• 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
The answer that I've posted is the only one that you'll get from me.

Wait and see what happens in 2016.

I've noticed you've been saying that a lot lately, like wait until the next week, next month, the next midterms, now your out to 2016. Maybe you should go out to 2090 you might snag a win then.
 
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?
Liberalism wasn't rejected, Obamas incompetence and lack of leadership was.
 
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
Not sure why you think that. From the looks of things now, Hillary will be the dem nominee. She is not that likeable, and not that great of a campaigner and she looks old and tired. She is beatable.
 
Thats a superficial statement. I wasn't asking about 2016, but rather last tuesday. What about tuesday?

It was a rejection of a "WAR" economy and the NWO.

Endless war for the MIC and I think the people have had enough. They'll sweep these same people out next election and still not accomplish anything. Repubs and Dems are the same face on a two-headed coin. Bought and sold by CORPORATE AMERIKA.
 
Was liberalism rejected in the mid term elections?

I voted left-leaning and no, but fyi, I'm more left of the classical liberal version than what qualifies for left today.

Imo, the Congress and the President have terrible ratings, and since the president is a Democrat, most of the blame went to the Democrats. I predict the Republicans fail to perform over the next two years, and another Democrat is elected president come 2016. If another Democrat is elected president in 2016, I would give that as proof that liberalism has not been rejected. The voters just hate the current status and are willing to vote for anything else, besides the fact that mid-terms more often are dominated by Republican voters.
 
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 am a Reform Party member and I think this election in the states the Republicans picked up in the senate was a repudiation of the president and his policies by those folks in those states. If one looks at the presidential approval ratings, every state the GOP picked up the president approval rating was usually in the 30's from a low of 32% in Arkansas to a high of 42% in North Carolina which 42% is the national average.

Yes, those states rejected the president and liberalism. But other states the Democrats carried embraced both. Now I haven't seen the national numbers as they are probably still being accumulated and totaled. Until I see them it is hard to say especially when the playing ground favored the Republicans by so much. I would say at this time the Republicans did not receive a mandate. That they won states they should have won and lost states they should have lost.

With only one third of the senate up for re-election that doesn't reflect the national mood or as you stated rejection of a political ideology. It just shows which state rejected it and which state embraced it. I think on a national level one can get a better idea by looking at the president approval rating. It too will vary state by state, but nationally it is at 42% with his disapproval at 54%. That alone especially in red states and the light blue states of Iowa and Colorado explain why the Democratic senate candidates lost. The job the president is doing is not well liked and this started in September of last year. For lack of a better phrase, Obama fatigue has set in. The Democrats better hope that it doesn't last into 2016. But the only way Obama can turn that around is to adjust his policies where they are suited to the majority of Americans, not just his base and I do not see him doing that.
 
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.

Some do want an excessively intrusive and intervening all-powerful state that controls and redistributes, though.

As for the poll, there's no "I don't know" option. I'd like to think that the votes signify a repudiation of the ideas that aren't working and aren't going to work.
 
If you think Americans have rejected liberalism then all I can say is take away Medicare, SSI, or Social Security and see what happens...
 
People got fed up with this stagnate economy and voted their wallets. Unfortunately I think most blame Obama instead of his liberal policies.
 
Not sure why you think that. From the looks of things now, Hillary will be the dem nominee. She is not that likeable, and not that great of a campaigner and she looks old and tired.
She is beatable.



I'll agree that she's beatable, but who does the GOP have that can beat her?

Fill us in.
 
People got fed up with this stagnate economy and voted their wallets. Unfortunately I think most blame Obama instead of his liberal policies.

The blame Obama because of his liberal policies
 
No, the election wasn't a repudiation of liberalism, but the result of an essentially nonexistent campaign by the Democrats, a refusal to stand by the president and own any successes, resulting in a predictable low turnout by Democrat voters. Republican voters were energized this election in the same way they weren't in 2012.
 
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?


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


I'm going to save this one for 2016 and start a thread about it. The nature of the thread will of course depend on whether or not Shrubnose was right. I hope that's all right with both of you.
 
I'm going to save this one for 2016 and start a thread about it. The nature of the thread will of course depend on whether or not Shrubnose was right. I hope that's all right with both of you.

How a campaign is waged is pertinent. If the Democratic party energizes its base with a message of hope as it did in 2008, unlike the message of abject misery they conveyed this year, they'll fare significantly better in 2016.
 
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

The answer that I've posted is the only one that you'll get from me.

Wait and see what happens in 2016.

Lol, I haven't had this much fun since the hogs ate my little brother.
smiley-laughing021.gif
 
Wow, right leaning members voted yes and left leaning members voted no. Who could have seen that coming?
 
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.

That's the spin from the left. The problem with that is that the polls that were done at election time say even those who stayed home believed America was on the wrong track.
 
Seems I recall a mere six years ago this same question being asked about conservatism. Republicans got the biggest electoral drubbing in recent memory when Obama was elected. But obviously, conservatism wasn't dead, and it's unlikely that liberalism is dead now.
 
How about the basic premise, which is the war on poverty failed?

Well, you cited black poverty before the 1960s and after. How is that doing? Are blacks poorer now or beofre?


Ah, so your examples that poverty has been a failure rely on independent examples of one guy and... the heritage foundation? Okay, well let's see a few claims by the heritage foundation which are simply laughable:

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.

Alright, so... the average America doesn't fit any global indicator of poverty, however the war on poverty has failed.. let's move on...

Do higher living standards for the poor mean that the war on poverty has succeeded? No. To judge the effort, consider LBJ's original aim. He sought to give poor Americans "opportunity not doles," planning to shrink welfare dependence not expand it. In his vision, the war on poverty would strengthen poor Americans' capacity to support themselves, transforming "taxeaters" into "taxpayers." It would attack not just the symptoms of poverty but, more important, remove the causes.

Ah okay... well now we're getting somewhere, so opportunity has declined. Oh alright... well what metric do they use to determine whether opportunity has declined? Let's see:

According to the Heritage Foundation's analysis, children raised in the growing number of single-parent homes are four times more likely to be living in poverty than children reared by married parents of the same education level. Children who grow up without a father in the home are also more likely to suffer from a broad array of social and behavioral problems. The consequences continue into adulthood: Children raised by single parents are three times more likely to end up in jail and 50% more likely to be poor as adults.

So... in short... the war on poverty has failed because more people are getting divorced and some people are poor. Oh... okay well... that's an odd way to define why it has failed. I mean, it's almost as if the article makes an obvious attempt to ignore that....

- American kids don't have to work in order to eat,
- American kids don't have to pitch in to pay the family's rent
- Hunger and housing have been completely disassociated with poverty
- Minorities have substantially higher education rates
- Access to education for all is an application away
- Access to healthcare is not based on ability to pay
- Real poverty levels for blacks have dropped from 87% to 20-25%

.... well you get it. Is that honestly what you based your argument that less people getting married/more people get divorced has led to move poverty? That people getting divorced and single parents have created more poverty and less opportunity? Because that's a pretty easy statement to debunk. Hell, your article's complete avoidance of any reference to general poverty makes it pretty obvious that it's a ridiculous argument to begin with. People aren't poorer and even the poor aren't really poor by any standard of the word. Hell, even opportunity hasn't declined because people have access to things whose lack of would have killed them in the past. So with that said, what other non-arguments do you have for why the liberal programs of the past 50 years have failed?
 
Last edited:
That's the spin from the left. The problem with that is that the polls that were done at election time say even those who stayed home believed America was on the wrong track.

You do understand how a "refutation of liberalism" and being "on the wrong track" are two entirely different concepts, right?
 
Back
Top Bottom