> michael at ecst.csuchico.edu wrote:
>
> > On Democracy Now, Michael Moore says that probable voters does not include
> > many young people -- because they did not vote before. As a result, Nader
> > is seriously undercounted.
>
> may well be undercounting him. On the other hand, third party
> candidates tend to fade as election day nears.
Except in Ventura's case. The Nader situation feels much the same to me - a relatively broad base of support, a strong "common sense" factor, considerable wavering between the two top candidates owing to voter indifference, and the potential for an eleventh-hour groundswell of younger voters.
I see a fairly sizeable Bush win with an unexpected surge in Nader support underneath, far outstripping the estimates of most of the pundits - followed by an unremarkable and strangely inhibited Bush administration owing to a somewhat more vigorous electorate still energized by the unexpected surprise of the Nader percentages. A contentious debate on social security in year one will be interrupted by a major foreign policy crisis for Bush a few months into year two. An inept and largely disjointed Bush administration will be seen as bungling the situation, with potential catastrophic results, until the unforseen emergence into the spotlight of an as-yet unnamed personage from the right who manages to take the reins and exert enough influence at the right moment to extricate Bush from his dilemma.
I see this dark horse running on the Republican ticket against Nader and a lame, last-ditch Democratic candidate in 2004.
--
/ dave /