Red states and blue states

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blue States redirects here. For the musical band of that name, see Blue States (band). For the film, see Blue State (film).

Map of results by state of the 2004 U.S. presidential election, representing states won by the Democrats as blue and those won by the GOP as red.

Map of results by state of the 2000 U.S. presidential election reflect current practice, representing states won by the Republicans with red, and states won by the Democrats with blue.

Red States and Blue States refer to those states whose residents predominantly vote for the Republican Party or Democratic Party presidential candidates respectively. The term became ubiquitous following the 2000 presidential election. (See Origins of current color scheme)

Details on the actual electoral geography can be found at Electoral geography of the United States.

1 The divide
- 1.1 Purple States
2 Polarization
3 Origins of current color scheme
4 Critiques
5 See also
6 References
7 External links

[edit] The divide

The maps that have emerged from recent U.S. elections follow a sharply-defined geographical pattern. The Red states tend to fall in the South, the Great Plains, and the Intermountain West, with the Blue states in the Northeast, the Upper Midwest and the West Coast. The Midwest is rather divided. The strongest blue state in the Midwest, Illinois, is by far the most urban, where both Gore and 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry had over 10% margin wins, lending to the strength of its designation as being the United States' "Third Coast".

The county-by-county and district-by-district maps reveal that the true nature of the divide is between urban areas/inner suburbs and outer suburbs/rural areas. In "solidly Blue" states, most of the counties outside the major urban areas voted for Bush. In "solidly Red" states, most of the urban areas voted for John Kerry (with exceptions of Dallas; Houston; Phoenix; San Antonio; Salt Lake City; Colorado Springs; Oklahoma City; Tulsa; Wichita; Louisville, KY; Cincinnati; Omaha, NE; Virginia Beach; Birmingham, Alabama; Jacksonville; and Tampa.)

Red states and Blue states have several demographic differences from each other. The association between colors and demographics was notably made in a column by Mike Barnicle, and reinforced in a controversial response from Paul Begala (though the association between demographics and voting patterns was well known before that).

The most common observation is that the majority of Red states tend to feature more rural areas, with agriculture being one of the most important industries. The majority of Blue states tend to be more urban, have higher per capita income, higher levels of post-secondary education and are more multicultural (even in such "Blue" strongholds as New York and California, the GOP won the slight majority of the white vote in 2004). These demographic trends, along with less obvious correlations, have been analyzed in detail by conservative pundit Steve Sailer.

[edit] Purple States

2004 United States presidential election results by county, on a color spectrum from Democratic blue to Republican red

The political and demographic applications of the terms have led to a temptation to presume this arbitrary classification is a clear-cut and fundamental cultural division. Given the general nature and common perception of the two parties, "red state" implies a conservative region or a more conservative type of American, and "blue state" implies a liberal region or a more liberal type of American. But the distinction between the two groups of states is hardly so simplistic. The analysis that suggests political, cultural, and demographic differences between the states is more accurate when applied to smaller geographical areas. Pennsylvania, for example, shows "red" characteristics in the Westsylvania interior, but "blue" characteristics around the urban centers of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Democratic political consultant James Carville has described Pennsylvania as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between," suggesting that Pennsylvania, like several other blue states, would be solid red without its cities, due to its remainder's rural and religious, and thus socially conservative, nature.

Cartogram of the 2004 presidential election results.

Traditionally, the practice of designating a U.S. state as "red" or "blue" is based on the winner-take-all system employed for presidential elections by 48 of the 50 U.S. states (Nebraska and Maine being the exceptions), and the District of Columbia.

Despite the prevalent winner-take-all practice, the minority always gets a sizeable vote. Because of this, a third term has emerged, referring to these closely-divided states as purple states. Furthermore, it could be argued that all states are "purple" to varying degrees and that the "red vs. blue" division is far from an accurate description of US culture.

All states were consistent in voting for George W. Bush or his challenger in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections except for three: New Mexico (Gore in '00 and Bush in '04), Iowa (Gore in '00 and Bush in '04) and New Hampshire (Bush in '00 and Kerry in '04). The 2004 election showed two of these three states to be true to the presidential preferences of their respective regions, creating a greater regional separation; thus, an argument that the country is more divided from the 2000 election. All three of those states were very close in both elections.

[edit] Polarization

The division between red states and blue states has triggered a pronounced introspection among blue staters and red staters. Feelings of cultural and political polarization, which have gained increased media attention since the 2004 election, have led to increased mutual feelings of alienation and enmity. These attitudes have led to the often jocular suggestion that a red state-blue state secession is in order. The Jesusland map is one such joke, a satirical map that redraws the U.S.-Canada border to reflect this sociopolitical schism.

The polarization has been present for only two close elections (2000 and 2004). In the 1996 election, 31 U.S. states were "blue" and 19 "red" (though at the time the colors were not used consistently by the major networks). One thing that has been more consistent over this period is that the average "blue" state has a greater number of people and electoral votes than does the average "red" state. (When George W. Bush won 31 states in 2004, he gathered 286 electoral votes — an average of 9 electoral votes for each state won. When Bill Clinton won 31 states in 1996, he tallied 379 electoral votes — an average of 12 electoral votes per state carried.)

Viewing the nation as divided into two camps requires ignoring the largest single group of Americans: those who don't vote. In the 2000 election only about 54 percent of eligible voters were motivated enough to vote. In 2004, after the loudest, most-expensive get-out-the-vote campaigns by both ideological camps, the percentage who voted rose only a few points. Hence 2004 set an all-time national record with more than 80 million eligible voters taking a pass, far more than voted for either George W. Bush or John Kerry.

In fact, no Republican or Democratic nominee has attracted as much as 30 percent of eligible voters since Ronald Reagan in 1984.

[edit] Origins of current color scheme

Prior to the 2000 presidential election, there was no universally recognized color scheme to represent political parties in the USA. The practice of using colors to represent parties on electoral maps dates back at least as far as the 1950s, when such a format was employed within the Hammond series of historical atlases.^{[citation needed]} Color-based schemes became more widespread with the adoption of color television in the 1960s and nearly ubiquitous with the advent of color in newspapers. A three-color scheme -- red, white and blue, the colors of the U.S. flag -- makes sense, and the third color, white, is useful in depicting maps showing states that are "undecided" in the polls and in election-night television coverage.

Early on, the most common—though again, not universal—color scheme was to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. This was the color scheme employed by NBC—David Brinkley famously referred to the 1984 map showing Reagan's 49-state landslide as a "sea of blue", but this color scheme was also employed by most newsmagazines. CBS during this same period, however, used the opposite scheme—blue for Democrats, red for Republicans. ABC was less consistent than its elder network brothers; in at least two presidential elections during this time before the emergence of cable news outlets, ABC used yellow for one major party and blue for the other. As late as 1996, there was still no universal association of one color with one party.^[1] If anything, the majority of outlets in 1996 were using blue for the GOP and red for the Democrats.^{[citation needed]}

But in 2000, for the first time, all major media outlets used the same colors for each party: Red for Republicans, blue for Democrats. Partly as a result of this first-time universal color-coding, the terms Red States and Blue States entered popular usage in the weeks following the 2000 presidential election. Additionally, the closeness of the disputed election kept the colored maps in the public view for longer than usual, and red and blue thus became fixed in the media and in many people's minds.[2] Journalists began to routinely refer to "blue states" and "red states" even before the 2000 election was settled. After the results were final, journalists stuck with the color scheme, such as The Atlantic's cover story by David Brooks in the December 2001 issue entitled, "One Nation, Slightly Divisible." Thus red and blue became fixed in the media and in many people's minds [3] despite the fact that no "official" color choices had been made by the parties.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made use of the color scheme when it launched a national "Red to Blue Program" in 2006.[4] Otherwise the color scheme is unofficial and informal, but is widely recognized by media and commentators. Partisan supporters now often use the colors for promotional materials and campaign merchandise.

The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor and/or liberal interests[5][6], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. For example, in Canada party colours are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged during the Twentieth Century. The Liberal Party of Canada has long used red and the Conservative Party of Canada has long used blue, and in fact the phrases Liberal red and Tory blue are a part of the national lexicon, as is Red Tory, denoting Conservative members who are social moderates. Similarly, the symbol of Britain's Labour Party is a red rose (and the socialist song 'The Red Flag' is still sung at party conferences), while the British Conservatives are traditionally associated with the colour blue. However, in the United States the term "blue collar" is applied to working people and may be associated with organized labor, which is generally supportive of the Democratic Party.

In the 1880s, the color scheme was the opposite of the current one. In 1888, a Chicago publisher released a 'Red Hot Democratic' and a 'True Blue Republican' song book in preparation for the upcoming election. (Biggs Argus, 6 September 1888)

[edit] Critiques

The paradigm has come under criticism on a number of fronts, however. Firstly, many argue that the usefulness of assigning partisanship to states is only really useful as it pertains to the Electoral College, a winner-take-all system of elections. Many states contradict their assigned coloration by electing governors or senators from the other party.

Some conservatives have also been wary of using the red state term to describe conservative or Republican-voting electorates, as the term had previously most often been associated with socialist states, like Cuba, China, and East Germany. However, it may by argued that a color scheme associating red with the Democratic Party would have never become widely popularized since Democrats would have been at least as reluctant to associate themselves with a color that has been historically perceived as associated with "un-American" communism.