This may seem "odd"--have we considered the Buchanan factor???

[Starpass]

...maybe I should say "lack of" Buchanan factor. We had some tight butt-squeezing races going on in 2000 in many states. Example, I believe Gore won Minnesota by like 2%. Now Pat didn't exactly burn up the voting booths (dead heat race for bottom of the barrel with Ralph) but it did take away from Bush. I've been praying something would crawl out from under a rock on the "right" to run on an "independent" ticket. I don't see another Pat on the scene nor talk of it---hell, any fool who did would find his next plane ride, his last 'cause the WASP-Mafia will not tolerate it. Sooooooo I wonder what that 2% and 3% factor here and there in these close states might translate into in '04. And, I believe, we are still going to have Ralphie around making inane noises, aren't we????

[jenk]

1. ralph will be a factor, just not like 2000

where he made races closer in states that gore should've won without much of a sweat.

but in 2004, nader isn't getting 2.7% again, I'd be surprised if he breaks 1.7%

[Starpass]

2. yeah--but were are Buchanan votes going??

Maybe Ralph will get less than before BUT now there is NO challenge to Bush from the right and that has to factor in.

[jenk]

3. those are only 500,000 votes AT BEST!

I'd figure 95% go to Bush, or maybe those voters sit it out.

I don't think the Buchanan vote would swing anything, his core is out west and in the deep south Bush states where we can write off already.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. Buchanan got less that one half of a percent of the vote

In fact, Nader got six times as many votes as Buchanan. Bush hasn't really done much to piss off the right (something his father did).

[DrBB]

5. Hm. Buchanan might be MORE of a factor

...this time around. Because he would represent a different constitutency this time, namely, people on the right who LOATHE the neo-con American Imperium agenda. He has been very outspoken against Shrump's foreign policy and might be much more energized as an antagonist for Shrump.

Just an initial response, but it's an interesting question--worth pondering and keeping an eye on. Assuming he's running of course....

[whoYaCallinAlib]

6. He is giving no indication whatsoever of running again.

His wife is on record of "strongly discouraging" his running again. We need a new right-wing whacko to take his place and siphon off some Bush votes.

[Brian Sweat]

8. He doesn't need to run this time

He accomplished his mission in 2000. The Reform party is dead and no longer threat to the GOP.

[On the Road]

7. I Think the Buchanan Factor is on the Decline

He's had his time and he knows it. He won't run. As far as where those votes might go? Some of them could turn democratic on issues such as job flight.

After George Wallace showed surprisingly strong numbers in an early primary, the other democratic candidates were crawling all over themselves to show disgust and displeasure. Except George McGovern, as Hunter Thompson describes in his book on the 1972 election. Instead, McGovern came out with a statement to the effect that, while he differed from Wallace on a wide range of issues, that Wallace had tapped into a deep discontent with the establishment in DC and that he understood that.

McGovern was specifically trying to attract Wallace supporters. That's what the Dems need to do with Buchanan supporters on points of agreement. As a plain-talking outsider, I think Dean is in the best position to do this.

[mandyky]

9. Jesse Ventura is considering an independent run

I saw it either on MSNBC or CNN yesterday.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Ask Teresa LePore

seriously, it's a good question. I shudder at the implications of no Pat this time. :scared: