California secessionists think their path to independence is easier than Catalonia?s
 

Californians think their secession from US would be easier than Catalonia's from Spain | The Sacramento Bee

Would democrats ever win anything in US without the votes of Libbyfornia? :winkwink:

If you asked me about this four years ago I would have laughed at you. Now.... I might just support this.

You'd finally be in the minority in terms of race, faster than you would be if you stayed in US.
So that is a plus for you :thumbsup

Yeah, give Cali to the Republicans and Obama still wins in both 2008 and 2012.

not cool!

In 2008 you could have also given 100% of California's reps in the House to the Republicans and the Democrats would have still had the majority.

So the answer to your question is, yes, they can win stuff without Cali.

not cool! x2

Obama was a special case. White people know better now.

Take away Cali and give it to the Republicans and Bill Clinton still wins both his elections easily. Obama wasn't a special case.

Funny how Clinton managed to win by being the biggest loser in terms of popular vote... And he would still win even without California, that is one special case imho.
WITH California he lost 40/60 )or 38/62) in terms of popular vote or so, so without Cali it would be worse and to still win, pretty special circumstances :)

Bill Clinton was a little to the left of center.

The Dems can't win with a far left candidate without California.

I thought the popular vote didn't matter.

Isn't that was Republicans have been saying since the election?

BTW Clinton won the popular vote in both his elections.

You have plenty of excuses for being wrong.

Firstly: I am not saying it does, I am saying it is pretty special to win with only 38% of popular vote (and even more special if even removing Cali you still win). So it is not about mattering, it is about it being pretty a unique case. You may not see another one like that in your lifetime :)

Secondly: you raise a great point of once again exposing libby double standard - they did not cry that Clinton won "unfair" with 38% like they do with Trump with 48%.

What?

In 1992 Bill Clinton won with 44 million (43%) votes to George Sr's 40 million (37%) and in 1996 he won with 47 million (49%) against Dole's 39 million (41%).

But don't let facts get in your way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_1992
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_1996

.

My mistake, not 38, 43.

We aren't going anywhere; only dumb shits think it is a good idea or that it can happen.

Where are you getting these numbers?

In 1992:

Clinton - 43.01% of the vote
Bush - 37.45% of the vote
Perot - 18.91% of the vote

In 1996:
Clinton - 49.2% of the vote
Dole - 40.7% of the vote
Perot - 8.4%

There was no crying about Clinton not winning the majority of the popular vote because he did.

It's not a unique case. Since 1960 there have been 5 Democrats and 6 Republicans (counting Trump) elected President. JFK lost California and still won easily. Clinton, Obama, and Johnson all won with big enough margins they could have given the Republicans Cali and still won. 4 out of 5 is not a special case.

Some people: good idea, but can not happen.
Some people: bad idea and can not happen.
Some people: good idea and can happen.
Some people: bad idea, but can happen.

Yeah, I admitted my mistake here.

100% true.

Every time I hear of states calling for secession it makes me laugh. Nobody is going anywhere.

We were typing at the same time so I didn't see it :)

It doesn't matter. He lost neither the popular vote or the electoral count.

.

Btw, Trump got 46% of the popular vote versus Hillary's 48% of the popular vote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...election,_2016

Hillary Clinton 65,853,516 votes
Donald Trump 62,984,825 votes

.

A wise person said boundaries change after every 70 years. I think it's time.

Very well could be. Go look at the electoral college map for the 1960 election. It is almost a reverse of today. JFK, the Democrat, won Texas and many southern states along with NY and the Northeast while Nixon won California, Oregon and the West. Pretty wild how things turn.

The civil war was fought over sucession. I wonder if it?d happen again

Why would California want to split from the US?

Nixon was a Senator from California and his home and the where he grew up was Wittier, CA. He was a favorite son candidate that carried his home state.

Trump was born and raised in New York City and lost the state of New York to the transplanted former Senator Hillary Clinton -- that speaks for itself.

California is the 6th largest economy in the world (supposedly) if it were a separate nation Paul. California give more than it gets as a state in the union

You like charts;

https://s1.postimg.org/7091xxaiof/LAO_donor_state.jpg

Random ideas without investigating anything:

They think they will be better off since they give more than they take.
They think they will be better off if they could govern themselves like they like instead of listening from DC.

US States are not like nation states in the EU with dominant ethnicity that is (or was) homogeneous. That is to say: that Americans in New York State do not consider the people in Alabama to be *racially* or *ethnically* inferior. American populaces are sorted by wealth mainly with racism added. A black or brown person might encounter the same discrimination in any state.

It is about the money :2 cents:

Nobody is comparing states to EU nations :helpme:error:1orglaugh That would be beyond ridiculous (although I seen people make this comparison on gfy).

The article compares it to Catalan being part of Spain.

Ps: nice how you managed to insert racism here as well :1orglaugh