Fair enough, and not disputed. It's a dim memory now but the South once voted, within our lifetimes, so reliably Democratic that is was called the Solid South. So things do change. But in recent elections the red state / blue state labels do have a basis in fact. Can you think of many states -- excluding the 10 or 12 "battleground states" -- you would bet your own money will change voting course by, say, 2012? I can't think of one.


>Most interesting is this page on wikipedia. It has a graphic towards the middle of the page which depicts how the states have switched from red to blue (and how the colors have represented the opposite party off an on) since the 1856 elections:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_state_vs._blue_state_divide
>
>It seems that all states (especially North Carolina) have been Democrat, Republican, and back and forth over the years...
>
>
>
>>>>It can be overstated, of course, and I'm sorry if I did. No state out of the 50 is 100% to 0% for either party, or even close. Still, there are pronounced tendencies.
>>>
>>>Nathaniel called me on the red vs. blue terminology this weekend. He pointed out that portraying things that way is a big part of what's wrong with politics in this country. The terminology is polarizing. So I'm going to try to cut it out.
>>>
>>
>>Which is fine, but I make no such vow. To me the terms "red state" and "blue state" refer to well-established voting patterns, based on observable, demonstrable results. I don't believe using the terms *causes* the voting pattern any more than observing that Florida has a higher average temperature than Michigan causes it to be so.