It's interesting to compare the French "red/blue" divisions with those in the United States. Ultimately, the comparisons are not very helpful Still, a few things are striking. 
According to the French newspaper, Le Monde, "the 'no' vote clearly dominated in the north and center, with 'yes' carrying the day in the Paris region, in the West and in Alsace, and in the overseas territories."
In other words, "yes" won in some of the most geographically remote areas -- the far western Breton region, where the "national anthem" is set to the same tune as the Welsh anthem; and the extreme eastern Alsace region, with its heavily Germanic influenced population just along the borders of Germany and Switzerland. In addition, Strasbourg, the capital of Alsace, is home of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, and co-host to the European Parliament, so a "yes" vote was not surprising there.
Finally, in Paris, more than 2 out of 3 voters voted "oui." Of course, everyone knows that Paris is atypical of the rest of France in many ways -- sort of like Washington, DC. Among other things, Paris has lots and lots of bureaucrats, many of whom are also "eurocrats." Personally, having traveled all over France, I can definitely attest to the fact that Paris is different, for better and for worse, than many other parts of the country.
It's interesting to compare the French "red/blue" divisions with those in the United States. Ultimately, the comparisons are not very helpful Still, a few things are striking.
First, in both countries "red" dominates geographically across vast rural areas of the countries, with "blue" generally concentrated in the most densely populated, most urbanized, most cosmopolitan parts -- plus areas that are ethnically or linguistically distinct. Second, the national capital area votes differently than the "heartland" in both cases, with the national government obviously thinking somewhat differently than everyone else. Boy, isn't that surprsing?
Interestingly, in France the "red" areas in this election indicated a "non" vote to ceding national sovereignty, to more "globalization," and to a classically top-down, stereotypically "liberal" type of project. Opposition to the European Constitution came from both left and right, sometimes for very different reasons. In the United States, the "red" areas also tend to oppose ceding national sovereignty, and are skeptical or fearful to "globalization."
Unlike in the United States, however, the "red" areas in the French election are generally far less religious, less rural, and less culturally conservative. In other words, "red" and "blue" exist in both the United States and France, but -- fittingly given relations between the two countries of late -- the colors are not easily matched up. In some ways, in fact, they are reversed. In France, the "non" vote was a sign of nationalism and fear of immigration, no doubt. But it was also a sign of anger at national elites, especially at conservative President Jacques Chirac by socialists, Communists, and the anti-immigrant right-wing. A fascinating "non" coalition, "non" doubt.
Ultimately, both the United States and France have red, white and blue as they're national colors. In France, of course, they're called "rouge, blanc et bleu" -- as Steve Martin once joked, "those French have a different word for everything!" Still, in both countries people share some of the same concerns about globalization, loss of jobs to foreigners, and the national government being out of touch with the average person.
Could all this mean we are not as different from the French as we sometimes like to think? Possibly yes. On second thought, maybe "non." Or, can the differences between France and the United States can be boiled down to a certain "je ne sais quoi?" Don't ask me -- je ne sais pas!