<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 rightMargin=3 topMargin=0>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Didn't the press make up the RED states and Blue
states just for something to write about ??</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dave</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Exactly Dave. There is no real substance to this division. Every
presidential election in our history, the electoral votes of each state have
gone for one candidate or another. In 1860, four candidates each got some
electoral votes. In some elections, three, in most recent elections, two. Every
election since television coverage began, networks have color coded their maps.
Somehow, after the 2000 election, "red" and "blue" became not only convenient
color codes on election night, but the definition of the thought process of
every person in each state. Pure garbage.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Looking at the numbers, Kerry received more votes from the southeastern
states than from all of New England combined. There are some 3.5 million people
in New York who voted for Bush. But the southern states are "red states" and New
York is a "blue state." (One of those New York voters is a
<STRONG>green</STRONG>Bubble). I live in a "blue" state. Why? Because 10,000
more voters voted one way than voted the other. Some 6% of those voters saw fit
to re-elect George Bush AND to re-elect the only senator who voted against the
USA Patriot Act. Massachusetts somehow managed to elect both Mitt Romney and
John Kerry. Pennsylvania consistently votes for Democrats for president, a
majority of its congressional delegation are Democrats, and it has persistently
elected two Republican senators, one militantly pro-life and the other
militantly pro-choice, who each get out to support the other at election
time.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>We each have lots of reasons for voting the way we do, and we as a people
mix and match all over the place in the final vote counts. The same could be
said of most of the cultural "trends" and fads that the media likes to
highlight. Religion, taxes, economic development, environment, you get all types
in all states. You can't even stereotype states by their allegiance at the time
of the civil war. There were copperheads (southern sympathizers) in New York,
Indiana, Ohio. There were parts of Alabama where nobody in a confederate uniform
dared to go for the entire war (Jones County being the best known).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>So, I get an immediate reflex whenever someone talks about "red states" and
"blue states." There is no such thing. When are they going to shut up and talk
about something real, something of substance?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV></BODY></HTML>