#rsrh So, the South California secession movement.

Not going to happen – the California state government’s not going to want to give up the tax revenue from the inland regions; and the current federal government probably wouldn’t be happy at the thought of one (or even two) new Republican Senators, to say nothing of the Republican Congressmen who would probably now survive redistricting.  And the minor little detail that losing a portion of California’s electoral votes would gut the Democratic party like a fisherman gutting a trout.  Still, the state is too large.  Which is something that I’d say about Texas, too: given my druthers, I’d break up some of the larger states until we got to sixty or so*.  Which is undoubtedly yet another reason why it’s probably a good thing that I’m never given my druthers.

No, I don’t even know what ‘druthers’ are, and I’m faintly afraid to check.  The word’s sufficiently archaic that it probably means something fairly distasteful.

Moe Lane

*At least one of which would be Puerto Rico.  Or they could go independent.  Either’s fine.


  • Michael N. says:

    “Druthers” is just a corruption of “I’d rather” in a pretty countryfied voice. It’s not like it refers to the lower part of a pig’s digestive tract, or anything like that. 🙂

  • jeff says:

    ‘druthers is a word invented by Al Capp, so your cool…

  • Finrod says:

    I read a nice proposal to split California into three states (North California, South California, Coastal California), but unfortunately I can’t remember where at the moment.

    Coastal California would be as liberal as California is currently, the other two would become purple states, basically.

  • Ric Locke says:

    Hmph. When I first saw the heads on this story, my immediate thought was “don’t let the door bruise your ass on the way out.”

    Turns out that’s not what it’s about. But it’s a nice thought.


  • It could happen. The counties of what would be South California may bring revenue, but they also are an incredible drain on the current state’s resources. I think the DNC would go for it. Think about it. All things being equal, Northern California would remain a Blue state, and if the tight Presidential elections return, we can expect South California to be the battleground state. The net effect would not only cause the Inland Empire to be the focus of the campaign trail and dollars, but it would set in motion a chain reaction of events whereby Dems would have more of a footing in previously “beet red” counties. Sure, most would stay red for a length of time, but overall diversity would increase. Its a win-win.

  • We’d be better off merging the smaller states together. The more states there are the easier it is for the central government to play divide and conquer with them. 10-20 states could form strong coalitions to force back Washington’s power.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com