Democrats had never elected a president without Texas...until 1992

We keep hearing that Democrats "can't" win without West Virginia because no Democrat has been elected without the state since 1916.

I say, so?

It would be nice to have West Virginia, and I hope that Obama can come up with a plan to compete there in the fall, but let's not forget that he makes plenty of other red states competitive, such as Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and possibly Indiana.

History moves on. States change. The country changes. Texas was once thought to be the key for Democrats to win the presidency ever since Franklin Pierce was elected in 1852. Then Bill Clinton won without Texas in 1992, and again in 1996.

anything picked up in the South will be a bonus.

Who managed to siphon off enough votes from Bush I to give Clinton the win.

I don't think that'll happen this year.

There are several other ways as well. Dems have more ways to win than the Republicans do, with their virtual lock on the Northeast and the West Coast.

virtual lock on the whole Northeast and the West Coast. They now have many more ways to win than the Republicans do. Remember that GWB won in 2000 by one state and in 2004 by one state.

criteria enough for me.