Retrocession seems like the best way to go. I'm sympathetic to proponents of DC statehood, but the way statehood goes in the US, we'd need to find a (perceived) Republican "buddy" to become a state at the same time, and that's nigh impossible. Giving the District to Maryland isn't a bad way to go, and has the nice side effect of reducing the number of jurisdictions in the area - coordinating local services (e.g., Metro) is a total nightmare. Cheers to jim and muon for pointing out ways to make the 23rd amendment less of an issue!
Would we? Maybe if the question is about getting bipartisan support, but DC could be made a state without them if Democrats ever find themselves with that kind of power again. There is a good argument in giving DC at least proper representation (whether it's through statehood or a new, special constitutional amendment), but for Republicans to insist on getting a new state of their own, it comes off nakedly partisan.
Of course, I'm sure conservatives say that about pro-DC statehood people too, but there are hundreds of thousands of DC residents (myself included, as a former resident) who feel as Americans we deserve fair representation regardless of which party stands to benefit.
That's well and good, and I'm entirely in agreement with you in principle, but the fact remains that there were very few states admitted into the Union without a balancing one, most notably slave vs. free until the 1850s. Wanting a Republican "buddy" state may seem to you to be nakedly partisan, but admitting a new state that everyone believes is entirely assured to be a completely safe Democratic one for the foreseeable future seems just as nakedly partisan to people on the other side. Retrocession allows for that very admirable principle (which almost led to the dissolution of my current relationship, since I refused to give up my full citizenship to move into the District!) to be enacted in a way that Republicans may not find so onerous.
Poll
