January 23, 2004
WELL RED
Processing all the polling data he can gather, the Blogging Caesar comes up with a nifty map showing the current state of play in the US. Constantly updated, so check back often.
(Via Florida Cracker)
Posted by Tim Blair at January 23, 2004 01:01 PMLet's see how the map changes now that it's apparent that Dean will not be the nominee. (Tim, you may wish to adjust the settings on your Snark-O-Matic™ accordingly.)
Posted by: vaara at January 23, 2004 at 06:49 PMI made a map too: link
Mine is based on what the gamblers at tradesports.com are predicting.
Of course, they predicted Dean would win Iowa, so maybe I shouldn't be listening to them.
Posted by: Tim Shell at January 23, 2004 at 08:01 PMIllinois in the Red column? From your lips to God's ears...
Posted by: Annalucia at January 23, 2004 at 11:54 PMIf California ever turns red the Democrats might never win another Presidential election.
Posted by: Randal Robinson at January 24, 2004 at 12:36 AMRandal:
Yes, BUT if CA is simply not automatically shaded blue, i.e., if the Dems have to FIGHT for CA (even if it's just at the top of the ticket), the Dems are in trouble.
All of a sudden, CA (w/ its very expensive media buys), has to be pounded w/ commercials. The candidate has to spend time there. National Committee resources have to be diverted there.
Even if the GOP loses there ultimately, keeping it in play 'til late hurts the Dems nationwide.
Same goes for NY.
Conversely, the GOP needs to keep a whole lot of small states in their pocket. Only TX comes close to being such a "must-win" state. BUT, so long as the Dems are prepared to simply "write-off" the South (w/ the possible exception of FL), then it's the equivalent of handing over at least a CA.
And calling all (or even most) southerners "dumb," "crackers," "rednecks" doesn't exactly help in keeping the South in play for the Dems.
Posted by: Dean at January 24, 2004 at 01:17 AMWho called anyone a "cracker"? If you're referring to the blog title "Florida Cracker," that particular epithet seems to have been applied by a Bush-lovin', Democrat-hatin', Southern gal to herself -- with, one assumes, no intention whatsoever of actually insulting any inbred pig-fucking hillbillies.
Posted by: vaara at January 24, 2004 at 01:34 AMFlorida pioneers and their descendants are called Crackers. If some people don't like us, that's their problem. The word is no epithet for us. My oldest nephew has "Cracker" tattooed across his shoulder blades in 80-point font.
Posted by: Donnah at January 24, 2004 at 04:27 AMCharming, Donnah. Does the lad have "RED" tattooed on the back of his neck?
Posted by: mojo at January 24, 2004 at 06:23 AMNo, he doesn't. Do you have "FOOL" tattooed on yours?
Posted by: Donnah at January 24, 2004 at 06:46 AMBush gains California!!!
Shouldn't that be spelt Caulifornia?
(It's since returned to being democrat)
I'm surprised that the republican areas are being coloured red. The only time red was associated with "right-wing"-ness without there being blue as well involved a swastika.
(Took me a while to get the spelling. One of the top hits was for something in Bali)
Posted by: Andjam at January 24, 2004 at 07:39 AM"Red" as in "red alert." As in the biggest possible danger to the country.
Posted by: vaara at January 24, 2004 at 08:01 AMI have a hope that Californians will turn that thing to red. Mostly because I'm one of them.
Posted by: Papertiger at January 24, 2004 at 08:04 AMAndjam,
"I'm surprised that the republican areas are being coloured red. The only time red was associated with "right-wing"-ness without there being blue as well involved a swastika."
It's a case political correctness. At one time the mainstream American news media had it the other way around, but the Dems often objected because of the association of "Red" with the Soviets; it was a common epithet thrown at them ever since the 1930's. Of course, many of the activist left (our friendly Deaniacs and the denizens of Democraticunderground) are unabashed Marxists.
Posted by: Spiny Norman at January 24, 2004 at 08:17 AMBless you, Donnah. I would like to kill a six pack or three with you and your nephew driving the back roads some evening, tossing the empties in the bed, and talking about the meaning of life its ownself.
I'm buyin'.
Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at January 24, 2004 at 08:56 AMI think the "red=Republican" thing started with Nancy Reagan's little red dresses.
Posted by: vaara at January 24, 2004 at 10:01 AMI think the "red=Republican" thing started with Nancy Reagan's little red dresses.
And was reinforced with Monica's blue dress?
"Red" as in "red alert." As in the biggest possible danger to the country.
Also, in military jargon, red is the enemy, while blue represents people on your side. ("Blue on Blue" is another euphanism for shooting troops on your own side)
Posted by: Andjam at January 24, 2004 at 12:22 PMThe colors are those of the American flag. We don't have "white states" because that would confuse people into thinking it was a race issue. That leaves red and blue.
Republicans are red becuase the word 'Republican' and the word 'red' start with the same two letters, so subconsciously we more easily associate them.
Posted by: Tim Shell at January 24, 2004 at 03:32 PMThe Republicon states are red because of the oil and blood that's been squeezed out of them by the giant Haliburton oil-sucking mosquito machines that were smuggled past the stupid uneducated masses inside plastic turkeys.
Posted by: Sortelli at January 24, 2004 at 06:05 PM