Can the Democrats Win Without the South?

In claiming that the Democratic nominee can win without winning at least some southern states, the The Daily Kos notes and tries to rebut a TNR argument that the red states are getting redder:

Sure, many Red States (mainly in the South) are getting redder, but many Blue States are as well. With Nader mostly out of the picture, we're talking a lot bluer. That means the battle for the presidency will not be fought in Alabama or California, Georgia or New Jersey, or Kentucky or New York. It will be fought in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and a couple more states. We may very well see $500 million or more spent by both sides on just a dozen states.

Fair enough. What Kos overlooks, however, is the concomitant Electoral College trend. Maybe the blue states are getting bluer, just as the red states are getting redder. If so, however, the key statistic is the net gain of 7 electoral college votes by the red states as a result of the post-2000 reallocation. This gain gives Bush room to lose at least one of the smaller battleground states and still win the Electoral College.