Posted on 06/01/2007 4:25:37 PM PDT by RWR8189
The political world has been atwitter of late with talk of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg entering the 2008 presidential race.
Could he win? I do not think so. Actually, I am pretty sure that he could not win.
It is extremely unlikely that, in a three way race, Mr. Bloomberg could take a majority of the Electoral College vote. So, the most likely scenario that is also the best case for Mr. Bloomberg is a split in the Electoral College. That is, Mr. Bloomberg gets enough electoral votes so that no candidate obtains an outright majority of 270 electors. In this case, the race would be decided in the House of Representatives. Specifically, the House of the 110th Congress would decide it.
While this would be better than an outright loss for Mr. Bloomberg, it would still not be very good. Charlie Cook asks the right question:
Could a Democratic House really pick a third-place finisher to be president, or might they opt for a politically compatible independent who finished first?
The answer to this is complicated by the strange nature of the House voting system. It is true that the Democrats have a thirty-seat majority in the House. However, a vote for President in the House is conducted in a most peculiar way. The 12th Amendment states:
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
[I]f no person have such a majority [of Electoral College votes for President], then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote.
Of course, in the even that the House were to select the President, you could count on Pelosi to attempt a coup d'etat — and, perhaps, get herself “elected.”
As the article points out, the Founding Fathers were clever enough to ensure that the Senate must select a candidate for VP who would become POTUS on 1-20-09 if the House is still deadlocked.
I wouldn’t put it past Pelosi, but I don’t think she has any opening.
One thing I noticed that may be an oversight by Mr. Cost is that throughout the whole article he speaks as though the 110th Congress would be certifying the election results, it is my understanding that the new Congress and its leadership would already have taken control by the time presidential elections are certified.
Nope. The Electors vote in their respective states on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. In 2008 that’s the 15th. They “immediately” send their ballots to the Congress, which is “immediately” required to open and tabulate them. The new Congress isn’t sworn in till the first week of January.
Thus it’s the “old” Congress, not the newly elected one, which makes the decision. This caused massive uproar in the 1800 election, as a great many of the Federalist reps had been voted out of office, but were still deciding who would be president for the next four years.
Nancy’s pretty creative, and bold. I remember Elizabeth Holtsman et al trying a similar thing back in 1973 when they had Nixon on the ropes and Agnew was under indictment. They didn’t succeed, but it could easily have happened because Nixon had been rendered brain-dead by the onslaught of both friends and enemies and wasn’t reacting effectively to anything that happened around him.
An Amendment XII ballot is not majority rule, it is 1 state-1 vote. Check out the various state delegations' composition. There is exactly NO way the 'Rats (or the would-be Hitler, Bloomberg) can win if it goes to the House.
The 'Rats are betting that Bloomers siphons off 'Pubbie votes. In this, as in so much else, they're out of their effing minds. Bloomers has always been a 'Rat; he ran on the 'Pubbie ticket for the mayoralty because that allowed him to avoid a vicious primary fight. Du-u-u-uh.
Cost assumes that Hagel would expect the Bloomberg ticket to do as poorly as Mr. Cost projects. Bloomberg and Hagel are RINOs. As such they would hope to attract the middle, where in RINO mythology at least, most of the votes are. I think Bloomberg can attract Democrat-leaning Republican votes in Red States, but no more so and probably less than he can attract of Republican-leaning Democrats in Blue states . . . and probably in no state could he win outright.Considering how happy Perot voters were with Clinton, I seriously doubt that a Bloomberg candidacy would pull from the Republican candidate in a serious way. And I think it would shake out that Bloomberg, with an expensive self-financed campaign, would be sufficiently attractive to the left that he would make the Republican candidate stronger.
Always assuming that the Republican candidate isn't a RINO himself - which with the present field is a fact not in evidence.
Hugo Pelosi.
Thus it’s the “old” Congress, not the newly elected one, which makes the decision.
That's actually not right. You are right about 1800, though the timing of the new Congress changed with the 20th Amendment, so it is no longer the old Congress that elects a president and vice president when necessary.
I'm not sure what you are quoting when you use the word "immediately," because the actual schedule is such that the votes aren't counted in Congress until the new Congress comes in. This federal government link spells it all out.
Sorry ‘bout that. Forgot about the 20th.
Was just reading a book about Aaron Burr and should have realized that steps might have been taken to eliminate that particular problem from arising again.
George Wallace in 1968 was hoping to throw the election into the House, in order to extract concessions from either Nixon or Humphrey. He knew he would never be chosen himself.
If the election went to the House, the winner would need the votes of 26 states--states evenly divided would cast no vote, and the District of Columbia would be "disenfranchised."
She wouldn’t be eligible unless she was one of the top three finishers. Since she’s not running, that’s highly unlikely.
It would probably be the 110th, simply because there are only 17 days between the start of the congressional session and the presidential swearing in. Especially if 2008 results in Republicans again controlling a majority of state delegations (not even neccessarily winning back the House), you can bet that Pelosi would fast track picking the new president.
I beg to differ. The Democrats currently control 26 out of 50 state delegations. While a bunch of those are one seat majorities, there’d be enormous pressure on any potential maverick to tow the party line.
Thanks for reminding me of when the electoral college meets. This Congress would have almost as much time as the next one to decide. A better strategy might be to work some Bloomberg electors (because, for any of this to happen, Bloomberg would have to win at least one state), like, IIRC, Gore tried to do with some Bush Florida electors.
Actually, it’s predicated on the unlikely fact that Bloomberg could actually win a state, which is the only way no candidate would get a majority of EVs in the first place.
^
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.