Alabama Megathread 2: Thou Shall Not Touch Teenage Girls

[Mr. Morden]

What does "dropping out of the race" even mean?  It's too late to get his name off the ballot, or to have it replaced by another name, right?  So even if Moore was playing ball on this, what would he do?  Promise to resign on day 1, in the event that he's actually elected, and endorse the write in candidacy of another Republican?

[Mr. Morden]

Roy Moore is apparently not popular with voters nationally.

Luckily for him, only the opinions of Alabama voters matter.

For getting elected in the first place, true.  But for getting expelled from the Senate by his fellow Senators, polls like this will be a green light to kick him out.

[Mr. Morden]

I honestly do not see why Mitch wouldn't expel Moore if he won. He is a massive stain on the GOP brand and the kind of Senator who is prone to grandstanding and general disruption. He's just not reliable and is a drag on their party. More importantly though, booting him out of the Senate wouldn't be painful. Alabama is not going to rebel in any electorally significant way, if at all.

I don't know. You don't think those Moore supporters in Alabama would be pissed about the Senate telling them you know what, no thanks on your candidate? I think they would be. I'm not sure what they could do, but I guess they could make life difficult for the "establishment."

Well I do think a lot of diehard Moore supporters would be pissed, but Alabama is so polarized and deeply Republican that it can absorb a lot of temporary partisan rebellion. However for as mad as they might get, I just don't think most of them would try to take that out on the party by voting for a Democrat, because, well, Democrats are EVIL BABY KILLING SATAN WORSHIPPERS!

Maybe not but they could primary Republican incumbents or rebel with write-in campaigns like they did with Martha Roby last year and knocked her under 50% of the vote. That could have sent a democrat to Washington if enough people did it.

I highly doubt that's going to happen.  And furthermore, other than Shelby, the Republican Senators making the decision aren't from Alabama, so they're not going to be thinking about longshot scenarios like that.  A Roy Blunt or a Tim Scott or whoever cares about Republican voters in their own states, not Republican voters in Alabama.  No one in Missouri is going to abandon Blunt if he votes to expel Moore.  A year from now, his voters won't even remember who Moore is.  Thus, he is free to vote to expel Moore and avoid a situation where Moore is sticking around in the Senate, embarrassing his party on a daily basis.

[Mr. Morden]

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/930613618328076288

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Apparently McConnell wants Sessions to run a write-in campaign.

Good luck with that.

Why is that so unlikely? Just because Sessions would have to take a risk by stepping down as AG first?

Yeah, while Sessions has not had the best of tenures as AG so far, I see nothing that says he would consider stepping down for a write-in campaign where he would split the vote and be a definite underdog. No rumors of him considering quitting on Cloakroom or the likes, either.

What if Trump straight up fires him on the pretense that Sessions is the only candidate who can win a write in campaign in Alabama?  

[Mr. Morden]

Has the latest accusation been mentioned in this thread yet?

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/new_roy_moore_accuser_he_didnt.html

[Mr. Morden]

Nate Silver: Would Republicans Be Better Off If The Democrat Won In Alabama?

I don't buy this angle at all. To be sure, Republicans wouldn't exactly be thrilled to have the PR of Roy Moore being elected. But I think the notion that it's going to be some big albatross around the neck of Republicans in different states nearly a year later? Nah. They'll distance themselves from him, probably make some token effort to expel him, then quietly drop the issue once the furore dies down.

I mean, Nate notes the obvious example of Trump's allegations being rarely discussed today at the end of the article. But even Trump is the President! He's a major figure for everyone. Is there any precedent for people voting differently because of scandals from politicians from other states? Nate cites the Mark Foley scandal, but that was unusual in being uncovered just weeks before the midterms. Did swing voters in OH care that Democrats didn't expel IL Sen. Roland Burris, appointed by corrupt then-Gov Blagojevich? Were swing voters in NH influenced by TN Rep's Scott DesJarlais' affair and hypocrisy?

I feel like this is a "beltway pundit's contrarian hot-take" that Nate would usually be keen to dismiss.

The reason why I think it might not just be a "token" effort to expel him, but perhaps an effort that actually succeeds, is because Moore has problems beyond the harassment accusations.  He's liable to be making controversial statements about all manner of topics every other week for as long as he's in the Senate, in a way that'll prompt journalists to keep asking other Republican Senators if they agree with him on this or that, which they'd rather avoid.  I imagine many of them were hoping that Moore could somehow go away before the sexual harassment claims came out, and this may just give them an excuse to get rid of him.

[Mr. Morden]

Wouldn't Strange resigning just let Ivey appoint an even lamer duck until the special election?

Yes, I think so. Republicans are mulling whether to argue that Strange resigning is the same as Sessions resigning, in terms of vacancy rules. That's quite a stretch, and stinks of desperation.

Maybe it'll trigger a second special election for the remainder of Strange's term (until Moore/Jones is seated for the rest of Sessions' term.)

It won't just be a special election, but a very special election, just like on 80s and 90s sitcoms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_special_episode