Reply #24: Something's going on,but it has little to do with the terms "red" & "blue" [View All]

[pmbryant]

Since those terms are essentially meaningless. (Not to mention that use of those terms falls into the GOP framing trap.)

Here's what I wrote on my blog earlier, since I couldn't reply at DailyKos. There's even more at the "earlier posts" linked inside.

http://pmbryant.typepad.com/b_and_b/2004/12/more_misguided_.html

More misguided "red state v. blue state" talk

Kos at Daily Kos posts about the relative teen pregnancy rates of "red states" versus "blue states," and unfortunately buys into the whole misleading and destructive "red state versus blue state" mantra that the GOP would love to see continue for another four years. The point of his post appear to be that the states that voted for Kerry, even if only by slight margins, are superior to the states that voted for Bush, even if only by slight margins. Of course, he doesn't mention the part about slight margins, treating each state as if it were a monolithic entity of Kerry voters or Bush voters.

As I tried to explain in these earlier posts, the political differences in terms of actual numbers of voters for Democrats and Republicans is quite small in most states. Our winner-take-all electoral system grossly distorts these small real differences into huge apparent ones.

Second, by talking about the country as if we are divided into two "teams," and the team you are on is determined by what state you live in, we push middle-of-the-roaders away from us in states like Ohio, Nevada, Florida, and Colorado. Unfortunately, we are going to need some of these states in order to win future Presidential elections, and we are already starting from a deficit. Meanwhile, we should avoid digging our hole deeper.

"Red states" don't exist.

"Blue states" don't exist.

There are simply "states," and the individual citizens that live therein.