Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Michael Bloomberg Could Deadlock Both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives
Rasmussen Reports ^ | June 01, 2007 | Rasmussen Reports

Posted on 06/01/2007 7:48:10 AM PDT by Kuksool

Rumors abound that Michael Bloomberg might spend a billion dollars running for the White House as an Independent, putting him on a competitive footing with the major party candidates. That might make it possible for Bloomberg to win several states and prevent anybody from winning a majority of the Electoral College votes. The House of Representatives would then select a President, something that hasn’t happened since 1824.

The few political commentators who have considered this possibility dismiss its significance. They reason that since Democrats control the House, the Democratic candidate would automatically move into the White House. That assessment reflects a profound misunderstanding of the process outlined in the Constitution.

If no candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College, the top three candidates are submitted to the House of Representatives. Presumably, this would be a Democrat, a Republican, and Bloomberg. (see polling data)

The House would then vote, but the result would not be determined by the overall number of Representatives. According to the Constitution, each state gets to cast one vote… and a majority of all the states is required to select a President. That means a candidate needs to get the nod from 26 state delegations before moving into the White House.

(Excerpt) Read more at rasmussenreports.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bloomberg
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: Steve_Seattle

Perot didn’t win a single state either.


21 posted on 06/01/2007 8:04:51 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

All I know, without consulting the tea leaves of Rasmussen’s polling, is that if the candidates are Rudy and Hillary, and Bloomberg makes it a 3-way race, why would anyone bother to vote? “The Three Faces of Soros!”


22 posted on 06/01/2007 8:06:48 AM PDT by penowa (NO more Bushes; NO more Clintons EVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

He’s never do as well as Nader; 2 maybe 3 %, and even that seems high.


23 posted on 06/01/2007 8:08:13 AM PDT by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

Bloomberg would hurt Giuliani, probably, but not Fred, who would win a different combination of states. Against Fred, Bloomberg would hurt Hillary more, because he’s a raving leftist who doesn’t even deserve to be called a RINO.


24 posted on 06/01/2007 8:10:55 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade
...it’s very simple, really...dthe Dem’s will likely have 250 electoral votes in the pocket

I doubt if either party has 250 ev's locked. There are numerous states that could flip either way.

25 posted on 06/01/2007 8:11:18 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
After Perot handed Clintoon the presidency twice, I believe America will NOT do that same mistake again!.........

I don't. Hillary's negatives are so high a strong 3rd party candidate is her only hope for winning if she's the nominee.

That said, if the pubbies nominate Rudy or McCain, I ain't voting for them. I refuse to vote for even the lessor of evils any more.

26 posted on 06/01/2007 8:12:35 AM PDT by zeugma (MS Vista has detected your mouse has moved, Cancel or Allow?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I tend to agree with you, but there are some FReepers who probably don’t agree - who will sit it out instead of voting against the dim.


27 posted on 06/01/2007 8:15:14 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: zeugma

I hope the race comes down to Thompson vs. Hillary!........


28 posted on 06/01/2007 8:15:15 AM PDT by Red Badger (Bite your tongue. It tastes a lot better than crow................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mathluv

I will NOT sit out, no matter who is on the(R) ticket if H! is on the OTHER SIDE!.......


29 posted on 06/01/2007 8:16:30 AM PDT by Red Badger (Bite your tongue. It tastes a lot better than crow................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool
Sounds like a case for instant runoff where you vote for your #1 choice and then your #2 choice at the same time.

In a 3 way race, I’d vote for the GOP candidate #1, the democrat #2, and vote never on that nanny state fascist Bloomberg.

30 posted on 06/01/2007 8:16:30 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (Fred 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

ABSOLUTELY!!!!!


31 posted on 06/01/2007 8:17:08 AM PDT by mathluv (Never Forget!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

I would hope that the people would see a Bloomberg candidacy for what it would be — an expensive ego trip — and tell him what he can do with both his ambitions and his money; a reaction which, I assume, he has very rarely experienced. There’s too much at stake in the next election to have some fool (even a mega-rich fool) monkey around with the process.


32 posted on 06/01/2007 8:19:51 AM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican (Fred Thompson 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kuksool

I saw a headline in the NY Post yesterday about Mayor B proposing some sort of tax cuts. Is he setting himself up for next year’s run by portraying himself as a “tax cutter”?


33 posted on 06/01/2007 8:21:55 AM PDT by Nextrush ( Chris Matthews Band: "I get high....I get high.....I get high.....McCain......")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
After Perot handed Clintoon the presidency twice, I believe America will NOT do that same mistake again!.........

Some would argue that the same thing happened with Nader and Bush/Gore.

34 posted on 06/01/2007 8:26:12 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a Liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Edgerunner
Mikey is a joke. He has no judgment capability other than nanny government...

He's a joke with a lot of money and better sensibilities than Perot had. Yes, he would be a lousy president. No, I don't think he could win. However, I do believe that should he want to, he can make himself a factor in this race.

35 posted on 06/01/2007 8:27:50 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a Liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Gosh, you sound like you’re from Louisiana - New Orleans to be exact. We have had to make nauseous choices from time to time - Nagin-Landrieu is our more recent decision...ug! Republicans do’t have a chance in NO....YET!
36 posted on 06/01/2007 8:31:49 AM PDT by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
I too have doubts about Bloomberg's ability to win any states, but I do think his natural constituency will be moderate Republicans who defected over the war. There are a substantial number of those, but not enough by themselves to send the election to the House.

There are also a substantial number of liberals who dislike Hillary, and they might be persuaded to vote for him as well. If he can secure votes from both constituencies, then he may have a chance.

If Bloomberg runs, it will almost certainly be on the "Unity '08" ticket, which I strongly suspect was created for him, and perhaps even by him. This means he must either change his party affiliation or select a running mate who is a Democrat, independent, or third party. I expect this running mate to be Wesley Clark.
37 posted on 06/01/2007 8:32:16 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country. Fred Thompson '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kabar; Steve_Seattle; Kuksool
Bloomie's got business sense as well as the mistake of the Perot campaign.

If Bloomie ultimate goal is to make a national presence for himself within whatever party wins, he can easily take a different approach. If he decides to spend minimally at the national level but doles out the cash at a regional level, there's no reason that he couldn't take several states on the theory that he could buy enough of the House of Representatives.

Longshot, maybe. But if he's delusional enough to run from president in the first place . . .

38 posted on 06/01/2007 8:33:49 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a Liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
I doubt if either party has 250 ev's locked. There are numerous states that could flip either way.

I consider the following states a lock for the Dems: California [55], NY [31], NJ [15], MA [12] , MD [10], CT [7], Del [3], DC [3], HI [4], Ill [21], OR [7], RI [4], VT [3], and WA [11]. I am leaving out MI [17] and MN [10]. This totals: 186

39 posted on 06/01/2007 8:34:13 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

Unless you buy votes, you need enough people, a plurality, to vote for you to capture the electoral votes. Can you name one state where Bloomberg has even the slightest chance of doing so?


40 posted on 06/01/2007 8:37:29 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson