There are upsides and downsides to removing a Speaker. Although I want the current one removed at once, there are some practical reasons for locking in one for two years so as not to necessarily have upheaval and turmoil. In a closely divided body, you could (if all that was required was a majority vote of 1) oust Speaker after Speaker (think of the appalling CA Assembly session of 1995-96) every time there was a vacant seat or a coalition would come up, with a Speaker-presumptive bribing members for votes.
When we had Republican Bill Jenkins as Speaker for the 1969-71 session, I’m sure the Dems would’ve tried anything possible to get him out before his term expired, all they needed was their entire caucus and the bizarre old iconoclast Independent to remove him (if again, by majority vote). Probably better to leave Traitor Kent in, because he’s only causing the Dems more harm.
If he tries to run again under our label and the party doesn’t have the balls to strip him of the nomination (if he wins), then that will be a real problem. If he runs as a Democrat, they certainly won’t make him Speaker again (even if he could persuade some RINOs to support him), the Dems in leadership will want that post. They only voted for him to stick it to the GOP and because he promised to keep most of their power intact within the House (the only promise that scumbag kept).
I hope defeating him in the GOP primary should be a top priority. If he runs in it. His reelection is not acceptable.
“strip him of the nomination”
The state party has that power? The rats basically did that to that lady state senator right?