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 ...
At least among the FReeper block, until FRed joins the race.
I think Ill, and possibly Mich and Minn could be in play for the GOP — especially if Fred Thompson is the nominee.
Non-smokers.
Illinois no way. The states most likely to swing red, in more or less particular order: Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota.
Actually, you're wrong on both counts.
But then, you probably still believe that nobody could possibly elect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.
I think you can safely count the District of Columbia in the Dem camp. You do know I presume that DC does cast electoral votes in Presidential elections and has since 1964.
Bloomberg makes those three look like Jesse Helms, Phil Graham, and Strom Thurmond.
I doubt Illinois will. Since 1992 the Dems have been carrying the state by more than 10%. Hillary born in Illinois and Obama would more than counter Thompson and the Daley machine in Chicago will dial up whatever votes they need.
Other than NY state....I can’t think of a single state that would vote for the guy.
I take the exact opposite position: if people have not educated themselves about the issues and candidates, it is their responsibility not to vote.
Illinois no way. The states most likely to swing red, in more or less particular order: Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota...
...NH perhaps...the others not likely, they’ve voted blue two elections straight, any real reason for them to change after eight years of a republican prez...Kerry took 246 or so ev’s last time, and who believes that of those will flip...thus the 250 I indicated...and Iowa and maybe Colorado are very likely blue pickups next time around, and keep NH or flip Nevada and voila, you’re in...regardless of Ohio and Fla...
That’s what’s even funnier about him. He openly referred to those who don’t vote as “lazy”, “ignorant”, and even “scum”, yet he still wanted, in effect, to ensure that elections be decided by those very same people.
bttt
Never misunderestimate the gullibility of the American voter, nor the gatitude of the newly-minted “citizen” when handed a $20 bill.
That might not be true. I saw a Rasmussen poll that showed him taking votes from Giuliani and McCain, enough to make Hillary the top vote-getter.
I don’t think Bloomie has what it takes to win even one state.
I agree — he is less charismatic than Perot. But there is an interesting question here. It is actually quite difficult to get a majority of states in the House, especially when there are a large number of states with delegations of an even number split down the middle.
A deadlock in the Senate is less likely.
I can’t stand Bumbleberg. He is a bored billionnaire.
I'm sure you meant GHWB, or George Herbert Walker Bush. If the 2 to 1 ratio you mention is true, that would have given GHWB a tad over 50% of the popular vote and a plurality of less than a percentage point over Clinton in the popular vote. The hypothetical result would have hinged on the state-by state breakdown.
Perot is responsible for Breyer and Ginsburg being on the SCOTUS today.
If, for the sake of argument, your theory about the '92 election is totally correct (I neither agree nor disagree), then you are right about the SCOTUS. You would also be correct to say that Perot is responsible for a lot of other ugly things we saw unfolding during Bubba's time in the WH. That list is too long to go through here.
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.