Possible VP Candidates

What are the qualifications for Mike's ideal running mate? Here's a point system based on the assumption that Mike might want to balance out his weaknesses.

- Recognized foreign policy /military expert (+10 points)

- Political party: Long-standing Democrat (-3 points); Republican with ties to Bush (-10 points); Republican critic of the Bush administration (+5 points)

- Name recognition: Well-known by Time Magazine readership (+5 points)

- Religion: Non-Christian (-10 points)

- Geography: An extremely popular figure in a single large state (+10 points), Northeastener (-5 points)

- Beltway Insider: Has worked in D.C. since 2004 (-5 points)

Possibilies:

1. Gen. Colin Powell: 20 points, assuming he is credibly anti-Bush. Role in selling the Iraq war might be show-stopper; but he has apologized and says it is a blot on his record.

2. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA): 15 points, if he is popular in California. The fact that he might not be constitutionally eligible to serve, he may be able to appear on a ballot. And what could be more "outsider" than someone who has to sue to overturn a silly constitional amendment to serve his country?

3. Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.). 15 points. 5 points for foreign policy and 10 if he can carry Virginia.

4. Gen. Wes Clark. 12.5 points, some name recognition from the People Magazine set.

5. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). 12 points. Would most likely have similar campaign themes regarding cleaning up Washington.

6. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE). 5 points if he is recognized as a half of a foreign policy expert. He seems interested in the job.

Who else scores points?

Oddsmakers: Bloomberg 18-1 longshot

Only three bookmakers are laying odds on Bloomberg winning in 2008. They are all over the map at 40-1, 25-1, and 18-1.

Zogby: Mike Can Win

Noted pollster John Zogby runs the numbers and has this money quote:

"On the electoral map, a Bloomberg candidacy puts almost every state into play. Suddenly, the required winning percentage in each is reduced from 50% plus one to just 34%."

NYTimes: Bloomberg As Kingmaker

Patrick Healy in the NYTimes today proposes the two state strategy (and suggests the same four states we did), but reverses the deal so that Bloomberg allocates his electors to one of the large party candidates. There is also talk that the deal could be memorialized in a binding contract (backed by a "hefty cash bond") to ensure that certain policy initiatives or cabinet appointments are carried out. This seems highly unlikely.

Electoral College Commentary

Rasmussen Reports - June 1st!

Getting to 270: Winning the Electoral College

The goal of this blog is to determine if/how Mike Bloomberg can win the presidency as a third party candidate

Assumptions:

A. Mike Bloomberg has the interest, track record, resources, and talent to be the most legitimate third party candidate for the US Presidency in over a century.

B. A significant portion of the American electorate is unhappy with existing parties and would vote for a third party candidate who could demonstrate the ability to actually win the election.

Questions:

1. How can Mike win as a third party candidate?

Let's start with the Constiutional process: the electoral college (wikipedia) (interactive map).

To win the presidency, Mike Bloomberg must win 270 votes in the electoral college.

This does not mean that he has to win a sufficient number of states to send 270 electors to the electoral college. In theory, he could win enough electors to prevent either of the major party candidates from winning 270 electors. In this case, the election of the president would be "thrown to the electoral college."

2. How can Mike win sufficient electoral votes to throw the election to the electoral college?

If the Republicans are able to win their "safe" states, Mike would need to win only two large states: New York or California and either Florida or Ohio to prevent the Democrats from securing enough electoral votes to win the election outright-- and position himself to become President.

Call it the Two State Strategy.

3. What happens if the electoral college doesn't give anyone 270 votes?

This is where it gets interesting. Under the Constitution, the House elects the President and the Senate elects the Vice President

"The President and Vice President must achieve a majority of electoral votes (270) to be elected. In the absence of a majority, the House selects the President, and the Senate selects the Vice President. If a State submits conflicting sets of electoral votes to Congress, the two Houses acting concurrently may accept or reject the votes. If they do not concur, the votes of the electors certified by the Governor of the State would be counted in Congress."

- Archives.gov

4. OK, but the party who controls the most state delegations in the House will most assuredly vote for their own party's candidate.

Exactly. Which is precisely why the electors from the minority party might be interested in cutting a deal with Mike prior to casting their electoral votes.

Let's assume the Republicans are the minority party and that the Democrat candidate has 192 electoral votes, the Republican candidate has 213, and Mike has 145 -- he picks up three large states (CA, NY, FL) as well as a few smaller northeastern states as well: MA, ME, NH.

The key is that many states do not require electors to vote for a specific candidate.

In theory, 147 Republican electors could choose to vote for Mike instead of the Democratic candidate in order to prevent the Democratic nominee from winning the Presidency.

If all of these electors went for Mike instead of the Republican, Mike would receive 292 electoral votes-- 22 more than needed. Put differently, if 85% of the electors who could switch their votes, chose to switch to Mike, he would win-- even though he only carried six states.

Here are some Republican "safe" states where electors could choose to vote for Mike rather than throwing the vote to the House, where we can assume that the Democratically controlled House would elect the Democratic candidate.

Republican "safe" or "toss-up" states where electors are not bound to vote for their candidate:

ARIZONA - 10 Electoral Votes
ARKANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
GEORGIA - 15 Electoral Votes
IDAHO - 4 Electoral Votes
INDIANA - 11 Electoral Votes
KANSAS - 6 Electoral Votes
KENTUCKY - 8 Electoral Votes
LOUISIANA - 9 Electoral Votes
MISSOURI - 11 Electoral Votes
NORTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
SOUTH DAKOTA - 3 Electoral Votes
TENNESSEE - 11 Electoral Votes
TEXAS - 34 Electoral Votes
UTAH - 5 Electoral Votes
WEST VIRGINIA - 5 Electoral Votes

For the record, Democratic "safe" states that aren't bound:
DELAWARE - 3 Electoral Votes
ILLINOIS - 21 Electoral Votes
IOWA - 7 Electoral Votes
RHODE ISLAND - 4 Electoral Votes
MINNESOTA - 10 Electoral Votes
NEW HAMPSHIRE - 4 Electoral Votes
NEW JERSEY - 15 Electoral Votes
NEW YORK - 31 Electoral Votes
PENNSYLVANIA - 21 Electoral Votes

5. What are pundits saying about Mike's chances / candidacy?

- Marc Ambinder: Mike Can Hurt the Democratic Candidate
- David Frum: Mike Will Hurt the Republican Candidate
- Joel Hirschhorn: How Bloomberg Can Win (Platform Advice from the Left)