[x]

In 1860 Lincoln got scarcely any votes from the South, certainly none from the Deep South (Breckenridge and Bell, the southern candidates, didn't get many votes from some of the Republican states). While there were southern unionists, there were pitifully few full-fledged Republicans in 1860. That made secession a real possibility.

In the last election, no candidate got as much as 70% of the vote in any state (aside from DC, Hawaii and Utah). Apart from Alabama, Arkansas, and (very narrowly) Tennessee, every southern state gave Obama at least 40% of the vote.

This suggests that secession isn't a real possibility, or if it is it would be a very messy and bloody thing even before the federal government got involved. Talk about throwing out or forcing out people who don't share the new country's prevailing ideology often comes up at some point in the discussion, and that could be very messy and bloody indeed.

Moreover there's no guarantee that the current political situation would prevail. Deprived of Washington DC as an easy target or focus, enough of the majority vote (Republican) would move towards the other party (Democrat) to tip the balance in their favor.

[MrB]

No need to throw anyone out.
You get rid of the nanny libs by not allowing them to use the government to impose on their neighbor,

and get rid of the parasite libs by taking away their gibsmedats.

They’ll self-sort out of there.