People are in this thread expecting Ned Lamont to unilaterally implement socialized medicine as governor of Connecticut. Like jeez man he's using federal funds to buy up medical debt that's gone into collection and forgive it. Just trying to help in the ways he has the power to do so. Not every politician is a god emperor who is going to solve massive systemic problems in isolation. If this is your approach to politics you are in for a lifetime of utter disappointment and unhappiness.

With respect to eversource, anyone has access to alternative suppliers. It is illegal in Connecticut for there to be any punitive conditions on any contract or rate lock with a supplier - this is the law I'm referring to. I've read the contract, it mentions fees for breaking your lock for a different supplier "unless in the following states" where CT is listed because our Congress people did that for us. I am not worshipping anyone. I am stating a factual law on the books that they created to our benefit.

Eversource still owns delivery. Their rates are locked by law until 2024. This is what happens when you privatize a utility. If you are arguing for a state sponsored and run energy company, I wholeheartedly agree.

Sure. Diligence is important since the time delay is there but it's still a resource we have as the consumer.

>However, if prices do drop significantly in the next few months, the supply rate very well may fall below whatever you get locked into. I have great skepticism that Eversource or UI will drop the rates, but I'm also highly skeptical of the number of companies who are advertising like crazy to lock you into an alternate supply rate for 3-years. Are they the benevolent angel we may hope for, or are they making a different wager?

It is against the law in the state of CT for them to hit you with any fees if you decide to switch to a different supplier during your rate lock. So, if the prices fall and a cheaper supplier than your current lock becomes available, you can jump over to that supplier. All the lock really does is protect you from the supplier randomly jacking the price for the duration of the lock.

Except the politicians passed a law allowing us to swap to any supplier for electricity we want without penalty. They armed us already with what we need to combat this. There have been multiple posts on the subreddit about it. You have leverage against eversource on the supply side because competition exists there.

They are a company that serves a broader population. They supply energy in a wider region than eversource. Maybe they are getting enough profit elsewhere to undercut eversource in this region to gain new customers who will be lazy and not change their supplier after three years are up and they jack the rate.

Even if constellation does something fishy, it is illegal in CT for them to penalize you for swapping to a different supplier if they give you reason to. The rate lock is purely there for your own protection of the rate. It isn't a binding contract to stay with them for however many months you have it.

Just in case anyone else tries to raise conspiratorial rhetoric in this thread realize that Ryan Fazio, a republican representing the 36th district in the state senate, won his election by about 89 votes. There were close elections all over the state because.... my best guess is in traditionally more republican locations, the CT GOP for some reason seems to continue to field bad candidates so democrats are making some races closer than expected (and fielding strong candidates like Chris Poulos).

It's really unsettling that the reaction to a close election has gone from "wow, that's so close!" to "I don't believe it."

>It should be surprising, statistically the odds of a race coming down to one vote is exceptionally small -- and the larget larger the township the more unlikely. It happening twice is weird. It happening for the same party is another layer.

This comment's entire thesis is that it's unlikely because it benefitted one party over another. This makes me suspicious because realistically if you find this occurrence weird, it should be weird even if D won one and R won the other. It's all so statistically improbable right? So you seem a little fixated on the outcome here. It makes me wonder if we would be seeing this thread at all if the R candidates had won the close election instead. You can say what you want in reply to this, but given your fixation its a suspicion that immediately comes to mind and that's really all that is relevant here.

>You'll notice that most of those are not one-vote wins, but a few hundred or two votes and (a) It isn't that many (b) the majority are much smaller votes (c) they're having to fudge, e.g. "1.1 votes per precinct across the election" (d)Two races winning by one vote for the same party is like winning the powerball multiple times. Statistically possible but surprising as hell.

You seem very interested in putting on the appearance of approaching this rationally and statistically - but then in these comments you cite a source of close elections and your entire argument is essentially "but I feel like this isn't convincing." I am highly suspicious of people making feelings based argument. You then make a statistical assertion with absolutely no evidence. If you want to liken close elections occurring to the probability of winning the power ball multiple times the onus is on you to show that this is a meaningfully equivalent statement. The fact that you didn't just leaves me to think that the math hasn't actually been done. If that is the case, then you said this with the intention of being hyperbolic. If you are being hyperbolic, then you are doing it because you're trying to rile up an emotional response to your statement instead of a rational one. This leaves me suspicious.

Then the entire parent comment here in the first place is just a classic "begging the question." If you don't want to look like you're begging the question, then you could have simple said "Wow, thats two elections going the way of the same party by 1 vote this year. I wonder what the probability is on that?" The things we say and the way we present ourselves matter. Your initial comment, as it is presented, is draped in a tone of suspicion. Maybe english isn't your first language, maybe there is a bunch of other explanations for that - but you should know that you sound, in tone, one or two comments away from being an election denier. The bedrock for the rhetoric is there, and the thought patterns are there. Do with that what you will.

EDIT: To any readers just know that this poster blocked me. I have no idea how they replied and the fact that they blocked me despite putting in the effort above is a large tell. They are arguing in this thread in bad faith and the moment they were challenged they folded and blocked me to protect their own feelings. Don't buy in to any arguments coming from this poster - they are trying to stoke flames of conspiracy.

Hate to break it to you buddy but since they live there now, they're locals too.

It is wild and dramatic, but really not that weird at the local level. My comment still stands.

A lot of your comments in this thread make you sound very suspicious of the process. I am not sure if that was your intention, but a lot of them are reading that way, and after 2020 and Jan 6th I am always going to be critical of that tone.

It's definitely a pretty wild thing to happen. All the more reason to vote - local politics offers a lot more opportunity for your vote to count for something.

What's a little bizarre is your inability to accept that it happened without casting any doubt on it. Crazy things happen all the time. I'm sure this won't be the last close local election in Connecticut and I imagine they go the other way too.

Instead of being suspicious about it, why not transfer that energy into your preferred local candidate next time? Get out a canvas or phone bank for them.

I mean, in other parts of the country these right races went to the other party. It just shows how tight things were in this midterm. The liberal candidates managed to squeak out just enough more voters in a couple of contests here - and Connecticut is by default more liberal than conservative. Pretty sure the republican state senator in my district won by a margin of dozens? There were tons of close races in the state.

It isn't weird at all. The more local the elections get, the more each individual vote counts.