The Kyrsten Sinema Thread

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

The Dems could refuse her "resignation" from the party, so she could not become "independent". She could act independent in the Senate, but she always has. So no change.

She changed her party registration in Arizona. The Senate has nothing to do with it.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by plague311

So you're saying that the Dem won because he was saying he wouldn't be a Dem? Then why didn't they just vote for a Republican? Kelly had to appeal to them more than whoever the Republican candidate was, who I'm assuming also ran on an anti-Biden and Dem platform.

Long story short, what the hell was your point here?

That you can't be a left-wing Democrat and win in Arizona. To listen to folks here Kristen is throwing away her career by not going along with the Democrats. From my standpoint she is representing her state in a fashion that makes it possible for her to be elected again. By resigning from the Democrats she ensures that the next race will be a three-way affair, and that whomever the Democrats nominate will be toast.

BTW, hold your breath, because Manchin may be next to jump ship.

[Stacyhs]

I think there's something to the theory that Sinema changed to Independent in order to save herself from being challenged by another Democrat in the coming primaries. She's not popular with the Dems. As an Independent, she can avoid a very expensive primary battle and hope to pull votes from the non-Maga Republicans, Independents, and more conservative Dems.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Brainster

That you can't be a left-wing Democrat and win in Arizona. To listen to folks here Kristen is throwing away her career by not going along with the Democrats. From my standpoint she is representing her state in a fashion that makes it possible for her to be elected again. By resigning from the Democrats she ensures that the next race will be a three-way affair, and that whomever the Democrats nominate will be toast.

BTW, hold your breath, because Manchin may be next to jump ship.

Let him. This hasn't effected the Senate one bit, so if they need to fill their attention cups with moves like this then I'm good with that. Also, if she ran as an independent, she'd be toast too, so if that's her plan then it's a **** plan right out the gate. If she did it to appeal to right leaning votes then it would hurt the GOP candidate as well.

Again, what point is it that you're trying to make? The Dems still have 51-49 control in the Senate and all the perks that come with it.

[plague311]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I think there's something to the theory that Sinema changed to Independent in order to save herself from being challenged by another Democrat in the coming primaries. She's not popular with the Dems. As an Independent, she can avoid a very expensive primary battle and hope to pull votes from the non-Maga Republicans, Independents, and more conservative Dems.

Would she have to partake in a primary battle as an Independent? I wouldn't think so, but even if she goes all the way to the general election, there's no way she'll have any success. I assume she'd probably figure that out fairly early on in the process.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by plague311

Would she have to partake in a primary battle as an Independent? I wouldn't think so, but even if she goes all the way to the general election, there's no way she'll have any success. I assume she'd probably figure that out fairly early on in the process.

No. As an Indie, she would avoid being primaried. If the Dem party didn't back her and backed her challenger instead, there's little chance she'd win the nomination. As an Indie, she does have a small but better chance of winning if she can pull votes from, as I said, Indies, non-Maga GOP, and more moderate to conservative Dems. In AZ, voters are roughly divided evenly among the 3 parties.

[Tero]

I think in most states you need a certain number of signatures to get on a state wide ballot, as a third party etc.

Ours is odd (NE): 10% of the total number of registered voters voting for governor or president at the most recent general election; not to exceed 2,000

But the filing fee is 1% of the salary of the office sought for in state offices as well as senator or congressperson.

[slyjoe]

To change parties all you have to do is sign up for the party you want to associate with. In Arizona, you can do it online.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

It won't change much in the here and now, but Sinema's term expires in two years.

If she doesn't run for re-election, that's fine.

If she seeks the Democratic party's nomination for the seat, then there could be a messy fight in the primary.

If she decides to run for re-election as an independent, she almost guarantees that a Republican will be elected. Judging by the Republican candidates who ran in the recently concluded election, that Republican is likely to be an anti-democracy nut job.

I believe that she was paid to do this, by the right wing, to have a Republican replace her. She has no core value other than "what's in it for me?"

[Stacyhs]

I said earlier that Sinema would likely have been primaried by another Dem:

Prior to Sinema’s maneuver, [Rep. Ruben Gallego(D-Ariz)] was considered a prime candidate to launch a primary challenge against her in 2024. The House Democrat has been one of the leading critics of Sinema over the past year, including for what he saw as Sinema’s lack of work on behalf of the party in the key state during the 2022 midterms.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Brainster

That you can't be a left-wing Democrat and win in Arizona. To listen to folks here Kristen is throwing away her career by not going along with the Democrats. From my standpoint she is representing her state in a fashion that makes it possible for her to be elected again.
....

I dunno what you think you mean by "left-wing" except as an epithet, but Mark Kelly, certainly a moderate Democrat by any standard, has won two Senate elections, and the Democrat just beat a Maga-Repub to become governor. So Arizonans elected Dems to the three top posts. Maybe they'd actually like Sinema or her successor to act more like a mainstream Democrat and less like a loon owned by special interests.

[Stacyhs]

Any Democrat who isn't at least 1/3 to the right of middle is "left-wing" to a conservative.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I dunno what you think you mean by "left-wing" except as an epithet, but Mark Kelly, certainly a moderate Democrat by any standard, has won two Senate elections, and the Democrat just beat a Maga-Repub to become governor. So Arizonans elected Dems to the three top posts. Maybe they'd actually like Sinema or her successor to act more like a mainstream Democrat and less like a loon owned by special interests.

Which brings it back to my original point. Kelly ran his advertising as if he was the maverick from Arizona. He did not run as a mainstream Democrat, and neither did Katie Hobbs. Now they were both very fortunate that their opponents were fruitcakes, but they still were in very tight races that could easily have gone differently and probably would have if they had embraced more progressive positions.

I think it's probably safe to say that Sinema is going to run again; this move is going to make any Democrats considering running for her seat in 2024 very nervous. If she runs third party the Democrat is going to be hung out to dry.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Norman Alexander

So party membership is effectively "I have zero obligations so it is what I feel like this morning"?

Yeah I left the Republican Party and became an Independent and except for the odd Molotov cocktail and occasional bursts of machine gun fire there was no response from the party.

[autumn1971]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Seriously, I wish some of you commenters had lived in Arizona the last six months, because if you had you would realize that Mark Kelly, the other Democratic Senator from Arizona, won because he ran on "I'll stand up to Joe Biden and the Democrats when they are wrong." You would have thought from his ads that he was Sinema.

The difference is Sinema promised to stand up to the Democratic Caucus whenever they were right.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Hans

Yeah I left the Republican Party and became an Independent and except for the odd Molotov cocktail and occasional bursts of machine gun fire there was no response from the party.

I, on the other hand, never left the Republican Party. It left me.
Hard to understand what Sinema is thinking of for the future. Bernie can get re-elected as an independent by liberal voters because everyone knows he's to the LEFT of the Democratic Party, and isn't going to go with the Republicans.
Sinema, on the other hand, is trying to stake out the middle. If she runs next time as an independent, she'll get snowed under by the better funded party candidates. If she chooses one party or the other, neither will trust her and she'll lose in the primary.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

It won't change much in the here and now, but Sinema's term expires in two years.

If she doesn't run for re-election, that's fine.

If she seeks the Democratic party's nomination for the seat, then there could be a messy fight in the primary.

If she decides to run for re-election as an independent, she almost guarantees that a Republican will be elected. Judging by the Republican candidates who ran in the recently concluded election, that Republican is likely to be an anti-democracy nut job.

Sinema has a twin?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by autumn1971

The difference is Sinema promised to stand up to the Democratic Caucus whenever they were right.

Kind of amazing that the Americans for Democratic Action gave Sinema an 80% rating in 2021, isn't it? By comparison the highest rated Republican senator was Susan Collins with a 30% score.

[Donal]

The hatred of centrism in this thread is concerning

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Brainster

....
I think it's probably safe to say that Sinema is going to run again; this move is going to make any Democrats considering running for her seat in 2024 very nervous. If she runs third party the Democrat is going to be hung out to dry.

It might go the other way: She might split the "never a Democrat" vote, especially if the Repubs nominate another fruitcake. The Democrat could win with 40% of the vote, maybe less.

[The Great Zaganza]

Declared Party affiliation is pretty much up to the candidate/representative.
What is not up to them is whether or not they get any support from the Party, financial or otherwise.
Sinema wouldn't do this if she wasn't certain of her donors.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I think there's something to the theory that Sinema changed to Independent in order to save herself from being challenged by another Democrat in the coming primaries. She's not popular with the Dems. As an Independent, she can avoid a very expensive primary battle and hope to pull votes from the non-Maga Republicans, Independents, and more conservative Dems.

Originally Posted by plague311

Would she have to partake in a primary battle as an Independent? I wouldn't think so, but even if she goes all the way to the general election, there's no way she'll have any success. I assume she'd probably figure that out fairly early on in the process.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I said earlier that Sinema would likely have been primaried by another Dem:

Prior to Sinema’s maneuver, [Rep. Ruben Gallego(D-Ariz)] was considered a prime candidate to launch a primary challenge against her in 2024. The House Democrat has been one of the leading critics of Sinema over the past year, including for what he saw as Sinema’s lack of work on behalf of the party in the key state during the 2022 midterms.

As echoed by Alex Wagner on MSNBC tonight, this is the POV I find most valid. That and Sinema is surely looking for all that attention she got when her and Manchin were on the news nightly with their obstructionism of Biden's and the Democrats' agendas.

As a side note, Sinema votes along Democratic Party lines most of the time. She's not an Independent by any stretch of the imagination.

MSNBC: The real reason Kyrsten Sinema left the Democratic Party

Quote:

Alex Wagner points out that despite Senator Kyrsten Sinema's lazy "both sides" explanation for leaving the Democratic Party to become an independent, polling suggests that her low popularity with Democratic voters makes her vulnerable to being primaried, a risk she no longer has to be exposed to as an independent.

Originally Posted by Donal

The hatred of centrism in this thread is concerning

Nonsense and it was also noted by Wagner that Sinema cited as an excuse a false equivalence that both parties were moving toward their extremes whereas she was a centrist. But Wagner showed a graph of the 2 parties where only the right was moving toward the extreme right. The Democrats stayed in the middle for the most part. Despite making a lot of noise, Sanders and his followers are not leading the party.

Of course if you think the pharmaceutical companies didn't need reining in with their $600+ epipens and whatever price hike they were jaqing up insulin to, then I can see why you might think things like limiting the amount drug companies could charge for insulin* and Medicare being able to negotiate drug prices was an extreme left-wing position.


*We are not in any danger of there being an insulin shortage, BTW, if drug companies can't gouge consumers.

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Declared Party affiliation is pretty much up to the candidate/representative.
What is not up to them is whether or not they get any support from the Party, financial or otherwise.
Sinema wouldn't do this if she wasn't certain of her donors.

Pretty sure her biggest donors are drug companies.

Business Insider: Kyrsten Sinema takes thousands in campaign contributions from pharmaceutical giants while stalling prescription drug pricing reforms

[Donal]

I was being sarcastic. It is a sentiment expressed in other threads when it's even slightly touched on that centrism is just plausible deniability for the extreme right.

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Donal

The hatred of centrism in this thread is concerning

Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Donal

I was being sarcastic. It is a sentiment expressed in other threads when it's even slightly touched on that centrism is just plausible deniability for the extreme right.

Could you explain what you mean? I assume that you are not claiming that Sinema is on the extreme right.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Random

Non-zero chance she's gonna try to be the Presidential nominee for the Forward Party!

LOL! I think someone suggested a Cheney-Sinema ticket.

Or would Sinema-Cheney be better?

[a_unique_person]

It would have to be Sinema - Sinema.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

It would have to be Sinema - Sinema.

She'll be a running mate for anyone with a big enough bribe.. er.. donation.

[Bob001]

Sinema has a side hustle: She (apparently) sells used clothes and sporting goods on Facebook.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ce-senate.html

[Stacyhs]

Is she selling her lightly used Democrat Party membership card?

[Brainster]

She's filed the necessary paperwork to run as an independent candidate in 2024. IIRC the signature requirement is about 45,000 valid which is fairly trivial. I'll sign and I'll vote for her over any Democrat and most Republicans.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Brainster

She's filed the necessary paperwork to run as an independent candidate in 2024. IIRC the signature requirement is about 45,000 valid which is fairly trivial. I'll sign and I'll vote for her over any Democrat and most Republicans.

Okay, I'll bite. You would vote for this spacey pawn of private equity donors over almost anybody known or unknown that either party could possibly run. Why?

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Brainster

She's filed the necessary paperwork to run as an independent candidate in 2024. IIRC the signature requirement is about 45,000 valid which is fairly trivial. I'll sign and I'll vote for her over any Democrat and most Republicans.

I could understand that if she actually believed in something. She shows all the traits of a classic narcissist. (Not that being a narcissist makes her unique in DC).

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Okay, I'll bite. You would vote for this spacey pawn of private equity donors over almost anybody known or unknown that either party could possibly run. Why?

Because she is not in thrall to either of the goofball entities we have today known as parties, whose only justification for existence seems to be "We're not those guys!" Because she didn't buckle under for the Build Inflation Better Act, which the Democrats should thank her for--if inflation had been a few points higher, the red ripple would have been the predicted wave. Because she stood up to the idiots who want to end the filibuster, because it will let the Democrats get a couple bills through (and of course enable the Republicans similar latitude the next time they win control, as they will).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Because she is not in thrall to either of the goofball entities we have today known as parties, ...

No but clearly her votes reflect the Democrats except for Big Pharma favored votes because Big Pharma pays her big bucks.

And no, the evidence does not support that being the other way around. She's taken the money before letting it be known that she was against legislation that benefitted Big Pharma.

[Donal]

I prefer candidates who are in the thrall of private equity and big pharma rather than ones who have actual principles.

[Gulliver Foyle]

Originally Posted by Brainster

She's filed the necessary paperwork to run as an independent candidate in 2024. IIRC the signature requirement is about 45,000 valid which is fairly trivial. I'll sign and I'll vote for her over any Democrat and most Republicans.

She is a reliable republican vote after all.

[Brainster]

This might belong in stupid news stories as well, but Kyrsten Sinema is quite the tyrannical boss, or so this Daily Beast article might have you believing. Describing the 37-page guide for her staffers, they note this appalling detail:

Quote:

According to an internal memo obtained by The Daily Beast, staffers for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema are expected to always have a "room temperature" bottle of water for her at all times and never book her a middle seat on a flight, among other tasks.

I guess we're supposed to boo and hiss at the pampered princess who doesn't like the middle seat on a flight? And the requirement for a "room temperature" bottle of water does not seem terribly onerous. John Kerry required his staffers to have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich ready for him at any time.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by Brainster

This might belong in stupid news stories as well, but Kyrsten Sinema is quite the tyrannical boss, or so this Daily Beast article might have you believing. Describing the 37-page guide for her staffers, they note this appalling detail:

I guess we're supposed to boo and hiss at the pampered princess who doesn't like the middle seat on a flight? And the requirement for a "room temperature" bottle of water does not seem terribly onerous. John Kerry required his staffers to have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich ready for him at any time.

What's more significant is that she uses her staff -- federal government employees -- to do things like shop for her groceries, meet the cable tech at her apartment, maintain her marathon training schedule, arrange her dinner and book her massages, while she apparently spends a big part of her day selling sporting goods on-line.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Brainster

This might belong in stupid news stories as well, but Kyrsten Sinema is quite the tyrannical boss, or so this Daily Beast article might have you believing. Describing the 37-page guide for her staffers, they note this appalling detail:



I guess we're supposed to boo and hiss at the pampered princess who doesn't like the middle seat on a flight? And the requirement for a "room temperature" bottle of water does not seem terribly onerous. John Kerry required his staffers to have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich ready for him at any time.

No. Those seem reasonable. But you didn't include "to get her groceries, fix her internet:

Quote:

One section of the staffer guide explains that the senator’s executive assistant must contact Sinema at the beginning of the work week in Washington to “ask if she needs groceries,” and copy both the scheduler and chief of staff on the message to “make sure this is accomplished.” It specifies Sinema will reimburse the assistant through CashApp. The memo also dictates that if the internet in Sinema’s private apartment fails, the executive assistant “should call Verizon to schedule a repair” and ensure a staffer is present to let a technician inside the property.

Quote:

The Senate ethics handbook states that “staff are compensated for the purpose of assisting Senators in their official legislative and representational duties, and not for the purpose of performing personal or other non-official activities for themselves or on behalf of others.”

One of my husband's past employers wanted him to drive 2 hours to the coast to his vacation home and install and support his internet there because he may want to use it for business while there. My husband told him no, that was not part of his job description. Boss wasn't happy but had no legal basis. Turned out the boss wrote that into the next hire's job description. He figured his employee was his personal IT guy.