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 ...
Perot didn’t win a single state either.
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!”
He’s never do as well as Nader; 2 maybe 3 %, and even that seems high.
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.
I doubt if either party has 250 ev's locked. There are numerous states that could flip either way.
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.
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.
I hope the race comes down to Thompson vs. Hillary!........
I will NOT sit out, no matter who is on the(R) ticket if H! is on the OTHER SIDE!.......
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.
ABSOLUTELY!!!!!
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.
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”?
Some would argue that the same thing happened with Nader and Bush/Gore.
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.
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 . . .
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
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?
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.