Well Wulk, Obama has to win a certain number of specific states by popular vote count in his re-election bid [so that he will also get the critical Electoral College votes that come with state by state victory] or he can actually 'win' the popular vote and still not re-enter the Oval Office. It's a methodology wherein the founding patriots tried to ensure that mob rule was balanced by the influence of an educated and elite electorate. The peasants [citizens] and the media 'rediscover' what the Electoral College means in presidential politics once every four years.
Really, they are like the fabled monkeys that pluck bananas from their trees and soak up the sunshine in good weather never thinking far enough ahead to build shelters against the inevitable rain. Then when the rain comes they shriek in rage and are miserable until the sun shines again. Then they return to their feasting and play, having already forgotten the rain and the lesson they should have learned from their drenching. Ditto with the Electoral College.
Once every four years the citizens are reminded that the popular vote technically means nothing and then they are collectively enraged [well, those with working IQs], but then they forget it again the day after the election, since nine times out of ten it ends up mirroring the popular vote anyway.
So Obama HAS GOT TO WIN in New Hampshire come voting day at the end of 2012 in order to get returned to office. So he and his hired crew have an entire year to correct his 'image problem' in the Granite State. But here and now things are looking grim for the Anointed One.
All that aside, your general analysis of how the presidential system works in this nation is correct. But then again, anyone who's familiar with parliamentary systems knows that the alternative is also flawed.