U.S politics: You got knocked the Warnocked out:

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What would happen if Collins, Murkowsky, and Romney declared themselves “independent” and started caususing with Sinema and Sanders?

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What would happen if Collins, Murkowsky, and Romney declared themselves “independent” and started caususing with Sinema and Sanders?

Why would Sanders stop caucusing with dems, or murkowski and Romney leave the gop caucus?  If they do that they'd lose all their committee assignments?

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I was about to post that.  What does her move do to Democratic control of Committees. @Fez @DMC @Tywin et al.

As of right now, nothing. Her political career is over though. 

ETA: Personally I'd strip her of all her committee assignments if it didn't have a negative impact.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

If you count failing a drug test while on parole, @Darzin's statement is definitely true.  

Um...kinda?  If you're on parole for committing another crime, obviously the rules are different.  This just seems like being a contrarian for contrarian's sake.

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I was about to post that.  What does her move do to Democratic control of Committees. @Fez @DMC @Tywin et al.

Well, she's clearly not caucusing with the GOP.  Conceivably she could refuse to caucus with either party, making the party composition 50-49-1.  However, while she didn't explicitly say so, that doesn't seem to be the case, and she'll technically still caucus with the Dems:

Quote

While Sanders and King formally caucus with Democrats, Sinema declined to explicitly say that she would do the same. She did note, however, that she expects to keep her committee assignments – a signal that she doesn’t plan to upend the Senate composition, since Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer controls committee rosters for Democrats.

“When I come to work each day, it’ll be the same,” Sinema said. “I’m going to still come to work and hopefully serve on the same committees I’ve been serving on and continue to work well with my colleagues at both political parties.”

If she's expecting to keep her committee assignments then Schumer's almost certainly going to insist she caucuses with the Dems.  This seems more like angling for reelection and avoiding being primaried.

[Fez]

59 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

She said she doesn't expect committee positions to change so I assume she's still planning on caucusing with dems

Senate structure could just refer to which party are the majority, which the Democrats have even without her. Now probably she worked something out with Schumer to keep all her spots, since Schumer really wants 51 instead of 50 seats. But I don't think we know that yet. And this makes me even more suspicious that if Warnock had lost she'd flat out caucus with Republicans.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

34 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Why would Sanders stop caucusing with dems, or murkowski and Romney leave the gop caucus?  If they do that they'd lose all their committee assignments?

 

I’m not saying they would.  I’m asking a hypothetical.  What happens if a small independent third part forms and holds 5 seats in the US Senate preventing either major party from having an outright majority.  Same question for the House of Representatives.  What happens if 30 centrist Republicans and Democrats start their own small party and refuse to caucus with the two major parties?

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

And this makes me even more suspicious that if Warnock had lost she'd flat out caucus with Republicans.

I dunno, the timing suggests the opposite.  If she wanted to caucus with Republicans to upend the majority it'd have been much smarter to do so before the special election, not right after.  The general intuition is if the majority was on the line that would have worked in Walker's favor.  Of course, Sinema being Sinema perhaps she didn't agree with the general intuition.

This seems more like a Lieberman situation except Sinema preemptively making the move before she lost the primary due to Arizona's sore loser rule.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

Senate structure could just refer to which party are the majority, which the Democrats have even without her. Now probably she worked something out with Schumer to keep all her spots, since Schumer really wants 51 instead of 50 seats. But I don't think we know that yet. And this makes me even more suspicious that if Warnock had lost she'd flat out caucus with Republicans.

Same thought. She only sees dollar signs now and it's been that way since she got a taste of power. She doesn't meet or speak with anyone in her state party and every report about her surrounding a major vote is her first and last speaking to the big money that she let's own her. 

She is a wildly selfish individual and a complete disgrace. Philosophically she stands for nothing anymore except for her own financial interest. There's not enough sharks in the ocean for people like this.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

She is a wildly selfish individual and a complete disgrace. Philosophically she stands for nothing anymore except for her own financial interest. There's not enough sharks in the ocean for people like this.

How is this not a serious Ethics problem for Sinema?

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, DMC said:

I dunno, the timing suggests the opposite.  If she wanted to caucus with Republicans to upend the majority it'd have been much smarter to do so before the special election, not right after.  The general intuition is if the majority was on the line that would have worked in Walker's favor.  Of course, Sinema being Sinema perhaps she didn't agree with the general intuition.

This seems more like a Lieberman situation except Sinema preemptively making the move before she lost the primary due to Arizona's sore loser rule.

Perhaps. But I don't think she fully thought this out either. Even if Democrats stand down, which I don't think is likely, they aren't going to financially support her or organize a campaign for her. Her own base is so tiny I can't see how she gets the volunteers necessary for a modern campaign. She may get a lot of corporate donations, but it's grassroots donations that fuel the really big fundraising hauls. And I suspect a decent chunk of Dems would sit out a her v. R race. Meanwhile, she voted to impeach Trump twice so I don't see her getting much crossover support either.

Basically I fail to see how she wins reelection even without a Democrat running. I think the much smarter move, especially after seeing Kelly's win, would've been to spend the next 18 months being a  loyal and vocal Democrat and hoping voters' short memories would protect her the primary.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

How is this not a serious Ethics problem for Sinema?

It's not, which should enrage people. Every time there was a major vote was it reported that she held town halls with everyday people or she had meetings with uber rich corporate donors?

But to address your question, ethics are dead. They have been since before I was born if we're being honest, but idk if it's ever been so blatant. 

[Maithanet]

I think sinema knows that she won't win a primary in 2024.  So she will run as an independent and avoid accountability to Democratic voters.  She knows that if the Dems run someone they will split the vote in the general election and likely hand the seat to the Republicans.  

So she is hoping the Dems don't dare run anyone against her.  That probably won't happen, but nonetheless, it is bad news for Dems holding the seat.  Even if sinema only got 4 percent, that is probably enough to hand the seat to the Republicans.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

But I don't think she fully thought this out either.

In terms of her reelection chances I suspect she viewed her chances in a Democratic primary as slim to none - no matter what she does in the next two years.  And think she's right about that.  In that vein, the move - and its timing - makes a lot of sense.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think sinema knows that she won't win a primary in 2024.  So she will run as an independent and avoid accountability to Democratic voters.  She knows that if the Dems run someone they will split the bitter in the general election and likely have the seat to the Republicans.  

So she is hoping the Dems don't dare run anyone against her.  That probably won't happen, but nonetheless, it is bad news for Dems holding the seat.  Even if sinema only got 4 percent, that is probably enough to hand the seat to the Republicans.

So then she's a Republican and should caucus with them. 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

So then she's a Republican and should caucus with them. 

Well, the data actually supports her running as an independent.  She is generally unpopular in the state, but her favorability is remarkably evenly divided.  37/57 among Dems, 36/54 among Republicans, and 41/51 among Independents.  I'm not happy about the move either, but it's hard to argue this isn't the smart strategic move for her.  As Maith suggested, I strongly suspect this is giving Gallego pause about running for her seat.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Well, the data actually supports her running as an independent.  

Fuck the data. How about be an actual fucking human being? She's in the position she is in because she's been a complete piece of shit.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Fuck the data. How about be an actual fucking human being? She's in the position she is in because she's been a complete piece of shit.

I suppose I'm just not particularly surprised a politician would do what the numbers suggest to maximize her chances at getting reelected.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

I suppose I'm just not particularly surprised a politician would do what the numbers suggest to maximize her chances at getting reelected.

Her chances of getting reelected were best if she made the state and national party proud and acted in their interests. Instead she cashed in on becoming a senator and did it a way that was painfully obvious for everyone to see. 

Quint died for her sins.

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Her chances of getting reelected were best if she made the state and national party proud and acted in their interests. Instead she cashed in on becoming a senator and did it a way that was painfully obvious for everyone to see. 

Sure, obviously her chances would have been better if she behaved like Kelly has the past two years.  Then again, looking at this amorally (or arguably immorally), her actions provided her with a fundraising base outside of the Democratic party.

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Quint died for her sins.

Who?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Sure, obviously her chances would have been better if she behaved like Kelly has the past two years.  Then again, looking at this amorally (or arguably immorally), her actions provided her with a fundraising base outside of the Democratic party.

She's used her entire time as a Senator to make money for herself. 

Quote

Who?