>I would use the
>Nader vs. Wallace split (2.7% vs. 13.5%)as a proxy to measure the
>popular support of left vs a far right candidate in the US.
Again, you're comparing things a generation ago with things today. A more relevant comparison would be Buchanan with Nader. Nader was a serious force in 2000 and Buchanan got almost no votes at all (and a lot of those were the mistaken or fraudulent "Jews for Buchanan" votes in Miami). His primary candidacies faded early.
I'm not saying the U.S. is radical, or that the right doesn't have significant support, but your version of things is far too grim.
Doug