Do we agree with Obama regarding Red States and Blue States?

[geek tragedy]

Poll question: Do we agree with Obama regarding Red States and Blue States?

Of course, I'm referring to his message that we are one nation, and that this division between Red States and Blue States is nonsense.

Do people here agree with him--or is it just savvy political rhetoric?

[sandnsea]

1. Other

He's right, each state is a mixture of people and we need to start respecting each other and coming together instead of increasing the animosity with arrogant labeling.

[Qanisqineq]

12. ABSOLUTELY

I agree 100 percent. No more stereotyping, period.

[ClassWarrior]

2. Read "What's the Matter With Kansas" by Thomas Frank

He demonstrates that the red state/blue state thing is a product of a "divided America" strategy invented by the RW. It's just another way they're trying to manipulate our thinking. Bill Clinton said it in his DNC speech last week - the RW NEEDS a culturally-divided America. The true division is economic - between the haves and have nots. But they don't want us talking about that, because on that scale WE ALWAYS WIN.

[Bucky]

3. He was right on the money. Blue/Red stereotypes are RW talking pts only

It's more a function of conservatives looking for wedge issues and creating artificial resentments. Give us a good liberal president like Kerry whom they can't Monica all over and you'll see the Dems resurge into a majority party. All that "party of national security" stuff is bullshit.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

4. Redstate/Bluestate is right wing bullshit

and nothing more. It is part of their strategy to demonize liberals as the 'other' and divide our United States.

[ClassWarrior]

5. Notice none of the first four voters - the four in yellow - have posted?

[geek tragedy]

6. Economically, I think there is a great deal of unity

and there is no such thing as Red or Blue when it comes to that.

However, you couldn't pay me to live in Red areas.

[w13rd0]

7. Red/blue divisions...

...are an artificial construct, given "visual weight" by our winner take all Electoral College national elections. Calling Missouri a "Red" state, for instance, when Bush won this state by a few thousand votes (or was it a few hundred), is a deceit. If we represented people as Red or Blue, and dotted the country with these colorful representations, a national map would look rather purple, with swaths of darker reds or darker blues throughout, and a few swirls of green and pink as well.

[geek tragedy]

8. I've seen a map by county or something like that.

Cities are pretty much the only Blue areas on the map.

[ClassWarrior]

9. There was a "purple" map going around a year or two ago...

Each state was a different shade of purple, based on county-by-county votes. Anyone have a link to it?

[geek tragedy]

10. Is this it?

[ClassWarrior]

11. Nope. Maybe it was even more detailed than by county.

That looks too red.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Nah, that still uses the false red/blue paradigm

as if every voter in a county that went to Gore voted for Gore and vice versa. That is the essential flaw -- it doesn't count every vote. Remember 2000?

In the 'purple' map, each county has proportionate colors depending on how many votes were cast.

Here is one done at the state, not county level (the county level map would be even more purple):

(oops, map graphic was too large, you can see it here: http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html )

[w13rd0]

14. Ah...

...and there you hit on it. Any system whereby people's perspectives is simplified to red and blue, black and white, is a double damnation. Not only is this methodology not counting every vote, it makes the votes that are cast binary. Not only do we need a map that has every person represented (every vote) as individual and unique, the person themselves is not a binary entity, they usually aren't liberal or conservative consistently across the wide range of matters upon which they might have an opinion. I'm not blue, I myself am purple, with blue-ish and red-ish spots.