Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, but any state delegation that votes against him would be primaried out of office.
You're a moron. How the hell do you come up with that? Oh, nevermind, I know how. Because you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. The vote doesn't go by Congressional district. They vote by state.
No, but any state delegation that votes against him would be primaried out of office.
If it was between Trump with 40%, Sanders 40% and Bloomie with 20%, how does a Republican delegation vote for Bloomie? Or a Dem one?
What is Michael Bloomberg thinking?
WOW! He is playing a dangerous game of chicken. Would the House vote to make Trump the President, if neither candidate receive a plurality of electoral votes? Yes, there are enough RW wing nuts there to do that.
If it was between Trump with 40%, Sanders 40% and Bloomie with 20%, how does a Republican delegation vote for Bloomie? Or a Dem one?
1 - Nobody on Capital Hill wants Trump in the White House in the first place.
2 - You are picking numbers out of thin air with no foundation for your assumption. Why not Trump 15% / Sanders 40% / Bloomberg 35% ?
3 - Delegations are not "Republican" or "Democrat" you fucking moron. You keep confusing this with congressional districts. Delegations are made up of multiple individuals (except for the rare few states that only have one district), typically from both parties. Let's take Iowa. Three Republicans out of four districts. But Iowa is more likely to go Dem than GOP in the election. If that happened in the General, but the House had to pick the President, which do you think is the harder sell to make to the constituents? "Gee folks, we know you voted for Sanders, but we decided to go with Trump because he's in my party" isn't going to go over very well. It's much easier to sell people by saying "After careful consideration we decided to put the country ahead of partisan politics and gave our support to a candidate with a record of balancing budgets and proven leadership."
Now, I realize that in your world of make believe, you will simply believe something because you want it to be true. That's all fine and dandy. Do whatever you want with your own section of Mr. Rogers' neighborhood. But in doing so, you surrender the right to be regarded as anything more than an idiot.
If it was between Trump with 40%, Sanders 40% and Bloomie with 20%, how does a Republican delegation vote for Bloomie? Or a Dem one?
1 - Nobody on Capital Hill wants Trump in the White House in the first place.
2 - You are picking numbers out of thin air with no foundation for your assumption. Why not Trump 15% / Sanders 40% / Bloomberg 35% ?
3 - Delegations are not "Republican" or "Democrat" you fucking moron. You keep confusing this with congressional districts. Delegations are made up of multiple individuals (except for the rare few states that only have one district), typically from both parties. Let's take Iowa. Three Republicans out of four districts. But Iowa is more likely to go Dem than GOP in the election. If that happened in the General, but the House had to pick the President, which do you think is the harder sell to make to the constituents? "Gee folks, we know you voted for Sanders, but we decided to go with Trump because he's in my party" isn't going to go over very well. It's much easier to sell people by saying "After careful consideration we decided to put the country ahead of partisan politics and gave our support to a candidate with a record of balancing budgets and proven leadership."
Now, I realize that in your world of make believe, you will simply believe something because you want it to be true. That's all fine and dandy. Do whatever you want with your own section of Mr. Rogers' neighborhood. But in doing so, you surrender the right to be regarded as anything more than an idiot.
Bloomberg is not a centrist. He is very much a leftist.
No, Bloomberg is fairly centrist. On social issues he's pretty progressive, but he's a strong pro-business fiscal conservative.
Furthermore, if the Republican House were to select Bloomberg as president over Trump there would be a massive backlash among Republicans they have never seen and it would be political suicide for them.
How do you figure? You have to remember that if it were to come to the House making the decision, that would mean that the people as a whole were not very hot on Trump. It would mean that alot of Republicans themselves turned their backs on Trump.
In any case, this scenario is unlikely even if he runs.
If Bloomberg runs, I think that a possible victory is not so unlikely. I mean, do you really think that in a general election the public will be so keen to choose Trump or Sanders over someone who isn't batshit crazy? Remember, there's no way that he even bothers to run if someone other than Trump or Cruz gets the nomination, and possibly not even then unless Sanders also gets the nomination on the other side. Bloomberg would be the natural least-of-three-evils for about 80% of the population under such circumstances.
Because everybody on Capitol Hill wants business as usual.
If Bloomberg is what you consider to be fairly centrist then this country's political center has moved far to the left. Being a corporatist does not make him a centrist. His record is very much left wing.
Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before he ran for mayor and he only switched to the Republican Party to avoid an eight person primary on the Dem side.
If there is not a majority then it means the electorate was not decisive on anybody. It makes no sense in that scenario for a Republican or Democratic Congressman to vote to select someone outside of their party.
The grassroots would obliterate them at their next election with primary challengers.
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that 80% of the population would be keen on an independent candidate who has a far left record on social issues, a very authoritarian record on personal issues, and is also a major gun grabber (that issue alone will destroy him).
Trump and Sanders are lining up huge crowds of people. Yes, people will defect to Bloomberg from both sides. Your limousine liberals in both parties with the big money will get behind Bloomberg, but the grassroots of each party will stick with their guy.
Bloomberg might win a couple of states, but for the most part I don't see him winning enough electoral votes to deprive either Sanders or Trump of the 270 votes needed to win. I think he'll get a lot of second place finishes and likely pull more from Sanders than Trump throwing some traditional blue states in Trump's direction, much like Perot did with Clinton, only throwing some red ones to blue.
If Bloomberg is what you consider to be fairly centrist then this country's political center has moved far to the left. Being a corporatist does not make him a centrist. His record is very much left wing.
Really? So balancing a budget and being pro-business is "very left wing"? You haven't said anything that isn't subjective to your own bias. Another person could just as easily claim that Bloomberg is right wing and say "being pro-choice doesn't make him a centrist."
Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before he ran for mayor and he only switched to the Republican Party to avoid an eight person primary on the Dem side.
Yeah, and Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until they decided to support the Civil Rights Act, which made him decide that red was his favorite color.
Are you trying to say a person cannot be a centrist if they are, or once were, a Democrat? Because that's pretty ridiculous. There are centrists on both sides. If you can't realize that, then your perspective has migrated your own concept of the center far too much to the right.
If there is not a majority then it means the electorate was not decisive on anybody. It makes no sense in that scenario for a Republican or Democratic Congressman to vote to select someone outside of their party.
That's nice. But it has nothing to do with this. Individual Congresspersons will not be voting.
The grassroots would obliterate them at their next election with primary challengers.
Now you're contradicting yourself. How/why would the "grassroots" obliterate bipartisan state delegations over a selection on something where, according to your own words, the people at large were not decisive about?
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that 80% of the population would be keen on an independent candidate who has a far left record on social issues, a very authoritarian record on personal issues, and is also a major gun grabber (that issue alone will destroy him).
Because the truth of the matter is that that describes the average American at the moment. And even where many people, such as myself, disagree with him on certain things, these are at best minor and low priority matters on the federal level. If my choice is otherwise between Sanders and Trump, you're damn right I'd take Bloomberg. He might have been a "gun grabber" in New York, but it's simply not possible for him to do that as President. And despite all the saber rattling on both sides of the aisle by morons, a reasonable person like myself knows that petty bickering over the extent of gun control laws, or the particulars about how to do it is small potatoes in comparison to Donald "ban the Muslims" Trump and Bernie "free shit for everyone and no idea how to pay for it" Sanders.
Trump and Sanders are extremists. Ex-fucking-stremists! Truth is that even if Bloomberg is a leftists, he's still centrist as fuck when slapped between those two morons.
Trump and Sanders are lining up huge crowds of people. Yes, people will defect to Bloomberg from both sides. Your limousine liberals in both parties with the big money will get behind Bloomberg, but the grassroots of each party will stick with their guy.
The "grassroots" of a party is next to nothing in a general election. General elections are won by rational people in the middle, with most of them holding their noses most of the time when they vote.
Bloomberg might win a couple of states, but for the most part I don't see him winning enough electoral votes to deprive either Sanders or Trump of the 270 votes needed to win. I think he'll get a lot of second place finishes and likely pull more from Sanders than Trump throwing some traditional blue states in Trump's direction, much like Perot did with Clinton, only throwing some red ones to blue.
You really, actually, think that Trump would win any but the hardest of masturbatory deep red states? Trump would drive alot of otherwise committed Republicans away. One thing I know for certain is that there's absolutely no way in Hell I vote for Trump. Never. Ever. Period. I'd vote for Clinton before I vote for Trump, and I hate that bitch. And I'd hate voting for her, but I'd be all to happy to take her over Trump. And that is exactly why Bloomberg would be a welcomed independent candidate. Because Bloomberg isn't the kind of person most reasonably minded Americans, regardless of political affiliation, will hate. I may disagree with him on alot of things, but I also know that he has the ability to do a decent job. Better than Trump, better than Cruz, better than Clinton, and better than Sanders.
If Bloomberg is what you consider to be fairly centrist then this country's political center has moved far to the left. Being a corporatist does not make him a centrist. His record is very much left wing.
Really? So balancing a budget and being pro-business is "very left wing"? You haven't said anything that isn't subjective to your own bias. Another person could just as easily claim that Bloomberg is right wing and say "being pro-choice doesn't make him a centrist."
Bloomberg was a lifelong Democrat before he ran for mayor and he only switched to the Republican Party to avoid an eight person primary on the Dem side.
Yeah, and Strom Thurmond was a Democrat until they decided to support the Civil Rights Act, which made him decide that red was his favorite color.
Are you trying to say a person cannot be a centrist if they are, or once were, a Democrat? Because that's pretty ridiculous. There are centrists on both sides. If you can't realize that, then your perspective has migrated your own concept of the center far too much to the right.
If there is not a majority then it means the electorate was not decisive on anybody. It makes no sense in that scenario for a Republican or Democratic Congressman to vote to select someone outside of their party.
That's nice. But it has nothing to do with this. Individual Congresspersons will not be voting.
The grassroots would obliterate them at their next election with primary challengers.
Now you're contradicting yourself. How/why would the "grassroots" obliterate bipartisan state delegations over a selection on something where, according to your own words, the people at large were not decisive about?
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that 80% of the population would be keen on an independent candidate who has a far left record on social issues, a very authoritarian record on personal issues, and is also a major gun grabber (that issue alone will destroy him).
Because the truth of the matter is that that describes the average American at the moment. And even where many people, such as myself, disagree with him on certain things, these are at best minor and low priority matters on the federal level. If my choice is otherwise between Sanders and Trump, you're damn right I'd take Bloomberg. He might have been a "gun grabber" in New York, but it's simply not possible for him to do that as President. And despite all the saber rattling on both sides of the aisle by morons, a reasonable person like myself knows that petty bickering over the extent of gun control laws, or the particulars about how to do it is small potatoes in comparison to Donald "ban the Muslims" Trump and Bernie "free shit for everyone and no idea how to pay for it" Sanders.
Trump and Sanders are extremists. Ex-fucking-stremists! Truth is that even if Bloomberg is a leftists, he's still centrist as fuck when slapped between those two morons.
Trump and Sanders are lining up huge crowds of people. Yes, people will defect to Bloomberg from both sides. Your limousine liberals in both parties with the big money will get behind Bloomberg, but the grassroots of each party will stick with their guy.
The "grassroots" of a party is next to nothing in a general election. General elections are won by rational people in the middle, with most of them holding their noses most of the time when they vote.
Bloomberg might win a couple of states, but for the most part I don't see him winning enough electoral votes to deprive either Sanders or Trump of the 270 votes needed to win. I think he'll get a lot of second place finishes and likely pull more from Sanders than Trump throwing some traditional blue states in Trump's direction, much like Perot did with Clinton, only throwing some red ones to blue.
You really, actually, think that Trump would win any but the hardest of masturbatory deep red states? Trump would drive alot of otherwise committed Republicans away. One thing I know for certain is that there's absolutely no way in Hell I vote for Trump. Never. Ever. Period. I'd vote for Clinton before I vote for Trump, and I hate that bitch. And I'd hate voting for her, but I'd be all to happy to take her over Trump. And that is exactly why Bloomberg would be a welcomed independent candidate. Because Bloomberg isn't the kind of person most reasonably minded Americans, regardless of political affiliation, will hate. I may disagree with him on alot of things, but I also know that he has the ability to do a decent job. Better than Trump, better than Cruz, better than Clinton, and better than Sanders.
The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing.
The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly.
The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing.
It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.
The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly.
You know what's even more silly: The idea that the two parties would both end up nominating extreme candidates that each "establishment" within the party dislikes. Nevertheless, that "silly" idea has a good chance to become reality in the next few months.
The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing.
It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.
The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly.
You know what's even more silly: The idea that the two parties would both end up nominating extreme candidates that each "establishment" within the party dislikes. Nevertheless, that "silly" idea has a good chance to become reality in the next few months.
It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.
Your idea that Bloomie, with his extreme gun control, sodium control and soda control ideas, is closer to the middle just highlights how far left your viewpoint has become.
Without considering party politics that might be a valid point.The assertion that Boomberg would win some states is based on practically nothing.
It's based on the reality that the public generally does not like extreme candidates and will aim closer toward the middle when faced with two extremes.
Not really. That pot has been boiling for the last 15 years. We have seen this progression for awhile. What we have NOT seen is the people willingly leaning to independents for the presidency. We have actually observed the opposite - people are more politically entrenched now than any time I can really remember. It is rather ironic that such seems to be the case from my POV while, at the same time, party affiliation is decreasing.The idea that the parties would vote for the independent over their nominee is just silly.
You know what's even more silly: The idea that the two parties would both end up nominating extreme candidates that each "establishment" within the party dislikes. Nevertheless, that "silly" idea has a good chance to become reality in the next few months.
Because they cause brain malfunction and attention deficit disorder. You're living proof.We need an Independent run by a big nanny State Anti-gun Progressive billionaire who wants to control what you eat
they are already controlling what you eat with the most lethal crap of GMOs ..unless if you grow your own or buy from a organic local farmer your eating a GMO... The government voted it in ..all of them
The government voted for GMOs?
Why are GMOs lethal?
