comment: >
  
  There are more independent voters in Arizona 43% if I remember correctly more than Democrat or Republicans voters. The only question is will all the independent voters give their vote to her. I’ll tell you this independent voter is voting for a Democrat or republican
context: She really wants to be a special princess and had to go independent to keep all of the attention on her. 
  If anything she should pull a few Republican votes before losing her next race. 
  For such an intelligent woman she sure couldn’t hide how corrupt and self serving she is. >
  
  I think she understood she has zero chance of winning a Dem or Rep nomination. >
  
  She doesn’t understand how she got there either. >
  
  Or care.
  Ends to a means and the means has nothing to do with participating in government for her constituents. >
  
  
  Sinema becoming an independent seems to dare national Democrats to sit out the statewide contest for fear of ceding the race to a Republican. In theory, that could mean her move is a way to get Democrats to support her in 2024. If Democrats choose not to support Sinema, and quickly unite behind one candidate, it could be difficult for her to find the support she’d need to win.
  
  Here's hoping the Dems play their cards right. >
  
  I predict a Ruben Gallargo, Sinema, and Ducey Senate race in 2024. >
  
  If Sinema can get on the ballot as an Independent, why not Scary Lake too? That would make for a truly interesting affair. >
  
  Yeah, I doubt we’ve heard that last of that crazy person. >
  
  
  Public and private polling by different pollsters and campaigns over the last year and a half all show that she is very unpopular among Democrats in the state, and generally unpopular across the board with white voters and voters of color, voters who are college-educated and not, and men and women.
  
  Who is left to vote for her? >
  
  That's kind of her reasoning. She knows she had no chance running as a Dem on her own so now she's banking on the party begrudgingly backing her or possibly losing the race entirely with her playing spoiler.  
  'what are they gonna do, run a more progressive candidate against me and a Rep. in ARIZONA? No way, they'd rather have me in the Senate than some MAGA Rep.' 
  She thinks she found an exploit. The DNC has been through this before, they like to foist candidates upon voters rather than let the voters speak before backing someone. I think that's what she's hoping for. >
  
  Well, it wouldn’t really be the Democrats, forcing it if that happened, would it? 
  I highly doubt the Democrats are going to leave a senate seat uncontested. >
  
  She's hoping the Dems still back her precisely bc they don't want an unchallenged GOP candidate. If they say 'ok run against the GOP, we're not touching this race' it's an L for them. If they say 'well we'll just run our own candidate' she can siphon votes and it's an L for them. IF she runs as a Dem she has to actually beat someone before the actual election so she's exploiting the system. 
  She's hoping they cave and back her anyway because they don't want to hand the GOP a Senate seat and the party has a habit of picking its own candidates and expecting voters to fall in. Essentially she's betting the party will side with the lesser of 2 evils to maintain a GOP minority. >
  
  She's not going to run as a dem, she just left the party. 
  
  the party has a habit of picking its own candidates and expecting voters to fall in.
  
  Well this certainly would not be a case of picking their own candidates then.
  The party has a "habit" of that in the sense that there are some notable examples of it, but most of the time people bring this up they're just referring to how a progressive candidate got fewer votes in the primary than the more centrist candidate who was likely preferred by the DCC.
  
  Essentially she's betting the party will side with the lesser of 2 evils to maintain a GOP minority.
  
  Sure, but since the democrats won't have problem finding a significantly more popular candidate than her, that's not going to happen. It would be one thing if she wasn't one of the least popular politicians in Arizona, but she is, so, good luck with that. >
  
  Exactly, she knows she'd get primaried as a Dem. She's hoping she'll run Ind. and they'll throw their weight behind her anyway, for the reasons I explained. The party does pick candidates for their voters and until people stop believing the lie that only more centrist candidates can win they're going to keep doing it. Which is what this woman is banking on, they're going to get behind her because they don't want another GOP senator.
  This leads to the last point, they can find someone more popular than her easily, that's not their goal however. They need to find someone more popular than whatever person the GOP runs... by a margin greater than whatever votes she pulls. It's not like she's going to get 3 votes, she's going to get a significant amount and that's her leverage. She has money to spend and even if she pulls 4% of the vote that's 4% the Democrat won't get. >
  
  By handing it to the GOP for one last middle finger to the party that she duped in the first place? She's a traitor to our nation. >
  
  Center Point with Krysten and Tulsi coming to Fox News in 2025! >
  
  My observation, she is most likely thinning the republican vote just as much, if not more. Either way, she doesn't have much of a chance. >
  
  Just stand down, you narcissist. >
  
  Sinema’s ultimate goal is to get a cush lobbying job. If she fucks over the Dems her K Street prospects drop significantly. >
  
  She already fucked over the Dems. She' done. >
  
  I should have been clearer, I was referring to the 2024 election and if she runs and pulls votes from the Dem nominee. As far as I know she still plans on caucusing with Dems which should mean Judges, Judges, and more Judges. >
  
  Well that is dramatic.
  It's a three way race, we've had them before, will have them again.
  Sinema will mostly split the GOP vote so good for Democrats and democrats. >
  
  Forget it, Jake.  It's Arizona. >
  
  Well, she is a chaos goblin. >
  
  She’ll still make money, and so will everyone else, same same. >
  
  The Democrats need to play offense and find a business-friendly Republican candidate to run as an Independent against Simena. >
  
  I'm not sure I follow that strategy, Sinema seems more likely to pull Democratic voters away from a Democratic candidate than Republicans away from a Republican candidate.   Not an Arizonian, though, just an interested observer. >
  
  Arizonan here who voted for her once. Sinema will not pull in Dem votes ever again. She lied about what she would support in office. She is corrupt and self-serving. Dems don't accept liars the way the GOP does. >
  
  The big question would be how Schumer, the DSCC, and national Democratic institutions/donors handle it. Schumer and DSCC can't really cut her off in the same way the state party can, since he still needs/wants her in the caucus as long as she is in the Senate. Would be interesting if different Democratic institutions are backing different candidates in a general election. >
  
  She is Arizona's Trump. Not Lake. >
  
  So I think this article pretty much nailed it. She needs both the Republican primary electorate and the Democratic primary electorate to elect bad candidates to have a shot, and if either of those conditions aren't met, she's retiring.
  I think people here are a little too hard on her. She was instrumental in the gay and interracial marriage bill and bipartisan infrastructure. >
  
  Arizona has been exciting since Goldwater. >
  
  
  Her best case is having Democrats choose a progressive like Gallego, and having Republicans pick a far-right candidate, giving her an opening for moderates from both parties to join independents in voting for her. No candidate needs a majority, so she could theoretically win a plurality.
  
  So her best bet is primary electorates...doing what they do and nominating the fringiest candidates available to them because the two primary electorates are, themselves, each the fringiest ~15% of the general election day electorate.  
  And the article alluded to these voter ID and ideology splits from 2022 in Arizona:
  27% Democrat/33% Republican/40% independent
  22% liberal/36% conservative/42% independent >
  
  2024 is going to be bad for Dems in the Senate one way or another based on the map and demographic shifts. I can definitely see Dems losing AZ because of Sinema. We just saw how razor thin elections are in AZ in 2022, and so even a small split of the Dem vote would equal a GOP win. And then Dems likely will lose in WV, MT, and perhaps Ohio and Wisconsin too. Could see the Dems with 45-46 seats in the end, which could mean permanent irrelevance in the Senate unless Dems can somehow make inroads in red states. >
  
  There are more independent voters in Arizona 43% if I remember correctly more than Democrat or Republicans voters. The only question is will all the independent voters give their vote to her. I’ll tell you this independent voter is voting for a Democrat or republican >
  
  Anyone know what her 2020 vote breakdown (by party) was? >
  
  She really wants to be a special princess and had to go independent to keep all of the attention on her. 
  If anything she should pull a few Republican votes before losing her next race. 
  For such an intelligent woman she sure couldn’t hide how corrupt and self serving she is. >
  
  I think she understood she has zero chance of winning a Dem or Rep nomination. >
  
  She doesn’t understand how she got there either. >
  
  Or care.
  Ends to a means and the means has nothing to do with participating in government for her constituents. >
  
  
  Sinema becoming an independent seems to dare national Democrats to sit out the statewide contest for fear of ceding the race to a Republican. In theory, that could mean her move is a way to get Democrats to support her in 2024. If Democrats choose not to support Sinema, and quickly unite behind one candidate, it could be difficult for her to find the support she’d need to win.
  
  Here's hoping the Dems play their cards right. >
  
  I predict a Ruben Gallargo, Sinema, and Ducey Senate race in 2024. >
  
  If Sinema can get on the ballot as an Independent, why not Scary Lake too? That would make for a truly interesting affair. >
  
  Yeah, I doubt we’ve heard that last of that crazy person. >
  
  
  Public and private polling by different pollsters and campaigns over the last year and a half all show that she is very unpopular among Democrats in the state, and generally unpopular across the board with white voters and voters of color, voters who are college-educated and not, and men and women.
  
  Who is left to vote for her? >
  
  That's kind of her reasoning. She knows she had no chance running as a Dem on her own so now she's banking on the party begrudgingly backing her or possibly losing the race entirely with her playing spoiler.  
  'what are they gonna do, run a more progressive candidate against me and a Rep. in ARIZONA? No way, they'd rather have me in the Senate than some MAGA Rep.' 
  She thinks she found an exploit. The DNC has been through this before, they like to foist candidates upon voters rather than let the voters speak before backing someone. I think that's what she's hoping for. >
  
  Well, it wouldn’t really be the Democrats, forcing it if that happened, would it? 
  I highly doubt the Democrats are going to leave a senate seat uncontested. >
  
  She's hoping the Dems still back her precisely bc they don't want an unchallenged GOP candidate. If they say 'ok run against the GOP, we're not touching this race' it's an L for them. If they say 'well we'll just run our own candidate' she can siphon votes and it's an L for them. IF she runs as a Dem she has to actually beat someone before the actual election so she's exploiting the system. 
  She's hoping they cave and back her anyway because they don't want to hand the GOP a Senate seat and the party has a habit of picking its own candidates and expecting voters to fall in. Essentially she's betting the party will side with the lesser of 2 evils to maintain a GOP minority. >
  
  She's not going to run as a dem, she just left the party. 
  
  the party has a habit of picking its own candidates and expecting voters to fall in.
  
  Well this certainly would not be a case of picking their own candidates then.
  The party has a "habit" of that in the sense that there are some notable examples of it, but most of the time people bring this up they're just referring to how a progressive candidate got fewer votes in the primary than the more centrist candidate who was likely preferred by the DCC.
  
  Essentially she's betting the party will side with the lesser of 2 evils to maintain a GOP minority.
  
  Sure, but since the democrats won't have problem finding a significantly more popular candidate than her, that's not going to happen. It would be one thing if she wasn't one of the least popular politicians in Arizona, but she is, so, good luck with that. >
  
  Exactly, she knows she'd get primaried as a Dem. She's hoping she'll run Ind. and they'll throw their weight behind her anyway, for the reasons I explained. The party does pick candidates for their voters and until people stop believing the lie that only more centrist candidates can win they're going to keep doing it. Which is what this woman is banking on, they're going to get behind her because they don't want another GOP senator.
  This leads to the last point, they can find someone more popular than her easily, that's not their goal however. They need to find someone more popular than whatever person the GOP runs... by a margin greater than whatever votes she pulls. It's not like she's going to get 3 votes, she's going to get a significant amount and that's her leverage. She has money to spend and even if she pulls 4% of the vote that's 4% the Democrat won't get. >
  
  By handing it to the GOP for one last middle finger to the party that she duped in the first place? She's a traitor to our nation. >
  
  Center Point with Krysten and Tulsi coming to Fox News in 2025! >
  
  My observation, she is most likely thinning the republican vote just as much, if not more. Either way, she doesn't have much of a chance. >
  
  Just stand down, you narcissist. >
  
  Sinema’s ultimate goal is to get a cush lobbying job. If she fucks over the Dems her K Street prospects drop significantly. >
  
  She already fucked over the Dems. She' done. >
  
  I should have been clearer, I was referring to the 2024 election and if she runs and pulls votes from the Dem nominee. As far as I know she still plans on caucusing with Dems which should mean Judges, Judges, and more Judges. >
  
  Well that is dramatic.
  It's a three way race, we've had them before, will have them again.
  Sinema will mostly split the GOP vote so good for Democrats and democrats. >
  
  Forget it, Jake.  It's Arizona. >
  
  Well, she is a chaos goblin. >
  
  She’ll still make money, and so will everyone else, same same. >
  
  The Democrats need to play offense and find a business-friendly Republican candidate to run as an Independent against Simena. >
  
  I'm not sure I follow that strategy, Sinema seems more likely to pull Democratic voters away from a Democratic candidate than Republicans away from a Republican candidate.   Not an Arizonian, though, just an interested observer. >
  
  Arizonan here who voted for her once. Sinema will not pull in Dem votes ever again. She lied about what she would support in office. She is corrupt and self-serving. Dems don't accept liars the way the GOP does. >
  
  The big question would be how Schumer, the DSCC, and national Democratic institutions/donors handle it. Schumer and DSCC can't really cut her off in the same way the state party can, since he still needs/wants her in the caucus as long as she is in the Senate. Would be interesting if different Democratic institutions are backing different candidates in a general election. >
  
  She is Arizona's Trump. Not Lake. >
  
  So I think this article pretty much nailed it. She needs both the Republican primary electorate and the Democratic primary electorate to elect bad candidates to have a shot, and if either of those conditions aren't met, she's retiring.
  I think people here are a little too hard on her. She was instrumental in the gay and interracial marriage bill and bipartisan infrastructure. >
  
  Arizona has been exciting since Goldwater. >
  
  
  Her best case is having Democrats choose a progressive like Gallego, and having Republicans pick a far-right candidate, giving her an opening for moderates from both parties to join independents in voting for her. No candidate needs a majority, so she could theoretically win a plurality.
  
  So her best bet is primary electorates...doing what they do and nominating the fringiest candidates available to them because the two primary electorates are, themselves, each the fringiest ~15% of the general election day electorate.  
  And the article alluded to these voter ID and ideology splits from 2022 in Arizona:
  27% Democrat/33% Republican/40% independent
  22% liberal/36% conservative/42% independent >
  
  2024 is going to be bad for Dems in the Senate one way or another based on the map and demographic shifts. I can definitely see Dems losing AZ because of Sinema. We just saw how razor thin elections are in AZ in 2022, and so even a small split of the Dem vote would equal a GOP win. And then Dems likely will lose in WV, MT, and perhaps Ohio and Wisconsin too. Could see the Dems with 45-46 seats in the end, which could mean permanent irrelevance in the Senate unless Dems can somehow make inroads in red states.