Green Room

Crimson vs. Indigo

posted at 1:07 pm on November 21, 2012 by

Ever since the 2000 elections we have settled in to the designation of Democratic states as blue and Republican as red. More recently we have seen reference to purple states. But if the 2012 results are any indication, we will soon have to come up with a new identification for states that are deep red and deep blue.

Two stories appeared this week that suggest the political landscape is shifting so that states are further from the mythical middle than ever. An Associated Press piece notes that half of state legislatures now have veto-proof majorities and only three – Iowa, Kentucky and New Hampshire – have split control of their two legislative houses between the two parties.

Couple this with a Smart Politics analysis showing the U.S. House Democratic Caucus will consist of almost 30 percent New Yorkers and Californians – up from 17.6 percent in 1990.

What this will mean for good governance is open for debate, but it will make for a fascinating civics experiment. What will happen as the dominant party in each of these states enacts its wish list? As the difference in policies becomes starker, how will population shifts be affected, and who will move where? Will all future Presidential elections become even more of just a battle for a handful of evenly split states?

Split government at the federal level will make it easier for each state government to go its own way, but how would one-party control of the federal government affect the opposing party’s agenda in states it controls?

Good and bad, we are going to see things in the political arena we haven’t seen in our lifetimes.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It means there is a greater chance of spliting into two countries.

Oil Can on November 21, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Crimson, white, and indigo…

JohnGalt23 on November 21, 2012 at 1:18 PM

It means there is a greater chance of spliting into two countries.

Oil Can on November 21, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The sooner the better in my opinion.

But the commies can’t mooch from the free states. Allow each ideology to live within it’s own bubble for a while, see which one survives and thrives. Hint: without someone to mooch off of, the commies will die out.

ButterflyDragon on November 21, 2012 at 1:22 PM

As the federal government grows, there’s less and less room for states to differentiate amongst themselves.

theperfecteconomist on November 21, 2012 at 2:26 PM

The big difference between Red and Blue states is in what percentage of the given state’s population lives in the metro area of a major city.

Bearing in mind many suburbs are significantly more conservative than the cities they surround, consider this:

In Texas, 60 percent of people live in the metro areas of Houston, DFW, and Austin.

About 75 percent of Californians live in LA, San Fran, and Sacramento.

Consider Massachusetts a big suburb of Boston, Pennsylvania the suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh, Washington to be Greater Seattle, and New York to primarily consist of New York City and Buffalo.

We need to break the urban machines.

Sekhmet on November 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Un-American scum discuss secess1on.

Some enterprising donut shop owner needs to cash in on Christie’s popularity and open a donut shop near Trenton and name it “Christie Kreme.”

UltimateBob on November 21, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Red states could not function without the federal dollars provided for by the tax base from blue states. NY owns the South. Texas notwithstanding. Texas can be its own nation.

The rest of the TP secess1onists will have to remain Americans.

Fix the country. Don’t abandon it.

Capitalist Hog on November 21, 2012 at 2:35 PM

We need to break the urban machines.

Sekhmet on November 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

How? Conservatives constantly question the validity of government itself, how are you going to break into those places where government is most necessary? Large populations present problems most hinterland conservatives never deal with, which makes it so easy for them to disregard government as a viable option for solving any social problem. In big cities, we have little choice, and so people who run questioning whether we need social services will gain little traction.

ernesto on November 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Red states could not function without the federal dollars provided for by the tax base from blue states. NY owns the South. Texas notwithstanding. Texas can be its own nation.
Capitalist Hog on November 21, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Well, then, why is it so hard to get blue state representatives to cut off the entitlement funding?

LoganSix on November 21, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Large populations present problems most hinterland conservatives never deal with, which makes it so easy for them to disregard government as a viable option for solving any social problem.

ernesto on November 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM

LOL! ‘Cuz 60 years of government solving social issues has been such a raving success.

antipc on November 21, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Consider Massachusetts a big suburb of Boston, Pennsylvania the suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh, Washington to be Greater Seattle, and New York to primarily consist of New York City and Buffalo.

We need to break the urban machines.

Sekhmet on November 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Urban areas do not necessarily have common interests. New York City dumps on Manufacturing that is crucial to cities like Buffalo and Rochester. New York City environmentalism, taxation policies and general anti-business attitudes have crushed upstate cities. Liberal state capitol districts like Dane County (Madison) Wisconsin have left wing policies that hurt cities like Milwaukee that are not creatures of government. The wise politician can use these differences to win statewide election in Blue states. Look at how both Dennis Vacco (Attorney General) and George Pataki (Governor) carried heavily democratic upstate metro counties against New York City Pols running for statewide office. To be successful in these strategies however, we have to allow them to adopt hands off social agendas while pursuing free market economic policies that lead to general prosperity. If they run on a social agenda platform, they lose.

KW64 on November 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM