Dear Red States,

We've decided we're leaving. We intend to form our own country, and we're taking the other Blue States with us. In case you aren't aware, that includes Hawaii, California, Oregon, Washington, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, New York, and all of the Northeastern states. After this election, we'll be adding Iowa, Colorado and New Mexico. We believe this split will be beneficial to the nation, especially to the people of our new country.

To sum up briefly: You get Texas, Oklahoma and all the slave states; we get stem cell research, the best beaches, and the best ski resorts. We get Elliot Spitzer; you get Ken Lay. We get the Statue of Liberty; you get Dollywood. We get Intel and Microsoft; you get WorldCom. We get Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Yale,Cal Tech, MIT and Columbia; you get Ole' Miss. We get 85 percent of America's venture capital and entrepreneurs; you get Alabama. We get two-thirds of the tax revenue; you get to make the red states pay their fair share.

Since our aggregate divorce rate is 22 percent lower than that of the Christian Coalition, we get a bunch of happy families and you get a bunch of under-educated single moms.

With the Blue States, we will control 80 percent of the country's fresh water, 90 percent of pineapple and lettuce, 92 percent of the nation's fresh fruit, 97 percent of America's quality wines (you can serve French wines at your state dinners), 90 percent of all cheese, 90 percent of the high tech industry, most of the U.S. low-sulfur coal, all living redwoods, sequoias and condors, and all the Ivy League and Seven Sister schools. We also get New England, the Great Lakes and Yosemite, thank you very much.

In the Red States, you will have to cope with 88 percent of all obese Americans and their projected health care costs, 92 percent of all U.S. mosquitoes, 100 percent of tornadoes, 94 percent of hurricanes, 99 percent of Southern Baptists, virtually 100 percent of all televangelists, Rush Limbaugh, Bob Jones University, and Clemson.

Additionally, in the Red States, you can have the 38 percent who actually believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale; 62 percent who believe life is sacred unless it involves the death penalty or gun ownership; 44 percent who claim that evolution is only a theory; 53 percent who insist that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11; and 61 percent of you who believe you have higher moral standards than those of us on the left.

By the way, we're taking all the good pot, too. You get that dirt weed from Mexico and Kansas ditches.

Peace out,

The Blue States

Well the Red states will get to keep Alaska and most of the oil and natural gas reserves, so they'll make plenty of revenue selling heating oil, gas, and natural gas at greatly increased rates if the Blue states need Energy to function, but since the Blue states are going green maybe they can survive as well as co-exist with all the new nuclear powerplants that the Red States will be building.

For all I know, this was written years ago and then someone added the new bits about the upcoming election. I got it in an email and decided to share.

I assume the Blue States take possession of Puerto Rico? Besides the military bases/personnel Puerto Rico would be rather blue.

The only sad part would be the isolated sectors of the "Red States" that aren't really red at all but would be sucked in with the rest of them. For example, Rice University in Houston is incredibly liberal (to the point that I think 70% voted for Nater in the 2000 election). Alas...

Actually, let's face it -- this red/blue thing is kind of silly. There are very conservative areas in most blue states and very liberal areas in most red states.

The divide in our country is really more of a rural (red) verses urban (blue) divide. And, as cities grow and rural areas get smaller, we see what direction we're heading.

Here's a map showing votes for Bush or Kerry in each county, and as you can see, most of America is purple, but the rural areas are mostly red and the urban areas are mostly blue.

lol at utah.

oh yeah well we get Walmart.

I wish there was more research on why bigger cities tend to be blue and more rural and less populated areas red.

I like vacationing in the countryside, but I'm sticking with the urban for everything else.

I'll make a guess, while noting that there are exceptions (Vermont is very liberal and it's almost all rural).

I think some of it has to do with being exposed to different ideas. If you grow up in a small town where everyone is pretty much the same, you don't get your views challenged much. In a city, you are exposed to many different types of people, with many types of ideas.

Alaska would survive.

You might get Wal-Mart, but we'll be renegotiating the contracts with China, Korea, Taiwan, Honduras, Mexico on behalf of K-Mart and maybe Target. We'll keep Sears and Macy's.

We keep Tater Tots and get most of the French Fries. You get to keep the Mush and Corn Pone.

We keep Time Warner. We'll let you have Comcast.

Gee Groucho, can you edit this thread to make it a Poll about the anticipated succession (Yes/No)?

Doesn't your argument negate itself? The same could be reversed and applied to cities. If you live in a city you also don't get your ideas challenged much as evidenced by the vast majority of cities voting more liberally.

WTF are you talking about?

Being open to different ideas and more accepting of them is by definition liberal. The fact that more liberals live in cities proves exactly my point -- they don't stick with their pre-conceived notions and are more willing to be tolerant of other people and other ideas.

You miss my point entirely (while proving it in fact by being intolerant of my comment).

Most people that live in cities are liberals, what the hell do they have to be tolerant of? People whose ideas they agree with? That's not very hard. As to pre-conceived notions, I don't buy that either. Have you looked at any of the threads in this subforum? Tolerance? I laugh at that cavil. Liberals are no more tolerant of ideas they disagree with than are conservatives.

The fact that this dispute occurs in a thread featuring a liberal leaning email circular that is itself intolerant (they propose starting a new country to get away from "red staters") only furthers my argument.

Your argument is based on a false equivalence that the Christian-right tries to pull all the time when pushing back against their anti-gay agenda.

The intolerance of intolerance exhibited by conservatives is not the same thing as the intolerance of gays, immigrants, Muslims, or blacks that your party has imbedded in its platform and its rhetoric. Liberals believe that you can disagree without enshrining that disagreement into law.

So fighting AGAINST a ban on gay marriage is not the same kind of intolerance as fighting FOR a gay marriage ban in the first place. You and the Christian-right are making the bogus argument that liberals are being just as intolerant of their beliefs, but that's ludicrous.

And the original post about forming a new country, unlike the current fight for a ban on gay marriage and the alienation of immigrants from the Republican party, is satire against the idiotic weflare red-state bitching.

Cities are more educated, more education leans left. Hate to be a dick about it and all, but it's true.

There's also the bit that by the definition of conservative, rural areas conserve the old way of life more... small towns and farms haven't changed much in 50 years. Urban areas or the city life is obviously new and different in comparison to that era, they lead the forefront of the 'new life', and thus to live there you are more likely to accept change than be attracted to the old way, and thus, they are more liberal.

Yep, I'm intolerant when it comes to intolerance.



Once more, you are being really really thick here. Think it through. The city is full of lots of people who have lots of different ideas. (Have you ever lived in a big city?) Walk down a street in Manhattan and you'll pass gays living next to Christian conservatives living next to radical Muslims living next to black militants living next to Wall Street capitalists living next to communists living next to Haitian immigrants living next to polish immigrants .... you get the idea. To imply that all these people think alike is just, well, stupid.

That's not true. Within cities very highly educated people such as ibankers are actually quite conservative. Wall Street has historically been notoriously Red. Education does not necessarily equate with voting one way or the next. Just issues and concerns.

The reason cities tend to vote blue is because they have diversified economies, so you're more likely to find people voting on a range of economic considerations. In single industry regions (farming for example) people tend to vote the same way because they are all dealing with the same industry proposals. Despite the Rep. myth of cutting spending they have zero problems with dishing out farm subsidies.

Another reason is of course public infrastructure. If you're living in a rural area you probably do not see the value of putting aside tax money for subways, bad weather barriers, etc. And in truth, it makes little sense to try and sustain a commuter rail in most parts of this country. In cities, people are less resistant to these tax-funded plans because they are benefitted by them much more.

I didn't like that bit about under-educated single moms though. That was mean-spirited and subtly racist. Besides, those single moms pretty much vote Dem 100% if they get out to the polls, so that part of the email completely missed the boat.

Dolce hit the nail on the head

Well obviously there's a lot of red within cities, but as a whole if I'm not mistaken (I'm so lost on stats), the most educated groups and peoples have voted more blue. You could turn that around and say that is because most educated people live in urban areas, which for the other reasons you listed are more blue, but it goes both ways.

Again I don't mean this as a condescending remark and I don't like to judge Republicans if they know their material, but in general I would trust a college educated person to make a proper voting decision concerning than the country than one not so. That's not to say there aren't college educated peoples who are ignorant and don't know anything about politics, and a small town plumber who's an expert at it, but in general and considering the group and liklihoods I would side with the group with more education and more knowledge. That doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Republican-Democratic shift, but to be honest in this election, I can't help but look down on the people voting for McCain-Palin as people who just aren't aware enough of the consequences of it.

i'm sorry but that's BS. that's like saying we should be tolerant of neo-nazis, just because we don't understand them.

the reason why more cities vote Blue is because of diversification and a better education system.

I get what Shack is saying.

In general, it's more expensive to live in a big city than it is a rural area. So, more eduction generally equates to making more money, therefor more education = blue cities.

Also, dolce's point about the diversified economy makes a lot of sense, and I think getluv mentioned that big cities tend to have several colleges/universities sprinkled through the area, which lends itself to big cities having a younger population than rural areas.

My only question is, would Disney remain neutral ground?

Nice!

Though the bits about single moms and especially Dollywood were completely uncalled for...