Posted on 11/12/2009 2:09:01 PM PST by American Dream 246
I don’t know if Scuzzy would have won without Hoffman in the race, but even if she would have, it would have been bad for Republicans.
++++++++++++++++
Exactly. This is the whole point and why it was a victory for her not to win and we’re still talking about Hoffman having a shot at that seat TODAY.
Maybe a slim one, but you have to hand that to him.
Had he followed what was allowed under the law, to wait until the votes were in, Owens wouldn't have been sworn in and HC might not have passed. I am sure a lot of looking back.
I am sure you read my frustration in post 8, even now the more I think about voter's disenfranchised, in particular, our military who need to plan in advance, they did not have the same choices as boot's on the ground in NY, I just think that goes against all we believe in when it comes an open and honest democratic system.
Had he followed what was allowed under the law, to wait until the votes were in, Owens wouldn’t have been sworn in and HC might not have passed.
$$$$$
Don’t kid yourself. Ms Pelosi would not have called the vote without her 218 ayes. Every dem who voted no was given permission to do so from her horribleness.
Totally agree. Hoffman wasn’t much of a factor prior to about 2-3 weeks before the election, plus military members overseas don’t have access to talk radio and FOX news where the issue really got traction.
Combine that with the deadlines for mailing and I agree Scuzzy will get the majority of the votes because of the ersatz (R) behind her name!
There is no way a third party nominee will get the majority of absentee votes.
So Hoffman was right to concede.
A seat does not have to be filled if no one is deemed qualified for it by the House or the Senate. In post 70, OldDeckHand pointed out that a lawsuit could be brought by the elected official, so it behooves the House and Senate to have an extremely good reason to deprive the citizens of representation. Such a decision apparently goes to a committee for inquiry and then to the floor for a vote, so it’s not strictly up to the Speaker of the Majority Leader.
Victor L. Berger (early 1900s’ Wisconsin socialist/anti-war politician, charged with espionage, but his constituents didn’t care) was denied the seat he won in back-to-back elections. The House decided to leave the seat vacant until the next election. Several years later, after the charges were dropped, he won again and was seated.
NY-23 is a fill-in election and the House could refuse to seat Hoffman, particularly since Democrats have the majority. Elections cost money, after all. At least, Owens would be out...I hope.
“Several years later, after the charges were dropped, he won again and was seated.”
Isn’t it nice in the old days, even the question of guilt counted for something, and even the politicos acted on it and ostracized the subject, to avoid any appearance of unseemly taint to the whole.
Nowadays, even in private groups like the NFL, it’s always this milquetoast/cop-out “he hasn’t been convicted of anything”, before they’ll consider possibly removing the questionable from action.
I should’ve said the House, not just Pelosi. The House has denied seats on more than one occasion, but perhaps you just mean under this Congress?
The article said Owens would be removed if Hoffman actually won.
The New Math in old style Chicago politics.
i took the comment to be that the rat counters will ‘screw’ with the ballots...
Fear not, Hoffman winning means nothing because he is not the Democrat.
Such an event only counts if the electoral reversal goes to the Democrat.
The USA no longer does honest elections, being electorally a corrupt, 3rd World nation moving yet faster thus courtesy President “Chavez” Obama and the Neo-Fascist Party (formerly the “Democratic Party” but truth in advertising mandated the name change...and to be bipartisan, the Republican Party is now the “We Be Idiots” Party, in view it the lack of leadership and spine.
Yep.
That being said, absentee votes usually follow the same pattern as the votes cast on election night, but who knows with all of these irregularities? When most of them were mailed in it was a 3 way race. I do know Hoffman will pick up 4 votes from senior citizens in my family that voted absentee.
I also find it strange that NY doesn't count absentee's until at least a week after the election and doesn't certify any election until after that, yet they swore Owens in so quickly. You can't even sit on a town board in a town of 1000 people total around here until the vote in your election is certified.
Maybe, just maybe,(wouldn't it be great?) that Owens was sworn in so soon not just for his health care vote, but to muddy the waters when we find out he really didn't win. (I can dream can't I?)
I don’t understand how Hoffman can win after he conceded.
Even if he did win the vote... he bowed out of the race.
he shouldn’t have conceded.
Scamozza and Hoffman were splitting the Republican vote—what is so hard to understand about that? With all the circuslike aspects of this race—Scamozze still on the ballot after she dropped out, the absentee ballots having been cast before all the shenanigans started, the in-and-out and candidate switching (but only partially) by the RNC—you cannot fairly say he didn’t represent his district.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.