California grows 11 percent of the food in America by value. Iowa grows 8 percent despite being far smaller. If California grew 51 percent of the food and every state were dependent upon it, then maybe Blob would have a point. As it is, it only "keeps us fed" at a 3 percent margin higher than the next state on the list, and combined, the Midwest states produce far more food than his Commiefornia utopia. It also doesn't have to drain the Colorado River dry in order to do it.
As for his "Blue States pay more Fed taxes than Red states," that tends to happen since people in Blue states are much richer on average and thus, pay more taxes. To quote the Federalist:
"...Although federal funds make up a larger percentage of red states’ state budgets, the budgets in those states are generally lower overall than those of the free-spending blue states. If, instead of comparing federal funds to state budgets, we look at how much the federal government spends in intergovernmental grants
per resident of a state, the results are turned on their heads ...Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Purple states see the least of their money returned to them per capita, at just $1,770. Measured in this way, the blue states are getting quite a bit more than the red or purple. "
Red states tend to have military bases, which are also huge money sinks as well.
As for the electoral college, I quote Tara Ross' book,
“The Indispensable Electoral College: How the Founders’ Plan Saves Our Country from Mob Rule” (Regnery Gateway, 2017).
"The delegates were discussing separation of powers. Slavery was not their focus. Indeed, the debates about the presidential election process never focused on slavery. Instead, the delegates discussed whether legislative selection or a national popular vote was preferable. The division was between large and small states, not between slave and free states.
Some of the larger states had slaves, some did not. Some of the smaller states had slaves, some did not. All of the small states, however—slave and free—were worried about the dangers of a simple national popular vote. As slavery opponent Gunning Bedford of Delaware had said so eloquently, the small states simply feared that they would be outvoted by the large states time and time again.
The Electoral College had everything to do with balancing power between large and small states in America’s new experiment in self-governance. It had nothing to do with slavery. What an inconvenient truth for those who would like to eliminate the system."
It's possible that Bob might have expressed doubt about the Electoral College if Hillary had won (given how badly Al Gore had been screwed by it in the 2000 election,) but his present day hostility to it has far more to do with it helping nerf Californias' votes and less to do with its quality and effectiveness overall.