The one good thing about the members of the Democrat Party is that they are predictable that way.
One recalls too the fiasco (for the Democrats) that took place a couple of years ago.
When the Democrats of Massachusetts thought the Bostonian Billionaire might win the presidential election of 2004, and have to resign from the Senate, they also remembered something else. Under the then-rules, the governor of the commonwealth appointed a successor.
The governor at the time was.....Mitt Romney, and it was reasonably assumed he'd appoint a Republican.
So the Democrats changed the rule, that an election, not the governor, would determine the Bostonian Billionaire's successor, assuming it'd be a Democrat.
Inbetweentimes, a Democrat got elected to the governor's office.
Under the old rules, he would've named a successor, but no, the rules had been changed.
Then Vast Teddy died, opening up that Senate seat.
Under the old rules, the Democrat would've been able to name a Democrat to the seat; but no, an election had to be held.
And thus we ended up with the Republican Scott Brown.
Too bad for the primitives.
Something similar in Wyoming happened many years before that; the governor used to appoint a successor to a vacant Senate seat, but the Democrats whined that the governor was always Republican, and so the appointee would be Republican too.
So they got the rules changed to where the governor had to appoint someone of the same political party as the now-retired or dead senator.
Inbetweentimes, a Democrat got elected governor, and a Republican senate seat became vacant.
And so the Democrat had to appoint a Republican.
Too bad for the primitives.