[Platform:]

Platform:

Active Governance: Recently, the governance in the Pacific Region has been decidedly mediocre and frankly, rather passive. As Governor, I promise to take a proactive role in the affairs of the Pacific! You will not have to fear me being inactive.

An Outsider's Perspective: As someone who has not been a part of Atlasia for long, I admit to having little direct experience in the political affairs of Atlasia. Yet as someone who has observed and will continue to observe the affairs of the Pacific, I am willing and eager to learn as much as possible about our beloved region. Additionally, some fresh blood in the Governor's seat would be a good thing for the Pacific

Political Independence: I am a member of the Labor Party, but it is my genuine desire to work with all parties, left, right, and center, and be both open-minded to the ideas and proposals of those with a different political perspective from my own, as well as standing firm in my convictions on issues of principle.

Greetings, fellow Atlasians!

This is the thread dedicated to my campaign for Governor of the Pacific Region. You will see my political views/platform, campaign promises, et al here!

Thanks!

^I am running for Pacific Governor in the regional election, as well!

I am in.

What he said. ^^^

As far as I know, us white people went Republican more in 2012 than 2004 in the national exit polls.  So, that just goes to show Romney's base turnout was a total disaster.

Or that whites in the South, parts of the Midwest and Great Plains, and Appalachia (increasingly) give such huge majorities to the GOP that it skews the white vote nationally; but in terms of swing states, the white vote is often either not Republican enough and/or not enough to carry the key states necessary to win the presidential election.

Not the first time something like this happened....

http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/will_a_gop_aide_be_fired_over_benghazi_email_changes/singleton/

People don't really "have" ideologies, I've found (the Atlas notwithstanding ) . Yes, people are influenced by ideologies, sure. But that's not the same thing as saying that someone "has" a Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, or whatever ideology, per se.

And really, considering how narrow the ideological "spectrum" is in the United States (especially these days) and much of the rest of the "Western" world, or the fact that (for example) American political parties are divided more by differences in application of policies (policies that the Democratic and Republican Parties both essentially agree on), not ideology, the desire to label everyone and everything and divide everyone into different ideologies (based on "social" and "economic" categories-a pet peeve of mine, brought to you by the Political Compass people) just reeks of hyper-individualistic bourgeois narcissism (how's that for an ideological label? )

I am running for Mideast Assembly in the election this weekend, as a write-in candidate if necessary.

West Virginia

the doesn't I no right with more India India India

I don't think it is fair to characterize folks who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons in good "faith" as it were,  based on their own little leap of faith, as bigots. However, if religion is just used as an excuse/cover for their personal animus to gays, then that is bigotry. So it all depends. However, whatever the motivations, be they sincere, or disingenuous, these folks do need to be defeated at the ballot box. It is wrong however, to demonize everyone in the opposition this way. There but for the grace of God go I.

So I voted no. The question is not nuanced enough to allow me to vote yes, and I feel as passionately about SSM as any poster on this forum.

How do you separate someone's religious faith from their "personal animus to gays"? For many of the people most viscerally opposed (see: right-wing evangelicals) the "personal relationship with Jesus" is the central part of their religious faith.

[All income levels (total)]

Here's the percentage of the VAP who voted, by family income.

All income levels (total): 58.0

Under $10k:39.1
$10k-$15k: 36.6
$15k-$20k: 40.9
$20k-$30k: 46.4
$30k-$40K:50.8
$40k-$50k:57.2
$50k-$75k: 63.7
$75k-$100k:70.0
$100k-$150k:73.1
$150k or more:76.9

Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/socdemo/voting/publications/p20/2012/tables.html (Table 7)

The development of racial voting blocs is something that I hope we can avoid, in this country, like an asteroid that comes close to the earth, passing by closely in 2012, but ultimately missed us and went back out into space.

It's not healthy for any race to be voting 95% for one party. For one thing, it's a reflection of our failures to achieve a post-racial society. 95% of blacks obviously aren't liberal. A lot of conservative blacks are voting race over ideology because they feel they have to. For another, it means when the Republicans do win, blacks have no leverage at all. If a GOP administration tramples on civil rights, what can blacks do? I'd like to see Democrats focus more on reaching out to whites that voted for Romney, than simply relying on near uniform black support or overwhelming support from other minority groups.

The increased racial polarization of American politics obscures a more profound class divide between the politically engaged upper classes and the not-nearly-as-politically-engaged lower classes.

Rich people-Democrats and  Republicans alike-tend to vote for parties and candidates. Poor people-Democrats and Republicans alike-tend to vote against parties and candidates-if they vote at all, of course. When viewed in this light, the racial polarization can be understood better; Democrats are the party that have written off certain segments of poor and working-class whites; Republicans are the party that have written off racial minorities, especially blacks, but also (increasingly) Latinos and Asians.

[reactionary.]

author=Ѕenator Αverroës link=topic=173302.msg3725241#msg3725241[
By radicalism I mean the antithesis of traditional or 'Burkean' conservatism; in other words, support for fundamentally restructuring society and doing so rapidly.

Except they don't want to fundamentally restructure society; they want to preserve and increase existing social inequality between the traditionally dominant groups and everyone else.

A better term would be reactionary.

[which of these cultural attributes makes New England (and maybe more broadly, the Northeastern US) pretty overwhelmingly Democratic in contemporary times, especially relative to much of the rest of the country?]

Kinda a long thread title, but...

Anyway...for a few centuries, from the 1600s to the 1800s, New England's culture was pretty monolithic (relative to contemporary times); its population was of mostly English ancestry, with some French Canadian in the Northern part but otherwise, pretty homogenous.

Obviously, the 1800s changed that, with the arrival first of large numbers of Irish Catholics and later, in the late 1800s/early 1900s, many immigrants from Italy, Poland, and other Southern and Eastern European countries. Many of these immigrants were also Catholic, as well, in contrast to the native Yankees, who were descended from the Puritans and other colonial English who had arrived in the 1600s and 1700s, and had been almost entirely Protestant-Congregationalists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, as well as some Unitarians and Quakers among them.

For a few centuries, New England's culture was dominated by these Yankees or "WASPs". By the late 1800s, this meant, politically, that New England was very much a stronghold of the Republican Party (which had emerged, above all else, as the Yankee/WASP party). Most of the Catholic immigrants, especially the Irish, were attracted to the Democratic Party's laissez-faire attitude towards religion, compared to the more distinctly moralistic, Protestant GOP, which had not-insignificant hostilities among certain segments towards Catholicism (particularly immigrant Catholicism). No, the Republicans were certainly not nearly as bad as the Know-Nothings in this regard, but it can't be denied that these was a general attitude of hostility towards the Irish and other Catholics from many Republican-voting Yankees, in New England and elsewhere, that the Catholic immigrants and their children definitely picked up on.

OK, so the basic, general political divide in  New England  by the early 1900s was between Republican Yankees and Democratic Irish Catholics (and others). However, that historical divide is obviously not reflective of current reality, as the population of Yankees/WASPs in New England has dwindled (proportionally, and probably in raw numbers too), the "mainline" Protestant churches (which have also shrunk dramatically) have become more liberal politically, and the Catholic Church is a huge cultural presence as well (though many New England Catholics aren't really religious anymore. ) Furthermore, the old religious and ethnic lines have mostly crumbled, as it is now (and has been, for some time) pretty common for Catholics and Protestants (or more likely, their secular descendants) to marry each other, for example, and live in the same neighborhoods or go the same schools. In addition, there's also a fairly significant Jewish population in certain parts of New England, which, as they are often (mostly) secular Reform Jews, have contributed to a multi-ethnic, religiously diverse, and overall much more secular culture than in the past. Furthermore, whether they're secular or religious, Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Jewish, or something else entirely, New Englanders, as a group, are pretty well-educated (perhaps, the most well-educated regional population in America?), which makes sense, considering the long history of education in the region.

With all that being taken into account: which of these cultural attributes makes New England (and maybe more broadly, the Northeastern US) pretty overwhelmingly Democratic in contemporary times, especially relative to much of the rest of the country?

Whew, that was a long post.

Montgomery County, Maryland is very liberal.

I'm always amazed by how many suburbs Northern cities have. Every little neighborhood is its own little town. Seems needlessly complicated.

Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex and Atlanta have a ton of suburbs...

Whatever ideology falls under "wealthy white suburban male teenagers and young adults."

Liberal.

There you go.

Oh, and re: Libertarianism being overrepresented here...well, what else do you expect, considering the demographics of this forum?

Whatever ideology falls under "wealthy white suburban male teenagers and young adults."

Could this mean that some white democratic voters stayed home?

Millions upon millions of would-be white Democratic voters stay home for every election.

Particularly true in rural areas.

There is so much more that Republicans and Democrats alike could and should do. They could (and should) ask questions about the Obama Administration's expansion, legalization, and re authorization of many Bush Administration War on Terror practices. There is so much that should be investigated about the Obama Administration's ties to Wall Street.

But neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are going to ask those questions; doing so would implicate both parties as actively involved in policies that are against the interests of the American people, and it also would expose the Washington political and ideological consensus for the fraud that it is.

[would allow employers to pay their workers nothing extra for overtime work, other than the potentially empty promise of compensatory time -- "comp time" -- that can only be used at the employer's discretion.]

When the House votes Wednesday on a bill called the Working Families Flexibility Act, it will be the latest test of a Republican effort at rebranding.

The architect of that effort in the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., has so far had a mixed record.

In February, Cantor gave at the American Enterprise Institute. His pitch: The Republican Party needed to broaden its message beyond the fiscal fights of the past two years.

"Our House majority will pursue an agenda that is based on a shared vision of creating the conditions of health, happiness and prosperity for more Americans and their families," he said.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/08/182035413/cantors-rebranding-effort-tested-by-house-republicans

Btw, the "Working Families Flexibility Act" gives employers the freedom to determine work schedules and time off.

This legislation, proposed by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Representative Martha Roby, would allow employers to pay their workers nothing extra for overtime work, other than the potentially empty promise of compensatory time -- "comp time" -- that can only be used at the employer's discretion. H.R. 1406, cloaked in the positive language of "choice," is really just another attempt by Republicans to get rid of paid overtime.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-gwen-moore/working-families-flexibil_b_3232655.html

John and I'm quite shocked to be the first person to vote as such. John captures a sense of hunger that the other three don't in their writing, which makes it far more interesting to read. Not that the other three aren't good to read as well.

+1

Lots of religious people and truck driving, Budweiser drinking white people who love their guns.

This was a demographic that usually voted for Democrats(at least downballot) before the early 1990's. 

Not necessarily.

In the late 1800s, which voter blocs in the Northern United States were

1. Strongly Republican
2. Lean Republican
3. Lean Democratic
4. Strongly Democratic

?