It is almost worth losing a Democratic seat to have George Santos as a Republican poster child

[Tom Rinaldo]

Ok, it's actually not a close call, it would be much better to have another Democratic seat, but I love how the Santos story seems to have the half life of plutonium. Santos is so emblematic of the current sick version of the Republican Party that he defines them in neon lights, and the fact that they won't disown him means they continually wear him around their necks like a dead albatross. Santos may have gotten more coverage last night, all of it negative, than Sanders did for her Republican reply to the SOTU.

[EYESORE 9001]

1. It's a disservice to the people who live in that congressional district

I refuse to call them ‘his constituents,’ because he doesn’t GAF about a single one of them…not counting himself, of course. Perhaps the residents of this district will experience an epiphany of discernment regarding future elections. Naah!

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. He is, certainly. The fact that his district in essence now is unrepresented

It is a compelling argument for why it is a BAD thing to have him still in Congress. Like I acknowledged, it clearly is not for the best to have him in the House, but while he is there, he is a ketchup stain on the shirt of every Republican in office.

As to voters in his district, I'm sure the odds of Democrats regaining that seat, either in a special election or in 2024, have gone up dramatically since Santos has been exposed.

[Danascot]

3. Do we know what happens if Santos resigns/gets kicked out?

New election? Dem governor appoints?

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Special election

This explanation comes from newspaper coverage of an earlier New York State Special Election to fill a vacant House seat in Congress:

"State law requires a governor to announce a date for a special election within 10 days after the state officially receives word of a congressional vacancy. An election then must be held 70 to 80 days later."

[Danascot]

5. Thank you!