Michael Bloomberg: Independent can’t win White House

Dan Hirschhorn @ Politico.com reports:

Michael Bloomberg says an unaffiliated candidate can’t win the presidency — a sign that the New York mayor might be leaning against an independent bid of his own.

Bloomberg told reporters that the very best an independent candidate could hope for was an electoral-vote tie, which would give final say to the House, which the GOP recaptured this month.

“Party affiliation is so strong with enough people that the Republicans and Democrats — no matter who their candidates were, no matter who voted — would get enough votes that you could get every independent vote, it would still not be a majority,” he said.Full story @http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45283.html#ixzz15rXKD075

16 thoughts on “Michael Bloomberg: Independent can’t win White House

  1. A Different Green Party Conservative

    The Green party’s Michael Bloomberg is one of the world’s great Green Party leaders who is bringing forth a Green Party vision for the great Green Party takeover of the United States and of Planet Earth in general. This great Green Party announcement is just his way of confusing the enemies of the great Green Party conservatives, by making it look like he won’t run for President. When in reality, Michael Bloomberg has already joined the Green Party and is planning his exciting and successful Green Party run for President; we are currently deciding at the Green Party whether or not Ron Paul or Cindy Sheehan will be his running mate; both are both great Green Party conservative candidates and are instrumental in the Green Party’s great victories in France, Germany, Ireland and Australia, where they all have at least a few people in Parliament already. These are just a few great signs that Bloomberg will be Green Party US President from 2012 to 2020, followed by Gail “for Rail” Parker from 2021 to 2029.

  2. Robert Capozzi

    it would be interesting to see his math. Why a tie and not barely better than a tie?

    I’m guessing that his strategists are assuming that some states are more likely the vote independent than others, and they did some sort of sensitivity analysis.

  3. NewFederalist

    It might also be nice if he actually knew how the House of Representatives would select the president in the absence of an electoral college majority. The Republicans now control over half of the state delegations which really has little to do with their actual number of seats. Each state gets one vote not each representative. North and South Dakota (which both switched from D to R) would count equally
    with New York and California. The House would make its choice from the top three finishers while the senate would make its choice from the top two with each senator getting an equal vote.

  4. Robert Capozzi

    NF, hmm, I’d forgotten about that wrinkle, but I think it’s slightly different from what you say:

    “…and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.”

    Looks like it’s the top 5, not 3, but you’re right, it’s state delegations of MCs. The Senate appears to only be a tie-breaker.

    If I’m reading this correctly, in this case, the #2 choice becomes VP.

    This would be way more interesting to me than Bush v. Gore.

  5. NewFederalist

    Check the 12th Amendment. Top 3 for president by the House and top 2 for Veep by the Senate.

  6. Catholic Trotskyist

    But what if the Democrats take over a majority of the state delegations in 2012? Couldn’t it be argued that the next Congress would be the one to choose the President?

  7. Darryl W. Perry

    Electors chosen on Election Day meet in their respective state capitals (or in the case of Washington, D.C., within the District) on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, at which time they cast their electoral votes on separate ballots for President and Vice President.
    The Twelfth Amendment mandates that the Congress assemble in joint session to count the electoral votes and declare the winners of the election. The session is ordinarily required to take place on January 6 in the calendar year immediately following the meetings of the presidential electors.

    So, it would be the Congress elected in 2012 that would decide if no one wins the electoral college.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *