To: VRWC_minion
But see what happens IF Toricelli RESIGNS ... rather than gets beat in a real election.
It would be a different case: He resigns (within 30 days of the election, but WITHOUT the election having actually taken place) so that a new appointee is pushed in (Bradley, for example) who then stays in office rather than face the actual election .....
That's what they'll try.
Now, what really happens I don't know....but this sets up the resignation next week.
What the democrats fear above all else is actually LETTING him face the election counts.
If they can do anything else, including sacrificing his race so they get he national news media "focusing" on the "stolen" NJ race, then the national news media have protected Dashole's lead by focusing on those "mean nasty conservative cruel election-stealing anti-environmental hate-mongering republicans" ....
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
If they can do anything else, including sacrificing his race so they get he national news media "focusing" on the "stolen" NJ race, then the national news media have protected Dashole's lead by focusing on those "mean nasty conservative cruel election-stealing anti-environmental hate-mongering republicans" .... Look, we all know that people are stupid. And the election results which went back and forth all through the night on election day helped cement the notion that the race could be stolen. But I just can't imagine that will fly here. A loser trying to jump out of the race to give someone else a better chance?
689 posted on
09/30/2002 1:59:56 PM PDT by
Dianna
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
What happens if Torch says I am withdrawing from the race......vote for X(but X isn't on the ballot) ....andTorch's name..... wins .....then the TORCH claims victory but the seat belongs to X.............see how tangled this could get.
693 posted on
09/30/2002 2:00:19 PM PDT by
Dog
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
It would be a different case: He resigns (within 30 days of the election, but WITHOUT the election having actually taken place) so that a new appointee is pushed in (Bradley, for example) who then stays in office rather than face the actual election ..... It seems to me that one has nothing to do with the other. McGreevey gets to appoint a replacement to serve between now and 1/03. In the meantime, the election goes forward as planned. If the RATs don't get a candidate on the ballot (other than the Torch) tough darts.
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
But see what happens IF Toricelli RESIGNS ... rather than gets beat in a real election. That is easy, the Gov appoints someone to fill out the term ending 1/03. The 11/02 election will determine who serves after that.
To: Robert A. Cook, PE
What the democrats fear above all else is actually LETTING him face the election counts. No question Torch was going to lose to Forrester, but Forrester has not been able to get solidly above 50% even against Torch. This seems to indicate Forrester is a sitting duck to any semi-well known late replacement for Torch. The bottom line of all this is that the Dems probably get to keep a seat they were destined to lose.
The problem seems to be getting the new guy's name on the ballot since the deadline has passed. According to the RNC memo which has been posted, the deadline has been waived once before when a candidate died. The question is -- Can the Dems get a new name on the ballot for Nov. 5?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson