Secessionist demographics

[Anarchist420]

Writes Kirkpatrick Sale of the Middlebury Institute:
Bill Regnery, a long-time supporter of the secessionist movement, has sent me notice of a nationwide poll on popular support for secession as measured by a poll by the well-respected Public Policy Polling outfit of Raleigh, NC, that Wikipedia has described as “Democratic-leaning and accurate.” The poll, taken among 700 people in late November and issued on December 4, 2012, has a margin of +/- 3.7 points.

Here is a report he sent of the “interesting to remarkable” poll results, along with pertinent comments:

Secession is viewed positively/sympathetically by:

46% of Hispanics, 14 million, and 31% of whites, 49 million.
We need to crank this irredentist sentiment into our calculations.

50% of conservatives.
This is by far the most support from by far the largest group, 41 million, of ideological supporters. By comparison 19% of liberals, 14 million, fall into this category.

35% of women and only 29% of men.
We should discard the notion that women cannot be recruited.

50% of 18-29 year olds.

We need to hunt where the ducks are.
The lessons are obvious: Let’s go hunting.(Link)

Your thoughts?

Anyway, I love the idea of secession because it is the most libertarian action a people can do and it was what America was founded on.

 

[glenn1]

We should allow this to occur, and allow the inevitable evolution of blue states into bankrupt Greek-style failed states and red states to devolve back to the Dickensian morals and economics they prefer.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

I'm pretty sure a small sample size alone (700) is enough to make me skeptical of the results.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm pretty sure a small sample size alone (700) is enough to make me skeptical of the results.

Ouch... yeah that's not enough for me to buy into the results.

 

[JulesMaximus]

We should allow this to occur, and allow the inevitable evolution of blue states into bankrupt Greek-style failed states and red states to devolve back to the Dickensian morals and economics they prefer.

What is really ironic about your post is that the blue states provide most of the income to the Federal Government and take the least of it in welfare.

 

[tracerbullet]

What is really ironic about your post is that the blue states provide most of the income to the Federal Government and take the least of it in welfare.

Everything I've ever seen says this is true. Ironic indeed.

700 is actually a pretty big poll. The real question is - who was polled?

 

[cwjerome]

Secession is dumb, illegal, unconstitutional, and wrong. Oh, and it's a non-issue.

 

[CallMeJoe]

We in South Carolina recall something about secession being resolved around 150 years ago...

 

[Thump553]

Here's a tell-use of the word "irredentist" indicates that the source is from a pretentionist flake, as opposed to the run of the mill flakes frequently relied on by OP.

I, however, am shocked to my core by so many that claim to be patriots that claim to be eager to take up arms against their fellow citizens and revolt. As CallMeJoe so succiently put it, the issue of secession was resolved negatively a long time ago. If you whiners are so unhappy with the USA and are unwilling to expend even the slightest real effort to change it (whining on internet bbs doesn't count) do us all a favor and board a plane or boat and head off for your utopian paradise rather than try to destroy this country for the rest of us.

 

[shady28]

Secession is dumb, illegal, unconstitutional, and wrong. Oh, and it's a non-issue.

http://undustrialism.com/2011/10/25/was-the-american-revolution-legal/

"
The circular logic of the state is designed to grant itself legitimacy. In reality, of course, there’s one very simple reason why states have power: violence. A state’s borders cover the area it’s able to maintain military supremacy...
...
Even in struggles that don’t end in revolutions or total liberation – unions, women’s suffrage, civil rights, First Nations, even the province of Winnipeg – few serious gains would have been possible lots of illegal, disruptive and often violent behaviour which threatened the state to the point of making enormous concessions. In too many of these cases, people died for their beliefs, and our high standards of living today have far more to do with their willing sacrifice than the benevolence of our rulers. Power concedes nothing without a demand, and if we’re interested in real, substantial changes, we need to remember that."

 

[glenn1]

What is really ironic about your post is that the blue states provide most of the income to the Federal Government and take the least of it in welfare.

Oh, I guess all those tax payments to the federal government is what's causing the state governments of places like Illinois to be running near bankrupt, with payments to vendors being deferred for months on end and unfunded pension systems liabilities that are triple the annual state budget.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Oh, I guess all those tax payments to the federal government is what's causing the state governments of places like Illinois to be running near bankrupt, with payments to vendors being deferred for months on end and unfunded pension systems liabilities that are triple the annual state budget.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/09/18/obama-supporters-subsidize-romney-supporters-with-their-taxes-

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/14/how_blue_america_subsidizes_red_america.html

There is no evidence to support the notion that red states as a whole are independent from the government and do not rely on federal assistance. There is ample evidence that shows just the opposite is true.

 

[cwjerome]

http://undustrialism.com/2011/10/25/was-the-american-revolution-legal/

"
The circular logic of the state is designed to grant itself legitimacy. In reality, of course, there’s one very simple reason why states have power: violence. A state’s borders cover the area it’s able to maintain military supremacy...
...
Even in struggles that don’t end in revolutions or total liberation – unions, women’s suffrage, civil rights, First Nations, even the province of Winnipeg – few serious gains would have been possible lots of illegal, disruptive and often violent behaviour which threatened the state to the point of making enormous concessions. In too many of these cases, people died for their beliefs, and our high standards of living today have far more to do with their willing sacrifice than the benevolence of our rulers. Power concedes nothing without a demand, and if we’re interested in real, substantial changes, we need to remember that."

That's an interesting link. In the end one must define the terms, and as I see it, secession is dumb, illegal, unconstitutional, and wrong. I strongly believe in the natural right to revolution, but the secession the South tried to pull before and the silly-talk some secessionist radicals talk about today is VERY far from that natural law. Then and now it's mostly hissy fits from ignorant people believing bad things.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/09/18/obama-supporters-subsidize-romney-supporters-with-their-taxes-

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/02/14/how_blue_america_subsidizes_red_america.html

There is no evidence to support the notion that red states as a whole are independent from the government and do not rely on federal assistance. There is ample evidence that shows just the opposite is true.

The only thing there is evidence of is that you can't read, or simply choose to willfully substitute your own POV in place of what I actually wrote. I specifically was talking about state government budgets and spending, not federal. It makes not one damn bit of difference whether "blue states subsidize red states" because that's not what is causing the issue in places like California and Illinois. It's precisely the unchecked (and frankly stupid) budget policies of those state governments which is leading them to ruin.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

The only thing there is evidence of is that you can't read, or simply choose to willfully substitute your own POV in place of what I actually wrote. I specifically was talking about state government budgets and spending, not federal. It makes not one damn bit of difference whether "blue states subsidize red states" because that's not what is causing the issue in places like California and Illinois. It's precisely the unchecked (and frankly stupid) budget policies of those state governments which is leading them to ruin.

If blue states like California got the same amount of federal assistance that red states like Mississippi do their budget situations would be far different. You're not very smart kid.

 

[UberNeuman]

If blue states like California got the same amount of federal assistance that red states like Mississippi do their budget situations would be far different. You're not very smart kid.

Much like Ayn Rand who sucked the gov'ment teat when that was all left to her....

 

[JulesMaximus]

The only thing there is evidence of is that you can't read, or simply choose to willfully substitute your own POV in place of what I actually wrote. I specifically was talking about state government budgets and spending, not federal. It makes not one damn bit of difference whether "blue states subsidize red states" because that's not what is causing the issue in places like California and Illinois. It's precisely the unchecked (and frankly stupid) budget policies of those state governments which is leading them to ruin.

Oh I'm sorry, I thought that you were arguing it would be somehow beneficial for red states to secede.

 

[glenn1]

Oh I'm sorry, I thought that you were arguing it would be somehow beneficial for red states to secede.

Of course it would be beneficial, just as it would if a 30-something year old son or daughter moved out of the basement and got a job. That doesn't mean it will happen though. Likewise, the Paris Hilton-style obsessive spending disorder types in IL and CA would benefit from being grounded and their credit card taken away, but that's not to happen either.

 

[Genx87]

I am not buying it. Only on the absolute fringe believes in secession. Where did they conduct this polling? At a secessionist movement training camp?

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I am not buying it. Only on the absolute fringe believes in secession. Where did they conduct this polling? At a secessionist movement training camp?

Your party is dominated by fringe lunatics. Wake up. This is why your party lost an election you had no business losing.

 

[diesbudt]

Everything I've ever seen says this is true. Ironic indeed.

700 is actually a pretty big poll. The real question is - who was polled?

700... out of 312.8 million (roughly).

Yep. Great sample size.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, IMO, there are many levels of "secession" that gets practiced on a regular basis here in America. That we are able to do this is evidence of how great our nation is that we can exist as a union and still offer these levels of freedom.

Yet, I'd sure like to know the REAL reasons why some folks would like their states to secede from the union, moreso under the present administration than under previous Democrat ones.

Also, it should be interesting to see some hypothetical modeling irt having all red states secede from the union and losing access to all existing federal assets and services - ie- infrastructure, military, federal aid, national security, social welfare services etc.

 

[Genx87]

Your party is dominated by fringe lunatics. Wake up. This is why your party lost an election you had no business losing.

It is easier to paint the opposition as fringe for the simpletons than to govern in a responsible way. I suggest you wake the fuck up and realize both of these parties are playing all of us for fools. Republicans are fringe extremist lunatics according to democrats. Democrats are socialist\communist terrorist lovers according to Republicans. Yet both parties continue to expand govt power together. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[ElFenix]

What is really ironic about your post is that the blue states provide most of the income to the Federal Government and take the least of it in welfare.

the beneficiary of mercantile policies complaining about the victim.

 

[nextJin]

I think it should be an option for states only because it forces the federal government to more aptly consider their options. Right now, the Federal government can pretty much get away with anything and the States can't do anything. It would never happen of course, because we are looking at +/- 5% majorities of either party in most states. In the mid 1800's it was a hell of a lot higher if not completely one sided.

What it would do is provide a means to seriously challenge the federal level of Government. Balance of Power across the board is a good thing, and off topic a bit this goes into the whole 17th Amendment of which (IMO) should have never passed or even been brought up.