Posted on 08/31/2016 11:23:33 PM PDT by Whiskeyjim
The Right remains in haughty, indignant reactive mode to the 24 hour news cycle established by the left. They should be commanding the news cycle by examining what a Clinton Supreme Court will do. Because it is truly scary.
Actually, the colors used to change every election . One year the Republicans would be blue and the dims red, the next election it would reverse. Suddenly, the colors stuck at red for r and blue for d.
The media knew that if the colors stuck at red for d it would be too definitive of the d agenda... communism.
See my post 21.
I did not realize the colors switched due to incumbency. I knew they changed, but thought it was just cyclical.
Thanks for clarifying that.
Revelation 3:16
So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
Apparently it depends on which news organization you were watching and practices varied. What I said is what I had read in the past.
So we’re all wrong.
The point is that the colors used in 2000 stuck in the public consciousness and that is why they have not changed since then. Not a Communist conspiracy.
Yep, I just looked it up as well: http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363762677/the-color-of-politics-how-did-red-and-blue-states-come-to-be
I watched NBC back and sometimes CBS back in the days before FOX, and they always designated the GOP in blue. Apparently that wasn’t universal.
But in 2000, every network started using the current color schemes. Why do you think that is? Just a coincidence? I’ve read that the lib networks colluded and decided to eliminate the association of Democrats with the color red, for obvious reasons. And they sure succeeded.
DOn’t go throwing Bible quotes around that have NOTHING to do with this election. It is offensive
Because one does not say out loud that one is voting for Trump but then goes ahead and votes for Trump is a good thing.
That scripture is referring to churches and people of faith that do not proclaim God. That is a huge difference
The simple explanation is that the 2000 election was hotly contested and the entire country was swept up in the happenings. Talk of “red states” and “blue states” became common.
In 2004, following the pattern, Bush as incumbent would have been blue. So any talk about election politics and red states and blue states in 2004 would have been confusing. Were we using the 2000 definition of “red” or the 2004 one?
It only makes sense to fix the colors once everyone has the definitions seared into their minds.
Not a Communist conspiracy.
According the the article I posted above, incumbency had nothing to do with the color destinations prior to 2000. It was all rather arbitrary, but most networks (including the ones I watched) invariably used blue for the GOP and red for Donkeys. In every election. Then in 2000, suddenly ALL the network started using the opposite color scheme.
My contention is not that it was a "communist conspiracy," but a collusion by the networks to banish once and for all the embarrassing (for liberals) Dems = Red association. Then, as you said, the use of "red states" and "blue states" became embedded in the national consciousness, and that was all she wrote.
It’s possible the consensus developed in 2000 was based on the desire to not associate Dems with reds. It’s probably just as possible some other consensus (including incumbent blue) would have been reached in 2004 had the events of 2000 not taken place. Nobody really cared much about the color scheme before then.
You better not watch then.......
It didn’t stick with those that know what it means.
Well past time to start caring. Reds are destroying this country.
That’s not so. If that were the case, Carter would’ve been labeled “blue.” I never knew of any other type of labeling in the modern era that had Republicans called “Reds.” Indeed, if there were left-leaning Republicans, they were called “Pink Elephants.” One left-winger in MA would carry one around with him when campaigning.
This was deliberate mislabeling, every bit as much on the media’s part as their serving as the propaganda wing for the Democrats.
It’s not so.
I will keep calling it out as wrong, because it is.
Bigger things to worry about. Just roll with it.
Exactly, what do you mean?
It IS a big thing. If we can’t name what we’re fighting, we’ve already lost. Reds are Communists, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis, the embodiment of leftist totalitarianism and the American Democrat Party. It’s not only historically incorrect for our side, that of freedom, to be labeled “Red”, it is morally and ethically incorrect and utterly repugnant.
Well, good luck with that. The rest of us will concentrate on winning the WAR. Then we can call them what we want. :)
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.