Red states gain, blue states lose, in BRAC?

[Railroad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by rraley

Well if this was truly politicized, I highly doubt that the BRAC committee, which is composed of Democrats and Republicans, would not have proposed the closing of an air force base in South Dakota, which Republican Senator John Thune said he could save solely because he was a Republican (helped him to beat Tom Daschle in one of the most classless Senate races across the nation if you ask me). South Dakota is deepest, darkest red and that base is the second largest employer in the state...wouldn't make political sense for the BRAC to remove it.

This part of the process has not been political...the following politicizing will come when Congress gets its paws on it.

Good assessment. Sure you don't want to change parties? (j/k)

[Railroad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Lenny

The party of 'No' doesn't expect anyone to check their math on these announcements. And in the end they're right to say these ridiculous (rediculous?) things because 16 months from now when the mid-term elections are held, the electorate will only remember that 'someone' asserted that blue states somehow lost more than red states in the process. They'll not remember that the math just wasn't there to support that assertion.

The American public in general, regardless of red or blue coloration, has a woefully short memory, has flawed vision, has poor reasoning skills, and cannot make a decision without some yokel on TV telling them what to think. If one could embody the American public in a single person, that person would be in a nursing home with Alzheimer's.

[Bustem' Down]

I think that the whole "red state blue state" label needs to be dropped. As a country right now we're divided enough as it is, we don't need to add labels too it. Do you people like being refered to as a blue state?

[chaotic]

I like this map better, than the red-blue one. It doesn't look nearly as polarized.

[Lenny]

The whole idea of red state/blue state was a graphic to allow Dan Rather and the rest of the network anchors to present to a politically illiterate audience who was winning where. The Democrats continue to stress the red (evil) vs. blue (salvation) message because their only strategy remains class warfare. They continue to rile up the over-65 class on the issue of Social Security rescue even though not a single one of them will be impacted by the Republican plan. They continue to rile up the minorities even though this administration and party have done more for minorities than 40 years of "The Great Society," "The War on Poverty" and other liberal failures.

Dean MUST villify Bush even though will won't shorten his administration one day. He must do this to tarnish the positive outcomes and results that the Republicans can point to in the next general elections.

[Tonio]

Originally Posted by Bustem' Down

I think that the whole "red state blue state" label needs to be dropped. As a country right now we're divided enough as it is, we don't need to add labels too it. Do you people like being refered to as a blue state?

I think the red/blue divide is a rural/urban one, not a state-by-state one. And I agree with you about the country being too divided.

[SamSpade]

Originally Posted by Tonio

I think the red/blue divide is a rural/urban one, not a state-by-state one. And I agree with you about the country being too divided.

The *county* red/blue map bears this out. The metropolitan centers vote Democrat; the suburbs and rural areas vote Republican. The "blue" states are only blue because the population centers have more people than the rest of the state. Barring anything strictly geographical - there WERE Southern/Southwest metro areas that went Bush - it's city versus country.

And the Dems won't win any votes by continually making the case that it's a matter of educated enlightened persons versus rural hicks, bigots and illiterates, no matter how many states Howard Dean goes to visit.

"You're FAR too *stupid* to vote Democrat, as you should, but I've come to enlighten you poor white trash".

Yeah. We're so stupid, we'll even fall for THAT kind of appeal.

Here's two scary points.

One - the "red" states are growing in population; the blue ones are shrinking. "Red" states will have more "red" voters - AND RED CONGRESSMAN.

Two - the presumption of rural ignorance is going to bite them in the azz. Many of these regions are swelling in population because people from the blue states are MOVING THERE. Question: Does living in a red state breed ignorant, Republican voting rednecks, or does something about living away from the city either appeal to people who share their values, or encourage self-reliance? Having moved from the city to the country, I've found much of my city-spawned ideas fading. Does this happen to others?

[Tonio]

Why such a divergence in attitudes? My guess is that city dwellers see more government as necessary when so many people are living so close together. Maybe country dwellers don't see government as impacting their lives much, plus they are more distant from Washington. (I'm betting RRaley might defend FDR by citing examples of government helping rural areas, like the TVA and the REA. But I'm talking about attitudes and perceptions.)

And the difference in social attitudes? I'm not sure. Many rural communities had the concept of "town gossip" which helped enforce the local view of morality. Even as late as the '80s, there was scuttlebutt in my high school about a couple of girls getting pregnant and moving away temporarily until their babies were born. Maybe it's just harder for "town gossip" to spread in a city where millions of people don't know one another.