Most Recent Posts

Americans grow up knowing their colors are red, white and blue. It's right there in the flag, right there in the World Series bunting and on those floats every fourth of July.

So when did we become a nation of red states and blue states? And what do they mean when they say a state is turning purple?

Painting whole states with a broad brush bothers a lot of people, and if you're one of them you may want to blame the media. We've been using these designations rather vigorously for the last half-dozen election cycles or so as a quick way to describe the vote in given state in a given election, or its partisan tendencies over a longer period.

It got started on TV, the original electronic visual, when NBC, the first all-color network, unveiled an illuminated map — snazzy for its time — in 1976. John Chancellor was the NBC election night anchor who explained how states were going to be blue if they voted for incumbent Republican Gerald Ford, red if they voted for Democratic challenger Jimmy Carter.

That arrangement was consistent with the habit of many texts and reference books, which tended to use blue for Republicans in part because blue was the color of the Union in the Civil War. Blue is also typically associated with the more conservative parties in Europe and elsewhere.

As the other TV operations went to full color, they too added vivid maps to their election night extravaganzas. But they didn't agree on a color scheme, so viewers switching between channels might see Ronald Reagan's landslide turning the landscape blue on NBC and CBS but red on ABC.

YouTube

The confusion persisted until 2000, when the coloring of states for one party of the other dragged on well past election night. As people were more interested in the red-blue maps than ever, the need for consistency across media outlets became paramount. And as the conversation about the disputed election continued, referring to states that voted for George W. Bush as "red states" rather than "Republican states" (and those voting for Democrat Al Gore as "blue states") seemed increasingly natural.

And it never went away. Instead, it became a staple of political discourse, not just in the media but in academic circles and popular conversation as well.

By the next presidential election, the red-blue language was so common as to be a metaphor for partisanship. That provided a convenient target for the most memorable speech of that election cycle, the 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Boston, delivered by a young senatorial candidate from Illinois named Barack Obama.

"The pundits, the pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states," he said. "Red states for Republicans, blue states for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too — we worship an awesome God in the blue states and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the red states."

Of course, that did not stop "the pundits" or anyone else from using these catchy labels. If anything, the practice has become more universal.

Not a few Americans see this as a symptom of a real disease in the body politic, an imbalance in favor of conflict that makes compromise more difficult.

Painting whole states with an ideologically broad brush is also offensive to many. No liberal in Idaho needs to be told that state leans conservative, just as conservatives in Minnesota are fully aware theirs was the only state not tinted for Ronald Reagan in 1984.

But being on the minor-fraction side of the party balance does not make these citizens less Idahoan or less Minnesotan. On the contrary, they may be among the fiercest loyalists of either state.

#ColorFacts: A Weird Little Lesson In Rainbow Order hide caption

itoggle caption

No one thinks the red or blue designation makes a state politically single-minded. But the message sent by such media-driven characterizations is not without consequence.

Bill Bishop, the Texas-based writer who co-authored the influential book The Big Sort in 2004, says political affiliation is a powerful part of the allure certain communities have for Americans seeking a compatible home.

"All of this is a shorthand, right? So a 'blue community' is a shorthand not only for politics but for a way of life ..." says Bishop.

And for many people, that way of life includes a sorting out by political affinity.

"We thought at first that this was all lifestyle, but the more I talked to people, the more I talked to people who said it was a conscious decision to go to a Democratic area or a Republican area."

Which may mean the red and blue labels will be even harder for the media to resist using in the years ahead.

Last week, you may have heard, the Democrats took a historic drubbing in the midterm elections for Congress. They lost their majority in the Senate and saw their numbers in the House fall to their lowest point in nearly seven decades.

Yet they could hardly wait to get back to Washington and reelect the party's leaders in both chambers — unopposed.

The 2014 election may have been mainly a referendum on the president, but two other names were mentioned almost as often in Republican ads: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Republican candidates everywhere ran against those two leaders more than they ran against their actual opponents.

Yet Reid already has been swept back into his party's top spot, and Pelosi will follow next week — and in neither case was there so much as a struggle.

To some degree, this reflects the attitude in the Democratic cloakroom that these two longtime symbols of the party have served the cause well, and are not to blame for the deluge on Election Day. To this way of thinking, ousting Reid or Pelosi would be scapegoating.

But surely there are other Democrats in both chambers who see these two names as being more useful as targets for the enemy than they are valuable as inspirational figures. They rouse the opposition far more effectively than they rally the faithful.

Yet not one member in either chamber has been willing to step forward as a challenger to either Democratic leader. And without such a challenge, the leader simply wins again — either party, either chamber, every time.

Congress has reached historic lows in approval, and despite the election results, that disapproval applies to Republicans, too.

Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, who began 2014 with the lowest home-state approval ratings of any senator seeking re-election, has just become the new majority leader in the Senate for 2015. He is the toast of Washington.

That, in its way, is as curious as the re-election of Reid and Pelosi. If this is democracy at work, its works are strange indeed.

But then, it is not exactly democracy that is operating: It's the internal rules of the party conferences in Congress. Those rules make it all but impossible for an incumbent leader to be dislodged.

The difficulty of mounting a challenge — and of gaining the needed commitments from colleagues in secrecy — is matched only by the risk of doing so and failing. Ask the last person who challenged a Speaker or any other party leader.

Or perhaps you don't remember what became of Heath Schuler, former member of Congress.

And so, whatever the voters may say, the leaders march on.

There is an alternative to this that is readily available. The party caucuses could hold a vote of confidence (often called a vote of "no confidence") in the leader by secret ballot after each congressional election. Individuals could vote to remove the leader while remaining anonymous, and the question of succession would be taken up separately as required.

Would it be pretty? Perhaps not. But with such an arrangement you would gain at least the possibility that the party leader might yield to a fresher face with a cleaner slate. And if such a fate were more plausible than it is now, shaky leaders would be more likely to step aside voluntarily when circumstances dictated.

Alternatively, if the vote of confidence was positive, the party leader could begin anew in the next Congress knowing that he or she really had the bona fide support of his troops. That would be far better than the default endorsement that comes with winning a no-contest reelection.

There would, of course, be no guarantee a new leader would be better, but a new leader would be new. In an office of largely symbolic importance, mere newness can be a cardinal virtue.

The "no confidence" vote is a feature of parliamentary systems the world over, and it serves an obviously useful purpose. That purpose is not limited to the majority or the minority leader, nor would it require as devastating an election loss as the Democrats just had.

Doubtless there are those in both parties and chambers who agree such a mechanism would be useful — but the same old survival instincts and cost-benefit ratios still apply, and the math always looks pretty much the same. So we shouldn't expect to hear the idea of a "no confidence" vote being endorsed in any floor speeches next week, when Congress returns for its lame duck session.

House leadership

Harry Reid

Democratic Party

Congress

Nancy Pelosi

Two bills that would authorize building the controversial Keystone XL pipeline will soon come to a vote in Congress, as their sponsors — Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., and Rep. Bill Cassidy, R-La. — head toward a runoff election next month to decide who will win the Senate race.

NPR's Debbie Elliott reports:

"On the Senate floor, Landrieu called for action on the Canada-to-Texas pipeline project, saying, 'I believe with a push we could actually get the votes that we need to pass the Keystone pipeline.'

"Soon after, Republican leaders in the House scheduled a vote Thursday on a Keystone bill sponsored by Landrieu's rival, Cassidy.

"The two face off in a Dec. 6 runoff. The pipeline is a key issue in Louisiana, where the oil and gas industry dominates."

Energy company TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline would carry tar sands oil from Canada to Texas; it has been a polarizing issue, pitting those who say it would create thousands of jobs against environmentalists who say tar sands oil is too expensive and toxic to refine. Where one side says the plan would bolster the energy industry, the other says it would increase greenhouse gases.

Wary landowners along its path have also spoken out, complaining that the pipeline would disrupt their property and damage farms — particularly if it ever sprang a leak. As the Two-Way has reported, "In February, a Nebraska judge struck down a 2012 law that allowed part of the pipeline to run through the state."

The AP notes that the Obama administration isn't welcoming news of a vote on the matter:

"While the White House stopped short of directly threatening a veto, spokesman Josh Earnest said President Barack Obama takes a 'dim view' of legislative efforts to force action on the project. Earnest reiterated Obama's preference for evaluating the pipeline through a long-stalled State Department review."

From NPR's StateImpact project comes this background:

"The Keystone Pipeline already exists. What doesn't exist fully yet is its proposed expansion, the Keystone XL Pipeline. The existing Keystone runs from oil sand fields in Alberta, Canada, into the U.S., ending in Cushing, Okla.

"The 1,700 new miles of pipeline would offer two sections of expansion. First, a southern leg would connect Cushing, where there is a current bottleneck of oil, with the Gulf Coast of Texas, where oil refineries abound."

midterms 2014

Rep. Bill Cassidy

Sen. Mary Landrieu

Keystone XL Pipeline

The election is over, right? Republicans gained control of the U.S. Senate and padded their majority in the House.

So the big drama of the campaign may have subsided, but there is still a handful of congressional contests up in the air.

There are runoff elections scheduled. A couple of races that are still too close to call. And at least one official recount coming.

U.S. Senate Races

In Louisiana — a place where politics are always interesting — three-term Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu finds herself in a runoff against Republican congressman Bill Cassidy, because both failed to get more than the 50 percent required to claim victory last Tuesday.

i i

In Louisiana, Rep. Bill Cassidy is in a tight runoff election against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu. Melinda Deslatte/AP hide caption

itoggle caption Melinda Deslatte/AP

In Louisiana, Rep. Bill Cassidy is in a tight runoff election against Democratic incumbent Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Melinda Deslatte/AP

Even though control of the Senate doesn't hang on the outcome, their battle now goes into an extra month of overtime.

The TV attack ads are back too. The Landrieu campaign introduced a new one this week, as did the National Republican Senatorial Committee on behalf of the challenger.

The other Senate seat that's been undecided is in Alaska, where incumbent Democrat Mark Begich faced Republican Dan Sullivan. The Associated Press has called the race for Sullivan. But Begich hasn't conceded.

On Capitol Hill Wednesday, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell posed with 10 new GOP senators-elect. He's looking for the number of newcomers to increase. "We're excited to have a great bunch here and we hope they're going to be joined by Bill Cassidy and Dan Sullivan shortly," he said. Sullivan, having claimed victory, has since flown to D.C. to begin new-member orientation.

House Races

There are two races in Louisiana, Congressional Districts 5 and 6, where runoffs will decide the winner. The latter involves Democrat Edwin Edwards, 87, who has a resume that includes Congress, the governorship — and eight years in federal prison for corruption.

i i

The Associated Press has called the Alaska Senate race for challenger Dan Sullivan. But incumbent Sen. Mark Begich (above) has not conceded. J. Scott Applewhite/AP hide caption

itoggle caption J. Scott Applewhite/AP

The Associated Press has called the Alaska Senate race for challenger Dan Sullivan. But incumbent Sen. Mark Begich (above) has not conceded.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP

In Arizona, the battle for the 2nd District is heading for an automatic recount. It features incumbent Democrat Ron Barber, a former aide to Rep. Gabby Giffords who was shot and wounded along with Giffords by a gunman in January 2011. Barber trails Republican Martha McSally by just 133 votes. Nearly all of the votes have been tallied, and state law requires a recount if the margin is fewer than 200 votes.

Finally, there are two undeclared races in California: in the 7th District, near Sacramento, and the 16th, which includes parts of Fresno.

Both feature incumbent Democrats who currently hold very narrow leads.

So Election Day has come and gone.

We just don't know yet when it will all be officially ... and finally ... and mercifully over.