Shea-Porter Would "Consider Serving the Whole State"

Lynchlogism (0.00 / 0)

"at this time" is a phrase John Lynch used to send Craig Benson to the dustbin of history. "At this time I have decided not to enter the race for Governor..." or something to that effect.
How about at some future time ? Well we'll have to see won't we.

Carol goes to WH for signing of Ledbetter Bill.
Paul goes to WH for Superbowl

Score 1-1

Not in the shot

---

by: JonnyBBad @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:51:37 AM CST

The best quote (4.00 / 2)

to come out of this whole fiasco is Warren Rudman's...

"Only someone who is totally insane would think I'd ever do that," he said. "Anyone who thinks that Warren Rudman would go back to the Senate after serving for 12 great years truly ought to have his head examined."

Then there is Charlie Bass, whose name has been mentioned, also.  

"I don't want to speculate on anything right now, but it's obvious that if a Democrat were appointed to replace Judd Gregg, that would certainly hurt the Republicans in the Senate."

http://unionleader.com/article...

"Plus Ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose"

---

by: NHFlatlander @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 08:52:32 AM CST

Judas Gregg (0.00 / 0)

Noted that name appearing in the UL from the wingers.

Suddenly their hero has character deficiencies. Who knew?

One called him a RINO which is funny, given that he did the heavy lifting of being Bush's hatchet man on the filibustering.

Which leads me to think -- if he's as loyal to Obama as Sec as he was to Bush as a Senator, maybe things ain't so bad.  

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 09:28:28 AM CST

My reading of the tea leaves (0.00 / 0)

Carol's statement, and Paul's to a lesser extent with the "at this time" qualifier, are intended to make clear that either is available to take a call from Governor Lynch about any Senate opening.

There will be no opportunity to say, "I chose XYZ in the absence of an available candidate in our delegation."

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 10:32:41 AM CST

Serious question... (4.00 / 3)

No matter if you are a Republican or a Democrat wouldn't the state and the country be best served by a special election? We already have two unelected members of the US Senate we don't need a third.

---

by: Mike Biundo @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:21:35 AM CST

Four, already: (0.00 / 0)

Illinois, Delaware, New York, Colorado.

I'm in favor of special elections for Senate, at least in New Hampshire. But they do cost extra money, and the appointment will last only until the next general election (2010), and a general election might be difficult for candidates to compete in. If we have a primary first, it could take quite a while before the vacancy is filled.

(I've suggested an alternative where, when a vacancy occurs, the remaining Senator from the state gets two votes: Durbin votes twice until 2010. But that would pretty much rule Shaheen out for the cabinet, while making Gregg extra appealing.)

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:45:50 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

Until we get a constitutional amendment passed, nothing will change in our process of selecting senators.

Also, it is just me or would selecting Hodes be the perfect solution to this problem? We wouldn't have to worry about losing CSP's seat in a special election, would get to keep both Hodes and CSP in the delegation, and would be nearly certain to replace Hodes with a good dem.

Both Hodes and CSP, me thinks, would jump at this opportunity.  

res severa verum gaudia

---

by: lawduck @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:46:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Not so, lawduck. (4.00 / 2)

New Hampshire can change its own law, as Massachusetts did.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:47:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

eek. (4.00 / 1)

whoops. i meant to say a fast elections law too. hey, it's not even 10am out here, that's my excuse.

Here is a good article about election/appointing senators.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com...

res severa verum gaudia

---

by: lawduck @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:57:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

probably, but the current law doesnt allow for one and that isnt going to change. (4.00 / 1)

There isnt going to be a special election for the Senate seat because one wont pass and wouldnt pass no matter who ran the legislature or was governor.  The only way to realistically change it is to do so prospectively--- make it take effect in the future so that you dont have do deal with the interests of those who hold the power at present.

The cost of a special election is a real consideration also especially in the current context. Who do you lay off to pay for it? What services do you cut? If you pass a law that changes it in the future the cost wont be as large a political consideration, as future costs are paid by the temporal version of the guy behind the tree.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 11:59:26 AM CST

[ Parent ]

True, but (4.00 / 1)

Just what is the incremental cost to the state?

I'm a pollworker. If I work a full day (which can be about 16 hours) the city pays me $60. In a special election I would expect perhaps five such workers in our ward.

Of the 335 polling places, many are much smaller than a city ward. I'll estimate three workers per ward. That's $60 * 3 * 335 = $60,300.

The city clerk and Bill Gardner don't get paid extra. I don't believe the city / town pays extra rent to the polling sites. There are costs for designing and printing the ballots, sure.

But my back-of-the-envelope estimate says this is about a $100,000 incremental cost.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:11:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Some of the polling districts in NHare huge-- among the largest in the country (4.00 / 1)

Bedford for example had 26 check in stations in November and (I think) the same number of check-out stations. Each of the stations had to have at least two people, so that's 50 to a hundred workers needed in Bedford alone, which is not the largest polling site. (IIRC that would be Londonderry, the fifth largest in the country) . On the other hand, some towns may use all volunteers. There are other costs, such as ballots and police overtime.

That said, your question is a good one-- what is the cost of a special election? A good question for Bill Gardner.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:46:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And the scanners need to be programmed (0.00 / 0)

I have no idea what that costs.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 12:49:49 PM CST

[ Parent ]

We have elections all the time (0.00 / 0)

why not just hold a special election concurrent with the nearest election?

Even in odd-numbered years, the cities have municipal elections and holding an election concurrent with those would at least reduce the cost of a special election by limiting the scope of the "special" part to the towns.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 13:24:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The cities, within their municipal lines, are not the bulk of the population. (0.00 / 0)

And isn't the next statewide voting day in September 2010?

--
"Act as if ye have faith and faith shall be given to you." -Aaron Sorkin

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 20:03:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

About (4.00 / 1)

1/3 of the population (my rough math might be wrong here) lives in cities that will have an election in November 2009.  The expense of having an election then is cheaper than having an election next week, and more democratic than waiting until 2010.

As far as I know, the next statewide voting day is in September 2010, but that doesn't mean there aren't elections in the interim.

This is just an off-the-wall cost mitigation suggestion.

---

by: Alex Gallichon @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 20:17:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I support Feingold's amendment (4.00 / 1)

to change these appts to special elections.

birch, finch, beech

---

by: Dean Barker @ Sat Jan 31, 2009 at 14:49:55 PM CST

[ Parent ]