• 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
I'd say liberal politicians were, yes. Liberal issues (gay marriage, gun control, abortion rights, marijuana legalization) were not. Meh, I'll take it :shrug:
 
While I'm not especially thrilled with her, the "skeletons" will be some manufactured crap ("what difference does it make?") and pictures of her looking frumpy.

1) She's just not that good at campaigning.
2) The “fire in the belly”question.
3) It ain’t gonna be a coronation.
4) Obama is leaving a mess.
5) The country wants real change.
5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run | RealClearPolitics

Hillary Clinton favorability rating keeps falling, poll shows | Early & Often

Just Being Hillary Isn't Enough | RealClearPolitics

The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary
The New York Times takes down the Clinton Foundation. This could be devastating for Bill and Hillary – Telegraph Blogs
Troubled Clinton Foundation reportedly to provide perch for Hillary amid 2016 buzz | Fox News

Liberal Dems Pushing 2016 Candidates Further Left

Do Americans want another Clinton in the White House? As former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton flirts with running in 2016, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., also a potential White House candidate, has put an interesting spin on Bill Clinton's White House years. Democrats shouldn't accuse the GOP of waging a "war on women," he recently told "Meet the Press," because President Clinton was a "sexual predator" with former intern Monica Lewinsky.
The Clintons in the War on Women | RealClearPolitics

For a woman who claims that her experience and good relations with foreign countries is a major selling point, Hillary might be alarmed that Angelina Jolie has more support overseas than she does.
In U.S. Most Admired Poll, Hillary Clinton Ranks Lower than Bush, Rush Limbaugh

Lower than Limbaugh! Really? Where's the support going to come from?

  • Hillary’s involvement in scandals started early.
    As a 27-year-old staffer, she was fired from the Watergate committee for fraud and unethical behavior.
    Her former boss, Jerry Zeifman, finally spoke out in 2008:
    “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”
    2. Seriously, she’s really into coverups.
    3. She lied about being shot at by a Bosnian sniper.
    4. She really isn’t that good for women.
    5. She hasn’t actually done much with her power.
    6. Benghazi.
    bkfjlbtccai-jea.jpg
6 “Inconvenient Truths” about Hillary Clinton | Rare

How people really don't change.

So Hillary is a shoo-in? Mmmm. OK. If you say so.

I'm less inclined to believe it. But yes, it does matter who is running against her. That's undeniable.
 
The war on poverty did begin in 1964. That is a fact. You just want the post war boom that really impacted the poverty rate to be credited to government action. That is false. Since 1964, there has been essentially no change in poverty. That is 50 years and there is no denying that. Yet you do. Why? Cant handle the fact that your leftist ideas are a failure. Because they are.

Your own graph shows no change in 50 years. That is a fact and you sound ridiculous pretending otherwise.

Good grief, it's like you make stuff up to validate your point:

Poverty in the 50 years since ‘The Other America,’ in five charts - The Washington Post

In 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. Ten years later, it was 11.2 percent, and it has not gone above 15.2 percent any year since then. Contrary to what you may have heard, the best evidence indicates that the War on Poverty made a real and lasting difference.

By race:

imrs.php


Both white and black poverty fell dramatically during the 1960s, though the drop in black poverty from 55.1 percent in 1959 to 32.2 percent in 1969 is particularly remarkable. More recently, it appears that white and Asian-American poverty have become decoupled from the state of the economy, whereas black and Hispanic poverty remains heavily cyclical, with a big fall during the 1990s boom and a corresponding rise as the recession hit in 2009 and 2010. Hispanic poverty overtook black poverty from 1994 to 1997, and it looks as though the two are converging again.

National Poverty Center | University of Michigan

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

Yes yes we know, there is no difference between 22% and 11%. Only a 50% difference really.
 
Speaking of all those voters who stayed home, you don't suppose that this might have something to do with that?
When you get what you want, you find out it's not what you need. That is what Millennials are experiencing right now as the liberal program they voted for in 2008 and 2012 is being implemented.
. . . .
President Obama ended his 2008 victory speech by saying, "This is our time, to put our people back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids; to restore prosperity and promote the cause of peace; to reclaim the American dream and reaffirm that fundamental truth, that, out of many, we
are one; that while we breathe, we hope. And where we are met with cynicism and doubts and those who tell us that we can't, we will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit of a people: Yes, we can."

All of these magically inspired words painted the rosiest of pictures of liberal ideology; a utopia of free healthcare, free birth control, no gun violence, no more greedy mean rich people, affordable education, and a Prius for all. Sadly, reality has arrived in America and it has millennials saying, "Dude, I didn't sign up for this!"

Millennials are now seeing an America they cannot thrive in. The trillion-dollar stimulus and out of control government spending ushered in by liberal politicians produced few shovel ready jobs, while leaving per capita debt at $52,948. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2013 labor force participation rate of those in their twenties has hit the lowest level on record since 1981. Furthermore, since President Obama took office the number of twentysomethings who were not in the labor force in an average month climbed from 8,756,000 to 10,511,00, an increase of 20-percent. It is now the highest ever recorded Labor Force Participation Hits Record Low for Americans in Their 20s | CNS News.

Youth unemployment is at a staggering 15.8 percent and 1.7 million young adults have given up looking for work, according the Department of Labor.
And the average millennial graduating college is sent on his or her way with $30,000 in student loan debt, the highest in American history. Didn't Obama say this is the time we put Americans back to work and open doors of opportunity for our kids? If this is the definition of liberal opportunity,
we should have stuck with Bush.

Now, that glowing picture of free healthcare has turned into a disaster that millennials neither want nor can afford. An analysis by NerdWallet says the
average millennial that enrolls into the exchanges will spend five times more a year out of pocket on healthcare than those who forgo insurance and
take the penalty. Whatever happened to the promised liberal utopia of free birth control and affordable healthcare?

In 2009, before Obamacare and the aftermath of the president's ambitious first two years, nearly 50-percent of millennials viewed Democrats favorably. Now, that number has dropped to a staggering 36-percent. Furthermore, over half of millennials disapprove of the president job
performance, up from 38-percent prior to his 2012 reelection. The unpopularity of liberalism in America has not only affected the beltway
politicians but also presidential candidates like Hillary Clinton. The Democratic frontrunner enjoyed a comfy 60-percent approval rating from
millennials in 2009, but today that has fallen to 42-percent in a recent poll by the Wall Street Journal.
Millennials discover the reality of liberal government | The Daily Caller
 
It takes enormous brass balls or almost an almost childlike lack of awareness to sit here on DP, of all places, and whine about liberals being arrogant and snotty. Have you read some of your right-wing brethren's posts around here?

You only needed one of those 'almost' in that first sentence Kobie. Last Tuesday really has shaken your world, hasn't it?
 
As for the first part, in red, I would say that's debatable. I would call any country where 87% of any demographic is living in poverty to be a third world country. I would consider a country where women have no real access to education to be a third world country. I would say a country where illiteracy rates are 50%-60% to be a third world country. That's the country we had before the 50s and 60s.

As for the second part..... you do know that portions have actually grown in the last 50 years? Yes? In all areas?

HBO: The Weight of the Nation: Eat Better : Themes: Eat Better

info_portionTrends.png


As for your your questions have nothing to do with social program. Companies have found ways to make cheaper products and sell them in a more expensive manner. That happens. It's no different than companies getting machines to do the jobs of human beings at a fraction of the price. Whatever the cause may be, it has nothing to do with social programs.

I have no problem with social programs if they are used as a safety net - not a way of life. FDR recognized that men needed to be able to provide for their families for their self esteem. His creation of all the alphabet agencies was one of the best things he could have done at that time in our history and we are still enjoying the national parks and other work that was done. With our infrastructure badly needing updating today, especially our grid, why doesn't this administration consider putting people to work doing something like that? It wouldn't have to be mandatory - it wasn't under FDR - and the benefits would be enormous. When unemployment runs out, what do people do? If more than minimum wage was offered, I'd bet there would be millions who would be interested. There's probably 101 reasons why it wouldn't work, but it's just a suggestion.
 
She didn't fail as SOS. And again, when it comes to the field, nobody's gonna care about Hillary's goofings.

  • even an admirer must acknowledge that few big problems were solved on her watch. There was no equivalent of Ambassador George F. Kennan's development of the containment doctrine and associated initiatives, such as the creation of NATO during the Cold War; Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's paving the way for the United States' opening to China; or Secretary of State James Baker's push for German reunification after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
  • In the Middle East, the verdict on Clinton is mixed, even leaving aside the very sad but overdebated tragedy in Benghazi. On the positive side, the sanctions regime on Iran has never been stronger. Meanwhile, the Arab Spring brought hope, not only to Libya but also to Egypt and Tunisia; the administration was wise enough not to try to prop up aging autocrats such as Hosni Mubarak when it became evident that they would not survive. It has also been patient in its dealings with Egypt's new president, Mohamed Morsi. Clinton was especially prominent in government decision-making on Libya, even in the face of Pentagon reluctance, but she played a major role in the other cases too.
  • On the negative side, though, U.S. popularity in the region has plummeted back to Bush-era levels. The promise of Obama's June 2009 Cairo speech was generally left unrealized. There has been no movement on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. The administration failed in its efforts to keep U.S. forces in Iraq past 2011. Syria is still in chaos. Iran continues to enrich uranium and to sponsor mayhem.
  • Yet Clinton should not get off scot-free. On Syria, the United States remains at a loss. The administration's caution has become regrettable and counterproductive in light of the tragedy there. More effective U.S. support for the opposition seems warranted, and there is now a strong case for joint U.S.-NATO-Arab League airstrikes too. In Afghanistan, although more robust engagement and counterinsurgency were preferable to accepting a Taliban defeat, the Obama administration failed to develop a working partnership with President Hamid Karzai or to send successful messages about long-term U.S. plans, and some of Clinton's team contributed to the mixed messaging. That uncertainty led Pakistan to hedge, at times even condoning the insurgency.
State and the Stateswoman | Foreign Affairs

Didn't fail as SOS. Mmmm. OK. If you say so.

Doesn't look that way to me.
 
You only needed one of those 'almost' in that first sentence Kobie. Last Tuesday really has shaken your world, hasn't it?

Oh yeah, I'm devastated. :roll:
 
This is why you need to read posts. She complained things are more expensive, yes that's what happens in a country where supply and demand matter and the population triples in size. It has happened in literally every country that doesn't freeze prices. That has nothing to do with social programs. Food portions have gotten smaller? That's just false. We eat more as a country than we ever have. We eat ****ty foods, however that's what happens when companies want to turn a profit without spending a lot of money. Food raised in industrial farms? Cheap and plenty of. Food raised by human hand (basically artisanal farming nowadays) expensive. That has absolutely nothing to do with social programs either. Both have to do with a society that demands more and wants it cheaper. :shrug:

I read the posts fine. She mentioned portion sizes as part of a larger argument and you decided to run with it and in the process posted a completely idiotic chart showing how portion sizes have gotten larger using three common fast food choices. Yes, fast food portions has gotten larger. What that has to do with the grocery store is anyone's guess.
 
Let's stay away from personal attacks before the moderator calls us on it, ok, all?

Back to topic on hand - I don't think liberalism was rejected, given that proposals for increases in minimum wage, bans on fracking, legalization of pot all passed. And as Cardinal said, the Repub senators were almost all in red states, so it would be natural for Repubs to win there.

I do think the Dems didn't get our message across - the economic progress that has been made under Pres Obama (in spite of opposition from repubs) - while not enough, the unemployment rate is under 6%, the deficit is cut in half, and the stock market is roaring. But if you asked the average voter, they probably said just the opposite - they think deficits and unemployment are up, and probably don't care about the stock market. Why they have the wrong info is a different debate; the Dems didn't do a good job at getting our message across during an election cycle where it was expected that the opposition would gain seats.

Will Democrats spend the next two years getting our message out so we can reclaim (and keep) seats in 2016? I certainly hope so.


Will repubs blow their current advantage? I'm betting yes. I'm betting the first two things they vote on are a repeal of the ACA and a personhood amendment, which will pretty much doom them. I would love to be proved wrong; but if they haven't been willing to cooperate with Pres Obama for the last six years, why would they now?
 
Oh yeah, I'm devastated. :roll:

Yeah, you ARE. Just like Obama. Crushed. Rejected and abandoned. How does it feel?
 
FDR recognized that men needed to be able to provide for their families for their self esteem. .


I'm curious about this statement. I like FDR's policies. I like the safety net, which has become so much more important as labor unions are eviscerated and as incomes don't keep up with productivity. But is this why he did it?

I do agree all of us - men or women - feel lousy if we can't provide for our families. It's a piece of our self-esteem. But hopefully people have other things to fall back on in tough times. Being kind to strangers, for example. Having artistic talent, for another.

Anyway, probably should be taken to a different thread. Just found your comment interesting.
 
It was a bad night for dems and dem policies. Exit polls show Americans were not happy with the left.
Just so we know (and sorry if someone beat me to this): Based on election results, did you conclude in 2008, 2010 and 2012 that Americans were unhappy with conservatism?
 
Good grief, it's like you make stuff up to validate your point:

Poverty in the 50 years since ‘The Other America,’ in five charts - The Washington Post



By race:

imrs.php




National Poverty Center | University of Michigan



Yes yes we know, there is no difference between 22% and 11%. Only a 50% difference really.
Dude, in 1964 the poverty rate was 19%. In 2012 it was 15%. 50 years and trillions of dollar and that's all you got for it. AND that assumes that the reduction in poverty was due ENTIRELY to government programs and not economic growth and opportunity. So like I said, the war on poverty has been a liberal bust. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Just so we know (and sorry if someone beat me to this): Based on election results, did you conclude in 2008, 2010 and 2012 that Americans were unhappy with conservatism?

That's a good question. Pres. Obama took the popular vote and the electoral college vote, but the conservatives screamed he had no "mandate". This election is also not a mandate for conservatives.
 
Economic failed? really? when unemployment rate is under 6%, stock market is booming, deficit has been cut in half? What do you WANT?

Foreign - I'd give a C grade, not fail

Domestic - not sure what you mean by this. There are so many issues under this.
shrinking middle class real wages down a trillion in new taxes and record numbers out of the workforce. Dow is up on free money to the wealthy. Oh and that bubble is ready to blow like Mt Saint Helens.
the rest of the world calls foreign a fail but sure keep that head in the sand.
domestic, as you say so many issuesm far more than before and evrry one worse than before.
 
Yeah, you ARE.

Thanks for telling me what I think.

I've already given my post-mortem feelings on the election elsewhere on the forum. Suffice to say, you haven't the slightest idea what the **** you're talking about.
 
Don't think so.

It is possible that many of the new seats taken by the Republican candidates were due to dislike for the various methods and policies used by the former occupants of said seats.

But I don't think it was due to some general dislike for "liberalism".
 
shrinking middle class real wages down a trillion in new taxes and record numbers out of the workforce. Dow is up on free money to the wealthy. Oh and that bubble is ready to blow like Mt Saint Helens.
the rest of the world calls foreign a fail but sure keep that head in the sand.
domestic, as you say so many issuesm far more than before and evrry one worse than before.

Markets have been opening up and jobs have fled for dirt cheap labor abroad since the eighties, and the eroding power of unions have resulted in the neutering of workers in terms of their ability to negotiate with employers, so I'm not sure what you expect Obama to do about that. Perhaps work for a bill to make it illegal for companies to move factories overseas? Restore unions to their former glory?
 
Last edited:
Dude, in 1964 the poverty rate was 19%. In 2012 it was 15%. 50 years and trillions of dollar and that's all you got for it. AND that assumes that the reduction in poverty was due ENTIRELY to government programs and not economic growth and opportunity. So like I said, the war on poverty has been a liberal bust. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yes yes, we know - keeping poverty at a level that is historically unheard of in the country's history makes it a bust. Now we know, the poverty rate dropping 50% in 60 years bothers you, but I don't know why? Poverty rates dropped for blacks, they dropped for whites, asians and hispanics. How were the poverty rates before 1964? I'm sure everyone was middle class and the majority of the country had access to education and people weren't literally starving.
 
Yes yes, we know - keeping poverty at a level that is historically unheard of in the country's history makes it a bust. Now we know, the poverty rate dropping 50% in 60 years bothers you, but I don't know why? Poverty rates dropped for blacks, they dropped for whites, asians and hispanics. How were the poverty rates before 1964? I'm sure everyone was middle class and the majority of the country had access to education and people weren't literally starving.

What was unemployment before 1964?
 
Back
Top Bottom