The Fallacy of Red vs. Blue states

[MattWinMO]

My major problem with classifying states as Red or Blue based on whether the state went for Kerry or Bush is this:

Bush could've won a certain state by one vote and the media would be calling it a Red state and pretend the vast majority in that state are conservatives.

The truth is if Bush won a state with 51% of the votes to Kerry's 48% the media is ignoring the 48% of voters who oppose Bush by calling the entire state a Red state.

I believe a more accurate representation would be to break a state's electorate into Congressional districts when showing Red vs. Blue.

This will show that there are many segments of Blue among our "Red states".

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

1. Counties are better than districts

Because districts are gerrymandered.

Better still would be census tracts or block groups.

[Inland]

2. Yes, it really doesn't divide per state,

but the divide is there. Urban rural, maybe.

[LuminousX]

3. Regressive and Statists want to create the image of a deeply divided

country. They want to foster the belief that there is a culture war and the two sides cannot abide by each other. As Lakoff says, if we are shouting, we are buying into the regressive and statist frame. As progressives, we know we have more in common with each other Red or Blue than we have in difference.

Continuing to use the Red State-Blue State dichotomy only furthers the illusion that there are no common goals.