I just don't see why their inroads into suburbia are different, and only temporary.
The difference being that the republicans had been winning those blue dog districts for about a decade on the presidential level by the time 2010 came around, while the democrats have only won these suburban districts once under a presidential election, which happened under an extremely unusual republican candidate.
So the idea that these suburban gains will only be temporary is a pretty logical conclusion to make.
Nate Cohn pointed out that 13 of the 15 most educated districts are represented by Democrats, and the two remaining trended strongly D in 2016, so I kind of doubt this is temporary. Democrats have also been winning some Republican-held suburban districts in presidential elections for a number of cycles in a row, granted, none of them I can think of are in the south (except FL-27, which is different). See CA-10, CA-21, NY-24, MN-03, NJ-07, and WA-08
Exactly, these districts are in the south and the voters in these districts are politically different to their educated counterparts in other parts of the country.
Those districts you mention have been voting democrat on the presidential election for numerous cycles it is entirely reasonable to suspect that democrats will start to win these districts on the downballot level on a more permanent basis.
Districts like GA 06 only became competitive last year, in abnormal conditions, and it shouldn't be expected that democrats are going to start winning these districts on a permanent basis (on the presidential level, never mind on the downballot).