Unfortunately, I disagree.

Democrats must spend money in the South for registration of African Americans, just to keep even with current numbers.

Or have you forgotten Republican initiatives, backed by the Bush Administration, to purge the voter rolls of anyone who might even remotely pass for African American on one of Karl Rove's voter databases?

It may not sound necessary, but only if you are willing to believe that the Bush Administration will not do in 2008 exactly what Republicans have been doing since Trent Lott switched parties.

It would be interesting to see the same sort of analysis of registration/turnout figures for Southwestern Latinos. Anecdotally, there has been a feeling of disenfranchisement and resulting lack of interest. However, as minority populations have increased as a percentage, the landscape has changed - witness the D takeover of the Dallas County courthouse in the last cycle, and the distinct purple hue that Houston and its surrounding Harris County are taking on this time out.

Sure, Texas is an expensive media state, and awfully conservative once you get out of the cities, but I'll bet that there is a lot of bang for the buck to be had in places like Colorado, New Mexico, etc.

I think you're conflating strategy and tactics here. Tactics certainly require difficult choices between priorities regarding the use of resources. So do strategies of course but strategy is the overall theory of change you are persuing. In Dean's 50 state strategy case this theory is to stretch the republicans across the map, win state houses and governorships where possible and put good candidates up in every seat to better promote the democrat brand and message. This makes perfect sense, and is indeed a choice in terms of resource use between this and, say, massive investment in a more limited number of states/races. By any definition it's a strategy, and one that appears to be working. Tactics are what win battles, strategies win wars, and the 50 state strategy is a long-term proposition, not just for the 2008 election.

I think it is disingenuous to criticize the 50 strategy as no strategy at all. The point of the 50 state strategy, is running a national campaign, as opposed to ceding the whole south and middle of the country to republicans. Some places will be difficult but I think we’re getting to the point of competition in some areas that LBJ rightly prophesied were lost for a generation. That time is about coming up. I’m sure it will still be difficult but picking up seats in congress as well as in local races will help beef up the party.

Or we could look away, not fight there and fight everything out on the coasts. That hasn’t been working out so great. And just like as a coastal elitist I resent being treated like less than an American, or unpatriotic by virtue of living in cities like NY and San Francisco, I’m sure democrats in the middle and south of the country get pissed at the idea that the party should just forget about them. That hardly seems like a winning strategy.

If we stick with the conventional wisdom we’ll keep losing- if we keep living down to low expectations we deserve it.

I'm assuming this money will be directed at cleaning up some of the voter roll shenanigans that are being played in these southern districts by republicans. Greg Palast spent a lot of time researching the voter roll tampering in the 2000 and 2004 elections, and this time around they have apparently spoken to Obama about it directly, who has indicated his concern with the problem. It may not help them win these states, but if people's votes are being ignored and discarded I think fixing that is money well spent.

The Obama camapaign launched a volunteer voter registration campaign right before the end of the primaries and is using volunteer neighborhood teams to do voter registration across the country.

The South is going to win Obama the general election just like it won him the primaries. There are a lot of black voter's in the south, and if they are registered on the day of the election they will all show up and vote for Obama, drowining out the votes of Dixiecrates in a massive tidal wave. You simply are not with the program.

Others have pointed out the difference between strategy and tactics. Schaller is arguing that the investment in voter registration is bad strategy, but his argument is tactical, not strategic. He looks only at the results of the last election. This was the mistake the Democratic leadership has made since 1990 -- targeting only "close" districts and leaving large parts of the country uncontested. Over time the number of districts that were uncontested grew. If the Democrats had only won those districts targetted by the DCCC in 2006 they would have only the slimest of House majorities and still would be a minority in the Senate. Fortunately, Dean's 50 state strategy was in effect and the Democrats now have a bigger House majority than the Republicans have had since 1932, plus the Senate.

Remember that investment in voter registration is not for one election only, but helps to create a voter base that can, if maintained, grow and be used for many future elections. This is how the Republicans built their base. They funded conservative churches and political organizations, often in very Democratic areas, not expecting immediate payback but building a base for the future.

Now, the question Schaller should be asking is whether the deep south is the right place to prioritize voter registration funds. Looking at the long term, there is a case to be made that better places for investment are places such as Texas, with big Republican edge but a fast-growing Democratic demographic, as well as places like Colorado and New Mexico. Even Kansas and Nebraska could produce some surprises.

He's an idiot.

He won't even bother to look at the fifty state strategy.

And that "WHY Isn't Obama leading by a million points vanity piece (look at the assholes I can get to talk me!!!)is an embarrassment.