Decon's diary regarding Eric Alterman posted on January 26, 2004 relies in part on an electoral miscalculation. I do not fault the author--I have noticed many people in the media making the same mistake. While Al Gore would have won the electoral vote in 2000 by winning ANY ADDITIONAL STATE, the Democrats need to do more in 2004. Thanks to the decennial census and a migration in population, the "red" states have increased their electoral vote, and the "blue" states have lost votes.
If the Democrats would hold all of Gore's states and win two of these additional "red" states: New Hampshire, West Virginia, or Nevada, the Democrats still would not win because the electoral vote would be tied (269-269). The election would then be decided by the House of Representatives. As you are aware, Republicans control the House and probably will keep that control after the election. While the House would vote by state and not by represetative (i.e. if a state has 1 Democratic representative and no other representatives, the state would count as 1 vote for the Demcoratic candidate, and if a state has 10 Republican representatives and 1 Democratic representative, the state would only count as 1 vote for Bush), I am guessing that the Republicans would still prevail. Wouldn't it be great if Bush was elected by the Supreme Court for his first term and the House of Representatives for his second term (sarcasm intended)?
Considering the reasonable possibility that Bush will be able to steal a state or two or three that he narrowly lost to Gore, we really do need a candidate that can appeal to all areas of the country because we might need to steal several "red" states. Of course, if we can get Ohio or another big state and keep all of Gore's states, Bush packs his bags.
Note: I used the electoral calculator in the upper righthand corner of Kos' mainpage to get my electoral numbers.