Politics is not about colors. Colors never change.

[JackRiddler]

Perhaps the most insidious single coup of psychological manipulation in American politics since 2000 has been to permanently identify the two political parties and the areas where they hold majorities with the primary colors of red and blue. This was not the case before, it started with the colors that were coincidentally used by the TV networks for their maps in displaying results on the night of the Bush-Gore election. Until then, the networks had rotated the colors, always changing the one used for the incumbent party. Since then, we have had "red states" and "blue states," with degrees from "scarlet" through "purple" to "deep blue" used to indicate levels of support for the parties in given counties. People on all sides of politics have adopted the terminology.

Colors don't change. The identification of supporters for a party in a given election creates the false impression that there is something essential, a matter of cultural identity, that serves as the main motivation. The colors suggest that politics is not about persuasion, proposals, debates and shifts, but that there is an underlying primal force that simply makes people members of one team or another. This turns politics into a team sport and naturally redounds to the benefit of strategies aimed to the reptile brain. It has served especially to create a sense of pride in being "red," since the "blue" areas tend to be more urban and mixed with populations who do not identify as strongly with the color. It has been key in promoting the kind of political understanding exemplified by David Brooks: that politics comes from cultural identity (which is almost impossible to change) and not economic interest or political belief (which are easier to change and more susceptible to persuasion by argument). Thus the red and blue terminology serves Republicans and conservatives, which is why they're so much more committed to it.

History: Prior to 2000, the color for the incumbent switched at each presidential election. States that went for Carter were filled in red in 1976 (because the incumbent color that year was blue) and again red in 1980 (because the incumbent color had switched to red). Reagan was blue in 1980 (as the challenger) and blue again in 1984 (because he was now the incumbent). If Bush was red against the blue incumbent party in 2000, then by that system he should have stayed red in 2004 (as the incumbent, and be it due to fraud). But the incumbent color didn't switch back to blue in 2008, which means that the networks had decided to legitimate the use of primary colors as permanent indicators of party. The psyop was complete.

And to think I was once called a Red!

[Skinner]

1. To quote a certain politician...

"The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue States: red states for Republicans, blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.

We coach little league in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states.

There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq, and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America."

[Bitwit1234]

2. Gee I hate to say this but I think the color of the Democratic

congress, at least most of them, and Obama is changing to YELLOW.

[JackRiddler]

3. Sadly both major parties are GREEN.

And not the ecological kind.

[JackRiddler]

4. One more try