red states and blue states

Further information: Electoral geography of the United States

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 Republican Party 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 began to emerge in mainstream political discussion following the 2000 presidential election. However, the term gained ubiquitous status after the 2004 presidential elections.(See Origins of current color scheme) Since then, usage of the term has been expanded to differentiate between states being perceived as liberal and those perceived as conservatives. A blue state may thereby be any state leaning towards the Democratic ticket while a red state may be any state leaning towards the Republican ticket.

This system used in the United States of America is in stark contrast to the color system used in the vast majority of other nations. In most other parts of the world, blue represents right wing and conservative parties, while red represents left wing and socialist parties.

The divide

Although the Electoral College determines the Presidential election, a true measure of how the country actually voted is best represented by a state-by-state, county-by-county, and district-by-district map. These maps generally shade from red to blue and is more aptly described as a purple map, considering that some states have rural or urban areas that will tend to vote one way or another.

The county-by-county and district-by-district maps reveal that the true nature of the divide is between urban areas/inner suburbs and suburbs/rural areas. Even in "solidly Blue" states, the majority of voters in rural counties and a slighter majority in suburban areas voted for Bush (With the exception of areas such as the San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle Metropolitan Area, New England, the Delaware Valley, and the areas surrounding New York City where suburban areas were won by Kerry), and even in "solidly Red" states, a majority of those in urban counties such as Fulton (Atlanta), Miami-Dade, Denver, Travis (Austin, Texas), and Pima (Tucson) voted for John Kerry (with exceptions of Dallas County; Harris (Houston); Maricopa (Phoenix); Bexar (San Antonio); Salt Lake County; El Paso (Colorado Springs); Oklahoma County (Oklahoma City); Tulsa; Sedgwick (Wichita); Hamilton (Cincinnati); Douglas (Omaha); Jefferson (Birmingham); Duval (Jacksonville); Hillsborough (Tampa), as well as the independent city of Virginia Beach). For those, it should be noted that in many cases, the actual cities themselves voted for Kerry, while their suburbs delivered their respective county to Bush.

Results by income demographic of the 2004 U.S. presidential election, representing percent of total vote per income group and the split of the income group between John Kerry as blue, George W. Bush as red and Ralph Nader as green.

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).

In the 2004 elections both parties received at least 40% from all sizable socio-economic demographics, according to exit polling. In 2004, college graduates were split equally at 49% for both Kerry and Bush; those with postgraduate degrees voted for Kerry by a 10% margin and those with Bachelor's Degrees voted for Bush by a 6% margin. For household income, Kerry won in households with less than $50,000 in annual income, and Bush won in households consisting of married couples and those with greater than $50,000 annual income. Bush held the more suburban and rural areas of both the red and blue states, while Kerry received the large majority of the urban city areas in all the states. Ralph Nader did not win any electoral college votes yet received 1% of the vote from high income households and holders of graduate degrees.^[1]

SOURCE: CNN Exit polls 13,660 surveyed^[1]

Ideological Demographics

Further information: Political ideologies in the United States‎

According to a 2004 study by the Pew Research Center, "Enterprisers and Liberals ­ whose political opinions mix no better than oil and water ­ have a surprising amount of common ground both economically and educationally. These groups are the wealthiest and best educated in the typology."^[2]

The typology of the voters can be broken into nine groups:

Enterprisers are staunchly conservative and have perhaps the most consistent ideological profile of any group in the typology. They are highly patriotic and strongly pro-business, oppose social welfare and overwhelmingly support an assertive foreign policy. This group is largely white, well-educated, affluent and male (more than three-quarters are men).^[3]

Social Conservatives agree with Enterprisers on most issues, but they tend to be critical of business and supportive of government regulation to protect the public good and the environment. They also express deep concerns about the growing number of immigrants in America. This largely female group includes many white evangelical Christians, and nearly half of Social Conservatives live in the South.^[4]

Pro-Government Conservatives also are broadly religious and socially conservative, but they deviate from the party line in their backing for government involvement in a wide range of policy areas, such as government regulation and more generous assistance to the poor. This relatively young, predominantly female group is under substantial financial pressure, but most feel it is within their power to get ahead. This group also is highly concentrated in the South, and, of the three core Republican groups, had the lowest turnout in the 2004 election.^[5]

Upbeats are relatively moderate voters who have positive views of their financial situation, government performance, business, and the state of the nation in general. They are generally well-educated and fairly engaged in political news. While most Upbeats do not formally identify with either political party, they voted for Bush by more than four-to-one in the 2004 election.^[6]

Disaffecteds are much less affluent and educated than the Upbeats. Consequently, they have a distinctly different outlook on life and political matters. They are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with their financial situation. Even so, Disaffecteds lean toward the Republican Party and, though many did not vote in the presidential election, most of those who did supported Bush's reelection.^[7]

Bystanders largely consign themselves to the political sidelines. This category of mostly young people, few of whom voted in 2004, has been included in all four of the Center's political typologies.^[8]

Liberals are an affluent, well-educated, highly secular group that is consistently liberal on social issues, ranging from freedom of expression to abortion. They have swelled to become the largest voting bloc in the typology. Liberals are opponents of an assertive foreign policy, strong supporters of environmental protection, and solid backers of government assistance to the poor.^[9]

Conservative Democrats are quite religious, socially conservative and take more moderate positions on several key foreign policy questions. The group is older, and includes many blacks and Hispanics; of all the core Democratic groups, it has strongest sense of personal empowerment.^[10]

Disadvantaged Democrats also include many minority voters, and they are the least financially secure voting bloc. Members of this heavily female, poorly educated group are highly pessimistic about their opportunities in life, and also very mistrustful of both business and government. Nonetheless, they support government programs to help the needy.^[11]

Purple States

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

A purple state is a state that is more or less equally divided between the Republicans and Democrats.

The demographic and political 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 Republican without its major cities, due to its remainder's religious and rural (thus socially conservative) nature.

Cartogram of the United States, showing each county with a size proportional to its population. The colors refer to 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.

A map of the 2004 United States election results by county using a different method than the Purple America maps. This map makes the counties more distinguishable by making the colors of red and blue lighter as the percentage in which they are won becomes slimmer and darker as the victory becomes more lopsided.

All states were consistent in voting for George W. Bush or his opponent 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.

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.

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.^[12] 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 electronic media outlets used the same colors for each party: Red for Republicans, blue for Democrats. Partly as a result of this near-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, socialist, 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 colors 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 color blue.

However, in the United States, many pundits have identified Red states with "rednecks" (many red states are farming states), and Blue states with "bluebloods", identifying with the old money in places like Massachusetts. The former regulations adopted by the New York City Board of Elections for the colors required of the paper of designating petitions (by which the parties nominate candidates for primary elections) called for green for Democrats and pink for Republicans. It is not difficult to speculate that color associations such as these came about in reaction against the associations evoked of the more strongly ideologic parties of other countries, such that Democrats would react strongly against an accusation of being "red" or "pink". Yellow could be considered derogatory, indicating pusillanimity even if labeled "gold"; brown could evoke fascists and feces, and would not be technically feasible on television.

Critiques

The paradigm has come under criticism on a number of fronts. Many argue that the usefulness of assigning partisanship to states is only really useful as it pertains to the Electoral College, primarily a winner-take-all system of elections (currently, Maine and Nebraska allow for electoral votes to be split between tickets if the vote tallies in individual districts are different).

The Republican and Democratic parties within a particular state may have a platform that departs from that of the national party, sometimes leading that state to favor one party in state and local elections and the other in Presidential elections. Arkansas and West Virginia were won by George W. Bush in 2004, but Democrats comprise the majority of officeholders in those states. Maine has two Republican senators but voted for John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential election. Similarly, North Carolina went solidly for George Bush in both 2000 and 2004, but its governor and both houses of its legislature are in Democratic hands.

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 the U.S.S.R., Cuba, China, and East Germany. However, it may be argued that a color scheme associating red with the Democratic Party would have never become widely popularized since Democrats would have been just as reluctant to associate themselves with a color that has been historically perceived as associated with "un-American" communism.

See also

• Swing state
• United States presidential election maps
• Purple America
• Jesusland map
• Political ideologies in the United States

References

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to:

Red state-blue state divide

• Blue is the New Green Series of US maps showing the correlation of financial and socio-economic metrics to the blue and red states
• Maps and cartograms of the 2004 presidential election results, adjusting Red State/ Blue State maps for voting population rather than geographic area alone.
• City Ranks is a Google Maps mashup showing the correlation between population density and the Red State/Blue State phenomenon in an interactive map.
• One Nation, Slightly Divisible - David Brooks (subscription required)
• Washington Post series:
  • For a Conservative, Life is Sweet in Sugar Land, Tex.
  • A Liberal Life in the City by the Bay
• Federal Review Composite Poll - 2004 Electoral College Projection
• Washington Post "Elephants Are Red, Donkeys Are Blue"
• "One Fate, Two Fates, Red States, Blue States"
• CNN "Learn the signs of your political colors" from September 2001
• Election maps from December, 2000
• Choosing colors based on incumbent vs. challenger victory from November, 2004
• BlueStatesRedStates.com A Purple site for Red & Blue times
• The Honky Tonk Gap: Country Music, Red State Identity, and the Election of 2004

Donate to Wikimedia