Secession Poll Shows Most Trump Voters and 41% of Biden Voters in Favor

A new poll shows 41% of Biden and 52% of Trump voters at least somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the union. The poll was taken from July 22-Aug 4, which is soon after the June poll by Bright Line that showed less dramatic results. However, it’s possible that there has been a shift in those weeks, as the Biden administration keeps announcing dramatic new mandates and Trump voters keep learning, and also Biden voters are losing patience with those who haven’t submitted to gene therapy for Covid.

The new poll also shows strong support for Caesarism. Caesarism is a strong man who acts as a dictator on behalf of the people to replace a government who no longer serve the people.

It’s also interesting to see how partisan the population has become:

We discussed the implications of poll results such as this in our July article, along with our recommendations for next steps for the secession movement.

Please share the great news of this poll with your contacts and invite them to subscribe to our free substack secession blog.

Update: see our newer article about this.

19 thoughts on “Secession Poll Shows Most Trump Voters and 41% of Biden Voters in Favor

  1. Can you write or research into splitting California up, maybe into new states or districts like you proposed with Washington state. 2 ideas I had were splitting California into new states, you say this won’t happen because dems won’t allow 2 new republican senators. My idea to get around this is to turn the red parts of California into 1 state and than create 2 new blue states out of the rest, one could be based around san Diego and the other could be based around the central coast, by creating 1 red and 2 blue states dividing California into 3 this would result in change in the balance of power in the senate. A further idea i had was creating a state of Greater Nevada by adding the red parts of California to Nevada, making it redder and giving a small connection the coast and also adding the northern half of Arizona to Nevada this would balance things out because while Nevada gets redder Arizona gets bluer

    1. HS: i think you have a good idea about California, splitting it into 3 states: 2 blue and 1 red. It would fit in well with the State of Jefferson project and with the New California State project Both these groups have a presence on Facebook, although i believe the New California State is on Facebook organized by county. I do not know about their status on MeWe, since i’m taking an absence from that platform for a while.

      Now, the extremely capable Tim Draper financed a similar plan, Cal 3. You can read about it in the wikipedia The wikipedia article has a map. It is not compatible with either the SOJ or the New California State projects, because it gives up Northern California. However, it would have given us access to international waters through San Diego (SoCal) — that would have been the reddest part. Draper managed to get it on the ballot.

      However, the California Supreme Court removed it from the ballot (in 2018). Possibly that means that they can see some of the same ramifications that we can, which is even more evidence that it’s a good idea.

      Perhaps the necessary ingredients to make one of these plans work are (1) committed people in a stable, long-term organization (like State of Jefferson, or perhaps New California State), (2) institutional support (like Liberty University might provide in the Virginia exit plan), and (3) philanthropic support from somebody who is smart, who has founded or financed companies, and is extremely competent (like Tim Draper). I don’t know if any of the state secession groups has all three.

      Anyhow, all of us need to think every day how we can move the ball forward, and perhaps we will.

        1. Thanks Red State. If at any time you run into any more details of any sort i’d sure like to read them.

          The most definitive Court writing on the case that i could find was at:

          The official site is clumsier to search, but for reference, the URL is

          The writing that i saw, from, was just the order, not an opinion, and it is purely procedural, with no hint at what was wrong with the initiative.

          What i understand from the media is that Draper was ordered to brief the Court, but he declined because the timeline was too short (maybe just a month). My guess is that he got wind that the ruling would go against him, and he decided it would be better to swallow the loss than to establish a bad precedent.

          But this is pure speculation, so if it was just wording, what were the words?

          One final remark is that the initiative did have at least one problem, in that it left out one county and listed another one twice (according to the media).

          1. That’s interesting. I was talking to Marcus Ruiz Evans and he said that Tim Draper was warned early on that his proposal needed to be improved if he wanted courts to let it pass, but Draper didn’t. Not sure how much Marcus knew about it and that’s all he said.

            The Supreme Court of Alaska ruled against an Alaska secession (from the US) referendum, so it didn’t appear on a ballot.

            Probably the members of those courts are mostly replaced by now.

          2. Thanks Red State. (BTW, there is no reply button to your comment, maybe the level of commenting is too nested?)

            Your information is probably much closer to the truth; i was just guessing, although i remain a little mystified, but Tim Draper may have a longer term plan that this played a role in.

            Just for reference to HS or anybody else reading this, the man Red State discussed this with, Marcus Ruiz Evans, is one of the leaders of Yes California And Yes California is one of two movements for California independence (as opposed to just dividing the state), the other being the California National Party

            Both organizations will be fielding candidates for Governor next year i believe (Louis Marinelli for Yes California, and Michael Loebs fo the California National Party).

            Anybody who has an opinion on which of these guys has a better long term plan please post. 🙂

      1. First the idea i have behind splitting it into 3 is to prevent the balance of power in the senate from being shifted, thereby the state legislature and national democratic party have no reason to block the splitting up of the state and the creation of a red state for conservative Californians. The 3 California’s initiative doesn’t work because it creates 3 blue states, even So Cal is a blue state just less blue than current California. You can look up 3 California’s on Wikipedia where it projects how each California would have voted. New California also doesn’t work because you just end up with 2 blue states and no new red state, the state of New California would have voted for Hillary Clinton by half a million votes in 2016 and would have voted for Joe Biden by over 1 million votes in 2020.

        1. Thanks HS very much for the information about both Cal 3 and New California State.

          You are right about what the wikipedia says about Cal 3, which i was wrong about. Cal 3 would create 3 blue Californias, giving a net increase of 4 Democratic senators (probably). Incidentally that shows that the opposition from the California Democratic Party and elites does not seem to be even based on party politics, but rather stems from either a total inability to think outside the box, or a desire to not rock the boat for the sake of their own careers.

          Now, about New California State, i’m surprised that it would be blue. The organization sure seems to be Republican (at one time they were raising money by selling portraits of President Trump and First Lady Melania). Did you just tally up the numbers by county? Anyhow, if i’m wrong about New California State (as i was about Cal 3), i would like to be corrected. I would much rather be part of the solution than part of the problem. 🙂

          Thanks again for bringing up these facts.

          1. I added the totals for all the counties, to get the vote totals for New California. The problem with No California is it tries to be 2 ambitious and ends up having a lot more democratic counties I think Democratic opposition mainly not wanting to rock the boat.

          2. OK, thanks HS for the map and the explanation of the problem with the New California State project that Paul Preston is leading.

            If i understand your map correctly, then, it is sort of like the State of Jefferson project, except that (1) Jefferson is extended all the way down to the Mexican border and (2) the remainder of California gets split as an incentive for Blue California to agree. And we would get access to the Pacific.

            Just for reference, what software did you use for generating the map and the numbers?

            Anyhow, thanks again for the details.

  2. I do support secession, i don’t support caerarism. We need to secede create a country with a constitution that has more clearly defined powers and stronger checks and balances than the current constitution. With the constitution also hopefully guareenting the right a strong degree of guareented representation in all the institutions

  3. I’m really hoping that Southern Illinois splits from the rest of the state. I can move, but don’t want to because it’s so pretty and peaceful down here. I hate to have to get up and leave. Has anyone heard anything lately about what progress the secession movement down here is making? I haven’t heard anything since the last election.

  4. Hello…just joined in. Very much in agreement with secession to form a new & different union BY the people. Learn from these mistakes of granting too much power politically just to avoid wars. Better small skirmishes time to time than handing off losing a nation to our children.

  5. 3 Maryland counties just fired off the first Fort Sumter political shot and no one is talking about it here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *