I voted!

Puerto Rico for 51st state

bobrob2004 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

Or divide a couple states up. Have a West Texas. Why should West Virginia be the only "West" state?

Or cut up Virginia so that there is an East Virginia and West Virginia (along with regular Virginia). Or simply rename Virginia East Virginia.

New Mexico probably should be divided as well into New Mexico and Old Mexico.

The UP part of Michigan should also be its own state...

Hawaii should be several states as well - one state per island.

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

Or divide a couple states up. Have a West Texas. Why should West Virginia be the only "West" state?

Or cut up Virginia so that there is an East Virginia and West Virginia (along with regular Virginia). Or simply rename Virginia East Virginia.

New Mexico probably should be divided as well into New Mexico and Old Mexico.

The UP part of Michigan should also be its own state...

Hawaii should be several states as well - one state per island.

I thought Mexico was Old Mexico?

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

bobrob2004 wrote:

Or divide a couple states up. Have a West Texas. Why should West Virginia be the only "West" state?

Or cut up Virginia so that there is an East Virginia and West Virginia (along with regular Virginia). Or simply rename Virginia East Virginia.

New Mexico probably should be divided as well into New Mexico and Old Mexico.

The UP part of Michigan should also be its own state...

Hawaii should be several states as well - one state per island.

I thought Mexico was Old Mexico?

Oh yeah. Write your congress(wo)m(a/e)n and tell him/her you want Mexico to be renamed Old Mexico.

Won't be any confusion that way

Puerto Rico QUARTER SHOULD HAVE A PICTURE OF RUM ON IT!

California should be divided to North and South since they are so differing politically!

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Puerto Rico QUARTER SHOULD HAVE A PICTURE OF RUM ON IT!

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

California should be divided to North and South since they are so differing politically!

Not really. Well what do you mean by north/south? If you include SF in the North you'll end up with a heavily-Democratic mini-state as San Francisco and the surrounding counties are some of the most liberal areas in the United States. Once you get north of San Jose (also liberal) there are no towns worth mentioning outside of SF/Oakland.

As for the South....Los Angeles, while more "conservative" than San Francisco is still very liberal.

Also of note:
Last election....
SF County was 80.4% Feinstein (1st in state)
LA was 67.1% Feinstein (9th in state...out of 58 counties)
San Diego County was 53.0% Feinstein (still won by almost 10%)
Sacramento County was 56.6% Feinstein

Of the Republican counties, only one county (Orange County) managed 100,000+ votes for the Republican (compared to 12 for the Democrats) and only 3 Republican counties had 50,000 Republican votes. Heck, of the 23 Republican counties 15 had fewer than 10,000 Republican votes (some had as few as 641).

To prove my point, here's the election map from the 2006 election. As it clearly shows, Dianne Feinstein easily carried both the Northern and Southern parts of the state. In order to have 2 states with different political views you need an East and West California which would be sort of odd as the state is already so tall and narrow to begin with. Plus hardly anyone lives in most of the counties that don't touch the coast.

It took Catbox 11 minutes to shoot that down

Catbox knows his California Politics

gs78 wrote:

Catbox knows his California Politics

Thanks! Despite what maps may indicate (that map I posted has more red than it has blue) you have to remember that despite the enormity of the state, most people don't live away from the coast - it's all desert and farmland there. There are a few major cities inland, but the 5 most populous cities are within a few miles of the coast as are 8 of the top 10. In fact, if you add up the combined population of the 10 most populous cities that aren't in coastal counties, you still have 500,000 fewer people than does the city of Los Angeles.

catbox_9 wrote:

gs78 wrote:

Catbox knows his California Politics

Thanks! Despite what maps may indicate (that map I posted has more red than it has blue) you have to remember that despite the enormity of the state, most people don't live away from the coast - it's all desert and farmland there. There are a few major cities inland, but the 5 most populous cities are within a few miles of the coast as are 8 of the top 10. In fact, if you add up the combined population of the 10 most populous cities that aren't in coastal counties, you still have 500,000 fewer people than does the city of Los Angeles.