Hm, I seem to remember another Civil War started by Democrats that didn't turn out too well for them, so I wonder why some leftists are so keen on the idea now? I mean, they're obviously going to be fighting against superior numbers -- at least 51 to 48, discounting Naderite pacifists -- and their opponents will be the ones with all the guns. Plus, y'know, the military favored President Bush 4 to 1, and they've got all sorts of nifty weapons.
Who does the left have? Well, Michael Moore, but zeppelins haven't been useful in war for decades. Maybe Whoopi will make crude jokes in our general direction? Maybe Margaret Cho will remove the UN-sealed bag from her head? I just don't think a battalion of solar-powered tanks with Al Gore at the head is going to be very effective. I guess the main thing we on the right should be worried about is that France and the UN will... uh...? Nevermind.
So to lefty secessionists I say: bring it on.
There only needs to be a war if the Red States don't want the Blue States to leave, right? But why would the Red States want that? Maybe it is because the Red States can't afford to survive without the tax help of the wealthy Blue States.
I've posted an update to the Civil War post referenced in the link to Ace in this post. It's at:
http://pullonsupermanscape.typepad.com/pull_on_supermans_cape/2004/11/negotiate_with_.html
Michelle...methinks you miss the point. While the "blue states" (a misnomer at best, since there are only some blue counties with disproportionate populations, but no blue states) may BELIEVE that it is the ignorant rubes in the "red states" that will suffer, in fact I can be fairly confident in saying, GO. I'm in a blue state; I'll move if you do. I have no doubt in the world that the honest hardworking people who produce the lion's share of your (and the rest of the world's) food will have no trouble whatsoever prospering and surviving such a ridiculous move. And when the overpriced Northeast and far west grocery stores don't get stocked, and you're all starving as you read over copies of Hamlet, don't come crying to me. I don't give a shit.
Not to mention that they're so filled with gas/hot air that they've become a liability.
Mouse: You note that the areas that vote blue in blue states are isolated pockets. Thank goodness it is people!, and not vast stretches of empty (sorry - unpopulated) land, that vote.
You say that the red states will grow so much food that the blue states will starve. Remember that Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York, and California all went blue and also happen to be rich in agriculture. (Forgetting for a second about Iowa.) Anyways. So you think you can reap the benefits of your dizzyingly abundant harvest by starving the blue states, and all this without incurring a surplus that will bleed your prices to oblivion.
And then, in order to feed people and make money, farmers need distribution/business centers, aka cities. See this map, which reflects the vote as well as the population density. As you, Mouse, have stipulated, dense pockets tend to go Democrat more than do the sticks. Why? Maybe it's because people in cities are better informed about the world at large, have more access to better news, value living near many other people and playing in parks more than they value vast, rarely used lawns and having to drive everywhere in hulking gas-guzzlers. All this from just (relatively) communal living! Cities create Democrats. Since it's a little late to be creating cities, the Red States' existing "cities" (already bluer than their surrounding counties) would have to develop further to fill the niche currently held by market cities like Chicago and New York. Thus, by breaking with the Blue, the Red States would eventually end up debauching itself into the moral, economic, and political universe of the Blue.