January 11, 2009

Our New York State Senate

Over the past six months, we've talked about the potential impact on our region should the Republicans lose control of the State Senate. Our concern was not so much party driven, but what will our state government look like with this flip in power, when the fact that every single position of power in this state is driven by downstate interests.

We now know how the State Senate leadership looks. Each of these individuals are now a committee chairperson, with the exception of Syracuse-area Senator David Valesky. He was given the honorary, albeit powerless, position of Vice-President Pro Tem (and its $34,000 lulu).

This map illustrates the areas represented by Senate Democrats who have taken control of the State Senate, and raises the obvious question: Who's looking out for Upstate? Senators Stachowski and Thompson are I'm sure fine Senators, but can we really expect them to stand up to the NYC interests simply based on sheer numbers? (You can click on the map for a clearer view.)



Ask and ye shall receive. Here is the map prior to the Senate flip:

9 comments:

Barney said...

What the before snap shot look like?

And don't worry; Louise is on the job with her new upstate caucus.

To bad she was the first out of the gate to sell us out with the Kennedy endorsement

Paladin said...

Yeah, I feel better all the time. Didn't our forebears throw tea into Boston Harbor over something kinda like this?

KJOC said...

Kinda makes Marren look not so dumb after all!

lido said...

Marren's mother has obviously chimed in. No, it doesn't lessen the idiocy of suggesting we not fill Clinton's seat. No one disputes the lack of representation outside of NYC, what obviously is in dispute is what the hell people are thinking when they pull the dam lever in the voting booth.

Joe Mesi has brain damage, but he's a local celebrity, so I'll vote for him.

Carolyn Kennedy (yes, I know it's misspelled, I pulled it from Mark Scheer's column) is royalty, so she should replace Clinton. Forget about the fact that this woman is virtually incapable of putting a coherent sentence together, and disregard that she has ZERO political experience, let's just annoint her to one of the most powerful political positions in the country because of her corrupt family name.

John Restaino said...

Are you seriously saying that Kennedy is not intelligent?? Inexperienced is understandable, but un-intelligent is way off

lido said...

Where in the comment did I say she was not intelligent? I said she can barely put together a coherent sentence. If you followed something besides the local rag, you'd know that "in a 30-minute session with The (Daily) News Kennedy punctuated her answers with "you know" more than 200 times. "Um" was fairly constant, too." That's from the Daily News.

They added, "with "Caroline Kennedy, you know, might need, you know, a speech coach, um, if she, you know, wants, um, to be a senator."

That's not indicative of her intelligence. It does, however, emphasize her inability to put together a coherent sentence, as I originally stated.

It's unfortunate that you yourself are incapable of comprehending another's word without completely misinterpreting them, and even worse, twisting them to suit your lack of knowledge of the candidates outside of what you read in the local rag.

Barney said...

Thank you the contrast is striking - this should be the GOPs poster child.

Santos L. Halper said...

pretty much the same as the population density of nys. i dont see the problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:New_York_Population_Map.png

NY Daily Balance said...

"pretty much the same as the population density of nys. i dont see the problem"

That's right... if you don't care about the 7 million people who live north of the Bronx, then there is no problem.