I hadn’t thought too much about it having a PARTISAN political motive until we all saw the county-by-county lines of the breakup that is being proposed.
Mainly, what is to remain of California, comprising many counties along the coast, does not include what I think should very naturally be included, taking in more of the “Liberal” “west coast” instead of, as the proposal does, plops some of the Liberal coastal counties into the other two segments, Northern and Southern California, which might otherwise be more “Red”.
By making the “cut off” of the northern end of “California” to include Montery County but no further, it cuts off the naturally Liberal counties north of that but below Marin and lumps them into what would otherwise likely be a “Red” Northern California. I would add the counties of San Benito, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara (Silicon Valley), San Mateo, Alameda (Oakland), San Francisco and Contra Costa to “California”. I would also add Bakersfield County (immediately north of Los Angeles County) to California.
By removing those counties from Northern and Southern California, I think those two counties have a better chance of registering “red”, and leaving the majority of “Liberal” California together and to itself.
Anyone for making a new formal breakup plan???
Of course. It's a Democrat plan. The point of the plan isn't to create a new red state, but to make two more blue ones.
Even if your plan is "better," they're not going to split up the state and leave Los Angeles and San Francisco in the same state.
Northern California isn't really Republican. The coastal counties all go Democrat, and they have more people than the inland counties. Sacramento alone would outvote the inland Republican counties several times.
