Best and worst states for fit kids according to Child.com

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

http://www.child.com/kids/health_nutrition/fittest_states.jsp?page=9

The Complete List

1. Connecticut -blue
2. New York -blue
3. Vermont -blue
4. Massachusetts -blue
5. Missouri -red
6. Maine -blue
7. West Virginia -red
8. Wisconsin -blue
9. Arkansas -red
10. Illinois -blue
11. Montana -red
12. Georgia -red
13. California -blue
14. Rhode Island -blue
15. Texas -red
16. New Jersey -blue
17. Oregon -blue
18. Minnesota -blue
19. Colorado -red
20. Florida -red
21. Utah -red
22. Maryland -blue
23. Indiana -red
24. Washington -blue
25. Michigan -blue
26. Hawaii -blue
27. South Carolina -red
28. Louisiana -red
29. Pennsylvania -blue
30. New Hampshire -blue
31. Kentucky -red
32. Virginia -red
33. Ohio -red
34. New Mexico -red
35. Oklahoma -red
36. North Carolina -red
37. North Dakota -red
38. Delaware -blue
39. Tennessee -red
40. Arizona -red
41. Iowa -red
42. Wyoming -red
43. Idaho -red
44. Alabama -red
45. South Dakota -red
46. Kansas -red
47. Mississippi -red
48. Nevada -red
49. Nebraska -red
50. Alaska -red

15 of the top 25 are blue states and 21 of the bottom 25 are red states. Coincidence?

[OrlandoGator]

1. I would call Florida "purple"...

...the counties where people actually live are pretty blue.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Well, when Florida's EV's go to a Democrat

It will be blue. Til then, it's Red.

Further, your state legislature is run by Republicans, your Governor is a Republican, your Congressional delegation is predominantly Republican, and even a majority of your judges are Republican.

Sorry, but it's Red, not purple.

[TheModernTerrorist]

4. that goes without saying

for many of the red states actaully. Most urban areas in the US are very blue, whereas everything else is red/pink.

[iconoclastNYC]

3. Ohio is not red either

This red state / blue state is really stupid. Calling any swing state red or blue is really simplistic and boneheaded.

Lets not put swing states in the red column. They will be blue soon enough.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Ohio, the swing state?

12 of 18 Congressmen are Republican, as are both Senators. It went to Bush both times. It has a Republican Governor and a Republican dominated state legislature.

[iconoclastNYC]

19. Take a serious look at how the election was run last time.

And ask yourself how long you'd wait in line to vote. 2 hrs? 4 hrs? 6? 12? Some people waited that long and they weren't in Republican districts.

And that was just one of the techniques the Republicans used to supress the Democratic vote.

But I forgot you aren't supposed to talk about this lest one join the "Michael Moore/X-Files Wing" of the Democratic Party.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. And how did the people who created said conditions come to be in charge?

Oh yeah, they were voted in by the people of Ohio.

[iconoclastNYC]

21. What excatly is your point?

A swing state is one that swings from Republican to Democratic and right now Ohio is swung to the Republican side and swinging back to the Democratic side.

Do you think we should just give up Ohio and Flordia and just put them in the red column? They aren't red states. They are swing states. Any studen of political science will tell you this.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. Did I say we should give them up?

Really? Where did I say that? Please, point it out specifically.

However, it doesn't take a PhD to tell you that if a state's elected representation is nearly entirely consumed by one party, it's really not very likely to be "swinging" any time soon.

[iconoclastNYC]

32. You really should look at what swing state means.

Bush edged out Kerry by what 1%? This does not make it a red state, it makes it a swing state, as everyone knows it is. It voted red in 2000 and 2004 but that doesn't mean you can say it's going to vote red in 2008.

It is not a red state. A red state is a state that nearly always votes Red.

And by saying that it is a red state, you are in fact, saying that you should give up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. And when, exactly, did I start talking about the 2006 or 2008 election?

[iconoclastNYC]

36. I give up.

You just want to argue. Go argue with a tennis ball or something, that way you have a 50/50 chance of winning.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. I'm not the one who wanted to argue.

For god only knows what reason, you decided I had given up on red states for future elections, as if I had made that statement at any point in time. I made a simple statement. I didn't come up to you and start picking a fight, so put your bullshit on me.

[iconoclastNYC]

45. How about

When you posted: "Ohio the swing state?" It is swing state. Say it isn't. IT IS.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

47. And why did I say that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3379638&mesg_id=3379683


Oh yeah, that's right, because YOU started in on how my comment was "stupid". I didn't pick the fight with you. You picked it with me. And given that it's been 8 years since they've voted for a Democrat for President and that Democrats do not have control over ANY segment of Ohio politics, it's hard to argue that they are not red, at very least at the current time. And since I'm not talking about Presidential politics, and didn't start that discussion until YOU brought it up, I don't think the term "swing" is very relevant to this discussion in the first place.

I think you've just got your panties in a bunch because you think that every time someone refers to a "red" state, you think that person truly believes that every last man, woman, and child is a Republican, which is a flatly wrong assertion. You also make YOUR assumptions that the person believes that one should not campaign in a red state because it is beyond hope, which is again, another flatly wrong assertion. Personally, calling a state "purple" is a bullshit way of denying the truth that these people voted for a Republican and they got one. "Purple" states do not split their electoral votes, nor do they send someone that is half Republican and half Democrat to Congress.

Ohio has 6 out 21 major elected officials that are Democrats and Democrats do not control any aspect of state legislature. Saying they're anything other than red currently is complete and total denial of the situation. Republicans call the shots. Period. And comparing that to state rankings on issues of crime, education, health care, poverty, abortions, you name it, states where Republicans call the shots, or "red" states, rank lower than states where Democrats hold the power, or "blue" states. Period. That's the point.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. Who in their right mind ranked MO that high?

The governor is abolishing medicaid, as well as stripping funding from most worthwhile social programs that serve kids.

Kansas should be ranked higher. At least higher than MO.

Who made this list? What a joke.

[atommom]

15. That surprised me too. I just read that many MO students live

in poverty, and with Blunt in charge, things won't get better anytime soon. :(

[proud2BlibKansan]

23. Check out my post #7

this is a bullshit report.

[ultraist]

26. NC has a Dem gov and Dem controlled state legislature

We do have an excellent smartstart program but high child poverty rates. Yet, blue states are more populated than red Southern states, so NY and CA actually have more children in real numbers in poverty.

That "study" is bogus, IMO. It measures PE and nutrition classes in elementary school. Those are not reliable measures to determine child health.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

6. Awesome.. Maine is 6.

"Parents are good role models in this state: They're more likely than the average to eat five servings of produce daily and much more likely to spend their leisure time involved in physical activities. Nearly 40% of moms are breastfeeding at six months, also above the national average.

The state government helps out too: It's banned junk food in the cafeteria and struck a deal with the soft drink industry to remove advertisements from schools. Lawmakers are now debating bills that would require chain restaurants to supply calorie information on the menu and have schools give parents confidential reports about their child's weight."

We're probably moving to CT in a few months too. It's good to know they care about kids there.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Bullshit alert

This claims that MO still requires recess for kids. But I am a teacher in MO and that is NOT TRUE.

http://www.child.com/kids/health_nutrition/fittest_states.jsp?page=4

[MadHound]

30. Why are you so down on MO?

Actually, the kids in this state ARE pretty fit. Laws for required PE classes are pretty stiff, and most PE classes are pretty diversified. And yes, recesses are required in this state, at least through elementary, and I believe some middle school. You might want to check out more Missouri stats here<http://www.actionforhealthykids.org/docs/profiles/missouri.pdf#search='missouri%20required%20recess%20for%20school%20children'>

I have traveled throughout this country, and I've seen many other states whose children are in much worse shape than Missouri's. Granted, our boy blunder govenor is going to undo much of this, but for right now, I have no trouble believing this report, and I don't understand why you do. Perhaps it is because we took down your precious Jayhawks at the end of the season:evilgrin:

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. I am not DOWN ON Missouri

I am just pointing out that recess is not in the state curriculum regs, as this site alleges.

And I see that in this pdf you posted, it also says recess is required. But seriously, it's not. I have taught in MO for 25 years. So I do know what we are required to teach. The requirements call for a certain amount of time a week for PE classes and they say that part of those minutes can be recess. That is not the same as requiring recess. Many schools have stopped recess in MO. They wouldn't be able to do that if it really was required.

I also think it's poor practice to say that part of a kid's time in PE can be spent as recess. Many of my co-workers also have a problem with this. Recess is not the same as an organized and structured PE class. We teachers have been complaining about this requirement as long as I have been in the education business in this state.

[movie_girl99]

9. Texas is 15

out of 50 that's not bad.

[lastliberalintexas]

54. No way in hell that Texas is 15

Sorry. Houston, Dallas and San Antonio consistently rank as some of the worst cities for obesity amongst adults, and children usually do not eat any better than their parents. Our air quality sucks and is getting worse, incidence of childhood asthma is increasing, we rank as the #1 state for uninsured children, the #1 state for children living in poverty, and we've drastically cut Medicaid and CHIP funding in the last several years.

As I said, no way in hell that we're 15. I'd in fact be very sad to know that there were any states who ranked lower than us.

[merh]

10. Damn! A list Missississippi isn't last on!

47 of 50 - what can I say? :freak:

[Momgonepostal]

12. I can see why Alaska is last

It's so stinkin' cold most of the year, who wants to go outside and exercise?

[MountainLaurel]

18. Also

The large number of Native Americans has to be an issue -- they generally as a group have high rates of poverty, obesity, and substance abuse.

[Yupster]

44. But I'm surprised by Nebraska

I would have thought those kids would run around a lot.

[htuttle]

11. Wow, Wisconsin did better than I'd have thought!

I guess kids still like to play outside here. Good.

I'm hoping they are learning to appreciate the environment like I did. I used to spend way more time running around the Vernon Marsh than I did sitting in front of the TeeVee.

[Hugin]

13. Frankly... When I read Child.com was based in...

Child, 375 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017.

I sorta wrote it off as propaganda.

Sorry.

=/

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. What does that mean?

Who owns 375 Lexington Avenue?

[LynneSin]

14. Damn, Delaware is the worst Blue State...

..it's the canal factor that is bringing us down. You go south of the Canal and you just crossed the Mason Dixon line - it's a whole new world down there that I refuse to be a part of

[MountainLaurel]

17. Why the hell is WV so high?

And I say this as a native WVan . . . the infant mortality stats are bad because of poverty issues (women can't afford, can't get to, or can't take time off work for prenatal care), dropout rates are high as is teen pregnancy (cultural norms), and the whole joint is poisoned via industrial pollutants.

[ultraist]

28. W V has very high poverty rates and horrible social programs

That list is BS

[MountainLaurel]

37. IMHO I agree

I grew up with too many kids who got their hot meals of the day at school, who were all too familiar with big brothers coming in at night to touch them in a bad way and who didn't realize that it wasn't normal, who didn't get the help they needed in school because their family was from the wrong section of town, who regularly got beat up by teen boyfriends and got no assistance from police when they were called, who didn't know that financial aid existed. And I was from a reasonably prosperous part of the state.

[TheFarseer]

22. this list is a joke

Ranking fitness by PE requirements? When I was in PE, we stretched for about half an hour, played a inning of kickball and called it a day. PE is probably a frickin joke where ever you go. I was taught nutrition in my school so I don't know what they are talking about that kids aren't taught that here. Alaska is the least phisically fit state? I don't buy that for a second. Any state with plenty of wide open spaces and a rural population is not going to be unfit. If you want to rank fit to unfit, you have to go by obesity and overweight rates, or you could use the results of the president's physical fitness challenge.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Agreed

and as I posted before, what they say about my state is NOT true.

[ultraist]

25. 7 of the top 15 are red states. 32 out of 50 states are red

What was measured is not really clearly defined in the article. PE or nutrition classes in elementary school are not good indicators for children's health. Parent's income and educational level is more relevant with regard to this.


To see whether your state is on your side or on the sidelines, we spent five months studying mandated school fitness and nutrition policies. We also examined a dozen-plus other factors relating to healthy lifestyles, including the availability of safe playgrounds, rates of participation in youth sports, and the number of fast-food restaurants.

What we uncovered was astonishing: Just one state requires physical education (PE) class for all students daily, only 1 in 4 specifies a reasonable PE class size, and only two-thirds teach elementary school students about nutrition. "Most states are failing kids and their parents," says Suzanne Smith, an obesity expert and an adviser for our story. Read on to see if your state is among the best or the worst. Even the top states need improvement (and many have legislation in the works), so once you're armed with the facts, go to child.com's Action Center to advocate for bills mentioned in this story.

A study that shows child hunger rates and which states have the most children without medical care would be more informative. These states would likely be those with the highest poverty rates and the greatest number of those in poverty, like CA or NY, the more populated states.

[Withywindle]

29. But is that by raw population or percentage...

A study that shows child hunger rates and which states have the most children without medical care would be more informative. These states would likely be those with the highest poverty rates and the greatest number of those in poverty, like CA or NY, the more populated states.


It should go by percentage per capita, not just by sheer raw numbers, because then the most populated states would almost always rank high in everything just because there are more people...that doesn't really tell us anything about the relative health of citizens there. (Many Deep South states have much, much higher poverty rates per capita than NY or CA)

[deadparrot]

33. I'm shocked...my state is the highest-ranked red.

We have notoriously bad school systems, and notoriously fat citizens.

Bizarre.

[rinsd]

34. This list seems to be based on....

...how much PE is scheduled and whether the school has candy or soda in the vending machines.

[thedude]

39. bs alert

Iowa is one of the best states for public education. No way they rank behind states like Louisiana, South Carolina, etc.

[QC]

40. What this study strongly suggests is that

the tired red/blue meme, a corporate media talking point designed to artificially exaggerate the GOP's strength and our weakness, has reached the limits of whatever slight usefulness it might have had.

[Ripley]

41. You said it!

I can't believe people here are still buying that red/blue bullshit. Did you also notice the thread and responses to the 1st cousins getting married in a blue state - Maryland? Imagine if that had been Alabama. :eyes:

[QC]

42. Yes, I noticed that.

I was tempted to run in and post something about how all that incest might explain why Marylanders would elect the likes of Ehrlich to be their governor, but then I reconsidered. My momma raised me better than that.

As for why "people here are still buying that red/blue bullshit," I think that's easy enough to understand. Most people don't really like to think, so easy oversimplifications will always have a ready market. And, of course, when those easy oversimplifications also serve to confirm people's prejudices, then they're just that much better.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. Confirming prejudices, you say?

Or is it a trend that's well over 150 years old now? Considering the electoral map from 2004 was about the same as the pre-Civil War slave/free states map, and that the same geographical regions have voted against each other in nearly every election since then, I think you're only kidding yourself if you don't think there's a divide.

[Ripley]

46. Yeah pal, things are just the way they were in Slave Days!

Ask my black neighbors why the fuck they love it here and hate smart ass northerners telling them how awful their white racist neighbors are.

Do yourself a favor and go to Truthout and watch the whole series of videos they made called "Red State Road trip." You might be enlightened as to how many purple areas and even blue areas there are in "red" states. The red/blue meme is a myth and one that is deceptively used by the repukes in order to make progressives feel hopeless in red states and to embolden the fuckers who think counties of 99% dirt to 1% people ratio that constitute RED are actually meaningful.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Art_from_Ark]

49. A small point about your map

Three of those areas listed as territories had actually become states before the Civil War began: Minnesota (1858), Oregon (1859) and Kansas (January 1861). Not that it changed anything in the big picture. Or maybe it did, considering that the admission of these states, all "free", marked the end of the "one free, one slave" admission system.

[Ripley]

50. Yeah, the religious wars are getting old...LET'S BASH THE SOUTH.

I'm glad you feel so smug about wherever the hell you live, but it really is distasteful for you to start a thread with the sole purpose of telling people that red states have the worst parents who don't take proper care of their children.

Obviously it is a flawed study according the the many posts above pointing them out.

Yep, only red states have racism, obese children, child molesters and fundies. Blue states are pristine and never had slaves.

How juvenile to continue to divide people in this manner.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

52. You need to follow your own advice, friend.

You posted a deeply flawed study and tied it to a GOP/corporate media talking point, and you got called on it. End of story.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

53. Not exactly.

If you think red state/blue state is only a "GOP/corporate media talking point", you're in complete denial over the current situation. There's a very real divide that exists and it's not going away any time soon.

As far as a "deeply flawed study", I think the title misconstrues the information, absolutely, but providing Americans with information about the best and worst places based on their selected criteria they decide is hardly deeply flawed. Bad titling doesn't change the information itself. I think it's quite convenient for a lot of people who might be unhappy with the results or who share your viewpoint that there is no regional ideological divide to use the fact that the there is a bad title to discredit everything about it, but you claiming it does not necessarily make it so. So pardon me, but just because YOU think something, doesn't make it true. Get over yourself for thinking you've got all the answers.

[Ripley]

55. LOL!

You're projecting! Of course you won't be able to read this because you've put me on Ignore. :cry: I'm so hurt!

Talk about your regional attacks (which by the way are against DU rules)....if we go by your red/blue map...you've just bashed about 80% of the states in this country. Should everyone in those states rip their kids away from their donuts and choco milk and move to Maryland?

Or is it just fun to find a new angle with which to make oneself look morally superior to others?

[QC]

56. "Get over yourself for thinking you've got all the answers."

Again, you would do well to follow your own advice. That's becoming a recurring theme....

If you get tired of playing games and would like to have a serious discussion, let me know.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

57. So there's NO regional divide in our country?

Is that what you're telling me?

[QC]

64. Actually, no, though you've been putting those words in my mouth

all afternoon. Here's a little tip: try responding to what people actually say. It makes for a much better discussion.

There's definitely an ideological divide in this country, but to describe it as wholly "red/blue" is simplistic. In fact, there are quite a few divides, among them urban/rural, working class/middle class, religious/nonreligious, etc. All of these are important for us to discuss if we would like to start winning elections again.

Unfortunately, treating the whole thing as "red/blue" papers over all of those divisions in favor of a simplistic interpretation that, as I said above, has the effect of greatly exaggerating the GOP's strength and our weakness by making it look as though they absolute control over--and we are utterly powerless in--a vast expanse running from Mexico to Canada and from the Alantic to the Sierra Nevada. Do you not remember how happily the goopers were brandishing their red/blue map after the 2000 election, claiming that it demonstrated their wide appeal and proved that Democrats were "coastal elitists"? Why do you suppose they found that little piece of propaganda so irresistible?

So the red/blue bullshit can only help the Republicans by making them seem stronger than they are and at the same time encouraging Democrats to aim their fire in the wrong direction and ignore what's happening on the ground in those "red states." If you want to do the GOP's work for them, then fine, but I would rather not.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

66. Again though, denying its existence isn't fixing the problem either.

You say the divide exists, but you're failing to address the situation. Labeling the country "purple" isn't exactly much more than "papering over" the problem either. All its doing is putting it in a silver lining you happen to find more palatable.

But the red/blue thing isn't just an oversimplification. There is a very drastic problem, especially in the South, that we have absolutely no solution for, and yes, it DOES date back to the Civil War. I have driven through so-called "liberal" parts of the South, in Virginia and North Carolina, and even THERE, I see huge Confederate Flags and signs that say "THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN!" Ignoring these problems is flat out putting the blinders on.

And before everyone gets pissed off, in no way, shape, or form do I think to even the slightest degree that the "red states" are entirely composed of Republicans/rednecks/bigots/any other negative label. Of course not! There are plenty of Democrats in those states, and quite frankly, they are the most valuable commodity we as a party have. Not a single goddamn reasonable person really believes that Democrats don't exist in those states, so take a deep breathe, and RELAX. I think a lot of you have gotten WAY too defensive on this subject. We honor you, we cherish you, we KNOW you're there. But quite frankly, a lot of your neighbors and friends are not there, and that's a big problem. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away. Not ignoring the problem, on the other hand, also does NOT make you part of the problem either.

But since we're on the topic, I agree, we do need to do something to change some of these states to our side. My plan would be to heavily attack the southwest and midwest. I don't believe anything is going to change for us in the south on a Presidential level, and I think southern Democrats need to do whatever it is they can to get elected on a Senate/Congressional level. While we're on that topic, we can't get all pissed off when a Southern Democrat winds up voting Republican on a few issues (ie Landrieu on ANWR). They represent the people that elected them - give them a break. We need them to keep their jobs first and foremost. On the other hand, I think states in the midwest, such as Ohio, Iowa, and maybe even the Dakotas, as well as states like Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico, could be taken by shifting the tone of our message to that of fiscal responsibility and states' rights. There are a lot of TRUE conservatives in those states whom we could easily appeal to if we merely change the way we present our message. I know personally a lot of true conservatives that were pissed off at Bush, but thought him better than the alternative. That means we're not far from swaying these people - we just need to give them a reason.

Quite frankly though, you can wrap up any of those states in whatever rosy packaging you want, but the truth remains that they are currently in the hands of Republicans, and we need to do something substantive to change that.

[QC]

73. Denying the problem? Hell, I named four ideological divides in that post.

See what I mean about replying to something other than what someone actually wrote?

If you'll refer to the post that you not-quite-responded to, you'll notice that I named quite a few deep ideological divides that we have to get a grip on, so I don't see how I am claiming that there are no ideological divides in this country.

I quite agree with you that there are different reasons why places go Republican and we should accordingly tailor our message to them. That's precisely why I think the red/blue paradigm is so useless. Making the whole thing a matter of "red/blue" only tells us that in 2004 a particular state gave a majority or plurality of its popular vote to one or the other candidate. It tells us little about the political situation in that state and nothing about what might be the deciding issue in that state.

For example, Maryland has one of the nuttiest, meanest Republican governors in the country, but since Kerry won the state, it is considered a Democratic stronghold. Mississippi and Alabama have Democratic legislatures, but writing them off as "red states" ignores that fact, to our peril, since a GOP takeover of those legislatures would surely mean more DeLay-style redistricting. That's the real danger of the simplistic red/blue paradigm--it leads many of us to overemphasize presidential politics and thus "write off" places where we need to be supporting our state legislatures and Democratic reps and senators. If the Clinton years taught us anything, it should be that having the White House but not the Congress isn't worth much.

[rinsd]

61. Red State/Blue State didn't even exist until the 2000 election....

...in fact in years previous Democrats were marked in Red and the GOP in blue. So yeah, it's a talking point aimed at division.

"There's a very real divide that exists and it's not going away any time soon"

There is certainly division but its not so much on a state basis because many states are purple and are only red or blue by a slim majority. And state dynamics change because of migration.

"providing Americans with information about the best and worst places based on their selected criteria they decide is hardly deeply flawed."

The determination of healthy or fit seems to be how much PE is scheduled and whether the state allows schools to have junk food sold on campus. Not exactly what I would consider to be definitive measurements.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

62. Okay, the labels didn't exist pre-2000.

But did the CONCEPT exist before then? Absolutely. It is not a new idea.

Further, I didn't say certain states CAN'T shift. No where in the entirety of this thread did I say that.

Fine, you don't consider it a "definitive" study. Okay.

[rinsd]

63. The concept?

Do you mean regional differences? We will always have regional differences to some degree. And that does shape some politics. But the red/blue concept doesn't allow for the fact the states are far more complicated than that.

"Further, I didn't say certain states CAN'T shift. No where in the entirety of this thread did I say that."

No you stated "that the same geographical regions have voted against each other in nearly every election since then" with then referring to the Civil War and that is simply not true.

"Fine, you don't consider it a "definitive" study. Okay."

No, I said definitive measurements of what the study was supposedly studying (ie: the fitness of children) left much to be desired(I was a little more sarcastic about it). The fact that the poster added the whole Red/Blue state stuff made it all the more ridiculous.

[rinsd]

60. "Or is it a trend that's well over 150 years old now?"

Or someone's making a sloppy connection based on an silly meme that came up after the election which ignores that most states are actually purple.

"that the same geographical regions have voted against each other in nearly every election since then"

Oh I can think of at least 10 elections where that wasn't the case. Just start with the electoral landslides and mover your way on down.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

67. Yes, do "mover your way on down".

Please, break it down for me. Outside of the few true consensus candidates, tell me where and when the trend has been bucked. Details, please.

[rinsd]

68. Wow pointing out a spelling mistake....

...you really put me in my place.

Let's start at 1996 and work our way down shall we. All info is from this site, http://www.presidentelect.org/

1996



1992



1988



1984



1980



1976 (which actually looks alot like 2004)



1972



1968



1964



1960



That's the last 40 years. I could go on but I think my point is made. I do hear crow doesn't taste as bad with ketchup.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

69. What I see over the last 40 years is a few consensus candidates

and then a lot of the south voting against the north. Oh, and toss in Ross Perot dividing and conquering in Bill Clinton's name. Shove the ketchup and the crow up your ass.

[rinsd]

71. You're right only 5 out of 10 were consensus....

But your theory was there hasn't been much change since the Civil War.

You were wrong.

Then you switched to regional differences which I'm not sure apply when those regions are flipping between Democrats and Republicans. I also find it funny that the state of Wisconsin has voted more against the consensus your former slave state region (which have shifted between consensus and against on an individual basis) but I doubt they fit in your little theory.

This isn't even about defense of a home state. I grew up in NJ and live in CA.

This is about dividing people up by boundaries rather than making allowances for the complexity of those states. You rely on a media construct that was set up to divide and you are attempting to take it further with this post. You were the one who choose to label the states in for yet another "see I live in a blue state we're great" bs post. It's even funnier when some of those blue and red states have the opposite for the state government.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

70. Let's keep going back too.

In 1956, You have, once again, 7 southern states voting as a block against the north. In 1952, there are 9. In 1948, the north and south are completely opposed, except Massachusetts. From 1932-1944 you have the consensus on FDR. In 1928, 6 southern states vote against the consensus. In 1916, 1920, and 1924 there is a complete opposition in each of those years. 1912 there was a consensus on Woodrow Wilson. 1896, 1900, 1904, and 1908, there was complete divide. 1892 was Grover Cleveland in a landslide. 1888 was divided. 1884 saw Grover Cleveland creep up into the northern states a little. 1880 was a divide. 1876 was one of the few that truly defied regional politics, as Hayes beat Tilden by one electoral vote. 1868 and 1872 were Grant landslides, in large part due to low vote turnout in Southern states. And that leads us back to the Civil War.

http://www.presidentelect.org/e1864.html

On edit: By the way, I wasn't so much pointing out your spelling mistake as I was challenging you to go forward. Blindly looking at a few maps without context is hardly doing any research on the issue.

[rinsd]

72. One would expect larger division...

...between North and South the closer you get to the Civil War.

And still there were quite a few consensus elections.

"Blindly looking at a few maps without context is hardly doing any research on the issue."

This from the same person who is promoting the red state blue state label.

The mind boggles.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

74. Again, a lot of Southerners boycotted the election for years after the war

Don't like reading much, do you?

And despite what YOU think about red/blue labels, I happen to think they're appropriate. Shouldn't be all that mind boggling.

And there weren't THAT many consensus candidates. The reasons are usually due to outside events, like the Great Depression or the Vietnam War. But just because a few guys have bridged the gap, that doesn't mean the gap doesn't exist.

[rinsd]

76. "Don't like reading much, do you? "

Follow your own advice.

This was my statement:

"One would expect larger divisions the closer you get to the war.

And yet there were still a few consensus elections."

The first statement is an obvious one. The second is referring to your post as a whole where you cited numerous consensus elections in addition to the 5 I provided from the last 40 years.

But since you can't admit in the slightest that you were wrong, I imagine it won't bother you much.

I didn't say anything about Southerner boycotts so I have no idea what you're talking about in terms of having misread something.

"I happen to think they're appropriate."

Well you're wrong and part of what is wrong with this country in terms of tribalism. You've been shown repeatedly that these are simplistic ways of referring to political division in this country. People aren't arguing division doesn't exist, just the media given classification by state is simplistic as most states are actually purple.

"And there weren't THAT many consensus candidates."

You said few were a consensus...it was much higher that that. And before you claimed that regions always vote against each other....that is also not true.

"The reasons are usually due to outside events, like the Great Depression or the Vietnam War. But just because a few guys have bridged the gap, that doesn't mean the gap doesn't exist."

So they don't count? What about events that spur division like reconstruction or the civil rights movement?

[rinsd]

59. Even funnier since red and blue represented just the opposite...

....in 1996.

[iconoclastNYC]

65. Not "red states": Insurgent Occupied areas that must be liberated.

Republicans are terrorists and we must liberate thier strongholds in the south and the western regions of the country.

(this is tongue-in-cheek)

[taught_me_patience]

58. Blue state famliy values!!!!!

but it probably has more to do with higher incomes.

taught.

[SarahB]

75. Connecticut, baby!

Baseball practice starts in two days. :thumbsup: