Resolved: We shall abandon all talk of “red states” and “blue states”

[pmbryant]

The time has come for every clear thinking American to drop all reference to states as either “red” or “blue”. These artificial terms serve no purpose other than to exaggerate and reinforce whatever cultural divide already exists in this country. And that purpose plays right into the hands of the GOP and the Bush administration.

The GOP and the Bush administration have divided the country and emerged with the larger half. If we in the opposition party participate in cementing this divide, we will be relegated to a long-term minority status, even if only by the barest of margins. So, to restore our majority, it is up to us to take the lead in trying to repair the divide, to undo the damage done over the last four years. The first step in that long process is to abandon the artificial terms “red state” and “blue state”.

From now on, like we did before November 7, 2000, we all will live in simple “states”.

To understand how meaningless the “red state” and “blue state” terms are, consider first Iowa, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. These states voted barely in one direction in 2000, and barely in the other direction in 2004. What color are they supposed to be?

Consider next Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These states voted slightly in one direction in 2000 and slightly in the same direction in 2004. In each of these, if one out of every forty voters had voted differently, the state would be colored differently on the ubiquitous Electoral College maps. Why is it meaningful to permanently label two of them “blue” and the other two “red”?

Finally, consider states like Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Georgia, and North Carolina. These states apparently voted decisively for one candidate or the other. Yet even in Texas, the adopted home state of the incumbent and where state pride is a gargantuan factor, if merely one out of every eight voters had changed their mind, the political world would be turned upside down. Is it worthwhile to label an entire state based on the voting decisions of such a small fraction of the electorate?

So who will join me in rejecting these terms and forging forward, no longer as “red state Americans” or “blue state Americans”, but as pure and simple “Americans”?

[demwing]

1. Initially, your post hit me wrong

But by the time I read through to the end, I was sold.

I have a similar vision for the Democratic Party - we should not move to the right, and we should not move to the left. Lets move forward instead.

[blondeatlast]

2. I'm with both of you, but I fear we're a lonesome lot. nt

[pmbryant]

5. I hope not. Let's see who we can persuade.

It may take a while, but we're persistent. :-)

Peter

[pmbryant]

4. Thank you

We must not continue to play along with the GOP in this divisive game of "red" versus "blue". It is not only bad for the Democratic Party, but it is bad for the country.

I wish this had hit me earlier.

I like your vision. Indeed, let's move forward.

--Peter

[democratreformed]

86. I like the idea of moving forward too! I have kept asking why everyone

wants to discuss "what's wrong with our party?" It is my opinion that nothing is wrong - we just didn't win.

And Thank You and the original poster for wanting to do away with this red state - blue state nonsense.

[m berst]

3. Yes!

Excellent pmbryant. The red-blue idiocy is part of the media induced semi-comatose state that people are in.

Are we talking with robots around here half the time? If I wanted to hear TV talking points, I would watch TV.

Any sort of idiotic thing that the TV people come up with gets some sort of credibility among otherwise intelligent people, and we hear it repeated again and again and again.

[pmbryant]

10. Perhaps we can put it to a stop

But I think to do so we're going to have to repeat this again and again and again.

:shrug:

--Peter

[Beacho]

6. Agreed

Except for positive dialogue. Even then the red/blue references can be dropped

[pmbryant]

19. Exactly

No more red/blue references, whether the dialogue is positive or negative. It is counterproductive for us.

We are shooting ourselves in the foot everytime we say those phrases.

The country will be divided into "teams", and those in red states will naturally start identifying more and more with their "team", just as those in blue states will do the same. It may be a small effect at first, but if it keeps up, it risks further cementing this artificial divide.

And even if it is only a small effect at first, it is an effect in the wrong direction.

--Peter

[liberal_in_GA]

7. I'm with you...

and the real "divide," if you want to call it that, is between urban and rural America, not "red" or "blue" states. It would be helpful if we could get rural America to understand that their urban counterparts share many of their problems (underfunded public schools, for one example). If we expand our commonalities, we can expand our base.

[pmbryant]

22. Thanks

It is indeed more "rural versus urban" than state versus state, but even that frame is very negative for us. The GOP encourages hatred of big cities to rally support to their side.

We not only need to quit using these GOP-friendly frames ourselves, but we have to counter them with our own Dem-friendly ones.

--Peter

[Tweed]

8. Thank you

I've been meaning to write something similar to this. Red vs. blue everytime means that we lose.

[southlandshari]

12. If Tweed's with you

Then I am, too! I only have a few minutes to read DU for now, so I only scanned your original post (promise to read it in detail later tonight). Tweedtheater has posted quite a bit I agree with the past week or so, so I'm throwing my lot in with him/her. (No pressure, of course, TT!).

Seriously, the whole "red" and "blue" comparison is so oversimplified that my five-year-old has learned enough in kindergarten to know that life is more complex than that. I NEVER expected to be cast in the role of defender of the South, but in the face of such blind demonization, even I find things worth championing in my much-maligned region.

[pmbryant]

23. Very concise

"Red v blue everytime means that we lose."

[Blue Gardener]

9. Thank you

As a formerly blue state-now red state, I'm sick to death of the bashing that is going on here lately. We're all democrats, where we live isn't something we can change easily. I've lived in Iowa my whole life and don't plan on leaving. If people don't want to come here to visit, then I gues that just leaves more room for me. I'm not going to check what color a state is when I decide to go on a vacation. If I want to go to the zoo in Omaha, then that's where I'm going to go. I happen to like the rainforest there.

[pmbryant]

26. All that boycott red state talk is depressing

Iowa is a great state, and if people are really talking about boycotting it because a few thousand extra voters voted the wrong way this year versus in 2000, that doesn't sit well with me.

I hope this is just lashing out, and once they realize what really happened last week they come to their senses and fight more productively.

And we need as many out-of-state visitors as we can get down here in Texas. Otherwise we tend to forget any place else exists. :-)

--Peter

[fujiyama]

91. Not only that

but it doesn't make much sense anyways.

For example NM went to Gore by 366 votes. Does that really qualify it as blue? This time it went to Bush by a few thousand (~10k) votes. Does this make it red? They elected a dem governor two years ago though.

The label is completely arbitrary...and applies only to the urban/rural divide.

The only true red and blue states I see are those which have gone one way or the other both of these elections by huge margins - like say Utah, Vermont, etc.

[cally]

11. I agree

Reubs like the sense of devisiveness. We have to build a nation and a sense of unity. We're all in this together. We can play with seceding buy it's not going to happen. We will win if we can inspire a national purpose, a sense of better times ahead, and that we have more in common than not. Thanks for the post.

[pmbryant]

25. "We will win if we can inspire a national purpose."

I like that phrase. :thumbsup:

As for this talk of seceding: I hope all of you in the states that Gore and Kerry won are not even playing around with doing that.

Don't abandon the rest of us!

Peter

[tavalon]

13. No thanks,

though your argument is well stated and in keeping with a democrats desire to mend fences and move on.

I live in Texas but in Austin and I promise you that, in this state, the red and blue mindsets are rather black and white.

Humans are catagorizers and blue and red are quick, pithy ways to describe a cultural clash that goes much deeper than the labels.

I do prefer the red/blue partitioned state map that shows the portion of red to blue, however, as it is important for us to remember that even here in Texas, there are some, though not many, thinking individuals. We all seem to have migrated to our little blue oasis in a very red state.

[Bridget Burke]

17. Yes, Austin alone is perfect.....

(Why is Seattle still in your profile?)

I live in Houston. Sheila Jackson Lee is my US Representative. My State Senator & State Rep are also Democrats. All three ran unopposed this year.

Surely, Texas is not as groovy & hip as Washington State. (Actually, isn't Eastern Washington just a bit red?) But you're here now, so try to learn more about the state.

[tavalon]

60. I straddle

I live a year at a time in each place. I am a polyamourist and have a family here in Seattle and one in Austin. When I'm here in Seattle, I spend one week a month in Austin and vice versa. When my family down in Austin gets jobs up here, we will all be living in Seattle full time.

I just got home from the airport.

I'm afraid I know far too much about Texas - 16 years in San Antonio and 4 years in Austin. Lloyd Doggett is my rep in Texas and what a blessing that is!

[pmbryant]

20. The divide is real, but it is not on a state by state basis

It is about individual attitudes. So referring to "red states" and "blue states" is completely artificial.

Talking about "red mindset" and "blue mindset" is better and perhaps more accurate, but why use colors? The colors derive from the Electoral College map, which refers to states. So indirectly, it is the same. Use more precise terms. Less damaging terms. (Perhaps "conservative mindset" and "progressive mindset", though I really don't care for that kind of oversimplified categorization either.)

You're in Austin, which you label a "blue oasis". Indeed, Travis County voted for Kerry this year, but only by a 14% margin. And in 2000, it voted for Bush by a small margin. Labelling Austin "blue" is inaccurate, even by the traditional "blue/red" usage which I find so damaging.

Peter

[missjudy6]

14. I'm with you

Must admit I have enjoyed reading and contributing to red state bashing even though I live in a red state (blue city) It has been a form of release for anger and frustration. But each time I hear or read of states described thus in the media, it puts my back hairs up.
If you haven't already pmbryant, please send your post as a letter to the editor. Those of us who agree this is important should write as well.

[pmbryant]

41. Thanks for the suggestion.

Letters to the editor would be very appropriate.

Thanks,
Peter

[9119495]

15. So let us get rid of the electoral college.

[pmbryant]

44. Another great idea!

On its own merit, getting rid of the Electoral College is a great idea, and I have forcefully advocated for that before.

But even if we did do that, I don't think that alone would eliminate the "red state/blue state" talk. Look at all the county-by-county maps that proliferate these days, after all. People just like colored maps. That will never end.

But we shouldn't base our political rhetoric on it without very good reason. And the only reasons behind this rhetoric favor the GOP.

--Peter

[ScaRBama]

16. I agree 100%

it's time to move forward. We need people who live in all the United States if we plan on turning this thing around. The more you point the finger the further you push people in the other direction. The Democratic Party should stand for ALL of the people ALL of the time.

[pmbryant]

56. Thanks

I like this concise statement of yours: "The more you point the finger the further you push people in the other direction."

--Peter

[Walt Starr]

18. Well said!

Teh Red-Blue dichotomy falls into the hands of the frames presented by the right.

Reframe the debate under our terms. Using their frames is a losing strategy.

[pmbryant]

54. This does seem to fall under the "framing your argument" subject

Looks like I really should get Lakoff's book ASAP.

--Peter

[LuminousX]

89. It really is a must read

but we can't go about it half-assed. We either buy into and accept Lakoff fully or not. Commit to it.

[Plaid Adder]

21. It's not state by state anyway, it's urban/rural.

That becomes obvious when you look at the county by county map. The "red states" are just the states where the urban vote is not big enough to overcome the rural vote...or, you know, the ones in the South, but that's a whole different story.

How you bridge the urban/rural divide is the real question, and I'll say it again, it's going to involve going after the money. We can't win it just on social issues and clearly it's going to be a long fucking time before most of America has much of a grasp of how foreign policy actually works. Economic justice is our best shot, and rural America needs that just as bad as urban America does.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[SemperEadem]

42. don't allow the rural to villify the urban and get away with it

that's how the divide started--by demonizing those who live in the big city and claiming that they're somehow less christian than those who stayed behind in small towns.

It's funny that the biggest business in overwhelmingly rural areas is religion. If you take away the tax loopholes for churches and force them to remain in the sector in which the founding fathers (those that they are always trying to speak for) deemed appropriate to curb the abuses of church and government being in bed together, you'd see less of their influence and less of their attempt to blur the lines between the two.

When Dems learn the art of effective linguistics is when they will gain some ground.

[LuminousX]

90. Also, we need to get our asses out into the rural areas

and start treating the people that live there like full fledged people instead of morons. We may be stereotyped as elitists, but stereotypes start within the scope of reality.

[pmbryant]

55. Yes, that is more accurate I think

But that divide has arisen, I think, because of GOP-encouraged hatred of "big cities" (building off of suppressed racism, etc).

As for how we bridge that particular divide, I don't think economic justice is working very well (judging by recent election results), at least not the way our arguments are currently framed. But I am open to ideas on this subject.

--Peter

[DeepModem Mom]

24. I think we can't ignore the division in our country...

and part of the reason I think this is the distress I hear from friends who live in what some call Red States -- where going out to dinner is often ruined by conversation at neighboring tables, and they feel isolated, and unable to express feelings freely. I think the issue of the economic power of what some call Blue States, and their maligning as unAmerican, should also not be ignored. Still, I salute the spirit of your post, and agree that we ARE all Americans, latte-drinkers included.

[Bridget Burke]

36. Hey, we drink latte in Texas, too.

In fact, two Starbucks are located across the street from each other here in Houston, near a comedy club where Lewis Black has appeared. He devoted one whole Daily Show segment to the double Starbucks, seeing in that juxtaposition the end of civilization as we know it. (He does get overwrought.)

Not everybody in this "Red" state is as timid as your friends. We're quite able to express feelings freely. (Unless the nearby idiots are visibly armed.)

[DemCam]

27. Mauve? Violet? Purple? Periwinkle? Maroon? Magenta?

[psunitlions1]

28. while I agree the rhetoric must change

I dont agree with dropping the us vs them ideology... for the last 30 years where has the why cant we all get along gotten us????

its gotten that they too like to see a division..its what they thirve on and well you can lead them to water........

you see if they(flying monkeys) dont want to change then whats the frickin point??

we tried being republican light.... guess what.... it doesnt work


bottom line a majority of reds are in red states this adminsitration has declared a mandate based on that majority they didnt declare 55 % of a mandate... so where does that leave the beloved blues???? nowhere!!!!!! and they(reds, flying monkeys) dont give a rats ass about it..they will spare no expense to throw it in our faces!!!!!

so with all due respect to the blues in red states..... they changed the game on you and your offended by us calling a redstate a red state????????..get a grip you should be fighting them not us...you should understand our rhetoric...because it the rules of engagement that have been laid before us.

[pmbryant]

29. You have misunderstood. I am not fighting you.

This has nothing to do with policies etc. This has nothing to do with being "more left" or "republican-lite". This simply has to do with rhetoric, with the words we use.

You have fallen into the trap of believing the red state/blue state rhetoric. Yes, some states vote more Republican and others more Democratic. But, as I tried to point out above, the differences are not huge in the vast majority of states.

Even in "landslide Texas", if only one out of every eight voters switched to our side, Texas would have given its electoral votes to Kerry. One out of eight!

In most other states, the numbers we need to switch are even smaller.

Yet by states such as Texas (or Missouri or Florida or Ohio) being labelled "red", more and more people in those states will start to identify themselves as being on the "red team". That just makes our job of convincing the few we need to switch even harder.

I am absolutely not fighting you. I am absolutely not offended by having my state (Texas) called a "red state". Rather, I am trying to convince you to use rhetoric that will enhance our ability to win the next election, and not doom us to an even more uphill fight than we already face.

Is it really that much to ask?

--Peter

[n2dfun]

30. THANK YOU

I like how this is written. I tried to say it, although not as eloquently, in another post.

[pmbryant]

34. Thank you too

I found your other post via the search function. I liked it very much. Here it is, for everyone else's benefit who didn't see it the first time:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=83724

united we stand; divided we fall

Let me just start by saing that I've felt tremendous anger this week as result of the election. My anger isn't directed just at B**h but also Faux News and any of the other pundits who seem to pander to the right. In a fit of rage I made the statement that wnayone who voted for Bush would not be welcomed into my home. This offended my partner althought he and I both have relatives in the South. I was venting.
HOWEVER, I must tell you that this article from the theregister.co.uk offends me as does the writing at info@f**kthesouth.com because I am from the South. I now live in NH. I love it here but over the weekend I spoke to a friend in my native TN who voted for Kerry. She was equally horrified that the idiot won another four years. Over one million of her fellow Tennesseans voted for Kerry. Millions of people voted for K/E in the so-called 'red states.' We cannot discount these people. They're on our side.

I think it's divisive and unproductive to lump everone in the 'red states' or everyone in the 'blue states' altogether. Nearly half the people of NH voted 'red.' We barely made it into the blue column this time. God knows we have our share of gun-loving rednecks in the North Woods.

Senator-elect Obama talked about the 'purple states' at the convention in Boston. That's what we need. That's what we are. We'll never win the hearts and minds of the moderates who happened to vote for the idiot if we antagonize them into thinking we feel superior because we're from a 'blue state.'

Don't misunderstand me. Rage is justified. But PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE remember the millions who 'get it' in the South, Great Plains and Rockies. Don't let the bi-colored media maps distort reality. There are millions of heart-sick Southerners and others who fought hard and they don't need a region-bashing on top of this loss.

In the future, to win, we must heal the differences and focus on the positive. A POSITIVE MESSAGE! Dignity and respect for every human being always, eventually, succeeds.

Glad to have you at DU, n2dfun!

:thumbsup:

--Peter

[newyawker99]

94. Hi n2dfun!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[mtnsnake]

31. Until the media stops using the terminology, it aint going anywhere

Besides, the only thing I have left to be glad about, as far in any kind of political sense, is that I'm proud that I'm from a state that went Democrat. I think there will always be terms like this used to describe states in such a way, and I hate to think of the alternatives that might be used, if they stop using red and blue.

You said you'd like everyone to be considered "as pure and simple “Americans”. I agree with you and love that idea of course, but try telling that to the fundies, rednecks, and all the other millions of extremist repukes who think the flag only waves for them.

[pmbryant]

32. Well, it's time to make our voices heard then.

Let the other side use this terminology all they want. It works for them, after all, so they will.

But we don't need to play along. And if we resist, and make our resistance vocal, perhaps we can persuade some of the non-Fox media to go along.

--Peter

[pierle]

33. Smells like appeasement

Why go through this exercise? Acquiescence? Though it is nice to think that because there are people in a red state who are blue and vice versa we should drop stereotypes, the "color" of the state (in many cases, counties) is the overriding politics of that area.

I live in a virulently red county in a blue state and since last Wednesday, the blue populace has been knuckled under by the winners, including in my case and several others, having our Kerry signs removed from the middle of our yards, (not public sidewalk space) that morning.

Like America is now a "red" country, every locale has to understand what it is about and be responsible for the consequences. Meaningless, the desingations are not. However, though we know the condition is not permanent, it is distinct (more so as they attempt to coerce us to their "way of life") and real. Acting like it is not real is not going to improve things anymore than cowering from McCarthy in the 50's rid us from the previous Red Scare.

I wish that I could feel that your concern about this issue was only intellectually motivated, but it seems to be more than that.

I have been asked by all of my Republican friends to work with them. In all the requests, I have answered, no thanks, but I will be there to clean up your mess,

As the twig is bent, so is the tree inclined.

[pmbryant]

35. Why do this? So we can win, of course.

Plus, it has the benefit of being a more accurate way of describing our political world.

Since when is winning appeasement?

You claim to live in a "red" county in a "blue" state. Yet it is likely that there are parts of your county that are "blue" parts of a "red" county in a "blue state". And so on.

All that really matters are the individuals. Not states. Not counties. Not towns. Not neighborhoods.

But when we artificially assign states (or counties, etc) to be "red" or "blue" based on rather small differences in voting patterns, we artificially force people to think of themselves as part of one team or the other.

Those people who only follow politics peripherally may well start to identify with being members of the "red" team or the "blue" team, if they are constantly told they live within some arbitrary lines on a map that are colored a certain way. This strikes me as basic human nature.

Since our team, the so-called "blue" team, is smaller, we will lose if this happens.

If we want to win, we need to counteract this. Ceasing to speak in terms of "red" and "blue" states or counties is one step in doing so.

(T)he "color" of the state (in many cases, counties) is the overriding politics of that area.

This is wrong, and the belief that this is true is one symptom (or perhaps a cause) of the red vs blue rhetoric. Since when does a majority that can be eliminated by the switch of one-hundredth (Pennsylvania, Ohio), one-fortieth (Florida), or even one-eighth (Texas), of the electorate, represent the "overriding" politics of that area? We only get the illusion that this is true because of the winner-take-all electoral system we have. Minor differences get blown up into major consequences.

But the differences are still minor, and we absolutely cannot lose sight of that, given our current political position.

--Peter

[n2dfun]

38. PETER, You are . . .

110 % CORRECT!!! I couldn't agree with you more.
Thanks for 're-posting' my response which is relative to this subject and for the welcome to DU. I only found it last week, ironically, because I was channel-surfing on the car radio and overheard it mentioned on a rw talk show. :0)

Here's a nasty example of how the 'other' side worked right here in New Hampshire:

A day or two before the election a friend of mine in Wolfeboro said EVERY YARD in her neighborhood which had a Kerry/Edwards sign was visited by someone who put ROOFING NAILS in the K/E driveways. They didn't take the signs. So, regardless of what color one's state on the map, the fact is the 'other' side is everywhere. (And so are we!)

Tim

[pierle]

49. Don't confuse winning with leading and governing

Maybe the biggest conundrum about democracy is that it is about the Individual. The truth is a party of one can't make it, until it convinces enough people to become a party of the plurality or majority. However, one council person in a city can change the town from Democratic to Republican in its policies.

Though the vote challenges that are starting to gain steam, they won't change the result or one fact that no one wants to discuss, namely that this country is evenly divided (with a few fence sitters) and the Dubya camp had more money to play politics. Playing politics requires strategery (love that SNL word), but does nothing for the people: the individual, who both sides have to play as part of the game.

Trying to say that areas of the country or the states or the counties don't have overriding dominating politics is like saying the all Scandinavian countries are the same. There is nothing artificial about the designations of blue and red.

Corporate media polling punditry aside, the present national conflict is the big rich guys (or the big rich guys wannabes or supporters) vs the deep-down-everyone-is-in-the-same-human-boat folks. Trying to deny that reality on the real politik game board is to lose the game.

As the Chickenhawks, who can run a race like no one since Boss Tweed, have to deal with reality, not elections, the purple individuals (frankly most of us {I support the NRA and the EPA}) will need the security factor of being like others, otherwise known as a political party, designated by colors.

Yes, indeed we lost this one, but that doesn't mean it is time to worry about our changing our colors. Whether we like it or not those colors will be there.

[pmbryant]

51. Extra bonus

Dropping the "red state versus blue state" divisive rhetoric will not only help us win, it will help us lead and govern after we do win.

No one is denying the real political divisions that exist in this country. But to pretend that these divisions occur at state or county lines is fooling yourself.

I have yet to hear an argument in favor of the "red state" and "blue state" terminology that suggests that it is either accurate or helpful to our cause.

I obviously contend it is neither, and, in fact, detrimental to our cause.

--Peter

[AliceWonderland]

50. Excellent post, truly!

Thank you for it. This one state-two state-red state-blue state business is getting increasingly bizarre and counter-productive. I suppose it's because I find my current community (Boulder) more granola than NY, where I lived before...and many many more people voted for * in, say, PA than in my state. And the really funny bit is, I am waaaaaaay more radical than the Democrats in my personal views and convictions. So, I'm having a difficult time wrapping my mind around analysis that paints my home as a pariah. 'Cause I really like it here and to be honest, I don't know any fundies in my day-to-day life. I mean, apparently they're here, but I don't see them, so they're kind of like Bigfoot in my mind. I remember stopping in my tracks a few weeks ago because I actually saw a car with a B/C bumper sticker -- it was the first one I'd seen in town and it was completely out of place here. I turn on my radio and I get AAR and KGNU. I shop at the food co-op, I work at the leftist bookstore. Plus, Colorado is not a welfare state, but a giver state (more so than NY or CA). So as you say, I prefer to think in terms of individuals. *Anyone* who fights theocracy or fascism is on my team, no matter where they live.

[Bridget Burke]

37. No, it doesn't smell like appeasement.

I live in Houston, Texas, and I'm not knuckling under to anybody. Don't blame me for your lack of courage.

There are many Democrats in the "Red" states & many Republicans in the "Blue" states. Several quite informative maps have been posted here in the last few days. Please try to check them out.

And, what do you mean by "I wish that I could feel that your concern about this issue was only intellectually motivated, but it seems to be more than that"? Why have you devoted your very first post in DU to hurling mysterious accusations?

[pierle]

52. No lack of courage here

Here in Monmouth County New Jersey (read Gail Sheehy's Middletown America for a better picture, particularly as it relates to 9/11), the home of the Christie Whitman revolution, I have not been allowed to do business with people because of my Kerry button. My signs in the front yard were knocked down three time prior to the one I mentioned in the first post which itself was a home made steel post version sledgehammered two feet into the ground. I have had verbal fights and converted well over a dozen people solely because I was wearing a button. A fund raiser, I have been with Kerry from the regime change comment in 2003.

What I see in the no-more-red/blue-designations concept is a way of backing off, backing away and that is what I meant by the "intellectually motivated" comment. Licking wounds is all well and good, but trying to change terminology isn't the way the way things will get better. It is going to take sticking to our principles and being tough.

I am not a huge fan of paralysis by analysis.

As for the first post situation, guess I ended that pretty quickly.

[bobbyboucher]

46. You are right on my friend, I am BLUE, without doubt or remorse.

I will not move one damn millimeter toward the other side. Not for one minute will I fall in with this destruction. I am BLUE.

[pmbryant]

48. I'm not asking anyone to "move" anywhere on the left-right spectrum

All I'm asking for is to not label states, counties, regions, etc as monolithic "red" or "blue". It is not productive for our cause.

If someone thinks this is productive language for us, please explain why you think so. I haven't seen any such explanation so far.

--Peter

[newyawker99]

95. Hi pierle!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[hiphopnation]

39. ratified

county-by-county and the country is purple.

[pmbryant]

69. Good illustration

The "purple" maps are truly a great illustration of the true political/geographic division in the country. Especially when the area is weighted by population.

No more "red" versus "blue".

--Peter

[Liberal Classic]

40. The entire country is one shade of purple or another

Good post.

[pmbryant]

70. Thank you (n/t)

[Stephanie]

43. BUSH voters are REDS to me

Not the states. The IDIOTS who voted for him. REDS.

[Bridget Burke]

45. Comrade, that's in insult to the Real Reds!

(From one Far-left Liberal to another.)

[Stephanie]

47. But who would find it more insulting than those BUSH REDS?

They will HATE it! :)

[BrklynLiberal]

53. We are all purple states

Wonderful suggestion...The vast majority of the red states voted between 35-45% for Kerry, so there is a huge number of people living there that deserve our respect and understanding... In fact, those that live in the states that had a smaller percentage of Kerry voters deserve our understanding even more. They are the ones that are TRULY suffering. We must remember to feel united with them, no matter what state they live in. We, and THEY are the true Americans, and it would be best for all of us to keep open all forms of communication between us.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

57. I Totally Agree

We have to find a way to reach across the divide and find a way to play in all states, or nearly all. Otherwise, we will just be defending our ever-shrinking turf in a gradual war of attrition that does not bode well for our side, IMO.

DTH

[pmbryant]

68. "Defending our ever-shrinking turf in a gradual war of attrition"

Another excellent, concise phrase. Thanks, DTH.

(And I've now bookmarked that blog of yours, by the way.)

--Peter

[DoveTurnedHawk]

76. Thanks!

I think we need some thinking outside-of-the-box in order to reestablish our presence and our majority. Here's to doing that.

:toast:

DTH

[DemBones DemBones]

58. Excellent. May we further resolve not to

generalize about other people and regions unless the generalization is a positive one?

[pmbryant]

71. Indeed, no more regional generalizations either.

I'd be wary of even the positive ones.

--Peter

[obiwan]

59. I've been an American for 50 years. I was born here.

Not a Commie. Not a Socialist. An American. A taxpaying, middle-class, educated worker.

I paid attention during government classes at school. I understand thoroughly how our system is supposed to work.

I don't harbor hate- only sympathy for those too ignorant or lazy to seek out the truth on their own.

Why would I want to destroy the place where I have lived my entire life?

[Erika]

61. John Edwards "2 Americas" is correct

One is the states who wishes to merge America into one. The others are the red states that wish to suffocate the blue and become one America.

[baba]

62. Yet another perspective on red v. blue

This is an article in the local alternative paper in Seattle. They talk about the "Urban Archipelago" of "blue islands" in a "red sea." Interesting perspective-check it out.

http://www.thestranger.com/current/feature.html

[AliceWonderland]

64. Interesting article

I find some of it overly generalized and rather dumb, but I like the archipelago metaphor; it includes more "blue" areas that are part of the struggle:

It's time to state something that we've felt for a long time but have been too polite to say out loud: Liberals, progressives, and Democrats do not live in a country that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from Canada to Mexico. We live on a chain of islands. We are citizens of the Urban Archipelago, the United Cities of America. We live on islands of sanity, liberalism, and compassion--New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle, St. Louis, Minneapolis, San Francisco, and on and on. And we live on islands in red states too--a fact obscured by that state-by-state map. Denver and Boulder are our islands in Colorado; Austin is our island in Texas; Las Vegas is our island in Nevada; Miami and Fort Lauderdale are our islands in Florida. Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland "values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia, as well as the more intolerant strains of Christianity that have taken root in this country. And we are the real Americans.

Of course, there are still progressives and liberals who live outside cities, but this paradigm is somewhat of an improvement and shows that sanity is more widespread than a "blue-red" map would demonstrate.

[pmbryant]

73. That perspective is also stereotypical and counterproductive

Claiming this is a "urbal versus rural" divide is somewhat more accurate, but also does us no good electorally. Demonizing those on "the other side", when they are in the larger half, is not going to help us win elections.

This is not helpful!

Citizens of the Urban Archipelago reject heartland "values" like xenophobia, sexism, racism, and homophobia, as well as the more intolerant strains of Christianity that have taken root in this country. And we are the real Americans. They--rural, red-state voters, the denizens of the exurbs--are not real Americans. They are rubes, fools, and hate-mongers.

This pisses me off, and I'm not even the target.

There is a hell of a lot more BS in that article as well. It's argument that the Dems should focus on "urban values" is just an entrenchment of this divide. In fact, they are celebrating the divide. They want it to grow.

And what narrow, closeted sense of politics gives the authors that mass transit is an "urban value" upon which is built an electoral majority? The vast majorities of cities I've ever lived in are in total love with the automobile. Los Angeles? Mass transit? Laughable.

--Peter

[Cadence]

63. Yeah polarization isn't or shouldn't be the goal

This site has some interesting maps as far as the red and blue. Also a map with regards to population density. Kind of paints a different picture.

http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

[jacqmac]

65. Hear! Hear!

I'm with ya all the way--by midnight on Wednesday I was sick unto death over that map popping up ALL over the place and basically being used to further fan the flaming rhetoric over which states had the most 'morals'. IF the so-called 'moral issues' of stem cell research, gay/lesbian marriage and abortion were really the 'flaming hot' topics that led to this voter backlash (NOT), then why was it the choice of only 20% of the voters asked in the exit polls??
I'm also all for getting rid of the ridiculous color-coding for terrorist threats-the colors don't mean anything, and nothing short of another disaster of the magnitude of the World Trade Center will stop the government from telling us to 'go shopping' or 'fly anyway'. Things are getting a tad more ridiculous in the last few days--NOW the decision of ABC affiliates NOT to show "Saving Private Ryan"
is a result of 'fear of the FCC (or Congress)'. :headbang:

[newyawker99]

96. Hi jacqmac!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[tomreedtoon]

66. Thanks for the amusing satire, but...

...there ARE red and blue states.

It has always been an assumption that a black man travelling below the Mason-Dixon Line was taking his life in his hands. No one shirked at saying that the Klan lived down here. They still do. And there's now sexual bigots as well as racial bigots - many of whom are government officials who don't have to wear hoods.

And it's also unlikely that a white person speaking with a Southern accent, when he or she enters New York City, will be treated like they know how to read.

I think it's particularly amusing that many of you guys are trying to come up with "politically correct" terms for Red and Blue. Haven't you figured out that the average person is smarter than that, even in the red states? You think we don't know that "law and order" means "beat up the blacks" and "conservatively oriented" means "racist rednecks?" You think the more syllables you say, the less the chance we'll be able to translate? Grow up.

[pmbryant]

72. You've let the rhetoric convince you of a fallacy. Many fallacies.

...there ARE red and blue states.

Only in Electoral College terms. But that has been the case since the election of 1800. Why didn't these terms come into general use until four years ago? Asserting that these terms are accurate does not make it so. Can you present any evidence other than false stereotypes?

It has always been an assumption that a black man travelling below the Mason-Dixon Line was taking his life in his hands.

Millions of African Americans not only travel below the Mason-Dixon line, but live there. This assumption is obviously wrong. Not to mention that there is plenty of extreme racism above the Mason-Dixon line as well. I grew up in Chicago in the 1980s, so I am quite aware of this.

And it's also unlikely that a white person speaking with a Southern accent, when he or she enters New York City, will be treated like they know how to read.

Aren't New Yorkers famous for not caring for anything from outside of New York, not just the South? And being a Chicagoan by birth, I can tell you that the places I disliked most automatically were New York City and Los Angeles. This doesn't exactly fit the "blue" versus "red" stereotypes, does it?

I think it's particularly amusing that many of you guys are trying to come up with "politically correct" terms for Red and Blue. Haven't you figured out that the average person is smarter than that, even in the red states? You think we don't know that "law and order" means "beat up the blacks" and "conservatively oriented" means "racist rednecks?" You think the more syllables you say, the less the chance we'll be able to translate? Grow up.

"You guys"?

"Politically correct"?

<sarcasm> Yes, "red" and "blue" are such a long-time tradition of American politics, going back to the founding of the country. With meanings that should be self-evident to all. How dare I try to discourage the use of these long-accepted terms? </sarcasm>

In truth, These terms didn't exist before November 7, 2000. We got along fine without them, especially given their lack of precise meaning. There is nothing "politically correct" about trying to replace inaccurate and misleading new terminology.

Do we want to play to win, or do we want to retreat to our own shells and lash out with damaging, incorrect stereotypes?

--Peter

[tomreedtoon]

78. I'm saying these aren't stereotypes. They're real.

This is no 1950's imaginary "gee, Americans are alike everywhere" type of world. I can't put on black skin, but if I could, I wouldn't do it where I live.

What I was objecting to more was not this simple pretense of a universal American attitude, which is a good enough hallucination if you're teaching civics to elementary school kids. It was the attempt to say "red state" and "blue state" using different words. It was the pretense that we're not saying what we're saying.

And that's really no different than saying "faith-based initiative" or other neologisms (a.k.a. "beards.")

And by "you guys," I mean you posters.

[pmbryant]

79. This is not a matter of using different words

This is a matter of abandoning the use of phrases that not only are inaccurate, but are damaging to our political cause.

"Red state" and "blue state" are not accurate, as I explained in my original post. I am not trying to use different words like "conservative state" and "progressive state". Because that would be equally misleading and destructive.

--Peter

[SheWhoMustBeObeyed]

67. Red & Blue States are an illusion, a marketing device

designed to perpetuate division and clannishness. The terms would feel right at home in clunky ads from 60s: "That special RED STATE advantage keeps you feeling safe and secure!" "Go smug. Go superior. Go BLUE STATE!"

A few days ago I posted about the "invisible blues" in red states and included population-adjusted cartograms in an attempt to dispel the illusion of solid red and blue states with a red majority. Other posters have done the same. But so many people want a target for their frustration, want to characterize red staters as - well, you've read the threads. We're being suckered. We are buying what the Republicans are selling.

Before you let yourself feel proud or ashamed about the color of your state, remember that about 42% of Bush's votes were cast in blue states, and about 43% of Kerry's votes were cast in red states.

[ClassWarrior]

74. I say we use 'em - but only to ridicule them.

As in Red State Welfare.

NGU.

[pmbryant]

75. That doesn't help us.

Ohio, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Florida, Colorado, Missouri, etc are "red" by the popular definition. Using phrases like "Red state welfare" is not likely to win us more supporters in those states. In fact, it is likely to push them away from us.

We are very close in those states (and others). Why blow it by pissing them off unnecessarily?

--Peter

[LadyinRed]

77. Government Aid Facts

Couldn't find 2003..possibly not available yet.

Federal Domestic Spending Up 8 Percent in 2002,
Census Bureau Reports

The federal government spent $1.9 trillion in the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and outlying areas during 2002, according to two reports released today by the Commerce Department's Census Bureau. This was an 8 percent increase over 2001.

Consolidated Federal Funds Report for Fiscal Year 2002 (State and County Areas) covers benefits, subsidies, grants, goods and services, and salaries and wages. The largest item excluded is interest on the federal debt. A companion report, Federal Aid to States for Fiscal Year 2002 ,contains federal agency and program-level data on grants to state and local governments.

Californians benefitted the most, receiving $206 billion, followed by the people of New York ($129 billion), Texas ($123 billion), Florida ($105 billion) and Pennsylvania ($86 billion). One-third of all federal expenditures went to people living in these five states, which account for 36 percent of the total U.S. population.

Altogether, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for $890 billion (47 percent) of the U.S. government's 2002 domestic spending.

The largest increases in fiscal year 2002 federal spending were in the categories of "other direct payments," grants and procurement awards.
Other direct payments included Medicare at $251 billion, up 5.8 percent, plus unemployment compensation, excess earned income tax credits and food stamps. The total of other direct payments was $422 billion, a 12 percent increase over 2001.

Grant awards climbed to $412 billion, an 11.6 percent increase over 2001, with Medicaid, the largest, amounting to $148 billion, up 11.1 percent. Federal procurement awards in 2002 amounted to $271 billion, a 10.1 percent increase over 2001, with Department of Defense contracts totaling $166 billion, or 61 percent.

Direct payments to individuals for retirement and disability reached $613 billion in 2002, up 2.2 percent over 2001, with Social Security alone totaling $491 billion, a 1.5 percent increase.

Federal government salaries and wages were $199 billion, up 5.8 percent, with the Department of Defense (38 percent) and the Postal Service (26 percent) making up nearly two-thirds of the total.

At the county or county-equivalent level, New York City, N.Y., and Los Angeles County, Calif., both with about $52.9 billion, led the list of recipients. They were followed by Cook County, Ill. ($29.2 billion); San Diego County, Calif. ($23.2 billion); and Maricopa County, Ariz. ($17.3 billion).

Per capita federal spending among states, meanwhile, was highest in
Alaska ($11,746), Virginia ($10,220), North Dakota ($10,151), New Mexico($9,422) and Maryland ($9,076). The rest of the top 10, in order, were:
Hawaii ($8,414), South Dakota ($8,297), Montana ($7,668), Alabama ($7,643) and Missouri ($7,465). Factors affecting per capita spending included the state's population, the number of its federally funded programs and the number of federal employees residing in the state.

Resident population as of July 1, 2002, was used to calculate per capita amounts for the states, counties and county-equivalent areas.

DOD spending

The Department of Defense spent a total of $278 billion domestically in 2002, up 8.8 percent over 2001. This amount included procurement contracts, payroll, military pensions and grants.

Defense Department spending in 2002 was the highest in the following five states: California ($36.2 billion), Virginia ($29.6 billion), Texax ($22.3 billion), Florida ($14.3 billion) and Georgia ($11.0 billion). The top five counties or equivalents in federal defense expenditures were: Los Angeles ($10.3 billion) and San Diego ($10.0 billion) counties in California; Fairfax County, Va. ($6.0 billion); St. Louis City, Mo. ($4.8 billion); and Bexar County, Texas ($4.6 billion).


http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-91.html

If you are interested in seeing exactly where your tax money goes, here is the best source I could find.

Breakdown of Federal Aid for each State 2002
http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/fas02.pdf

[xchrom]

80. i am -- indifferent to your point

all my life i've known people who hate me -- who hate others.
i've seen and experienced the religously intoloerant up close and personal.
i spend the holidays with out my family because i won't subject my self to the rednecks.
these people have GROWN in numbers over the years -- and i prefer to know the neighborhood i live in.
while the things you say on the surface have appeal -- they might also be considered naive -- you embrace them and they cold cock you.
the conservatives have gotten where they are now rather brutally -- and i don't here you saying anything that swings the pendulum back.
and -- uh -- by the way i'm still not sitting down to turkey with rednecks.

[pmbryant]

81. I guess I have not been clear, because that is not my point

Dismissing the concept of "red states" and "blue states" as I am doing is absolutely not dismissing the concept of vastly different political views held by different people.

People are not states.

As I said in the original post, the labels of red and blue are dependent upon the voting choices of a small fraction of the population in the vast majority of states. Even apparent lopsided states such as Texas.

You're right, nothing I'm saying here will turn the pendulum back. But at least it will stop pushing it farther in the wrong direction.

As the saying goes, when you're in a hole, first stop digging.

--Peter

[c-macdonald]

82. How Progressives Can Win the Culture War

We are Americans.

We are teachers, lawyers, bankers, and doctors.
We work in factories, warehouses, farmhouses and office buildings.
We attend sporting events, company picnics, church functions, and reunions.
...and we believe we are a united country.

We stand up and sing along when we hear the National Anthem and speak loudly when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
We know love and life-long commitment are the foundations of a family.
We honor those who dedicate their lives to serving and protecting our children, our families, and our freedom.
We honor those who gave their lives for freedom by respecting the freedom of our neighbors to live the lives they lead.
We know that God gives us the strength to succeed and the wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong.
We ask our teachers and parents to work together in order to help our children succeed.
We demand a maximum return for our tax investments and believe they should be used for the greater good.

We believe in the American birth-right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
We believe in empowering and giving voices to all Americans.
We believe in is both a right and responsibility to speak out where we feel there is injustice.
We believe in the sanctity of nature and that the beauty of America must be preserved.
We believe in cultivating a culture of service where we develop stronger communities built on empathy.
We believe in working hard and embracing progress in order to ensure better opportunities for our children.
We believe in our cultural inheritance set forth by our founding fathers to never be satisfied with the status quo.
We believe in being a beacon of hope and integrity for the rest of the world.

We are hard-workers, free-thinkers and freedom-lovers.
We are Americans.

-TCNJ 11/12/04

[DuaneBidoux]

83. Bullshit. I live in a red state

And do fucking kid yourself...they want it that way.

[HeeBGBz]

84. Smile and act nice.

Sorry. I've had to deal with repug/fundie labeling and I delight in calling them out with a nice Red label of their own. For years I politely ignored the crap they dished out.

The gutless gloating that I've had to endure these last two weeks caused me to put an end to embracing our differences where the Grim Reepers are concerned. I'm nice to people who are nice to me. When someone starts spouting that same old rhetoric, I drop the politeness gloves. Perhaps I'll change with time, but I think the chasm is growing wider.

[pmbryant]

85. I live in the same state you do

Me and you + 2,827,833 others don't want it that way.

Yes, apparently 4,519,262 do want it that way. That means we have to switch 845,714 of these people to our side to "flip" Texas.

The population of Texas is more than 22,118,509. (2003 estimate from the Census bureau). Extrapolating to 2004, I get 22,541,000.

So that means Texas is labelled "red" due to the decisions of 3.75% of the population of our state (0.846 million divided by 22.541 million).

3.75%!

Perhaps we're not as "red" as everyone thinks.

--Peter

[w4rma]

87. I'm in full agreement and I hope you keep pushing and evolving this

positive message, pmbryant.

[pmbryant]

88. I fully intend to.

Thanks for the encouragement.

--Peter

[SouthernStar]

92. You've got my vote!

My coins still say "E Pluribus Unim" on them... last time I looked anyway!! We may not always live up to our ideals, however it doesn't mean we should stop trying.

[newyawker99]

97. Hi SouthernStar!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Threedifferentones]

93. I agree that we should stop talking about what "color" each state

is, and I also think that we should spend time putting our message into states that may seem unwinnable. What I do not think we should do is alter our stances in any way to try to win those states. Instead I think we should be as unyielding and as extreme as the fundies are: totally pro-choice, totally for gay marriage, totally in favor of high-taxation of the rich, totally in favor of greatly increased spending on social programs, and totally committed to exposing the hypocritical and fraudulent nature of the regressive ideology the Republican party calls "conservatism". We may not win if we do this, but at least the battle lines will be clearly drawn.


3DO

[newyawker99]

98. Hi Threedifferentones!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast: