Urp. Thanks so much for that set of images!
That’s a weird thing about parties and candidates: when running for office, the candidate can (usually does?) benefit from being affiliated with a certain party; when holding office, the candidate can (usually does?) claim that they’ve been elected on the basis of their personal politics, and can change parties without much immediate consequence.
Seems to me there should be some granularity on the ballot, maybe especially in the two-party US system:
• “the Democratic candidate”
• “the Republican candidate”
• Name, no affiliation shown
• Name, no affiliation shown
So Kyrsten Sinema (D) would get all the “Kyrsten Sinema” and “the Democratic candidate” votes to determine she’s elected. But if the votes for “the Democratic candidate” outnumber the votes for “Kyrsten Sinema,” then she knows if she decides to leave the Democratic party she’ll immediately lose her seat and a new Democratic senator will be appointed by the party in her place, pro tem.
Time to put these assholes in their place.
1 Like
I pretty much agree with that article and don’t think there were any noble reasons that she chose this timing to make her announcement, but still, I’m glad she didn’t do it before the Georgia runoff was completed. Going into the runoff most Republicans assumed the the Democrats would have at least 50 votes in the Senate regardless of the outcome, which might have hurt their turnout slightly. If they knew she was leaving the party it’s possible that they could have driven more folks to the polls with the message that it was their last chance to take control in the Senate. Probably wouldn’t have made a big difference but the race was already close and I’m glad it wasn’t closer.
6 Likes
It’s just about whether she caucuses with Republicans or not. If she caucuses with the Republicans, it’s 50-50 and it’s all back to power sharing. If she caucuses with the Democrats or doesn’t caucus with either party, it’s 51-49 or 50-49, so outright majority. That’s why they’re letting her keep the committee assignments, to keep her from caucusing with the Republicans. If she does switch to the Republicans, her 4-years seniority probably isn’t worth as much (though I don’t know how Republican seniority works for committee assignments). Since Schumer will still be the Majority Leader no matter what she does, if she caucuses with the Republicans, he can retaliate in various ways, but better not to encourage to move further.
4 Likes
Was she ever really part of the Democratic Party? She’s always been a power-hungry pain in the ass and a thorn in the side of progress at many critical junctures. She’s not particularly popular in her state, and it seems like becoming an independent will only further hurt her chances at reelection in 2024 since she’ll lose DNC backing.
She’ll still continue caucus with Democrats for most things, and she’ll keep her committee seats. I don’t see it making any real difference in the long term other than giving her a brief spurt of news coverage until the next shiny thing reveals itself.
5 Likes
From last year:
6 Likes
I was going to express my shock that this person was even a green. Happy to know I’m not alone in that.
4 Likes
NPR is running a story about her today that includes this bit about how she was mad at Joe Lieberman and once organized a protest against him shortly before he left the party:
14 Likes
Normally, people would keel over and die from such an overdose of hypocrisy, but Sinema had her sense of shame surgically removed before going maverick.
6 Likes
Ah, yes…the Sinema Challenge. Very big with the kids on the Ticks & Tocks, I hear
5 Likes
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
