Posted on 03/19/2011 8:22:41 PM PDT by SmithL
I was being sarcastic. Problem is, if people want to vote for a liberal, they’ll take the real thing over a RINO liberal.
Yes, now is not the time to go squishy. Winning is nothing if you stand for nothing. Give the populace a real choice, if they fail, watch for the inevitable collapse and wait. They’ll come running. The tyranny will become unbearable.
Amen.
Um no. They aren't. They keep losing.
I think that years of leftist ‘Rat governance has driven away too many Republican voters. It’s no coincidence that the state’s structural budget problems began when that happened.
Palin endorsed Carly because she was the best of those with any chance of winning. I think most of us here at FR agreed. Better than Moonbeam, and better than the other Republican choices.
That doesn’t make Palin a RINO.
And that’s a tragedy, because CA is.a beautiful state.
Isn't that the point of the article? That major donors don't want to throw money at an exercise but actually want to win? Sometimes half a loaf is better than nothing.
“Half a loaf” is actually a “half baked” idea!!!
Politically speaking it’s undergoing Massification.
It really needs to be broken up into 2 or more states.
California should be split into 5 states, not 2 (the “state names” provided are descriptive, but hardly optimal):
1. State of Los Angeles, with all of L.A. County:
10.0 million pop in 2010, 45%-50% Hispanic, 10% black, 12%-15% Asian
16 electoral votes, 29.17% McCain 2008, 35.60% Bush 2004, 32.35% Bush 2000
2. State of San Francisco Bay, with all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Humboldt, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma and Yolo Counties:
8.1 million pop in 2010, 21%-25% Hispanic, 7% black, 17%-20% Asian
13 electoral votes, 24.82% McCain in 2008, 29.95% Bush in 2004, 30.64% Bush in 2000
3. State of Inland Empire, with all of Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties:
6.7 million pop in 2010, 36%-40% Hispanic, 6% black, 4%-5% Asian
11 electoral votes, 46.79% McCain in 2008, 55.54% Bush in 2004, 50.70% Bush in 2000
4. State of Central Valley, with all of Alpine, Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, Del Norte, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Inyo, Kings, Lake, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Benito, San Joaquin, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne and Yuba Counties:
6.5 million pop in 2010, 27%-32% Hispanic, 5% black, 7%-8% Asian
11 electoral votes, 48.27% McCain in 2008, 56.92% Bush in 2004, 53.17% Bush in 2000
5. State of San Diego, with all of Imperial, Orange and San Diego Counties:
6.3 million pop in 2010, 30%-35% Hispanic, 4% black, 11%-13% Asian
11 electoral votes, 47.07% McCain in 2008, 55.86% Bush in 2004, 52.57% Bush in 2000
Essentially, comfortably Democrat California would be converted into two ridiculously Democrat states (based in L.A. and San Francisco Bay) and three GOP-leaning states, and under normal circumstances the 5 states would give the GOP a 6-4 edge in U.S. Senate seats (the Dems have had a 2-0 edge since 1992) and a 33-29 edge in electoral votes (the Dems got all 55 EVs from CA in 2008 and 2004 and all 54 EVs from CA in 2000, 1996 and 1992).
We should also split Texas up into four GOP states of around 11 electoral votes each, which would give us 6 new GOP Senators (and increase GOP electoral votes by 6 as well).
Personally, I'm a tad shaky about breaking up states. But, if it was to be done, there are many states where it could be done, 3 examples off the top of my head: Nevada sans Las Vegas, Colorado sans Denver & Boulder and Pennsylvania sans Philly and maybe Pittsburgh.
Do we really want more states though?
IMHO, splitting into 2 countries is more desirable option. One a Constitutionally-based, freedom loving one, the other a NWO-based, touchy-feely one. We put our eggs in one basket, they put theirs in their basket. Lets see thrives and which one collapses, ala the USSR.
I’m sure two nations would eventually bring a new civil war.It would be interesting as to migration. I would go for the historical Constitution one.
I’m sure two nations would eventually bring a new civil war.It would be interesting as to migration. I would go for the historical Constitution one.
I’m thinking of a relatively peaceful split before CW2, which I think we’re headed for. I can’t see how CW2 doesn’t happen, there is much hatred in the air, no doubt about it.
I also vote for the historical Constitution nation.
You make an interesting proposal, but we need major seaports.
Alaska, Texas and the rest of the Gulf Coast, up to MD-ish would be with us.
Perhaps if enough of the remaining sane Californians move to either WA or OR, that becomes our West Coast port. Barring that, yes, the West Coast is a problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.