California secessionists...

[JimL]

And it's secession, Jimmy - you can't even spell it correctly!

Sure I can, i t, it.

[Cow Poke]

Sure I can, i t, it.

Yeah, even you should be able to spell really simple words.

[Thoughtful Monk]

I've seen this claim made before, but it doesn't hold up. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would have won both their elections and re-elections even if California wasn't part of the country.

Democrats would likely have a much harder time getting a majority in the House of Representatives without California, though.

He was talking about Democrats outside of California.

The older elections I don't know about. Makes a difference in 2016. Trump wins the electoral college by ever bigger margin when you take California out. He also now wins the popular vote. With California, Clinton won the popular vote 66 million to 63 million. Take California out of those totals and Trump now wins the popular vote 59 million to 57 million. (I used CNN figures here: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president)

[Mountain Man]

And that's without taking the numerous voting "irregularities" in Hillary's favor into account.

[JimL]

The older elections I don't know about. Makes a difference in 2016. Trump wins the electoral college by ever bigger margin when you take California out. He also now wins the popular vote. With California, Clinton won the popular vote 66 million to 63 million. Take California out of those totals and Trump now wins the popular vote 59 million to 57 million. (I used CNN figures here: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president)

Yeah and if you take Texas and Louisiana out of the mix Clinton wins by more, and if you take New York and Massachusetts out, Trump would have won bigger, and if .............. LOL!

[Thoughtful Monk]

Yeah and if you take Texas and Louisiana out of the mix Clinton wins by more, and if you take New York and Massachusetts out, Trump would have won bigger, and if .............. LOL!

Of course. However this thread is about California succeeding so I'm looking at that impact.

[Thoughtful Monk]

legally they can't. After the civil war, it was decided that there is no path to secession. They would need to get the US constitution changed first. But I for one would not try to stop them. Maybe they could elect Weinstein as president.

The Civil War was the south saying "We're Going" and the northing saying "No." I'll bet if California said "We're leaving" and the other 49 states said "Good bye", everyone would find a legal way to get it to happen.

[shunyadragon]

legally they can't. After the civil war, it was decided that there is no path to secession. They would need to get the US constitution changed first. But I for one would not try to stop them. Maybe they could elect Weinstein as president.

There was no path to secession before the civil war. There is no president for a peaceful secession in history unless both parties agree, or in some cases a written process in the Articles of Confederation like in Canada.

[One Bad Pig]

There was no path to secession before the civil war. There is no president for a peaceful secession in history unless both parties agree, or in some cases a written process in the Articles of Confederation like in Canada.

On the contrary, there were a number of times where secession was considered before the Civil War. If anything, the Civil War put a damper on such speculations.

[One Bad Pig]

This is another one of those times when I can't tell if Jimmy is parodying liberal stupidity, or if he's the real deal.

Jim doesn't consider us worth the effort of parody. He is the real deal, but I think he'd come across as more intelligent if he put any effort into it.

[shunyadragon]

On the contrary, there were a number of times where secession was considered before the Civil War. If anything, the Civil War put a damper on such speculations.

Considering secession is not the act of secession. All through history secession is considered, but it remains . . .

There was no [legal] path to secession before or after the civil war. There is no president for a peaceful secession in history unless both parties agree, or in some cases a written process in the Articles of Confederation like in Canada.

[Jedidiah]

there was no path to secession before the civil war. There is no precedent for a peaceful secession in history unless both parties agree, or in some cases a written process in the articles of confederation like in canada.

fify

[Terraceth]

The older elections I don't know about.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean Bill Clinton and Barack Obama by "older elections"? Because if you remove California's electoral college votes, they still win their election and re-election. There's nothing to "not know" because the fact remains they did not need California. If by "older elections" you mean ones before then, things get a bit weird. You see, the last time a Democratic president was elected before Bill Clinton was Jimmy Carter. And in his case, California voted for the Republican in that election, so again we have a Democrat who would've won without California.

Makes a difference in 2016. Trump wins the electoral college by ever bigger margin when you take California out. He also now wins the popular vote. With California, Clinton won the popular vote 66 million to 63 million. Take California out of those totals and Trump now wins the popular vote 59 million to 57 million. (I used CNN figures here: http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president)

You claim it "makes a difference in 2016" and then proceed to explain a lot of things that don't make a difference. Trump wins the presidency with California, and he wins it without California. Would he have won by a larger margin? Sure. Does that make any difference? No, because you become president with the exact same powers whether you win by 1 electoral college vote or if you win by 200 electoral college votes. Sure, he would've then won the popular vote, but the popular vote isn't the decider and is thus irrelevant. The only difference that would have made is that people would have complained about the electoral college less.

Obviously, it is completely possible that without California, in the future a Democratic candidate would lose to a Republican in a race they otherwise would have won. But the claim that a Democratic president can't be elected if California secedes has been shown repeatedly to be false because every Democratic president elected in the last 100 years would have won even if California hadn't been a state. Granted, much of that was (1) before California was the bastion of liberalness it is today, and (2) before its population got big enough that it was able to exercise a real influence in the electoral college, but even if we restrict it to the years when it was reliably Democrat and had a large population, every elected Democratic president would have won their election even if California hadn't been in the country.

[Cow Poke]

Considering secession is not the act of secession. All through history secession is considered, but it remains . . .

There was no [legal] path to secession before or after the civil war. There is no president for a peaceful secession in history unless both parties agree, or in some cases a written process in the Articles of Confederation like in Canada.

precedent

[Jedidiah]

precedent

I beat you.