Over coffee at the local petrol station, I pondered the details of the US presidential electoral map (pictured here from the "I" newspaper). It shows the forecast picture for tomorrow's big event. Looking at the so called "solid" blue (Obama) and red (Romney) States, and the eight or so game changing swing States, it struck me how America may be a country United in name, but starkly divided in socio-politico terms. The very fact that so many states can be confidently "blue" or "red" and the fact the blues and reds do form a discernible geographical orientation, suggests that what we are observing is not a straightforward distribution of political opinion, even after taking account of the usual urban/rural differentiation common in most westernized democracies. In fact, the metaphor which occurred to me as I looked at the red/blue map was the 50's Hollywood movie "The Three Faces of Eve", since one could imagine an America possessed of a certain socio-political schizophrenia - what the map tells us is that there are at least two Americas and the divisions are clear.

So, as a keen follower of events across the Atlantic, as I sat with my coffee (Costa), I quickly jotted down my own gratuitously prejudiced characterization of the typical blues and the typical reds and I tried to formulate some rationale as to how or why they are like they are. I accept that this is not scientific, it took me 5 minutes on a Costa serviette (napkin).

I started with the "blue" States, the Democratically inclined, pro Obama states. I concluded that the Democratic supporters in these states comprised of:

a) A liberal intelligentsia (clustered, it seems, in and around the two seaboards and close by the US's fifteen or so elite educational establishments);

b) An urban group of poorish people, many of whom are first generation immigrants who are feeling the pinch, but somehow getting by.

c) An urban based underclass (including ethnic minorities, illegal immigrants, habitual petty criminals, substance abusers and a bunch of other poor people who can't afford adequate healthcare or an education). Only some of these would count, as many would have thrown in the towel well before now; and

d) A swathe of (mainly) coastal state based and enlightened middle class who have been educated, have passports and are suspicious about the ability of a corporately driven free market to necessarily deliver everything anyone can want (they are also likely to be old enough to remember Nixon).

Then I considered the "red" States, the Republican leaning, Pro Romney States. I saw the key characteristics as follows:

a) A "middle class" who can say "God Bless America" with some conviction, who believe in the notion of the "good, honest, hard working, American family", who know most faces at the local church and who are panicking that all those things they once took for granted seem to be slipping away. These people profess to a loathing for "socialism" and believe sincerely you make your own luck and your own opportunities, and if, as an individual, you are devoid of luck and opportunites, then probably, it's your fault. They are likely to display nationalistic and/or xenophobic traits, whilst frequently not possessing a passport. They think climate change is BS and their opinions on topical social issues are dated, regressive and bogged down in religious dogma.

b) On the same side, but above the first red state group on the socio-economic scale, are a bunch of wealthy, mainly white, elite alpha male types (automatically supported by their dependent wives and families). They have made their money primarily by doing clever things with other money, which they made earlier by doing other clever things with earlier money. As long as the money grows, they are not discerning about methodology - they make money, not things, and who pays for it, in whatever way, is not their concern, be it people, the environment, it doesn't matter. These people also espouse something called "Freedom". But when they say "Freedom" they mean freedom to do what they want, unfettered, to ensure that they carry on making money, which is what they love doing. They also say that climate change is BS, but in reality they don't care whether it is real or not, all they know is that it might get in their way.

Now, as it happens, the clever money people like to use part of their money to keep what they've got, so they employ some of it influencing the media, the politicians and anything/anyone who is useful in contributing to their industrial scale monetary accumulation business. With the media and the politicians on board, they can manipulate the first big red state group using state of the art marketing techniques and general brainwashing, underpinned by their greatest weapon; fear. Sadly, just as hate is a stronger uniting force than love, fear similarly beats hope. And, the more scared you are, the easier you are to manipulate. So when George W Bush declared his "War on Terror" he knew what he was doing. It's a case of "Forget the good stuff, we need an enemy, something we can hate!". This way, the rich, small, group of conservatives, conserve their freedom to stay rich and stay happy. Generally, sophisticated, educated, city dwelling liberals (on the "blue" side) don't fall so easily for this stuff so the target audience is the less sophisticated, less educated, god fearing, rural types (the "red" side). In addition, church goers are quite used to the "Flock" mentality and its attendant threats of damnation for not adhering to the chief shepherd's instructions, so you can see how the green/red behavioural patterns and their controlling drivers, start to emerge.

And this is how I see today's socio-geo-politico structure of America, with its Eve like schizophrenia. As I write, the people head for the polling stations; look out!