AZ-SEN 2018: Sinema Paradiso

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

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).

Why do you say that? She's been representing a pretty blue district (+16 Hillary) yet has the most economically conservative record in the house... even more economically conservative than Colin Peterson, who represents a +30 Trump district.

There have been some votes where she's literally been the only democrat to vote for it. She's not a progressive masquerading as a moderate.

Hell, she's arguably voted more conservative than Joe Donnelly and Heitkamp... although I would say the latter two are more conservative.

[Oryxslayer]

I believe Sinema never voted for Pelosi, even when her seat moved leftwards. This might just be part of her shtick. And to be honest, it won't matter unless the chamber is 50-50(or 50-49 w/McCain) at which point she will probably bend. Sinema is a rare example of a politician who puts their constituents views above their own. Why she sat in a solidly blue legislative seat - Prada Socialist, sitting in a competitive house seat - centrist, running for a right-or-center senate seat - right-leaning dem. If Arizona moves leftward, expect Sinema to move leftwards with it.  

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I believe Sinema never voted for Pelosi, even when her seat moved leftwards. This might just be part of her shtick. And to be honest, it won't matter unless the chamber is 50-50(or 50-49 w/McCain) at which point she will probably bend. Sinema is a rare example of a politician who puts their constituents views above their own. Why she sat in a solidly blue legislative seat - Prada Socialist, sitting in a competitive house seat - centrist, running for a right-or-center senate seat - right-leaning dem. If Arizona moves leftward, expect Sinema to move leftwards with it.  

Her district went from +5 Obama to +16 Hillary and she didn't move left at all.

[Gass3268]

I believe Sinema never voted for Pelosi, even when her seat moved leftwards. This might just be part of her shtick. And to be honest, it won't matter unless the chamber is 50-50(or 50-49 w/McCain) at which point she will probably bend. Sinema is a rare example of a politician who puts their constituents views above their own. Why she sat in a solidly blue legislative seat - Prada Socialist, sitting in a competitive house seat - centrist, running for a right-or-center senate seat - right-leaning dem. If Arizona moves leftward, expect Sinema to move leftwards with it.  

Her district went from +5 Obama to +16 Hillary and she didn't move left at all.

It's pretty clear that she wanted to keep her centrist image for a statewide run.

[Oryxslayer]

I believe Sinema never voted for Pelosi, even when her seat moved leftwards. This might just be part of her shtick. And to be honest, it won't matter unless the chamber is 50-50(or 50-49 w/McCain) at which point she will probably bend. Sinema is a rare example of a politician who puts their constituents views above their own. Why she sat in a solidly blue legislative seat - Prada Socialist, sitting in a competitive house seat - centrist, running for a right-or-center senate seat - right-leaning dem. If Arizona moves leftward, expect Sinema to move leftwards with it.  

Her district went from +5 Obama to +16 Hillary and she didn't move left at all.

D+1 PVI to D+4 PVI isn't that much of a shift. Chances are, she realizes that there are still some fundamentals keeping the seat competative. After all, +5 is the cutoff for traditionally competitive seats.  

Also:

I believe Sinema never voted for Pelosi, even when her seat moved leftwards. This might just be part of her shtick. And to be honest, it won't matter unless the chamber is 50-50(or 50-49 w/McCain) at which point she will probably bend. Sinema is a rare example of a politician who puts their constituents views above their own. Why she sat in a solidly blue legislative seat - Prada Socialist, sitting in a competitive house seat - centrist, running for a right-or-center senate seat - right-leaning dem. If Arizona moves leftward, expect Sinema to move leftwards with it.  

Her district went from +5 Obama to +16 Hillary and she didn't move left at all.

It's pretty clear that she wanted to keep her centrist image for a statewide run.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

I believe Sinema never voted for Pelosi, even when her seat moved leftwards. This might just be part of her shtick. And to be honest, it won't matter unless the chamber is 50-50(or 50-49 w/McCain) at which point she will probably bend. Sinema is a rare example of a politician who puts their constituents views above their own. Why she sat in a solidly blue legislative seat - Prada Socialist, sitting in a competitive house seat - centrist, running for a right-or-center senate seat - right-leaning dem. If Arizona moves leftward, expect Sinema to move leftwards with it.  

Her district went from +5 Obama to +16 Hillary and she didn't move left at all.

It's pretty clear that she wanted to keep her centrist image for a statewide run.

Or... maybe... and this might be a surprise to you - she's actually a moderate now! If she was just pretending to be moderate, she would follow people like Colin Peterson. Instead, she clearly carved her own path in congress that literally no other democrat has taken.

Also, she's still fairly socially liberal, so it's not like she's moderating on every issue. And she's strangely "liberal" on anti-war things.

Just cuz someone was progressive 15 years ago doesn't mean they have the same positions now.

[Gass3268]

I believe Sinema never voted for Pelosi, even when her seat moved leftwards. This might just be part of her shtick. And to be honest, it won't matter unless the chamber is 50-50(or 50-49 w/McCain) at which point she will probably bend. Sinema is a rare example of a politician who puts their constituents views above their own. Why she sat in a solidly blue legislative seat - Prada Socialist, sitting in a competitive house seat - centrist, running for a right-or-center senate seat - right-leaning dem. If Arizona moves leftward, expect Sinema to move leftwards with it.  

Her district went from +5 Obama to +16 Hillary and she didn't move left at all.

It's pretty clear that she wanted to keep her centrist image for a statewide run.

Or... maybe... and this might be a surprise to you - she's actually a moderate now! If she was just pretending to be moderate, she would follow people like Colin Peterson. Instead, she clearly carved her own path in congress that literally no other democrat has taken.

Also, she's still fairly socially liberal, so it's not like she's moderating on every issue. And she's strangely "liberal" on anti-war things.

Just cuz someone was progressive 15 years ago doesn't mean they have the same positions now.

That's true as well. We could all afford to be a bit less cynical.

[Antonio the Sixth]

If winning the Senate this year wasn't so important, I'd honestly be rooting for Sinema to lose. The idea of being stuck with such deadweight for decades to come is painful.

[wesmoorenerd]

If winning the Senate this year wasn't so important, I'd honestly be rooting for Sinema to lose. The idea of being stuck with such deadweight for decades to come is painful.

Meh. Bob Casey ran as a ConservaDem in 2006 and look at him now.

...one of the only pro-life members of the Dem caucus?

[Young Conservative]

If winning the Senate this year wasn't so important, I'd honestly be rooting for Sinema to lose. The idea of being stuck with such deadweight for decades to come is painful.

Meh. Bob Casey ran as a ConservaDem in 2006 and look at him now.

...one of the only pro-life members of the Dem caucus?

Saying you're pro-life and voting like you're prochoice makes you prochoice.

[Xing]

Wow, I guess this is FL-SEN 2016 all over again. An empty suit/moderate heroing contest. While I do think Sinema would end up voting with the Democrats more often than not (whereas McSally would be a loyal Trump foot soldier), it’s pathetic how Democrats feel like they have to race to the center even in swing states, while Republicans have no shame about running in swing states as though they’re running to represent Wyoming.

[OneJ]

Wow, I guess this is FL-SEN 2016 all over again. An empty suit/moderate heroing contest. While I do think Sinema would end up voting with the Democrats more often than not (whereas McSally would be a loyal Trump foot soldier), it’s pathetic how Democrats feel like they have to race to the center even in swing states, while Republicans have no shame about running in swing states as though they’re running to represent Wyoming.

Good point. Doug Jones ran as a pro-choice candidate and won in a 54-42 "pro-life" electorate. This forum kept saying "but muh pro-choice in pro-life Alabama!!!" It's not like many people allow their vote to be influenced by whether or not a candidate is pro-life or not in the first place. Plus, I think someone like Manchin could afford to do his electric slide to the left if Ojeda is already tied with Miller in WV-03, a 73-23 Trump district.

[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).

Why do you say that? She's been representing a pretty blue district (+16 Hillary) yet has the most economically conservative record in the house... even more economically conservative than Colin Peterson, who represents a +30 Trump district.

There have been some votes where she's literally been the only democrat to vote for it. She's not a progressive masquerading as a moderate.

Hell, she's arguably voted more conservative than Joe Donnelly and Heitkamp... although I would say the latter two are more conservative.

I’m referring to after the election. Campaigning and taking office are different. Even past actions are; look at Kirsten Gillibrand from the House to the Senate.

Regardless, I hope I’m wrong. But I still expect her to move to the left in some capacity. There’s a difference between being 1 of 435 Representatives and a more high-profile 1 out of 100 Senators.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Wow, I guess this is FL-SEN 2016 all over again. An empty suit/moderate heroing contest. While I do think Sinema would end up voting with the Democrats more often than not (whereas McSally would be a loyal Trump foot soldier), it’s pathetic how Democrats feel like they have to race to the center even in swing states, while Republicans have no shame about running in swing states as though they’re running to represent Wyoming.

The Republican party has basically decided that it's best move is to embrace Trump and hope the base turns out big, and just divorce itself from Romney-Clinton and Romney-Johnson voters. Meanwhile the Democrats have basically decided that the Clinton Coalition can never be enough and that they need to win over some voters who cast a ballot for Mr. Trump. The differing strategies obviously play out in campaigns and in congress.

[Alabama_Indy10]

Can we change the name of this thread?

[KingSweden]

Wow, I guess this is FL-SEN 2016 all over again. An empty suit/moderate heroing contest. While I do think Sinema would end up voting with the Democrats more often than not (whereas McSally would be a loyal Trump foot soldier), it’s pathetic how Democrats feel like they have to race to the center even in swing states, while Republicans have no shame about running in swing states as though they’re running to represent Wyoming.

The Republican party has basically decided that it's best move is to embrace Trump and hope the base turns out big, and just divorce itself from Romney-Clinton and Romney-Johnson voters. Meanwhile the Democrats have basically decided that the Clinton Coalition can never be enough and that they need to win over some voters who cast a ballot for Mr. Trump. The differing strategies obviously play out in campaigns and in congress.

IMO that is not a smart bet for the GOP to make. Not even in the short to medium term, and definitely not in the long term

[Calthrina950]

Wow, I guess this is FL-SEN 2016 all over again. An empty suit/moderate heroing contest. While I do think Sinema would end up voting with the Democrats more often than not (whereas McSally would be a loyal Trump foot soldier), it’s pathetic how Democrats feel like they have to race to the center even in swing states, while Republicans have no shame about running in swing states as though they’re running to represent Wyoming.

The Republican party has basically decided that it's best move is to embrace Trump and hope the base turns out big, and just divorce itself from Romney-Clinton and Romney-Johnson voters. Meanwhile the Democrats have basically decided that the Clinton Coalition can never be enough and that they need to win over some voters who cast a ballot for Mr. Trump. The differing strategies obviously play out in campaigns and in congress.

IMO that is not a smart bet for the GOP to make. Not even in the short to medium term, and definitely not in the long term

I agree with this. The demographic argument still holds, in my view. The "Trump Coalition", it must be remembered, lost the popular vote in 2016, and is growing weaker in many suburban and urban districts around the country. Younger voters and minorities seem to be gravitating more towards the Democratic Party, and this will have implications on electoral patterns in the future, as older voters die out or become less influential. If Republicans want to remain electorally viable, they need to be moving away from Trump, not embracing him.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Wow, I guess this is FL-SEN 2016 all over again. An empty suit/moderate heroing contest. While I do think Sinema would end up voting with the Democrats more often than not (whereas McSally would be a loyal Trump foot soldier), it’s pathetic how Democrats feel like they have to race to the center even in swing states, while Republicans have no shame about running in swing states as though they’re running to represent Wyoming.

The Republican party has basically decided that it's best move is to embrace Trump and hope the base turns out big, and just divorce itself from Romney-Clinton and Romney-Johnson voters. Meanwhile the Democrats have basically decided that the Clinton Coalition can never be enough and that they need to win over some voters who cast a ballot for Mr. Trump. The differing strategies obviously play out in campaigns and in congress.

IMO that is not a smart bet for the GOP to make. Not even in the short to medium term, and definitely not in the long term

Well I would argue that if the GOP divorced itself from Trump tomorrow (and I mean really divorcing themselves, for example banding with Dems to pass Rounds-King or Hurd-Aguilar by a veto proof majority over Trump's loud objections), it would hurt them in 2018 because it would give their side less reason to actually vote. But you are correct that in the long term they need to figure out something that isn't "bow down to Trump". It's just that figuring that out may require spending a couple cycles in the minority, which parties never want to do, and thinking beyond the very next election, which the GOP has never really been good at doing.

[Blair]

Chuck Schumer is not a team player

I don't get why you posted this?

Schumer as the article pointed out gave $8 million to various other campaigns, and was one of the better DSCC campaign chairs. I don't think him choosing to spend money he raised for himself, in his own race is a bad thing.

Besides, this article just reaffirms Schumer's judgement- he didn't waste money on Murphy's deadwood campaign.

[Mr. Smith]

Chuck Schumer is not a team player

I don't get why you posted this?

Schumer as the article pointed out gave $8 million to various other campaigns, and was one of the better DSCC campaign chairs. I don't think him choosing to spend money he raised for himself, in his own race is a bad thing.

Besides, this article just reaffirms Schumer's judgement- he didn't waste money on Murphy's deadwood campaign.

He didn't save Feingold's either.

[Blair]

Chuck Schumer is not a team player

I don't get why you posted this?

Schumer as the article pointed out gave $8 million to various other campaigns, and was one of the better DSCC campaign chairs. I don't think him choosing to spend money he raised for himself, in his own race is a bad thing.

Besides, this article just reaffirms Schumer's judgement- he didn't waste money on Murphy's deadwood campaign.

He didn't save Feingold's either.

He gave Feingold 100K (which was the same that he gave Duckworth, which is fair considering that they were both seen as safe pickups) Schumer's job wasn't to run the campaign finance for the DSCC for the Democrats in 2016 was it?

Besides, surely the lesson of 2016 is that it doesn't matter how much money you plow into Senate races. I don't get the criticism that Chuck is somehow not a team player, when he was by far the most chartiable democrat in terms of donations in 2016.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Chuck Schumer is not a team player

I don't get why you posted this?

Schumer as the article pointed out gave $8 million to various other campaigns, and was one of the better DSCC campaign chairs. I don't think him choosing to spend money he raised for himself, in his own race is a bad thing.

Besides, this article just reaffirms Schumer's judgement- he didn't waste money on Murphy's deadwood campaign.

He didn't save Feingold's either.

He gave Feingold 100K (which was the same that he gave Duckworth, which is fair considering that they were both seen as safe pickups) Schumer's job wasn't to run the campaign finance for the DSCC for the Democrats in 2016 was it?

Besides, surely the lesson of 2016 is that it doesn't matter how much money you plow into Senate races. I don't get the criticism that Chuck is somehow not a team player, when he was by far the most chartiable democrat in terms of donations in 2016.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When you are leading by 40 points, there is no need to spend 1.49 million on your own race.

[Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Chuck Schumer is not a team player

I don't get why you posted this?

Schumer as the article pointed out gave $8 million to various other campaigns, and was one of the better DSCC campaign chairs. I don't think him choosing to spend money he raised for himself, in his own race is a bad thing.

Besides, this article just reaffirms Schumer's judgement- he didn't waste money on Murphy's deadwood campaign.

It's bad because he doesn't need to spend a cent to win re-election, being in NY and all. 100% of any money he gets should go to other campaigns.

[Maxwell]

lol imagine thinking Bob Casey's voting record in the Senate has been all that pro-life.

His father would be spinning in his grave after some of the vote his son has been making.

[LimoLiberal]

Kyrsten Sinema is probably panicking at the fact that Atlas hates her latest Politico interview, along with her flailing poll numbers - oh wait, she's up by double digits. Atlas may hate it, but it's working. As Nancy Pelosi said - "Just win baby."