If you live in a large U.S. city, you're probably in a "blue" district, no matter how "red" or conservative a state or region you live in. Click on http://www.urbanarchipelago.com/ for the full story. Most large cities, and every city of over 500,000, went for Kerry in the last election.
Urban residents, regardless of their political views, tend to have similar concerns and problems. No matter how conservative you are, you'd probably be in favor of improved mass transit in your own crowded neighborhood. Another example: Bush is already trying to remove the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes, with the (unstated) reasoning that blue states have more government services and hence higher taxes and should be punished.
It is very important for urban residents to unite on the issues that concern them, and not be drowned out by the loud squeaky wheel of suburban and rural voters. If there's enough communication and unity between the residents and stakeholders of a city, perhaps the quality of life in that city would become a higher priority in choosing political candidates. "Sure, I'm against permissiveness and gay marriage, but what is this candidate going to do about the homeless people in my neighborhood?" "I think it's great that we're spending billions of dollars fighting an endless war in Iraq, but shouldn't there be some money left over for fighting gang violence in our neighborhood park?"
Hey, it's a possibility. Just imagine: urban residents and stakeholders deciding that the quality of life in their own city is more important than preaching fire and brimstone; more important than thumping our chests in the Middle East.
Can we do this?