>>>>>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.
>>
>>No, I don't think the term causes the voting. His point, with which I agree, was that the terminology causes us to feel more different from each other than we actually are, and thus causes more discord. We should all be looking for what we have in common rather than the opposite.
>>
>
>You may be projecting your POV onto me. I view these voting patterns as a fact of life, not a way to seek divisions.

well I'd say you're both right.
They are a fact, at least as at the last election.
But categorizing states as red or blue is only one MORE factor towrds division of the population. Politicians especially make such divisions by design, to fragment the populace...
liberal (now as bad as a 4-letter word) versus conservative
stay the course versus cut and run
pro life versus pro womens' rights
tax cuts versus tax and spend
pro stem-cell (killing children) versus pro life
globalization (free trade) versus protectionism
pro war (on terror) versus liberal (chicken-heart talkers)
etc, etc etc.