(Reuters) - The failed Scottish vote to pull out from the United Kingdom stirred secessionist hopes for some in the United States, where almost a quarter of people are open to their states leaving the union, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll found.
Some 23.9 percent of Americans polled from Aug. 23 through Sept. 16 said they strongly supported or tended to support the idea of their state breaking away, while 53.3 percent of the 8,952 respondents strongly opposed or tended to oppose the notion.
The urge to sever ties with Washington cuts across party lines and regions, though Republicans and residents of rural Western states are generally warmer to the idea than Democrats and Northeasterners, according to the poll.
Anger with President Barack Obama's handling of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the rise of Islamic State militants drives some of the feeling, with Republican respondents citing dissatisfaction with his administration as coloring their thinking.
But others said long-running Washington gridlock had prompted them to wonder if their states would be better off striking out on their own, a move no U.S. state has tried in the 150 years since the bloody Civil War that led to the end of slavery in the South.
"I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference anymore which political party is running things. Nothing gets done," said Roy Gustafson, 61, of Camden, South Carolina, who lives on disability payments. "The state would be better off handling things on its own."
Scottish unionists won by a wider-than-expected 10-percentage-point margin.
Falling public approval of the Obama administration, attention to the Scottish vote and the success of activists who accuse the U.S. government of overstepping its authority - such as the self-proclaimed militia members who flocked to Nevada's Bundy ranch earlier this year during a standoff over grazing rights - is driving up interest in secession, experts said.
"It seems to have heated up, especially since the election of President Obama," said Mordecai Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, who has studied secessionist movements.
'OBAMACARE' A FACTOR
Republicans were more inclined to support the idea, with 29.7 percent favoring it compared with 21 percent of Democrats.
Brittany Royal, a 31-year-old nurse from Wilkesboro, North Carolina, said anger over the "Obamacare" healthcare reform law made her wonder if her state would be better off on its own.
"That has really hurt a lot of people here, myself included. My insurance went from $40 a week for a family of four up to over $600 a month for a family of four," said Royal, a Republican. "The North Carolina government itself is sustainable. Governor (Pat) McCrory, I think he has a better healthcare plan than President Obama."
By region, the idea was least popular in New England, the cradle of the Revolutionary War, with just 17.4 percent of respondents open to pulling their state out.
It was most popular in the Southwest, where 34.1 percent of respondents back the idea.
That region includes Texas, where an activist group is calling the state's legislature to put the secession question on a statewide ballot. One Texan respondent said he was confident his state could get by without the rest of the country.
"Texas has everything we need. We have the manufacturing, we have the oil, and we don't need them," said Mark Denny, a 59-year-old retiree living outside Dallas on disability payments.
Denny, a Republican, had cheered on the Scottish independence movement.
"I have totally, completely lost faith in the federal government, the people running it, whether Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever," he said.
Even in Texas, some respondents said talk about breaking away was more of a sign of their anger with Washington than evidence of a real desire to go it alone. Democrat Lila Guzman, of Round Rock, said the threat could persuade Washington lawmakers and the White House to listen more closely to average people's concerns.
"When I say secede, I'm not like (former National Rifle Association president) Charlton Heston with my gun up in the air, 'my cold dead hands.' It's more like – we could do it if we had to," said Guzman, 62. "But the first option is, golly, get it back on the right track. Not all is lost. But there might come a point that we say, 'Hey, y'all, we're dusting our hands and we're moving on.'" ++++++++++++++++++++++
I can't honestly speak for everyone in this state but, I believe if a vote were taken today to succeed, most Kentuckians would vote to stay. But, that depends on how much longer we think we're gonna have to put up with the Liberal agenda. If Hillary wins, I have no doubt which direction a vote would go. I can easily see the central US states voting to succeed with both coasts voting against it. I can easily see this country being split right down the middle. The ironic thing is, the coastal (mostly Liberal) states need the products the central states produce much more than the central states need what comes from the coastal states. The coastal states apparently need to be reminded of that. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Which way would your state vote to go? ------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-19-2014).]
West Coast doesn't need anyone,Washington DC included.
But, I wouldn't want to lose any states. If needed though I would be up for anything that would separate The United States from Washington DC.
Be rid of the second class citizen crap and return Americans to a first class station. Even if it requires writing a new constitution for said first class citizens.
West Coast doesn't need anyone,Washington DC included.
I disagree but, that's just my opinion. The west coast needs the rest of the country to support their liberal agenda and hand outs. If a mass succession were to occur, the west coast is going to have to drastically change it's liberal agenda to survive on it's own. I'm not about to suggest it wouldn't survive but, not as it is currently governed.
quote
Originally posted by User00013170:
Most Americans are too complacent to care.
Plus once you tell them that the 'free stuff' will get cut off, they would freak out.
Precisely why I said what I said. Both east and west coasts need the central more than the central needs either of the coasts. Of course, I'm including some of the gulf states in those that would vote to succeed.
I'm not saying succession would be successful, I would fully expect military force from both east and west to keep the central states in line. As I said, they need the central states much more than the central states need them.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-19-2014).]
I disagree but, that's just my opinion. The west coast needs the rest of the country to support their liberal agenda and hand outs. If a mass succession were to occur, the west coast is going to have to drastically change it's liberal agenda to survive on it's own. I'm not about to suggest it wouldn't survive but, not as it is currently governed.
And I'm not seeing a problem with that. That is what I would count on.
If anything we would better off than any other part of the country. Forces us to come to our senses is just a wonderful by-product of survival.
Hell, the more I think about it the better it sounds.
As long as we get rid of DC I'd be willing to do it and reconnect with the other states under a new constitution
I think something of a list of wants should be jotted down. Like politician engaging in any corruption be put to death. Full disclosure laws for politicians with consequences that really bite. Zero association or relation to any business,entity or industry for any politicians. Zero corporate political donations,Private donations managed at 100$ per individual per election not used for advertisement. Proof of public support to justify a free public funded advertisemnt. All information broadcasted to be vetted for truth,accuracy and relavance. Only self promotion no smearing. Equal time,equal cost publicly funded campaign advertisement. Free Government ad time written in to public frequency bids.
The West Coast needs the rest of the country to support their liberal agenda and hand outs.
Not so sure about that. According to one ranking, only 10 out of the 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) are more dependent on federal resources than Kentucky. Whereas fully 44 of the 50 (states + DC) are more dependent on federal resources than California. Some 35 (states + DC) are more dependent on federal resources than the state of Washington. And rounding out the "Left Coast", 23 (states + DC) are more dependent on federal resources than Oregon.
"Data in this report is courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service, the Census Bureau, Transparency.gov, US Department of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless noted otherwise, the statistics underlying this report are from 2012."
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 09-20-2014).]
Not so sure about that. According to one ranking, only 10 out of the 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) are more dependent on federal resources than Kentucky. Whereas fully 44 of the 50 (states + DC) are more dependent on federal resources than California. Some 35 (states + DC) are more dependent on federal resources than the state of Washington. And rounding out the "Left Coast", 23 (states + DC) are more dependent on federal resources than Oregon.
"Data in this report is courtesy of the Internal Revenue Service, the Census Bureau, Transparency.gov, US Department of Commerce - Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unless noted otherwise, the statistics underlying this report are from 2012."
Oh, surely you don't expect me to defend Kentucky or, you haven't read my posts. Kentuckians have learned to use the system just like all the folks in all other blue states. Kentucky has only had one Republican Governor in the last thirty plus years. Please re-read the original post in this thread.
All the deflection in the world still doesn't answer the original question, how would your state vote if session was on the ballot?
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-20-2014).]
I have no idea how Texas as a whole would vote, but with the large influx of the Hispanic immigrants over the last 30-40 years, as well as the number of what has become permanent 'snowbirds" , I suspect they would vote not to secede..Free stuff does indeed buy lots and lots of votes.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 09-20-2014).]
I have no idea how Texas as a whole would vote, but with the large influx of the Hispanic immigrants over the last 30-40 years, as well as the number of what has become permanent 'snowbirds" , I suspect they would vote not to secede..Free stuff does indeed buy lots and lots of votes.
Kentucky has the same problem. Thanks for the response.
Edited: Does Texas allow illegal aliens to vote? Does Texas require an ID check? Or is Texas one of those places where everyone gets to vote and vote often? Chicago and Detroit come to mind. ------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-20-2014).]
They aren't supposed to be able to vote here Ron, but that's not to say they don't. I know I had to show ID the last few years when I went to vote. The last time, I couldn't find my voter registration card, but they took my driv lic and compared it to the precinct voter rolls and I was allowed to cast my ballot.
quote
And in 2004, at least 35 foreign citizens applied for and received voter cards in Harris County, Texas, the report noted.
The bipartisan blue-ribbon commission, which was chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, recommended laws that require voters to show a photo ID before voting – a recommendation that came before the federal REAL ID law was created.
Recent events also suggest at least the strong possibility of non-citizens voting.
In 2011, Colorado’s secretary of state found by comparing drivers’ licenses that Colorado had potentially as many as 16,270 non-citizens on its voting rolls.
In 2007, the Dallas Morning News ran a piece titled “Non-citizens likely voted in Bexar County” which explained how 330 non-citizens were discovered on voting rolls after they were summoned for jury duty.
I have to laugh at the guy quoted in favor of secession in South Carolina who is living on Federal disability payments that would stop if they seceded from the union. Also, all of you posters talking in favor of it, would you be okay without your medicare, veterans pensions, cheap va health care, civil service pensions, etc. Do you think your State would replace them with benefits as generous, Not! You would find your State government to be just as inefficient and corrupt as the Federal government.
The ironic thing is, the coastal (mostly Liberal) states need the products the central states produce much more than the central states need what comes from the coastal states. The coastal states apparently need to be reminded of that. Of course, this is just my opinion.
Why would that be a problem? There would still be trade, wouldn't it? You don't have to be one country for that. If the US broke apart it would probably still make sense to have a customs union and a monetary union (or at least pegged currencies). Maybe even a federation with common areas such as defense.
Why would that be a problem? There would still be trade, wouldn't it? You don't have to be one country for that. If the US broke apart it would probably still make sense to have a customs union and a monetary union (or at least pegged currencies). Maybe even a federation with common areas such as defense.
I have to laugh at the guy quoted in favor of secession in South Carolina who is living on Federal disability payments that would stop if they seceded from the union. Also, all of you posters talking in favor of it, would you be okay without your medicare, veterans pensions, cheap va health care, civil service pensions, etc. Do you think your State would replace them with benefits as generous, Not! You would find your State government to be just as inefficient and corrupt as the Federal government.
In the end, people vote for their own wallets. The Scots stayed with GB mainly due to the retirees voting "No" because of fear of losing their pensions.
quote
Unsurprisingly, the issue of pensions consistently registered as one of the key issues in the independence debate.
Those areas with a relatively older population are the places where "No" did well.
The Lord Ashcroft overnight poll of 2,047 voters found that 73% over 65s chose No.
Why break up the union and create a host of potential problems when we could change laws and policies that we don't like or that don't work? Wait, I forgot that a lot of Americans do not like compromise now so I guess we can't do that.
The whole point of session would be to relieve the seceding states of having to carry the socialistic states. Yes, I'm quite sure there would trade between the newly formed countries but, the burden of carrying the social agenda of the liberal states would now be their own to carry.
Pretty sure the liberals don't want to have to carry that burden by themselves.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
I agree. It would be amusing to watch them create the utopia they envision to see what really happens. Of course, we already know what would happen. We only have to look at long-time Democrat governed areas, and especially how many liberals are leaving the utopias they've created to move to greener pastures - then try and turn that into the pit they just left.
Though successfully seceding would succinctly satisfy some folks.
Ya got me Ray. Good catch.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Originally posted by blackrams: Which way would your state vote to go?
Today ? Not enough ground work has been done to ensure we would leave. I would guess we would be at between 30 to 40 percent in favor of seceding.
quote
Originally posted by Csjag: I have to laugh at the guy quoted in favor of secession in South Carolina who is living on Federal disability payments that would stop if they seceded from the union.
Your assuming he doesn't realize that. In fact he follows up your quote of his with this ...
quote
"The state would be better off handling things on its own."
quote
Originally posted by Csjag: ... you posters talking in favor of it, would you be okay without your medicare, veterans pensions, cheap va health care, civil service pensions, etc. Do you think your State would replace them with benefits as generous, Not! You would find your State government to be just as inefficient and corrupt as the Federal government.
Whoa there Kimosabe. These are uncharted waters. Why wouldn't we still get Medicare which we paid into ? Or Veterans pensions which were earned ? Even if not, there will be growing pains, transitional pains. I would argue that we would still be entitled to all benefits earned. The first reason I think so is that when the law was written, non citizens collecting would not even have been addressed, as I highly doubt that was considered a possibility. It will be interesting to see how the law(s) is(are) written. In fact, this is the after thought of the failed initiative in Scotland. That transitional pains and plans were not discussed fully enough, if at all. Many of the "no" votes were fear of the unknown. Even at that, the ten percent winning margin is deceptive. Five percent would have made it a tie. A tie would have been a fifty fifty split.
quote
Originally posted by Csjag: You would find your State government to be just as inefficient and corrupt as the Federal government.
Inefficiency and corruption is oh so much easier the root out at a lower level. There are so many layers of bureaucracy at our federal level, which gain cover from the dilution of millions of opinions.
The article mentions Obamacare, dissatisfaction with the current regime, and gridlock as being reasons for desire to secede. Myself, it is much more than that. For one, number one on my list, is the myriad of agencies which in effect make law. Who have unelected bureaucrats heading the policies. Answerable to only the President. If not making law, they carry out a self serving agenda while living off the largess of the taxpayer. We have created a paper kingdom. The second most egregious reason to me is the diminishing power of the States. Which started with the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to prevent the federal government from indirectly absconding with the powers and funds of the states. (There will be a test later.) Reformers introduced constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829, and 1855, with the issues finally reaching a head during the 1890s and 1900s. It took until 1912 until a bill was passed by both houses of Congress and was not ratified until 1913 by the states. Progressives, such as William Jennings Bryan, called for reform to the way senators were chosen. My third reason to approve of secession would be how politicians and bureaucrats have become untouchable when they do something wrong, often illegal. The lame excuses they are allowed to get by with. Such as Lois Lerner's hard drive crashing. Such as the Director of national Intelligence lying to Congress about the spying on America. Such as Eric Holder being held in Contempt of Congress and it means nothing. Our system has become broken. Flaws in the election system compound the problems we face. An agenda driven media does not help, as doesn't liberal infestations of academia on all levels. I could go on but if any are interested in how I think the system can be fixed, look no further. I very much like the results of the Scottish endeavor. Even though the measure failed, England is ceding more powers to Scotland. The states need their powers back. We should not have to fear the federal government. Which threatens us with the very same money they took from us.
CliffW I don't disagree with much of what you posted but I see so much waste and corruption even at the local level that I don't think secession would affect that at all. As far as the guy in South Carolina goes, I am fairly sure that unlike Texas they receive more federal dollars than they pay in taxes so they would have a big shortfall. I'll give you a recent example of cronyism and waste at the local level: The small city of Apopka near Orlando Florida had recently fired their city manager who they had been paying $140k per year. This past week with 4 hours of public notice their city council met and awarded an employment contract to him giving him an $11k monthly pension plus an $11k monthly salary to be a lobbyist for the city. Last year the city of Ocala paid $50k to a local firm to study the feasibility of moving one of their fire stations to a lot they owned. A few months later they decided they didn't need to move the station after all. These are just two examples out of thousands nationwide.
Hard to say how any state would vote. That would depend on how many turned out to vote. I doubt the majority of any state's population would vote to upset the status quo. That's scary and might interrupt American Idol. But those who would favor secession would likely turn out in higher percentages, so the vote could easily go either way. My own state may have Republican leadership and both houses of the general assembly, but the last time that happened was 1896 so it's not representative of the state's historical voting trends.
All this talk has me thinking of a hypothetical. I don't want to hear any comments about George Bush, the Civil War, East/West Germany.
If our country (The Great U.S.A.) split evenly, for this hypothetical, it split perfectly equal in regards to ports, natural resources, weather, land, two identical countries. Then a wall was constructed and everyone who voted for Obama, and everyone who has a liberal frame of mind had to go to one side, and everyone who has a conservative or libertarian frame of mind went to the other. True independents can choose, but choose wisely they must.
Which country would be better off? Which country would have better employment and jobs? Which country would be safer? Which country would people from the other country try to sneak into? Can you imagine?
You think those states would want Philly and Pittsburgh?
I was able to catch one of those political news shows the other day being hosted by Chuck Todd. Most were predicting that Republicans will pick up quite a few Senate seats this next election. Ironically, they showcased Iowa and were saying that the two largest cities would most likely vote Democrat but the rest of the state would vote Republican. They explained it as those who were most effected by the social give away programs or something close to that. They called it the Starbucks/Chick Fil A comparison. Thought it was interesting and most likely accurate.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 09-22-2014).]
I knew we could agree on something! 
