If Bloomberg changed his mind,...

[pat_k]

...and decided to run as an Independent, I think he would have a shot at throwing it to the House. It's a long shot, but if it did go to the House, Repubs might finally decide to unify and give the Presidency to Bloomberg.

Scenario:

Bloomberg could win NY and NJ. This would not be outside the realm of possibility. His likeablity ratings in the tri-state area are undoubtedly higher than Clinton's or Trump's (not hard to do.)

Bloomberg could possibly attract more Dems than Repubs in some swing states (e.g., PA). If so, it would throw a few of those contests to Trump.

Check out the following theoretical electoral map with Bloomberg in the mix:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5k7GG

The above results in the following distribution of electors:
268 Clinton
228 Trump
43 Bloomberg

Any thoughts?

[hrmjustin]

1. Ballot access deadlines have passed in several states.

[pat_k]

5. Actually, none have passed yet.

Dates for unaffiliated/independent for NY, NJ, and swing states:
NY 8/23
NJ 8/1
NV 7/8
CO 8/10
IA 8/19
WI 8/2
OH 8/10
PA 8/1
VA 8/26
NC 6/9
FL 7/15
NH 8/10

If you check out the theoretical map, you'll see that I have most of the swing states going to Hillary, so if Bloomberg didn't make it on all the swing state ballots, it wouldn't really matter.

To throw to House, Bloomberg would just need to win NY and NJ (or an equivalent number of electors elsewhere), and Trump would need to win a few swing states.

You can fiddle around with the interactive map to come up with other scenarios.
http://www.270towin.com/

Filing deadlines for independents from
http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2016/02/11/how-independent-candidates-get-on-the-ballot-heres-a-state-by-state-chart/

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. I think the House would give it to Trump. The vast majority of the GOP has fallen in behind him.

Republicans will not piss in their own Wheaties.

Bloomberg would probably be VP in that scenario.

[pat_k]

8. As I said, a long shot, but...

...I think many, if not most, Members of the House who endorsed Trump did so because they feel they are compelled to (that there is "no choice" at this point). And, I could be wrong, but I think there are many, perhaps even most, who are still withholding support.

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Ultimately, I think they will like the way Trump uses a pen better than Bloomberg,

Bloomberg's stance on abortion and other issues will not win him an election in the House.

I don't think there is much chance of him running, anyway. He sits on Clinton's New York Leadership Council, and in March stated he would not run.

The libertarian, Johnson, who is now their nominee, may do well with those Republicans who remain too disgruntled to vote for Trump. He has more appeal to the small government, free market right and can run in all 50 states.

[pat_k]

15. Johnson is going to affect the dynamics....

...hopefully in Hillary's favor. (Although I've come across a number of young, techy, libertarian types who have expressed a worrisome preference for Johnson over Clinton.) I also have a feeling that Johnson could get a surprising number of "none of the above" votes from people who know very little about him.

There've been a few posts speculating about whether someone running as an independent could throw it to the House (and who that someone might be). Bloomberg was the only one I could come up with who had shot at attracting enough votes from both Clinton and Trump to come out on top in a couple states (namely, his home state and perhaps neighboring states). He also seemed like the only such person that might be "conservative" enough to be viewed by establishment Repubs as an improvement on Trump. Anyone further to the right would probably just take votes from Trump, helping Clinton to win more states.

[MineralMan]

3. He'd be a foolish man...

[geek tragedy]

4. Bloomberg is perfectly fine with Hillary winning, it was Trump and Sanders that bothered him nt

[brooklynite]

6. Why would the Republicans give the election to Bloomberg?

Bloomberg was never a Republican in anything more than name; he's anti gun and pro choice. What would be the appeal?

[pat_k]

12. As I said, a long shot.

Don't know how accurate it is, but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016#Current_2 only 28 of 246 Republican Members of the House have endorsed Trump.

Of course, we don't know what the make up will be as of January 6th. Bloomberg would need 218. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that 90% of Republican caucus could decide that Trump is just too much of a wildcard. Until they realized they would be stuck with him it seemed that a vast majority were desperately trying to figure out a way to stop him.

[PADemD]

7. Have you been in PA lately?

In our little corner of PA, I've seen homes flying the Confederate stars and bars, and a friend has even seen a Nazi flag.

IMO, Bloomberg would not defeat Trump in PA.

[pat_k]

9. See the map. I gave PA to Trump.

The only states I suggested Bloomberg would have a shot at winning are NJ and NY.

Map from original post:

http://www.270towin.com/maps/5k7GG

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. I doubt Bloomberg can win a single state. That isn't to suggest he gets no or little votes.

[pat_k]

13. I doubt it too, but don't think it would be impossible.

The dynamics of this election are so nutty and unpredictable.

It's just about impossible that Bloomberg would chance his mind, but there were a few posts speculating about whether someone running as an independent could actually throw it to the House (and who that someone might be). Bloomberg was the only one I could think of that would have any sort of shot.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Perot received 20% of the vote but no state wins. Wallace got14% of the vote but five state wins.

The latter received less votes but actually won states because he had strong regional appeal...

Some would say Bloomberg would have strong appeal in NY, CT, and NJ but I don't see him winning the states.

[pat_k]

18. Given the odds, it's basically an academic exercise.

But there are still some "stop Trump" Republicans trying to dream up a candidate that could throw it to the House. Bloomberg was the only one I could think of who would have a remote shot of capitalizing on "regional appeal" to win enough electors to deny Clinton and Trump the required 270, while being "conservative" enough to look like an improvement on Trump to Repubs in the House.

I certainly hope the establishment Republican notion of finding some independent capable of stopping both Trump and Clinton is a pipe dream. It seems that no one person can fit the bill. That is, (1) take enough votes from both Clinton and Trump to come out on top in a couple states, and (2) be viewed as a clear improvement on Trump by 218 Repubs in the House. Someone who meets one of the requirements is not likely to meet the other.

All in all, a good thing. It's going to be tough enough for Dems to win without battling a candidate that could put the decision into the hands of the Republican house.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. Trump is much closer to the GOP id than Bloomberg.

[CanadaexPat]

16. Bloomberg barely won his third term as Mayor

despite all media being in the bag for him and his philanthropic largess throughout the city.

I doubt he wins NYS.

[thesquanderer]

20. And he was a lot less popular at the end of his 3rd term than the beginning.

So much so he cost Christine Quinn what had looked like a sure shot at succeeding him.

No, I would not give him much of a shot at winning New York.

[pat_k]

22. Probably not.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512087705#post21

[pat_k]

21. Probably not.

Do you think his "likability" is on par with Clinton's and Trump's? (i.e., as low as.)

My speculation was based on the assumption that he'd rate as more likable than Clinton or Trump, and therefore had a shot at getting a plurality of the voters as "least of three evils."

Of course, it's all an academic exercise.

There are still establishment Republicans trying to come up with an independent candidate who could (1) deny Clinton and Trump the 270 electors needed by taking enough votes from both Clinton and Trump to come out on top in a couple states, and (2) be viewed as a clear improvement on Trump by 218 Repubs in the House. Someone who meets one of the requirements is not likely to meet the other. Bloomberg is the closest I could come up with.

All in all, the Repub notion of stopping both Clinton and Trump is a pipe dream. A good thing. Beating Trump will be tough enough. We don't need to deal with an independent who has a shot of throwing it to the Republican house.

[thesquanderer]

23. Clinton's favorables in New York are probably still high. (n/t)

[YouDig]

17. Bloomberg would throw it either to Trump or to the house.

And he knows that, which is why he won't run. He was only going to run if it was Bernie-Trump, but it's not going to be Bernie-Trump.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. Ideologically he's much closer to Clinton than Trump

Third party bids invariable hurt the party closest to them.

[pat_k]

25. Hopefully...

... there are no "Bloomberg-like" candidates out there that the Republicans could tap.

Engineering a scenario that either gives Trump a majority of electors, or throws it to a Republican House, would make them perfectly happy. I dread the thought that they could find someone who had a shot at pulling it off. Trying to figure out if such a candidate exists -- and failing to come up with any -- is somewhat reassuring.

[Tal Vez]

26. If Bloomberg changed his mind,

I don't think that Bill Kristol would be the first to know about it.

But, anything is possible.