Sessions' Replacement if He Becomes AG?

[Free Bird]

Who is appointed by Bentley to replace Jeff Sessions if he is confirmed as Attorney General?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jU7fhIO7DG0

[KingSweden]

It'll almost certainly be Mo brooks

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

It'll almost certainly be Mo brooks

Good Lord that will be....interesting.

[Heisenberg]

Word is Bentley will appoint a placeholder (like Bob Riley or Spencer Bachus), then create a free-for-all Special Election primary.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Word is Bentley will appoint a placeholder (like Bob Riley or Spencer Bachus), then create a free-for-all Special Election primary.

Kay Ivey is pretty old, right? She wouldn't be bad. Bob Riley or Bachus would both want to stay on for a while I'd imagine. Ivey can hold the seat until the special election and then rest on her laurels.

[Kingpoleon]

Byrne is my favorite of these, so I doubt he would get it.

[mds32]

Roy Moore XD

I sure hope not

[publicunofficial]

Byrne has taken his name out of contention.

AG Luther Strange and Rep. Martha Roby are possibilities.

[windjammer]

Byrne has taken his name out of contention.

AG Luther Strange and Rep. Martha Roby are possibilities.

Probably not Roby, she has faced too big backlash with Trump supporters to be appointed.

[Maxwell]

Byrne has taken his name out of contention.

AG Luther Strange and Rep. Martha Roby are possibilities.

two names that could make this seat a fight! glorious!

[Vosem]

Roby would've been the logical choice but it looks like she upset a lot of folks with the Trump un-endorsement (she's arguably the single politician in the nation whom it hurt the most). So I doubt it'll be her.

Aderholt is already publicly interested (and he's surprisingly young for a guy first elected to the House in 1996; he was apparently sworn in at age 31); he's a big-time porker, representing a very poor, very white, very rural district in northern Alabama -- considering he's been in the House for 20 years and is the definition of establishment, I could definitely see him getting some sort of challenge from somewhere.

This is a safe Senate seat that whoever wins will get to keep for decades, and the election will be off-year, so no incumbents have to risk the seats they currently hold. Easy to imagine a massive pile-up.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

I like Palmer a lot (I love those Southern rich suburban ultra-conservative districts).  He has my hypothetical support if he runs.

[mencken]

It'll almost certainly be Mo brooks

Good Lord that will be....interesting.

What's wrong with Brooks? (besides being a Freedom Caucasian?)

[BuckeyeNut]

As Vosem said, Aderholt's pretty young for such a senior member of the House, and would be a good candidate if the AL GOP wants some fresh blood in the House. (Mo Brooks has a decade on him and only three or so terms.)

[smoltchanov]

I like Palmer a lot (I love those Southern rich suburban ultra-conservative districts).  He has my hypothetical support if he runs.

You formulated the VERY reason why i DISlike Palmer a lot - he is ULTRAconservative))))

[Heisenberg]

I like Palmer a lot (I love those Southern rich suburban ultra-conservative districts).  He has my hypothetical support if he runs.

You formulated the VERY reason why i DISlike Palmer a lot - he is ULTRAconservative))))

You'll find many of those in Alabama.

[smoltchanov]

I like Palmer a lot (I love those Southern rich suburban ultra-conservative districts).  He has my hypothetical support if he runs.

You formulated the VERY reason why i DISlike Palmer a lot - he is ULTRAconservative))))

You'll find many of those in Alabama.

I know)) But that doesn't change my opinion of them)))

[Heisenberg]

I like Palmer a lot (I love those Southern rich suburban ultra-conservative districts).  He has my hypothetical support if he runs.

You formulated the VERY reason why i DISlike Palmer a lot - he is ULTRAconservative))))

You'll find many of those in Alabama.

I know)) But that doesn't change my opinion of them)))

I prefer Republicans of the Kasich/Ryan type, but if an arch-conservative does a good job representing his/her constituents and is well liked by them, I'm fine.

[smoltchanov]

I like Palmer a lot (I love those Southern rich suburban ultra-conservative districts).  He has my hypothetical support if he runs.

You formulated the VERY reason why i DISlike Palmer a lot - he is ULTRAconservative))))

You'll find many of those in Alabama.

I know)) But that doesn't change my opinion of them)))

I prefer Republicans of the Kasich/Ryan type, but if an arch-conservative does a good job representing his/her constituents and is well liked by them, I'm fine.

<offtopic>Theoretically i prefer as liberal Republicans as possible (not surprising as i am rather solidly liberal on social issues, while being essentially centrist on economy), but for me the main axiom is  - "district rules!". And - applicable not only to Republicans, but - to BOTH parties. So - i absolutely like moderate Republicans in North-East, but understand that southern one will be substantially more conservative (but still - dislike ULTRAconservatives). I absolutely like conservative Democrats in rural southern districts, but less so - elsewhere (and while i am absolutely for liberals, say, in San Francisco, Seattle and NYC, i still dislike "far left loonies")... </offtopic>

We shall see - too ultraconservative candidate (and even Sessions may be considered as such, and have some difficulties in confirmation) may not have "an upper hand" even in Alabama...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I like Palmer a lot (I love those Southern rich suburban ultra-conservative districts).  He has my hypothetical support if he runs.

You formulated the VERY reason why i DISlike Palmer a lot - he is ULTRAconservative))))

You'll find many of those in Alabama.

I know)) But that doesn't change my opinion of them)))

I prefer Republicans of the Kasich/Ryan type, but if an arch-conservative does a good job representing his/her constituents and is well liked by them, I'm fine.

<offtopic>Theoretically i prefer as liberal Republicans as possible (not surprising as i am rather solidly liberal on social issues, while being essentially centrist on economy), but for me the main axiom is  - "district rules!". And - applicable not only to Republicans, but - to BOTH parties. So - i absolutely like moderate Republicans in North-East, but understand that southern one will be substantially more conservative (but still - dislike ULTRAconservatives). I absolutely like conservative Democrats in rural southern districts, but less so - elsewhere (and while i am absolutely for liberals, say, in San Francisco, Seattle and NYC, i still dislike "far left loonies")... </offtopic>

We shall see - too ultraconservative candidate (and even Sessions may be considered as such, and have some difficulties in confirmation) may not have "an upper hand" even in Alabama...

And yet you support top-two all party primaries...

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8g7TNsWz8w

Oh wait, the Creepy Guy ended his career a while ago

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8g7TNsWz8w

Oh wait, the Creepy Guy ended his career a while ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je7L6sBIbaM

So many great candidates...

[smoltchanov]

And yet you support top-two all party primaries...

Absolutely. They give people like me (generally moderate, but not really fitting any of present day 2 big activist dominated parties) a chance, they wouldn't have otherwise. In California before "top 2" the general election was frequently "a lunatic Democrat" against "a lunatic Republican". It still is in some cases. But "more normal" people got more chances since then, assembling coalition of sensible people in both parties, many Indies. and so on. Without "top 2" (especially under "closed primaries") they wouldn't have that chances. And it gives a minority party some leverage too even in "hostile" districts. I bet that, for example, in many California races this year, which were of "business Democrat against far left "progressive" Democrat" or, rarely - "more pragmatic Republican against far-right Republican" it was they who helped the former to win. Again, they wouldn't even  reach general election under old rules..

Or - look at many districts in the South. Democratic primaries in many districs there are dominated by Blacks, but Black candidate is, usually, unable to win general. So - districts elect ultraconservative Republicans. More conservative (white, for example) Democrat or Indie, who would be still less conservative then Republican candidate, could be competitive under "top 2", but can't win under present system...

P.S. "district rules!", not "parties of the district"...))))

[SATW]

I'd prefer Bradley Byrne or Martha Roby.