AZ-SEN 2018: Sinema Paradiso

[America Needs R'hllor]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/02/krysten-sinema-democrats-senate-chuck-schumer-687120

Sinema says she won't support Schumer for party leader

I think she's really going a little bit too far with the whole moderate schtick. I mean, every sign points to her being another Gillibrand, a progressive masquerading as a conservadem during her time in the House before becoming a progressive in the Senate once again. Her past certainly wouldn't suggest her being a conservative Democrat, so why is she going with a move even more radical than what Manchin and Heitkamp are doing? Like, I get why House candidates go after Pelosi, she's been in power forever and is incredibly unpopular, but Schumer's only been party leader for a few years. I just think Sinema is going a little bit too far to get elected (and honestly, she doesn't need to, she's definitely the favorite at this point).

That position seems kind of dangerous, doesn't it? What if Democrats flip the Senate with a 51-49 majority? Is she just not going to vote for Schumer and actually force a new majority leader? I don't know who told her that Chuck was so toxic she needed to publicly back away, or if she came up with that herself, but whoever did, they don't seem very smart. The voters on the fence by and large don't give a crap about Chuck Schumer, and that is if they even know who he is in the first place.

Yeah this is definitely making me less supportive of her. She's attacking someone who has supported her candidacy and is generally very pragmatic and good to his caucus, praised by people from Warren to Manchin. He didn't do her any wrong, so sacrificing him because of a weak right wing smear campaign is cruel and very unkind. Like IceSpear said, McConnell is far more toxic and McSally is basically his candidate. She should use that rather than backstabbing Schumer for no real reason.

[JG]

What a dumb move. If Manchin can afford to support Schumer, so can she.

[Antonio the Sixth]

God Sinema is trash.

[KingSweden]

What a dumb move. If Manchin can afford to support Schumer, so can she.

[AtorBoltox]

Why make this stupid promise she’ll inevtiably break?

[libertpaulian]

Appeasing angry white retirees perhaps?

[IceSpear]

Why make this stupid promise she’ll inevtiably break?

The Prada Socialist is trying a bit too hard. She must really want to outdo McSally in the "bigger fraud" contest. And both of them seem to think they're running in Oklahoma, lol.

[Progressive Pessimist]

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/02/krysten-sinema-democrats-senate-chuck-schumer-687120

Sinema says she won't support Schumer for party leader

I think she's really going a little bit too far with the whole moderate schtick. I mean, every sign points to her being another Gillibrand, a progressive masquerading as a conservadem during her time in the House before becoming a progressive in the Senate once again. Her past certainly wouldn't suggest her being a conservative Democrat, so why is she going with a move even more radical than what Manchin and Heitkamp are doing? Like, I get why House candidates go after Pelosi, she's been in power forever and is incredibly unpopular, but Schumer's only been party leader for a few years. I just think Sinema is going a little bit too far to get elected (and honestly, she doesn't need to, she's definitely the favorite at this point).

That position seems kind of dangerous, doesn't it? What if Democrats flip the Senate with a 51-49 majority? Is she just not going to vote for Schumer and actually force a new majority leader? I don't know who told her that Chuck was so toxic she needed to publicly back away, or if she came up with that herself, but whoever did, they don't seem very smart. The voters on the fence by and large don't give a crap about Chuck Schumer, and that is if they even know who he is in the first place.

Yeah, Schumer isn't Pelosi, he's mostly anonymous. If anything this calls more attention to the issue than there otherwise would be.

Sinema is overrated. She should be hammering McSally for being the handpicked candidate of the toxic Mitch McConnell, instead she's bashing a random guy that probably has <50% name recognition in Arizona, much of which is from locked in partisans.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I really hope Democrats take a 51-49 Majority, and then Sinema causes us to get someone better than Schumer as the Senate leader.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

I really hope Democrats take a 51-49 Majority, and then Sinema causes us to get someone better than Schumer as the Senate leader.

Who would be your suggestion for leader?

[morgieb]

Sigh.

Going against Schumer from (presumably) the right makes no sense. He's hardly as toxic as Pelosi....or more relevantly, McConnell. Bad, bad move.

[Badger]

What a dumb move. If Manchin can afford to support Schumer, so can she.

Not to mention Schumer is about one-twentieth as divisive a figure is Pelosi. There are very very few swing voters who give a crap if she Sports Schumer. What's more, she in all likelihood will literally be the 51st make-or-break vote. What a stupid p l o y

[Devout Centrist]

People, please calm down. This statement is meaningless and inconsequential. Sinema, while not perfect, is doing all the right posturing to win here.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

We need people going against Schumer from the left, not the right. The right would be some Dixiecrat yelling about how he's a New York Jew for gun control.

[Mycool]

Honestly, the “Sinema/Gillibrand/Harris/any female politician is too progressive/not progressive enough/too sharp elbowed” thing is tired. Sinema is a very intelligent woman, and I think this comes from her state’s tendency towards maverick minded politicians. This isn’t the house, she can vote for Schumer on the private ballot (or not), but use this as a point of contrast with whoever wins the republican primary.

[IceSpear]

People, please calm down. This statement is meaningless and inconsequential. Sinema, while not perfect, is doing all the right posturing to win here.

That's for sure.

[IceSpear]

Honestly, the “Sinema/Gillibrand/Harris/any female politician is too progressive/not progressive enough/too sharp elbowed” thing is tired. Sinema is a very intelligent woman, and I think this comes from her state’s tendency towards maverick minded politicians. This isn’t the house, she can vote for Schumer on the private ballot (or not), but use this as a point of contrast with whoever wins the republican primary.

Hilarious. I was one of Hillary's biggest supporters on this forum and would strongly consider voting for Gillibrand or Harris in the 2020 primary, so it has zero to do with gender. Sinema is just crap. Her swift transition from Prada Socialist to Blue Dog was nauseating, and it's getting even worse now that the final stage of her metamorphosis seems to be turning into something that makes Joe Manchin and Doug Jones look like raging communists and loyal party food soldiers by comparison. It's also just horrid political strategy. If demonizing Schumer, who most voters don't know/care about (ESPECIALLY those that aren't already locked in partisans in either direction) isn't going to work in West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, etc. then it's not going to work in Arizona either. It's just kowtowing to a GOP narrative and senselessly playing defense on an "issue" that was never working against you to begin with.

I couldn't care less about Schumer personally or whether her threat will actually have a practical effect or not, but if you're going to dump your leader in a competitive race because of a year of ineffective demonization, then you might as well just be prepared to get a new one every two years, which is utterly retarded. Meanwhile, she (and most other Democrats for that matter) have no problem throwing their leaders under the bus while allowing the much more toxic Ryan and McConnell to skate by untouched, and allow their puppets like McSally to not have to answer for their association with them. The double standard is ridiculous.

[Doimper]

Honestly, the “Sinema/Gillibrand/Harris/any female politician is too progressive/not progressive enough/too sharp elbowed” thing is tired. Sinema is a very intelligent woman, and I think this comes from her state’s tendency towards maverick minded politicians. This isn’t the house, she can vote for Schumer on the private ballot (or not), but use this as a point of contrast with whoever wins the republican primary.

Hilarious. I was one of Hillary's biggest supporters on this forum and would strongly consider voting for Gillibrand or Harris in the 2020 primary, so it has zero to do with gender. Sinema is just crap. Her swift transition from Prada Socialist to Blue Dog was nauseating, and it's getting even worse now that the final stage of her metamorphosis seems to be turning into something that makes Joe Manchin and Doug Jones look like raging communists and loyal party food soldiers by comparison. It's also just horrid political strategy. If demonizing Schumer, who most voters don't know/care about (ESPECIALLY those that aren't already locked in partisans in either direction) isn't going to work in West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, etc. then it's not going to work in Arizona either. It's just kowtowing to a GOP narrative and senselessly playing defense on an "issue" that was never working against you to begin with.

I couldn't care less about Schumer personally or whether her threat will actually have a practical effect or not, but if you're going to dump your leader in a competitive race because of a year of ineffective demonization, then you might as well just be prepared to get a new one every two years, which is utterly retarded. Meanwhile, she (and most other Democrats for that matter) have no problem throwing their leaders under the bus while allowing the much more toxic Ryan and McConnell to skate by untouched, and allow their puppets like McSally to not have to answer for their association with them. The double standard is ridiculous.

This same critcism applies to Gillibrand, too (although to a lesser extent, obviously). From Blue Dog to Abolish ICE.

[IceSpear]

Honestly, the “Sinema/Gillibrand/Harris/any female politician is too progressive/not progressive enough/too sharp elbowed” thing is tired. Sinema is a very intelligent woman, and I think this comes from her state’s tendency towards maverick minded politicians. This isn’t the house, she can vote for Schumer on the private ballot (or not), but use this as a point of contrast with whoever wins the republican primary.

Hilarious. I was one of Hillary's biggest supporters on this forum and would strongly consider voting for Gillibrand or Harris in the 2020 primary, so it has zero to do with gender. Sinema is just crap. Her swift transition from Prada Socialist to Blue Dog was nauseating, and it's getting even worse now that the final stage of her metamorphosis seems to be turning into something that makes Joe Manchin and Doug Jones look like raging communists and loyal party food soldiers by comparison. It's also just horrid political strategy. If demonizing Schumer, who most voters don't know/care about (ESPECIALLY those that aren't already locked in partisans in either direction) isn't going to work in West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, etc. then it's not going to work in Arizona either. It's just kowtowing to a GOP narrative and senselessly playing defense on an "issue" that was never working against you to begin with.

I couldn't care less about Schumer personally or whether her threat will actually have a practical effect or not, but if you're going to dump your leader in a competitive race because of a year of ineffective demonization, then you might as well just be prepared to get a new one every two years, which is utterly retarded. Meanwhile, she (and most other Democrats for that matter) have no problem throwing their leaders under the bus while allowing the much more toxic Ryan and McConnell to skate by untouched, and allow their puppets like McSally to not have to answer for their association with them. The double standard is ridiculous.

This same critcism applies to Gillibrand, too (although to a lesser extent, obviously). From Blue Dog to Abolish ICE.

True, but like you said it's to a lesser extent, and additonally I'd rather have someone moving towards my direction than away from it.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Honestly, the “Sinema/Gillibrand/Harris/any female politician is too progressive/not progressive enough/too sharp elbowed” thing is tired. Sinema is a very intelligent woman, and I think this comes from her state’s tendency towards maverick minded politicians. This isn’t the house, she can vote for Schumer on the private ballot (or not), but use this as a point of contrast with whoever wins the republican primary.

Hilarious. I was one of Hillary's biggest supporters on this forum and would strongly consider voting for Gillibrand or Harris in the 2020 primary, so it has zero to do with gender. Sinema is just crap. Her swift transition from Prada Socialist to Blue Dog was nauseating, and it's getting even worse now that the final stage of her metamorphosis seems to be turning into something that makes Joe Manchin and Doug Jones look like raging communists and loyal party food soldiers by comparison. It's also just horrid political strategy. If demonizing Schumer, who most voters don't know/care about (ESPECIALLY those that aren't already locked in partisans in either direction) isn't going to work in West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, etc. then it's not going to work in Arizona either. It's just kowtowing to a GOP narrative and senselessly playing defense on an "issue" that was never working against you to begin with.

I couldn't care less about Schumer personally or whether her threat will actually have a practical effect or not, but if you're going to dump your leader in a competitive race because of a year of ineffective demonization, then you might as well just be prepared to get a new one every two years, which is utterly retarded. Meanwhile, she (and most other Democrats for that matter) have no problem throwing their leaders under the bus while allowing the much more toxic Ryan and McConnell to skate by untouched, and allow their puppets like McSally to not have to answer for their association with them. The double standard is ridiculous.

Yeah I agree with this too. I also have to say that, while I know that it's not a valid concern in this case, demonizing a Jews from New York who did you no wrong and for no apparent reason makes me instinctively suspicious.

[Blair]

Honestly, the “Sinema/Gillibrand/Harris/any female politician is too progressive/not progressive enough/too sharp elbowed” thing is tired. Sinema is a very intelligent woman, and I think this comes from her state’s tendency towards maverick minded politicians. This isn’t the house, she can vote for Schumer on the private ballot (or not), but use this as a point of contrast with whoever wins the republican primary.

Hilarious. I was one of Hillary's biggest supporters on this forum and would strongly consider voting for Gillibrand or Harris in the 2020 primary, so it has zero to do with gender. Sinema is just crap. Her swift transition from Prada Socialist to Blue Dog was nauseating, and it's getting even worse now that the final stage of her metamorphosis seems to be turning into something that makes Joe Manchin and Doug Jones look like raging communists and loyal party food soldiers by comparison. It's also just horrid political strategy. If demonizing Schumer, who most voters don't know/care about (ESPECIALLY those that aren't already locked in partisans in either direction) isn't going to work in West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, etc. then it's not going to work in Arizona either. It's just kowtowing to a GOP narrative and senselessly playing defense on an "issue" that was never working against you to begin with.

I couldn't care less about Schumer personally or whether her threat will actually have a practical effect or not, but if you're going to dump your leader in a competitive race because of a year of ineffective demonization, then you might as well just be prepared to get a new one every two years, which is utterly retarded. Meanwhile, she (and most other Democrats for that matter) have no problem throwing their leaders under the bus while allowing the much more toxic Ryan and McConnell to skate by untouched, and allow their puppets like McSally to not have to answer for their association with them. The double standard is ridiculous.

This same critcism applies to Gillibrand, too (although to a lesser extent, obviously). From Blue Dog to Abolish ICE.

True, but like you said it's to a lesser extent, and additonally I'd rather have someone moving towards my direction than away from it.

And it’s not as if it was overnight- she’s been a pretty solid progressive for her whole 8 years in the Senate.

But yes; I larelgy agree with others here, it was a stupid comment no doubt suggested by some god awful campaign consultant p.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Sinema isn't a worse politician just because she is moving to the center or becoming less "progressive".

[Antonio the Sixth]

Honestly, the “Sinema/Gillibrand/Harris/any female politician is too progressive/not progressive enough/too sharp elbowed” thing is tired. Sinema is a very intelligent woman, and I think this comes from her state’s tendency towards maverick minded politicians. This isn’t the house, she can vote for Schumer on the private ballot (or not), but use this as a point of contrast with whoever wins the republican primary.

Hilarious. I was one of Hillary's biggest supporters on this forum and would strongly consider voting for Gillibrand or Harris in the 2020 primary, so it has zero to do with gender. Sinema is just crap. Her swift transition from Prada Socialist to Blue Dog was nauseating, and it's getting even worse now that the final stage of her metamorphosis seems to be turning into something that makes Joe Manchin and Doug Jones look like raging communists and loyal party food soldiers by comparison. It's also just horrid political strategy. If demonizing Schumer, who most voters don't know/care about (ESPECIALLY those that aren't already locked in partisans in either direction) isn't going to work in West Virginia, North Dakota, Indiana, Montana, etc. then it's not going to work in Arizona either. It's just kowtowing to a GOP narrative and senselessly playing defense on an "issue" that was never working against you to begin with.

I couldn't care less about Schumer personally or whether her threat will actually have a practical effect or not, but if you're going to dump your leader in a competitive race because of a year of ineffective demonization, then you might as well just be prepared to get a new one every two years, which is utterly retarded. Meanwhile, she (and most other Democrats for that matter) have no problem throwing their leaders under the bus while allowing the much more toxic Ryan and McConnell to skate by untouched, and allow their puppets like McSally to not have to answer for their association with them. The double standard is ridiculous.

This same critcism applies to Gillibrand, too (although to a lesser extent, obviously). From Blue Dog to Abolish ICE.

The difference is that Gillibrand changed for the better while Sinema has only ever gotten worse.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Chuck Schumer is not a team player

[TheSaint250]

Like previously stated, Sinema is most likely going to be a progressive-minded senator if she wins.  Running against Schumer, however, seems to simply be a way to get ahead of any possible attacks forcing Democrats to renounce Schumer the way they've been pressured to denounce Pelosi like Conor Lamb (and many others).