A Political Puzzle...

[STLConservative]

What annoys me is that Red a color associated with the Left and Socialism is used with the Republicans, and Blue the Color of Conservatism is used with Democrats.

[rouncole1]

So, are you trying to say that it was doctored by the electoral college? I can buy that.

But what is the fullness of your point here?

[Policritic]

@rouncole1

No, the EC has little to do with the sources of our differences. If anything, the EC is an institutional attempt to overcome our differences. Our differences are rooted in opposing preferences over political policy reflected in the political platforms of the two dominant parties. Everything else is noise.

[rouncole1]

@Policritic I have to object, first of all, we are not a democracy, we are a republic, democracy is no more free than a monarchy, in a true democracy the majority, say, 51% can cast the vote to enslave the other 49% and democracy would have prevailed.

A republic is rule by law, law that protects the civil liberties of the minority, as well as the majority.

The EC is an abomination, it destroys the concept of a vote system, allowing any body political or otherwise to have sway of any kind...

[rouncole1]

@Policritic ...over an election undermines the will of the people. The whole election system needs to be reformed if the will of the people is ever to be addressed.

The truest form of an election by vote is to have completely open voting where everyone who casts a vote has there vote known publicly, secret votes, especially today with computerized voting is rigged from its inception, only a completely transparent system will reveal the true desires of the people...

[Policritic]

In a democracy these differences can be compromised and resolved, perhaps not to the complete satisfaction of certain narrow interests, but certainly to the satisfaction of the majority. But fracturing politics into identities and ideologies is not productive - we should not fall into that trap the media and parties lay for us.

[Policritic]

@rouncole1

If you understand the EC you will see that it is an institutional design that favors compromise across geographical regions - this is quite an important function and is perfectly consistent with our principles of democracy. 

[dajohnman57]

Libertarians are Conservatives of yester-year...

[Policritic]

@mikeohoh7

We can show a little sympathy to voters - after all, they are mostly misled and often lied to by their political leaders.

[Policritic]

@Pacific

I don't think our differences are anywhere near that serious. This red-blue divide is mostly media fluff. The real differences are amenable to compromise. The benefits of the union far outweigh these compromises, don't you think?

[PacificCircle1]

Some hang on to the past, others miove on.

maybe we should split instead of a new civil war!

[mochopz]

Rednecks suck. Oh sorry, i meant Republicans.

[Policritic]

@mochopz Why? It should be obvious from these videos that "rednecks" have nothing to do with it. Nor do rappers...and Republicans and Democrats are just along for the ride.

[21prik]

But in 1896 the democrats used the red and the republicans the blue. So it is complety swich compared with now days. That's because in the past the republicans where more liberal and the democrats where more conservatives.

[Policritic]

@21prik

Yes, you are correct - this was the hint in the video. The parties have flipflopped but the divisions are almost the same. My point is that it is not party identification that drives our red-blue polarization, but geography and policy preferences. The parties have merely tried to exploit that.

[CoolBlue71]

@Policritic In recent presidential elections, Look at states' margins for a partisan ID. Right now the swing states, many of them bellwethers, are a select few: Ohio, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico. Rising bellwethers: Iowa, Colorado, Virginia. Declining bellwether: Missouri. Recently departed bellwethers: Illinois, Delaware, Tennessee.

It's not all based on religion. It's not all based on one particular thing. Diverse people, diverse backgrounds, diverse perspectives. Especially for partisans.

[Policritic]

@CoolBlue71 Agree. My point is that the subcultural narrative (guns, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) are all surface characteristics that mask the different political preferences of urban and suburban/rural voters. The important implication is that the true differences can be reconciled, while the subcultural identities cannot. As voters we should focus on that - the media and parties won't do it for us. Democracy does work. Polarization does not. Swing states show the way.

[CoolBlue71]

@21prik No better example than Vermont. It supported all GOP candidates since that party's first election in 1856 ... right up until 1988 ... except for 1964. (It was one of two that held for 1912's unseated William Howard Taft; one of two that denied Franklin Roosevelt.) The Barry Goldwater "disaster" also saw Alaska say no to the GOP, the only time Alaska colored blue. When 1992 Bill Clinton won Vt., it remade the electoral map. In 2008, Barack Obama carried Vt. by 37%.

[Willredd94]

@21prik In some cases, both parties had their conservative and progressive bases. They were not uniformly of one ideology like today. In 1896 this is completely false true, the Republican McKinley was very, very conservative in favor of big business, gold standard, military might. THe Democrat, Bryan, was a populist and later progressive supporting farmer assistance, bimetalism and against military intervention. So the conservatives were the republicans in 1896. and the libs were the dems.

[dave19941000]

To bad every vote isn't worth the same as all other's, because then Bush would have lost both elections.

[Policritic]

@dave19941000

Actually, GWBush only didn't carry the simple majority in 2000, he carried it in 2004. But we don't vote for national offices by simple majoritarian rules for very good reason. If the vote is so close, then the margin is really statistically indeterminant, so then we look to the distribution of votes across the large continent. That seems to be a better way to find the POTUS with the best balance of support for governing a very diverse and large democracy.

[Policritic]

@dave19941000

Neither party likes the Electoral College when they lose (Republicans in 1960, Democrats in 2000), but why favor the losers? Practically, the EC is only operative when the popular vote fails to make a clear choice.

[masterdmh1]

Well, sometimes it's based on religion. Look at Utah. The most conservative state and also Mormon-land. Sometimes it's based on gay marriage. Look at CA. There's a reason why they are the most liberal state. It's based on alot of things.

Now for swing states. The reason why is because you have a mixture of people who believe conservative ideology and liberal ideology. When the mixture is very close, you have a swing state, when a state may vote REP or DEM for a presidential race.

[Policritic]

@masterdmh1

Thanks for your responses. But these factors you quote are mostly contemporary - they don't explain why the states were so divided in 1896, or previous to that. The current divide is based on urban vs. rural and suburban populations and the fact that the two parties have deliberately tried to appeal to these different groups. In 1896 Dems represented Southern and Midwestern rural states and the GOP represented NE interests - now it has flipped.

[Policritic]

@masterdmh1

The point is that our political divide is truly based on rational differences that are not irreconcilable. It's not about subcultures - it's about rural and urban lifestyle choices and family formation (i.e., traditional marriage.) These factors also tend to correlate: married people move to the suburbs and exurbs to buy houses and raise families, changing their political preferences toward more traditional values. The media and the parties have created this cultural partisan myth.

[Policritic]

@masterdmh1

Thanks again for paying attention and contributing...

[Policritic]

@masterdmh1

Actually, the point of the video is to show that it is not based on religion, or race, or anything else that is cultural. It is partly ideology but the ideology coincides with party because of the choices the parties have made. Rural South used to be conservative Democratic - the region is still conservative, just not Democratic. When we control for race and religion and sex, the main factors are still population density and marriage.

[Policritic]

@masterdmh1

Swing states are swing states because they are closer to the political center. So there is a balanced ideological mix to the population. US electoral rules are meant to push voters toward the center as that is the place for compromise and where elections are won. Extreme states are dominated by populations who don't want to compromise. In a nation of 300 million diverse peoples, compromise is good.

[masterdmh1]

The reason why is because most states are leaning to the right or left. That will never change. The swing states such as Iowa and Missouri will have different outcomes.

[Policritic]

@masterdmh1

That just begs the question why? What makes a state predominantly conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat? Our electoral maps have changed over our history, but slowly.

[Policritic]

@masterdmh1

Also, what makes a state a swing state?

[CoolBlue71]

At the end of the video, 1896 is addressed. And in answer to Policratic's question, "What's up with that anyway?" I have one answer: It's realignment of the two parties. (The exact complexion is not exactly the same.)

[Policritic]

@CoolBlue71

Yes, but the question is what factors realigned the parties in very similar ways between 1896 and 2000/2004? (And I would say 2008 too. This geographic pattern has not gone away.) The point is to dispel the simple answers the media offers.

[TaffyAlpha]

I think we should rename the red states "Jesusland."

[Policritic]

@TaffyAlpha

Why? Religious belief is just as prevalent in blue states. It's just church attendance that's different.

[Skeptic121]

If the USA divides into two or more countries it will no longer be able to police the world. No longer could we defend Europe and Japan from a Soviet Union that no longer exists. If Israel feels threatened by Iran, Israelis will have to fight and die to protect their own country. If you think these outcomes are good, support secession.

Secession could come about peacefully by legislation. BOTH sides could benefit from secession if they are willing to give up our American empire.

[Policritic]

@Skeptic121

I guess if you believe that American exceptionalism has been a net negative to world peace, development, and freedom, weakening its role as hegemon through secession might be a good thing. Personally, I can't think of anything worse for the fate of mankind. But we can disagree.

[Skeptic121]

@Policritic It might have been good for mankind but I am sick of paying for it. The fact is, we just cannot afford it anymore.

IMO, the way to make other countries hate us is to help them. Look at the French.

We saved them from the Germans and they think we are uncouth scum.

Most people do not know Israelis as they really are...they have bottomless contempt for the way we have helped them for so many years. They think we are the stupidest people on earth. Even the Brits manipulate us.

[Policritic]

@Skeptic121

You're are right that there's nothing perfect about our role as the 20th & 21st century peacemaker, but do you think we could have really stayed out of WWI or WWII? What kind of history can you imagine if we had? History tells us our failures after WWI led to WWII soon after. There are costs and benefits to any hegemonic role, but I think the benefits outweigh the costs.

[Policritic]

I think we accept this role because we know it benefits us and the world depends on us for it, despite the propaganda that is spread against it by same of those same people who benefit (i.e. Europe). But there is no reason these countries can't share more of the burden. It would probably make them more self-confident as well. Societies with birthrates below replacement are obviously not confident of their futures.

[Skeptic121]

@Policritic We could have stayed out of WWII and negotiated with Hitler to let the Jews go to America and other civilized countries. We could have let Stalin and Hitler fight it out until most of the Nazis and Communists had killed each other. We could have let Japan continue to rape China and nearby countries, since the alternative turned out to be letting Mao Zedong rape the same places a hundred times worse. Stalin and Mao instead of Hitler and Tojo? Not worth 300,000 of my people. Sorry.

[Skeptic121]

@Policritic We SHOULD have stayed out of World War I. Before I am called a Nazi, I have to point out to US public school victims that Hitler reached the rank of corporal in that war. There was no Nazi Party in World War I. Had the US stayed out of the first World War, there would have been a reasonable peace that did not humiliate Germany. Result: no Nazi takeover in Germany, no Communist takeover in Russia. No World War II and no Holocaust. No Israel for the USA to support.

[Policritic]

@Skeptic121

We have different interpretations of counter factual history. It wasn't the US that called for the Versailles Treaty that led to WWII, but our European allies. If anything we failed to temper the terms. We decided not to make the same mistake after WWII. I think the second half of the 20th century could have turned out a whole lot worse. But then, I think we disagree in our interpretations.

[Skeptic121]

@Policritic "the second half of the twentieth century could have turned out worse"

Sure, things can always be worse. But for Eastern Europe communism was no picnic. However, that was not my point. My point was that without USA in WWI, Germany could have forced a fair peace that left the communists OUT of Russia.

Again, defeating Hitler to protect Stalin was NOT worth 300 thousand American lives.

[Policritic]

@Skeptic121

But your position relies on the implied assumption that balance of power politics would have worked out peacefully through the 20th century after the Great War. That's an assumption I would not bank on. Anyway, the West tried to retreat into BOP politics in the interwar period and abandoned the idea completely after WWII. I would have to agree with that decision. Communist totalitarianism was on the rise in spite of Hitler. See China.

[Skeptic121]

@Policritic @Policritic If the USA had stayed out of WWII Hitler would have crushed Stalin and Japan would have continued to rape China. Sure, it's great that Imperial Japan is no more, but we got Mao instead; hardly an improvement by any measure. It confirms my rule: "helping" people is an infallible way to make them hate us. I wish most Americans could know as I do the bottomless contempt that Israelis have for Americans, both Jews AND Gentiles by the way. Just get an Israeli drunk...

[Policritic]

@Skeptic121

But you didn't address my concern that historically and theoretically multipolarity and BOP politics is very unstable. Your counterfactual history is one-sided.

I think the anti-American narrative is highly overstated. Yes, nobody is grateful if they feel dependent, but the public indulgence in these countries is not reflective of the political reality. European elites know who pulled their fat from the fire. WWII Europeans are extremely grateful - the current generation resents.

[Policritic]

@Skeptic121

Israel is a different story and they have learned over centuries to trust nobody outside their own identity. But the ingratitude of people being helped is probably a lot more important for our own domestic politics. Helping people become self-sufficient is a lot more positive than making them dependent on our good graces. So much for welfare state liberalism.

[vdotme]

@Skeptic121 The US did not go into WWI to protect stalin. The commiunists would have to be defeated out, not negotiated out of Russian politics. There is also the possibility that in Britain the hardships caused by the war could have led to a communist party rather than a left leaning Labour party and Revolution was actually a very real fear.Also, Marxist theory was born in Germany where it was popularly read and had a sizeable following up until Hitler dealt with them.

[vdotme]

@Skeptic121 Cont. This was also the birth era of industrialised Globalisation and America would not have a say by maintaining the isolationist stance. Better the friends you know than the enemy you dont. so US helped those friends.(Britain had common language, the largest navy in the world, vast and various overseas territories, long standing relationship with US, didn't start the war and had better P.R.

[feeblepizza]

1. The 2000 president election map

2. The 2004 presidential election map

3. The 1896 presidential election map (I guess it right!!!!)

[Policritic]

@feeblepizza

Yeah, but did you cheat? ;>) The real question is why!

[feeblepizza]

@Policritic No, I didn't cheat. I'm very good with elections and election maps :)

[Policritic]

@feeblepizza

Better than most! Geographic maps reveal some interesting anomalies in our political history.

[Monorprise]

Largely as a product of geography and industry the needs of different states are different resulting in different political dispositions which tend to allies with each other, on grounds of shared interest.

Its going to get worse as the Feds get more powerful until eventually it leads to war, when the side that loses the election finds they are unable to live with the consequences of the political loss.

We should not have to agree on so many things.

[Policritic]

@Monorprise

I agree. This is the threat of secession that too many people dismiss as unthinkable. When we can't live the life we choose because of politics the next step is radical - secession happens in the modern world all the time. Many of these issues are not in the province of the Federal government.

[Policritic]

@Monorprise

I agree. Federal intervention into our political preferences should be minimal to insure the integrity of the union and individual rights. We are not all the same and should not be subjected to a one-size-fits-all political agenda.

[ScrapGoldBass]

You may enjoy my video called - Taxi Driver Music AND American History

[MuskratandRatman]

that's because the north was against slavery. Republicans freed the slaves so obviously the South hated them.

[Policritic]

Civil War animosity may have had a role but if you look at the politics of the 1890s you'll find it was not the dominant issue. The election was over gold vs. silver, among other things, and we find that the politics divided between domestic industrialists + bankers (North) against extraction + export industries over the dollar (South&Midwest). Slavery is overstated as a reason for our historical divisions, as is racism today.

[Policritic]

The fallacies of cultural differences are the emotional buttons politicians and parties use to divide the electorate. It's only the voters fault for falling for it. We can control for race, ethnicity, and religion and still get the same geographical divisions.

[rommelAOE]

republicans (lincoln I asumme your talking about) freed them because they needed a moral high horse to continue an illegal war against states that had already left the union, because of high taxes, tariffs, and a dictator that thought that what he said went.

[UShistoryX2]

BTW I love this vid, I've watched like sixty times.

[Policritic]

Thanks, man. Pass it on.

[Policritic]

Have you watched the others? Red-Blue seems dated as a news flash, but it's still determining our politics. Obama has only made it worse by using it to his advantage. This should be expected. The idea that he could change it was a bit of false campaign promise.

[UShistoryX2]

If you compare the red/blue county analysis with a ancestry/descent map, you'll learn the roots of the cultural/socio-economic forces at work behind these issues. You'll find that areas with a high number of "British/American/Scots Irish/English" reporting ie the descendants of the first Americans (ie Pilgrims, Puritans, ect.) live in the red areas, more recent immigrants in the blue areas.

[Policritic]

Yes, I'm aware. I would think this cultural history helped shape traditional, rural, small town America. The interesting thing is that immigrants who move to rural and suburban areas seem to adopt these cultural preferences, while immigrants who gravitiate to cities adopt the liberal preferences. This suggests to me that the difference between rural and urban political preferences and the sorting process are probably dominating the history in explaining our red-blue politics.

[UShistoryX2]

Yes I would absolutely agree, whats also interesting is that prior to the 20th century the US political divide wasn't "liberal/conservative" but rather more strongly based on regional interests and historical allegiances (ie Southern Yellow Dog Dems who are more socially conservative than the most ardent Right Wing Reps). I think the key to getting passed the Red/Blue constructed paradigm we have to get back to issue based rather than ideological label based political affiliations.

[Policritic]

Exactly. That is the point of my study and these videos. Most issues that divide urbans from suburban/rurals can be reconciled in the middle, but cultural identity really can not. The difficulty is that the media and the political parties benefit from this false divide. Voters must reject it and it's difficult to understand the "other."

[bobsmith960]

Very interesting map! BTW, before the 1980s, Democrats were usually represented as Red and Republicans as Blue, which makes your color switch even more relevent and interesting.

[Policritic]

Even more telling is why the networks switched. They didn't want Democrats to be colored red to be associated with European communists, so they made them true blue. We get this kind of stuff from a media that has politicized itself.

[GaGirlie777]

Interesting.  With all the location changes of Americans over the years, The idealogy remained relatively the same. Thanks for posting.

[Policritic]

Yup. That's the point to drive home. This isn't about Democrats and Republicans - it's about how people choose to live and what political policies they favor. If we can get past the nonsense the media and parties have made out of this we can find a way to make our choices and live with compromise. The differences won't go away and will not be dominated by one side or the other. Thanks for commenting.

[overturnthefed]

This map misrepresents the reality of 1896. The South voted (blue) in tandem with Dems until 1980. The colors should be reversed. The dems are the red states in the 1896 election, and blue states are the Repulicans. But the blue/red states is misleading as the states out west had few electoral votes, the two big states were OH and NY. Plus in 1896, Reps were more of the liberals and Dems the conservatives although Progressive politics and FDR changed that, and the parties changed places.

[Policritic]

If you noticed, the clip said the colors were reversed for comparison. The more important point is that Republicans and Democrats don't drive this divide - they just ride it. The divide is rooted in lifestyle choices that vary among regions. Parties flip - geography doesn't.

Today we are divided between urban and suburban/rural areas with red or blue dominant according to the state's population density. This isn't likely to change.

[overturnthefed]

But the geography does flip. In 1896 it took 8 of the western states to equal the amount of electoral votes of Ohio, more for NY. Tx had only a few. I get what you are trying to point out, but there are too many factors in this equation to chalk it up to a red/blue scenario.

[Policritic]

I think you can argue the analogy is loose but the political split in 1896 was associated with the different economic interests of the Midwest and South vs. the Northeast and West Coast. This is the same as it is now, though slightly different in that these areas are now dominated by urban interests. You can see this clearly in a county map of the elections. See my other video Obama Love = Purple Nation?

My whole point here is to show that the media narratives of red vs. blue are wrong.

[Policritic]

BTW, I wouldn't call a shift over a hundred year period a flip. That's demographic evolution.

[CaptainMara]

I'm from a red state, and it is a true red state and I am proud of what state I come from, it has stayed a red state since before the Obama campaign started, and it still is. As you may have geussed, it's Texas. Most of us here aren't about to fall for Obama's line of crap.

[overturnthefed]

Amen!  Preach it sister/brother!!

[NickAden13]

I hate being from a blue state. But then again I love where I live.

[wayzey]

It's sad how Politics in America is like recess at an elementary school.

Oh and if you can't see the similarities then you're probably one of the 150 million people that make USA the most laughable nation.

[Policritic]

Agree.

[disturbedone5009]

What the map doesnt show is population density. The states that have the greatest population and the most large cities are generally liberal. The areas that are more rural and spread out are conservative. That is why the map has changed very little.

[Policritic]

That's right. It still hasn't changed much, despite what Obamamaniacs might tell us.

[disturbedone5009]

even if you look at the states individually by county the urban areas will generally lean towards the left while the rural areas are generally towards the right.

[Policritic]

Yeah, if you look at some of my other videos, specifically Obama Love = Purple Nation? That's where I go with this. County maps are most accurate.

[disturbedone5009]

yeah well it doesnt matter for me because i live in california so no matter how i vote a republican has almost no chance of winning here.

[Policritic]

The analysis is non-partisan, merely to dispel the myths of red and blue subcultural differences driving our politics. It's rural vs. urban lifestyles and marriage that have split party preferences.

[disturbedone5009]

exactly.

[JohnathanDavidMedia]

Um, the political parties have change stances entirely since then. I mean, they had extremely different issues than we do today.

The Republicans were for abolishing or preventing slavery to spread, and the democrats usually we're fond of slavery. But all I ask in all respect... what does this prove?

[Policritic]

Doesn't prove anything; it's meant to challenge misperceptions of red-blue polarization and regional voting patterns. Public opinion usually attributes red-blue to the media and/or the recent Republican administrations - neither of which colored the EC map back in 1896 when we had similar geographic divides. What really explains red vs. blue are lifestyle choices between urban and rural coinciding with party platforms. We haven't found our way out of this yet, no matter who wins this election.

[sfcub69]

Right around the time of the Spanish American War (which Bush claimed as the model for the Iraq War) - also nice that you used the verses from This Land... that don't get played.

[s10129107]

if you look at an election by election electoral map it actually changes a lot. There are many relatively recent elections where texas went democrat and cali went republican. things arent always clear cut and the tapestry of our country is always changing. Bottom line is that this is a VERY weak argument.

[Policritic]

There is no argument here, only the observation that regional divides are common to our history-from the beginning to the present. Our current divide is not unique, nor is it primarily determined by the media or the parties. Today we have a divide that reflects an urban-rural split based on divergent political preferences that have coincided with party platforms. The video is only meant to provoke viewers to question their preconceived biases about red-blue politics. Hope it helped you...

[Policritic]

Also, I should note that the recent pattern is stable and highly significant. In other words, it hasn't "changed a lot," which is why we're even talking about it. The statistical probability of the pattern of red-blue counties (3100+ data points) repeating over several elections is minute, so our red-blue voting results are no accident.

[Policritic]

BTW, we're only talking about national presidential elections here.

[Tamar1973]

If you did these maps by county, the USA would be even more red than your map illustrates.

[Policritic]

Yes, that's the next part of the puzzle. See the video Obama Love = Purple Nation? and the other videos posted...

[wervasdeferens]

We're still fighting the Civil War?

Culture Wars!

[Mage13246]

it's to separate the democratic votes from the republican vote. meaning like if one votes republican that red will be shown red one state votes dem that state is shown blue.

[Policritic]

But the puzzle is how to explain why regional political divisions have persisted in American politics for most of our history. The Red state Blue state divide is just one case of many and it's not explained solely by media or parties. It's not as simple as portrayed by the press.

[smithester]

Wow. This is a pretty in-depth analysis of the states. You should check out this new movie called "Blue State" which comments on people promising to move to Canada after the 2004 election. It's funny and raises important issues.

[eromaguera7]

a large red state can't be compared to a blue state. A large red state like Oklahoma has fewer electoral votes as compared to New Hampshire or Iowa which both have more electoral votes because of population. You can have tne entire US map and see a sea of REd, however, fewer people live there as compare to the states on the seacoasts..

result, BLUE STATES HAVE MORE PEOPLE POWER than red states. THis red vs blue map is deceiving and does not reflect actual facts on population.

[Policritic]

Yes, you are correct, but not because states with lower populations matter less. The state unit obscures what's really going on in 2000 and 2004. Blue states are not uniformly blue, nor are red states uniformly red. (I.e. CA is mostly red but dominated by the urban areas in LA, SF and SB.)

[Policritic]

Where you misinterpret here is that absolute population matters more in a federal system than the distribution of support across the units of federalism, which are the states. To win a national office a candidate needs to have a broad basis of support rather than sheer numbers of voters. That's at least how is was intended and why we have retained the electoral college.

[eromaguera7]

the red states are supported from by the federal government from the blue states. So.. they should shut up and put up with blue states!!

[Policritic]

Sounds like you're making an argument about transfers using state units that obscures the reality: rural inhabitants receive certain subsidies and urbanites others. It's got less to do with what state one lives in and We see more clearly when we lose the red-state vs. blue-state mindset.

[straygypsy]

Civil war happened in the 1860s. Not 1896....

[VoxPop08]

I'm not sure what you're driving at. Of course the Civil War happened in the 1860s, but what does that have to do with the comparison between 1896 and 2000/04?

[VoxPop08]

Perhaps you're referring to the comment about Lincoln. But the political conflict between the North and South and it's association with the political parties carried over for generations. Some might still argue it's present today but I would tend to disagree somewhat.

[VoxPop08]

The South is agrarian, the North industrial and the parties have appealed to those differences with the Democrats flipping from southern conservatives to northeastern progressives and the Republicans moving in to take advantage of the vacuum. Thus in 2000 we have almost the same regional results in the EC as we did in 1896: while the parties have flipped, the voters' political preferences are pretty much the same.

[HisRoyalDudeliness]

Anyone think you should need a decent IQ to vote? I kid...sorta...

[222shaw222]

lincoln's ideas where certainly liberal and the southern democrats where against change,,,Where in time did the two party's swap? Kennedy is clearly liberal but did he change the party and force the switch? Was it gradual? The political ethos of early 20th century republicans is very hard to pinpoint

[Policritic]

The switch began with the Dixiecrats led by Strom Thurmond and the States' Rights Democratic Party in the 1948 election. There was widespread objection to FDR's New Deal but Eisenhower Republicans accepted it as a fait accompli.

[Policritic]

This left nowhere for Southern Dems to go until JFK and LBJ added civil rights to the mix, which directly threatened the political order in the South. Since Dems were appealing to northern urban voters and the Republicans suffered teh Goldwater debacle in '64, the best strategy for Nixon was to pick up all those disgruntled Southern conservatives with his Southern strategy. By 1968 the parties' regional bases had flipped.

[raiyinn]

Hm. This video is pretty thought provoking.

Props for the cinematography. Short, sweet, and pointed.

This is a pretty interesting video the more I watch it. At first, I wondered to myself, "1896? ..What?" Then I realized that maybe there's some significance in the election.

So do you believe that America is heading toward another major period of political realignment?

[Policritic]

Thx, that's the purpose - to challenge the viewer to think about our recent polarization in a wider context than 2 recent elections. But no, I don't believe we are headed for a major political realignment because our recent divisions are based more on urban vs. rural, rather than region against region. There is no inevitable movement toward urban liberalism or rural conservatism and neither party can win this battle of 51% for long.

[Policritic]

There are a number of video shorts I've posted here that challenge or satirize different aspects and explanations of our political bipolar disorder. Check them out if you like.

[HELLFIRE8282]

what ever happened to the "purple states"?

[VoxPop08]

What do you mean? One could say there are no red states or blue states or purple states b/c states are the wrong level of analysis. It's actually urban vs. rural and suburban, no?

[Yairio]

I suspect he is hinting at a trend towards Conservatism, just like most of the 20th century was a trend towards Liberalism.

[Policritic]

That's an interesting interpretation. It's not my intention to tell the viewer what to think, only to think about it. The general consensus that the Republicans or George W. Bush and Karl Rove caused this polarization doesn't really stand up to the historical evidence, though they certainly have taken advantage of it.

[salemcripple]

I'm not saying that the gap between Conservatism, and Liberalism wasn't always there. But it seems to me that Before Bush it wasn't as evedent, or as wide.

[Policritic]

There's an element of truth to that. What we've seen recently is partisanship coinciding with ideology - Democrats have become more liberal and Republicans more conservative. Both parties have helped shape this as well as respond to it by becoming more orthodox and igniting their bases of support. (See what happened to Lieberman.) The primary campaigns bring this out most obviously.

[Policritic]

This has happened before but with modern communication and information technology, party ideology is becoming the defining element of our political identities. That becomes dysfunctional.

[Policritic]

As for conservatism, I'm not sure the Red Blue pattern is part of the general trend toward the right that we've undergone in the last generation. JFK was far to the right of current Democrats on foreign policy and economic policy. And Clinton may have been to the right of Rockefeller and Nixon on domestic policies.

[Policritic]

I believe the public trend in voting recognizes that many Great Society programs failed and they want reform, but they still back New Deal programs. Thus, they have reservations about the New Left that arose in the 60s and the anti-Vietnam War movement and that's reflected in the presidential fortunes of New England liberals. The reaction to the Great Society probably also reflects the biases of the white, middle class majority, but that middle class is becoming increasingly less white.

[Policritic]

I'm not sure what contest you're referring to. The videos go together as chapters in a complex story, thus we're only about one-thrid through that story. I understand that a 6th grader might be challenged by the Red-Blue election puzzle, as most of our news media and cultural elites are completely confused.

[apromoterofgod]

Who is six grade stupid? How come that matters?

[Policritic]

If you see the three maps have almost the same red-blue state pattern, yet they are over 100 years apart in time. Thus, if we want to explain red states and blue states in our current politics, the explanation should help us understand 1896 too. Blaming it on the media or Bush or the Republicans doesn't do that for us. The puzzle will be looked at in a sequence of videos to come. This is a series...thanks for watching.

[lbheightsboy]

I don't understand the 1896 thing. What's the relationship between the other two... and do you expect anyone to know the answer the last one? I was good in Civics and US History but not THAT good.