Consider Massachusetts a big suburb of Boston, Pennsylvania the suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh, Washington to be Greater Seattle, and New York to primarily consist of New York City and Buffalo.

We need to break the urban machines.

Sekhmet on November 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Urban areas do not necessarily have common interests. New York City dumps on Manufacturing that is crucial to cities like Buffalo and Rochester. New York City environmentalism, taxation policies and general anti-business attitudes have crushed upstate cities. Liberal state capitol districts like Dane County (Madison) Wisconsin have left wing policies that hurt cities like Milwaukee that are not creatures of government. The wise politician can use these differences to win statewide election in Blue states. Look at how both Dennis Vacco (Attorney General) and George Pataki (Governor) carried heavily democratic upstate metro counties against New York City Pols running for statewide office. To be successful in these strategies however, we have to allow them to adopt hands off social agendas while pursuing free market economic policies that lead to general prosperity. If they run on a social agenda platform, they lose.

Large populations present problems most hinterland conservatives never deal with, which makes it so easy for them to disregard government as a viable option for solving any social problem.

ernesto on November 21, 2012 at 2:41 PM

LOL! ‘Cuz 60 years of government solving social issues has been such a raving success.

Red states could not function without the federal dollars provided for by the tax base from blue states. NY owns the South. Texas notwithstanding. Texas can be its own nation.
Capitalist Hog on November 21, 2012 at 2:35 PM

Well, then, why is it so hard to get blue state representatives to cut off the entitlement funding?

We need to break the urban machines.

Sekhmet on November 21, 2012 at 2:31 PM

How? Conservatives constantly question the validity of government itself, how are you going to break into those places where government is most necessary? Large populations present problems most hinterland conservatives never deal with, which makes it so easy for them to disregard government as a viable option for solving any social problem. In big cities, we have little choice, and so people who run questioning whether we need social services will gain little traction.

Some enterprising donut shop owner needs to cash in on Christie’s popularity and open a donut shop near Trenton and name it “Christie Kreme.”

UltimateBob on November 21, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Red states could not function without the federal dollars provided for by the tax base from blue states. NY owns the South. Texas notwithstanding. Texas can be its own nation.

The rest of the TP secess1onists will have to remain Americans.

Fix the country. Don’t abandon it.

Bearing in mind many suburbs are significantly more conservative than the cities they surround, consider this:

In Texas, 60 percent of people live in the metro areas of Houston, DFW, and Austin.

About 75 percent of Californians live in LA, San Fran, and Sacramento.

Consider Massachusetts a big suburb of Boston, Pennsylvania the suburbs of Philly and Pittsburgh, Washington to be Greater Seattle, and New York to primarily consist of New York City and Buffalo.

We need to break the urban machines.

It means there is a greater chance of spliting into two countries.

Oil Can on November 21, 2012 at 1:13 PM

The sooner the better in my opinion.

But the commies can’t mooch from the free states. Allow each ideology to live within it’s own bubble for a while, see which one survives and thrives. Hint: without someone to mooch off of, the commies will die out.