quote:
Importance to the nation, manufacturing base, energy production. The fact that Texas would whip every other state's arse in a war.

California has a case on importance to the nation and manufacturing base. But their politics and taxes takes them out of the running, in my opinion.

From a purely numerical standpoint:

Texas, while #2 in GDP among states, is pretty far behind California - New York, at #3, and Florida, at #4, are closer to Texas than Texas is to California.

When you measure it per capita, Texas is 15th. States above them include some with low populations (like Alaska) but several higher population states as well (like Illinois and New Jersey).

In terms of GDP growth, Texas ranks 7th - this puts them second among SEC states (congrats to Tennessee, #5 in the country).

When you measure Real GDP growth, Texas is 18th (the country as a whole, if measured, would be 18th and Texas would be 19th, putting it just below the country as a whole). Tennessee, interestingly enough, is #1. Florida is 4th, South Carolina 13th, and Georgia 14th.

In adjusted per capita income, Texas is 28th (26th is gross per capita income).

While you definitely out perform California in some metrics, the fact is that - financially - the country would suffer more from losing California than Texas (but both would be taking away a huge chunk of GDP if they left).

As far as "whipping every other state's arse in a war" - is this some fan fiction you've read? In what scenario do you envision two states going to war while everyone else just sits back and watches?

Any state trying to leave the union through force isn't going to be fighting other states, it's going to be fighting the entire US military - and Texas would get roflstomped, just like any other state, in that scenario.