Submitted by tabthough t3_11ai346 in dataisbeautiful
Comments
[deleted] t1_j9vg11i wrote
[deleted]
ExecTankard t1_j9yp0h4 wrote
Would have been cleaner to use actual US Census regions found on their website.
motor-vader t1_j9ui8o8 wrote
And those columns disguised as rows.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9s7mn5 wrote
I don't think this is even remotely close to how it would go irrelevant of leanings.
Whoever secedes gets nothing. They become enemy number 1 to the US government. There's no "keep this or that because it was in my former state". It's "the US military strolled up in an M1A1 Super Abraham's and told you there taking their stuff back. Those states, or whatever they'd like to call themselves at that point, would be a pariah to America. And easy pickings for another nation to influence and trade with, to manipulate.
Maybe there would be trade deals but I wouldn't count on it.
And once Texas realizes they'll be financially carrying all those people, they'll just secede from those seditionists.
gizamo t1_j9u3r9s wrote
Also, if a red state seceded, many/most of its Democrat voters would flee east or west, and probably not make it all the way to the coasts. So, states like UT, CO, AZ, NM, and all of Rust Belt would go blue quickly.
Edit: just imagine the exodus from Austin. That alone would easily flip AZ, NM, and probably GA.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9u4g06 wrote
I hope you're right. It's not like the military power would allow no territorial bridges from one side of the coast to another.
tosser1579 t1_j9v4uwq wrote
GA already flipped.
Irishknife t1_j9vu28j wrote
considering they voted for a lot of republicans in 2020 and warnock barely won over an exnfl player, i wouldnt hold my breath on that
gizamo t1_j9v5rjs wrote
I think so, I too. But, it's possible that was only because Trump was such a terrible candidate in 2020. I'm excited to see if that holds up in 2024.
When states flip, I generally consider them purple for a few presidential elections.
rushmc1 t1_j9vrkpj wrote
Best case scenario. Let's make it happen!
Raleda t1_j9uhpd8 wrote
I could see a Red Dawn scenario playing out, only the secessionist states would invite Russia in.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9uiel5 wrote
Yea I'd thought if that too. But honestly I don't see how this goes in any other direction aside from sedition and then eventually being attacked by the seditionists :/
PompiPompi t1_j9ushl0 wrote
Like in Afghanistan? The might US military?
AdAcrobatic7236 t1_j9utuy9 wrote
🔥Upon secession, I somehow don’t quite envision those former states simply acquiescing to a forcible inventory retrieval. This is the point of no return and they will need to be exterminated right down to the last smoldering Chicken Waffle House …
rushmc1 t1_j9vrnxm wrote
You seem like the Germans, who have special toilets because they have such a hard time letting go of their shit...
The8thHammer t1_j9sbwce wrote
The Saudi's already own most of Texas' assets so it'll be mostly under their control. They'd break off completely as an arab owned state and the rest of the south would fend for themselves completely.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9sdglp wrote
Oh thats a good point. I wonder how much military hardware would be parked along that border then.
Eric1491625 t1_j9sdmnw wrote
Except how would you explain the breakup of the USSR? Why didn't the USSR slaughter their way to unity?
The USSR did not collapse like the Ottomans or Germany - due to fighting total war, exhausting their military and losing. They had their military intact.
The Soviet military was near peak strength, with 40,000 nuclear warheads containing some 500,000 Hiroshima bombs worth of explosive yield. Half a million Hiroshimas. And tens of thousands of tanks. Yet they did not use force. The Russian tanks didn't roll in.
It's funny that Americans consider Soviets and Russians to be brutal, rights-abusing, atrocity-committing evil guys - compared to "civilised" Americans - yet expect the US soldiers to murderously suppress seccessionists in a way even the "more brutal" Soviet soldiers did not.
Just food for thought.
ltlawdy t1_j9uvm8f wrote
They didn’t slaughter their way to unity because: 1). Change in leadership, 2). No money, 3). Shake up of natural/governmental order
Why would they use nuclear weapons, pissing off the wider world, while habit very little to no effective military capacity?
Those satellite states were offered referendums to leave. Should Russia have changed government, went back on their word and start taking over the land? Again, pissing off everyone?
Nothing you’ve said proves anything, it’s just silly talk points that have no basis in reality. The USSR collapsed. Russia didn’t have the capabilities to pursue any world doctrine.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9se8u0 wrote
Didn't Russia lose land and people from the perimeter of its nation leaving a fairly intact centralized nation? Our case isn't as simple as north and south anymore.
And I'm resigned with blood being spilt over this. MTG was right about one thing: this is an abusive relationship. And the abusers would be leaving. We're not gonna have peace when one side has built their entire tribal identity on war with the other side. So they can leave.
It's better than dealing with their domestic terror I'm and whittling away at specific peoples rights just because they don't like them.
It is brutal. But don't for one fucking second blame the left. This would be literally what they're clamoring for now.
RagingHeretic t1_j9s900t wrote
I support the idea of dissolving the U.S. But the GOP's inference to a smaller federal government and blue states still paying the bills for the red ones is a non-starter. We're not doing that. Dissolution of the U.S. is fine as long as us Californians are absolved from having to support parasite states like Texas and Ohio. They want independence, they can figure out how to fund themselves, but the best thing that can happen is a breakup of the country into smaller sovereigns free to govern themselves. No more federalism is something everyone should aim for.
Insight42 t1_j9sdc0k wrote
Same goes for NY.
You want to leave the US? We're keeping all the money. No more funding ungrateful assholes sounds great!
absolute_yote t1_j9v0p52 wrote
New York is number 1 payer for the us. They take the least federal funding relative to what they take. So wtf are you talking about???
Insight42 t1_j9v4scr wrote
As a New Yorker my wallet is painfully aware of that.
As I said, any state that wants to leave, go right ahead - we're not paying for them anymore.
Torker t1_j9v9gon wrote
This math never works as simply as most assume. If you paid taxes in NY for 30 years and retire to FL, then why would you lose Medicare and Social Security benefits? If so, those retired would not be paying mutual fund managers in NY. The whole system would collapse for both NY and FL.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9s9yvv wrote
My concern here is Russia and China manipulating those smaller states/unions and slowly taking over the former states of America one by one. But you're dam right about finding them. I'm also in a liberal net positive state and not interested in funding them.
DeepJob3439 t1_j9seckw wrote
I personally think each state should go it’s own way, but hold a defensive aid pact. Should any one of them get attacked, the other states must come to their aid. After that’s, states can form their own unions at their leisure. This will deter states trying to forcefully gobble other states or China and Russia interfering.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9skzxn wrote
I think this would work until a state started to get gobbled up and enough states don't want to render aid :/
RagingHeretic t1_j9sadab wrote
Russia and China can't even negotiate their own wars of expansion against neighbors. There's no chance they will manage to do it here. "New America" will become a Russian ally on the North American continent...but they have no industry, no education, no public services...just guns. Pacifica, New Canada, and New England all either join Canada proper or join NATO.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9scj5w wrote
I hadn't considered them joining NATO. Seems unlikely to me though :/
RagingHeretic t1_j9scv9f wrote
Joining Canada would instantly give us NATO membership. No approval Turkey and Hungary necessary.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9sdq8h wrote
I'm sorry I thought you meant the seditious states joining NATO. I would have thought america would retain membership since were the bulk of its resources to begin with, no?
But we keep the name America, not new america, or anything else. The seditionists can find a new name.
Jumpshot1370 t1_j9silwq wrote
The "parasite state" (as you describe) Texas produces a whole lot of oil, agriculture, and has multiple tech companies. It ranks 15th out of 50 in GDP per capita and has a high net migration rate.
RagingHeretic t1_j9siy8l wrote
Texas produces almost no crops. It's soil is mostly clay. Everything you buy in the produce section is either from CA or MX. And tech company HQs...for the tax giveaways. TX has no human capital. Tesla's moving its engineering HQ back to CA from TX already. Lol
Torker t1_j9v9toh wrote
If Texas has no human capital, why does it have a low unemployment rate and millions of workers? Someone is paying $2000 a month in rent in Austin and they probably have a job. They are probably not all republicans either, so this whole divorce would be mess for sure.
RagingHeretic t1_j9vi73b wrote
The divorce would be easier than you think. You put a deadline on citizens in every region to get their affairs in order and move or accept their new passport for the country that it will become. Say, 10 years. Everyone gets 10 years to decide whether they are staying or going before the walls go up. Would there be some chaos? Sure, a little. And it would take some time for the dust to settle internationally, but life will go on. No biggie.
guano_guapo t1_j9srbmn wrote
This is just an ignorant statement. Texas is the 9th largest economy in the world, and Ohio is 21st, just ahead of Argentina. You’re looking at the other red states that are parasites. But Republicans are busy running Ohio and Texas into the ground.
RagingHeretic t1_j9u99c1 wrote
I assure you Texas would not be able to support itself. It's culture doesn't allow it and it lacks the human capital and resources. It's got oil and gas. That's it. It's soil is unfarmable, it's mostly arid steppe. TX only has the 2nd biggest GDP in the U.S. because other states absorb a lot of the load TX would need to make up for as an independent country. Without Washington's support, TX is not the powerhouse you think it is.
ZombiePlaya t1_j9scy8x wrote
California couldn't even pay itself, and I looked up Texas, which has a massive surplus in state funds.
I don't live in either, but Texas does look cheaper.
RagingHeretic t1_j9sdxkp wrote
Texas has some of the highest taxes in the U.S., particularly if you are middle class. Nonstate is more expensive to live in than Florida. It's weird how people think no income taxes means cheaper.
ZombiePlaya t1_j9sfyec wrote
It has lower state tax, looks like property is cheaper besides the property tax and, price for gas is way cheaper.
Can't really see a no income tax hurting middle class.
RagingHeretic t1_j9sg8ok wrote
Their property taxes are insane...and they assess personal property taxes. You'll pay upwards of $13,000 a year on house where in CA your property taxes cannot exceed 1%. If you're RICH TX is super cheap for you.
ZombiePlaya t1_j9sihr0 wrote
Just looked it up and it appears to be a local county property tax the varies a lot it seems.
RagingHeretic t1_j9siugw wrote
Effective rate of 0.75%. You're incorrect. We tax the income high earners a lot, though, which is the correct way to do it.
[deleted] t1_j9sj62t wrote
[removed]
KindlyQuasar t1_j9tnij5 wrote
I'm a Texan homeowner. I have a modest 1600 sqft home built in the 80s. I pay about $6300/year in property taxes. My effective property tax rate is 2.47%, which is considered low.
Sources online will tell you that the state average is between 1.6-1.8%, but that is because the "agricultural exemption" is used by very wealthy landowners to reduce their tax burden.
Those over 65 can "lock" their tax rate (and qualify for additional exemptions), so even if the property value doubles they don't pay one extra cent in tax --- shifting that tax burden to the younger generation, of course.
Californians pay less in taxes than Texans -- unless you're in the top 1% of wage earners, then you pay a LOT less in Texas. Source: link
ZombiePlaya t1_j9ttqbo wrote
From what it looks like, California and Texas have similar tax rates. It's just that Texas splits it to make up for the no income tax, and California takes it at once.
Pay now or pay later I guess, both have really close class revenues I see as well.
All I can say is that I wouldn't live in either, especially when both I hear have energy problems.
Competitive-Bit5659 t1_j9se9p1 wrote
None of this will happen because we don’t have “red states” and “blue states”. We have states with mostly independent neighborhoods with slightly more Republicans and mostly independent neighborhoods with slightly more Democrats and a couple of neighborhoods that have a lot more of one than the other.
guano_guapo t1_j9sq1yi wrote
It’s almost like you could even break voting down to the individual level, but neighborhoods is close.
[deleted] t1_j9sh1d6 wrote
[removed]
nachodorito t1_j9s6to6 wrote
Except co, az and nm lean blue; and nc / ga purple but ya whatever you need to do to push your agenda
Numerous-Afternoon89 t1_j9s78f3 wrote
Yep, Colorado has gone blue for a long time now, last republican senator in CO win their election in 2012,
Whoever decided to draw these lines where they did, did it to make the conservatives look like they are represented more than they actually are
ZoeInBinary t1_j9s8i2m wrote
It's a gerrymandered map.
Ironically, that's the most American thing they could have possibly done.
Dandan0005 t1_j9sa8ys wrote
Colorado isn’t even lean anymore, it’s solid.
Boebert almost lost in what was supposed to be an R+7 district, lol.
Oh, and the gdp numbers are bullshit too.
California and Washington alone account for more than 4.3 trillion GDP.
New England gdp is a trillion dollars lower than it should be.
the whole discussion is dumb as bricks and this map is even dumber.
Stop giving her attention.
DoeCommaJohn t1_j9sbaaj wrote
Percent wise, Democrats won Colorado (14%) by more than Texas (5.5%) and Florida (3.3%) combined. Somebody either wanted to draw a map to make Republicans look popular or hasn’t paid attention to results (or more realistically watches a certain news source that hasn’t paid attention to) results in the past decade
Unplugged_Millennial t1_j9ur8pr wrote
Their source: Mike Pillow.
DoeCommaJohn t1_j9urzgq wrote
In all fairness Mike is pretty smart. He found the perfect audience to sell an overpriced product that doesn’t work
Unplugged_Millennial t1_j9ussn5 wrote
Financial success and shamelessness ≠ intelligence
Exhibit A: Donald Trump
Everyone knows he's an absolute moron, but he is successful by some metrics.
DoeCommaJohn t1_j9sazj9 wrote
Every “swing” state and 2 Republican states went to Biden, including Colorado by 14%, Minnesota by 7%, and Illinois by 17%. Looks like somebody wanted to make their party seem far more popular than it actually is.
bucks67 t1_j9tp3ej wrote
These aren’t exactly swing states anymore.
Frisky_Potato42nite t1_j9sewsh wrote
I can’t believe people are taking what a moronic clown (MTG) said seriously.
NotoriousPND t1_j9thg3e wrote
“OMG haha she is so full of shit” then go on to do a massive in-depth analysis of What If Divorce because clicks
Judgethunder t1_j9thfzm wrote
I kept looking at this chart expecting insights to like.. Divorce.
Not the entertainment of some looney House Members from the most racist part of Atlanta's Twitter rant.
MultiRachel t1_j9xq3ad wrote
I have no idea what I’m looking at
triarii42069 t1_j9s85l0 wrote
Stupid proposal and even stupider implementation. Why would the liberal states be divided up and the conservative states stay together? Why would Colorado and Georgia be red if they voted blue in the recent election? Why would you draw the political boundaries by state if you're not keeping the country that those states are tied to?
muffdivemcgruff t1_j9sa4ke wrote
Because, Russia.
kompootor t1_j9sbuwh wrote
I'm assuming this map is based on a classification model that was fit to the demographics listed for each state, and that you are presenting the solution it gave you without further modification. It would be nice if you would describe the specific classification model and parameters you used, because I worry that some people might assume you just made up a bunch of regions on your own inspection and gave them alt-hist-style names -- they'll be hoping this is still a data sub and not a sci-fi/fantasy/Kevin-Costner-film-trivia sub.
alpinewerks t1_j9sloaf wrote
Show your work!
[deleted] t1_j9vhvz8 wrote
[deleted]
Wizard01475 t1_j9s6k3d wrote
Ridiculous. I cannot believe a US Representative actually suggested such a stupid idea.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9s7136 wrote
I can. She's exactly who those people want representing them. We don't take her seriously at our own risk.
SaggyFrontButt2 t1_j9s99mf wrote
She’s our version of AOC. No sane person on the right is calling for this
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9sa6nj wrote
I'd hesitate to call her our AOC. AOC hasn't ever to my knowledge called for violence, or denigrated people because of who they are. If I'm wrong I'm happy to see a link.
But comparing them only provides legitimacy to theocratic fascist domestic terrorist right.
SaggyFrontButt2 t1_j9sb1qj wrote
Keep telling yourself that. I never saw more political violence in my life than in May 2020 when leftists took the streets and burned/looted everything in sight (I live in Chicago)-
WhenThatBotlinePing t1_j9sbr2t wrote
Did you even read that article? She was talking about Palestinians.
SaggyFrontButt2 t1_j9sbu2w wrote
Calling for any group to be violent/riot is no excuse. Let alone Palestinians
Relative_Extreme7901 t1_j9shn20 wrote
Most of human history disagrees with you.
ZenofZer0 t1_j9vecpc wrote
Ahahahahaha. You mention being in the chaos of Chicago riots and get downvoted by people tucked away watching hand-picked info on their carefully curated feeds and told that your ears and eyes are lying to you 😂😂😂.
SaggyFrontButt2 t1_j9vgd2w wrote
Leftists are special breed, truly awful
ZenofZer0 t1_j9vljj6 wrote
Honestly, the way you got attacked shines a light on things that I really didn’t believe were a thing. I guess it just seems weird that people would dismiss a “witness” and not supply a reason. It was like they just tried to shut you down with downvotes. Wheird..
arvada14 t1_j9t73x4 wrote
What leftist politician has supported or even said that was fine to the degree the GOP did on Jan 6.
SaggyFrontButt2 t1_j9tg1io wrote
Ah yes, Jan 6th doesn’t even come close to all the violent rioting and burning of our cities done by leftist whiners in the summer of 2020
arvada14 t1_j9vnerm wrote
So you can't name one? That's the difference between the Parties. Also, random looters burning cities get attributes to the left? How many of those idiots even vote.
On the otherhand you can bet every person on Jan 6 voted for trump.
ExpensiveSwordfish65 t1_j9sd602 wrote
You don't think there's a difference between those with nothing living in destitution pushing back on the machine that forced them there compared to calling for dissolution of the union? One of these groups is fairly marginalized, the other seems... to want to enshrine a theocratic form of government with even more guns to harm the people they don't like? Just comparing the rhetoric between AOC and MTG.
Like if you don't appreciate the violence of the article you linked, I guess I can get that (unite the right violence aside), but it seems a false equivalence to me.
arvada14 t1_j9vycpc wrote
This is an explanation of why they riots happened not a justification for them. Republicans have denied that Jan 6 was even a serious Event. Theyve Held up people like ashley babbit as heroes.
Dandan0005 t1_j9scf2j wrote
Fuck off.
One wants healthcare and a livable wage and one wants civil war and thinks Jewish space lasers are starting fires.
Miss me with the false equivalence.
SaggyFrontButt2 t1_j9sd3yk wrote
Great, an r/politics poster. No one is also saying she doesn’t want affordable healthcare or a living wage. Not that AOC does anything productive to further either issue.
ThePanoptic t1_j9slksh wrote
AOC is one of hundreds of representatives, she can not do it alone, but her voting record shows that she will vote for these issues every time.
All we can expect of our representatives is to vote in our favor and she does.
Saying “she hasn’t done anything” make you sound as dumb as a rock.
“Why hasn’t the one representing out of 435 fix our healthcare system” it’s because there are inbred republicans on the other side of the isle.
SaggyFrontButt2 t1_j9tj3ka wrote
MJT isnt representative of the right, was the point I was making
JibeBuoy t1_j9sig47 wrote
The chart bias, the only reason that rest of the population is divided into four segments “new countries” is to give the appearance that the large red area makes up a majority.
Jon_Huntsman t1_j9ud3w0 wrote
Also why is Colorado red? I understand Georgia because it's surrounded but that's just a huge oversight
tosser1579 t1_j9v5h0b wrote
I don't see NC going red either, quite frankly. They have a blue governor and two blue senators. A state wide vote is going to put them into the New England catergory. That gives Georgia a land border to the New England portion of the map.
That leaves a cut off south carolina... one of the most federally dependent states in the union. I doubt that the new confederacy is going to try to get them back without a land border.
If Georgia swings blue, I'd bet Jacksonville and Tallahassee would both break free from Florida to join up with the blue states.
Jon_Huntsman t1_j9v6e71 wrote
NC has two red senators unfortunately, but they are purple with a blue governor. They've been on the edge of going blue for the last 8 years, it's really frustrating.
tosser1579 t1_j9vf8na wrote
Blue governor probably translates to a popular governor win. If the states dont' lean one way or another, I think we'd see chunks of them break off rather than the whole state go one way or anohter.
Another big problem is that if you take the GDP of the areas that are voting blue, it represent 80% of NC's economy. NC is going to be very rough, and if it goes red and there is a mass exedos of even 5% of the cities population, they will all go into instant and massive recession, and frankly it would probably be more.
I'd be really curious to see what happens there, but I tend to think people vote with their pocketbooks as much as for politics, and NC would probably go blue if it meant they were going to get crushed economically almost instantly.
ConqueredCorn t1_j9tzkn3 wrote
Im not a fan of New Canada. Id rather be called the United Lakes of America. Or the northern water tribes.
tosser1579 t1_j9sd1cv wrote
Not likely. At all. The crux of the problem here is that the main issue politically is a urban vs rural divide, so breaking it up on state lines isn't going to work but even entertaining breaking it up state by state, this map doesn't work.
AZ and NM would probably lock in with Pacifica, you need ocean access as a nation and they are the better economy to hitch your star to so to speak. Co also swings blue, so they are also likely to go that way.
NC and Georgia join up with the east coast, GA votes blue with a few exceptions and so does NC. They aren't going to hitch themselves to the new america. SC is such a non-entity economically that they'd probably flip just to keep up the tax incentives that new england could afford.
If anyone goes alone it would be Texas, and they would.
Next you'd see all the big cities trying to break free of the 'new america', so places like Cleveland are going to do anything they can to get out of the red states, border cities would have a reasonable time of it. . Literally any city is going to want to get clear of New America.
Ohio's big 3 C's (Columbus, Cincinnati and Cleveland) are all overwhelmingly blue, and would likely have massive issues joining this new US of MTG. Realistically, Ohio shatters in this scenario with Cleveland joining up with the New England states, Toledo joining up with Michigan, and Columbus trying to break free but probably failing and there being an absolute mass migration out of there. Gary Indiana is going to try to stick to Chicago, they don't make sense otherwise. Pretty much the whole shoreline over there is full of people who work in Chicago/Gary and they are going to want to stick with Chicago.
Other issues include things like Rural NY is largely red, as is most of PA, just most of the population lives in cities that are blue.
Texas is going to stand alone if the nation divorces as New America will drain it dry, and if they are removed from New America that nations economic prospects dim considerably.
The short of it is dividing everything by state lines isn't going to work here. It would be more a west virginia situation where everyone starts bailing to join up with the side they want.
So what I actually would expect to happen is Ohio loses the Cleveland/Elyria corridor to the New England government because they don't like how the GOP is managing the state already, then the 'new england' government would probably bribe Toledo into shifting over, and you'd have a continuous land based nation containing all of New Canada and New England, plus Georgia and the Carolinas (again South Carolina would be bribed)
Pacifica includes 'New Mexico' and Colorado. Texas stands alone.
Jon_Huntsman t1_j9udnhe wrote
As someone from Northwest Indiana, please take us with you.
[deleted] t1_j9vkjyz wrote
[deleted]
tosser1579 t1_j9vx3nv wrote
To be blunt, I don't see any way Cleveland stays. They are already pretty upset at the OhioGOP, and this is just repressing them writ large. The other thing would be a massive depopulation of some of the cities, and if even 5 to 10 % of the population leaves, that city is going to be having a massive recession.
Teschyn t1_j9tau6o wrote
I’m sorry, can we stop calling it by the cutsie name: “National Divorce”. We’re talking about talking about secession—secession for the pure reason of accumulating more political power.
Edit: spelling
tbizzone t1_j9tm5gw wrote
I believe the word you’re looking for is “secession” not “succession.”
[deleted] t1_j9txzzm wrote
[removed]
Asmewithoutpolitics t1_j9u4mf4 wrote
And? Secession is a very democratic thing. You can’t force people to be together with irreconcilable differences
Teschyn t1_j9u7s7v wrote
The only way to ensure that you aren't around people you disagree with is to ban them from being around you. Restricting where people live and work based off their political beliefs is deeply undemocratic.
Also, irreconcilable differences? Don't be a fucking drama queen. You can disagree with a tax plan without seceding from the union, you fucking baby.
ZenofZer0 t1_j9vfd6y wrote
It goes deeper than taxes. That’s disengenuine and overly reductive to even try and play it off like that. There’s a rift in America right now. One that I don’t honestly see healing. Neither side is looking to concede. Both are the most self-righteous twats that I think the nation has seen since the crown ruled. I think it is a powder keg that is going to go one of two ways: The keg blows Some kind of cataclysm forces people to stop separating into “warring” factions and actually band together to accomplish something larger than furthering their personal political dogma.
SpagetAboutIt t1_j9si0ze wrote
There are no red and blue states. Only purple states.
Impossible_Horse1973 t1_j9sidpm wrote
Good riddance to New America
carbroboi t1_j9w1c9x wrote
Bro this is not beautiful data at all, it’s so hard to follow
RagingHeretic t1_j9s7g9w wrote
Good luck FL and TX lolololol Elon is dumping TX for Tesla's engineering HQ, too, and moving it back to CA. Not enough brain power.
isthisaporno t1_j9sjdrt wrote
Pacifica definitely gets Alaska
Pizzaismygirlfriend t1_j9ssdkl wrote
fuck that, why does az get absorbed into new mexico? it should be the other way around
Karlzbad t1_j9swqho wrote
Fuck that we're annexing a hundred mile wide easement through Jesusland and just remaining America. We have all the money and you're the ones who want to leave. Bye yall.
JTuck333 t1_j9tuxdu wrote
What about we have one nation with 50 states that can each have their own Bi-laws as long as they don’t violate the constitution? I know it’s a crazy idea but it might just work.
Let Florida be Florida and let California be California. Migration and voting will indicate what people want.
Asmewithoutpolitics t1_j9u40us wrote
Ok but then you have to be pro Tessa’s anti abortion laws…. Everyone says this but everyone wants to violate other states rights
vt2022cam t1_j9uu4s7 wrote
Arizona and New Mexico would likely join Pacifica.
art-by-daddychz t1_j9uziq7 wrote
Never heard the Midwest be called New Canada
[deleted] t1_j9scruh wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9shdtw wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9sqfh2 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9st03y wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9tcyyr wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9u27dj wrote
[removed]
Corporate-Scum t1_j9unlbo wrote
The Mid-Atlantic is its own thing. It’s where the Government is located, so new America will actually look more like Old Virginia before there were 13 colonies.
Expensive_Goat2201 t1_j9uoms8 wrote
Vermont already wants to join Canada. What is this based on?
bannedalready2022 t1_j9vhlyl wrote
And then New America will wage war and take it all back.
iforgotmypen t1_j9zei9d wrote
They already tried that and the confederacy only lasted four years.
[deleted] t1_ja00hem wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j9y6l5s wrote
[removed]
Specialist-Cup9038 t1_j9tix63 wrote
We don’t need divorce we don’t need revolution, revolution is for communists and u don’t know what the true goAl is. We have perfect legal ways to restore Constitutional, republican government the bill of rights and constitution guarantees everything we need
FightsForUsers t1_j9to6kl wrote
Accidentally called Ameristan “New America”
Jumpshot1370 t1_j9sicos wrote
I’m 100% sure southern Illinois will not be a part of New Canada and eastern Washington and Oregon will be in New America. Nevada, eastern California, and Virginia outside the DC metro area might go to New America too.
tabthough OP t1_j9s6s0e wrote
Source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/states
Tools: https://www.mapchart.net/usa.html
Recently Marjorie Taylor Greene advocated for a National Divorce. What would a "National Divorce" look like in the United States? Here, the US is divided into five new regions:
-
New England: The classic New England region plus the rest of the East Coast up until Virginia. This is a region of immigrants with a beautiful diverse culture and a liberal lean. The financial center in New York helps make this the second largest region in terms of GDP. The Appalachians provide a natural geographic border.
-
New Canada: These states are close to Canada, with many people living in these states traveling across the border for work and vice versa. They are predominantly White, educated, and liberal.
-
New America: This is the heartland, united behind a conservative political lean. It has most of the population and the largest share of GDP, though the GDP per capita is second-to-last
-
New Mexico: New Mexico and Arizona
-
Pacifica: The West Coast, liberal states. It has the highest GDP per capita, though the total GDP is only third among these regions. The Rocky Mountains are a natural geographic border.
I do not agree with the idea of dividing up the country, but it's interesting to see the numbers.
triarii42069 t1_j9s8l04 wrote
>I do not agree with the idea of dividing up the country, but it's interesting to see the numbers.
You spent significant time and effort creating a map outlining the national divorce, decided to give several recent and historically blue states to the conservative country, made the conservative country "New America", and divided up the resulting liberal countries into four...
And you want us to believe this is some impartial thought experiment?
ana_conda t1_j9shesd wrote
People have already covered the political angle of this, but I would like to add on my complaint that this subreddit is called “data is BEAUTIFUL” but there’s nothing beautiful about representing four groups of data with two shades of light grey and two nearly identical shades of blue.