Posted on 12/01/2016 7:34:54 AM PST by drop 50 and fire for effect
On Election Night 2016, I found myself at BuzzFeed’s offices in New York City. They had embarked on a bold live streaming show with the aim of mocking traditional network coverage and providing a fun, straight-to-the-point program of returns, tweets, and Millennial-centric fare. Behind the scenes, this meant practice runs of the night.
Our first trial rehearsal involved a scenario many at the time thought unlikely, if not impossible: a Trump win.
And the trial we ran, in fact, turned out to be closer to the reality of the night than any publicized election whiz’s projection.
His victory wasn’t out of the blue: The New York Times’ Nate Cohn had written about his potential to tap white blue-collar voters north of the Mason-Dixon line, I’ve spilled ink here and at The Federalist describing the changing registration patterns and untapped voters, and the Cook Political Report’s Dave Wasserman waxed about Pennsylvania’s value back in June. But it was still a shock that, after the Keystone State had tempted and ensnared so many Republicans, it was Donald Trump and his team who took it home.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Thanks for posting but no way I click on National Review. Never again.
Trump needs to bring back American manufacturing, build a wall along the border, and reduce corporate taxation (bringing back US dollars from overseas)
Those three are critical, and I hope start on day one.
All three of those, are on the “must complete” list.
I don’t read GlobalistReview.
What we like to describe as Red vs. Blue states doesn't reflect the biggest underlying factor in this country's liberal-conservative divide: urbanization.
Urbanization is what makes New York and California solidly blue, and has turned places like New Hampshire, Virginia and North Carolina from red to purple and (in Virginia's case) a light shade of blue. And the decline of Rust Belt cities like Detroit, Cleveland and Pittsburgh has helped the GOP capitalize on winning states like Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Wish more people would start doing this when posting terrible news outlets, so site traffic equals zero.
That's where I stopped reading, thinking this is gonna be a long screed about who knows what. Catchy title, though.
Obviously never been to Connecticut
Yep. And urban places are where the bulk of globalists live, in stack and pack housing, commuting on subways to jobs in places lacking culture or identity.
Does anyone else remember when, on election night, the news stations’ maps colored Democrat wins red and GOP wins blue? When did that change? And who decided it had to change?
I don’t disagree, that urbanization is a factor, an important one, but it is but one factor. Policies, such as the Democrat hostility to fossil fuels, and immigration (which plays both ways) matter.
The Democrat party has hitched it’s wagon to urbanized coastal elites, only to find they are too concentrated. It is useless to run up the score in California, Illinois, and New York, and lose 30 of the other 47 states.
Bookmark
you are correct but...... it is still a near thing. The voting shows the nation is almost evenly split.
With real work and a little chicanery and lots of money, the margin in the cities can be increased and then there will be a Rat win again.
The cities turn out to be populated with American enemies
you are correct but...... it is still a near thing. The voting shows the nation is almost evenly split.
With real work and a little chicanery and lots of money, the margin in the cities can be increased and then there will be a Rat win again.
The cities turn out to be populated with American enemies
Trump wasn’t a typical republican. The typical republican runs with tax cuts (and spending cuts to meet those tax cuts) and social issues (like guns and the Supreme Court). The problem was that many people didn’t make enough money to pay any taxes or they were losing their jobs. They just weren’t interested in fair tax, flat tax or any other tax reform. They weren’t in the energy sector so drill baby drill wasn’t enough, either.
Trump comes along and tells everyone I know this other way to grow the economy besides tax cuts. It’s fixing our trade deals and immigration. Everyone else in the GOP was completely thrown off because this was not part of the Heritage/Cato/WSJ/National Review playbook. nobody ever questioned it before. It’s assumed “ok I am a conservative, I should be for cutting taxes and voting for every FTA that’s proposed no matter what”
I think prior to the 2000 election, they bounced back and forth and were different between networks. After then, the networks settled on a Red=GOP, Blue=Dem convention.
Freeper fieldmarshaldj has discussed this at length. He (correctly in my mind) believes that Red is the historical color of Socialist and Communist parties. Assigning Blue to the Democrat Party is a technique to downplay their socialist leanings. He emphatically uses Red for the Democrats.
Your question is one that I have posed on various threads throughout this and previous election cycles. You are correct in noting the the “original” maps on election nights past showed the Democrats as red and Republicans as blue. This goes back to the 1960’s. It was explained at the time that there was no symbolic correlation between the color and the parties and that the colors would be reversed from time to time. As the late 1960’s were filled with anti-war protests and race riots, the heads of the three major networks realized that there was an unfortunate and potentially fatal connection between the Democrats and the “Reds” ie., Communists. This connection was corrected in the mid-70’s, reversing the color scheme. Mindful of the subliminal reference to the Communist influence in the Democrat party, the colors have remained unchanged ever since.
“Trump comes along and tells everyone I know this other way to grow the economy besides tax cuts. It’s fixing our trade deals and immigration. Everyone else in the GOP was completely thrown off because this was not part of the Heritage/Cato/WSJ/National Review playbook. nobody ever questioned it before. It’s assumed “ok I am a conservative, I should be for cutting taxes and voting for every FTA that’s proposed no matter what”
What is interesting about trade deals and immigration is that they are completely Constitutional right from the start. They are completely under the power of the Federal government. Trump does not need to do anything unconstitutional to push his trade deals and to enforce immigration laws.
It is a beautiful thing.
Yes we are split, but a truly successful presidency does help reshape the map. We know the Dems will throw chicanery and money to increase their vote. But the GOP (much to my surprise) was able to effectively get out the vote. Trump helped and had coattails, but he recognized that GOP efforts helped put him over the top.
It is not a static equation, it is dynamic, actions generate counter actions, which generate responses, etc... Each of these has differing effects and impacts upon the next election. A successful Trump presidency, like Nixon’s first term and Reagan’s two terms, makes the GOP’s task much easier.
N8ational Review NeoCons wanting to take credit for Trump and follower’s’ success. I think NOT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.