U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-19-2017, 07:10 AM
 
Location: Chicago
5,853 posts, read 6,521,925 times
Reputation: 5331

Advertisements

This one is merely a flight of fantasy, nothing more. Merely a game of "let's pretend". No right or wrong answers here.....just go wherever your imagination and gut take you.

So let's start pretending:

A decision was made by the American people that with all the acrimony and divide and the fact that we're at each others' throats we were no longer able to function as one nation and decided to split into two. No, it wouldn't be North and South as it was during the Civil War era. This time the split would come based on "tribes".

So in most simplistic terms, those two "tribes" would be Liberals/Left and Conservatives/Right (based on however you conceptualize those two groups). The Liberals/Left would obviously be the new "Bluemerica" and just obviously the Conservatives/Right would be "Redmerica". (sorry...no fudging....there can't and won't be a Purplmerica)

As part of the separation plan, it was instituted that neither nation would have to be made of any contiguous regions (just like in today's US, the lower 48, Alaska, and Hawaii are not attached).

Your job, if you so choose to take it, would be to the hard work of actually dividing the nation in two. What areas would you put in Bluemerica and which in Redmerica. Obviously any state can be divided or kept as one if you so choose. And since you are making a formal proposal here to the Unconstituting the Nation Convention, feel free to give reasons for your choices.

Get as creative as you like. For example, since your new nations with require different states than what are presently constructed, what would be the new states in each nation....their area and what you name them.

And if you actually want to map it and post that here, more's the better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-19-2017, 09:55 AM
 
4,897 posts, read 1,827,261 times
Reputation: 4640
It would make sense to make the two separate nations contiguous. In that effort, I would make Blumerica start in Virginia going up to Maine and west through the great lake states along the Canadian border (incl Dakotas/Montana/Idaho) to the Rocky Mountain (excl Wyoming) and Pacific Coast states (including Hawaii). Redmerica would be the south and south-central plain states (roughly from FL to NC to Nebraska/Wyoming to Texas).

Blumerica
Maine
NH
VT
MA
RI
CT
NY
NJ
PA
DE
MD
VA (open to e/w spilt)
OH
MI
IN (open to a n/s spilt)
IL
WI
MN
ND (only for contiguous sake)
SD (could go either way)
MT (only for contiguous sake)
ID (only for contiguous sake)
WA
OR
CA
NV
AZ
UT (only for contiguous sake)
NM
CO
HI

Redmerica
FL
GA
SC
NC
WV
TN
KY
AL
MS
LA
AR
MO
IA
NE
KS
WY
OK
TX

Canada
Alaska

Last edited by MMS02760; 11-19-2017 at 10:07 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 09:55 AM
 
Location: Erie, PA
334 posts, read 303,057 times
Reputation: 394
Bluemerica: CA, NV, NM, CO, OR, WA, ME, NH, MA, VT, CT, RI, NY, PA, OH, MI, WI, IL, WI, MN, DE, NJ, MD, VA, HI and DC.

Redmerica: ID, UT, AZ, MT, ND, SD, KS, OK, TX, NE, WY, IA, MO, AR, LA, MS, AL, TN, KY, GA, IN, WV, NC, SC, FL and AK.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 10:01 AM
 
7,694 posts, read 4,551,558 times
Reputation: 8371
There are very few blue states; there are only states who’s big metros carry a large enough percentage of the population to turn the state blue. Even the bluest of states: California, Massachusetts, etc. will sometimes elect a Republican governor, whereas it’s impossible for a Democrat to win statewide office in a red state. The places that make the money or blue, and the places that spend it are red.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Research Triangle Area, NC
3,740 posts, read 2,556,056 times
Reputation: 5379
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
There are very few blue states; there are only states who’s big metros carry a large enough percentage of the population to turn the state blue. Even the bluest of states: California, Massachusetts, etc. will sometimes elect a Republican governor, whereas it’s impossible for a Democrat to win statewide office in a red state. The places that make the money or blue, and the places that spend it are red.
This whole thread is gross over-exaggeration and over-simplification at the same time. It's truly head-spinning.

My home state just elected a Democratic governor (not the first; in fact the Republican he replaced was the first Republican in 30 years and he only lasted one term) while having a majority GOP state house and senate (for now) and going "red" in three of the last four presidential elections.

Divisive rhetoric is prevalent among the loudest and most insecure today....but it's not as "commonplace" in the real world as the echo-chambers of internet forums and cable news would have you believe. "Reds" and "Blues" live and function for the most part harmoniously in the same states, towns.....even homes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 11:15 AM
 
Location: Carrboro, NC
1,461 posts, read 1,444,446 times
Reputation: 1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
There are very few blue states; there are only states whos big metros carry a large enough percentage of the population to turn the state blue. Even the bluest of states: California, Massachusetts, etc. will sometimes elect a Republican governor, whereas its impossible for a Democrat to win statewide office in a red state. The places that make the money or blue, and the places that spend it are red.
Vermont is the bluest state, and it's entirely rural. So that throws a bit of a wrench into the urban/rural dichotomy.

And a five minute google search refutes the thing about red states 'never' electing democrats:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ates_governors

Montana and Louisiana have democratic governors currently. NC does as well though I won't count it since it's a swing state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curren..._States_Senate

And here's a list of senators, which is also a statewide race. Once again several red states have a democratic senator, as well as several blue states having republican senators.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Tampa - St. Louis
1,090 posts, read 1,625,651 times
Reputation: 1508
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
There are very few blue states; there are only states who’s big metros carry a large enough percentage of the population to turn the state blue. Even the bluest of states: California, Massachusetts, etc. will sometimes elect a Republican governor, whereas it’s impossible for a Democrat to win statewide office in a red state. The places that make the money or blue, and the places that spend it are red.
Missouri just had a democratic governor for 8 years and has a democratic senator. Red state/Blue state thing is really bs. Most states are purple. Also, you are discounting the red counties in blue states and blue counties in red states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Mars City
5,091 posts, read 2,136,536 times
Reputation: 7505
Everybody these days is stuck on the idea that we're all at extremes, black and white, hot and cold, and yes... blue and red.

The truth is, the country still consists of a majority of moderates. Now, that doesn't work well when you have three pegs (moderate, conservative, liberal) trying to fit in only two holes (yep, the blue and red).

Ideally, we would have three strong parties to address the three groups. Until that happens (if ever), there will continue to be lots of dysfunction and us vs. them mentality, with the largest group essentially left out and unrepresented.

That's part of why we're so f-ed up these days, because the extreme forces want to keep it an us vs. them battle. "Well if your not with us, they you're with those crazy people on the other side". No, a lot of us are not with either screwed up extreme.

Properly delineated, America would have a surprising amount of purple, with less bunches of blue and red in the more fringe areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 07:00 PM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,529 posts, read 3,679,293 times
Reputation: 4110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
Everybody these days is stuck on the idea that we're all at extremes, black and white, hot and cold, and yes... blue and red.

The truth is, the country still consists of a majority of moderates. Now, that doesn't work well when you have three pegs (moderate, conservative, liberal) trying to fit in only two holes (yep, the blue and red).

Ideally, we would have three strong parties to address the three groups. Until that happens (if ever), there will continue to be lots of dysfunction and us vs. them mentality, with the largest group essentially left out and unrepresented.

That's part of why we're so f-ed up these days, because the extreme forces want to keep it an us vs. them battle. "Well if your not with us, they you're with those crazy people on the other side". No, a lot of us are not with either screwed up extreme.

Properly delineated, America would have a surprising amount of purple, with less bunches of blue and red in the more fringe areas.
This is true. I also believe while a State can be a majority blue or red, there are very few States that don't have a significant population of opposition. In other words, even in States where the majority sets the Presidential and Senatorial results, there are plenty who oppose. Some States are so close in this metric, they shift from year to year. So I can't get too creative here, as any new redistricting of States would not solve the problem. Red vs. Blue is way too simplistic to define American politics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2017, 07:13 PM
 
Location: Greenville SC 'Waterfall City'
7,582 posts, read 3,992,169 times
Reputation: 2906
Quote:
Originally Posted by gladhands View Post
There are very few blue states; there are only states who’s big metros carry a large enough percentage of the population to turn the state blue. Even the bluest of states: California, Massachusetts, etc. will sometimes elect a Republican governor, whereas it’s impossible for a Democrat to win statewide office in a red state. The places that make the money or blue, and the places that spend it are red.
Don't most poor people vote Democrat? I don't think most of the welfare money going to red states is going to Republican voters. Republicans generally win or do well in wealthy voting districts in the south.

A lot of the blue high tax states deduct their state taxes on their federal returns so they are voting for leaders at national level that increase taxes but using their high state income taxes to opt out of paying as much federal income tax.

I also want to point out the more populated blue states have more poor people in number than less populated and less rich red states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top