I caught part of an interview clip with Michael Bloomberg's campaign manager. The discussion was about the rumor that Bloomberg was prepared to spend $2 Billion of his own money in his campaign
His manager wouldn't confirm this and the discussion turned to why Bloomberg wasn't registered or campaigning in the 'early' states—Ohio and Iowa.
His answer was that only six states were important, and then when on to name California, New York, Florida, etc.
That was a "Wow!" moment for me. How else can that be taken other than that Bloomberg was planning on buying the popular vote by way of the most populated big states and to hell with the rest of America?
I sure hope the Electoral College spanks him. But a second question arises. Will the Democrat Party support such a candidate—one that says only the big states matter?
The Democratic Party will support whatever they think will put a liberal candidate in the White House. As will the Republican party, for a conservative candidate.
I am a Democrat, and I neither like nor support Bloomberg. I want my liberal candidate, but Bloomberg isn't it. All the reasons GA brought forward are a few among many.
IMHO is right, Dan. You are a liberal hater, so what do we expect?
LOL Did you not agree with me? You know, when you agreed with Sandy's statement "But to your point, how is Bloomberg's plan to win the electoral college by winning the big states any different from another candidate's plan to win by capturing the so-called battleground states?" https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4117238
But I'm a "liberal hater", so must be attacked instead of agreed with even when correct, right?
Bloomberg is my absolute last choice for the Democratic nomination.
But to your point, how is Bloomberg's plan to win the electoral college by winning the big states any different from another candidate's plan to win by capturing the so-called battleground states? They both ignore some states in favor of others.
That's why the best strategy is to campaign in as many states as possible which is what President Trump has been doing. I have yet to see many candidates the can keep up the pace that he does. It takes lots of energy and determination.
You forgot honesty and class, but then, he doesn't care for either, Bill.
Would you feel better if he had the IRS scrutinize tax returns of Groups of Democrats? Would that be an example of honesty? Or maybe you would feel better if he was instrumental in providing a new government health care program, and marketed it by telling you that it would save the average American up to $2500 and that we would be able to keep our doctor if we wanted? Of course President Trump has not been able to keep any of his campaign promises, has he? Randy?
Mostly not, Bill. Did Mexico pay for the wall? Or are we paying for it by Trump taking already earmarked funds and putting it into his stupid wall?
Or do you care if Trump is cheating on his taxes, or getting money from a foreign adversary? You apparently don't.
I'm not sure about that, but I don't care enough about being right to look it up. ;-)
I think I get your point, but if so, it is a different thought than what I took from Bloomberg's campaign manager's statement.
A "battleground" state isn't just a large state, it is a state that had a party margin of victory of 5% or less in the previous election. California would never be a battleground state. Nor would my smaller state of Maryland.
For instance; Michigan and Wisconson are examples of battleground states. They weren't on the mentioned list of 'important' states. I wonder if Bloomberg knows those states exist? (sarcasm)
I think it would be very difficult to win the EC with just the "big states" when such an obvious strategy would most likely alienate all of the not-big states.
I didn't go back to find out how many "big states" there were, (relative to election results), and I don't think that is important to my point. It is the perspective that that would be a winning strategy that would guarantee I would not vote for such a candidate.
So I do see a difference from other candidates, they may focus on specific states, but they don't ignore all but the big states.
You know, many states are either ignored or barely acknowledged by candidates during the primaries and the general election. I live in Oregon and it is common for candidates to not visit at all.
And, I wonder if those media buys in big states actually translate to coverage in smaller nearby states? I'm ignorant of how the large media markets work, but could it be that a massive market like Los Angeles reaches into nearby states?
A wall is stupid if it can't cover the entire border and you can simply cut a hole in it with a cutting torch in a short time. And I didn't expect a concise response from you on why Trump is hiding his taxes. There isn't one unless he's cheating on them as Cohen already testified to.
by tngolfplayer 11 years ago
Should the USA go to popular vote instead of the electoral college?
by Dan Harmon 5 years ago
It seems that at least two electors from Texas have decided to cast their electoral college vote not for the man they promised to, but someone else.Christopher Suprun is one of those faithless electors:"That was also the last time I remember the nation united," Suprun wrote. "I watch...
by ptosis 9 years ago
"A constitutional amendment, which requires a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress (or a Convention under Article V of the Constitution) and ratification in three-fourths of all fifty states, would be required." - https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti … e/GZQtFSPVCheck out...
by ga anderson 3 years ago
Let me channel Jake for a moment...BIG BREAKING NEWS! Bombshell announcement! A CONSTITUTIONAL crisis!Deleware has voted to join eleven other states in awarding their 3 electoral college votes to the national popular vote winner!The votes of state voters in these 12 states no longer matter! YOUR...
by Credence2 9 years ago
excerpt from a recent article"After back-to-back presidential losses, Republicans in key states want to change the rules to make it easier for them to win.From Wisconsin to Pennsylvania, GOP officials who control legislatures in states that supported President Barack Obama are considering...
by Mike Russo 5 years ago
People are protesting President Elect Trump? Because Hillary won the popular vote by .3% Trump = 47.4%, Hillary = 47.7%, but she lost the electoral college. That means more people voted for Hillary's platform than for Trump's. The electoral college must go. It is outdated and was for a younger...
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|