Red State/Blue State Myth

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I've been thinking for a while that the concept of "red states" and "blue states" is largely a myth.  While there are some states that certainly favor one party over another, there seem to be very few that are out of reach for either party.  Similarly, there are states that lean one way in presidential elections and the other in statewide elections.  What say you?

[eric82oslo]

I've been thinking for a while that the concept of "red states" and "blue states" is largely a myth.  While there are some states that certainly favor one party over another, there seem to be very few that are out of reach for either party.  Similarly, there are states that lean one way in presidential elections and the other in statewide elections.  What say you?

Questions/issues like a higher (state or national) minimum wage and background checks for all gun sales show that there are several issues where a big majority in every single state + D.C. completely agree, even on higher taxes on the very rich (let's say the 1%ers & big corporations). So in that respect, one could imagine specific campaigns that potentially could unite the entire country, from red states to blue states. These tend strongly to be on issues mostly backed by Democrats however. I could think of very few, if any at all, similar cases as or nearly as uniting that is mostly backed by Republicans.

[DC Al Fine]

I'd argue it's more of a county than a state thing. Take Georgia, ostensibly a lean-GOP state, but containing counties that voted 80%+ Romney and 80%+ Obama. That sort of polarization is quite real in some places, but it's hardly true on a statewide level.

[Mr. Illini]

It exists, but it is not absolute. It exists in the sense that I can predict which way some states will go in 2016 at this very moment, barring some sort of bombshell event or candidate. It is not absolute in the sense that things change over time and also can get more complicated on the state level.

[TJ in Oregon]

I'd argue it's more of a county than a state thing. Take Georgia, ostensibly a lean-GOP state, but containing counties that voted 80%+ Romney and 80%+ Obama. That sort of polarization is quite real in some places, but it's hardly true on a statewide level.

Yes and no. Some blue counties in red states are quite different from blue counties in blue states and vice versa due to economic class and their role amongst surrounding counties. For instance, my home county in Ohio, Erie, behaves quite like a blue county from a red state (ignore for the time being trying to figure out exactly what color Ohio is) in that the political divisions are based strongly on class. Almost everyone I grew up with whose parents were educated professionals was raised as a conservative Republican and almost everyone whose parents weren't was raised as a union-labor Democrat. Such a model fits the stereotypical Democratic areas in a red state. It's also worth noting that the political donations from my home county tend to skew Republican even though its votes do now.

On the far other end of the spectrum here is my current county, Dane, in Wisconsin, which is very near the stereotype of what quintessential blue state America is like: wealthy, educated, secular liberals. Education and class have almost no correlation at all with voting in an area like Madison. Likewise, it's political donations skew overwhelmingly Democratic.

[old timey villain]

I'd argue it's more of a county than a state thing. Take Georgia, ostensibly a lean-GOP state, but containing counties that voted 80%+ Romney and 80%+ Obama. That sort of polarization is quite real in some places, but it's hardly true on a statewide level.

Yes and no. Some blue counties in red states are quite different from blue counties in blue states and vice versa due to economic class and their role amongst surrounding counties. For instance, my home county in Ohio, Erie, behaves quite like a blue county from a red state (ignore for the time being trying to figure out exactly what color Ohio is) in that the political divisions are based strongly on class. Almost everyone I grew up with whose parents were educated professionals was raised as a conservative Republican and almost everyone whose parents weren't was raised as a union-labor Democrat. Such a model fits the stereotypical Democratic areas in a red state. It's also worth noting that the political donations from my home county tend to skew Republican even though its votes do now.

On the far other end of the spectrum here is my current county, Dane, in Wisconsin, which is very near the stereotype of what quintessential blue state America is like: wealthy, educated, secular liberals. Education and class have almost no correlation at all with voting in an area like Madison. Likewise, it's political donations skew overwhelmingly Democratic.

But there are places like Dekalb county that don't fit your theory. Dekalb was nearly 80% Obama but Democratic support there comes from a coalition of lower class minorities as well as educated, wealthy, secular white liberals. In fact most urban counties go to Democrats with that coalition, whether they're in a blue state or a red state.

You have a good midwestern perspective on Democratic voters but it's different in the south. Democratic counties in red southern states vote the way they do not based on class but on race while white people of nearly every class vote Republican.

[opebo]

Even applying a wildly generous standard of accessibility to underdog party win, you still have these states which are nearly impossible to budge:

[Sol]

Even applying a wildly generous standard of accessibility to underdog party win, you still have these states which are nearly impossible to budge:

Throw in GA.

[old timey villain]

Even applying a wildly generous standard of accessibility to underdog party win, you still have these states which are nearly impossible to budge:

Throw in GA.

I don't know. Georgia seems to be like the opposite of Minnesota. It has a slight lean which makes it seem winnable for the other party but it's very inelastic and has a hard ceiling. Republicans can get above 45% in Minn thanks to the Minneapolis suburbs (Bachmann territory) but the twin Cities and the Iron range help the Democrats pull it out. In Georgia, Fulton, Dekalb, Clayton and the black belt of South Georgia get Democrats to 45% but the Republicans always win thanks to the Northern suburbs and North Georgia.

[Sol]

Even applying a wildly generous standard of accessibility to underdog party win, you still have these states which are nearly impossible to budge:

Throw in GA.

I don't know. Georgia seems to be like the opposite of Minnesota. It has a slight lean which makes it seem winnable for the other party but it's very inelastic and has a hard ceiling. Republicans can get above 45% in Minn thanks to the Minneapolis suburbs (Bachmann territory) but the twin Cities and the Iron range help the Democrats pull it out. In Georgia, Fulton, Dekalb, Clayton and the black belt of South Georgia get Democrats to 45% but the Republicans always win thanks to the Northern suburbs and North Georgia.

Yeah, but MN is a tossup on Opebo's map. And Georgia has major increases in the population of D-leaning demographics- ethnic minorities most prominently.

[DS0816]

I've been thinking for a while that the concept of "red states" and "blue states" is largely a myth.  While there are some states that certainly favor one party over another, there seem to be very few that are out of reach for either party.  Similarly, there are states that lean one way in presidential elections and the other in statewide elections.  What say you?

I believe in both the U.S. Popular Vote and Electoral College, with wanting both but respecting more the popular vote.

Partisan identification has been in place for a long time. The "red"-vs.-"blue" divide was trumpeted with little insight. It has to do with base states for both parties.

We know about this at Atlas; but people outside this site aren't necessarily conscious of it. In 2008, I talked with someone about a then-upcoming presidential election and the person didn't know about electoral votes. The person though it had to do with the most individual states carried.

I could say more on the topic. But, for now, I think this is enough. (For me, it is enough.)

[Non Swing Voter]

If anything, the Red State/Blue State divide is underrated by tv networks that want to create the image of a horserace in every election for ratings.  The reality is that most states lean heavily one way or another and there are trends that are pushing some states in either direction.  But Obama basically won the states that Gore and Kerry won + a few he overperformed in (like North Carolina with a high minority population) + a few that have been trending democratic for years due to demographic changes (Virginia, Colorado, Nevada) + a few that Gore and Kerry competed heavily in but barely lost (Florida, Ohio).

Everything else largely stayed the same and the two major Presidential candidates didn't even compete in the other roughly 40 states.  Therefore, the red state/blue state divide is very real.