Red state vs. blue state divide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Red states and blue states refer to those U.S. states whose residents predominantly voted for the Republican Party or Democratic Party, respectively, in U.S. elections, especially in the U.S. presidential elections of 2000 and 2004. Only three states (New Mexico, Iowa, and New Hampshire) shifted parties between these two elections. In the latter contest, 31 U.S. states were "red" and 19 states were "blue", though 12 of those "red" states were "blue" as recently as 1996.
George W. Bush, who won both 2000 and 2004 elections, cannot run for president again due to term limits. As President and leading Republican office-holder, his approval ratings have dropped considerably in many red states since the last election.[1]
Contents |
Choice of colors
During U.S. national elections, media outlets commonly display election results on a map of U.S. states—with each state assigned a color based on which party's candidate won the state, as all 50 states award the sum of their electoral votes in a winner-take-all contest. Because the United States has essentially a two-party system, the national colors of red and blue came to be reserved for the two major parties. Third-party candidates rarely win any states, but media outlets use other arbitrary colors for noteworthy third party showings, such as green for the Green party and white for Reform party.
With the adoption of color television in the 1960s (and continuing with increased use of color in newspapers in the 1980s and 1990s) media outlets took advantage of this in their electoral maps on election night. But until the 2000 election, there was no consensus on color schemes between the networks. For example, from 1972 until at least 1992, NBC consistently showed Republican-won states in blue, and Democratic-won states in red. But other networks used other patterns. ABC, in at least two presidential elections during this time, used yellow for one major party and blue for the other. However, in 2000, for the first time ever, all the major broadcast networks and all the cable news outlets utilized the same color scheme: red for Republicans and blue for Democrats.
The terms red states and blue states entered popular usage in the weeks following the disputed 2000 presidential election, as a result of the majority of American mass media outlets using red to indicate Republican-won states, and blue for Democrat-won states. Until then, neither party had chosen to represent themselves by a single color, but 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 people's minds.[2]
It seems unlikely, now that all the major media outlets are operating "on the same page", that the current pattern will be changed. There are still many non-broadcast sources (encyclopedias, government publications, textbooks) which still utilize other color schemes (the most common actually being the complete reversal of the current standard), but it seems likely that, eventually, even they will change to the current dichotomy.
U.S. state counties and congressional districts may also be called "red" or "blue" if their residents predominantly vote for one party or another in any given election. The District of Columbia, though not a state, can also be called "blue" because it has voted for the Democrat in every election since its residents were first allowed to vote for President. In addition, the term "red stater" or "blue stater" may refer to individuals who vote for, are affiliated with, or otherwise identify primarily with the Republican Party or Democratic Party, respectively. Less common is the practice of referring to residents of "red states" and "blue states" as "red staters" and "blue staters" respectively.
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 and Pacific Coast. The Midwest is divided.
Solid red states are Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming, which have not voted for a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964. Of special note is North Dakota, which is solidly red in presidential elections but has an all-Democrat Congressional delegation. Other strong red states include Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas, none of which have voted Democratic since 1976. Many of these states, particularly those in the South, were once Democratic strongholds, but are now reliable supporters of Republican candidates. Of these states, Idaho is the "most" Republican, voting President Bush in 2004 by 68% (though Bush won Utah by more). Alaska, New Hampshire, and Wyoming in addition to Idaho have all Republicans in their Congressional Delegations. Perhaps the reddest of the red states are the 10 states that showed more people approving of President Bush in August 2005 than those disapproving. These ten states, starting with highest support [3], were: Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama, North Dakota, Montana, Oklahoma, and Mississippi. It is worth noting that Virginia, long a "red state", is as of 2005 showing very tepid support (58% disapproving vs. 40% approving) [4] for the President.
States currently thought to be solidly "blue" include California, Washington, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Illinois, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Though some of these states have voted for Republican candidates as recently as the 1980s (most notably in 1984, when Ronald Reagan carried 49 states) they have recently supported Democratic candidates by significant margins. Of these states, Massachusetts is the "most" Democratic. In his 2004 presidential bid, John Kerry won Massachusetts with 62% of its vote. In addition, it has an all-Democratic Congressional delegation, a distinction it shares with Hawaii and North Dakota.
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 area, with agriculture being one of the most important industries. The majority of blue states tend to be more urban, have higher per capita income, and are more multicultural. These demographic trends, along with less obvious correlations, have been analysed in detail by conservative pundit Steve Sailer.
The demographic differences between smaller geographical areas applies as well to counties, which follow the same trend as states. The results of the 2004 presidential election support this, as even red states contain blue counties, particularly counties that include major cities. For example, out of the 17 counties that constitute Nevada, only Clark County was won by Democratic candidate John Kerry. Not only is Clark County the most populous county in Nevada, but its county seat is the city of Las Vegas. The second-closest county—in which Republican candidate George W. Bush won by the slimmest margin—was Washoe County. The county seat of Washoe County is the city of Reno.
However, one exception to this is probably Indiana, where in the 2004 presidential elections Allen County voted Bush by 63%. Allen County is home to Fort Wayne. In addition, Vanderburgh County, home of Evansville voted Bush by 59%. Marion County, home of Indianapolis was only a win for Kerry by a 1% margin.
Taking the differences in demographics even further, one could argue that the current red-blue divide bears a resemblance to the divide prior to the American Civil War noting, however, that the "blue" states, save Kentucky, New Jersey and Delaware, were won in the 1864 election by Republican Abraham Lincoln. Similarly, one may compare the sectionalism of the 1860 U.S. presidential election to the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, though with the Republican and Democratic regions reversed. However, it should be noted that these comparisons are subjective and are not scientific.
Purple States
The political and demographic applications of the terms have led to cultural applications. 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 far from clear-cut. 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.
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 and the District of Columbia. The winner-take-all system gives all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate that receives the plurality of the votes from that state's residents (Louisiana is the exception in that it requires a strict majority, and if no candidate gets above 50% of the vote, a run-off election is held between the top two candidates; as a result, if Louisiana were the deciding state in an election, the result of the electoral result could be delayed by Louisiana's run-off). Therefore, just as the totality of a state's electoral votes are committed to a single candidate, the color of a state is committed one way or the other.
Despite the prevalent winner-take-all practice, the voters of any state never vote exclusively for either the Republican or Democratic candidate. In the 2004 U.S. presidential election, for example, many states were divided between the Republican and the Democratic candidate by only a few percentage points. 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.
All states were consistent in voting for President 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.
Polarization
The perceived division between red states and blue states has triggered a pronounced (if perhaps brief) introspection among some blue staters and red staters. Feelings of cultural and political polarization, which have gained increased media attention since the 2004 election, may have led in some quarters 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 reversed). One thing that has been more consistant 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 — 9 electoral votes for each state won. When Bill Clinton won 31 states in 1996, he tallied 379 electoral votes — 12 electoral votes per state carried.)
See also
External links
- Maps and cartograms of the 2004 presidential election results, adjusting Red State/ Blue State maps for voting population rather than geographic area alone.
- One Nation, Slightly Divisible - David Brooks (subscription required)
- Washington Post series:
- Federal Review Composite Poll - 2004 Electoral College Projection
- Washington Post "Elephants Are Red, Donkeys Are Blue"
- AIGA historical explanation from September 2004
- Google Answers: Red state/blue state
- CNN "Learn the signs of your political colors" from September 2001
- Election maps from December, 2000
