What Makes Some States "Red" and Others "Blue"?

[theHandpuppet]

Really, I find this whole issue quite fascinating. Is it a matter of rural vs urban? If that's it, then why do Dems find strength in states like Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin? Has it something to do with enthnicity or religion? Industrialization? Geography? Why are states like Idaho home to so many rightball wingbats and white supremicists, while Vermont is known for socialists and Ben and Jerry's? What turns a traditionally red state like Montana to the blue column?

Further, do you think the division of red/blue states is becoming more or less defined than in the past? Do you see any trends?

Comments and speculations welcome.

[Benhurst]

1. Education, or lack there of, is a major factor.

[Greyhound]

29. First reply out of the box.

Just look at where the states rank in educational accomplishment and it becomes pretty clear. The greater the ignorance the redder the state.

[John Q. Citizen]

2. There is no such thing. Red and blue is a Fox graphic.

Is Calif. red, because Arnold won?

It's a stupid dichotomy that simplifies many complex political situations.

[Captain Hilts]

3. 5% difference between who votes which way. Most states are purple. nt

[Brewman_Jax]

4. We need proportional voting

so it isn't winner take all.

[Apollo11]

8. I agree

If a State like Florida or Ohio is split 50-50, then the electors should also split 50-50. But it should be all States or otherwise candidates might ignore the proportional States.

With a proportional system candidates would have to chase every vote in every State. Right now all the power is with so-called "swing voters" in so-called "swing states".

But scrapping the electoral college and having a direct election is the only way to prevent another 2000 (where the official "winner" got less votes nationwide than the official "loser").

[theHandpuppet]

11. I've always thought that was the only way...

...but I can also see how rural voters would feel threatened by always being "outgunned" by the disproportion of rural to urban voters.

Interestingly enough, I've seen how this divide has manifested itself in the district of my hometown -- the infamous District 2 of Ohio, home to RW dingbats like Jean Schmidt. Now the divide isn't what most would presume. The rural eastern counties of D2 are both Appalachian and poor and swing more heavily Democratic; in the last two elections they opted for Schmidt's Democratic opponent by as much as 65-35%. Ohio's new governor, Ted Strickland, is himself from Scioto County, one of those eastern rural counties of D2. But you get to the western part of D2, comprised of Cincinnati and its suburban counties -- and it bleeds red. Ken Blackwell, John Boehner, Jean Schmidt, Bob Taft RED. The rural Appalachian voters feel disenfranchised; they haven't the votes to generate the interest and attention of their own representatives on local issues and are likely to feel the backlash of their Democratic votes -- hence, right after the last election where Schmidt lost AGAIN by a huge margin in eastern D2, she announced that it might be a good idea to put a nuclear waste dump in Pike County.

So what's the answer? Redistricting? But on what grounds? Do you divide urban counties from rural ones? I'm all in favor of dumping the electoral college system on a national level, and state elections are already run on a winner-takes-all system. But that leaves district representation mired in the same old system and creates false red/blue tags in areas where the issue is much more complex. I don't know what the solution might be.

[Brewman_Jax]

16. Not much different here

in GA; there's metro Atlanta and the rest of the state. As for the red/blue divide, Atlanta (city of and inner suburbs) and Athens are mostly blue while the metro Atlanta outer suburbs/exurbs, rural areas and the rest of the state are mostly red. The population count is roughly equal.

Anything to help the metro area, esp. traffic congestion, is always blocked by the rural/outside of Atlanta legistators. The city/metro rapid transit system is one of the nation's largest that has to operate without state funding. The urban vs. rural matchup is pretty clear and rough here.

IMO, proportional voting at the federal level doesn't give both sides an overwhelming advantage, though I can see where the winning side can show their disdain for the losing side, in the case you cited. I can appreciate your pain.

[regularguy]

5. I find this red/blue thing to be simplistic flattening out

of complex mixtures of values and opinions. If I had to pick a trend, maybe people who live closer to lots of other people tend to be generally more liberal than people who live in less densely populated areas. But there are so many other factors that it would be hard to prove such a thing...

[Apollo11]

6. Electronic voting makes states stay red!

Look at Florida in 2000 and 2004. Look at Ohio in 2004.

[sampsonblk]

7. Lots of reasons - all linked to education

Rural. Outwardly religious. Lack of travel and exposure to different people and cultures. Etc.

All "red" traits. This is one reason I oppose meeting them in the middle. On most issues, they are just plain WRONG.

[havocmom]

14. And sometimes, ignorance is a problem with urban population

Lived in both cultures. Ignorance and inability to accept that different lifestyles can have an impact on values and concerns is rampant in both. Where there is not a lot of ethnic diversity, people often are somewhat afraid of some ethnic groups. Where there are not a lot of cows and coyotes, some people don't understand the need for an outlook that takes those realities into consideration. If someone doesn't share my total political outlook, it doesn't make them ignorant. It does suggest that I work harder to find common ground and then share what I know, and asking them to teach me about their worl.

A goodly percent of the population in the rural area I currently live in are actually college educated. Owing to very small class size, kids get good attention in school and are, for the most part, ahead of the city kids I knew in reading and comprehension.

What really stands out is the difference in life experience. Folks tend to believe what is normal in their neighbor is the standard.

Holds pretty true in the urban areas I have lived and in the rural areas I have lived.

What might help would be a sort of exchange program between urban kids and country kids. Sometimes 'just plain WRONG' is just plain foolishness to brand as such.

Understanding, really learning about other cultures and empathy help us to appreciate other nationalities. Well, same holds true for the different populations here in the US.

[sampsonblk]

25. True, but irrelevant

You are talking about outliers. Sure there are plenty of well-educated people in red states, and sure there are a plenty of ignorant people who live in urban areas. From my point of view, I can only talk about this is very general terms.

It turns out, the wider a person's experiences, the less likely he or she is to be a hard-line red stater. Call it what you want. What percentage of people who have travelled overseas are Bush supporters? What percentage of red staters travel and get to experience other cultures? There is a there there.

* I have lived in both also.

[havocmom]

35. Irrelevant?

Not if we want to win elections, it isn't. How we relate means a lot.

[salin]

39. very well said.

[TZ]

9. what is located where

Sometimes it depends on what institutions are located in the state. I have a bunch of relatives who live in Colorado so I am somewhat familiar with it. To me its one of the most politically odd states. In the Denver-Boulder area is a very liberal culture. In fact in many ways the culture of Boulder (University of Colorado) is very Berkeley like. Almost hippy in some ways. Then in Colorado Springs not only do you have the Air Force Academy but the home of one of the big right wing Christian coalition groups (can't remember which at the moment). So around there is one of the biggest conservative voting blocks in the country. So truly purple is a better description for the state

[havocmom]

10. Preconceived notions and media spin (n/t)

[ecstatic]

12. old slavery maps? nt

:shrug:

[IDemo]

13. I have to correct the common misperception about Idaho now and then

Idaho was saddled with the image of a "supremacist haven" during the eighties and nineties when the Aryan Nations was active in the panhandle, and later during the Ruby Ridge incident. The state and its citizens became proactive in pursuing felony charges against Aryan Nations leaders and closing their compound. The land has since become the site of the Human Rights Education Institute.

That said, the politics here defy easy description. I would guess most who vote the repub ticket are really expressing their libertarian beliefs with the party they feel most closely matches up. There are actually many progressives here, particularly in the university towns of Pocatello, Boise, and Moscow, as well as in Sun Valley and the Coeur d'Alene area. But the last election was a real gut blow, coming when we felt we had a very good chance at picking up a congressional seat with Larry Grant, only to see total idiot Bill Sali grab the win with a ton of Club for Growth money.

[etherealtruth]

32. Thanks for that description

I've never been to your state, though I hear it is awe inspiring ly beautiful. I am sorry to admit that (at least in part) bought the imagery of Idaho being a refuge for the Aryan Nation and other right wing nut jobs.

I have no doubt your description is accurate, and am sorry I harbored any negative stereotypes. As others frequently point out ... all 50 states have major right-wing nuts; it's just a matter of what the proportions are:)

[DU9598]

15. Political Culture

I think a part of it goes back to which ethnicities populated the land, whether slavery was allowed, whether the KKK ever had roots in the state, which churches were dominant early on, and who the early leaders were in the state. Current education also plays a huge part along with the state's infrastructure. The states that have invested in good schools, good recreation, culture and the arts, etc are more likely to be more progressive and not conservative.

[hadrons]

17. Isolation ....

as someone above mentioned about lack of travel, the more spread-out and isolated the people are the "redder" they seem to be

[SCantiGOP]

18. for the South

It's race, pure and simple. In 1946 the South did not have a single Republican representative. In 1948, when the Democrats put the first civil rights plank in their platform, Strom Thurmond ran as a Dixiecrat and carried 4 or 5 southern states. Within 20 years the south had turned solid republican.

[Jamastiene]

22. So true.

If only people really stopped to think about that. It really does all go back to race in history.

[Clark2008]

28. No it's not.

I live in Tennessee and we had two Dem senators the whole time I was growing up in the 70s. The South for Clinton twice - except for your state and Virgnia, but Virginia had the first black governor.

The South didn't vote as a red block until 1994, so what you said makes no sense.

It's our lack of alternative media. The South is no more nor any less racist than any other region of the country. The Civil War and the Civil Rights Movements were a long time ago.

[Greyhound]

30. One of the best thing about MLK day is that the specials come out to remind

us that, while racism in the south was the focus of the media, King himself declared that he felt more blatant, violent, and pervasive racism when he went to Chicago than he ever experienced in the south. As a little kid I remember that the worst riots over busing were in Boston, and I personally have heard the word ni**er far more frequently up north than down south.

[Jamastiene]

19. Evolution is a a slow slow process that takes

millions of years. Until the red voters in the red states either evolve or inbreed themselves into extinction, we will have to wait millions of years for relief from their brain damaged thought processes. And to me, there is a direct correlation between the inbreeding (the Jesus of Suburbia believers) and the red voting. Even here in this red state, I have seen much evidence of this. The inbred ones wrap themselves in sheets and vote red every chance they get. The bluer ones around here, make up the bed and go out with a smile on our faces and love in our heart until some red voter wipes it off with more unbelievable anti-logic, but we keep trying our best.

[Jamastiene]

20. Oops. Dupe. Delete.

It said it never posted at all...an error ocurred...

[izzybeans]

21. The graphics department in the MSM networks.

Ironic however that they all decided on the same colors, isn't it.

[hfojvt]

23. Minnesota and Wisconsin are not that rural

and Iowa is not that blue. Over 50% of the population of Minnesota lives in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area.
This table shows they are far more urban than Montana or the Dakotas
http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt

However, note that one of the reddest states in the union, Utah, is also 87% urban, and places like Maine and Vermont are very non-urban, although I got into a huge argument with a Vermonter where I said that Vermont is not rural, certainly not the same way South Dakota is, and not the way rural is defined here:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Population/

[MadHound]

24. It is a false construct set up by the media and professional political pundits

It is aimed at dividing the population and electorate. ALL states are some shade of purple, and most of the states are pretty close to center. For example, my state Missouri. We went for Bush twice, yes. But we also went for Clinton twice before that, and while we currently have a Republican govenor, the three terms before that saw Democratic govenors. And currently our Senators are split, one Democrat, one Republican.

It is a false construct designed by the media to project the image that liberals are limited to the northeast, urban, and California areas, while conservatives control the vast middle expanse. That is simply not true, and is shown to be false when you get into the nuts and bolts of vote counting.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

26. False construct? I thougt it was a visual way to keep score

between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. If there's a "construct", it's the two-party system we work with.

The maps that display red/blue at the county level (if they are accurate) tell an interesting story, and it really is urban vs rural. In MI for example, the last map I saw showed blue for the counties that contain Detroit, Pontiac, Ann Arbor, Traverse City, Marquette, and one or two others. The majority of the state (in terms of land area) is red. The Democratic majority in the urban areas carried the state.

I guess it should seem obvious - apple trees and cattle don't vote. :)

[MadHound]

37. It should seem obvious that most states are actually a shade of purple

But:shrug: apparently not.

It is indeed a false construct. Look, I live in a "red" county, in a "red" state. You know what makes it "red"? About one percent of the voting public, who very well could go "blue"(again) in the next presidential election. After all, we voted in a Democratic Senator and a stem cell resolution last election.

By the by, while you're checking out the map, I suggest that you check out suburban counties. A lot of them vote on the conservative scale also.

As I said, this is all variable bullshit that the media is using in order to try and show how it is indeed the urban, NE, and Californian vote that is ruling the party. Don't go by what you see on TV. Instead, get into a county by county basis(usually a long, tough task done by checking the county web pages) and you will see that gee, there are a lot of liberals out in the country. Enough that without them, a state would truly be conservative.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

41. The Color Purple, yeah I think I understand what you're saying

But for presidential elections (in my state, at least), the electors are not pro-rated according to the margin of victory. It's all-red or all-blue after the totals are done. And, yes, there are plenty of liberal democratic voters in the boonies, just not enough to win in purely rural districts. The House mix is maybe purple, with a mix of blue and red representatives. The Senators (from MI again) are both blue, with a blue governor (governess?), and blue electors in 2000 & 2004.

There's not much "purple thinking" in the Congress, either. The majority party "owns" all committee chairs and procedures, they're not allocated according proportionally. Victory (or defeat) is generally total, with a few "exceptional" senators and representatives on both sides of the aisle who will vote the "other" way on some issues.

The map showing red/blue states during presidential elections is mostly just a graphical way of showing the score. High-fives or gloomy faces are the result as each state is changed from white or gray. It's television.

Urban, NE, and Calif rule the party? Well, let's see, Pelosi is Calif. Clinton is NE. Obama is Chicago/urban. Kucinich (sp?) is Cleveland/urban. Dean is Vermont/rural? How'd that happen? :)

[Clark2008]

27. Lack of alternative media.

We have only moderate to right-leaning radio, television and newspapers (outside of Memphis) in Tennessee.

We're not stupid or lack tons of education, but when the only thing you hear driving from your home in the rural areas to work in the cities is Rush, Hannity and Savage, it wears you down, eventually.

[generaldemocrat]

31. C-U-L-T-U-R-E

Culture
Culture is what defines values, values are what defines priorities. Minnesota and Wisconsin, which you listed in your post, have populations that can historically be traced back to Scandinavian immigrants. Scandinavian culture promotes hard work, but it also stipulates that there should be good healthcare and education to support that hard work. East-West blue states, such as New York and California have cultures that promote flexibility, that flexibility in turn enables them to become economic centers, corporate hubs, with high end universities. New England and the West Coast (and the Great Lakes region) attract people who are flexible in their world outlook.

With regards to the division of red/blue states becoming less defined than the past, I highly disagree. I think the divide is growing deeper (especially vis-a-vis Southern red states) and that is largely due to the world perception of red staters. The belief that "they are the best" when they clearly aren't and the idea that religion should dictate every aspect of their lives. Because of their warped priorities, they have zero industrialization, zero development and that in turn means that they will be left behind as the world moves forward.

[Odin2005]

33. Generally Urban vs. Rural.

states with a high population density tend to be blue and states with a low population density tend to be red.

In the suburbs voting patterns, IIRC, depend on class.

[depakid]

34. Social Capital also has something to do with it

[bling bling]

36. I remember thinking this map was interesting.

Just interesting, that's all. Probably just coincidence.

[JCMach1]

38. It's not Red vs. Blue... that's BS

Howard Dean and others realized this... this was one of the reasons we picked-up so many seats last election...

[Tesha]

40. Stupidity. (NT)

[Stewie]

42. Scotch-Irish Protestant vs. Catholic/Lutheran/etc.

Simple as that. The South was populated by conservative Protestants, largely Scotch-Irish. The North saw a large influx of Catholic immigrants. Minnesota has a large Scandanavian Lutheran influence.

While the religious beliefs may not be as strictly observed, it did set a political culture and tradition.