I always found the red-state/blue-state color scheme counter-intuitive. In Red for Romance, Dan Klein explains why:
[T]he new U.S. political chromatics is just wrong. It emerged during the 2000 election and has stuck. The Democrats, however, should be red, not blue. And for the Republicans, blue is perhaps fitting enough.Red is a warm color. It is emotional, even sensual. Red is the natural color of romance.
[...]
The added factor is the yearning not only that sentiment be shared, but shared by all. A key aspect of the Left is the appeal of an encompassing sharing of sentiment. The appeal of the Left is The People’s Romance.
[...]
The Left is about collective romance. Read Marx closely, and at heart you will find the aspiration for encompassing sentiment. In Marx and the Leftist train, the collectivity is a vehicle of fulfillment and liberation. In collectivism we escape alienation, which Marx closely identified with the division of labor. In collectivism we achieve our humanness.It is no accident, then, that red has been the color of the Left. The Left is romantic politics. In Europe, the Left parties are still red. In Europe, the First of May is celebrated as worker solidarity day. It is a day of Leftist parades, a sea of red, nowadays with a splash of green.
On blue:
Blue is cool and dispassionate. In Sweden, where my Valentine’s Day cards will arrive, the conservative party, the Moderates, take the color blue.The true blues strive to resist any impulse to view government as romantic force. They believe George Washington’s claim: “Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearsome master.”
Government is no means of fulfillment. It is no expression of becoming. It is a dangerous power, often even brutal. We must coolly account for every action. We must girdle it with icy blue.