Kyrsten Sinema finally comes out of the closet just in time to weaken the historical Democratic majority in the Senate

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
23,082
21,203
136
This is just a name change for her future career. She is done in 24 and this should not affect the Senate much and she will act the same just with an I next to her name instead of a D.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

Gardener

Senior member
Nov 22, 1999
765
547
136
@fskimospy

Schumer's leverage is that he makes committee assignments. Put someone else in her place on the committees she serves on.

She can still caucus with the Democrats, she has nowhere else to go.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Yeah, that is a good analogy. I remember at first when Lieberman bucked Obama and the party, I thought it might just be actual policy disagreement as Lieberman had always been a hawk. Then he tried to gum up the works on a very moderate health care bill, when he had always been left on domestic policy, and I knew it was all about ego. Sinema is just saying, "look at me. Look at me. I'm bucking my own party." Like she's "above" partisanship. She will be largely forgotten by history.

Well if it’s ego and my sense of what creates the ego is correct, her behavior looks to match a person unconsciously out to destroy herself by acting in ways that cause reality to produce an equivalent contempt of her to what she also unconsciously feels internally.

Perhaps she realizes a 51 Senate threatens her capacity to draw negative attention and she is just unconsciously maneuvering to insure she can attract more of it.

Ego craves attention as self affirmation, what kind of attention can be of secondary interest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,634
50,860
136
@fskimospy

Schumer's leverage is that he makes committee assignments. Put someone else in her place on the committees she serves on.

She can still caucus with the Democrats, she has nowhere else to go.
Sorry, I thought you meant in the last congress where Schumer had literally zero leverage.

You're right he has more leverage now but it's like a 1 out of 10 instead of a zero. If Schumer takes away her committees she caucuses with the Republicans because there's no downside anymore. Now Democrats no longer control the committees (they would be evenly split) and judicial nominations, etc. grind to a snail's pace again.

TLDR: The only thing Sinema gets from caucusing with the Democrats is committee assignments. If you take them away why would she still caucus with them?
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
I'm perfectly fine with diverse Senate and a diversity within a given party.
That being said, Simena strikes mas a case of what happens when you get taste of the perks that Republicans get from lobbyist.

I'm assuming that the only thing keeping her out of the Republican party is that the current Republican Party is run by scumbags and filled with psychos
 

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
6,580
3,059
136
If a person switches parties it should trigger another election for that seat. If someone votes for a democrat, republican or whatever that person should be required to be that until the end of their term. The f'n governor of WV pulled the same crap to kiss Stump's ass when he was visiting. It's not fair to the voters since many people vote for a particular party rather than the individual. Unfortunately sometimes you have to hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils which means voting for your party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
7,428
6,157
136
She says she will still caucus with the Democrats so if that’s the case this doesn’t seem to change anything. I think this is more her trying to avoid the 2024 primary that she knows she will lose.

Sinema is hated by voters on both sides, she better be looking for a cushy lobbying job in 2024 because she has zero chance of reelection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi

LurchFrinky

Senior member
Nov 12, 2003
303
57
91
If a person switches parties it should trigger another election for that seat. If someone votes for a democrat, republican or whatever that person should be required to be that until the end of their term. The f'n governor of WV pulled the same crap to kiss Stump's ass when he was visiting. It's not fair to the voters since many people vote for a particular party rather than the individual. Unfortunately sometimes you have to hold your nose and pick the lesser of two evils which means voting for your party.
I disagree. One of the problems we have is voters completely ignoring the personality, ethics, morality, history, and anything/everything else that makes up the candidate, and just voting based on their party affiliation.
If your party's candidate is a piece of crap, but you have to vote for them because the other party is worse, then yes, that sucks. But the solution would have been for your party to field better candidates and the voters to select the best ones during the primary.
Obviously, a politician of a particular party is not required to always vote with that party (and I don't think we want that anyway), so forcing a politician to remain in a party is effectively meaningless. Having another election is a lot of work to produce a solution that should be worse than the one you have now.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,129
30,521
136
I disagree. One of the problems we have is voters completely ignoring the personality, ethics, morality, history, and anything/everything else that makes up the candidate, and just voting based on their party affiliation.
If your party's candidate is a piece of crap, but you have to vote for them because the other party is worse, then yes, that sucks. But the solution would have been for your party to field better candidates and the voters to select the best ones during the primary.
Obviously, a politician of a particular party is not required to always vote with that party (and I don't think we want that anyway), so forcing a politician to remain in a party is effectively meaningless. Having another election is a lot of work to produce a solution that should be worse than the one you have now.
Policy over personality at least until they cross into criminal territory. I don't care if someone is a sadist partaking in nightly BDSM orgies or worshipping Satan on the Congressional floor as long as they vote for good policy. I'd even excuse a lot of criminal behavior at this point before I'd vote for a Republican.
 
  • Like
Reactions: balloonshark

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
I agree with her 100% on this point, and why I registered as independant over a decade ago:

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema: Why I'm registering as an independent (msn.com)

Americans are told that we have only two choices – Democrat or Republican – and that we must subscribe wholesale to policy views the parties hold, views that have been pulled further and further toward the extremes.
Most Arizonans believe this is a false choice, and when I ran for the U.S. House and the Senate, I promised Arizonans something different. I pledged to be independent and work with anyone to achieve lasting results. I committed I would not demonize people I disagreed with, engage in name-calling, or get distracted by political drama.

Everyday Americans are increasingly left behind by national parties’ rigid partisanship, which has hardened in recent years. Pressures in both parties pull leaders to the edges, allowing the loudest, most extreme voices to determine their respective parties’ priorities and expecting the rest of us to fall in line.
In catering to the fringes, neither party has demonstrated much tolerance for diversity of thought. Bipartisan compromise is seen as a rarely acceptable last resort, rather than the best way to achieve lasting progress. Payback against the opposition party has replaced thoughtful legislating.

FYI I voted for Sinema last election.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Pohemi

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,745
40,187
136
Let's not indulge in the fantasy that she did this out of some sense of duty to her voters, the timing involved shows that to be absolute horseshit. This loser is out to get rich, and the Dems taking control of Senate threatens her ability to do that. Period. She and others have been courted for months by loser Rs and their donors to do something, anything, to throw a wrench into America choosing Dems over Team Treason.

You shouldn't be able to change your party while in office, you should have to relinquish your seat and have to run again under your new affiliation if that's really your choice. Votes that got you into office for reasons shouldn't benefit you if you change those reasons, especially if it's to avoid a primary - which just prevents voters expressing their will at the ballot box. I don't care if it's what Joe Lieberman did, I hate him too.

She's a corrupt greedy stooge, way to support the assholes black
 
Last edited: