Sinema Leaves Democrats

[Wahoo Redux]

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema: Why I'm registering as an independent

The two party system is broken and exacerbates the culture wars.   

[Parasaurolophus]

We'll, at least we don't have to pretend any more.

[mleok]

It's because she knows that she would lose a primary challenge.

[Ruralguy]

She grew principles a couple of days after it didn't matter if she did.  As the old "church lady" character on SNL once said "How convenient!" Also, she managed to upstage Manchin.

[Anon1787]

Bernie (I-VT) won't be able to make his stupid argument any more that it's minority tyranny when she refuses to vote in lockstep with the Democratic Party.

[Sun_Worshiper]

It's because she knows that she would lose a primary challenge.

Gallego seems likely to challenge her from the Left and I agree that he would probably win. But I don't know that she has much of a chance of winning in AZ as an independent either. Seems like she'd probably come in third, swinging the race to a Republican in the process.

Putting electoral politics aside, my guess is that she'll continue to caucus with the Dems like Bernie and to vote with them most of the time, but we'll see.

[Puget]

It's because she knows that she would lose a primary challenge.

Gallego seems likely to challenge her from the Left and I agree that he would probably win. But I don't know that she has much of a chance of winning in AZ as an independent either. Seems like she'd probably come in third, swinging the race to a Republican in the process.

Putting electoral politics aside, my guess is that she'll continue to caucus with the Dems like Bernie and to vote with them most of the time, but we'll see.

Polllng shows she is quite unpopular with Ds, Rs, and independents in AZ, and is even less popular with Ds than Rs and Is, so (1) she definitely wouldn't win as an independent and (2) it is far from clear that she would be a spoiler allowing an R to win-- if anything, she seems more likely to draw from moderate R-leaning voters if the Rs again nominate someone extreme (very likely).

In the meantime, she has confirmed she will caucus with the Ds. She apparently gave assurances of that in exchange for keeping her committee assignments before making the announcement.

[Ruralguy]

Actually, the opposite is so. She has not been caucusing with the Democrats recently, and will continue not to. However she did agree to get committee assignments through the Democrats.

Anyway, I don't see any of this as a problem, except for maybe folks who care about Democratic Party inside baseball. She obviously wasn't going to be a guaranteed vote anyway, so this isn't a shocker.

[kaysixteen]

More or less everything that has been said above is right, of course, and one need not also forget that she is one of the very most corrupt US senators currently in office, more or less bought and paid for by Big Pharma.   She has come a long way baby from her old Naderite Green party days.   She also probably expects a very cushy lobbying job from Big Ph once she loses in two  years.

[Puget]

Actually, the opposite is so. She has not been caucusing with the Democrats recently, and will continue not to. However she did agree to get committee assignments through the Democrats.

Anyway, I don't see any of this as a problem, except for maybe folks who care about Democratic Party inside baseball. She obviously wasn't going to be a guaranteed vote anyway, so this isn't a shocker.

I'm certainly no fan of hers, but I think you may be misunderstanding what "caucus with" means -- it doesn't mean "always vote with", it is the formal alignment of independents with one of the parties. Just like Sanders and King are independents that caucus with the Ds, her becoming an independent who caucuses with the Ds will not change the 51 senate D caucus majority, which is the important thing here. She'll continue to vote however she pleases presumably. She almost certainly won't have another term no matter what she does.

[onthefringe]

Actually, the opposite is so. She has not been caucusing with the Democrats recently, and will continue not to. However she did agree to get committee assignments through the Democrats.

Anyway, I don't see any of this as a problem, except for maybe folks who care about Democratic Party inside baseball. She obviously wasn't going to be a guaranteed vote anyway, so this isn't a shocker.

I'm certainly no fan of hers, but I think you may be misunderstanding what "caucus with" means -- it doesn't mean "always vote with", it is the formal alignment of independents with one of the parties. Just like Sanders and King are independents that caucus with the Ds, her becoming an independent who caucuses with the Ds will not change the 51 senate D caucus majority, which is the important thing here. She'll continue to vote however she pleases presumably. She almost certainly won't have another term no matter what she does.

And even if she doesn't caucus with the Dems, she has outright stated she won't caucus with the Reps, so the one seat Dem majority holds either way.

Basically, she is making a move that very marginally might improve her chance of being re-elected by avoiding the risk of being primaried, while massively increasing the probability that her seat flips to the Republicans in 2016. Seems like a poor service to her electorate, but she's always been out for herself more than anything. Maybe Biden can find her a nice judicial appointment or ambassadorship and pull her out that way?

[Ruralguy]

Puget-

Oh gosh.  Seriously? I know what "caucus" means. I am reporting what several media outlets have reported late on Friday. I do admit that when I look at earlier releases, she apparently said or it was implied that she would caucus with the Democrats, then later, no. But by her own reports, and backed by media, she was apparently NOT regularly caucusing with them. She might have nominally said she was, but she was not attending meetings. Perhaps she was relaying info to other Dem leaders, I don't know. My personal belief is that you shouldn't be able to say you are "caucusing", then not actually meet with anybody, then later maybe chat with Schumer or whomever, and then tell the press you caucus. To me, that's lame. I am sorry if the term has maybe evolved past my understanding and that people are allowed to say they caucus when they never physically meet with anybody (I don't think they can just Zoom it). 

[dismalist]

To caucus with a party in the House of Senate means that on the floor you vote with the party on personnel or procedural issues, such as who will be Chairman of Committee X.  it is not expected that a caucus member votes with the party on bills.

[Puget]

I didn't mean to cause offense Ruralguy. Maybe "meeting with" was the original meaning of the word, but it has indeed come to have this specific formal meaning:

To caucus with a party in the House of Senate means that on the floor you vote with the party on personnel or procedural issues, such as who will be Chairman of Committee X.  it is not expected that a caucus member votes with the party on bills.

If we were in a  parliamentary system, we would say "be a member of the X coalition". If she hadn't agreed to that, she would never have been allowed to keep her committee assignments.

[Anon1787]

Polllng shows she is quite unpopular with Ds, Rs, and independents in AZ, and is even less popular with Ds than Rs and Is, so (1) she definitely wouldn't win as an independent and (2) it is far from clear that she would be a spoiler allowing an R to win-- if anything, she seems more likely to draw from moderate R-leaning voters if the Rs again nominate someone extreme (very likely).

If she is going to run for re-election and thinks that she will lose the Democratic primary, then avoiding a bruising primary fight and saving her campaign resources for a run as an independent seems like a reasonable move.

Registration for R, D, and I in AZ is about 1/3rd each with Republicans holding a slight edge. The worst performing Trumpy statewide candidate (Blake Masters) received 46.5% of the vote (Kari Lake did better at 49.6%), so 46% seems to be the floor for Republicans even if they nominate another Trumpy senate candidate in 2024. That gives the anti-Trump vote a margin of only 4% (maybe a bit more) that the candidate in third place (Sinema or the Democrat) could receive and not throw the election to the Republican.