Posted on 02/17/2010 9:04:42 AM PST by LouAvul
The electoral map candidate Barack Obama remade in 2008 appears to be retreating into its familiar patterns.
Obama broke the decisive role Ohio and Florida seemed to play in presidential elections, by moving from trench warfare engagement in the two states to a broader battlefield on which Republicans were placed on the defensive in states they'd once taken for granted. And his victories in places where Democrats had fared poorly in recent elections — Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, the interior West — seemed to validate his strategists' claims that he had consigned the red state-blue state presidential dichotomy to the bookstore remainders bin.
But now some of the same unlikely states that Obama put in his party's column 15 months ago feature Senate, House and governor's races with Democratic candidates in grave danger of losing in what is quickly shaping up to be a toxic election cycle.
While off-year and down-ballot elections are inherently different than presidential contests, the rapid reversal in Democratic fortunes in the very places where Obama's success brought so much attention suggests that predictions of a lasting realignment were premature.
And it's raising the question of whether the president's 2008 win was the result of a unique set of circumstances that will be difficult for him to replicate again and perhaps downright impossible for other Democrats on the ballot to reprise.
"They had wind at their back," said former Rep. Tom Davis, a Virginia Republican and a student of national politics, of Obama's historic victory. "People were hungry for change, and the president was running against a 72-year-old guy who couldn't use a computer."
But, Davis added: "One election doesn't make realignment."
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
People are still hungry for change. That's why there are Tea Parties.
The establishment of both Parties does not truly understand is that more Government is the problem, not the solution.
But hey, what can you expect from a RINO like Davis, who was my local Congress critter until I moved into a neighboring district in 2006?
Our next governor in Michigan is pretty likely to be a republican and my congressional district is looking a lot like it will return to republican hands.
“And it’s raising the question of whether the president’s 2008 win was the result of a unique set of circumstances that will be difficult for him to replicate again and perhaps downright impossible for other Democrats on the ballot to reprise.”
Obama won by running a “Blame Bush” campaign. It’s quite simple actually.
The blue came?comes from the imported and invented attrempts to dye our nation something other than what she is.
My current Marxist congressman (Mark “golden” Schauer) has pretty much admitted that his win in this traditionally republican district was the result of Obama being on the ticket.
People who didn’t normally vote turned out to vote for Obama and mostly voted straight ticket because they didn’t know any of the other names on the ballot. He still only won by 2%. I don’t see how he can replicate that when he has to run on his own.
My conservative choice (Tim Walberg) is leading by 10 points or more in early polling.
The Dems are shooting themselves in the foot and don’t even know it.
They really, honestly don’t seem to get that people don’t want or like what they have to offer.
Keep up the good work guys. Maybe we can get this country back yet.
Michigan is dominated by union-bought political hacks in both parties. Even if the GOP candidate pulls out the governorship, they will face a totally hostile state government and a union and welfarist mentality that will destroy any chance of improvement. About the only positive thing that can be said for living in michigan is that if you are independently wealthy or have a secure income within a few years you’ll be able to purchase a compound for pennies on the dollar and live like a third-world potentate.
Obama won because he and Big Media LIED and LIED and LIED and LIED and LIED and LIED.
The reversal in states like VA are voters “buyers remorse”. The Media lied to the public and told them how bad everything was, and until democraps really ran things into the ground and showed everyone how bad things could get in reality.
Exactlty right!
Thanks for all your help. [/sarc]
I remember when Reagan won, we were solid Blue. Who switched the colors, and why???
The Dem-bulb States have always been Red because they are filled with a bunch of Leftists. Who ever decided to label those States as blue during the 2000 national elections must have been a Leftist.
Red States for the Reds, Blue States for the rest of us.
The colors were switched during the 2000 national elections. I think it was another Leftist ploy to throw people off as to who they really are. Is there someone who can correct this mistake by making a map showing the Leftist-controlled States as being RED and the rest of them blue? Thanks!
Joseph Farah has something to say about this.
http://www.creators.com/opinion/joseph-farah/how-to-red-states-blue.html
How to Red States Blue
(excerpt)
I must be getting old. I’m getting forgetful. I have trouble remembering what a red state denotes and what a blue state means.
But I don’t think it’s an early case of Alzheimer’s that causes this confusion. Rather, I suggest to you the fact that I am old enough to remember when Democratic states were labeled red and Republican states were considered blue.
I would also suggest that former system made more sense and was deliberately changed by media partisans who didn’t like to suggest Democrats as being associated with the color red.
Let me provide a little history for those too young to remember and for those old enough to have forgotten.
The current use of Republican red and Democrat blue began only eight years ago. It has been attributed to the late Tim Russert, a respected television interviewer, but one who worked formerly for Democratic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York. He first used this color scheme in 2000, according to the Washington Post, and it took.
I’m not surprised it did, given the political complexion of the national press corps.
In fact, even the predictably leeward tilting Wikipedia acknowledges the newly adopted U.S. hue standard stands in stark contrast “to the system of political colors in most other long-established democracies, where blue represents right wing and conservative parties, while red represents left-wing and socialist parties.”
I strongly suspect this not-so-subtle change eight years ago was deliberate on the part of Russert and those who so eagerly picked up on it.
Well they are certainly “blue states” now.
The stranglehold the Corruptocrats have had on them for decades has choked the life out of them leaving only the blood sucking vampire Corruptocrat governments and the parasitical unions and welfare recipients who feed off the corpse.
See Detroit and Michigan for a fine example of that.
I don't remember anyone making a fuss about this when it happened, but it was so strange to see it changed. I thought they must be Broadcasting the wrong information on the Election night maps.
I kinda thought it had something to do with the Liberal communist RED color and their wanting to distance themselves from it.
Oh well, I suppose when the next Election night maps show the SEA of RED, they will want that color back. ROFL.
I think to be more accurate with the map the red states (for Reds) should have the old Soviet Union hammer and sickle symbol embedded within them. The Blue states should have the American flag within theirs.
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.