The south isn't needed. I think that to win, a Democrat will need to win some of these states: Indiana (Dems won control of the Indianapolis Metro council for the first time in 25 years:
http://www.indystar.com/articles/5/090503-5975-092.html), Nevada (probably not going for Bush because of the Yucca Mountain issue), Colorado (this *could* be a Democratic State), Florida (Obvious), Virginia (Democrats gained seats in the House of Delegates for the first time in 25 years:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A841-2003Nov4.html ), Louisiana (a state that Gore shouldn't have written off).
Pennsylvania is not in play next year, as Democrats swept the statewide judicial elections (for the first time in 15 years), and won big in the Philly Mayor and Pittsburgh County Executive races. In Pittsburgh, the Democratic Challenger beat the incumbent Republican by 16%. (
http://www.postgazette.com/election/20031106dems1106p3.asp ). Jim Roddey was a big Bush fundraiser in Pennsylvania. He will be less effective because he is now out of power.
About the only thing that the Republicans won on Tuesday was the Kentucky and Mississippi Governorships. Those states are not likely to elect a Democrat anywayreal winners on Tuesday were the Democrats. Success in states like Indiana and Virginia shows a chink in Bush's armor.. The
Some southern states are important. I think Louisana might go Democrat, same for Arkansas. Given some strange circumstances, I could see North Carolina or Virginia voting Democratic. But if the Democratic nominee spends his or her time trying to win Mississippi and Alabama, that nominee will lose in a landslide.