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?

Anonymous wrote:She is a woman of integrity and this is great news.
I wish more politicians, both Democrats & Republican, would do this!

She criticized Joe Lieberman for this lol.

It’s not about “integrity.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such disingenuous bullsh|t.

She's right. We need a spectrum of ideas rather than two extremes. Good for her.

Why did she run as a progressive, then?

She is all over the place. I think her main motivation with this move is to avoid a primary challenge.

She is a woman of integrity and this is great news.
I wish more politicians, both Democrats & Republican, would do this!

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such disingenuous bullsh|t.

She's right. We need a spectrum of ideas rather than two extremes. Good for her.

Why did she run as a progressive, then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So that's one thing...

look one post above

+1
The conspiracy theory (or rumor, depending on how much credence you want to give) is that she is basically a sleeper agent for the GOP, that all the other stuff was a ruse. Unlike Nader who was used because he wasn’t politically intelligent and the spoiler candidate from 2016 who was involved with Russia and happy to be used, Sinema is a Republican or is being paid off by them.

Of course she could just be a despicable snake. Plenty of those around.

She’s still caucusing with the Democrats. It’s not meaningful except as an attempt to avoid a primary. Plus attention seeking, one of her hallmarks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Manchin follow?
My bet is Yes

Good. We need more Independents and fewer congresspeople tied to one of the two major parties.

Then candidates need to run as Independents because voters make choices on party basis. I think of an elected official switches party affiliation they should have to resign.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

I stand corrected. Masters got 46.5%. My basic point stands.

It’s pretty important that a regular old Democrat, not just whatever Sinema thinks she is, can win two Senate races in Arizona, the second one by a significant margin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So that's one thing...

look one post above

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So that's one thing...

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such disingenuous bullsh|t.

She's right. We need a spectrum of ideas rather than two extremes. Good for her.

She ran as a progressive. If she really believed that, she should have run as an independent

She has a long history as very liberal in AZ politics. I’m not sure what happened to her.

That's the thing. What would cause this? All I can think is Washington power got to her head and she's overthinking how important she is personally.

As someone whose household gave a lot of money to the Senate Democrats fund to get her elected, I'm pissed. She's just a narcissistic person who doesn't actually care why the voters elected her.

She wants to be the center of attention not just 1 of 51.

I also think she’s planning for her next step because there’s no way she gets re-elected. If she somehow thinks changing affiliation WILL help her get re-elected , she’s even stupider than I thought.

She’s auditioning for her next high-paying job once her term is over.

dumb take.

Nope. Right take.

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.

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

I stand corrected. Masters got 46.5%. My basic point stands.