• 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
Hatuey said:
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%
Click to expand...

I don't think you can use the existence of welfare to combat the reality that people are poor. Yes, people in first world nations can lean on the rest of society to pay their bills, house them, educate their children, and in some places even pay for their daycare, but those people that rely on these programs are STILL poor.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If you think Americans have rejected liberalism then all I can say is take away Medicare, SSI, or Social Security and see what happens...
Click to expand...

I imagine people would be upset but nothing major would happen.
 
US Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...
Haha definitely worse than expected given that in just the six years Obama has been president, the Democrats rode a House majority and Senate supermajority to their weakest position in decades.
 
Kobie said:
Raising the minimum wage passed in a few states, and legal pot got passed in Oregon and DC. Liberal policies are fine.
Click to expand...

Now if liberal policies weren't always about government control. I wonder if the day will ever come when liberals will admit they would have never legalized pot without taxes and massive amounts of regulation being part of the deal.

Hell, they can't seem to admit they don't like voluntary exchange, so I somehow doubt they will ever admit they don't really like pot all that much.

Tell me though, how is a product actually legal when you can only sell it using legally approved channels?
 
US Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...

Minimum wage increases passed; anti-fracking measures passed; no, liberalism wasn't rejected. Six years through Pres. Obama's term, people voted for whoever the other party was, even when some of those candidates were very strange. Has happened before, will happen again.
 
US Conservative said:
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?
Click to expand...



Can't answer the poll. Yes and no are too absolute.

Liberalism as a whole was not rejected by the majority of voters. The "liberalism" as practiced by the current administration and outgoing Senate leadership was, however, rebuked strongly in many ways, and a call for fresh leadership was given.

Repubs must bear in mind though, that if they don't DELIVER new strong leadership with good solid ideas, and quickly, that the public will turn against them as well.
 
Henrin said:
I don't think you can use the existence of welfare to combat the reality that people are poor. Yes, people in first world nations can lean on the rest of society to pay their bills, house them, educate their children, and in some places even pay for their daycare, but those people that rely on these programs are STILL poor.
Click to expand...

Ah, so these liberal programs have failed because some people are still poor, part #2. First off, killing off poverty is unrealistic. Secondly, these programs have allowed millions to actually get out of poverty. Don't think I'm right? Well, let's see these programs have provided enough food for working families not to have their children working, they've provided practically free education to millions, they've ensured that housing isn't an issue for people working their way through college, working class families, single parent households etc. These are the metrics that truly measure the success of 'liberal' social programs. Not whether a small percentage of our society is still poor.
 
Kobie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well said!
 
Goshin said:
Can't answer the poll. Yes and no are too absolute.

Liberalism as a whole was not rejected by the majority of voters. The "liberalism" as practiced by the current administration and outgoing Senate leadership was, however, rebuked strongly in many ways, and a call for fresh leadership was given.

Repubs must bear in mind though, that if they don't DELIVER new strong leadership with good solid ideas, and quickly, that the public will turn against them as well.
Click to expand...

Hey, but if they vote against Republicans in 2016 (and have no doubt, they will), it won't be rejection of conservative ideas. He'll probably blame it on the media, Obama, low information voters and people hating the FFs. At no point will it be the fault of ****ty Republican politics which gave us a Democratic congress in 2006. ;)
 
Hatuey said:
Ah, so these liberal programs have failed because some people are still poor, part #2. First off, killing off poverty is unrealistic. Secondly, these programs have allowed millions to actually get out of poverty. Don't think I'm right? Well, let's see these programs have provided enough food for working families not to have their children working, they've provided practically free education to millions, they've ensured that housing isn't an issue for people working their way through college, working class families, single parent households etc. These are the metrics that truly measure the success of 'liberal' social programs. Not whether a small percentage of our society is still poor.
Click to expand...

So basically what liberals did was make everyone pay for other peoples path out of poverty and by doing so has actually reduced poverty rates.
 
Cardinal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also well said!
 
Logicman said:
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.
Click to expand...
But saying that America is on the wrong track is not the same thing as rejecting liberalism. Many of those that stayed home probably believe that he hasn't been liberal enough. We should have a much clearer picture in another week or two when more detailed exit polling results are available.
 
Henrin said:
So basically what liberals did was make everyone pay for other peoples path out of poverty and by doing so has actually reduced poverty rates.
Click to expand...

Sure, look at it that way. Does it bother you? I know. Terrible ideas a society where people are helped by collectivist idea. I'm sure we should go back to the individualist ideals of the FFs. No poverty in those days.
 
Born Free said:
The blame Obama because of his liberal policies
Click to expand...

Some of us do but I think many Americans want to have their cake and eat it too so they want a good economy AND socialist policies. Oil and water I know but that is what they want
 
Hatuey said:
Sure, look at it that way. Does it bother you? I know. Terrible ideas a society where people are helped by collectivist idea. I'm sure we should go back to the individualist ideals of the FFs. No poverty in those days.
Click to expand...

Yes, it bothers me. Taking my property against my will and using it towards other peoples needs and desires bothers me.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, it bothers me. Taking my property against my will and using it towards other peoples needs and desires bothers me.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm sure you'd rather live in a society rife with poverty and social inequality. I've read more books than you on the matter, and really consider the alternative of social programs to be far worse. I don't even need the majority to agree with me on the subject. It's pretty obvious from looking at governments when these programs don't exist that social programs serve a net benefit that is far more important than your irrelevant sense of what you should be paid.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Minimum wage increases passed; anti-fracking measures passed; no, liberalism wasn't rejected. Six years through Pres. Obama's term, people voted for whoever the other party was, even when some of those candidates were very strange. Has happened before, will happen again.
Click to expand...
That is a very simplistic view of what happened. The electorate sent a very clear message. Pretending they didn't will only guarantee a repeat of that same message in 2016
 
Hatuey said:
Well, I'm sure you'd rather live in a society rife with poverty and social inequality. I've read more books than you on the matter, and really consider the alternative of social programs to be far worse. I don't even need the majority to agree with me on the subject. It's pretty obvious from looking at governments when these programs don't exist that social programs serve a net benefit that is far more important than your irrelevant sense of what you should be paid.
Click to expand...

Oh, so my property rights are irrelevant? So instead of coming up with an idea that doesn't abuse people to help others it's best to just say my property rights are irrelevant because people need help. Yeah, **** that. Tell me again, why is issuing violence onto people to help others justified behavior? Go on, tell me.
 
Henrin said:
Yes, it bothers me.
Taking my property against my will and using it towards other peoples needs and desires bothers me
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...



The USA isn't the only country on planet Earth that does this, It's going on all over this planet.

I doubt that it will stop anytime soon.
 
Hatuey said:
Well, I'm sure you'd rather live in a society rife with poverty and social inequality. I've read more books than you on the matter, and really consider the alternative of social programs to be far worse. I don't even need the majority to agree with me on the subject. It's pretty obvious from looking at governments when these programs don't exist that social programs serve a net benefit that is far more important than your irrelevant sense of what you should be paid.
Click to expand...
I thought the liberal argument was that we already do live in a society rife with poverty and social inequality. Personally, I believe a society structured on rights, limited government, individual liberty and voluntary exchange and interaction is far preferable to anything you might have read.
 
shrubnose said:
Since it's not going to happen we're not going to find out what would happen.
Click to expand...

No, instead we will see more social programs in the future like UHC and universal daycare. Probably some other stuff too that I'm not aware of, but I'm sure liberals will inform me of what those are at some point in the future.
 
Fletch said:
That is a very simplistic view of what happened. The electorate sent a very clear message. Pretending they didn't will only guarantee a repeat of that same message in 2016
Click to expand...

Try not to completely lose your **** here. The election results aren't some utterly baffling outlier of what could be expected.

2012.jpg2014.jpg

So almost-exclusively red states voted for Republican senators? No...WAY!!
 
Cardinal said:
Try not to completely lose your **** here. The election results aren't some utterly baffling outlier of what could be expected.
Click to expand...
I am not baffled by the results. Liberals are in denial. This was a referendum on an unpopular president and his policies. If that unpopular president doesn't adjust his policies, you will see a repeat in 2016.
 
Fletch said:
I am not baffled by the results. Liberals are in denial. This was a referendum on an unpopular president and his policies. If that unpopular president doesn't adjust his policies, you will see a repeat in 2016.
Click to expand...

Did you look at the maps I attached? With the exception of two states, it was exclusively red states that voted in Republican senators.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom