Let's be real, it's city vs. country no matter where you are.
It really isn't, Maine is rural af. We're called the South of the North for a reason. However we are weirdly progressive for how rural we are
It's definitely not a clear cut rule, but generally places with higher population density vote more blue
Data from 2020 here: https://engaging-data.com/election-population-density/
I'm interested in how this is changing, my understanding is that many rural areas were more liberal historically.
Not even.
Maricopa County is effectively one giant suburb and the numbers were about 50-50 for each candidate.
In the more fortunate situation, yes
Oh man, I would love to see this happen. Republicans in Texas would be frothing at the mouth to see California gone, right up until they had to start paying for all the other republican states that can’t manage to support themselves.
Red states are the real welfare queens
I briefly saw this meme on my dad's phone while he was browsing facebook. He's a right wing Trump voter.
So take from that what you will.
Yep, this is originally a righty post. That's why I'm so confused that it's actually kind of based. The rough consensus here is that it's based, so we have bi-partisan support. Let's get this on the Congress floor!
Not even remotely based. States are not internally homogenous. "Let's take all the Democrats and job with Canada" is a shitlib take.
I'm hearing a "cringe" here, though I've heard quite a few "based"s (no consesus as is tradition for leftist discourse) ... I think "based" is winning?
I guess Colorado and New Mexico get hung out to dry.
As a Canadian who sees the far-right politics of the USA leaking across the border, I actually think this would be a good idea. The US can have Alberta though, I think they would be happier there.
As an Albertan, please no
Problem solved:
Absolutely not. Saw Florida off and let it sink.
The swing states are gonna be kicking themselves that they missed this chance after they come back to their senses.
Is that for or against? Do we want extra states or an "I told you so" more? Genuinely difficult question.
Wait for me i wanna come too. I just gotta move out of my red state first, ca sounds nice, real nice
Add Southeast Pennsylvania.
More like debased.
Either a pun or a "cringe" here
Noooo I live in NH take me with you
This produces good feelings.
Feels like it'd solve a lot of problems.
JFC, find a way to take new Mexico and maybe Colorado as well.
Jesusland makes me chuckle
More like orangejesus land
Wisconsin can fuck off and die. But this will give Canadia control of most of the great lakes.
I prefer this one because my state's in it
Same
New ones will be provided.
Canada's population is 40 million. This would add 80ish (edit:) million more people to that. So, it's not Canada annexing the blue states, it's the blues states seceding and then annexing Canada to achieve territorial contiguity.
No annexing. The blue states join with Canada to establish a union of states. We could call it "United States" or something, or idk, I'm not good with names.
United Provinces, we don't need to baggage associated with United States
Since the remaining states are run by a convict, they could be the Con-federated States or something like that.
I think there were more than 80 people in Oregon alone
The math checks out.
Lol, fixed it
Can we swap Albertans with Coloradans though?
As a Coloradan, I'm sold
Gotta warn you though, seems the only nice piece of nature you'll get is on the border with BC and they did a real number on the environment in the north.
But you guys can probably actually fix it rather than celebrate CO2 like what these close are doing now with provincial legislature.
Better divide Oregon and Washington states in half. The east side of each state all voted red. Not sure how California voted.
We need the valley, just kick out all the chuds first.
Seems pretty reasonable. I'd like that.
