If ya took out the major population centers in most states wouldn't the same likely occur?
I'm not sure what your point ever was. I said it was likely the state would be divided at some point. And the chances of that happening would be much greater than what you suggested when ya said "If ya take out SF and LA it would be a republican majority".
Did you not dispute this? And since LA and SF are going no where, what in hell is your point?
You know very well what my point was. I’ve stated it very clearly in my post 254.
But I will review for you, and the people in Rio Linda. In my post 14, I wrote “If you wished to know the truth, there are more people living in California with conservative attitudes than live in your state. Unfortunately there are even more liberals. Most who came here from other places.”
Then I’m my post 53, I wrote “If you took out the cities of Los Angeles and San Fransisco the state would vote majority republican. There are a large number of native born Californians such as myself who vote that way. The huge influx of people from Asia and Latin America, plus younger people indoctrinated by a thoroughly leftist education system account for the change.“
Now, while most people would clearly understand the meaning, as shown by others using the same type of phraseology in this very thread, I suppose it could have been clearer. Perhaps I could had written “If you took out the votes from the cities of Los Angeles and San Fransisco, the state would elect republicans. There are a large number of native born Californians such as myself who vote Republican. The huge influx of people from Asia and Latin America, plus younger people indoctrinated by a thoroughly leftist education system account for the change.”
So, again, my point was that while the aggregate of voting patterns in California has been clearly democratic for a while now, there are still a very large number of us, I assume you included, who do not agree with leftist ideology.
Is that clear enough?