Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Red State" and "Blue State" only gained their modern meaning in the 2000 election. Ironically, in most of the world left-leaning parties use Red and right-leaning parties use Blue.
Interestingly, Taiwan has also adapted colors to denote the two major political camps there - "Pan-Blue" - the Kuomintang party and minor parties aligned with it, and "Pan-Green" - The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and other allied parties. It's pretty straightforward - comes from the parties' main color liveries.
Indeed
red is generally associate with socialist, socialdemocratic, commie and the like while blue tend to be the color of conservatives, well at least here in Europe.
Exactly, a self respecting British Tory would never fly the red banner, sport the red ribbon or wear the red rose!!!
for some reason I just think of blue as a more natural color for the right-wing.
I think of red as an impassioned color. And nearly every protest or strike I see (with the notable exception of anti-abortion protesters) is composed of people with a left-wing ideology. So I think of red as a more natural color for the left-wing.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone else find the colors counter-intuitive?
YES - Being of the older generation, I've always thought the same thing. Red has always been the color of Communism - The Soviet flag, the Chinese flag, Red Square in Moscow, Red China, the East is Red, the Red Scare, etc. Of America's 2 parties, the Democrat ideology was always seen as the closer to socialism and communism. Red suggests impassioned protest movements. WHY should it now be the color of the Republican party?
Blue seems a cool color - suggesting satisfaction with the status quo - sitting back and relaxing - blue skies - bluebird of happiness - letting society stay the way it is. For this reason, the choice of color schemes which began with the 2000 election, seems un-natural, and still confuses me.
From what I've read, no one knows 100% why it began. It is traceable back to one of the networks. My theory was that it derived from the 'blue force tracker' system used by the US military. If you read any recent military history, you run into this. Blue Force Tracking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In this system 'blue' represents friendly forces, while 'red' represents enemy forces. It makes sense that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN would have considered the Democrats as friendly, and the R's as enemy. Thus it was natural for them to adopt this color scheme.
When did the colors red and blue begin to be applied to the Republicans and Democrats, respectively? I have asked several people and no one could give me an answer. What's more is that all of them agreed with me that the colors would seem more intuitive if they were reversed.
This Wikipedia article has some information on this:
In this system 'blue' represents friendly forces, while 'red' represents enemy forces. It makes sense that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN would have considered the Democrats as friendly, and the R's as enemy. Thus it was natural for them to adopt this color scheme.
Agreed! and because the color blue probably invokes a more benign image among the neutral center, it was natural for the masters of deceit over in LeftyLand to tag their demons with the more aggressive and unsettling color.
The same rationale applies with regard to the change in the Politically Correct term for people of color every 15 years or so. Since the manipulative schlockmeisters out to recruit among the young, it just makes sense to throw a curve and make some of the more mature come across as "un-hip".
Jerry Springer probably has a stronger sense of ethics.
Agreed! and because the color blue probably invokes a more benign image among the neutral center, it was natural for the masters of deceit over in LeftyLand to tag their demons with the more aggressive and unsettling color.
The same rationale applies with regard to the change in the Politically Correct term for people of color every 15 years or so. Since the manipulative schlockmeisters out to recruit among the young, it just makes sense to throw a curve and make some of the more mature come across as "un-hip".
Jerry Springer probably has a stronger sense of ethics.
Good points. Plus it occurs to me that the very murkiness of the origin of the red/blue coding is interesting. It has only been around for a decade or two, so the people who started it are probably still around. One would think that the origins would be revealed in some interview, or in some media icon's memoirs. If the origins exposed an embarrassing bias though, it would make sense for them to clam up about it.
also, 2nd TO, the point about relabeling of racial groups is interesting. We're all familiar with the name changes that the left has imposed when it comes to blacks and Latinos. As a kid, "oriental" was also the norm. Then at some point it was decided that "Oriental" was somehow offensive, so it was changed to "Asian."
If a group is constantly being labeled, their differentness/separateness is always being underscored. If people have to stop and think in ordinary conversation whether to use "black" or "African-American," or whether to use "Hispanic" or "Latino," the identity separation that is so politically valuable to Democrats is continuously reinforced.
However Obama got about 81% of the combined black, Hispanic, and Asian vote. I calculated that if Romney had just been able to reduce that percentage to 70%, he would have won the election.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
