As far as I know, she was never a long-term resident of New York. Did she just pick New York to run her campaign from because that’s where she thought she’d have the best chance of winning?
when she was on david letterman a few weeks ago she explained the whole thing.
i don’t remember any of it though, i just thought i’d share that she does actually have her reasons and that they’re not about her chances of winning.
“If anybody wants a sheep, that is proof that he exists.”
My opinion is that she chose NY because it’s a traditionally Democratic state that’s home to the media center of the nation (NYC), and it’s Democratic senator (Daniel Moynihan) announced that he would retire after his term ends. By filling this void, Hillary would have a national podium for whatever agenda she wishes to pursue. I feel as though we’re being used as a stepping stone for some grander plan. I can’t imagine Hillary had a burning desire to help the citizens of Buffalo or Schenectady, and leapt at the first chance to do so.
Community property laws?
More seriously, I’m going to leave this thread here for now, on the off chance that someone will have a quote from HRC as to her stated reasons. But I predict that it will be in GD by tomorrow mid-morning.
Livin’ on Tums, vitamin E and Rogaine
I would have to agree with you on this. If an opening were occuring in Oregon or New Mexico, then that is where she would be running. She doesn’t really have an interest in representing NY, she has an interest in being in the Senate.
Furthermore, I think our founding fathers would be having a collective cow over this (an out-of-stater running for the Senate) if they were still around. There’s a reason why we elect two senators from each state rather than simply the best 100 people for the job. The reason is because each state having it’s own representation was important to the founding fathers (hey, that’s why we have two houses of Congress – it was a compromise over how the states were going to be represented.)
My mom (a native of New York) IS having a cow over this. As far as she’s concerned, Hillary’s a no-good carpetbagger.
–It was recently discovered that research causes cancer in rats.
NY has a history of voting for carpetbaggers - RF Kennedy was voted in as a Senator in the sixties.
Does any one notice that she is mostly reffered as Hillary Clinton, not Hillary Rodham Clinton? Must be an election year.
The one good thing is that she will probably require > 50% of the popular vote to win - something willie never got.
Not only is Pat Moynahan retiring and New York a heavily democratic state, there are a few other factors. There is a “tradition” of outsider senators, at least to the extent that we elected Robert F. Kennedy to the senate. The statewide Democratic party is largely in disarray, with no other really viable Democratic challenger around. And Mayor Giuliani is a highly controversial character, particularly distasteful to many of the traditional groups of Democratic party supporters.
I’m really unhappy at the choices I will be presented this November.
Nope. New York is not a community property state. And besides, with all of his legal bills, it’ll probably take several years on the lecture circuit before Bill has a positive net worth.
The founding fathers would most definitely object - the popular election of Senators is less than one hundred years old. They wanted the House to be a popular vote and the Senate to be picked by the state gov’t to look out for the state in the federal arena. The only vestige is when a Senator leaves office prior to the end of his/her term, the state (usually the Governor) is allowed to choose how the term is carried out.
P.S. When I refferred(?) to the 50% number, I meant willies Presidential runs - I don’t care how the Arkansas great unwashed voted.
It’s all rather cynical isn’t it? She could just as well run for non-voting Representative from Guam.
Well, yes, I knew that too. Too be honest, however, I assumed (and I could well be wrong on this) that the reason the state legislators elected the Senators (rather than the people) was for the same reason they instituted the Electoral College: they thought the population (as a whole) was too stupid to be relied upon to elect a president or congress.
I did mean, however, that even once you got past the fact that a Senator is elected popularly, they would still “have a cow” over an out-of-stater running.
What if she is elected and does an outstanding job. Do we still have to resent her?
Of course, I can afford to be generous. She’s not running in California.
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
I know what I want to know
I don’t think it is entirely certain that the NY Senate race winner will have over 50% of the vote. The election could be quite close and New York has numerous minor parties. If the voters are dissatisfied with the choice between Clinton and Giuliani, there should be a sizeable number of protest votes.
As for the presidential election, many presidents didn’t get over 50% of the vote, including Lincoln (1st term), Wilson (both terms), Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan (1st term). It’s not that unusual of an event in American politics. The electoral college serves to disguise this phenomenon.
Hillary Clinton is following the legal residency requirements to be eligible to run for a New York Senate seat. At this point, it will be up to the voters of New York (including myself) to decide if she deserves the office. I’m guessing if Nancy Reagan announced she was moving to New York and running for the Senate, you’d see a lot of people doing a quick 180 on the carpet bagger issue.
New York does have numerous minor parties, but far below the national average. The Democrat and Republican Parties in New York have maintained a tight control of candidacy requirements and New York is one of the most difficult states in the nation for a independent or third party candidate to get on the ballot. If I recall correctly, in the 1992 Presidential election of the forty four candidates who were running (defined by having gotten on at least one state’s ballots) only eighteen of them managed to get on the New York ballots.
My guess is that Hillary has been advised that NY is the only place in the U.S. where there is an open Senate seat AND where she has the remotest chance of winning. NY is liberal Democrat country – at least in a state-wide election; Hillary is nothing if she’s not a liberal’s liberal Democrat.
Of course, IMHO, Hillary is nothing, period, although there have been moments when she proved to be just a bit WORSE than nothing…
I don’t know why fortune smiles on some and lets the rest go free…
Nahh! Nemo hit it on the head…the residency requirement. Most states require you be in them for awhile before you can run for office. New York is more lenient in that department. Which, indeed, is one of the reasons why RFK (from Massachusetts) did this back in the '60’s as Fleetwood pointed out.
Throw in the fact that Moynihan is retiring his Democratic seat and there you have it.
Why is Hillary doing it?
Because she can
As an aside, the British Parliament doesn’t require members of the Commons to live in the constituency they represent.
Of course, Parliament is a much different animal than Congress and federalism isn’t an issue.
Does anyone know if Canadian MPs have to reside in the districts they represent?
Reagan won an overall majority of the popular vote in 1980. He won 43,901,812 votes ( http://www.nara.gov/fedreg/ec-boxsc.html#1944 ) out of 86,515,221 cast (I got the latter figure from another site and then I closed the window so I’ve lost the URL). Anyway, that’s 50.7% of the popular vote.
I don’t think Canadian MPs have to reside in the riding they stand for election in. I think Senators have to be from the province they are appointed for, since they are appointed centrally and it wouldn’t make much sense to have the PM appoint just anybody to represent a given province.
The most extreme extension of the principle can be found in Pakistan, where you can run in as many constituencies as you like. After each election, there is a batch of special elections to fill the seats won by somebody who won in more than one constituency; the mulitple winners have to pick one seat and resign the others.
Any similarity in the above text to an English word or phrase is purely coincidental.
As Little Nemo mentioned it’s relatively tough for third party candidates running for a federal office here in NY. However if you’re looking to run for a county or state office a third party candidacy can be comparatively easier. Gubernatorial (sp?) races in particular can be greatly swayed by a upstart third party candidate. Senatorial candidates might start cropping up though. I can’t remember exactly how many parties have seperate lines on the voting machines this year. I believe this has to do with their showing the previous year and how many votes the candidate receives. For example if Grampa Munster gets a set number of votes for the Green Party, the Greens get to keep (or get to put) their seperate line on the voting machine. I did catch one of the Sunday morning political shows (I think it was Sam and Cokie) and they noted that a third party candidate could make a possible run simply because neither candidate appealed much to upstate voters (gotta agree with 'em there).
It’s funny that people should call a Southerner a “carpetbagger”. The original carpetbaggers came from the North…I guess it’s sweet revenge from the South?