This Luntz Global Poll, released on January 28, suggests that Michael Bloomberg would be a formidable candidate if he ran as an independent, no matter who the major party nominees are. Thanks to several people for this link.
This Luntz Global Poll, released on January 28, suggests that Michael Bloomberg would be a formidable candidate if he ran as an independent, no matter who the major party nominees are. Thanks to several people for this link.
Late in the 1980 race, the Anderson campaign told some of its leading volunteers (including me) that there was a poll which put Anderson just about this close to Reagan and Carter — given that those surveyed were asked to presume that Anderson had a chance to win. On those same terms, he was actually ahead in the biggest eight or so states. (Alas, it’s too long ago for me to remember who the pollster was, if I ever knew — so I can’t find confirmation.)
Hoping Bloomberg will run. At this point I won’t vote in either major party primary here in Texas so that I can sign his ballot access petition. Hopefully Bloomberg will announce his candidacy (yay or nay) before the March 1 primary date.
Frank Luntz has pretty much no credibility, and neither does this “poll:” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
Frank Luntz was on Tavis Smiley Monday night about Iowa etc. and had some fairly favorable things to say about Trump (transcript embedded).
Luntz can’t see the forest for the trees. The article ignores the electoral college. Bloomberg would need to win there (which can’t happen in an evenly split 3 way race) because if it goes to the House there is no way they break party ranks.
I don’t believe that the House would fail to vote for the presidential candidate who got the most popular votes, regardless of the party affiliation of the members of the House. Until recently, the Vermont Constitution said if no one gets a majority of the popular vote for Governor, the legislature chooses the Governor. A tradition developed in Vermont that the legislature would always vote for the candidate who got the most popular votes. I think the same dynamic would apply to Congress if no one gets a majority of the Electoral vote.
The possibility of Bloomberg running and winning enough electoral votes which causes no candidate to get 270 electoral votes which throws the election into the House is miniscule.
However if that did somehow happen, I completely disagree with Richard’s opinion that the House would do “the right thing” and elect the person with the most popular votes. With very few exceptions, every House Republican who would vote for Bloomberg would be easily defeated in the next GOP primary election solely because of the 2nd amendment issue. And as we all know, the only thing congresscritters really care about is getting re-elected. End of discussion.
Also remember in that type of case the House votes by state with each state getting one vote. The Republicans hold a huge majority meaning the Republicans alone would decide which of the three become President. Of course what is odd is the Senate with each Senator voting chooses from the top 2 VP candidates. Thus it would be possible for the Republicans to choose the President from the top 3 while the Democrats choose the VP from the top 2.