I think she'll be renominated and re-elected just by virtue of trends in the state and how awful most potential Arizona GOP nominees are, and it will send a bad message about what blocking progress means for one's political prospects in the Senate, even if that correlation isn't necessarily the causation that led to her re-election.
This assumes that her and Manchin's inaction on ending the filibuster doesn't result in major Republican controlled battleground states passing legislation that allows them to overturn election results. That would be one hell of a backfire and "I told you so" moment for her and Manchin. I get their concern that the lack of a filibuster can lead to a future Republican majority abusing its absence to pass reactionary bills, but but while Democrats have a trifecta acting on addressing our democratic backslide proactively is necessary to balance out what the GOP can and will do in the near future. Our democracy is at the precipice of collapse, and legislation like HR1 passing and statehood for DC and Puerto Rico can go a long way in making a future GOP Senate takeover less of a scary prospect.
Sorry I couldn't help but go off. Manchin or Sinema being mentioned in any thread now yields a Pavlovian response from me to go on a tirade about the filibuster.
She hovers between 50-55% in Dem approval. Which while positive is strait up awful for a same-party incumbent. Kelly sits about 80% for reference.
Once she has an actual Democrat to be contrasted to and we get regular showings of her curtesy middle finger to her voters and her joint press junkets with far right Republicans in Arizona tv, I doubt she’ll be above water.
I concede the national party could save her by trying to Bigfoot out any serious challenger, but why bother protecting the least cooperative member of the caucus whose made it clear she wouldn’t piss on another Dem if they were on fire.