Absolutely stunning remarks made by Senator Kyrsten Sinema while asking for funds from democrats for her upcoming elections in 2024 (primary likely losing to Representative Ruben Gallego and general election unknown opponent). I am completely flummoxed by these insane comments by her. I can’t begin to imagine what she is thinking here. They are indefensible.
Azi Paybarah
“Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) on Monday engaged ina mutual admiration exchange with the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), expressed support restoring elements of the filibuster and suggested that Republicans might win control of the House or Senate in the midterm elections. …There (McConnell Center in Louisville, Kentucky), McConnell effusively praised Sinema in his introduction, saying she is the “most effective first-term senator” he’s seen during his 37 years in the Senate. “
The author notes that other democrats have spoken there as well. However, her appearance “came just weeks before midterm elections as several of her Democratic colleagues are campaigning to help the party hold onto the House and Senate in November. ‘As you all know, control changes between the House and the Senate every couple of years. It’s likely to change again in just a few weeks’ Sinema said’
Here’s what Keith Olbermann had to say:
The Senate is still forecast to remain in the hands of the Democratic Party and with improved polling and momentum on our side, it is possible that we retain the House of Representatives as we have a four point lead in the generic ballot.
Democrats see the once unthinkable: A narrow path to keeping the House
While Democrats acknowledge they still face major hurdles, there has been an unmistakable mood shift, according to interviews with candidates, strategists and officials
Updated August 27, 2022 at 7:39 p.m. EDT|Published August 27, 2022 at 7:01 p.m. EDT
Democrats are voicing growing confidence about limiting losses in the House and potentially even salvaging their majority in the midterm elections
In four special elections for House seats since that decision — including in New York’s 19th District, where the party’s candidate centered his campaign on abortion — Democrats outperformed Biden’s 2020 showing. The resounding defeat of an antiabortion ballot measure in conservative Kansas was more evidence of the galvanizing effect of the court’s decision and subsequent attempts to curtail abortion rights
At the White House and in Biden’s inner circle, top aides have become more bullish about the House. “Look, the generic data on the House side is in our favor right now,” a Biden adviser said at an Aug. 11 meeting with reporters. “I can tell you, this thing is very competitive across the country. You guys have not caught up to this yet.”
Nate Silver (70/30 republicans favored to retake the House of Representatives) says: Things are improving for the democrats in the House even though they are still underdogs. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs Wade, polls for the race for Congress have inched towards democrats. The question now is whether that shift will last or if these polls shift back toward Republicans, as historically speaking, the party not in the White House does better in the midterms”
He also says that the Democratic Party is slightly favored to retain the Senate (68/32).
Notice the two point difference between the Democratic Party’s likeliness to retain the Senate and the Republican Party’s likeliness to retake the House of Representatives is enough of a difference to alter the language from favored to only slightly favored. When one reads Nate relying upon history to buttress his conclusion, then it’s not unreasonable to understand that we are likely to be in better shape than he states. I still believe we are underdogs, but it’s likely close and we have a very real chance of retaining control of both chambers of Congress. Relying upon historical patterns rather than looking at the reason for the results in the historical patterns is a mistake. If what accounts for the pattern no longer holds, then the trend is meaningless. This has been explained on twitter (can’t find the link- sorry).
Lawrence O’Donnell excoriated her for good reason:
He went on to say that if Sinema truly believed in what the forefathers advocated she would actually be staunchly opposed to the 60-vote majority, as the Constitution she purports to admire was very specific about the requirement of a majority vote, with the exception of treaties and impeachment convictions, which take a two-thirds vote.
"The number 60 never appears in the Constitution, which seems to live in her imagined version of the Constitution," O'Donnell explained. "The simple majority vote is a dangerous and fickle threshold for governing in a democracy. Why should only five members of the United States Supreme Court get to decide the final interpretation of the law of the land? Why doesn't Sen. Sinema advocate a minimum of a 60-vote threshold in the United States Supreme Court, instead of a majority? Why is the United States of America the only country that has a 60 percent threshold to win a vote in a national legislative body?"
Senator Sinema has more support from republicans than from democrats. That’s really bad for an incumbent in the Democratic Party because republicans are going to vote for the Republican Party’s candidate, not the democrat who’s like a diet republican. At one point, Civiqs had her with eight percent of democrats approving of her job performance.
She doesn’t have as much support from independents in Arizona as Senator Kelly does and is in deep trouble according to polling.
Forty-eight percent of likely voters in Arizona disapprove of Sinema’s performance as senator, including 57% of voters in her own party. Conversely, only 42% of voters—and only 34% of Democrats—approve of her performance.
Sinema’s abysmal approval numbers come after a year in which she’s repeatedly obstructed President Joe Biden’s economic agenda and refused to reform or eliminate the filibuster-–an arcane Senate procedure that effectively requires 60 votes to pass most bills, instead of a simple majority.
Those actions have made her increasingly unpopular among key demographics that make up the Democratic base in Arizona: Voters under 45 disapprove of her by a 20-point margin, college graduates disapprove by a 13-point margin, and Latinos disapprove by a 12-point margin.
In comparison, likely voters largely approve of Arizona’s other senator, Democrat Mark Kelly. Fifty-four percent of voters—including 91% of Democrats and 57% of independents—approve of Kelly, compared to only 42% of voters who disapprove. Kelly, who is up for re-election this year, has been more supportive of Biden’s economic agenda than Sinema.
Here’s an example of a recent email I received from her (unsure how I ended up on her email list):
But her argument in front of McConnell was that those of us who want things that don’t have the support of 60 senators are children who shouldn’t get what they want means as she knows that there is no chance that the WHPA legislation ever becomes law. Sixty is an arbitrary number. What’s so special about 60? Why not 59? Why not 61? Why is it that wanting Roe vs Wade codified even though it doesn’t have 60 senators supporting it makes a voter a spoiled child? Why is it that wanting voting rights/democracy legislation passed despite it not having 60 senators supporting it makes one a spoiled child? Why is the filibuster, a Senate rule not even in the Constitution, more important than women’s bodily autonomy or legislation protecting our democracy or voting rights legislation? It isn’t. There is no way to justify that belief. It’s particularly galling and tone deaf for her to write about supporting pro-choice policy while not supporting what’s necessary for it to become law and doing so after Dobbs and the obvious momentum from an army of pro-choice people including especially pro-choice women.
She is trying to raise money already, two years ahead of time. I suspect that this fundraising is not going well. It’s interesting that she is doing so before the 2022 midterms. Why is she raising funds? Is she trying to see how weak she is? Is she trying to build a war chest so that she can defeat Representative Ruben Gallego in the upcoming 2024 primary? Does she really think that she is going to change the settled opinion of Arizona democrats with money? That would be a silly belief. I am trying to figure out what her end game is? Does she want to get on a board? She is not going to be picked for a progressive or Democratic Party led board and it’s hard to see her being chosen for a conservative or Republican Party led board. The juxtaposition with Senator Kelly really makes her look bad because while Senator Kelly does vote more conservatively than any other democrat in the Senate, but he doesn’t seek out attention while shooting down bills supported by almost all other senators who caucus with the Democratic Party. He doesn’t team up with Senator Manchin to defeat Democratic Party priorities or President Biden’s Build Back Better Agenda. Senator Kelly does not praise Mitch McConnell. Senator Kelly does not support the filibuster. Yet he has more support from independents than she does. So, if her goal was to get support from independents, then it failed and it’s clearly not necessary to support the filibuster to be supported by a majority of independent voters.
Predicting a loss by our Democratic Party when that is likely to lead to losing our democracy in 2024 is unacceptable.