Why the GOP Dominates the House—But Not the Senate (legal, Liberalism)

[pknopp]

People in red, blue or purple states don't care for those who try to control their daily lives calling them stupid. If that keeps up all bets are off in 2016.

[knowledgeiskey]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Disagree. The 2014 midterms had Democrats defending their seats in mostly Red States. The 2016 Senate map has Republicans defending their seats in mostly Purple States...including those states that Republican's just won resoundingly in 2014. Democrats don't have a lock on the 2016 Senatorial election.

The 10 states that could decide the Senate - POLITICO

These incumbents have more money and have loyal constituents. The author o the article is still on to something.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by nononsenseguy

They may be Parties, but they represent distinctive ideologies.

Parties didnt have distinct ideologies when California was voting republican. Time periods have context.

Except for certain demographic areas, it most certainly was conservative, and a look at the map after this election shows that except for along the coastal areas, it is still very RED.

Maps show land area, Elections are won by winning a majority of the population.

500,000 people voting republican in the California desert is not equal to 3 million people in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area voting Democratic.

"Progressivism" is a product of the twentieth century. Woodrow Wilson was considered the leader of the "Progressive Movement" in America. Modern "Liberalism" (as opposed to "Classical Liberalism", which is conservative) is synonymous with "Progressivism," a Marxist/socialist ideology, which has been adopted by the Democrat Party. Barack Obama epitomizes this ideology.

Liberalism, in any form can not be conservative, thats the very reason it is called liberalism. The 2 words are antonyms.

And no, Modern Liberalism is not progressive, nor is Barack Obama a progressive.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Arjay51

Center left? Just keep on trying to convince people of that. The recent election certainly does not support your claim. You just keep trying to reshape the truth.

An election with the lowest turn out in 70 years.

How exactly do you believe 1/3rd of the population speaks for the other 2/3rds ?????

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by nmnita

I wonder when people will stop thinking just because a candidate is pro or anti gay marriage it will make a huge impact on his/her electability? I certainly hope people vote on more than one or two issues. I know I do; most informed people look at the entire picture. The libs seem to forget, President Obama, when running was opposed to gay marriage, did that stop him from being elected?

If you are referring to my post, I want to point out that I never said that.

I was responding to someone claimed republicans were pro freedom, The person i responded to specifically mentioned Mia Love and Marco Rubio who are anti gay marriage.

That being said, what you are saying is misleading as well. Barack Obama was against using the word "marriage", but through out his entire career, he has always been in support of civil unions.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Haakon

Left of center...in your dreams maybe. The US is a right of center country with a constant massive left leaning media blitz.
State legislatures must surely be leaning left then, right? Whoops, shift to the right, guess not.

So your argument of what political leanings our nation has is based on a map of the senate ? one week ago, you wouldnt have posted that map, so how exactly does that prove your point ???????????

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

So your argument of what political leanings our nation has is based on a map of the senate ? one week ago, you wouldnt have posted that map, so how exactly does that prove your point ???????????

And your argument is based on what? Your delusion that the US is a left leaning country? The US has NEVER been left leaning, only MSNBC drones think it is.

[Haakon]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

An election with the lowest turn out in 70 years.

How exactly do you believe 1/3rd of the population speaks for the other 2/3rds ?????

If the can't be bothered to even show up why should we care what they think? Or maybe they saw the writing on the wall that the Republicans were going to give the dems another historic beating and didn't have a problem with it so stayed home.

2/3 of the population didn't want Obamacare but that didn't bother the democrats from backroom bribing their way to passing it.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Haakon

And your argument is based on what? Your delusion that the US is a left leaning country? The US has NEVER been left leaning, only MSNBC drones think it is.

My truth is based on the last 10 Presidential elections all of which had a higher turnout election than the last mid term.

Why do you believe an election where 1/3rd of the population votes is more showing of a nation's truth color than one where 3/5th or 1/2 vote ??????

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Haakon

If the can't be bothered to even show up why should we care what they think?

we arent discussing semantics, nut nice deflection.

Or maybe they saw the writing on the wall that the Republicans were going to give the dems another historic beating and didn't have a problem with it so stayed home.

The word historic has apparently lose all meaning because neither election was historic.

2/3 of the population didn't want Obamacare but that didn't bother the democrats from backroom bribing their way to passing it.

1. You are right about the 2/3rd not wanting Obamacare, the problem with that argument is many wanted a system that did far more than Obamacare did, which pokes a giant hole in your argument

2. You are wrong about the back room crap, it was done in the light, but people like you admit to turning off the TV when you see Democrats, so i guess it was done in the dakr in your mind.