Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema announced she is changing her political affiliation to “independent”, a smart and strategic status considering her upcoming Arizona election challenge.
As an independent in the Senate, not much will really change as far as the voting and caucusing is concerned. However, from the standpoint of having to gain votes for reelection in Arizona and accepting the complete chaos that is now Arizona voting, the strategy will likely play well.
As a Democrat Sinema was likely to face a well-funded primary challenge from her left, while simultaneously she will likely face a strong opponent from the Republican side, by taking a place to avoid the primary and position herself as a third-party candidate, she can likely carve out enough votes to win a 3-way race.
(Politico) – In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she said.
Provided that Sinema sticks to that vow, Democrats will still have a workable Senate majority in the next Congress, though it will not exactly be the neat and tidy 51 seats they assumed. They’re expected to also have the votes to control Senate committees. And Sinema’s move means Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — a pivotal swing vote in the 50-50 chamber the past two years — will hold onto some but not all of his outsized influence in the Democratic caucus.
Sinema would not address whether she will run for reelection in 2024, and informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of her decision on Thursday.
“I don’t anticipate that anything will change about the Senate structure,” Sinema said, adding that some of the exact mechanics of how her switch affects the chamber is “a question for Chuck Schumer … I intend to show up to work, do the same work that I always do. I just intend to show up to work as an independent.” (read more)
A spade is a spade. Just because Ms. Sinema wants to call herself an independent, doesn’t make it so. She’s like a pop star trying to reinvent herself to stay relevant.
She’s still gonna caucus with the democrats. She’s still a democrat.
Anything that pours sand into the govt. machine is ok w/ me.
Is she enough?
Who knows?
I’m looking at campaign donations for Sinema’s “Sinema for Arizona” campaign fund. She wasn’t running for office this year yet she raked in quite a bit of cash. If she’s reaffiliating herself and is no longer officially a Dem, does she have to close out that fund and start a new one?
https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?committee_id=C00508804
Fortunately the $2900 contribution limit is per election, someone can contribute as much as $2900 for a primary and another $2900 for the general election. Because she is up for office only every 6 years and the next time will be 2024, I find it interesting that 9 Blackstone people contributed either $2900 or the full $5800 this year, all but one in September. They can’t donate again now.
This is all very interesting.
If they “caucus” with a party they should be subject to party rules and a primary by democrat. Republicans should change rules so that only seated members count for majority rule.
Ask yourself what would happen if a group of them did the same thing? Lets say 20 democrats did this, nothing would change? 20 of them obviously is a new party or caucus. “Independent” is a party and if it is not, they should be required to identify as a member of something. Something is the Independent party/caucus. This is another democrat scam if I’ve ever seen one.
Yup, more than a little obvious.. she moves over to claim she’s an independent while she votes for amnesty. This way the media claim independents are on board with the leftists amnesty efforts.
Doesn’t really matter what you think.. You and your beliefs are just another hat they wear when it suits them.
I read and I pondered for about two seconds. So what! She is not qualified for any position; not even dog catcher.