Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, lost Upstate New York, according to the unofficial election night tally.

Cuomo won six out of 50 counties Upstate: Albany, Erie, Monroe, Onondaga, Tompkins and Ulster. Four of the counties happen to be home to the state's big Upstate cities: Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse.

Republican Marc Molinaro carried 44 counties Upstate, plus three Downstate counties: Dutchess County, where he is county executive, Orange County and Putnam County.

Molinaro also won more votes than Cuomo Upstate, with 1,090,382 votes (54.9 percent) to Cuomo's 894,800 (45.1 percent), according to unofficial results.

A Siena Poll released the weekend before the election showed Cuomo losing in Upstate NY to Molinaro. The poll showed Molinaro leading Upstate by 10 percentage points (46-36 percent).

Cuomo lost Upstate in 2014, winning only eight counties while Republican Rob Astorino won 42 counties. In 2010, Cuomo won 37 Upstate counties to Republican Carl Paladino's 13.

But Upstate NY does not get to elect its own governor.

Cuomo swept New York City, according to Tuesday's unofficial results.

There are no Republicans in statewide office in New York.

The vote in Onondaga County was:

Cuomo: 79,064
Molinaro: 70,626
Howie Hawkins (Green): 4,900
Stephanie Miner (SAM): 5,314
Larry Sharpe (Libertarian): 4,485
Cuomo had no trouble winning Onondaga County in 2014. He had almost 70,000 votes to Republican Astorino's 53,487. (That year, Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins won almost 11,000 votes in Onondaga County, his home.)

There are 11.6 million active voters in New York state. About 32 percent live Upstate.

Enrollment in Upstate New York leans blue with 1.4 million Democrats, 1.2 million Republicans and 855,000 voters not enrolled in a party, according to the latest voter enrollment records at the NYS Board of Elections.

(For this report, Upstate includes the 50 counties north of Dutchess and Orange counties.)

Below you will find a LTE published in Hometown Oneonta last Thursday. Also, at this time of year, the UALA endorses candidates that support gas development. The UALA is non-partisan and single issue -- we favor gas develpment. Recently we've included news about the closing of Otego Elementary because many UALA members live elsewhere and appreciate the news. Also, the school's closing is a direct result of economic conditions in Upstate New York. Governor Cuomo is largely to blame for those conditions. He has essentially banned gas.
Therefore, the following endorsement: the Republican candidates for state and federal legislative offices and for the governorship support gas development/pipeline infrastructure. The Democrats candidates don't. It's as simple as that! Please get out and vote.
In Thursday's Hometown Oneonta:
The Gas Wars continued in the October 5th's Hometown Oneonta with several dueling op eds and letters to the editor. Patricia Jacobs opined that Oneonta grew without natural gas. On the other hand, Roger Colazzo remembered an Oneonta that welcomed gas. At a recent meeting on the proposed decompression station, the only arguments he heard from the antis were emotional ones without rational solutions. He asked for data to support alternatives to gas that would heat buildings that need constant, on-demand energy.
Adrian Kuzminsky argued that natural gas is unnecessary for the economy he (Kuzminsky) envisions -- a broadband world of the future. He feels investments in a gas infrasturcture drain the taxpayer and are uneconomical for businesses dependent on gas. Those businesses should go where the gas is -- "elsewhere."
My thesis was, "Economic growth and JOBS that retain young families depend on affordable energy." Governor Cuomo's renewable energy plan leads to rates similar to California, Germany, and South Australia's. Their rates are triple ours. If we can't attract industry now due to high rates, wait until the Guv's plan kick in. Welcome to the High Lonesome.
Here's the deal. One million people have packed up and left New York for other states since Governor Cuomo's inaugeration. That rate is accelerating. An article in the October 5th's Weekend Star cites a study that shows local school enrollments are plummeting. In fact, several local schools are among the fastest enrollment drops statewide; five within the Top 20, eight within the Top 50. School administrators blame a lack of industry for their empty classrooms.
The young with families leave because jobs and opportunities are elsewhere. Others leave because of taxes and the high cost of living. The companies that provide jobs aren't relocating here because high taxes, over regulation, and high overhead, with energy costs a major factor.
Mandated, subsidized, prioritized renewables will drive up the cost of energy, choke development, and limit job creation.
Jody Zakrevski, the Director of our industrial development agency (IDA), Otsego Now, was right. The 475 jobs recently lost due to a lack of abundant, affordable energy (ie., gas) shouldn't be looked at in a singuular sense but in the plural. Those jobs represent FAMILIES (Mom, Dad, the kids) lost to Otsego County. Zakrevski's predecessor at Otsego Now also spoke of the necessity of gas. That's two for two from the professional economic development ranks. Maybe they know something?
Finally, regarding Adrian Kusminsky's bridge to the future via countywide broadband -- it's going to happen . . . about 100 miles southwest of us in Bradford county, Pennsylvania in the heart of the Marcellus Shale play. Bradford County's IDA, the Progress Authority, has as part of its mission a goal to balance out the cyclical nature of gas with a diversified business base, from agriculture to manufacturing to high tech. The key is broadband. To make this happen, they are in the process of setting up their own countywide broadband network. Several years in the planning and with several million dolars surplus in their treasury, they are now working with an engineering firm to suppliment "dark" fiber already in place with new towers, poles, fiber optic cable plants and switching stations, plus incorporating emergency networks and e-rate entities. The final project won't be cheap ($11.6 million) nor complete (the perenial "last mile" up the hollows) but it is a plausible plan.
Bradford County isn't waiting for a government handout, a grant cycle, a Hunger Games political gimme. They are not dependent on the indulgence of Spectrum or Time Warner. They are doing it themselves because they have a vibrant economy with customers waiting and money in the bank. They are doing it because they have gas.
That's reality. The exodus of young families from our towns and villages is a reality. "Elsewhere" is where Mr. Kuzminsky wants affordable energy-dependent industries to relocate. According to Mr. Zakrevsky, that's what they are doing. They are taking their businesses and jobs "elsewhere." That's what's happening in Otsego now, a county held in check by an "environmental" ideology that ignores reality, the laws of economics, and the common good.
Hello, LaLa Land!

Dear Friend:

Please join me on Saturday in Binghamton for the Broome County Rally in support of Marc Molinaro for Governor.

Let's send a message to Albany that we need new ideas that benefit all New Yorkers, not a select few.

We need government that incorporates the needs and priorities of all New Yorkers, not just New York City.

And we need leadership that puts the people of New York before politics.

I believe Marc Molinaro will do just that as Governor of our great state.

Join us this Saturday at 7:00 PM and let's rally to the finish of this critical election season!
What: Broome County Rally for Marc Molinaro
Who: Marc Molinaro, Senator Fred Akshar and other local leaders
When: Saturday, November 3 from 7:00 to 8:00 PM
Where: Holiday Inn Binghamton Downtown: 2 Hawley Street, Binghamton

I hope to see you there,

Fred Akshar


Thank you for your dedicated support of Congresswoman Tenney's campaign over the past few weeks and months. It has been a long road and we are now nearing the finish line!

Election Day is only a few days away! It is more important than ever that we work hard to ensure we retain the majority and to continue our record of accomplishments.

We hope you can join us this Saturday, November 3 for a pre-election “Get Out the Vote!” rally with Claudia Tenney and special guest Sarah Huckabee Sanders! Join us in Madison County in the morning, and in Broome County later that afternoon.

If you would like to attend our rallies to help “Get Out the Vote!” please 
RSVP at this link. Once your RSVP is confirmed, you will receive more information regarding location and timing. 

Thank you again for all of your support. We look forward to seeing you on Saturday for these exciting events!

-Team Tenney

It is a cliché to say the United States has no energy policy, and in the formal sense, it's true. The federal government has never passed sweeping legislation aimed at advancing U.S. energy security that addresses both supply and demand. But even without top-down direction, America currently has a better, most sensible approach to energy development than any other country in the world, both for the short- and long-term.

Where government policy has been absent, free markets have filled the void – with great success. Thanks to technological innovation and free-flowing capital markets, U.S. energy companies have harnessed the country's abundant shale resources, and America is now the world's largest oil and gas producer, on its way to becoming a net exporter by 2022.

That’s nothing short of miraculous given the country's massive economic dependence on oil and gas imports only a decade ago. The shale boom has been an enormous boon to the U.S. economy, helping to pull the country out of the 2008 financial crisis, providing jobs and growth at a time when few other sectors could.


Meanwhile, the rise of cheap shale gas has resulted in large-scale displacement of coal in U.S. power generation, resulting in falling carbon emissions – something many European countries fail to accomplish despite carbon pricing there.

Energy security has never been better, meaning the president has considerably more flexibility in setting foreign policy. In short, the economic, environmental and geopolitical benefits of the U.S. energy boom have been huge.

But there’s more. As the low-carbon energy transition plays out, investors and energy executives around the world are starting to debate when demand for oil and gas peaks seriously. Peak demand is important because it signals that a sector’s growth trajectory has ended and that a mature industry has begun to decline.

While it’s impossible to say with any certainty when this will occur – some say as soon as five years while others, probably more astutely, put it after 2035 – the approach of peak demand will prompt some investors to exit the sector. Look no further than the U.S. coal industry over the last decade for evidence of capital flight stemming from peak demand.

Again, this event may not take place for decades. But from a macroeconomic energy policy standpoint, no country wants to be left with “stranded assets,” barrels of oil or BTUs of gas in the ground that can’t be produced because there is insufficient demand for them. OPEC nations hold over 1.2 trillion barrels of oil reserves or 82% of the world’s total. This is why the cartel has historically held so much sway over global oil markets. But undeveloped oil reserves become meaningless – and possibly worthless – if investors start to lose interest.

The United States, by contrast, is producing flat out, with oil production at a world-leading 11 million barrels a day. But its reserves are far smaller at 35.2 billion barrels. To put it in perspective, OPEC is now producing about 32.7 million barrels a day from its 1.2 trillion barrels of reserves. And the only thing holding back the United States from producing more is infrastructure constraints – a lack of pipeline and export facilities to facilitate higher shipments abroad from its prolific shale plays, where output can be ramped up or throttled back relatively quickly and easily.

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke recently said that U.S. oil production might rise to as much as 14 million barrels a day by 2020. Given potential demand constraints down the road – again, even if it’s a very long road – the United States effort to produce as much as possible as quickly as possible from its shale resources is the right strategy.

This is why we should not be alarmed when some leading U.S. energy executives say that shale output could peak in the middle of next decade. That outcome is by no means certain – indeed, some independent analysts continue to increase their estimates for recoverable shale reserves – but if it happens the United States will have derived as much value as possible from the resource, without leaving anything to “stranded” chance.

OPEC, with its members’ political issues and its continued focus on oil market management, may not be able to say the same thing. Russia, shackled by crippling Western sanctions, may not be able to tell it either.

Concerns about new investments “long-dated” oil projects are already reflected in the capital spending plans of the world’s largest oil companies. Majors, the ones that generally pursue these types of mega projects with long investment horizons, have uncharacteristically failed to ratchet up capital expenditures in response to higher oil prices. Many are moving more aggressively into short-cycle shale or putting more capital into gas or LNG, not the humongous offshore projects of yesteryear like Kashagan or the costly, carbon-intensive oil sands of Canada. Free cash flow is being directed to shareholders, not new investments in dubious long-term oil projects.

Even Mideast OPEC states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait look reluctant to invest more in spare oil production capacity. Many are investing more heavily in petrochemicals or refineries at home or abroad, projects that will stimulate demand for their existing oil reserves. OPEC has regularly warned in recent years of the perils of under-investment, urging IOCs to step up capital expenditures. But it, for the most part, is not walking the walk itself. This helps explain why Saudi Arabia has expressed its willingness to raise its production to its full capacity of 12 million barrels a day if necessary, as the United States prepares to hit Iran with harsh energy sanctions. Riyadh has said it will invest $20 billion over the coming years to maintain – not necessarily expand – its output capacity at 12 million barrels a day. Such caution is telling considering the kingdom is sitting on 260 billion barrels of the world’s lowest cost reserves.

As the global industry begins to think more in terms of years rather than decades in making investment decisions, it becomes clear that the United States may be in the most enviable position with its short-cycle shale assets and free market economy. Indeed, maybe it has been better off without any formal energy policy from Washington at all.

I am CEO of Canary, one of the largest privately-owned oilfield services companies in the United States. I've served as a consultant to the energy industry in North America, Asia and Africa. My commentaries have been published in The Hill, Real Clear Energy, and the Economis...

JLCNY Calendar

No events

Recent Stories

Newsletter Signup!

Signup and stay informed.

View Past Newsletters
Joomla Extensions powered by Joobi