Kyrsten Sinema reiterates support for the filibuster...again

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sinema isn't wrong, if you take the long view and think beyond the next 2 years.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sinema isn't wrong, if you take the long view and think beyond the next 2 years.

Sinema seems to have experienced an astonishing fall from grace on this forum over the past several months. Many of the posters now harshly condemning her had a much more positive opinion of her prior to Biden taking office. Progressives in general also are greatly upset with her now.

Sinema is lucky this forum isn't the broader electorate.
There is a strong sense of urgency that you see from Dems, as they feel this is the only trifecta they'll have this entire decade, so naturally those who aren't on board 100% with changing rules to maximize usage of that trifecta and/or want to think long-term are seen in sort of a Judas Iscariot type of way.
Personally I expect the electorate to reward Sinema for her actions but no one can speak with 100% confidence on the issue, either way, until 2024.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sinema isn't wrong, if you take the long view and think beyond the next 2 years.

Elections have consequences. That's how democracies are supposed to work. What's the point of passing any bills then if they can be reversed in the future? Why even do anything then?

That's just a stupid excuse for not getting rid of the filibuster. It doesn't hold any weight.

Elections has consequences does not mean "the opposition party should have 0 voice in decision making whatsoever". To think such is to adopt a profoundly stupid and unnatural perspective in regards to governance. Compromise is on some level an absolutely essential part of how governance works.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

Sorry, but this is utterly and plainly myopic. Sinema's hopes will rest on demographics, her approval ratings, national environment, her brand, etc, much, much more than anything that follows from a voting rights bill not being passed.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

That's because she's smart. She's thinking about the long term, instead of power-grabbing her party's way to victory only for it to be overturned later when Republicans benefit from no filibustering. This makes her very difficult to beat in 2024, that is if she survives a primary challenge...

The chances of her surviving in 2024 if some kind of voting rights bill doesn't pass are basically nil, since Republicans control her state

Sorry, but this is utterly and plainly myopic. Sinema's hopes will rest on demographics, her approval ratings, national environment, her brand, etc, much, much more than anything that follows from a voting rights bill not being passed.

Those factors will determine who the people of Arizona want as their senator, but who actually wins will depend on who the Arizona legislature allows to vote.

I think you are overestimating how much power the AZ state legislature has to decide the electorate in an AZ US senate election.
Vote registration regulations and voter ID laws are extremely ineffective at actually stopping people from voting (research has shown this), in part because of strong activism and organizations involved in GOTV.
Even the GA state law passed earlier this year is unlikely to change the electorate of GA all that much. Black orgs will just adjust and turn out their voters in line with the newest regs.
Do you believe AZ can just pass a law saying that "if you can speak Spanish you can't vote"?
Because something like that won't pass legal scrutiny and backfire massively, likely turbocharging Latino turnout. No way AZ GOPers do something so plainly suicidal.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Good opinion article by the Queen.

Opinion: Kyrsten Sinema: We have more to lose than gain by ending the filibuster

My support for retaining the 60-vote threshold is not based on the importance of any particular policy. It is based on what is best for our democracy. The filibuster compels moderation and helps protect the country from wild swings between opposing policy poles.

To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to pass the For the People Act (voting-rights legislation I support and have co-sponsored), I would ask: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to see that legislation rescinded a few years from now and replaced by a nationwide voter-ID law or restrictions on voting by mail in federal elections, over the objections of the minority?

Good point.

Good-faith arguments have been made both criticizing and defending the Senate’s 60-vote threshold. I share the belief expressed in 2017 by 31 Senate Democrats opposing elimination of the filibuster — a belief shared by President Biden. While I am confident that several senators in my party still share that belief, the Senate has not held a debate on the matter.

And here she highlights the hypocrisy of Democrats. Democrats love to lie about how bad filibuster is for the democracy or how it hurts them much more than GOP, because "muh ackchyually GOP doesn't have any agenda, but obstructionism and judges". Yet, when Trump wanted to get rid of filibuster, Dems defended it.

Sinema showing once again she has more sense on this issue than most Very Online left-of-center folks on the internet.