There were undoubtedly votes cast for Nader and Buchanan that would not have ever have gone to either algore or Bush.
Algore was such a weak candidate that Nader was more appealing to a large segment of the traditional Democratic voting block.
Algore was such a weak candidate that he lost to a Republican candidate who's main appeal was that he was not algore.
Bush was such a weak candidate that he nearly lost to algore. Pitiful, actually.
George W. Bush wrested the presidency from the party that had held the White House during a major and protracted economic boom, even though the incumbent party benefited from pervasive bias in the press and massive voter fraud. President Bush achieved that through strength of character, leadership, political instincts, organizing skills, and what I think may be his greatest asset -- even most folks who disagree with him tend to like him and trust him. He's not an outstanding intellectual or orator, but he's real, he's one of us, and he's a genuinely nice, decent guy. He connects easily with the American people, and they want to believe in him.
Well, Eagle Eye, so much for the fellow I voted for. If you are a Buchanan supporter, exactly how well did your guy poll against Al Gore and the other candidates, and what in your opinion are the compelling qualities that caused him to do so much better than my "weak" and "pitiful" candidate?