So Liberman won his senate race. So what’s happening to his senate seat now? Are they keeping it warm and toasty while this election mess ends? Can they do that? What happens to it if he becomes VP?
And what’s up with NY’ers voting for Hillary? It is my understanding that my senator is supposed to represent me and my state. How can some person from somewhere else do a good job of representing me when they’ve never lived here? They don’t know a thing about my state.
According to the Constitution if a Senator leaves his post for any reason the Governor will appoint someone to replace them. If Sore/Loserman win, Connecticut’s Republican Gov will (I would think) appoint a fellow Republican and give the GOP an a real (not based on the Senate Pro Tem) advantage in the Senate.
Easy: Democrats are dumb; New Yorkers are dumber. With all due respect (and it ain’t much) NY state is basically NYC and NYC is more concerned with style over substance. NY also sent RFK to the Senate (even though he was from Mass.) so its not unprecidented. Personally I think that NY’ers will be more impressed that it was their Senator making noise in Congress than the notion that their Senator was working for them.
Lieberman’s seat is still occupied him. Jan. 20th, he may have to leave for bigger and better things, so the governor of Connecticut will have to replace him until a new election is held. I have no idea what Connecticut law says about the timing of that.
As for Hillary, she won largely because Lazio was an incredibly weak candidate. His campaign platform was “I’m not Hillary, and … uh … did I mention that I’m not Hillary”. He took the upstate vote for granted, when in fact being from Long Island isn’t exactly much better than being from Arkansas in the minds of Upstate voters. Your prospective constituents are not the sort of people you want to snub, especially if you are campaigning on the fact that your opponent doesn’t understand their concerns.
Very spurious reasoning. Hillary won simply because New York city is a very liberal town. Nothing more, nothing less.
I hold true to the notion that ALL people are stupid. The more people there are, the stupider they be. Perhaps this would have some merit when applied to NYC (lotsa people there), but a political argument needn’t come down to “The other side is dumb.”
And waterj2 is correct… if anything, it was Lazio’s campaign that played it dumber. His whole premise for running was extremely weak, he didn’t appeal to the voters in ANY location (NYC or NY North), and he was just a general unknown, running up against Miss Publicity (not necessarily GOOD publicity). “It Takes A Village” seems to beat out “She doesn’t understand you”.
And buzzwords like “carpetbagging” didn’t help his campaign, either. Face it, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.
So if Guiliani ran, he would have won?
Yes, Guiliano would have won. (At least he would have actually made an effort, as NYC likes him.)
Senators-elect take their new positions on January 3. Currently, Lieberman is occupying his seat that he won 6 years ago. Just as Gore is occupying the office of Vice-President that he won 4 years ago. Just as Bush is occupying the governorship that he won X years ago.
If you don’t like the fact that Hillary became a resident of NY in able to run for Senate, lobby to reform the residence laws.
“They don’t know a thing about my state.” Apparently, neither do you.
If Lieberman becomes Vice President, Gov. John Rowland of CT will most likely select Congresswomen Nancy Johnson to fill that seat. That would become effective on Jan 20 or 21. She would not have to run for election to the seat for two years.
The CT Legislature will ask for a special election to take place on a faster timetable but Rowland will veto any such actions.
If you’re wondering, in Canada, if a member of the House of Commons steps down, a by-election has to be held in their riding.
Precisely! And whether one likes it or not, Hillary spent a lot of time campaigning in upstate NY and at least giving the appearance that she gave a damn about their concerns (what she will/can accomplish remains to be seen). IMHO, Lazio also seems to have thought that endorsements from Gov. Pataki and other party bigwigs would be sufficient to help him carry upstate… but since nothing has really improved in terms of upstate economics under Pataki’s administration, getting his endorsement wasn’t exactly helpful.
Had Giuliani stayed in the race, I do think he would have won, but I think the margin of victory would have been slimmer than Hillary’s over Lazio. On the one hand, it’s fairly obvious that Giuliani and Pataki aren’t birds of a feather, which should have helped him gain some votes upstate; on the other, Giuliani is so closely identifiable with NYC that some upstaters might have been turned off by him, regardless of his party affiliation.
Please feel free to go fuck yourself with an Uptown IRT train, you small-minded waste of carbon.
Interestingly, we are aware that NYC alone and the rest of the state are diverse enough that no one can “know” the needs of “all” New Yorkers. We don’t expect them to, any more than we expect a President to “know” all the needs of people from Florida to Alaska.
Any person who expects that from a politician is clearly too stupid to use oxygen intended for the rest of us. That’s you, asshole.
As it happens, I voted for Lazio. But Mrs. Clinton made an enormous effort to understand the needs of different parts of the state.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JamesCarroll *
**
Dumb we may be, but at least we’re smart enough not to consider Sore/Loserman as the pinnacle of wit.
And if you’re holding yourself up as a paragon of Republican genius, you might want to fix the spelling of “motorcycle” on your profile page.
JamesCarroll,
You have made an interesting comment about the citizenry of NYC being stupid and more concerned with style than substance. Though I am not completely certain I understand what it is you’re trying to say, I can make a guess. I would encourage you to investigate the total wealth generated by the productive efforts of said NYC citizenry, divide that value by the number of citizens, compare your findings to similar data representing the one horse shit hole in which you live, and realize that your opinion on this matter appears worthless.
Some have stated that Hillary won the election because of what her competition failed to do. A simpler way of expressing this concept is to say that she won because she was the best possible candidate.
As noted, Hillary won because she nailed her base in NYC and worked like hell to appeal to upstate voters. Meanwhile Lazio did little to appeal beyond the burbs and suffered mightily in comparison to Moynihan, or any other grown-up.
Here’s some exit poll data courtesy CNN:
Live in? All Clinton Lazio
Large city 39% 72% 26%
Suburbs 52% 43% 55%
Rural 8% 51% 48%
Total 55% 44%
BTW, I know some New Yorkers and as a group they don’t seem any dumber, or brighter, than the average collection of Georgians. You guys who think you make valid political points by sneering should stick to talk radio where you won’t have to worry about decreasing the collective IQ.
Just for the record, I lived for the first 48 years of my life about 200 miles northwest of where waterj2 is these days.
Hillary Clinton campaigned there last summer.
That is the first time a sitting Senator or announced Senatorial candidate had been in that city within my lifetime.
Quite possibly, she won because she put some effort into becoming the Senator from the State of New York – the whole place, knowing what the City needs and what Upstate needs, what LI’s and Buffalo’s problems are. And why there are unemployed people in the Southern Tier! (Hi, Zette!) 
200 miles NW of here? Isn’t that Canada?
When someone’s campaign has as its primary point the fact that the other candidate is out of touch with the needs of New York, that person is going to look a bit hipocritical if they really make no effort to even appear interested in anything north of White Plains. Basically, Lazio’s actions defused the entire “carpetbagger” argument, which was the only reason he advanced for moderates to vote for him.
This is exactly the attitude that lost the race for Lazio. Hillary won the race in NYC, but Lazio lost it upstate.
It was pretty much apparent that there was a split in support: NYC traditionally leans Democrat while rural NY leans Republican. And contrary to what our moronic Mr. Carroll seems to think, this can easily be enough votes to win, with a little work. Lazio did nothing in upstate NY, and lost his base.
New York State is not “basically NYC,” and if you’ve ever been north of Poughkeepsie maybe you’d know that. (Of course, if you have been and still think this way you’re more of an assfuck than I thought).
As far as Giuliani, I believe he is a better politician and would have made a better showing, but he is a highly controversial figure Upstate and would have suffered similar issues as Lazio (although probably to a lesser extent).
As a WAG, I would guess that “private” feelgud is just another Clinton hater- that no clinton can be worth anything at all, that they are all detestable crooks, murderers etc. There is no argueing with these folks. Their mind is made up, and no amount of facts will change it.
INHO Hilary was no fantastic canditate, but her opposition seemed to run on the platform “hate the Clintons, vote for me”- which won’t win elections, as despite all the Clinton haters, the Dude remains ever popular. I am not sure how, exactly, but that is the way it is. I kinda like the guy myself- and damned if i know the reason why.
Aslo, IMHO Gore was an idiot to not let the President camapign for him more. Sure- there are lots of Clinton haters- but none of them were going to vote for Gore anyway. “Slick Willy” could have brought in just those few more votes.
You’re reading too much into my OP. Both senators from my state are local and make very much of that fact. I just can’t imagine someone waltzing in from somewhere else especially DC saying “I know your interests, let me represent you!”
It doesn’t have to be a WAG to see that you’re a Cliton lover. Besides, I think Hillary would love to fillet you for calling her a Cliton.
What a weird OP. Part I is GQ and part II is Pit. Not that I mind really. It’s turning into Just Another Politcal Rant, anyway.
Here’s another helpful tip from your buddy Alphagene:
Don’t insult another state if you yourself live in Delaware.
Major Feelgud said:
I would agree with that, and I personally wouldn’t have voted for Clinton, but the voters obviously disagreed. And she met the Constitutional qualifications of Article I, Section 3:
Clinton was registered to vote in New York State, which is sufficient. (Just as Dick Cheney registering to vote in Wyoming is sufficient–residency is mostly a matter of intent.)
(Note that the residency qualifications for US Representative are the same–they do nothave to live in the Congressional district they run from.)
JamesCarroll said:
I’m sure my relatives around Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse would be interested to know that. :rolleyes: I’m also sure that, having said that, you can explain why New York State has a Republican Governor and State Senate (and Attorney General, if I recall correctly)–I kinda doubt that’s the doing of NYC.