comment: >
  
  Her goal is to scare the democratic party into not running a candidate or atleast not backing a candidate in exchange for caucusing with them as an independent or else she draws enough votes away from the Ds to spoil the race in favor of the Republican
context: That's been kind of obvious.  The question is mostly whether she would disrupt the election enough to make the Republican win or if Democrats would mostly ignore her. >
  
  How could you be a Democrat and vote for her after what she’s done? She’s done literally the opposite of what she’s campaigned on. Polls have shown she is the most hated person in the Senate. I don’t think she’s going to pull Dem votes as an independent. >
  
  I'm from Connecticut.  I saw Joe Lieberman win in 2006 after losing the primary.  
  You don't need to swing that many Democrats to fuck everything up, and at least a couple of them are going to see her corporate centrism as a good thing. >
  
  I can attest, live in CT and had to listen to that ahole for many more years then we should have. >
  
  Likewise.  I once wrote to him,  urging his support for legislation to protect LGB civil rights, which were under  attack (again).
  His response: a weasel-worded statement that he'd consider it if the legislation didn't make us "a protected class".  So protection... but only if it doesn't actually protect. 
  On his good days, he was a spineless, self-serving fuck. >
  
  I notice you didn't include the T. I hope that was unintentional >
  
  Thanks for noticing.
  It was completely intentional. I was relating a historical event from an era when trans issues weren't part of any public dialogue. There were no politicians attacking or defending trans people then, so writing "LGBTQ" would not have been accurate. 
  Those issues are alive today of course. When I discuss something current I use LGBTQ. >
  
  It annoys me so much that you had to defend yourself to this, to someone chastising you so arrogantly. Like you did something wrong, by NOT being a trans-rights activist. It's like... "How dare you ask for gay marriage protections and not bring up gender affirming care!" 
  Its like people forget that LGB and T are not the same thing, and that those two respective movements are decades and populations (like, percentage per Capita) apart. There's nothing wrong with strategically pushing for change in small pieces. Unrelated, potentially offensive but honest thought: Sometimes I worry that the push for Trans rights is going to cost me my gay rights, because of how polarized shit has become. It seems like society is regressing about LGBT in general, largely because of the fight over trans rights.
  Edited for clarity >
  
  Just a quick question, who were the main people involved in Stonewall again? The queer movement has always been interwoven with all its parts, the gay and trans portions particularly. >
  
  Yep, and Im not debating that. I probably should've made it a little more clear what I meant, but the association between lgb and t has always been based on mutual support, not identical experiences.  Meaning, you can be talking about one and not the other, without meaning bad towards the other. Case in point, if I write to my rep asking him to support gay marriage, it doesn't mean I'm acting maliciously towards the cause of gender affirming care, etc
  Furthermore, the fight for one is at a different stage than the fight for another, (e:) regardless of the intervowen nature of it. Change takes time, steps. It's not wrong to push for change on one thing. Doesn't mean you can't still support the whole movement outside of that one interaction >
  
  I voted for her the first time regrettably & you can bet your ass I’ll vote against her this time around. >
  
  I’m really confused by who the 24% is that has a favorable view. The politically illiterate? >
  
  Good. It's time for someone new. Someone who actually gives a shit about their constituents. >
  
  Problem is she's going to take down whoever runs under the Democratic ticket.
  It's making the Arizona GOP salivate. >
  
  Tell me you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article. >
  
  The article literally has Lake ahead by 1 in a potential 3-way matchup. Now that’s by no mean definitive, especially considering the margin by which Lake just lost a two way race for governor, but the threat is real. >
  
  Plus it's a poll by Gallegos's campaign.  They'd need to show him having the potential to win in this scenario if they don't want dems to abandon him in droves before it's even primary season. >
  
  Yea, if I’ve learned anything from following Rakich and Wasserman on twitter all these years, it’s that if the best your internal poll can do is show you up 1-3 points, you’re in a much weaker position than you’re trying to demonstrate. >
  
  This is a proof of concept poll years out, not a horse race poll. The race hasn't even begun yet. But Sinema is so deep under water, it's basically open season for lame duck hunting. >
  
  Something tells me she won't run in 2024. She's doing anything and everything to gain corporate money handouts as her get rich quick scheme and then fade from politics. We all saw it the moment she openly started ignoring people who were asking her questions and when she infamously voted against raising minimum wage. 
  Just another corporate asshole. >
  
  She is running for president. I am not saying she isn’t an idiot, because she definitely is, but it’s frustrating to see people genuinely believe she cares about her Arizona senate seat, and I say that as someone who hates himself for knocking on doors for her in south Phoenix while the mango Mussolini was in office lol >
  
  She will lose that as well.  Republicans will never vote for someone who is an espoused bisexual, and Democrats won't vote for her because she is a turncoat.  Also if she runs as an independent she basically has zero chance of getting any EVs, if she can even make it on the ballot.  Independents are a big chunk of AZ voters but nationally that's not the case.  Nationally independents are more likely to be non-voters. >
  
  She will lose but she’ll make money in the process and be given a make work job as a lobbyist for several hundred thousand a year minimum. >
  
  Indeed >
  
  That's the point. She's not the to win, she's there to siphon votes at this point. >
  
  Rs will vote Rs.
  She will siphon D votes.  The moderate democrats.
  I've already noticed she's been making herself look older to appeal to more moderate retiree voters.
  Wouldn't be surprised if she starts dying her hair gray like Joni Ernst did.  When (edit: Ernst) ran 1st term she had young, short, dark hair to pull the ex-military tough girl angle.
  Then when her husband divorced her she suddenly grew her hair out and let it gray to make herself look 60. >
  
  The article does not suggest she is siphoning votes away from either party. The two likely D and R primary challengers are polling in a dead heat regardless of whether she runs. >
  
  Yeah, I was mostly saying Sinema is going to spend the next 2 years changing her image to cozy up to the moderate voters that she's able to draw to her side (retirees).
  Then she can threaten the Democratic party with being a spoiler candidate.
  She wore all that cutesy crap to make her image young and hip despite being a mid 40s Gen Xer to get elected.
  We're going to see her pivot to make herself look "more mature".
  Perception is still a huge part of politics, as vain as it is. >
  
  What's the point of this though she won't get in as a senator again?  So it's just spite? >
  
  It's just a bunch of bullshit that people who think politics is Game of Thrones believe. She's just a dumb idiot. >
  
  All she had to do was be the Democrat she was hired to be but she wants to play stupid political games because she needs to be the center of attention.  Enjoy that Fox News guest job, you sure earned it. >
  
  She went independent because she was destined to be primaried.  She may take votes away mostly from the republican candidate, but she'll lose.
  Just watch.  She may use her remaining time to make deals for golden parachutes for herself.  IMHO, money seduced her.  She loves those pretty fashions. >
  
  She's always been a narcissist. I don't know if you've heard interviews with her, but it's off the charts obvious. >
  
  The best thing that could come from this is that she won't even be able to function as a lobbyist because no one trusts her. I guess it'll be quirky wigs and tight skirts over at fox news! >
  
  She deserves it! Horrible narcissist! >
  
  This isn’t surprising.  A bunch of idiots were saying the Dems would get crushed if they nominated anybody else.  Absolute delusion.  
  She’s more popular with Republicans than Democrats.  She’s not stealing a significant portion of the D voter base no matter what letter she chooses to put next to her stigmatized name. >
  
  It's always impressive to see the people who don't read the article at all.
  According this poll, she's not siphoning off Democratic support. With her it's 41/40/13 (D/R/other) and without it's (48/47). She's so inconsequential, she doesn't actually affect the race at all. She takes equal support from both parties. She has NO influence. >
  
  
  she's not siphoning off Democratic support. With her it's 41/40/13 (D/R/other) and without it's (48/47).
  
  With Sinema in a three way race it's 41% Lake (r), 40% Gallego (d), and 13% Sinema (I).   Only if it's a two way race can Gallego hit 48% and Lake received 47%. 
  
  She takes equal support from both parties.
  
  No she doesn't.
  The polling:
  
  Although Sinema would not have a serious path to victory as an independent candidate she could have a spoiler effect since she gets 14% from Biden voters but only 9% from Trump voters.
  
  Sinema takes 50% more Democratic voters than Republican voters in this poll. >
  
  There's a 3.8% margin of error, the few percent difference in this poll doesn't mean much, statistically it's a tie. It's a statistical tie whether she's in it or not. >
  
  Interesting that when she announced switching to independent she said AZ voters elected her to be an independent.  Uh, no, they thought you were a democrat! >
  
  I mean frankly I think Dems might be almost be better off with Sinema running third party. Talk about a great receptacle for people who can't stomach voting for a Democrat but also aren't into fascism. >
  
  Unless the GOP nominates Ducey or similar >
  
  If Republicans start nominating non-loons again that sort of counts as a victory. >
  
  Those non-loons caucaus with loons and suddenly you can't pass laws or appoint judges or cabinet level positions (if Dems have Presidency and the Republicans have the Senate).
  Keeping the Senate is huge. >
  
  Still far better than a loon majority though. >
  
  Who do you think ushered in the loons in the first place? >
  
  It's not about whether she'd win but whether she'd split the D/I vote enough to get the Republican elected. >
  
  She has a significantly higher approval rating among Republicans than she does Democrats and Independents. >
  
  Republicans like her because she fucks over Democrats! >
  
  In the end the sad part is, she got plenty of what she wanted. She took corporate bribes and they'll pay it off even more out of office. Too bad we won't elect real reform candidates that close the loopholes off. >
  
  Future lobbyist Kyrsten Sinema is probably not too concerned >
  
  Sure. But that’s not the worry, it is her running a general as an independent and syphoning votes from the D candidate. >
  
  As the article points out, she gets crushed if runs as an independent; but  the Lake - R / Gallego - D race is about equally split whether she runs or not. She's only got leverage if it maters to the that outcome; and according to this (very, very early) poll, it doesn't. >
  
  And, even though you're correctly summarizing the poll, I'd still find that incredibly difficult to believe.  I think that I'd need to see a handful of polling with those same conditions before I could be convinced otherwise.
  Would it be great if she's really a moot factor?  Absolutely.  But it just sounds completely counter-intuitive. >
  
  Yeah, "a single swallow doesn't make a summer" as the saying goes; so we'll have to wait to see how it sorts out. >
  
  I hope I get the chance to vote against her. Like several times. >
  
  Her career is over. Both Democrats and Republicans hate her. >
  
  Her goal is to be the democratic spoiler. Not the winner.