I really hate this phrase. This phrase was coined about a decade ago. Prior to this term, entire states were not generalized and stereotyped as nastily. Negative stereotypes come with every political label, but it is more commonly seen at the individual level under certain characteristics. Presidential elections since 2000-2004 have brought on several stereotypes and judgmental errors toward people of whole states based on how their state voted a certain election. The kinds of shit people say about red states and blue states are usually judgmental nonsense spouted out by people who've never been to these places. This red and blue label also encourages people to move to certain states. Therefore making it harder for opposition to corrupt majority parties to rise up. Tim Russert is to blame for this.
Pennsylvania has been described as Pittsburgh at one end, Philadelphia at the other, and a stretch of the Mid West in between.
It's another tool used to divide people into camps (divide and conquer). They need to keep people divided so that they're arguing amongst themselves instead of waking up to (and uniting against) the real enemy that controls and administers both sides of every political argument.
And I often wondered why they switched the colors? I have always associated Red with the Democrat party, and some years back that's the way the maps were shown.
...and to/from entire regions. Increasingly, liberalism is all about living in a place with a cold, harsh climate, unless you want to be part of a mistreated minority.
Hawaii is a harsh cold climate? That's news to me. (Sorry, my inner smart-ass couldn't resist). Indeed, I agree with you that this encourages people of certain beliefs to relocate to certain areas. It's just part of the divide and conquer scheme just like Pressed Rat mentioned. When certain people relocate to certain states, it allows the elite to have better control over election results. As well as strategizing propaganda and advertising to certain regions, by dividing up and conquering the states. It seems to me that Tim Russert and those who pushed the red state blue state label want to eliminate the diversity within those states and prevent centrism. Because we all know its the centrist voters who determine election results, not those who always vote for one party regardless who's on the ticket. Divide and conquer is much easier when it's divided by 2. Seperate the public on issues. Divide and conquer methods are all over the place: left wing against right wing, men against women, white against minority, north against south, east coast against west coast, young against old, tradition against new ideas, rich against poor, urban against rural, and the list goes on. They divide us to keep their status quo in check, meanwhile us from uniting on what we all agree with and fighting the oppression.
If my memory serves me well, the 1996 election had Dole's states colored blue and Clinton's were red, and vice-versa. I don't recall the colors being dead set until after the new millennium.
In Canada the Liberal party (roughly comparable to your Democrats) uses red, the Conservatives (~ Republicans) uses blue, the New Democratic Party uses orange, and the Greens obviously use green. I am always confused when I see a map at US election time and the democrats are blue and the republicans are red.
Blue States are those which are closest to falling into default or bankruptcy. Where I am at the previous Guv. wanted sell the highways to the Captialists.! Blue states have more eminent domain issues. Default puts you in bed with Capitalists.
