This is one of several pieces I've read recently that have some bad news for people like me and Mr. Schaller, as we argue for the "new coalition" of states and seats that will bring Democratic majorities to Congress:

The new Census Bureau 2006 state population estimates are out and the numbers offer some insight into the post-2010 Census reapportionment of congressional seats. While it’s still too early to predict exactly which states are gainers and losers, a few things are already clear.

According to an analysis by Polidata, a political data consulting firm, seven states are all but certain to lose at least one seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Another six states are all but certain to gain at least one seat: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah.

 Read more…

You probably know how I much I dig Tom Schaller, and his most recently discussion with the FDL gang just shows how much cool, class and intellect he's got. I can hardly believe such a lucid mind is employed by the Academe /I keed, I keed/.

His key point is pretty simple: racist people in the South are the reason Republicans have locked it up in recent years, and no amount of pandering to them will make them vote Democratic. Obviously not all Southerners are racist, but so long as there are enough of them in Southern states to form a voting bloc, the South will remain Republican.

The discussion over there hit all the important points about strategy, so I won't repeat them here. But I had a couple of questions that I didn't get to ask, having been on the phone when it took place. What do you think: are the DLC and a large group of the Democratic consulting class racist?

Tom is one of the Good Guys, and he's got a new book out you should buy. I've written about his work before, and I continue to find it a useful way to think about what can be done, what should be done, and what is worth talking about as we form strategy.

I was at this panel at Kosvegas. It was brutal. There's nothing uglier to me than progressives who can't get along, and it's totally true, people were shouting and I worried for a moment there would be blows.

There are two issues that trouble me. The first is that I agree with Mudcat's assertion that it's ethically and morally incorrect to just pack up and ditch progressives and liberals in the South. I have many liberal Southern friends, and I can't want for them to be condemned for life in some kind of modern Gilead. I really respected Dean for pointing out that poor black lesbians like me have more in common with NASCAR dads than they do with elites like Bush. But it's hard work to make that argument stick, and I not familiar enough with Southern culture and regional politics to say how it should be done.

The second issue is one of resources. Plain and simple, the Democrats have less with which they must do more. The fact that the Republicans basically control most of the media means the Democrats are not just fighting right wing campaigns, but also an +8 year history of pro-Republican propaganda in the form of "news" permeating all aspects of our media. I hear it's even worse in the South, in the sense that the Republican party hardly has to spend any of that slush money to get local papers to support Bush and his policies. So the idea of that the Democrats are just wasting their money on ads in the South resonates with me.