From: xyzzy.dude@gmail.com   
      
   The NOTBCS Guy  wrote:   
   >>> He’s also said he won’t consider anyone currently running for the seat   
   so   
   >>> he’s clearly looking for a 14 month caretaker.   
   >>>   
   >>> Now if the person agrees to be a caretaker once she’s in the   
   seat…that’s a   
   >>> different question.   
   >>>   
   >> I should add…appointing a caretaker is the smrat move. The re-election   
   rate   
   >> of appointed senators is atrocious.   
   >   
   > This is California we're talking about. The last caretaker to lose was   
   > John Seymour, who lost - to Feinstein - because he was a Republican.   
   >   
   > Anybody who claims they don't want the seat probably realizes that being   
   > elected makes a good stepping stone to becoming Governor. I am convinced   
   > that the only reason Newsom was ever Governor was because Feinstein didn't   
   want the job.   
   >   
   > Alex Padilla was a caretaker (for Kamala Harris's seat) and had no   
   > problem getting re-elected.   
   >   
      
   I’m talking about their record in general, nationwide. Odds are against   
   appointed senators, Padilla notwithstanding.   
      
   https://www.senate.gov/senators/AppointedSenators.htm   
      
   I didn’t do the math and total it up but their record appears to be well   
   south of 50% which I suspect is well below the re-election record of   
   elected senators.   
      
   The odds probably improve if the appointment is made in a solidly partisan   
   state, and the appointed senator doesn’t have to survive a primary.   
      
   Given California’s blanket primary system, I wouldn’t assume a Dem   
   appointed this far before the primary election will have an advantage.   
      
   --   
   “I usually skip over your posts because of your disguistng, contrarian,   
   liberal personality.” — Altie   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)