Read other letters about this article
1-) The south is not a republican territory. For an example, democrats controls the ALABAMA Legislature, and there are several popular democrat governors south of the Mason-Dixie Line. Last year the party also made several progresses in states like Arkansas(*Now a bluer state than most states in the Northeast coast*), Kentucky, Tennessee.
Yes, democrats are very competitive in the South. Specially considering big cities like Atlanta, Durham, Raleigh, Richmond.
2-) The demographics of the South are changing. The big state in the region(Florida) is not really the image of the evangelical and white state that most people thinks.
3-) The black vote is important ONLY if the democrats manage to win PART of the white vote in the southern states. The author seems to forget that a large part of American blacks are concentrated in the South.
4-) Errr, the problem is not winning the white male vote, but not facing a stunning defeat among them. Had Gore won JUST ONE SOUTHERN state he would have won. Kerry didn´t won one state outside Chicagoland in the West and neither in the south. You can´t win ignoring half of America.
Claire McCaskill won last year campaigning heavily to rural voters. Her smaller margin of defeat in Rural Missouri and the heavily democrat vote in Kansas City and Saint Louis meant victory. It´s a formula successful in Virginia and can be applied to every southern state with Big Cities.
5-) Powerful swing states, like Ohio, Missouri and Pennsylvania
are HEAVILY influenced by the South vote. Hadn´t the republicans scared the Catholic vote they could have won in Pennsylvania.
6-) The author could explain why Arkansas has more democrat elected officials than California.
7-) The matter is not only the south, but the West. And it´s easier to appeal to hispanic and southern blacks with moderated candidate that can also appeal to white male vote than with a north cost liberal that ignores the rest of the country.