned businesses, and each black family was an intact family unit, and a prevalent black middle class. Then came the war on poverty. Suddenly, government benefit programs and hand outs became the norm. And now, we have what we have.

Even if it was segregated, granted unfair, the before is certainly looking better than the after.

Well, let's see... my numbers:

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/colu...e-hurtful-myth-of-the-absent-black-father.ece

However, the study found that, compared with white and Latino fathers who don’t live with their children, black fathers are more engaged in their children’s lives.

That’s in keeping with other studies, such as the recent Pew Research Center study that estimates about two-thirds of black fathers who don’t live under the same roof with their kids still see them at least once a month.

That compares to about 59 percent of white and 32 percent of Hispanic dads.

the CDC study shows that most men who live in the same household with their kids are actively engaged in their kids’ lives, especially children under the age of 5.

Most of those dads play and eat meals with their children daily. More than 7 in 10 black men also bathed, dressed or put diapers on their children, compared with 6 in 10 white men and about 45 percent of Latino fathers.

But no, I have no reference to share specific to this, but I keep my eye out for one, should I come across it.

Ah, so you're saying that there is more poverty today than before all of these liberal programs? You're saying that there are fewer black owned businesses today than before these programs? Yes?
 
Last edited:
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

Are you in denial or what?
 
Well, let's see... my numbers:

America and the hurtful myth of the 'absent black father' | Dallas Morning News







Ah, so you're saying that there is more poverty today than before all of these liberal programs? You're saying that there are fewer black owned businesses today than before these programs? Yes?

How about the basic premise, which is the war on poverty failed?
Despite spending nearly $20 trillion since the War on Poverty began, the poverty rate remains nearly as high today as it was in the mid-1960s. Today, government spends nearly $1 trillion annually on 80 federal means-tested programs providing cash, food, housing, medical care and targeted social services for poor and low-income Americans. Clearly, policymakers can’t hide behind reams of programs and billions in spending and declare they’ve done their duty to the poor. Good intentions aren’t enough.


We need to change the character of public assistance. That means redirecting incentives in federal welfare programs. “Sometimes those incentives encourage dependence, even for generations,” said Robert L. Woodson, Sr., founder and president of the Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, testifying before the Senate Budget Committee last year. Woodson sees firsthand the effects of these programs as he works with community leaders across the country to empower those in need to overcome adversity.
War on Poverty at 50: How to Fight Poverty -- and Win

and
LBJ promised that the war on poverty would be an "investment" that would "return its cost manifold to the entire economy." But the country has invested $20.7 trillion in 2011 dollars over the past 50 years. What does America have to show for its investment? Apparently, almost nothing: The official poverty rate persists with little improvement.

That is in part because the government's poverty figures are misleading. Census defines a family as poor based on income level but doesn't count welfare benefits as a form of income. Thus, government means-tested spending can grow infinitely while the poverty rate remains stagnant.
Not even government, though, can spend $9,000 per recipient a year and have no impact on living standards. And it shows: Current poverty has little resemblance to poverty 50 years ago. According to a variety of government sources, including census data and surveys by federal agencies, the typical American living below the poverty level in 2013 lives in a house or apartment that is in good repair, equipped with air conditioning and cable TV. His home is larger than the home of the average nonpoor French, German or English man. He has a car, multiple color TVs and a DVD player. More than half the poor have computers and a third have wide, flat-screen TVs. The overwhelming majority of poor Americans are not undernourished and did not suffer from hunger for even one day of the previous year.
Robert Rector: How the War on Poverty Was Lost - WSJ

And lastly, we keep hearing of stories like this which surely is disconcerting.

Iyanla Vanzant To A Father Of 34 Children: Why Didn't You Get A Vasectomy? (VIDEO)

Desmond Hatchett: Man With 30 Kids Requests Child-Support Break

Man who fathered 30 kids with 11 different women says he needs a break - from child support | Daily Mail Online

And it's these 'cultural values' that I'm supposed to support and be glad doing so?
 
I am other and American, No.

Dissatisfaction with the current government was expressed, not necessarily Liberalism. Not enough people made the connection between the evil of Liberalism and the destructive nature of the Democrats. It's was more along the lines of people lost faith in the "leaders" of the dems being able to actually accomplish anything other than to satisfy those "leaders" lust for power.

Some voters are upset with the direction of the Dems party. Some with only the leadership currently in place. Others with the dems marching in goose step with anything Obama puts out there and not holding him responsible for the things he does. There are almost as many reasons as there are voters out there who changed sides for this election.

Only if the trend should the trend continue through several more election cycles could a case for there being any abandonment of Liberalism be made.

Do not believe that this election in anyways actually shows a significant change in voters tolerance to Liberalism. The war is not won so easily. In the 1994 elections, voters gave the Reps the same opportunity as now, they did nothing meaningful with it. However, since then, the Reps have been in some turmoil, The Tea Party has at least shown an willingness to try and to act that was previously missing from the Reps. Perhaps that will make a difference this time, perhaps not.
 
Back
Top Bottom