Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wonder why she did not go republicans. Maybe if the GA election had turned out differently? She will lose to the republican candidate in Az.

Because she holds liberal political positions. What about her says "Republican" to you?

Tanking the minimum wage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would she do this? Running as an independent ensures no Dem in AZ will vote for her (or only they very disillusioned would) and it will split the Republican vote because the GOP will run a MAGA candidate.

You answered your own question. She is part of the Koch funded "greens" astroturfing who was more politically successful than anyone could have imagined. She isn't and never has been a progressive green party representative.

You don’t know much about her then before her Senate days.

You don't know much about the far right astroturfing "the green party" do you. Look at Jill Stein as another example.

But her party change causes defeat for GOP not the Dems

How so? Low information voters will see her name and vote for her. Hardcore dems will vote for Gallego. The GOP will vote for whoever the put up. The GOP will win in a plurality. She is splitting Dem votes, not GOP votes.

I know this last election was more than a month ago now, but I think it pretty clearly showed, particularly in Arizona, that Republican voters will not just vote for whomever the GOP puts up.

That's certainly true, but a large number of them will. Both Masters and Lake got 49% of the total vote statewide, despite being absolute nutcases. If that block holds, and Sinema peals off even 2% of the republicans or independents who voted for Kelly and Hobbs, then the republican would win.

You're assuming that she could make it out of a GOP primary with the nomination.

I'm not assuming that. She won't have to do that because she didn't become a republican. She'll just run in the general as an independent.

Anonymous wrote:Wonder why she did not go republicans. Maybe if the GA election had turned out differently? She will lose to the republican candidate in Az.

Because she holds liberal political positions. What about her says "Republican" to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bernie Sanders flip-flops parties whenever there's a presidential election and nobody says sh!t.

Yes, but he ran as an Independent so people who voted for him knew what they were getting. It's another thing altogether to switch after being elected.

DP. You are making a distinction without a difference. Even if Sinema stayed registered as a Democrat, that would not obligate her to support the Dems’ agenda. She can behave exactly the same way regardless of party registration. Also, she was elected four years ago, it’s not like she just ran as a Dem and then changed her registration before she was even sworn in. This is all about avoiding the embarrassing primary battle that was already underway for 2024.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bernie Sanders flip-flops parties whenever there's a presidential election and nobody says sh!t.

He caucuses with Democrats though. Sanders has not tanked any bill against what he has espoused in the past. Sinema did do that to 3 bills. Sinema use Democrats money to get the Senate seat and did not confirm to caucus with Democrats. That's dishonest behavior.

I assume Sanders takes Democrat money for his presidential campaigns, no?

Wonder why she did not go republicans. Maybe if the GA election had turned out differently? She will lose to the republican candidate in Az.

Anonymous wrote:Bernie Sanders flip-flops parties whenever there's a presidential election and nobody says sh!t.

He caucuses with Democrats though. Sanders has not tanked any bill against what he has espoused in the past. Sinema did do that to 3 bills. Sinema use Democrats money to get the Senate seat and did not confirm to caucus with Democrats. That's dishonest behavior.

Anonymous wrote:Bernie Sanders flip-flops parties whenever there's a presidential election and nobody says sh!t.

He campaigns and is transparent about how he's running. She ran as a Dem and is now changing it w/o letting her constituents have a say in it.

Anonymous wrote:Bernie Sanders flip-flops parties whenever there's a presidential election and nobody says sh!t.

Yes, but he ran as an Independent so people who voted for him knew what they were getting. It's another thing altogether to switch after being elected.

Bernie Sanders flip-flops parties whenever there's a presidential election and nobody says sh!t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would she do this? Running as an independent ensures no Dem in AZ will vote for her (or only they very disillusioned would) and it will split the Republican vote because the GOP will run a MAGA candidate.

You answered your own question. She is part of the Koch funded "greens" astroturfing who was more politically successful than anyone could have imagined. She isn't and never has been a progressive green party representative.

You don’t know much about her then before her Senate days.

You don't know much about the far right astroturfing "the green party" do you. Look at Jill Stein as another example.

But her party change causes defeat for GOP not the Dems

How so? Low information voters will see her name and vote for her. Hardcore dems will vote for Gallego. The GOP will vote for whoever the put up. The GOP will win in a plurality. She is splitting Dem votes, not GOP votes.

I know this last election was more than a month ago now, but I think it pretty clearly showed, particularly in Arizona, that Republican voters will not just vote for whomever the GOP puts up.

That's certainly true, but a large number of them will. Both Masters and Lake got 49% of the total vote statewide, despite being absolute nutcases. If that block holds, and Sinema peals off even 2% of the republicans or independents who voted for Kelly and Hobbs, then the republican would win.

Lake got 49% but Masters most certainly did not. Mark Kelly won by 5 points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would she do this? Running as an independent ensures no Dem in AZ will vote for her (or only they very disillusioned would) and it will split the Republican vote because the GOP will run a MAGA candidate.

You answered your own question. She is part of the Koch funded "greens" astroturfing who was more politically successful than anyone could have imagined. She isn't and never has been a progressive green party representative.

You don’t know much about her then before her Senate days.

You don't know much about the far right astroturfing "the green party" do you. Look at Jill Stein as another example.

But her party change causes defeat for GOP not the Dems

How so? Low information voters will see her name and vote for her. Hardcore dems will vote for Gallego. The GOP will vote for whoever the put up. The GOP will win in a plurality. She is splitting Dem votes, not GOP votes.

I know this last election was more than a month ago now, but I think it pretty clearly showed, particularly in Arizona, that Republican voters will not just vote for whomever the GOP puts up.

That's certainly true, but a large number of them will. Both Masters and Lake got 49% of the total vote statewide, despite being absolute nutcases. If that block holds, and Sinema peals off even 2% of the republicans or independents who voted for Kelly and Hobbs, then the republican would win.

You're assuming that she could make it out of a GOP primary with the nomination.

Anonymous wrote:Why is anyone allowed to change party affiliation in the middle of their elected terms. Our democracy is so flawed. This should require her to resign. People did not vote her to be “independent”. She used Democratic machinations and voters for election and now she is saying f u!

+1.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would she do this? Running as an independent ensures no Dem in AZ will vote for her (or only they very disillusioned would) and it will split the Republican vote because the GOP will run a MAGA candidate.

You answered your own question. She is part of the Koch funded "greens" astroturfing who was more politically successful than anyone could have imagined. She isn't and never has been a progressive green party representative.

You don’t know much about her then before her Senate days.

You don't know much about the far right astroturfing "the green party" do you. Look at Jill Stein as another example.

But her party change causes defeat for GOP not the Dems

How so? Low information voters will see her name and vote for her. Hardcore dems will vote for Gallego. The GOP will vote for whoever the put up. The GOP will win in a plurality. She is splitting Dem votes, not GOP votes.

I know this last election was more than a month ago now, but I think it pretty clearly showed, particularly in Arizona, that Republican voters will not just vote for whomever the GOP puts up.

That's certainly true, but a large number of them will. Both Masters and Lake got 49% of the total vote statewide, despite being absolute nutcases. If that block holds, and Sinema peals off even 2% of the republicans or independents who voted for Kelly and Hobbs, then the republican would win.

I'm liking more and more Georgia's law of needing over 50% to win.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does not this anger the voters? If my elected representative changed parties AFTER an election was over I would feel scammed.

I wonder if AZ Democratic voters can file a fraud lawsuit against her.

OMG, please stop. She didn't become a Republican, she just left the Democratic Party.