Kyrsten Sinema Leaving Democratic Party
Because of course she is.
The iconoclast US Senator from Arizona has a long-winded op-ed in The Arizona Republic explaining “Why I’m registering as an independent.”
There’s a disconnect between what everyday Americans want and deserve from our politics, and what political parties are offering.
I am privileged to represent Arizonans of all backgrounds and beliefs in the U.S. Senate and am honored to travel to every corner of our state, listening to your concerns and ideas.
While Arizonans don’t all agree on the issues, we are united in our values of hard work, common sense and independence.
We make our own decisions, using our own judgment and lived experiences to form our beliefs. We don’t line up to do what we’re told, automatically subscribe to whatever positions the national political parties dictate or view every issue through labels that divide us.
Each day, Arizonans wake up, work and live alongside people with different views and experiences, usually without even thinking about partisan politics.
Arizonans expect our leaders to follow that example – set aside political games, work together, make progress and then get out of the way so we can build better lives for ourselves and our families.
It’s no surprise that Washington, D.C., often fails to reflect that expectation.
Everyday Americans are increasingly left behind by national parties’ rigid partisanship, which has hardened in recent years. Pressures in both parties pull leaders to the edges, allowing the loudest, most extreme voices to determine their respective parties’ priorities and expecting the rest of us to fall in line.
In catering to the fringes, neither party has demonstrated much tolerance for diversity of thought. Bipartisan compromise is seen as a rarely acceptable last resort, rather than the best way to achieve lasting progress. Payback against the opposition party has replaced thoughtful legislating.
Americans are told that we have only two choices – Democrat or Republican – and that we must subscribe wholesale to policy views the parties hold, views that have been pulled further and further toward the extremes.
Most Arizonans believe this is a false choice, and when I ran for the U.S. House and the Senate, I promised Arizonans something different. I pledged to be independent and work with anyone to achieve lasting results. I committed I would not demonize people I disagreed with, engage in name-calling, or get distracted by political drama.
I promised I would never bend to party pressure, and I would stay focused on solving problems and getting things done for everyday Arizonans.
My approach is rare in Washington and has upset partisans in both parties.
It is also an approach that has delivered lasting results for Arizona.
I work proudly with senators in both parties who have similarly rejected political extremes and forged consensus, helping drain some of the poison from today’s politics.
That includes successful laws I was honored to lead rebuilding our country’s critical infrastructure, protecting our economic competitiveness, addressing historic drought to help secure our water future, expanding veterans’ benefits, boosting innovation and small businesses, protecting marriage access for LGBTQ Americans, strengthening mental health care and making our communities safer, more vibrant places in which to live and raise families.
Because we built support in both parties for these solutions, rather than pursuing more extreme party-line policies, these laws are lasting solutions – less likely to be overturned by a next Congress resulting in whipsawing federal policy, greater uncertainty and deeper divisions.
Americans are more united than the national parties would have us believe. We’ve shown that a diverse democracy can still function effectively.
Arizonans – including many registered as Democrats or Republicans – are eager for leaders who focus on common-sense solutions rather than party doctrine.
But if the loudest, most extreme voices continue to drive each party toward the fringes – and if party leaders stay more focused on energizing their bases than delivering for all Americans – these kinds of lasting legislative successes will become rarer.
It’s no wonder a growing number of Americans are registering as independents. In Arizona, that number often outpaces those registered with either national party.
When politicians are more focused on denying the opposition party a victory than they are on improving Americans’ lives, the people who lose are everyday Americans.
That’s why I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington.
I registered as an Arizona independent.
Like a lot of Arizonans, I have never fit perfectly in either national party.
Becoming an independent won’t change my work in the Senate; my service to Arizona remains the same.
Arizonans who’ve supported my work expanding jobs and economic opportunity, or my opposition to tax hikes that would harm our economic competitiveness, should know my focus on these areas will continue.
Arizonans who share my unwavering view that a woman’s health care decision should be between her, her doctor and her family should know that will always remain my position, as will my belief that LGBTQ Americans should not be denied any opportunity because of who they are or who they love.
For those who support my work to secure the southern border, ensure fair and humane treatment for migrants and permanently protect “Dreamers” who are Americans in all but name, those will remain my priorities.
For Arizonans who’ve supported my work to make health care more affordable and accessible, they should know I will continue that work, as I did when I helped negotiate a historic law allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices while still ensuring robust medical innovation.
But if anyone previously supported me because they believed, contrary to my promise, that I would be a blindly loyal vote for a partisan agenda – or for those who believe our state should be represented by partisans who push divisive, negative politics, regardless of the impact on our state – then there are sure to be others vying for your support.
I offer Arizonans something different.
Some partisans believe they own this Senate seat.
They don’t.
This Senate seat doesn’t belong to Democratic or Republican bosses in Washington.
It doesn’t belong to one party or the other, and it doesn’t belong to me.
It belongs to Arizona, which is far too special a place to be defined by extreme partisans and ideologues.
It’s an honor to represent the state I love so much in the U.S. Senate. And while I do, I pledge to continue doing exactly what I promised – to be an independent voice for Arizona.
Sinema has a knack for garnering attention to herself and, sure enough, she’s trending on Twitter this morning with this announcement.
I can preach it either way in terms of how this impacts her re-election chances. Presumably, this means that she won’t have to win a Democratic primary in 2024 and will secure her own ballot line. Arizona doesn’t do run-offs (they tried briefly and it was a disaster) so it’s possible that she could win the most votes in a three-way race.
It’s not immediately clear if she still intends to caucus with the Democrats. They don’t technically need her, since they have the majority without her, but it would be in their interests if they did, since it allows them majority control on all committees. If so, it would be imprudent to punish her for this stunt by denying her committee assignments. If she doesn’t, though, all bets are off.
It’s also possible that she’s just opening herself up for bidding from a fundraising standpoint. But I don’t know what the end game of that would be.
UPDATE: An interview with POLITICO Congressional bureau chief Burgess Everett adds a bit of clarity.
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.”
[…]
Even before her party switch, she faced rumblings of a primary challenge in 2024 from Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). Becoming an independent will avoid a head-to-head primary against Gallego or another progressive, should she seek reelection. A theoretical general-election campaign could be chaotic if both Democrats and Republicans field candidates against her.
Sinema asserted she has a different goal in mind: fully separating herself from a party that’s never really been a fit, despite the Democratic Party’s support in her hard-fought 2018 race. That year she became the first Democrat in three decades to win a Senate race in Arizona, defeating former Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).
Sinema wouldn’t entertain discussions of pursuing a second Senate term: “It’s fair to say that I’m not talking about it right now.”
[…]
Still, she did dismiss one possibility that her new independent status may raise for some: “I am not running for president.”
[…]
Sinema said she’s not directly lobbying anyone to join her in leaving either the Democratic Caucus or GOP Conference, saying that she’d like the Senate to foster “an environment where people feel comfortable and confident saying and doing what they believe.”
What that means practically is continuing to work among the Senate’s loose group of bipartisan dealmakers, some of whom are retiring this year. She’s already connected with Sen.-elect Katie Britt (R-Ala.) about working together.
[…]
Unlike independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine), Sinema won’t attend weekly Democratic Caucus meetings, but she rarely does that now. She isn’t sure whether her desk will remain on the Democratic side of the Senate floor.
[…]
Sinema said she’s not sweating how any future changes in Senate control affect her work. “Partisan control is a question for the partisans,” she said, “and not really one for me.”
The bizarre thing to me is that she’s, for all intents and purposes, a Democrat. Her policy views are probably 85% in alignment with those of Schumer and the rest of the leadership. Not caucusing with them and diluting their structural power seems to hurt that agenda without any obvious offsetting gains for her.
UPDATE 2: Jonathan Chait argues “Kyrsten Sinema Is Playing Chicken: Going independent is a way to force Democrats to back her.”
The biggest loser of the 2022 election other than Donald Trump was Kyrsten Sinema. The Arizona senator and now-former Democrat desperately needed Democrats, especially fellow senator Mark Kelly, to lose. Only such a setback would make the party desperate enough to tolerate her continued presence. Kelly’s reelection made it certain that Sinema would face, and lose, a primary challenge in two years.
Sinema’s declaration of independence from the party is a ploy to avoid the primary and keep her job. Democrats could still run a candidate against her in the general election, of course, but they would face an extremely difficult prospect of winning. So her calculation in leaving the party is that she can bluff it into sitting out the campaign altogether, endorsing her as the lesser-evil choice against the Republican nominee.
It may work. If it doesn’t, it is because Sinema has underestimated just how much ill will she has generated across the breadth of the Democratic Party by reconceptualizing her role as the personal concierge of the superrich.
[…]
By breaking from the party on its most popular issues while staying loyal on its least popular elements, Sinema has managed the difficult task of making herself deeply loathed by Democrats without winning support from independents.
Her response of leaving the party and running as an independent is being hailed as brilliant. And it is true that she has given herself a chance to survive.
But it would be more accurate to say she is playing a game of chicken. Democrats know that if they run a candidate against her in the general election, they will probably lose. But Sinema also knows that she would absolutely lose in that scenario. Indeed, in a three-way race, Sinema would almost certainly finish a very distant third.
The way you win a game of chicken is by credibly demonstrating your refusal to be deterred. The classic game-theory example is to imagine two drivers racing toward each other on a single-lane road, each trying to force the other to veer off. If one driver could somehow disable their steering wheel and throw it out the window, they would win. The nuclear-war version of this concept is the doomsday machine that automatically and unalterably launches a counterstrike in the event of being attacked.
If Democrats refuse to run a candidate against her, and thus allow Sinema to win the game of chicken, they will be stuck with her in the Senate for potentially a long time. If, on the other hand, they field a candidate and refuse to budge, they can force her into a difficult choice. Whatever strategy they pick, the drama is only beginning.
This echoes quite a bit of the early speculation in the comments here.
Too bad the Dems couldn’t swing one more seat and make this narcissistic bitch completely irrelevant.
Ugh.
What a self-important dumbass. She seems to have learned the wrong lessons from the las two elections.
Not in tune enough to interpret her thinking but this seems to be more about Arizona than any national thoughts. Maybe she thinks she can be more like Murkowski and outlast/outwit the forces driving the voters to their respective fringes. Not sure that would work since Alaska seems to be unique.
While most likely true, I’m not sure that has any relevance here. I assume Sinema believes she won’t win a Dem primary for her Arizona Senate seat and will fare better as a bona fide independent running in a three way race. She may very well be right. It also wouldn’t surprise me if she has convinced herself she has a route to the Presidency in ’24. No doubt machers sent by the billionaire boys club are whispering in her ear, helping to reinforce what she wants to believe, in order to sow chaos amongst Dems.
@Scott: Let’s assume that she wants to be re-elected. She has lots of problems that must be solved to achieve that goal. The biggest one is that no one in Arizona particularly likes her or trusts her. In a September poll, she maintained steady approval ranging from 32%-41% among any slice of the electorate — Democrats approved of her at 37%, Republicans approved of her at 36%. Those within party approval ratings are an open invitation for a primary challenge that she would likely lose. Arizona has a sore loser law that would prohibit ballot access to anyone who lost a partisan primary.
Running as an independent gets around that problem. It might even defuse the Democratic challenge threat to some degree. If she can credibly threaten to get 10-15% of the vote in a three way general election and target that vote mainly from Dem leaning groups, she can guarantee a Republican win in a purplish seat when the Dems are trying to defend several red to very red seats (WV, OH, MT). That is a credible threat, in my mind.
So yeah, this is attention seeking behavior that is also goal directed behavior if we think that she wants to be re-elected in 2024.
Someone here is from AZ. How hard is it for an unaffiliated candidate for a statewide office to get on the ballot there? How is the ballot layout organized if they do make it?
Honestly, she’s kind of screwing her constituents here more than anything else. Angus King, she is not.
She doesn’t have a lot of authority or the long-term gravitas that other independents, like King and Bernie Sanders, have. Furthermore, she’s spent the past couple of years mucking up Democratic priorities *for her own benefit*.
I don’t see this as helping her at all.
She should change her name to “Look At ME!”
Watch, now Manchin will switch parties.
@Kathy: Right? Tell me she’s an attention whore without telling me she’s an attention whore. 😛 😛
While my second thought was that this was about re-election (my first thought was “Hey! Look at meeeeeee!”), this would allow her to bypass the primary (although I have no idea how easy/hard it is to get on the ballot as an independent), BUT I think it runs a major risk of splitting the D vote and electing an R to the Senate.
In a three-way race in AZ, I am going to bet Sinema comes in third.
@Kathy: Indeed.
I just noticed your comment after I posted mine.
Why right now?
I don’t mean, “Why now?” Of course, her announcement is tied to the 51 vote Democratic majority in the Senate. Instead, why right now? Why not wait until after the holidays? Instead, she will forever add to her brand as a public figure, “In a self-aggrandizing move, jumped the Democratic ship a couple of days after the Warnock victory, just when the country was craving a wee bit more political stability.”
She’s not going to caucus with the Republicans, only obstruct on their behalf. Got it!
WTF?
Congress just passed the bi-partisan Marriage Protection Act. Infrastructure was bi-partisan. Gun reform. Chips. Burn Pits. Covid Fraud.
Biden has been having huge bi-partisan success.
This twit is just starved for attention, and I’m sure Republicans will reward her, handsomely, for her vote.
Sinema is making the most of her six years, a one Senate term strategy, to leverage division and add to her bank account.
@James summed it up nicely in the sub-title; “Because of course she is.”
Really not much else to say about this.
I’ll cop to being one of those partisans Sinema reviles. But, I came to my partisanship as the technocrat I am at heart. I believe in solving problems, that solving even very difficult problems is possible through structured, disciplined analysis and experimentation, and that really big societal problems need to be solved at the societal level supported by national government resources. I’m a Democratic partisan because, in USA 2022, there is only one party that is taking even a passing interest in solving the real problems the country faces.
So, there’s a part of me that reads statements from Sinema like “I promised I would never bend to party pressure, and I would stay focused on solving problems and getting things done for everyday Arizonans,” and I want to admire her. Good on her for making her political fortunes secondary and putting finding solutions first.
(It’s interesting to me that throughout her editorial and in the Politico interview, she is adamant that this decision isn’t about her political position or ambitions, while most of the comments so far here are characterizing her new affiliation as only a political power move. That would indicate she has a massive credibility problem. I’m guessing she believes what she is saying.)
But then, I get to her laundry list of “successful laws I [Sinema] was honored to lead” and it just reeks of “I alone can fix it” narcissism. Infrastructure, marriage equality, gun control, Medicare drug prescription pricing – her vaunted bipartisanship had f*-all to do with those objectives becoming laws. None of those things would have happened without the Democratic Caucus she is leaving. But, here Sinema is claiming credit for herself and for her middle-of-the-road shtick, because a handful of GOP senators temporarily peeled away from the party bloc to vote in favor of hugely popular Democratic legislation.
I want to throw up in my mouth a little to think she had me for a bit there.
@Scott F.: I want to throw up on her.
@Kathy: Yes, but would that be “Kyrsten LookatME” or “LookatME Sinema?”
@Kathy: She really doesn’t need to changer her name. It is already a misspelled theater.
Murkowski is popular in Alaska, as noted above, Sinema is widely hated by both (R) and (D) so not a viable analogy.
I am normally pragmatic as (D)’s tend to be, but here I would just take the long view and go by principle, resist the extortion and vote for Gallego. To hell with this crackpot.
@Steven L. Taylor:
According to Ballotpedia and a back of the envelope calculation, she’ll need about 45,000 registered voter signatures on petitions in order to make the ballot as an independent. No restrictions on party affiliation of the signers. Not a particularly high hurdle, certainly not compared to getting an initiative on the ballot in AZ, but requires some sort of ground game outside the party.
@Michael Cain: My guess she would have an easy time finding Republican support for her running as an (I). Then again, that might depend on how polling of a 3-way race looks.
@charon: It’s not a given she would hurt the Dem candidate more than the Repub if she were to run as Independent. Her support was pretty evenly split.
@just nutha:
“The name is Damnit, LootatME! Damnit!”
I heard AZ has a sore loser law that would prevent her from running third party should she lose the Dem primary. This keeps here on the ballot regardless. Dems should run a candidate anyway, even if only to discourage the next Senator Prima Donna who wants to try such a stunt.
More Theater from the Cinema..
@Michael Cain: I’m sure the Republicans in the state will help her get those signatures.
@Kathy:I think I’ve got it now–LookatME! Damnit Damnit.
After all the political sound and fury today about this, I really don’t think anything has changed on a national basis. And it will be forgotten by Monday.
Bottom line is that Senigma would lose running as an independent, whether Democrats run a candidate or not. So Democrats have the choice of fighting hard to win with the best candidate they can find, or handing the seat to someone like Kari Lake or Blake Masters.
Which should be no choice at all.
This makes no sense. As an independent, she will probably accomplish less than she would otherwise, and as to getting re-elected – well there is no path now.
@Raoul: It makes more sense when you realize she’s an attention whore, and Joe Manchin might also be about to jump ship. I’d like to see both of their campaign and PAC accounts right now. Manchin has a Republican challenger in West Virginia, now, who’s a true red hat. There’s no way he’ll win re-election as a Democrat anymore.
They’ve already been trying to flip conservative Dems in the House so McCarthy has enough votes for Speaker. Never doubt they’ll try to flip the Senate, by hook or by crook.