All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Panfoot]

Problem is Sanders is very popular with Democrats, they have no problem supporting him as an Independent in VT. Dems hate her and they will field a Senate candidate in 24. If Bernie ran as a Dem he would win the nomination unopposed. She would lose any primary in AZ, She is unpopular and this would only hand the State to the GOP and not by a razor thin margin. Her calculations are unrealistic, even delusional.

Agreed, but she's also in it only for her self, she doesn't care about her constituents at all.

[4theEarth]

I don't think that any politician gets to that level without having skills in deception and acting, but whether they believe in what they are saying is unknown to me. Other than that, the point was to announce the part of the video that got me laughing. Sorry if I'm reading something into this that's not there, but for some reason I get sort of a challenging vibe from you here.

Is a challenge a bad thing? I continue to contend with the moral dualism that pervades this thread, and you seemed part of that. Not that that there are many in opposition here talking up the failings of Democrats.

It just does not seem odd that an emotional appeal was made for a party whose next presidential hopeful is from the Sunshine State and opposes normalization of certain sexual orientations. Republicans clearly see themselves as a Majoritarianism party.

[4theEarth]

Problem is Sanders is very popular with Democrats, they have no problem supporting him as an Independent in VT. Dems hate her and they will field a Senate candidate in 24. If Bernie ran as a Dem he would win the nomination unopposed. She would lose any primary in AZ, She is unpopular and this would only hand the State to the GOP and not by a razor thin margin. Her calculations are unrealistic, even delusional.

If you look at the infographic I posted being popular with Independents and fraction of either party could be a win. user, I think, was not saying she was going to win back party first Dems in large part. Correct me userid if I speak out of turn.

[godisawesome]

If you look at the infographic I posted being popular with Independents and fraction of either party could be a win. user, I think, was not saying she was going to win back party first Dems in large part. Correct me userid if I speak out of turn.

The thing that is debated about Independents is how many of them are actually independents, rather than generally committed voters to one of the parties that just don't identify with it specifically for various reasons. While the exact numbers are debated, its notable how little headway actual third party candidates get in the vast majority of most elections, and how generally, the few successful ones are usually just GOP or Dem candidates who lose their primary but manage to win the regular election anyways.

The support most GOP and Dem candidates count on already includes a large number of unregistered party-line voters - they generally run off the prior elections numbers and whatever trends they see, and usually, those trends are pretty consistent and reliable.

[Tami]

I would not be surprised if Lisa Murkowski switches to Independent sometime in 2023. This could be good for the Democrats.

[worstblogever]

Krazy Krysten knew she was going to be primaried in '24, so she quit the Dems before getting booted out. hey, WBE, what's your opinion on this?

I have many. But the main one being she's a malignant narcissist cosplaying as a Senator that needs to go.

Will Sinema still caucus with the Democrats? If not, she destroys their 51 vote majority. Also, running as a independent in 2024, she could siphon off just enough votes from the Democratic candidate to insure a Republican win (she will not be re-elected as an independent) She is the absolute worse.

Exactly.

She knows she screwed up.

That being said, Sinema is a complete narcissist, imagine leaving the democrats AS SOON as they got the majority in the senate. She felt so comfortable being “kingmaker” of the party but now that she lost that “ability” she decided to bail.

Just a complete fraud.

A friend of a friend took law classes at ASU when Sinema was there. This is a Democrat, and even in 2018, they were like, "Well, I'm voting for her over McSally, but I'm gonna be honest. She is the most vapid twit I ever crossed paths with on campus."

Actually, this makes sense and is the smartest thing she's done politically that I've seen. She's like Bernie Sanders. It takes her out of the primary and if Democrats run someone against her, Republicans likely win the seat given the razor-thin margins. So, it's her only way to stay around.

It is a bit of a dare, isn't it? Like, a hostage situation, effectively, is her only path to re-election. "If you run Gallego or any other Democratic candidate, it splits the liberal vote, and lets a Republican win. So you have to pick ME as an Independent, or concede my seat flips red. HA HA, GOTCHA!"

The only support and funding she's going to get is if the Republican candidate props her up to make sure it happens. Because you cannot find a person from either side of the aisle in this state who support her.



I hope the endgame to this is somebody offers her a ridiculously cherry ambassadorial post like in Italy, or Tahiti, or something, and she just resigns in a year, then Katie Hobbs gets to pick Ruben Gallego as the successor to hold her seat for the remainder of her term, then he or whoever Hobbs picks gets to run as the incumbent.

Whatever Sinema's move here is, it's a desperate attempt to grab some kind of leverage.

[worstblogever]

I would not be surprised if Lisa Murkowski switches to Independent sometime in 2023. This could be good for the Democrats.

She just won a six-year term, so she's not as motivated to win re-election just yet.

[Kirby101]

Agreed, but she's also in it only for her self, she doesn't care about her constituents at all.

Or the country. She has no problem with the Repubs taking the Senate in 24.

[useridgoeshere]

It is a bit of a dare, isn't it? Like, a hostage situation, effectively, is her only path to re-election. "If you run Gallego or any other Democratic candidate, it splits the liberal vote, and lets a Republican win. So you have to pick ME as an Independent, or concede my seat flips red. HA HA, GOTCHA!"

The only support and funding she's going to get is if the Republican candidate props her up to make sure it happens. Because you cannot find a person from either side of the aisle in this state who support her.

I hope the endgame to this is somebody offers her a ridiculously cherry ambassadorial post like in Italy, or Tahiti, or something, and she just resigns in a year, then Katie Hobbs gets to pick Ruben Gallego as the successor to hold her seat for the remainder of her term, then he or whoever Hobbs picks gets to run as the incumbent.

Whatever Sinema's move here is, it's a desperate attempt to grab some kind of leverage.

It is absolutely a dare and a desperate attempt at leverage. I'm just saying that it's the smartest move she had after all the stupid moves she's made. Six years of a Republican Senator, likely a crazy one, since that who runs the Arizona Republican party, and maybe longer, because incumbents are hard to beat. That's a big gamble for D's to challenge her, especially when she has nothing to lose. All she'd have to do is get 2-3% of the vote and the state flips. It's not like Oregon where D's survived a former D running as an independent.

[Kirby101]

Oops. replied to the wrong post.

[Kirby101]

It is absolutely a dare and a desperate attempt at leverage. I'm just saying that it's the smartest move she had after all the stupid moves she's made. Six years of a Republican Senator, likely a crazy one, since that who runs the Arizona Republican party, and maybe longer, because incumbents are hard to beat. That's a big gamble for D's to challenge her, especially when she has nothing to lose. All she'd have to do is get 2-3% of the vote and the state flips. It's not like Oregon where D's survived a former D running as an independent.

I can't see the Dems in AZ rolling over after she betrayed them. There will be Democrats who want to run, and the Party there will not call off the primary. She will not win and only screw the Democrats. And she doesn't care who she hurts.

[Tami]

She just won a six-year term, so she's not as motivated to win re-election just yet.

At teh same time, if she is frustrated with the Republican Party (as I suspect she is) now is the best time to do it. She has 6 years to serve as an Independent, she can't be removed from office, and if she caucuses with the Dems she will get to do more than she would sticking with a lame party.

[Dalak]

Is a challenge a bad thing? I continue to contend with the moral dualism that pervades this thread, and you seemed part of that. Not that that there are many in opposition here talking up the failings of Democrats.

It just does not seem odd that an emotional appeal was made for a party whose next presidential hopeful is from the Sunshine State and opposes normalization of certain sexual orientations. Republicans clearly see themselves as a Majoritarianism party.

Between this and Lindsey Graham's fake tears over the recent run-off election it isn't odd to see, just clearly obvious that they are fake. I would likely say the same about any politician regardless of party, without a good reason to excuse the tears such as the death of a close family member/friend or something significant. The ability to deny loving couples the right to marry doesn't even come close to qualifying, nor does trying to run a convenient and stupid patsy for high office.

I don't understand what you mean about Moral Dualism in regards to this thread, who/what evil have I/we ignored or praised on the Left that would have been condemned if the right was doing it?

As for any majoritarianism in the GoP, that's shot in the foot by the coup on 1/6, the constant attacks on voting rights, and the cries of "the tyranny of the majority" when they are in the minority party.

[4theEarth]

I can't see the Dems in AZ rolling over after she betrayed them. There will be Democrats who want to run, and the Party there will not call off the primary. She will not win and only screw the Democrats. And she doesn't care who she hurts.

What does that mean? Are you equating the victory of a party Democrat with stopping harm? LOL

[Dalak]

What does that mean? Are you equating the victory of a party Democrat with stopping harm? LOL

I'm trying to take you seriously, but unless you've been ignoring how one party is supporting a violent overthrow of an election and encouraging attacks on American citizens and infrastructure over Drag shows then equating Democrats with stopping harm is valid.