Which city is deader for the GOP: Chicago or San Francisco

[RFayette]

Frisco.  At least Chicago suburbs are still quite Republican in midterm years.

[RFayette]

Chicago had a Mayor named Richard M Daley who was conservatives, not always G O Pers best ally and as long as conservatives have the police union, they can keep the city in check and have a mainstream mayor like Rahm Emanuel or Richard Daley.

Daley is not a conservative.  Period.

[RFayette]

I agree with virtually everyone when they say San Fran. Chicago (the city) is reflexively Democratic and San Fran is reflexively liberal... so as long as the Dems are the liberal party... then, yeah. But, yes, the issue is the suburbs. The San Fran suburbs are filled with wealthy, educated liberals... the Chicago suburbs are very middle-working class, white ... and prone to swing to the GOP.

The elitism your party manufactures about who its voters are is truly amusing.  The wealthiest people in Chicagoland are the ones who make the suburbs "GOP-friendly," SOMEWHAT offsetting the legions of poor people who make the city unwinnable.

If by "legions of poor people" you mean black and Latino voters (not all of whom are poor, FTR) , educated urban white liberals, as well as (to a lesser extent) working-class "ethnic" whites and pretty much everybody else in Chicago proper, than you have a point.

My point is urban White liberals aren't enough to keep the area so Dem by themselves (hence relying on tons of working class votes), and it certainly wouldn't help to have more wealthy, college educated Whites (as he implied), who in Illinois vote Republican.

Wealthy white well-educated urban folks tend to vote Democratic; wealthy white well-educated suburban folks tend to vote somewhat Republican outside the Bay Area and New England.  The exceptions might be some inner-core suburbs within the county of the city itself.

[RFayette]

Wealthy white well-educated urban folks tend to vote Democratic;

^^But not nearly to the extent that urban working-class (especially non-white) voters are Democratic.
 
Also, a lot of well-educated Americans (particularly in large metropolitan areas-i.e. those very friendly to the Democrats- where there is a lot of competition for higher-paying jobs/the kind of jobs that require a Bachelor's Degree or higher) are not wealthy. Many (particularly but not exclusively the younger ones) work in service-sector type jobs that they are overqualified for (in terms of educational attainment, at least). Those urban residents who are younger, highly educated, less economically secure, and more transient than most other groups would vote very heavily for the Democrats, I suspect-to the extent that they vote at all, of course.

Good point.  For an educated person, it's probably easier to live in a red (non-Atlas) state than a blue state due to this education disparity.  A BA in Oklahoma probably takes you a lot further than a BA in say, NYC or San Fran.  It seems like the low amount of competition would make entering fields like law (which are notoriously over-saturated) far easier in Dixieland than the left coast and Northeast.  And doctors in those less-educated states probably have impeccable job security. 

The problem, of course, is that these conservative states have inferior educational systems to those of more liberal states, essentially creating a large "underclass" of people.

[RFayette]

I was saying, conservatives, and middle class whites like the Mayors we have. Not too nuch liberals.

I don't know a single conservative who has a favorable opinion of Rahm Emanuel.  Do you mean "conservative" as in a conservative/moderate liberal or centrist Democrat?  Because conservative Republicans sure don't like him.