California Split Eligible for Vote November

Democrats stopped caring about the poor and class stuff and moved on to progressive identity politics and pandering to minorities and illegal immigrants for votes. The Dixiecrats are long gone.

Not going to happen, and three states is stupid (and would add 4 blue senators not that this would change anything because both parties are the same and controlled by jews and caring about elections is fucking retarded). Creating Jefferson would be a good thing and the right way to do it, but it's not going to happen.

Attached: jeff.png (895x575, 209.97K)

the proposed "Jefferson" California is cucked whites, but "conservative" if you can believe it.

My thoughts exactly. At very least it will weaken the grip that LA has on some shit father north. Literally 90% of CA outside of the richie-rich financially segregated zones is dependent on state and/or federal money just to survive (food, housing, healthcare, literally fucking everything free ride) because everything is so ridiculously fucking expensive. By splitting this shit up it will at least rock the boat in the sense of splitting resources and thus putting more strain on an already out of control gibs machine.

Californians love to brag about how the state is such a huge economy by itself, but the retards forget to mention that it runs at a massive fucking deficit every year due to wildly irresponsible overspending despite having high as fuck taxes. This referendum is not figurative, but actual literal cracks forming in the state as it breaks under its own weight.

Attached: w2wl.jpg (474x266, 23.83K)

Rob California of some degenerate identity. And, perhaps edge the rest of the country to blowing the coast off into the sea like D.C.!

No negativity. Disect this log of poop into smaller pieces as the years ass.

look at it for yourself; majority of white men and of non-college whites in the whole California voted for (((Blumpf))), in Jefferson this would be even more true

Attached: it.png (151x326, 18.37K)

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1843x704, 519.82K)

North would become red but the other two blue. Problem is they gain an extra two senators.

kek

Nah, looks like they oriented it to basically make a blue state, a red state and a contested area favoring dems, but I'm not sure how the population variation all shakes out.

There's also the splitting of the electoral college. No more guaranteed all in for blue.

When I read the name, I was disappointed. What a trash name for a state.

When I heard California would between Sacramento, SF, and LA, wasn't the plan to put them in a containment state and leave the rest of the state alone? Not give each section its own cancer?

Northern California's population is mostly in the Bay Area and Sacramento, so that's staying blue even though it has most of the red counties. California's population is mostly LA, so that's also staying blue. Southern California has blue counties, but not as blue due to being more conservative. Without the 3 most liberal cities having as much influence they could be red again, but that's hard to say.

I want a split, but I'm not sure if this is a good way to split it.

How about six californias?

Attached: six_californias.png (1007x1290, 768.54K)

It was by the same guy who switched it to 3 for this vote.

Never happened.

it should be north, central, and coastal/southern. or just northern mexico which it literally is now. but yes that split is retarded as fuck

I am sure its not.

Wouldn't Jefferson be a extremely poor peckerwood extension of Oregon?

This literally gives the DNC 3 more free electoral votes.

Attached: california-hollywood.png (1007x1290, 333.43K)

why would it add more votes rather than just spreading the same number of votes over 3 states instead of one?

Each state gets at least 3 votes (1 representative + 2 senators). So, 3 votes plus whatever they get for the population of the state.

Only if we also split Alaska into north Alaska and south Alaska (Sewardia). Which would give the GOP an equal amount of senators, reps and electoral votes.

Wouldn't California's current spread of representatives be spread out over the three states this would create.

Not arguing the senator ruling.

It was trad at the time, he was a very red-blooded, freedom-oriented American. His property, his problem. Whites dominated the country then and being taken over by negroids and other non-whites was not considered as a possibility. It's not equivalent to doing the same thing nowadays.

the way they divided it, they would all be 100% blue; the way I divided it, Jefferson would be red

even worse

dumbest thing I've read all day. Out of all the possibilities:
you that

senate is the bluer chamber by far, house could continue to be red for a decade after US goes minority white

You're a jackass, I hope you're a nigger because White people shouldn't be that stupid. Alaska is the most consistently red state in the union.

I wouldn't agree to that split without removing San Fran, San Jose and Sacramento. Major cities are a cancer to red states.

That might be a last resort if everything really goes to shit. You could also slip into canada (yukon) at any time if needed.

how about a literal continental split?

Everyone see this:
They're trying to force the issue; create a northern california that the right believes will be a refuge, but prevent it from becoming that by putting San Francisco in it. By putting San Francisco in it, it overrides all of the red in northern california.

(((They))) turned the right's plan to weaken cuckifornia into a trojan horse.

Attached: 836cbe3de7effbe1bee6c060fc43e499ab612f1af802657ffc8077f7986cde62-pol.png (394x360, 139.44K)

Stop writing "literal" so much, it's giving me a fucking headache.

it's a ploy to gain moar democrat votes moron

dbl posting to add this,dead california leadership can't infiltrate US politics and kike shit up

...

Why would someone put a generic dance with a generic animu over a miku classic that already had a music video?

>(((They))) turned the right's plan to weaken cuckifornia into a trojan horse.
This

Attached: 5e4341fca1c860d1a0b44ac60d3620e7-imagejpeg.jpg (904x719, 56.21K)

だってかわいいじゃん～

Should be called northern, eastern, and western California, their name choices are painfully bad.

いいえ、それは駄作です

Attached: ebc3c247e39dcf4289e62a2335999b222ee1911ed0d1c198796f9d4098d9de29.png (1000x575, 492.02K)

I thought California was born out of greed during the gold rush not from race mixing

馬鹿野郎！てとちゃんはかわいいすぎよう～

THE FIRE RISES
CRASH THIS UNION WITH SURVIVORS

JEFFERSON IS BEST STATE
Fuck all you niggers.

Why three states? Why not just chop it into north and south?

Flat as a board both front and back, eyes like an owl, twig limbs, hair extensions.
No sir, your waifu is truly a shit. I suppose that is good for you though, exclusivity.

Who is to say SanFran wouldn't exodus southwards?

This is a plan to give the democrats three more electoral college votes. As there is no way they won't find a way to ensure the other two turn blue.

So any dream of isolating San Fran, LA and San Diego is out of the window immediately.

A corrupt system will find ways to sustain itself.

Attached: 573c7dc51cf44c3f0a68aeb26dc842cefd1bdce6ac7e86aacdf3c8a95d597753.png (500x566 149.37 KB, 149.57K)

I support this. If it's not the boughten kike "ballot initiative" version.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (525x618, 208.21K)

Amerispics always vote for large and corrupt governance, they'd be more likely to vote for combining with Texas and Arizona to form Tacozonea.

Start learning Mandarin

"WOULD ADD AN EXTRA DEMOCRAT STATE"

this is not an issue as long as you believe that california as a single state is always going to go dem

a extra dem state would mean at most 2 extra dem senators for the electoral college than they have now(I think thats how it works). But as long as that one other state goes red you are getting a net gain for the republicans

current california: all dem college
new three state: 2 dem , 1 republican but total dem votes would be less than before and republican votes in electoral college would go up

do the math man, I really dont think this is an issue.

But more to the reason why this is happening, putting aside your own political desires. These people want to split and they should be allowed to. Its a very good sign of a democratic process working.

I just wonder what liberals think? Do they want this? Dont they want to control republicans? Its a strange breakup as it seems most states got a little bit of dem and a little bit of republican.

As long as San Fran, San Diego and LA are lumped into one of those "splits" and not distributed evenly, it should work out.

Attached: 1528867335241.jpg (571x491, 82.06K)

Learn 2 crack, gobble up weak-dem counties. So we can have 4 more seats

Ya no, Northern California needs to send San Fransisco and San jose to California.

Vote to split it up, make sure the poz is all in one state, expel the state from the Union.

They may say a State can't succeed from the Union, but can the Union divorce a state from the Union by kicking it out? Lets find out.

Not even remotely legal and without funs they can't even attempt to take it by force.

...

It wouldn't give them shit as they would be leaving the fucking US of A. They don't get to have it both ways, either they are or aren't part of the US. If they are they abide by what the fed says regarding what the god damned state is. There is no breaking the fucker up by blocks and creating new votes.

Well then we can declare war on it for being a foreign power.

The other "states" aren't recognized as part of the union fucktard.

Califag here
For those that are not into California politics between counties, this is what OPs map would mean
Republican Red State "right-leaning" controlled by old money rich politicians from Orange County. Mostly white with a not insignificant population of Chinks
Mostly Niggers and Spics with Republican richfags. State itself would be mostly left-leaning moderates controlled by North LA
Full on Communist-tier leftist cancer controlled by San Francisco and Silicon Valley
Its not going to happen and OP is a retard

Attached: 4d128ce0128fd1890de2a0349c0c803bece2bdee3987329ef43cdf85ac1ceea5.jpg (460x432, 25.53K)

No takebacks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_3

Even if only one of these states is red, wouldn't that still be electoral votes knocked out of democrats' hands since they're distributed by population?

this is gerrymandering to get more democratic states. The only way this is beneficial is if it becomes two states, a red and blue

Do they actually think if they voted to split into 3 states that Trump would allow 2 of them to join the Union?

Breaking California up into 3 states would give Republicans an opportunity for more electoral votes for presidential elections. Southern California would be red or at worst purple.

t. socal fag

I thought that was handled on a state level.

This is false, but it's the way it's being shilled to target groups.

This guy gets it. Right now California gives Democrats 55 guaranteed electoral votes. That's a huge advantage in Presidential elections

Explain.

It won't produce a single Republican state – the boundaries were drawn up to specifically stop that.

Fuck this country all the way back to its roots. Every day I wake up and discover another way in which the government of this once white country could have prevented its ridiculous and forseeable decline and did nothing. The government has never even ostensibly deferred to democracy, despite shoving democracy's false pretenses down our throats.

California locusts are still pouring into my state in droves. Even after they get their plates changed I can spot them immediately when I'm on the road, and they're urbanizing my community rapidly. I have no home. And without a new system I never will again. Fuck the union, fuck the constitution, fuck Trump. Just get the war started before I'm too old to die fighting. I'm so tired of this.

Attached: jew flag.jpg (852x480, 29.05K)

exactly. the nay-sayers haven't looked at the numbers but the fact of the matter is that of the three proposed states, only the coastal one is going to be reliably democrat. the northern one will certainly lean gop and the southern one will be at worst a swing state, and possibly lean gop once it's free to deal with the beaner votes by taking state-level action against illegals, felons, etc. hitting the polls.
now, otoh, maybe the nay-sayers have looked at the numbers, and they're all just (((shills))). after all, part of the purpose of propaganda is to make you feel like you're all alone, like the other side is too powerful, like nothing you do can help, etc., and their "just gives the dems three states" argument is certainly effective along that line.

chiming in again, my 3dwaifu has been spending time on democrat forums and they are up in arms about the idea of california splitting … which means that they've looked at the numbers and come to the same conclusion that we have, that this is disastrous to the dems.

Disagree. Southern California would include red and purple counties that actually have sizable populations. At the very least it would put ~18 electoral votes in play

Attached: PoliticalGeogFigure-3_web.png (498x587, 93.94K)

I know you disagree. That's why I called you a shill.

A swing and a miss, Moshe.

If san Francisco is still part of the northern section this does nothing. fag city will not be voting anything but communist liberal.

This splits is kind of shit in that it still keeps the power in the shitty cities. The best split would be to include the coast section from the bay area to the southern border as a single state, while most of the inland and northern coast would be the other. If they want to keep with the 3 states to keep the number of states an even number, then you split the Bay Area/Silicon Valley off on its own. Either way, this would keep all the poz shit to their own states and turn a 3rd of California red. This is why it'll never happen. All this does as is is give Dems 2 more senators locked in and 2 swing state senators that will soon become solid blue as well.

Something I haven't seen brought up is that Southern California is essentially just an agricultural zone and houses a significant amount of the state's energy and water resources. Border control would most likely go up as well because that area is already saturated for field workers. Most o f the political power there rests with corporate farm and land owners whose best interests lie in keeping spics and drug trade out; the notable exception being San Diego. But over all Los Angeles would get split from it's life lines and rot.

...

Damn, that's hot.

Attached: upskirt.png (169x215, 21.93K)

If they moved Fag Francisco into "California" then I'd vote for it in a heart beat. Hell, my whole family and I would probably move up to Jefferson by the end of the year.

No, not anyone. Just you on this issue. It's clear as day it's going to just add four democratic senators and here you are putting on the full court press for it.

This is better really.
This has the highest chance of creating one red state and one blue state.
Anything else is just adding democrat senators.

How is it clear as day? You're making claims without providing anything to back them up. Persuade me and I'll vote against the ballot measure this November

Voter trends and recent results are widely available and public information. The evidence is right fucking in front of you. Filtered.

Nah. Hollywood would be rich as fuck and California would be poorfags

The US Congress would never allow it. So, it's dead in the water.

Pathetic. I know. I'm looking at the results and saying you're wrong, plus I actually live in the area. I gave you a chance to persuade me and everyone else here that disagrees with you, and you fuckin pussed out.