Posted on 06/01/2007 8:41:54 PM PDT by finnman69
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.
Today, the Democrats control precisely 26 state delegations. Republicans control 21 and 3 are tied. But, many are closely divided. If the Democrats lose a single state delegation, they lose the majority needed to select a President on their own.
In at least 12 state delegations currently controlled by Democrats, the loss of a single representative would either shift control to the Republicans or create a deadlock. If the Democrats lose just a single net seat in any one of those twelve states, they lose control of the ability to select the next President in the House.
If a Bloomberg campaign resonates with the public enough to win several states; his candidacy could create a deadlock in both the Electoral College and the House of Representatives. Certainly his strategists would recognize this and target the most vulnerable Democrats in key states to assure such an outcome.
What happens if nobody controls a majority of the state delegations in the House? It’s hard to tell, but whatever happens would be studied by historians and political scientists for generations.
There would certainly be an unprecedented and intense period of negotiations between Election Day and January 20. A deal could be reached prior to the Electoral College voting. Or, it could go to the House (with the Senate called upon to select a Vice President).
The possibilities are too numerous and speculative to consider here, but it is hard to overstate the leverage that Bloomberg would hold. If he finishes a strong second in the national popular vote, that leverage would be limited only by his desire to use it. There is even a decent chance he could wind up as President.
To give just one extreme example of the possible negotiating tactics, remember that the vote for Vice President is held separately from the vote for President. If Bloomberg really played hardball, his team could cast their Electoral Votes for, say, the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate. By electing a Republican Vice-President, Bloomberg would put tremendous pressure on the Democrats to negotiate with him. Why? Because if the House remains deadlocked on January 20, the already elected Republican Vice President would assume the role of President.
This, of course, is not a likely scenario. But, if Michael Bloomberg is truly serious about investing a billion dollars in a Presidential campaign—and if he can find a message that truly resonates with the American people--he has the potential to fundamentally alter Election 2008 in ways we can’t begin to imagine.
Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information.
The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election.
Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, “One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com." And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, “In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.”
Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome.
During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined.
Ptential for total wildcard chaos, moreso than Perot caused.
I don’t think he has much of a following outside of NYC.
And which state(s), exactly, could Bloomberg actually carry? New York, against the Hildebeast? Unlikely. New Jersey with its corrupt machine politics. Less likely. Connecticut with its love of RINOs, possibly. Anywhere else? Forget it.
He’ll take more liberals than he will Republicans, that’s for sure. And Thompson will crush him to a pulp.
There are two outcomes, both favorable to the Republican candidate. The first involves Bloomberg carrying New York, and possibly New Jersey and Connecticut. As these are blue states that is a huge chunk of electoral votes taken away from the Democrats (there's no chance in heck any Republican will ever carry any of these states). The second involves him splitting the Democrat vote and giving the plurality of the popular vote in these states to the Republican.
ah, no. this will not happen. the manhattan elite like him. other than that he has zero appeal outside of this city. he’s short and has the voice of a 12 year old boy going through a shaky puberty. he’s an ego maniac surrounded by yes-men who think that nyc sets the tone for the rest of the country.
This article is utter nonsense; as a third party candidate, Bloomberg would win no state at all.
Bloomberg would ONLY draw votes from the Dems.
He calls himself a Republican but only ran as a Republican to get elected mayor of New York. He is a liberal and a life-long Democrat except for his years as mayor.
He’s also a total jackass on most social issues.
This is a pipedream nightmare - he is no “third party candidate” just another liberal Dem.
He’s a total jackass with an incredibly large ego. But I still think he’s more likely to hurt the Democrats if he runs.
On the other hand, if Bush keeps up this suicidal course he seems to have embarked on, who knows what will happen? He’s not up for election again, but he can still destroy the party if he chooses to.
It was mainly his Daddy’s “Read my lips” that sent the voters to Ross Perot.
On the other hand, that Bush was running again. This one is not. If the party finally manages to get behind a good candidate, hopefully this time it will be different.
New Yorkers are so parochial, it makes me laugh. For months they have been pushing two NY candidates. Now they want three. I’ll bet most Americans don’t want a New Yorker at all.
What garbage. Perot won how many states in 1992 despite getting 18% of the popular vote?
He would probably pull a few votes in Berzerkely, San Fransicko, Boulder, Austin and Miami.
He is just another Napoleonic Egomaniac Fool like that Ross Parrot.
Personally I hope he runs and wastes his billion, at least he will do some good.
Perot couldn't, and he (trust me) is a VERY sharp chap, known him for decades. Disliked him for decades, too, but that's neither here nor there -- he couldn't and didn't throw the election into the House.
If Bloomers runs, it's all about 2 things: A) Someone, likely Hitlery, has sold him on the proposition that he can siphon off votes from 'normally' 'Pubbie constituencies, and B) That he's sufficiently arrogant to believe proposition A)
I do love this 'Rat fantasy.
read this if you have free time, it’s long, but details why voters are frankly, ignorant.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa594.pdf
Bloomberg is no Ross Perot, he’s eloquent, has political experience, and is more successful than Perot. I could easily see Bloomberg take a few states. Depending on how the DNC and GOP candiates run their campaigns, it could be more than a few states.
The most likely scenario...Bloomberg does this and gets into the race next spring. He finds no support throughout the south. Hillary locks up California and the west coast with no argument from the Republicans. The best that Bloomberg could hope for is to win New York state’s electoral votes. If this is a close race...that sole win...might be enough to deny Hillary or Thompson (the likely contender) the outright win.
But for the rest of this article...the idea that we might have a Republican vice president and a Democratic president...just won’t wash. It’ll be a constant thorn in the side of Hillary to have this number two tagging along and ruining her plans. She would likely have the dude exiled to some federal office building to ensure he has no inside information. It would make the entire four year period a total wash for the entire government.
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
There is a strong, new, third Party (Unity ‘08)that has formed and they have some pretty heavy hitters on board. They have been courting Bloomy for sometime now. Check it out at www.unity08.com.
Put the popcorn in the microwave and sit back and enjoy.
Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
you forget he could spend 1 billion, 2 bilion w/o 1 minute of fundraising. That buys a LOT of TV time. Plus hes no Perot. Not my favoritei NYC, but better than the utter LW marxists he beat out. In an ugly national race where both main parties have low raings, he could get a lot of votes.
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.