Kyrsten Sinema leaving the democrat party!

[HankB]

It was announced on MSDNC that Sen. Sinema is leaving the democrat party. She's planning to register as an "Independent" and right now there's no word on whether or not she'll continue to caucus with the democrats (the way Bernie Sanders does) or if she'll cross the aisle and caucus with the GOP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekywQrTpbcU

More news & commentary will certainly follow in the next few days.

[cordex]

I'm of mixed feelings on this.  To the extent that it reduces the influence and control of the Democrats it is politically expedient and is probably a good thing, but it feels dirty.  She was elected by people expecting her to represent a given perspective and immediately after winning she says, "Just kidding, I don't really represent that at all!"

I guess I should feel the same way every time a politician wins a primary and then suddenly pivots to appeal to centrists but this seems like a more extreme version.

[K Frame]

Realistically I don't think it's going to make much difference in control of the Senate. She's still going to vote with the Dems most of the time.

[Ben]

Realistically I don't think it's going to make much difference in control of the Senate. She's still going to vote with the Dems most of the time.

My feelings as well. She hasn't said that she will caucus with the Ds, but she did say she won't caucus with the Rs.

I'm actually not even sure how this works. Do independents HAVE to caucus with either Rs or Ds, or can they tell both parties to *expletive deleted*ck off?

I do recognize what Cordex is saying. This may not be quite as bad, as IIRC, she has always put herself out there as a "reluctant dem", unhappy with the "squad" trend.

[cordex]

This may not be quite as bad, as IIRC, she has always put herself out there as a "reluctant dem", unhappy with the "squad" trend.

That's fair, but the more honest thing to do would be to make your transition out of the party before you run, not immediately after winning.  I fully recognize that it would probably kill your chance of winning, but it would at least be more forthright.

[dogmush]

I disagree.  Running as a Party Member isn't (or shouldn't be) an ironclad promise to vote with that party no matter what.  Every politician, R or D, should vote in the way that best represents their constituents, not a national party.  From her interview on this move, she seems to be doing just that.  She told WaPo that she wasn't going to caucus with the GOP already.  Mostly this just means she doesn't need to teal with the Democratic Party censuring her for not voting the way they want anymore.

The only really shady part is she probably took a bunch of DNC money to run before she *expletive deleted*ed off out of their party, but I can't bring myself to shed even a single tear at the thought that one of the parties got bilked out of a couple million dollars.

[DittoHead]

Do independents HAVE to caucus with either Rs or Ds, or can they tell both parties to *expletive deleted*ck off?

It probably can be done, but it would mean no seat at any table. No committee assignments, no influence on anything behind the scenes.
All you'd really have is your vote on items that makes it to a full vote on the floor and so much of the important stuff happens well before that.

[cordex]

I disagree.  Running as a Party Member isn't (or shouldn't be) an ironclad promise to vote with that party no matter what.

Of course not and I never implied otherwise.  That's exactly the point.  She didn't have to swap parties to continue voting as she saw fit.  Given that is the case, why leave the Democratic Party after being elected by Democrats?

Every politician, R or D, should vote in the way that best represents their constituents, not a national party.

If it were that simple, straightforward, and utopian she could have just as easily run as an independent instead of waiting to jump ship after she left.

She made the utilitarian decision to run as a Democrat not merely to siphon some DNC money, but (among other things) to get votes from the straight ticket Democrats who would never vote for an independent and the far left who didn't have a true socialist but could settle for a Democrat.  She almost certainly would have lost running as an Independent, so she had to wave the party flag until she got what she wanted.

[dogmush]

I get where you are coming from, but as far as I can see she has not changed a single policy position, so IMO she is still "represent[ing] a given perspective" that people elected her to represent.  The folks that voted for her based on her stated positions are getting what they voted for. The folks that voted for her based on party only are getting what they deserve.

[cordex]

The folks that voted for her based on her stated positions are getting what they voted for. The folks that voted for her based on party only are getting what they deserve.

Heh, I like that.

[K Frame]

And the flood of liberal rage has begun...

https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberal-media-dems-erupt-over-sinema-leaving-democratic-party-still-great-being-f-ing-worst


Pardon me while I 

[Hawkmoon]

My feelings as well. She hasn't said that she will caucus with the Ds, but she did say she won't caucus with the Rs.

I'm actually not even sure how this works. Do independents HAVE to caucus with either Rs or Ds, or can they tell both parties to *expletive deleted*ck off?

Can someone explain to me exactly what "caucusing with" means? Why can't senators just, like, show up, do their job, and vote when bills are called? What's this "caucusing" stuff all about (other than making back room deals, that is)?

[Perd Hapley]

No one should have any qualms about Sinema leaving a party that has become almost indistinguishable from a foreign occupation, that runs this country for the benefit of foreign interests, and favors criminals and deviants over the law-abiding and virtuous.

The real betrayal of her constituents was in aligning herself with that party to begin with.

[Ben]

The real betrayal of her constituents was in aligning herself with that party to begin with.

In her defense, she might be like Tulsi Gabbard and so many, from what I am seeing, dems and "left leaning" people in and out of politics. They all felt that they were standing in the same spot, and yesterday looked to their left and saw left leaning people standing a foot away. Today they look to their left, and there are screaching progressives a mile away yelling at them through a bullhorn about what fascists they are for still standing in the same spot.

It seems I am seeing this much, much more on the left than on the right. Of course on the right, as we have debated here in the past, we have never really been in lockstep and have always been bickering subgroups, for better or worse. The left has always been more prone to "lockstep", but with so much crazy antifa, transgender, abort at birth and for fun, and other whacko stuff, are starting to see people on their side say, "Wait a minute, this is nuts."

[RocketMan]

It has been reported that Sinema is keeping all of her committee seats.  I expect her political positions and voting pattern won't change much.

[HankB]

In her defense, she might be like Tulsi Gabbard and so many, from what I am seeing, dems and "left leaning" people in and out of politics. They all felt that they were standing in the same spot, and yesterday looked to their left and saw left leaning people standing a foot away. Today they look to their left, and there are screaching progressives a mile away yelling at them through a bullhorn about what fascists they are for still standing in the same spot. . . .

An apt description of the current situation.  If you recall, not too long ago some screeching progressives followed Sinema into the ladies room at an Arizona college and stood outside the stall she was using while haranguing her about not supporting Biden's build back better agenda or illegal immigration - they wouldn't even let her pee in peace. This kind of encounter with the truly loony left could start the wheels turning about whether or not she's really a full fledged democrat.

Or, perhaps it's purely a self-serving political calculation she's made. Much like the situation with Tulsi Gabbard, let's wait and see what she actually does moving forward.

[WLJ]

[WLJ]

And he sure did trigger the left with that meme

On Thursday Musk posted a demonstrably false tweet that suggests conservatives have not changed positions since 2008. It basically also says that liberals have moved much more to the extreme left. And it provides precisely zero evidence to back up the claim.

Many on Twitter blasted Musk, providing ample proof of just how wrong he is.

One of those leading the charge against Musk’s erroneous and divisive claim is Parker Malloy, a former Media Matters editor-at-large who just penned a piece at Substack that begins, “Maybe if Twitter had actually enforced its policies, it wouldn’t have become the type of hellhole a guy like Elon Musk would want to buy.”

'Sounds just like Trump': Elon Musk blasted for tweeting demonstrably false meme supporting conservatives
https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/elon-musk-2657236693

[HankB]

And he sure did trigger the left with that meme

'Sounds just like Trump': Elon Musk blasted for tweeting demonstrably false meme supporting conservatives
https://www.alternet.org/2022/04/elon-musk-2657236693

Demonstrably false?

I submit that the three last D presidents were more left of JFK than the last three R presidents were to the right of Reagan.

[Hawkmoon]

Demonstrably false?

I submit that the three last D presidents were more left of JFK than the last three R presidents were to the right of Reagan.

JFK was a life member of the NRA.

'Nuff said.

[Pb]

JFK was a life member of the NRA.

JFK had a machine gun collection. 

The rumor is that the Kennedy machine gun collection is the reason Massachusetts has a "machine gun permit" system rather than banning them outright.

For what it is worth, JFK was an awful person, but was probably the last President who didn't endorse some crappy gun control.

[Tuco]

What occured in and preceeding 2008 that might have intensified identity politics and the easy proliferation of woke agendas?
Anyone?

[WLJ]

What occured in and preceeding 2008 that might have intensified identity politics and the easy proliferation of woke agendas?
Anyone?

America was finally over it's racist past and race was no longer an issue

[Perd Hapley]

America was finally over it's racist past and race was no longer an issue

I assume you mean that race hucksters were going to lose money or power, so they had to invent new bigotries. Another explanation that some offer is that social media amplified things like the Mike Brown shooting. Yet another is that American blacks had assumed having one of your own in power meant you could have whatever you wanted. When it didn't work out that way...

[Tuco]

I was thinking more along the lines of facebook exceeding 100 million users and the introduction of the iPhone. A volatile combination of technology that encouraged millions of malcontents, unencumbered by logic,  historical knowledge, or critical thinking, to vigorously sow half baked ideologies.

But I like youse guyses answer too.