I think that Prof. Cobb is somewhat missing the point. Look at the electoral map here
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/house/map.html
and you'll see that there are a fair number of seats in the South that are already blue. You will surely be unsurprised to learn that these also represent where the bulk of the African-American population in the South resides as well. The question isn't one of: do we continue to have seats in the South or not? But rather one of: in looking for the next bunch of convertible voters, do we look for them in the South or not? And the problem is that (in no small part due to gerrymandering systems in which the African-American politicians have been very complicit) the parts of the South that are not already blue, are not going to be very easy to turn blue. And so it doesn't make sense for Dems to pursue policies that won't be liked by large portions of other parts of the country, just in order to go after the small handful of Dixieland voters that it might be able to sway. There's no sense in which Southern African-Americans are going to be 'cut off' from the rest of the party.

(I also found it a bit funny, btw, that Cobb thought that a "Do Nothing" Congress from Truman's era might be an appropriate comparison to the upcoming Congress. If he'd been paying any attention to the statements coming out of Pelosi and Reid's offices, he'd see that they have some very active agendas, of which oversight is but one major component.)

It might or might not be smart politics to write off the Southern states, but it really isn't in keeping with the building of Christian community, for politics is a substantial part of community. The fact that churches are divided from each other reflects at some level the same kind of manipulative marketing that the political parties use.

The idea that we are two separate countries is greatly myth, but if over a long time period political parties concentrate only on their strengths, we may become exactly that.

One Oklahoma Republican congressional candidate, incumbent Frank Lucas, had as one of his mainstay ads that he was proud that Oklahomans have values, whereas much of the country doesn't. Of course, Oklahoma is a state of significant poverty, with high divorce rates, above average reports of child abuse and neglect, legalized execution of child abusers, laws making it such that those on the "sex offense registry" are excluded from living in 92% of Tulsa (kicking sinners out of the community is now the rage,) defense of cock-fighting almost down to the last state, and the overshelmingly passed state lottery.

If Republicans had written off New York, then there would have been no Al D'Amato in the Senate. And certainly, Republicans didn't write off states such as Minnesota.

Because of the electoral college system, both parties have no choice but to write off some states in the presidential election, but it would be foolish to do so in the Congressional elections.

The states of the South have voted as a block for virtually their entire history, and demographic changes aren't happening fast enough for that historical trend to buck any time soon.