Red vs Blue
This site wonders why the American blue (democratic) states should worry more about issues that affect red (republican) states, such as the war, abortion, etc.
Red state voters voted on two key issues: terrorism, and gay marriage. Which is funny, since there have been no terrorist attacks in any red states, and there have been no gay marriages in any red states. Red state voters therefore seem mostly concerned with preventing terrorist attacks and gay marriages in blue states.
I found it a little strange that the “wealthy”, densely populated areas of the country (especially those clustered around major cities) were liberal leaning, because the wealthy normally lean to the right. But I had it explained to me that being around in the city doesn’t mean you’re wealthy. Also, the city also has a higher concentration of academics and people who have the luxury of sitting back and thinking about things that don’t affect them directly, because they can afford to. Still, it seems strange that the post I linked can generalise America like that – because it doesn’t make sense (more so the situation, not the actual post). But what in America ever makes sense?
7:53pm (GMT +11.00) 
I find that site gives an oversimplification of the matter.
The best example is Ohio:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/OH/P/00/index.html
” Bush
(Incumbent)
2,796,147 51% 20
Kerry
2,659,664 49% 0
”
Bush wins 51% of the popular vote but he ends up winning ALL of the electoral votes for that state.
Can you fairly call Ohio a red state?
Not that surprising – like in Oz and elsewhere in the West, you have two types of wealthy: the left wing intelligentsia “cafe latte set” and the right leaning capitalists who only care about money. Major cities will generally lean towards progressive parties because of their higher education standards – one of the reasons that some were predicting that Sydney would fall to The Greens in the last election. The general populace in America and Oz is inherently conservative, has lower education standards and is thus more concerned about their own livelihoods (and are much more easily spooked), than city-dwellers.
These days it’s also a little dangerous to use only the ‘one dimensional’ category of left and right wing. For example quite a large number of the ‘left wing intelligentsia’ can be characterised as in favour of free markets and therefore economically right, but left leaning on issues such as social and foreign policy. Using a two dimensional measurement, it is much easier to understand how different states voted in America and different electorates voted in Oz. Costello is an example of someone who is economically right, but left on social policies.
Also, the influence of the Christian right is also a defining characteristic of the US, which is only starting to arise in Oz now – this explains the concern about gay marriage.
Furthermore, I think that site is way too simplistic – although terrorism / gay marriage hasn’t occurred in the red states, the reason these issues influenced their vote is because they are scared of these potential changes – classic conservative voters, just like the fear of rising interest rates in Oz.
“Red state voters therefore seem mostly concerned with preventing terrorist attacks and gay marriages in blue states.”
This sentence shows a complete lack of understanding of politics and America in general.
I’ll stop here, but leave you to ponder this question: Who is the present Governor of New York (according to your analysis “the wealthy normally lean to the right”, it should be a red state), and which party does she represent?
Yes I agree with the double axis and how it’s dangerous to lump everything onto one axis. I guess when I say left/right I’m looking at it economically speaking. In terms of a social axis, one popular classification is the libertarian/authoritarian dichotomy (left/right respectively).
I guess I’m thinking about how the electorates in Australia that are economically well off (eastern suburbs, north shore, inner city) are primarily liberal seats, and it’s the mid-city “ring” which are labor electorates. Then you move further out to Camden (Macarthur), which is noticeably better off economically than neighbouring Campbelltown (Werriwa), and you have safe Liberal and Labor seats respectively (granted that Werriwa is the Opposition leader’s seat). After all, it is the conservative parties which push tax cuts for the rich, or am I in error here?
I have a question…
You speak of people being in favor of free-markets, unregulated capitalism and so on.
If someone is not in fvor of that, what are they for?
Then they believe there should be some regulation because total unregulation produces some undesirable results, be it social or otherwise. Or they’re pinkos.
So then we’d have Enrons left, right and centre (To pardon the political pun)?
Or much worse, Donald Trump running every company :)