[Libloather]

The three Californias would have roughly equivalent populations and wealth. A state of Northern California would include almost the entire upper half of the state, including San Francisco; a Southern California would contain most of the rest. A third state, called simply California, would fold in Los Angeles and extend up the coast to Monterey.

I would place San Francisco in the southern portion with the other deranged folks. Leave the north out of all that mess. This could have great potenial!

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Are there enough conservatives in the north to make at least one red state, or would this just be 3 blue states, just slightly less blue than California as a whole?

Not that it's going to happen, anyway.

[Not A Snowbird]

When I was a kid growing up in the Bay Area the proposal was for two states, but I see three. Northern California has nothing in common with Southern California, and Central California has nothing in common with either.

Except water. That’s where the fight is.

[laplata]

ping

[Sacajaweau]

And NYS in 2.

[Grampa Dave]

I would placeGay Frisco should be with the other deranged folks. Leave the north out of all that mess. This could have great potential!

The great valley should be in the new State of Jefferson. Good conservatives live and work there like the Robinson Clan.

[kosciusko51]

This plan sounds like 3 smaller blue states instead of one large blue state, giving the dems 4 more senators. No thanks.

[umgud]

Not sure what the promoter thinks this would accomplish. Looking at the new 3 state map, northern CA would remain blue due to having SF and Sacramento. California, which isn’t as big, would be strongly blue due to having LA and coastal cities. I like Southern CA and it sure looks to have a chance at being red.

[okie 54]

California at one time was a great place for opportunities. Many in the 1930’s went there after starving out in the mid West. Now almost 90 years later is has become a bastion of perversion, liberalism, socialism, and atheism

[okie 54]

California at one time was a great place for opportunities. Many in the 1930’s went there after starving out in the mid West. Now almost 90 years later is has become a bastion of perversion, liberalism, socialism, and atheism

[blueunicorn6]

Nope.

They need to become their own nation.

Then they can attack the coasts of Oregon and Washington.

The purses will be swinging then!

[AnotherUnixGeek]

A state of Northern California would include almost the entire upper half of the state, including San Francisco;

Inclusion of SF means two Democratic Senators and all-Democrat House representatives.

a Southern California would contain most of the rest.

"Most of the rest" - if this includes San Diego, this is likely to be two Democratic Senators and mostly Democratic House representatives.

A third state, called simply California, would fold in Los Angeles and extend up the coast to Monterey.

If it includes Los Angeles, this is another two Democratic Senators and overwhelmingly Democratic House representatives.

This idea is only good if it gives a true voice to the people of inland California, who are as red as those of Texas. Forcing these people into groupings with either San Francisco or Los Angeles will keep these people unrepresented and will hand Senate and House control over to the Democrats. The new states described in this article would be a disaster which would lock the Democrats into control over Congress.

The partition needs to put SF, Los Angeles and San Diego in a single Coastal California state, put Northern California (north of SF in a single state), and put the interior in a Central California state. Otherwise, this is a wish list for Democrats.

[pfflier]

They could get six senators instead of two out of this. What’s that do for you?

[TomGuy]

Just what we DO NOT need — 4 more Senators from Cali.

==

Dems will never allow Calexit to happen.

Right now, the House has 53 seats from California — 39 Dem and 14 Repub. That is a net difference of +25 Dem seats.

Losing California would drop the House ‘majority’ requirement from 218 to 191. Losing California would give the Repubs [247 current - 14 Cali R’s] 233 and the Dems [188 current - 39 Cali D’s] 149.

Dems would need 42 new electees to regain majority without California.

[concentric circles]

This map is often an eye opener for people wno are not familiar with California politics.

[Deplorable American1776]

I would make 4 states....Coastal California is one state La to Marin County. Southern California San Diego to Palm Springs and the Central Valley, Jefferson would​ be northeastern California and Yosemite would be Sierra Nevada counties...

[BeauBo]

Is this just a gerrymandered option designed to give the Dems four more senate seats, but still keep all the electoral votes for President?

[Thom Pain]

In the interim, create a Constitutional Amendment that prohibits any jurisdiction from controlling any more that 5% of the electoral vote. Thus Cali and other most populous states would have do divide up for Presidential elections.

[maine-iac7]

BINGO

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Absolutely not. California already has two worthless Democrat senators. No reason in the world for them to have four more.

[Defiant]

6 would be better, but 3 is good if the map is drawn correctly. One loony bin from LA to SF, one SoCal for Orange, SD, Riverside and San Berdu, and one for the north and central. Libs would never agree to that, though.