• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Wish me Luck

Ugh. Geez. 49 votes. Sorry Bill.

State House - District 50 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting

Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Reece Painter Dem 5,134 50.2%
Mike Alberts Rep 5,085 49.8%
Updated: 11/2/2004 10:21 PM ET
Click to expand...

Wait a second.. Now I'm confused. It also lists...

State House - District 50 100.0% of 5 precincts reporting

Candidate Party Vote Count % Votes Cast
Mike Alberts Rep 5,310 50.0%
Reece Painter Dem 5,309 50.0%
Click to expand...
 
Look again, the news has this one screwed up beyond belief. They just posted the REAL results:

Alberts: 5470
Painter: 5430

We WON by 40 votes!!!

It was a classic nail biter :0

I was in Brooklyn reporting the fact that we lost by 350 or some odd votes and when I called these results into headquarters, I was told we lost by 7 votes. Then, the car wouldn't start and my cell phone went dead. I tell ya if I had a gun, I probably woulda shot myself :p A few minutes later, Mike called me back to say he added wrong and we actually won by 40 votes.

Across Connecticut it was bad news for Republicans in the State legislature, we lost two incumbent State Senators, four incumbent Republican State Reps and two Republican open seats.

However, I had the distinction of playing a key part in bringing home a WIN (albeit a slim one :0 ) for the House Republicans. Across the state we only won two open seats and this one was one of them.

It was a great night, topped off by an Opus X Fuente Fuente ;)

:thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
 
Congrats!!
wow 40 votes is tight
Seems like elections all across the contry were close






Bill
 
In order not to complicate things, I left out the part about the "special election" that was also on the ballot with Mike running against Reece Painter. The special election was to fill the vacancy created by the resignation so the term only goes from now until the end of the year and since the Legislature isn't even in session, it's essentially meaningless. I also figured whoever won the election for the full term would win the special election for the vacancy. So when voters went to he voting machines, both candidates names appeared on the ballot twice.

Well get this, we won the full term by 40 votes and LOST the special by 13 :0

Because the margin was less than 1/2 of 1% of the total votes cast, state law mandates each town perform a recanvass or recount. Pomfret did theirs on Friday and so did Woodstock. The results were the exact same in Pomfret and we picked up one vote for the full term and one vote for the special in Woodstock. Today, Hampton did their recount and she lost one vote in the special and we gained one. So right now we're up by 41 for the full term and only down by 10 for the vacancy term.

And I thought this would all be over last Tuesday :0 Brooklyn does their recount on Sunday and Eastford on Monday. We're pretty sure everything will come out the same but ya never know.................
 
Good for you, Bill. I know you put some effort into this. Now about those Victory cigars, I've had them(cbid) and I don't like them. Anything ya got from the darkside will do just fine. ;)

Gregor
 
The sky opened up in Brooklyn and an absentee ballot fell out of the air. :p It was from a little old lady in a nursing home so I knew it wasn't a vote for us.

We lost on one on the Special Election but she lost two votes.

The subject came up of whether or not they should open the newly found ballot. There was no reason to reject it (I asked if it was possible that she had passed away before Election Day but was assured that she had not) so they opened up the "mystery ballot" and gee guess what, the votes were not for us :0

So, now it stands as we're up 40 on the full term and down 10 on the vacancy with one town left to recount.

Tomorrow evening we'll have the final results since the last town (Eastford) does their recount at 7:00 p.m. ;) It's looking good so far but still holding our breath.
 
Oooo, wow, I'm nervous for ya and I don't have a clue what's going on! But if he's a buddy of yours, then GO TEAM!!
ole.gif
 
Recount is now official, we picked up 8 votes on one machine in Eastford for the full term and had a net loss of two for the vacancy. They forgot to add in the absentee votes in Eastford for the vacancy for both candidates :0 So the final official results are:

Full term
Alberts: 5479
Painter: 5431
Plurality for Alberts: 48

Vacancy
Alberts: 5258
Painter: 5270
Plurality for Painter: 12

So we won by a whopping 48 votes :0 and really don't give a rat's a$$ about the vacancy since it's only for seven weeks or so and the Legislature won't even be in session during this time.

A win is a win ;) we'll take it :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:

FINALLY this mini version of Florida 2000 (complete with lawyers and all) is OVER, back to cigars ;) :thumbs:
 
I think the fact the counts aren't the same for both elections shows how absurd a lot of voters are. :0
 
other1 said:
I think the fact the counts aren't the same for both elections shows how absurd a lot of voters are.  :0
Click to expand...
LMAO, you're tellin' me!!

During the recount, I was able to look at each absentee ballot individually. Quite a few only voted for the full term and there was a second group that would vote for one for full and the other for the vacancy kind of as a consolation prize.

For instance, if the AB was Republican "pull" (Voting for all Republicans on the ballot ahead of the State Rep. position) a few would give her a vote on the vacancy position and vice versa.

In the towns that Mike lost, Brooklyn & Hampton, he lost by LESS on the vacancy spot and same with Painter, the towns she lost for the full term, she did better on the vacancy. Pomfret was the classic example, Mike won it by six on the full term but lost it by 15 on the vacancy.

When Mike ran two years ago against the popular incumbent (who was from Pomfret) he got crushed there (40% to 60%) despite the Republican voter registration edge we had going in. This time around, Mike improved his percentages in all towns but improved the MOST in Pomfret :thumbs: In 2002, I kept mumbling under my breath "!#$@#@$ Pomfret :angry: " but this time, Pomfret was our saviour AND wound up making the difference for us AND for giving her the win for the vacancy which I tell ya, if I was her, I'd be ripped :0
My not-so-nice side chuckles every time I think about it :sign: because as the campaign was getting down near the end, she was turning into a real pain in the a$$, lying to the press :0 , etc. AND on Election Night, when we all had the numbers showing we won by 40 votes, she told a newspaper reporter that the Secretary of the State called her PERSONALLY to say she had really won by one vote for the full term. Incredible, she knew she lost and then tosses that crap out there :0 Hey, I don't mind the "loyal opposition" but not when they consistently flat out LIE.

Either the Pomfret voters were truly giving her a consolation vote or a cruel slap in the face:
"Go ahead Reece, I'll give ya a vote for the one that doesn't matter" :sign:

As you pointed out Jason, this makes no sense, people should vote for a candidate based on their proposals, their views, their platform/plan NOT for reasons like "Well, just to be fair, I'll split my vote." :lookup:

Truly absurd
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top