Are Dems total idiots?

Kerry got 252 electoral votes
(for those Dems looking for a silver lining ;-),
note that only 37 EV were "barely Bush,"
while 69 EV were "barely Kerry").

Consider if Gephardt rather than Kerry had been the nominee.
Gephardt almost surely would have won MO(11) and IA(7),
putting him at a winning 270.
On the other hand,
he might have lost NH(4),
but with equal likelihood would have won WV(5)
(a significant amount of the anti-Kerry vote
in that area is based on cultural dissonance,
which Gephardt would not have suffered).
Further, he would have had a better chance at winning
AR(7) based on cultural affinity and geographical proximity,
and the big enchilada of OH(20)
due again to less cultural dissonance,
and also to his strong support from rank-and-file union members.

My amazement is that this situation has gone uncommented-on
by the commentariat.
In particular,
Slate's mammoth venting of Democratic angst notwithstanding,
a Slate search on "Gephardt" shows he was not even mentioned
in all that teeth-gnashing.

One also wonders about those union bosses,
at SEIU and AFSCME, who supported Kerry rather than Gephardt.
Don't their troops have a way of signaling their dissent?