What would it take for Washington DC to vote Republican?

[HamRadioRocks]

Washington DC is so heavily Democratic that no Democratic nominee has ever received less than 74% of the vote.  Marion Barry was elected mayor even after serving time in prison for the infamous cocaine conviction.  Some of you have suggested that DC is so partisan that it would vote for Zell Miller over Lincoln Chaffee.

Because DC has had electoral votes only since 1964, it lacks a voting record under the earlier political alignment.

So what keeps DC so heavily Democratic?  Short of a presidential election taking place when a Republican president has a 90%+ approval rating (like Bush Sr. right after Gulf War I or George W. Bush right after Sept. 11th), what would it take for the Republican nominee to win the 3 electoral votes of Washington DC?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Washington DC is so heavily Democratic that no Democratic nominee has ever received less than 74% of the vote.  Marion Barry was elected mayor even after serving time in prison for the infamous cocaine conviction.  Some of you have suggested that DC is so partisan that it would vote for Zell Miller over Lincoln Chaffee.

Because DC has had electoral votes only since 1964, it lacks a voting record under the earlier political alignment.

So what keeps DC so heavily Democratic?  Short of a presidential election taking place when a Republican president has a 90%+ approval rating (like Bush Sr. right after Gulf War I or George W. Bush right after Sept. 11th), what would it take for the Republican nominee to win the 3 electoral votes of Washington DC?

I think it has more to do with the Democratic nominee than anything else. George Wallace and Zell Miller are examples of Democrats who would not do well in DC.

[Rob]

The Democrats will never lose DC. Even if there is another realignment, it will stay with the Democrats, just like Kansas and Nebraska have always stayed with the GOP.

[HamRadioRocks]

The Democrats will never lose DC. Even if there is another realignment, it will stay with the Democrats, just like Kansas and Nebraska have always stayed with the GOP.

So why do these areas keep sticking with the same party?  Many constituencies have changed as the parties have changed.  For example, African Americans were heavily Republican until the FDR administration and then became heavily Democratic as a result of the New Deal.  The reactionaries of the South used to be heavily Democratic and then turned heavily Republican. 

[Rob]

The Democrats will never lose DC. Even if there is another realignment, it will stay with the Democrats, just like Kansas and Nebraska have always stayed with the GOP.

So why do these areas keep sticking with the same party?  Many constituencies have changed as the parties have changed.  For example, African Americans were heavily Republican until the FDR administration and then became heavily Democratic as a result of the New Deal.  The reactionaries of the South used to be heavily Democratic and then turned heavily Republican. 

I've wondered that myself. A while back, I started a thread on Kane County, Utah, which has always voted Republican except in 1916. It really irritates me that those people vote Republican when they're progressive, and still remain loyal when their platform is completely opposite. So why the hell weren't they Democrats back then?

These areas are inexcusable- they must not care about "issues", or "candidates"; they just care about the little R on the ballot.

(And all of that applies to always Democratic areas too, though there aren't many).

[dazzleman]

There would have to be a complete political realignment for DC to vote Republican.

Much of DC is non-citizens who can't vote, and many of the citizens who can vote are black.  Even the white citizens tend to be limousine liberals who vote Democratic.  It feeds upon itself - the atmosphere is so unfriendly to Republicans that they choose to live elsewhere.

It's no coincidence in my opinion that a city that is so strongly and mindlessly Democratic is also completely dysfunctional.  The two are usually strongly linked.

[Joe Republic]

It's no coincidence in my opinion that a city that is so strongly and mindlessly Democratic is also completely dysfunctional.  The two are usually strongly linked.

...Whereas the areas that are strongly and mindlessly Republican are virtual paradises in comparison?  Not in my mind.

[dazzleman]

It's no coincidence in my opinion that a city that is so strongly and mindlessly Democratic is also completely dysfunctional.  The two are usually strongly linked.

...Whereas the areas that are strongly and mindlessly Republican are virtual paradises in comparison?  Not in my mind.

Generally, they're a lot more functional than DC.

[phk]

It's no coincidence in my opinion that a city that is so strongly and mindlessly Democratic is also completely dysfunctional.  The two are usually strongly linked.

...Whereas the areas that are strongly and mindlessly Republican are virtual paradises in comparison?  Not in my mind.

Generally, they're a lot more functional than DC.

Fresno, California isn't that much more functional, it even boasts a higher poverty rate.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

It's no coincidence in my opinion that a city that is so strongly and mindlessly Democratic is also completely dysfunctional.  The two are usually strongly linked.

...Whereas the areas that are strongly and mindlessly Republican are virtual paradises in comparison?  Not in my mind.

Generally, they're a lot more functional than DC.

That is because they are generally not big cities and tend to be wealthier.

[ian]

A foreign policy, economic, and socially liberal Republican.

[ATFFL]

A really confusing butterfly ballot.

[Redefeatbush04]

A really confusing butterfly ballot.

^

[Notre Dame rules!]

It would take a nuclear strike from the Chi-Comms to kill virtually all of its inhabitants.  No, wait...that wouldn't do it either.  Nope, D.C. remains Democrat.

[Jake]

Even Zell Miller would win DC.  Anyone who has that (D) next to their name on the ballot would carry DC.  No Republican would win unless maybe the Democrat raped their wife and then ate their children on live TV.  If enough saw it, DC could go Repulican, but it would be close.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Even Zell Miller would win DC.  Anyone who has that (D) next to their name on the ballot would carry DC.  No Republican would win unless maybe the Democrat raped their wife and then ate their children on live TV.  If enough saw it, DC could go Repulican, but it would be close.

Lowell Weicker (R) would easily beat Zell Miller (D), it wouldn't even be close.

[Jake]

Even Zell Miller would win DC.  Anyone who has that (D) next to their name on the ballot would carry DC.  No Republican would win unless maybe the Democrat raped their wife and then ate their children on live TV.  If enough saw it, DC could go Repulican, but it would be close.

Lowell Weicker (R) would easily beat Zell Miller (D), it wouldn't even be close.

There would be enough Democratic pocket voters to push Zell over the top.

[12th Doctor]

The Democrats will never lose DC. Even if there is another realignment, it will stay with the Democrats, just like Kansas and Nebraska have always stayed with the GOP.

Ehem!

1896

[Rob]

The Democrats will never lose DC. Even if there is another realignment, it will stay with the Democrats, just like Kansas and Nebraska have always stayed with the GOP.

Ehem!

1896

That was only because Byran was from Nebraska, and the farmers were starving. Even then, his margins were fairly narrow. They reverted to their traditional Republicanism in 1900.

[Joe Republic]

Seeing as how Vermont used to vote for the Republicans in terms of about 65%-80% for a large part of the 20th century, and now is probably the safest Democratic state after DC itself, I'd say anything is possible.  The reason Vermont switched is because of the political shifts of the two parties, and the demographic shift (rich liberal New Yorkers emigrating to the small towns up north).

So, despite the fact that DC currently votes Democratic in similar margins as Vermont used to for the Republicans, I'd say DC could actually vote Republican in the distant future.  But only under similar circumstances; i.e. another party realignment or a demographic shift.  Coupled perhaps with an economic boom.

[WMS]

A meteor hits DC, destroying the east half of the city.

Then, the Dems run a pro-life populist while the Reps run a pro-choice gay libertarian (why gay? well, there IS a gay libertarian Rep City Councillor up in the rich NW Dupont Circle area, right?), and some leftist Green lunatic runs a strong campaign.

Final result: 33.4% R - 33.3% D - 33.3% G

[Hitchabrut]

Hitler (D) vs. Kerry (R)

[Beet]

The bigger question is, why are most cities so Democratic?

[dazzleman]

Even Zell Miller would win DC.  Anyone who has that (D) next to their name on the ballot would carry DC.  No Republican would win unless maybe the Democrat raped their wife and then ate their children on live TV.  If enough saw it, DC could go Repulican, but it would be close.

I don't think even that would make DC vote Republican.  I think the people there are pretty much brain dead, and the state of their city proves it.  If Congress hadn't basically taken over because it was a disgrace to have such a dysfunctional city as the nation's capital, DC, aside from the national mall area, would have descended to the level of a third-world city.

[dazzleman]

The bigger question is, why are most cities so Democratic?

The more dysfunctional a city's population is, the more heavily Democratic it will vote.