[fr_freak]

The Southern California part is the only part that even has a shot at being red, but I doubt it would be. The problem is that even in the “red” areas, it’s not pure red - it’s more like 55%-45% or less red, which means that any included high population center could offset the “redness” of the area easily. The Southern California part of the map includes LA satellites like Anaheim. That whole area can be assumed to be almost pure blue, and San Diego is getting bluer by the day.

[bagster]

You're right about Anaheim and Riverside area. I didn't notice that. That's pretty dense still. I saw Palmdale and I thought they cut it off in the desert. They need tro scootch the line down and suck up that area. And if they moved the northern border up and took in San Jose/Hayward area, that might even things out.

But it sounds like they are ready to send it to referendum as is, so too late for that.

Alright, you've convinced me. There is no redeeming aspect of this plan and I'm against it, as much as I want out of the liberal wasteland that is California.

[Verginius Rufus]

Yes, I think this would give the Democrats 6 senators instead of 2. There might be a slight chance of a Republican winning in "Southern California" (which extends further north than "California") but immigration will soon kill that.

The northern part should be the long-proposed State of Jefferson. (If Jefferson's name is now too controversial, call it Sierra.)

I would then have the area including the Bay Area, Sacramento, and maybe Santa Cruz as Northern California. Make a state of the counties from Santa Barbara to Orange County (add the parts of Riverside Co. and San Bernardino Co. which are spillovers of the LA megalopolis) and call it Los Angeles. So people can say "LA,LA," like now we have "New York, New York." Then the rest of Southern California would be the remaining state so four in all.

Conservatives would have a chance of electing senators in Jefferson/Sierra and perhaps in Southern California.