What would it take for Washington DC to vote Republican?

[Alcon]

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.

[Alcon]

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.

I would like to point out that this is not remotely true.

I hate to be one of the people who gives endless examples of local exceptions, but Seattle is hardly dysfunctional - it is one of the safest, wealthiest major cities - and it also is one of the most Democratic, being over 80% Kerry.

The solidly middle class Chicago suburb of Evanston is even more Democratic than Chicago itself.

[Alcon]

Well then maybe it's true on the east coast.  West coast cities are different, with a higher percentage of latte liberal Democrats, as opposed to entitlement-oriented Democrats.

The problem you're fundamentally having is that you are confusing correlation with causation.

You assert that the more dysfunctional a city is, the more Democratic it is.

Dysfunction is generally related to poor economics, which often correlates with minority population.  And poverty and minority status are both things that generally cause people to vote Democratic.  So, yes, tangentially, dysfunction and Democratic voting are related.

However, it's odd that you measure this as entitlement.  It's more self-interest - people vote for what in the short term gives them the benefit, which might be the pro-welfare Democratic Party.  And CEOs vote Republican, not necessarily beceause they have always believed in the values of the free market, but because it benefits them.

I've never understood why people use "latte liberal Democrats" as an attack.  Rich people voting Democratic - which generally negatively affects them - is supposed to be a cowardly thing?  They could vote in their interest, but they don't, and that is a grounds for attack?  I may not agree with their positions, but I do admire that they are voting against their own interests for what they see as the better good.

It seems odd to attack the poor for voting in their immediate interest while at the same time decrying wealthy liberals as "latte liberals."

[Alcon]

On one level, you may be right, but on another level, I think I am right.

I think for a lot of people, being saddled with a Democratic victim mentality is at least partial causation for, and not just correlation with, their poor circumstances.  This mentality tells people that they should wait for somebody else to help them, that there's no point in trying to help themselves.  Our attempts to help people in the past 40 years have probably done more damage than hundreds of years of neglect.

The problem is, there's not much you can do to help yourself when you're stuck in Detroit.  There are plenty of Democratic voters who cannot escape their world because they do not have the money.

If people are raised with a mentality that they have no power over their lives, most likely they will never get ahead of the curve, and will not be able to produce good circumstances.  I don't suggest that liberal policies are the sole cause of this, but I believe they have made a contribution.  Liberal policies may make the misery some of their voters are suffering marginally more bearable, but at the price of deepening the underlying problem.

I think that this is partially true, but I could say the same thing about conservative philosophy:  it makes people think they never have to help their fellow man, because those that are poor show no effort.  To bring philosophies down to such a simple level is to ignore their validity.

Latte liberal is meant to be a derogatory term not because those voters vote against their interests, but because they are hypocrites who choose not to live with the policies they inflict on others.  They favor leniency for criminals, while living far from centers of crime.  Therefore, they don't really suffer the effects of putting dangerous people back out onto the street.  They oppose giving poor children better educational options, while making sure that their own kids have only the best.  And as far as taxes go, they have enough money that they don't really care about a few thousand more a year in taxes; the middle class is hit much harder by the tax level that these people favor than the latte liberals are.

Of course, I could say the same thing about conservatives:  they favour economic ideals that help large industry before they help the smaller workers, while liberal economics immediately helps the "little guy."

By the way, at least where I live, we have crime even though we are an affluent area because we live near an area with high crime.  Yet people here are by and large liberal.

[Alcon]

There would have to be no Democratic, Green, Libertarian, Socialist, Independent, Natural Law, Reform, Grassroots, Worker's World, Communist, or Socialist Equality candidates on the ballot.

Under those circumstances, it would probably go something like this.

Republican: 51%
Write-In votes cast for "Democrat": 49%

I'm assuming this is a joke, but as we've seen from the 2004 Idaho Senate race, people are lazy as hell about write-ins.