Red States Vs. Blue States

[MadelynIris]

50 years from now and it's civil war who wins? Lay out your best scenario.


caveat This is a fantasy scenario. I'm not advocating the violent overthrow or upheaval of our great nation. Think of it as a Red Dawn kind of thing - NOT REAL. We can throw in alliances with Europe, Islamic extremists, etc...

 

[U2democrat]

hmmmmmm interesting......

well the south lost once before (i'm still heartbroken.........)

We've got NY and CA, though the red states have the military bases (i.e. Norfolk).

However Europe would undoubtedly be on the side of the blue states.

Tough one!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Red State hands down, reason being that they are a solid base whereas the blues are on the coast and that most of the millitary bases are in the red states. Europe would not be all that in 50 years the demographics will have shifted and the millitary budgets will be going to support millions of pensions.

 

[anitram]

Had these states separated back when they had the chance, the red states would now be part of the developing world, along with Mexico and the Caribbean.

 

[STING2]

Had these states separated back when they had the chance, the red states would now be part of the developing world, along with Mexico and the Caribbean.

Thats simply not the case, plus if you look at the break down by counties, you'll see that "Blue States" like California, Illinois, Oregan, Washington, Pennsylvania and New York, are far more red than blue, with only a few big cities here and there turning those states over to the democrats.

 

[pax]

All those gun-owners...the red states would definitely have a fighting chance.

 

[deep]

Thats simply not the case, plus if you look at the break down by counties, you'll see that "Blue States" like California, Illinois, Oregan, Washington, Pennsylvania and New York, are far more red than blue, with only a few big cities here and there turning those states over to the democrats.

wtf, does that mean?

people are governed, taxed and represented

not dirt.


with your thinking

Russia is a more legit country because it has what 3 times the land area the U. S. does.

 

[namkcuR]

Thats simply not the case, plus if you look at the break down by counties, you'll see that "Blue States" like California, Illinois, Oregan, Washington, Pennsylvania and New York, are far more red than blue, with only a few big cities here and there turning those states over to the democrats.

So that must mean red states are better than blue states.

You're really not one to appeal to the human side of issues, are you? I don't mean to offend you, and this is really not meant to be a personal attack or anything, but whenever I see posting in this thread or that, your posts are dense in facts and statistics and such, but sometimes it feels like a computer is making the arguement rather than a person. Just my own observation, certainly not an attack. I could be completely wrong anyway, I suppose I'll know soon enough based on what others say.

As for the original question, I don't know. I don't see how anybody could. There are just so many factors now, as it is, and they could ALL change in the course of 50 years. It's a flip of a coin, really. Though I'm tempted to say 'blue' just by virtue of the fact that we have D.C., and you could order anything from there.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Who has the materials to build a war machine, who has dispersed population centers, who would be unified more easily and build the industrial base up. These would favour the red state coalition in the long run.

 

[deep]

What about the brain trust factor?

 

[namkcuR]

Who has the materials to build a war machine, who has dispersed population centers, who would be unified more easily and build the industrial base up. These would favour the red state coalition in the long run.

Now. That's true RIGHT NOW. I have no way, you have no way, nobody has any way, of knowing what it will be like in 50 years. Tell me, was the political landscape in 1954 significantly different than it is today in 2004?

 

[STING2]

wtf, does that mean?

people are governed, taxed and represented

not dirt.


with your thinking

Russia is a more legit country because it has what 3 times the land area the U. S. does.

Well, I suggest you go back and look at the title of the thread because it is in fact about "dirt", red states vs. blue states.

Wouldn't mind talking about the American people though who sent the Democrats and their idea's packing in the recent election.

 

[deep]

which state has the most enlisted serving in iraq?

which state has paid the highest blood debt for W's misadventure?
California.

 

[namkcuR]

Well, I suggest you go back and look at the title of the thread because it is in fact about "dirt", red states vs. blue states.

Wouldn't mind talking about the American people though who sent the Democrats and their idea's packing in the recent election.

So then what you're suggesting is that whoever has the most landspace will win. Whoever is bigger will win.

Ever heard of the term, 'underdog'?

 

[deep]

Wouldn't mind talking about the American people though who sent the Democrats and their idea's packing in the recent election.

by the narrowest margin of any 2nd term president since 1916.

 

[MadelynIris]

As for the original question, I don't know. I don't see how anybody could. There are just so many factors now, as it is, and they could ALL change in the course of 50 years. It's a flip of a coin, really. Though I'm tempted to say 'blue' just by virtue of the fact that we have D.C., and you could order anything from there.

We're going for fantasy here boys - make - believe, mixing in fact/fiction/conjecture, projections, witty weavings....

Mark

 

[Boston01]

STING is right. the blue population centers are surrounded. Siege anyone?

 

[MadelynIris]

LOL!

Red states got the food too! But the blue states have all the media and film industries!

 

[STING2]

which state has the most enlisted serving in iraq?

which state has paid the highest blood debt for W's misadventure?
California.

Which state has the most enlisted serving in Iraq per capita?

Which state has paid the highest price in the war per capita?

Certainly not California. Most of the men and women who serve in are armed forces and who overwhelmingly voted for Bush over Kerry by a margin of 4 to 1 do not come from California.

 

[namkcuR]

You know what? Blue states would have control of NYC and LA, which in turn means they'd have control of all the network studios/buildings, AND, the big-ass satellite dishes they use to beam their programming, well, EVERYWHERE. Methinks they could spread some nasty rumors about the red states to a lot of people in a short amount of time!

 

[STING2]

So then what you're suggesting is that whoever has the most landspace will win. Whoever is bigger will win.

Ever heard of the term, 'underdog'?

Sure, why not. But I'm not taking the premise of this thread seriously and was pointing out some random facts for fun.

 

[STING2]

by the narrowest margin of any 2nd term president since 1916.

By the first majority that any president has had since 1988! In addition, this is the first time an incumbent presidents party has increased the number of seats they held in the house and Senate since the 1930s!

 

[MadelynIris]

Look this is how it's supposed to go:

The red states attack the blue states with combines and shotguns, only to find that the blue states are empty, having all left for Canada.

Canada of course by this time, has a population so low, because the birth rate dropped dramatically BLAH BLAH BLAH~!

See, that's how this works.

 

[deep]

By the first majority that any president has had since 1988! In addition, this is the first time an incumbent presidents party has increased the number of seats they held in the house and Senate since the 1930s!

I will say it was a bigger majority than he got in 2000.

 

[indra]

Look this is how it's supposed to go:

The red states attack the blue states with combines and shotguns, only to find that the blue states are empty, having all left for Canada.

Canada of course by this time, has a population so low, because the birth rate dropped dramatically BLAH BLAH BLAH~!

See, that's how this works.

OK, now why has the birth rate dropped so low in Canada?

 

[deep]

Which state has the most enlisted serving in Iraq per capita?

Which state has paid the highest price in the war per capita?

Certainly not California. Most of the men and women who serve in are armed forces and who overwhelmingly voted for Bush over Kerry by a margin of 4 to 1 do not come from California.

go check

more Iraq casualties are from CA than any other state.

CA is 13%? of U. S. population/

 

[deep]

OK, now why has the birth rate dropped so low in Canada?

don't you know any thing about the cold?


shrinkage.

 

[Stonewall]

by the narrowest margin of any 2nd term president since 1916.

Narrow, hardly! Narrow what?

BUSH Jr. won by about 4 million votes!

President BUSH Jr. won 31 states!
Kerry won only 19.

Narrow-minded? U!

Many recently elected Presidents (Truman, Johnson, Carter, Bush Sr.) clearly didn't have a 2nd term. U can bet that wish they did --narrow or not. Don't be so foolish and shallow as to attempt to marginalize victory!

 

[A_Wanderer]

Truman was president from 45 until 53, or are we considering his being a caretaker president.

 

[pax]

Um, everyone? Can we all chill out a bit? I let this thread go because it seemed like an interesting premise that might let us tease out some ideas on civil war, national unity, etc. etc...but if we can't mull over these issues more seriously and reflectively, then I have no problem coming back and giving it the ol' close.

Thanks.