The Traitor Sinema.

[Kindfarmer]

we need a yawn emoji in the 'like' list

 

[jaF0]

Not too many years back, towards the end of a session, a number of (R)s decided to retire and not seek re-election. At the time, they could have switched parties and tilted the Senate, ousting Moscow Mitch from the leadership for at least that final few months.

I'm of the opinion that if you want change parties, you should be required to resign your seat and seek re-election under the new flag. In the above example, even that would have tilted the Senate and removed Mitchikov. In the current case, it may or may not make a difference as she could be elected as an (I).

 

[ll74]

Not too many years back, towards the end of a session, a number of (R)s decided to retire and not seek re-election. At the time, they could have switched parties and tilted the Senate, ousting Moscow Mitch from the leadership for at least that final few months.

I'm of the opinion that if you want change parties, you should be required to resign your seat and seek re-election under the new flag. In the above example, even that would have tilted the Senate and removed Mitchikov. In the current case, it may or may not make a difference as she could be elected as an (I).

I would agree on the switching parties thing. People elect you in the knowledge that your party matters to you.

It would require an amendment, most likely.

 

[JohnEngelman]

I’m a lifelong Democrat, and I am perfectly fine with having Manchin and Sinema as Senators in their respective states.

As opposed to the likely Republican alternative.

I also don’t mind having the “corporate voice” represented in the Democratic Party.

Like it or not, business interests are important, and deserve to have a voice in the Democratic Party.

The “Big Tent” means exactly that ^.

*nods*

Business interests dominate the United States to an extent far exceeding their numbers or support in the general electorate. If we could get the money out of politics there would be more attention in the government for the interests of employees, consumers, and the environment.

 

[jaF0]

Since both the Senate and the House have their own rules on membership and can expel or refuse to seat an elected member, they SHOULD be able to set such a rule.

 

[zipman]

Expel the bitch and run a special election to replace her. (Not sure how that would work out though.)

I can't stand when people throw the traitor label around willy nilly, especially when we have Republicans who actually are traitors.

 

[Lazaran]

I can't stand when people throw the traitor label around willy nilly, especially when we have Republicans who actually are traitors.

Yeah, and considering Sinema voted with President Biden and Democrat’s 93% of the time, the label is even more inappropriate.

Maybe “divided loyalties” is a better way to describe Sinema.

Sinema did make some choices that WILL end up hurting Democrats in the long run however.

And I definitely see a Republican winning her seat in 2024 barring some unforeseen occurrence.

That ^ is not a good thing.

 

[Kindfarmer]

Not too many years back, towards the end of a session, a number of (R)s decided to retire and not seek re-election. At the time, they could have switched parties and tilted the Senate, ousting Moscow Mitch from the leadership for at least that final few months.

I'm of the opinion that if you want change parties, you should be required to resign your seat and seek re-election under the new flag. In the above example, even that would have tilted the Senate and removed Mitchikov. In the current case, it may or may not make a difference as she could be elected as an (I).

Um....tribalism brought us here. Oblivious much?

 

[Kindfarmer]

I can't stand when people throw the traitor label around willy nilly, especially when we have Republicans who actually are traitors.

When the opposition hasn't ensured consequences, other than underlings, it's just as heinous. Morally, at least. What the GOP says and does should be ignored by Dem voters. Demanding good governance and quality policy from their own party should be the priority. I can't believe people haven't realized the way to win elections consistently is to advocate for it all the time and implement it when possible.
forever the party Will Rogers

 

[butters]

Not too many years back, towards the end of a session, a number of (R)s decided to retire and not seek re-election. At the time, they could have switched parties and tilted the Senate, ousting Moscow Mitch from the leadership for at least that final few months.

I'm of the opinion that if you want change parties, you should be required to resign your seat and seek re-election under the new flag. In the above example, even that would have tilted the Senate and removed Mitchikov. In the current case, it may or may not make a difference as she could be elected as an (I).

this *nods*

doesn't seem fair to retain a seat you were elected into as a representative under the label of one party, only to toss it out shortly after and say you're with a different one now. Feels like cheating. Elected as a democrat senator, remain or leave and fight for your place under the new title with a new election.

yes, i'm aware that reads as naive... but i hate injustice.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yeah, and considering Sinema voted with President Biden and Democrat’s 93% of the time, the label is even more inappropriate.

Maybe “divided loyalties” is a better way to describe Sinema.

Sinema did make some choices that WILL end up hurting Democrats in the long run however.

And I definitely see a Republican winning her seat in 2024 barring some unforeseen occurrence.

That ^ is not a good thing.

I hope you’re right. If she runs in 2024 (which I think she will), Dems will have a tough choice. If they field another candidate they risk splitting the vote and handing the GOP a victory. Even if they ultimately decide to not challenge her, she is not going to have the Democratic Party infrastructure and fund raising power behind her. She’s going to need to backfill by courting center-right donors over the next two years. It won’t be surprising if she tacks a bit more to the right over the next two years angering Democrats even more than she already has.

 

[ll74]

I hope you’re right. If she runs in 2024 (which I think she will), Dems will have a tough choice. If they field another candidate they risk splitting the vote and handing the GOP a victory. Even if they ultimately decide to not challenge her, she is not going to have the Democratic Party infrastructure and fund raising power behind her. She’s going to need to backfill by courting center-right donors over the next two years. It won’t be surprising if she tacks a bit more to the right over the next two years angering Democrats even more than she already has.

That is assuming that Democrats would vote for her after she changed parties

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

That is assuming that Democrats would vote for her after she changed parties

My assumption is she will run as an independent like Joe Lieberman did after his exit from the Democratic Party.

 

[KeithD]

That is assuming that Democrats would vote for her after she changed parties

What I think most likely is that it's a power play to get the state Democratic Party not to primary her if she agrees to declare Democratic again. She pissed her party support off in the state by sabotaging some key Democratic bills and the party has already found someone else to back. This is a survival move for her. The assumption is that she would dilute the Democratic vote but not win in a three-way race, conceding the seat to the Republicans. She's banking that the state party will determine the Democratic candidate couldn't win under these circumstances either, with the only way to keep the seat out of Republican hands being not to primary her under the Democrats. Think this is just the first chess move in a "stay tuned" struggle to keep the seat from the Republicans.

 

[Lazaran]

What I think most likely is that it's a power play to get the state Democratic Party not to primary her if she agrees to declare Democratic again. She pissed her party support off in the state by sabotaging some key Democratic bills and the party has already found someone else to back. This is a survival move for her. The assumption is that she would dilute the Democratic vote but not win in a three-way race, conceding the seat to the Republicans. She's banking that the state party will determine the Democratic candidate couldn't win under these circumstances either, with the only way to keep the seat out of Republican hands being not to primary her under the Democrats. Think this is just the first chess move in a "stay tuned" struggle to keep the seat from the Republicans.

This ^perfectly articulates the reality of the situation.

And as a political realist / pragmatist, I am perfectly fine with Sinema’s latest maneuver.

Political survival demands “whatever means necessary”.

Hopefully the Democrats in Arizona will realize that Sinema is STILL the best REALISTIC option for advancing the progressive agenda, and grudgingly support her, like they happily supported Mark Kelly who is ideologically quite similar.

That ^ is a tough ask, but calm heads may just prevail.

 

[YDB95]

My assumption is she will run as an independent like Joe Lieberman did after his exit from the Democratic Party.

Holy Joe had the benefit of the Republicans nominating only a token nominee who got less than 10% of the vote. That is not likely to happen in AZ in 2024.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Holy Joe had the benefit of the Republicans nominating only a token nominee who got less than 10% of the vote. That is not likely to happen in AZ in 2024.

You could be right, but the AZ GOP proved itself fully capable of nominating a terrible Senate candidate in this cycle.

 

[Lazaran]

Holy Joe had the benefit of the Republicans nominating only a token nominee who got less than 10% of the vote. That is not likely to happen in AZ in 2024.

Democrats may still clear the field for her.

And it would be a fairly shrewd move to show that reasonable Democrats don’t silence voices, hold grudges and act as vindictively as “certain republicans”.

It would simultaneously diminish Sinema’s “maverick independent victim” narrative.

And again: Sinema voted with President Biden and Democrats 93% of the time.

I’m a lifelong Democrat, and that ^ is good enough for me.

And I’ll definitely take Sinema over the Republican that will likely win if Democrats challenge her.

Pragmatism is the operational idea here.

 

[wallstreetguy]

Expel the bitch and run a special election to replace her. (Not sure how that would work out though.)

Spoken like a true liberal Democrat: attack her for her identity (female), demand immediate satisfaction (special election) and rationalize that the ends justify the means (like a good fascist).

 

[Comshaw]

Spoken like a true liberal Democrat: attack her for her identity (female), demand immediate satisfaction (special election) and rationalize that the ends justify the means (like a good fascist).

Apparently you do not believe that the ultra right wing Republicans do the EXACT SAME THING? BAWAHAHA! You ought to try out at a comedy club.

Comshaw

 

[Lazaran]

Apparently you do not believe that the ultra right wing Republicans do the EXACT SAME THING? BAWAHAHA! You ought to try out at a comedy club.

Comshaw

Well yeah, AND jaF0 isn’t a “Democrat”.

Read a few of jaF0’s posts about Hillary Clinton.

I’m not exactly sure what jaF0’s deal is.

 

[icanhelp1]

Maybe Sinema migrated over to the independent party because she was fed up with the intolerant leftist progressive Marxist lug nuts following her into the bathroom.

 

[KeithD]

Or maybe it's just because she lost support over sabotaging major Democratic bills in Congress and she would be primaried by the Democrats without getting support from her state Democrats if she didn't now try to do something about that. Sometimes the "maybe" is quite simple and direct.

 

[icanhelp1]

Or maybe it's just because she lost support over sabotaging major Democratic bills in Congress and she would be primaried by the Democrats without getting support from her state Democrats if she didn't now try to do something about that. Sometimes the "maybe" is quite simple and direct.

Well which is it, she votes 93% of the time with Biden and Democrats, I guess that 7% is a big deal. Independent voters make up the second largest voter group, almost 34%. If the state party committee opens presidential primaries to independents could be an interesting Lieberman type election cycle, especially on down ballots. Maybe Sinema is playing chess and the rest of you are playing checkers. She saw what Biden did to Manchin and maybe just maybe she’s setting herself up for a win on the independent side of the state.