Nathan Gonzales notes that Democrats are living in fantasy land. 'If only 60,000 voters in Ohio had changed their minds? Damn, that's frustrating.'

But Gonzales tries to bring them back to reality:

In the real world, George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in the Electoral College 286-251, with 270 needed to win. (One elector in Minnesota cast his vote for John Edwards.) Yes, if Ohio had gone for Kerry, he would have totaled 272 electoral votes, and would be thawing out from his parade walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

But while 60,000 votes would have made the difference in favor of Kerry, just 45,000 votes the other way paints a completely different picture. If 5,000 voters had switched in New Hampshire, Bush would have carried the state. If 6,000 voters had switched in Wisconsin, Bush would have carried that state. And if 34,000 voters had switched in Oregon, Bush would have carried it also. So, in this backward hypothetical world, Bush wins reelection with a considerable 307 electoral votes.

In addition, Bush could have lost Ohio and still won reelection if only a few thousand voters in New Hampshire or Wisconsin had magically decided to change their minds. The fact of the matter is, the voters voted and Bush won. And playing "What if..." is left for the loser.

Candidates who come up short invariably offer the "what if..." message to prove to themselves and others that there isn't much difference between losing and winning. But, of course, there is.

If Bill Mueller had not singled in Game 4 of the American League Championship Series, the Red Sox would never have even made it to the World Series. And if only 3 points switched hands on September 27, December 12, and December 26, the Washington Redskins would have made the playoffs.

And if I had wings, I could fly.