William Safire's most recent column notes that in US presidential politics, the states that are certainties for the Republican candidate are called "red states", those for the Democratic candididate are "blue states", and those up for grabs (to which the candidates devote most of their time and resourses) are "battleground states".

Every election night the TV coverage comments on, and eventually calls the results of, the race in each state. On election night 1992 they began the practice of showing a map of the US, coloring in red the states they had "called" for the Republican, and blue for those called for the Democrat.

No one seems to know why these colors where chosen. The first cite Safire can offer is from October 15, 1992, about three weeks before the election.

He traces "battleground states" to a 1860 letter from Schuyler Colfax, an Indiana congressman, to Abraham Lincoln.

Interesting. I wonder if we can find out anything further.

I was surprised to see this recently, and at first thought I was reading the map wrong. Here the colours are the opposite, and it seems a natural and traditional allocation: the Conservatives are the true blues, and the once-socialist Labour are reds.

I don't know how far back this goes, but in Pickwick Papers the two parties in the Eatanswill by-election are the Blues and the Buffs. I've always presumed (with no real grounds) this was not Dickens's invention, but was what the two parties, Tories and Whigs, used back then. Today the Liberal Democrats, descendants of the Whigs, still use yellow, and this is how they're always coloured on electoral gain maps.

Like aput, I'm surprised that red should be used as a colour to indicate the Republican states. For most of the twentieth century, red stood for Communism, and I wouldn't think the Republicans would be too happy about that connection.

quote:

---

Originally posted by arnie:
Like aput, I'm surprised that red should be used as a colour to indicate the Republican states. For most of the twentieth century, red stood for Communism, and I wouldn't think the Republicans would be too happy about that connection.

---

If anything, the Democrats would be more sensitive about being associated with Communism, since it's been repeatedly thrown at them. Nobody thinks that red is a veiled insult when applied to Republicans, even if Nixon did go to China. Possibly that was the reason. Why the colors had to be red and blue, as opposed to, say, chartreuse and fleshtone is another question.

quote:

---

Originally posted by neveu:

Why the colors had to be red and blue, as opposed to, say, chartreuse and fleshtone is another question.

---

I generally don't get into political discussions, but who can resist a question about colors?

Because our blood flows in red, white and blue?

"Does this state go with my shoes?"

When I think of the Republicans or Democrats, I don't think of a colour. (It could be because I am not American). The political parties in Canada have a definite colour branding, red for Liberal, blue for Conservative, and Orange for NDP (basically a labour party). Even minor political parties have a particular colour that they use.

Oh, I see colors: Green for Democrats and Red for Republicans.

That one was easy!

I generally don't get into political discussions,

That's probably a good idea, especially on a multi-national board about words. Yet, I couldn't resist. Sorry!

This thread also bring up two other questions I've heard before:

Is it called POLITICS because it's really "many blood-sucking insects"?

Isn't CONgress really the opposite of PROgress?

quote:

---

Originally posted by wordnerd:
On election night 1992 they began the practice of showing a map of the US, coloring in red the states they had "called" for the Republican, and blue for those called for the Democrat.

No one seems to know why these colors where chosen.

---

Here's something interesting in a book I was reading.

The book, while discussing the war-games exercises that the US military conducts, mentioned casually and in passing that the sides are traditionally the Blue Team and the Red Team -- and that 'our side' is always the Blue Team. If for example the participants were doing a mock-battle against terrorists, the Red Team would be the terrorists and the Blue Team would be the anti-terrorist forces, not vice versa.

Could it be that 'blue' is associated with 'our side; the good guys' and 'red' with 'the enemy', and that that's a perhaps subconcious reason that the TV gave Democrats the blue and Republicans the red? For it's rather notorious [pun intended] that much of the TV media tends to on the Demorcratic side.

That would also raise the question of why blue would be associated with 'our side' and red with 'the enemy'.

For it's rather notorious [pun intended] that much of the TV media tends to on the Demorcratic side.

Not to me. I will give you that the recent Dan Rather debacle probably was from a political bias, but that was because of a very few. There are lots and lots of media reports that I find conservative and Republican. Have you seen Fox News lately?

the states that are certainties for the Republican candidate are called "red states", those for the Democratic candididate are "blue states", and those up for grabs (to which the candidates devote most of their time and resourses) are "battleground states".

Interesting. In the recent post about the phrase of the year, those "battleground" states were called the "purple" states. Much better, I think.