You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
The @nytimes article now no longer says "block." It looks like they are floating the @hughhewitt idea of Strange resigning, creating new vacancy and calling new election. I don't think that's kosher either, for reasons I've tweeted about
So the NYT got rid of its blocked language and floats idea of new election. This could come in one of two possible ways: 1. Moore is elected then expelled (Q whether he can be expelled for pre-Senate conduct) 2. Strange resigns, and Gov. says current election moot and calls new
I don't think this second way is consistent with 17th amendment and is anti-democratic. Also may be anti-democratic to expel someone who is the choice of the people for conduct not involving Senate, but I don't think that's judicially reviewable.
Fact that Sessions says he's not interested and Alabama Republican Party is discouraging write-ins (and Strange would likely lose) means most likely scenario is Moore remains in race. Gives Jones a real chance to win, especially as Moore stories multiply.
And it puts Rs in a no-win position: either they lose a solid R seat for a while or they have Moore in the Senate and take political heat for expelling him or live with someone who will tarnish brand
Vote Democratic.
But Strange resigning should have nothing to do with the special election, IMO. They could appoint a new senator every day and it wouldnt change that the election is to replace Sessions...
Yeah, because Moore would NEVER run for the GOP nomination again if that happened.
Why is there a question if they can expel? "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
