Red State Blues!

---

Check this out. Even though Texas is a Red State, I thought this was cool. This is a friend of mine.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPwxXkoo7Bw

You know that women? personnaly im a hip hop rap fan but that was good.

Yes, Denise is a good friend of ours!I hope you enjoyed the video and got the message.

Erm....message???????

Oh Brother... (Rolls Eyes)Please drive thru!

plz do what now?????

He's asking if you got the message in the song.

well...no i didn't im not that bright you see.

Well its about American politics. As an average person of the rest of the world, its not surprising that you didn't get it. The only reason that I understood it was cause I'm actually interested in American politics and stuff to the point beyond the normal "Bush is an idiot" line. But I'm kinda sad...

i think calling me normall is going abit too far, and y sad?

thank god I don't live in a red state (no offense roc)(I live in california)

yep. lol.and here are two maps that I found on the internet. compare them, and notice the pattern.Here's a map of which states/territories had slavery in the Pre-civil war erahttp://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/then_map_2.jpgand here's a map showing blue states and red states today.http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/now_map_2.jpgit's easy to notice that blue states today are the states and territories that were free states in the pre-civil war era, and the red states are the states and territories that used to have slavery in the pre-civil war era, for the most part.

It must be the influence of those lovely Canadians.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

It must be the influence of those lovely Canadians.

lol. ya

what's Alaska doing, voting red!?

Does anyone know how the colours were chosen? Since traditionally blue is associated with conservatism and red with communism, the colours seem odd.

Originally Posted By: A Vit's easy to notice that blue states today are the states and territories that were free states in the pre-civil war era, and the red states are the states and territories that used to have slavery in the pre-civil war era, for the most part. Yes, we people in blue states are all racist pigs who still cry over the demise of slavery. Please. That's stupid shit.And how do you figure in Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Alaska (all blue states) into your asenine attempt to draw a correlation between "blue states" and 19th century slavery?

Little touchy today, aren't we?

I do believe he said Blue were "free" states and Red as Slavery... the opposite of what you are griping about.

That's a good question. I've always wondered that myself. This is what Wikipedia came up with:Prior to the 2000 presidential election, there was no universally recognized color scheme to represent political parties in the USA. The practice of using colors to represent parties on electoral maps dates back at least as far as the 1950s, when such a format was employed within the Hammond series of historical atlases. [citation needed] Color-based schemes became more widespread with the adoption of color television in the 1960s and nearly ubiquitous with the advent of color in newspapers. A three-color scheme -- red, white and blue, the colors of the U.S. flag -- makes sense, and the third color, white, is useful in depicting maps showing states that are "undecided" in the polls and in election-night television coverage.Early on, the most common—though again, not universal—color scheme was to use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans. This was the color scheme employed by NBC—David Brinkley famously referred to the 1984 map showing Reagan's 49-state landslide as a "sea of blue", but this color scheme was also employed by most newsmagazines. CBS during this same period, however, used the opposite scheme—blue for Democrats, red for Republicans. ABC was less consistent than its elder network brothers; in at least two presidential elections during this time before the emergence of cable news outlets, ABC used yellow for one major party and blue for the other. As late as 1996, there was still no universal association of one color with one party.[12] If anything, the majority of outlets in 1996 were using blue for the GOP and red for the Democrats. [citation needed]But in 2000, for the first time, all major electronic media outlets used the same colors for each party: Red for Republicans, blue for Democrats. Partly as a result of this near-universal color-coding, the terms Red States and Blue States entered popular usage in the weeks following the 2000 presidential election. Additionally, the closeness of the disputed election kept the colored maps in the public view for longer than usual, and red and blue thus became fixed in the media and in many people's minds. [2] Journalists began to routinely refer to "blue states" and "red states" even before the 2000 election was settled. After the results were final, journalists stuck with the color scheme, such as The Atlantic's cover story by David Brooks in the December 2001 issue entitled, "One Nation, Slightly Divisible." Thus red and blue became fixed in the media and in many people's minds [3] despite the fact that no "official" color choices had been made by the parties.The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee made use of the color scheme when it launched a national "Red to Blue Program" in 2006. [4] Otherwise the color scheme is unofficial and informal, but is widely recognized by media and commentators. Partisan supporters now often use the colors for promotional materials and campaign merchandise.The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor, socialist, and/or liberal interests [5] [6], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. For example, in Canada party colors are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged during the Twentieth Century. The Liberal Party of Canada has long used red and the Conservative Party of Canada has long used blue, and in fact the phrases Liberal red and Tory blue are a part of the national lexicon, as is Red Tory, denoting Conservative members who are social moderates. Similarly, the symbol of Britain's Labour Party is a red rose (and the socialist song 'The Red Flag' is still sung at party conferences), while the British Conservatives are traditionally associated with the color blue.However, in the United States, many pundits have identified Red states with "rednecks" (many red states are farming states), and Blue states with "bluebloods", identifying with the old money in places like Massachusetts. The former regulations adopted by the New York City Board of Elections for the colors required of the paper of designating petitions (by which the parties nominate candidates for primary elections) called for green for Democrats and pink for Republicans. It is not difficult to speculate that color associations such as these came about in reaction against the associations evoked of the more strongly ideologic parties of other countries, such that Democrats would react strongly against an accusation of being "red" or "pink". Yellow could be considered derogatory, indicating pusillanimity even if labeled "gold"; brown could evoke fascists and feces, and would not be technically feasible on television.It's ironic that red would be associated with conservatism.

Very interesting!

Originally Posted By: damien

Originally Posted By: A V

it's easy to notice that blue states today are the states and territories that were free states in the pre-civil war era, and the red states are the states and territories that used to have slavery in the pre-civil war era, for the most part.

Yes, we people in blue states are all racist pigs who still cry over the demise of slavery. Please. That's stupid shit.

And how do you figure in Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and Alaska (all blue states) into your asenine attempt to draw a correlation between "blue states" and 19th century slavery?

You've got your blues and reds mixed up. All the states you mentioned are red, not blue. But, anyway, Alaska never had slavery because The United States didn't even own Alaska when slavery was legal. and now, Minnesota: Minnesota is a blue state and was a free states, exactly what I was saying. So, only two states out of all the rest were free states, yet vote red today. But, I'm saying that for the most part blue states were free states and red states were slave states. And the voting in those states was very close. so my point still stands.