Up to and including 2000, red was used to denote the “challenger” in the election. Example - 1984, when Reagan won 49 BLUE states and Mondull had one state plus the District of Corruption.
The media decided post 2000 to “stick” the right with red because the red/communist connection with the democrats would be a little too “truthy”.
Now, red means redneck, so maybe it was a useful trade.
Agree. Almost a hundred years of Red Army, Red Brigades, Red October, Mao’s Little Red Book, etc . . . I’ll never associate red with conservatism.
Yes, that’s how conservatives got stuck with the “red” moniker. I was astonished when I recently heard Rush say he didn’t remember how the red/blue descriptors got decided.
Red (as in communist) better describes the democrats, but I don’t care if it’s used for conservatives because we are the lifeblood of the nation ;)
I just think it’s important to remember how the lib media used their power to skirt the “red” label.
It’s part of the Left’s War on History. Why conservatives have fallen for it, I don’t know.
The media controls the narrative.
The media decided post 2000 to “stick” the right with red because the red/communist connection with the democrats would be a little too “truthy”.
Right theory, wrong date. 1992 was when they started doing it because Making Bill Clinton wear the communist colors was just too obvious. I remember it because I was screaming bloody murder about their underhanded tactics when I first saw it back in 1992.
I explicitly stated then that they had made George HW Bush "RED" because Clinton was too closely connected to actual communists in his past.
According to that Smithsonian article:
“Kevin Drum of the Washington Monthly wrote in 2004 that the networks alternated colors based on the party of the White House incumbent, but YouTube reveals that to be a myth.’
IIRC, Reagan wasn’t the “challenger” in the 1984 election when his wins were shown as blue. He was also ‘blue’ in the 1980 election when he was very much the challenger.