You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Resolved: We shall abandon all talk of “red states” and “blue states” [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
pmbryant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-04 06:56 PM
Original message
Resolved: We shall abandon all talk of “red states” and “blue states”
Advertisements [?]
The time has come for every clear thinking American to drop all reference to states as either “red” or “blue”. These artificial terms serve no purpose other than to exaggerate and reinforce whatever cultural divide already exists in this country. And that purpose plays right into the hands of the GOP and the Bush administration.

The GOP and the Bush administration have divided the country and emerged with the larger half. If we in the opposition party participate in cementing this divide, we will be relegated to a long-term minority status, even if only by the barest of margins. So, to restore our majority, it is up to us to take the lead in trying to repair the divide, to undo the damage done over the last four years. The first step in that long process is to abandon the artificial terms “red state” and “blue state”.

From now on, like we did before November 7, 2000, we all will live in simple “states”.

To understand how meaningless the “red state” and “blue state” terms are, consider first Iowa, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. These states voted barely in one direction in 2000, and barely in the other direction in 2004. What color are they supposed to be?

Consider next Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These states voted slightly in one direction in 2000 and slightly in the same direction in 2004. In each of these, if one out of every forty voters had voted differently, the state would be colored differently on the ubiquitous Electoral College maps. Why is it meaningful to permanently label two of them “blue” and the other two “red”?

Finally, consider states like Texas, California, New York, Illinois, Georgia, and North Carolina. These states apparently voted decisively for one candidate or the other. Yet even in Texas, the adopted home state of the incumbent and where state pride is a gargantuan factor, if merely one out of every eight voters had changed their mind, the political world would be turned upside down. Is it worthwhile to label an entire state based on the voting decisions of such a small fraction of the electorate?

So who will join me in rejecting these terms and forging forward, no longer as “red state Americans” or “blue state Americans”, but as pure and simple “Americans”?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC