Just for the record, I will mention that the Conservative party in Canada has always (in the 40 years I’ve been living here) been associated with blue (there was the “Big Blue Machine” in Ontario) and the Liberals with red. The Greens, of course, are green. In Quebec, the Parti Quebecois, which used to tend towards socialism (but their big shtick was and remains separation) is blue. But that is explained by the color of the Quebec flag (four fleurs-de-Lys on a blue field) and the fact that the opposition Liberals are red.
:smack: Sorry, I confused you with the location in your quote. My brayne dougnt werk sumtymes.
I don’t see the Republicans as red anymore, more of a Black and Blue.
And soaked in bitter tears wrought of smashed dreams.
This is the best explanation yet! 
Here blue is associated with conservatism and red with socialism, while the Liberal Party has a sort of yellowy orange.
Well, considering that most corpses turn blue anyways…
It was a fluke that hit the blogs in 2000 & stuck. Also, “Republican” & “red” begin with the same two letters, while “Democrat” & “blue” both begin with voiced stops, so it sort of works phonetically.
Perhaps the following point hasn’t been made clearly enough: The Republicans are not called reds. The Democrats are not called blues. The terms red and blue are only applied to states. A Republican-leaning state is called red and a Democratic-leaning state is called blue. Occasionally a state is called purple if it is a toss-up between Republicans and Democrats. If you called a person in the U.S. a red or a blue or referred to the parties themselves as red or blue, you’d probably get a “Huh?”.
There are no standard colors for any major or minor parties in the U.S. I don’t even think that the Green Party thinks of green as their color. The habit of calling states red or blue according to their favoring Republicans or Democrats only started in 2000 because of the month-long vote-counting episode. Before 2000, no one ever used those terms to apply to states.
I don’t think the fact that the term “red” was once used to describe communists has anything to do with this. That term has a distinctly old-fashioned feel these days. It quit being used with any regularity about thirty years ago.
I think that something that foreigners might not be clear about is that the Republicans and Democrats (and the minor parties in the U.S. too) never advertise themselves as being the party of a single region, a single socio-economic class, or a single ethnic group. Whatever might really be true of their appeal, they never advertise themselves in that way. Furthermore, they don’t think of themselves as being a group that socializes together. That sort of local-level solidarity of political parties that once existed in the U.S. (and may still exist in some other countries) just doesn’t apply anymore in the U.S.
I applaud the first part of your post which I have quoted above. You’re absolutely right–the parties in the US have never been called “red” or “blue.” Only the color of the states on voting maps.
The second paragraph I quoted above highlights a misconception which abounds in this thread.
While the entrenched concept of blue=Democratic states, red=Republican states was first solidified in 2000, the terms red/blue to color the states prior to 2000 was a real thing, and used on multiple occasions. You can go back and read previous posters who cited this.
Since most posters in this thread are obviously too lazy to read links, I’ll post one from wikipedia which should give pause for thought. (Wendell, I’m not referring to you here. You’re one of the guys who always seems to get it. )
So, the colors for states on maps were used extensively from 1976-2000. They just didn’t gel into the standard formula we’ve had for the last 8 years.
samclem writes:
> While the entrenched concept of blue=Democratic states, red=Republican
> states was first solidified in 2000, the terms red/blue to color the states prior to
> 2000 was a real thing, and used on multiple occasions. You can go back and
> read previous posters who cited this.
I don’t think you’re disagreeing with me. Yes, individual TV networks, newspapers, and magazines used the colors red and blue to mark states in maps of the electoral votes of Presidential elections to denote whether they voted Republican or Democratic, but they didn’t use the colors red and blue consistently from one election to the next and across all TV networks, newspapers, and magazines. It was fairly consistent that they would use white to denote a state whose electoral vote hadn’t been determined yet. What happened in 2000 was that the long vote-counting incident meant that the terms “red” and “blue” were used for over a month with the same meaning, so the terms solidified into their present meaning.
Right, so it was red/blue back and forth, no real lasting ties to colors for either party, then the prolonged election coverage of 2000 that entrenched red/repub and blue/dem in the publics minds-eye. And it just sort of stuck, not much to do with confederate flags or dems not wanting to be seen as commies.
That is the reasonable and probably most accurate answer. But if you ask me, the fact that red is an anger color and blue is a more tranquil color also has something to do with it.
:dubious:
And I’m speaking as an enthusiastic Democrat here. That’s coincidence at the least, wishful thinking at best. While I admit that I perceive the Republicans as appealing more to anger and fear than the Democrats, I’m willing to admit that I’m biased, and that once you dig under the top tiers (Presidential and Senate candidates), we’ve probably got quite a few local and state race dirty tricksters and demagogues ourselves. Hell, one of our Congressional candidates is a dirty, cheating, adulterous louse, probably the only incumbent Democratic Representative that most Democrats hope loses. Ironically, he was the candidate who replaced Mark “Hey, kid!” Foley in 2006.
Because on maps, red is a much lighter color than blue. Since a much larger portion of the land mass of the US was red in the last few elections, it makes sense for the maps to display the larger portion in the lighter color because text and other symbology shows up better over a lighter color. Or something like that. . . basically it was a graphic design decision. . . nothing more. . . that my WAG.
The TV networks assigned the colors before they knew what the final map was going to look like.
I’m not sure what you mean by “wishful thinking” ?
I don’t “wish” that those are the colors that have been assigned, I don’t “wish” that those are the emotional connections made about those colors for a lot of people, I am stating an opinion that those facts are probably connected somehow. It doesn’t gain me anything if they are. Therefore I do not “wish” for it any more than I wish for any of my opinions to be right, or you wish for any of your opinions to be right.
And just so you know, I am a democrat and a liberal, but I would be an exception to the rule (if there is such a rule) that dems are all calm and repubs are all angry as I am a rage-filled, “screaming at strangers”, fist shaking liberal.
I just think that the parties as a whole might have been identified as leaning toward more calm, or leaning toward more angry.
For the love of…
One last time: It was random until 2000. Actually, the 2000 election was random as well - it just stuck in everybody’s minds because of the long long coverage that year. That’s IT.
Any other conspiracy theories or convoluted psychological interpretations are just someone’s fevered imagination looking for significance where there is none. The end.
Exactly. It was random. Pure happenstance. Red is no more an “angry” color than it is a “fruit” color.
You’re absolutely right. I should have made it clear that I’m refering to positions on the size and role of government and other associated economic policies. I did not mean Democrats would be seen as right wing extremists (nor would Republicans)
The actual question seems well answered, but I would just like to add a confirmation that the standard elsewhere truly is the inverse of the current american practice. In Canada, our Liberal Party (but not the more “liberal” New Democrats) have always been red while the Tories/Conservatives (truly conservative) have in all their incarnations been blue. This goes way back.
This has applied in provincial politics as well for ever so long. During the “quiet revolution” in Québec in the '50s, when a movement was afoot to unseat the traditional and conservative elites, one would apparently hear from the staunchly conservative catholic pulpits the reminder that “le ciel est bleu et l’enfer est rouge.” (Heaven is blue and hell is red)
I doubt that many up here would be offended if you borrowed that down there at this point