Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP Gets Blue - It’s a red country now
NRO ^ | October 8, 2002 | Bill Whalen

Posted on 11/08/2002 11:21:24 AM PST by gubamyster

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

1 posted on 11/08/2002 11:21:24 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
Love to see an updated version.
2 posted on 11/08/2002 11:22:44 AM PST by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
"Pucker their Daschles". LOL! I love it.
3 posted on 11/08/2002 11:25:57 AM PST by Defend the Second
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
A blowout, with Bush approaching Reagan country and 400-plus electoral votes.

As much as I would like to see it, Bush won't be approaching Reagan Country in '04.

4 posted on 11/08/2002 11:27:05 AM PST by Dixie republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
bleeding Republican "red"

Red is the color of socialists and communists, hence it's Democrat Red, Republican Blue. Democrats like hiding behind blue because they must hide their true colors, and lying and misrepresentation is no problem for them. Two years ago the socialist media said the color switch was because blue is given to the incumbents, red the challengers. We are now the incumbents. Give us our damn color back!

5 posted on 11/08/2002 11:37:58 AM PST by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
I agree. The networks and the Dems deliberately switched colors when they reported the Bush-Gore race. Republicans have always been true blue, and Democrats have always been radical red.

It's time to drop that silly, Orwellian reversal of colors. Since when have we let the media rewrite our language?
6 posted on 11/08/2002 11:43:15 AM PST by Cicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
The Democrats are in big trouble. If they go left they lose their old supporters in the deep south / bible belt. If they go center they lose the 60's radicals and one-issue agendists. They tried standing in between the center and the radical left and look what it got them. A shift in either direction will end the Democratic party forever.
7 posted on 11/08/2002 11:44:43 AM PST by Naspino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
My guess in the Maryland race is that the sniper shootings highlighted the idiocy of the liberal stance against the death penalty and that put the final nail in KKT's political coffin.

In New England, I think that it was a combination of the war on terror (think Logan airport) and investors trusting Republicans more than tax and spend Democrats.
8 posted on 11/08/2002 11:46:25 AM PST by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
I think that if the war goes well and the economy picks up we could see a Nixon, Reagan type of landslide. The rats are goining to run a commie, Hitlery(?), and repeat the '72, '84, '88 elections. Every time the rats turn left they get their nads handed to them.
9 posted on 11/08/2002 11:48:37 AM PST by Little Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
How about puke, ahh I mean puce, as a color for the RATS?
10 posted on 11/08/2002 11:49:13 AM PST by pankot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dixie republican
As much as I would like to see it, Bush won't be approaching Reagan Country in '04.

You are probably right, but it is sure nice to dream. I don't really want to see a single party country. However, I want to see an oposition party that is loyal. Todays democrats are lying, spinning lawless (ref: New Jersey) anti-American hate mongers. I really believe that if they could, the Democrats would destroy our economy if they thought it would give them power. They don't care about the suffering they would cause as long as the end result is more power for democrats. That is scary.

11 posted on 11/08/2002 12:13:49 PM PST by Blue Screen of Death
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
The title is a little perplexing but good article. I don't get the impression that Bush's popularity is going to slip very much between now and the 2004 election cycle. I smell another Ronald Reagan landslide in the makings here. Hopefully Gore is nominated again so that he can tie Mondale's record of losing in all 50 states (Gore already lost his home state of Tennessee once).
12 posted on 11/08/2002 12:32:20 PM PST by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76
I don't get the impression that Bush's popularity is going to slip very much between now and the 2004 election cycle.

I felt the same way about Papa Bush just a year or so before his defeat to the Impeached Rapist. I realized Perot played a big part, but so many things can change in the next 24 months.

13 posted on 11/08/2002 12:59:44 PM PST by Coop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Defend the Second
 
"Pucker their Daschles". LOL! I love it.

Wasn't that great?  It's too bad Clymer is
already entrenched in that particular usage.

14 posted on 11/08/2002 1:12:40 PM PST by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
I think we can call that particular part of the anatomy by more than one name...
15 posted on 11/08/2002 1:14:58 PM PST by null and void
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
Only a year or two ago, NRO was projecting that 2000 would be the last election that Republicans would even have a chance of winning, given the demographic shift caused by immigration trends. Bush may have upset this by doing well among Hispanics. If we can simultaneously court the Hispanic vote while stopping illegal immigration (it's not really in the best interest of legal-citizen Hispanics, you know), the Republican Party might just have a future.
16 posted on 11/08/2002 1:19:46 PM PST by 537 Votes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
ooh! One in the know there. Not much has been brought up about the colors. I believe the color change happened sometime back in the 80's although I'm not sure.
17 posted on 11/08/2002 1:20:27 PM PST by hottomale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Reeses
Last I heard, they were alternating the red/blue designations every four years. The " it looks like a giant swimming pool" reference to President Reagan's victory was one factor. Plus the Dems were tired of the association of their party and the color red infering that they're communists. Not that they're not proud of the fact.
18 posted on 11/08/2002 1:20:36 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: null and void
What really excites me is the potential to get an increased lead in the House and Senate in 2004, plus the Presidency. Wow.....just think about it.

IT would be unlikely, but if the GOP can accomplish everything and neuter the Democrat gameplan, they could very well pull it off somehow.
19 posted on 11/08/2002 1:23:34 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster
I think California is too liberal to go for Bush but New York is definitely in play if only on account of 9-11 and if Bush wins New York and Ohio its all over for the Democrats.
20 posted on 11/08/2002 1:23:36 PM PST by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-29 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson