Support NeoGAF

[whyamihere]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...nate-race-hoping-unseat-jeff-flake/609555001/

U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is running for the Senate seat held by Jeff Flake, ending months of speculation about her political future and giving Democrats a top-tier fundraiser with experience on Capitol Hill.

In a video announcing her bid, the Arizona Democrat recounts her upbringing in a family that fell from the middle class into homelessness. She made her way to Congress, Sinema says, with hard work and help from "family, church and, sometimes, even the government."

"I really feel like I have a duty to serve and give back to this country, which has given so much to me," she said in an interview with The Arizona Republic. "Working hard is all I know; it's who I am. I believe I'll be the hardest worker for Arizonans in the United States Senate."

Sinema, who has a reputation as an energetic problem-solver not focused on partisanship, said she intends to make her work on behalf of military veterans and cutting regulatory red tape for businesses core issues of her campaign.

"Our nation is facing a lot of problems right now, but we can fix these problems if we work together," Sinema says in the video. "It's time to put our country ahead of party, ahead of politics. It's time to stop fighting and look for common ground."

Arizona Democrats, who haven't won a Senate race since 1988, will have to choose between candidates like Abboud, a novice whoembraces progressive policies, and Sinema, who has won three terms in the House, in part by working with Republicans.

Democrats nationally see Flake's seat as a key opportunity in an otherwise dreary Senate map for the left in 2018.

Sinema is among the top fundraisers in the House, adding new financial pressure to Flake.

So far this year, Sinema has voted in line with the Trump administration's known preferences 49 percent of the time, according to the website FiveThirtyEight. By that measure, she is the third-most GOP-friendly Democrat so far this year.

By contrast, Flake has voted with the administration 92 percent of the time. Seven of the other 51 Republicans in the Senate have lower marks, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

Sinema has occasionally frustrated Democrats with what she sees as a need for moderation. She has declined to vote for Nancy Pelosi as her party's leader in the House. She also skipped a Tempe rally for Hillary Clinton at the end of the 2016 presidential campaign.

She is friendly with Republicans in the House, including Arizonans like former Rep. Matt Salmon and his successor, Rep. Andy Biggs, both of whom are among the most conservative members of the GOP.

Sinema frequently cosponsors Republican bills, enough to make her the third-most bipartisan member of the House and the fourth-most conservative Democrat in the Congress that ended in 2016, according to GovTrack, a nonpartisan organization that monitors congressional activity. She was near the bottom of House sophomores at attracting influential cosponsors to her own bills, GovTrack found.

Sinema's bipartisanship extends to social media, where she routinely passes along birthday wishes to colleagues in both parties.

Announcement video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Pp0o_EtiWU&feature=youtu.be

 

[DogDude]

We can do better

 

[JustenP88]

So, Pelosi and Clinton are too liberal for her. Weird.

 

[tbm24]

Hope she unseats flake.

 

[zero_suit]

Do Dems have anyone else in AZ to run against Flake? Voting with Trump 49 percent of the time...yikes.

 

[j_k_redtail]

50 state strategy.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

We can do better

In Arizona?

 

[Tall4Life]

we'll take what we can get

 

[snap]

On one hand, she'll be a good candidate for disenchanted GOP voters and will have the Dems baked in just through party affiliation.

On the other, she'd just be another Manchin.

Do Dems have anyone else in AZ to run against Flake? Voting with Trump 49 percent of the time...yikes.

Kirkpatrick got within spitting distance of McCain in 2016.

 

[R10Neymarfan]

We can do better

So, Pelosi and Clinton are too liberal for her. Weird.

Well Arizona is very conservative

 

[fredrancour]

On one hand, she'll be a good candidate for disenchanted GOP voters and will have the Dems baked in just through party affiliation.

On the other, she'd just be another Manchin.

1 more manchin would've meant no devos

 

[120v]

it's arizona. probably the best shot

 

[whyamihere]

We can do better

Sort of tough in Arizona. Gallego is probably too liberal for a statewide run in Arizona.

Her history is sort of funny. She was once a Green Party member (was Nader's AZ spokeswoman!) and then one of the most liberal members of the AZ House when she finally ran as a Dem instead of a Green.

Kirkpatrick got within spitting distance of McCain in 2016.

Not quite, and she's running for AZ-2 against McSally.

 

[RPGCrazied]

I think we need to be more worried about replacing people like Roy Moore, That dude can't win, but its Alabama so he probably will.

 

[Flying Toaster]

She has my vote. No one in Arizona is surprised by this as she was either going for Flakes seat or McCain's.

 

[whyamihere]

I think we need to be more worried about replacing people like Roy Moore, That dude can't win, but its Alabama so he probably will.

I'm very okay with trying to stop both Flake and Moore and making Schumer the majority leader of the Senate with whatever coalition possible.

 

[Mael]

I know it's Arizona and it's rich in fossils and everything but can we get something else than a dino to run against the fossils of the GOP?

 

[kirblar]

50 state strategy.

Yup and.....

Sort of tough in Arizona. Gallego is probably too liberal for a statewide run in Arizona.

Her history is sort of funny. She was once a Green Party member (was Nader's AZ spokeswoman!) and then one of the most liberal members of the AZ House when she finally ran as a Dem instead of a Green.

This indicates she's actually a good politician (aka good at that whole lying thing.) Being able to adapt to a different electorate (which the Clinton/Pelosi snubs are clearly aimed at) that doesn't share your personal views is a good thing.

 

[VendettaRed07]

She's probably the best chance we'd have for the state

And yeah, her having a history of railing against Pelosi and Clinton will likely be a net positive for her given where she is

 

[Friend of Sonic]

I'm in AZ and I'd take her over Flake. That 49% sure does suck though

 

[JettDash]

I think we need to be more worried about replacing people like Roy Moore, That dude can't win, but its Alabama so he probably will.

Roy Moore and Jeff Flame will vote the same that vast majority of the time. But Flake is more beatable.

 

[SolarPowered]

I'll take her 49%. She just better not fuck us when we need her in 2020 and beyond for healthcare and other legislation or there will surely be hell to pay.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

So far this year, Sinema has voted in line with the Trump administration's known preferences 49 percent of the time, according to the website FiveThirtyEight. 

Yeah no thanks. Democrats don't want republican-lite and republicans don't want republican-lite so I don't know why we keep pushing this dumb strategy.

 

[Mathieran]

Never heard of her. Not a huge fan of what I see but at least she would be a step up from flake.

 

[snap]

Not quite, and she's running for AZ-2 against McSally.

she polled above him at points and only lost by 10 pts in a state Trump carried

 

[Tall4Life]

Yeah no thanks. Democrats don't want republican-lite and republicans don't want republican-lite so I don't know why we keep pushing this dumb strategy.

Do you want a Democrat in office or a hard R?

 

[kirblar]

Yeah no thanks. Democrats don't want republican-lite and republicans don't want republican-lite so I don't know why we keep pushing this dumb strategy.

It's not about what Democrats want, it's what swing voters in a Red State want.

 

[whyamihere]

Yeah no thanks. Democrats don't want republican-lite and republicans don't want republican-lite so I don't know why we keep pushing this dumb strategy.

It actually worked for Hillary in Arizona and she probably would've won it if she had higher favorables.

she polled above him at points and only lost by 10 pts in a state Trump carried

That's not spitting distance though. 10 points is a lot. Hillary came within spitting distance.

 

[jack_package_200]

The most conservative of democrats are still infinitely better than republicans.

She seems perfect for turning a red seat blue. All part of the 50 state strategy.

Hope she wins.

 

[JettDash]

Yeah no thanks. Democrats don't want republican-lite and republicans don't want republican-lite so I don't know why we keep pushing this dumb strategy.

Better to have someone who votes with Trump the vast majority of the time?

Leftists are so dumb sometimes.

 

[tbm24]

Yeah no thanks. Democrats don't want republican-lite and republicans don't want republican-lite so I don't know why we keep pushing this dumb strategy.

Democrats would do well to remember you get elected by your state constituents, not random people online.

 

[Tall4Life]

Having centrists like her is kind of necessary for the Democrat party to survive and progress. No matter what change has happened this country is still a deeply conservative one with strong conservative roots. Slowly we're moving away from that, and it'll take a long time. You're not gonna suddenly see 60 hardcore far-left liberals in the Senate. That's also why Republicans get to worry less about centrists -- what they're pushing is what's rooted in America, they're not trying to change America's marker on the spectrum.

 

[JettDash]

Krysten Sinema did not vote for Trumpcare. Jeff Flake did.

If you don't want Trumpcare, and this is not enough for you to vote for her over him, you are a brain dead moron.

 

[Ryuuroden]

She's good and the gop friendly shit is all targeted stuff where her vote didn't matter but would make her look good to conservative Arizona voters. Thing is, if you control the house or Senate, that conservative shit will never show up to be voted on and just like manchen, her vote can be counted on when necessary. Republicans do the same shit with their "moderates"

Edit: vote didn't matter as in her vote was not the deciding vote. Too bad a lot of the purity test dems can't tell the difference between political calculated votes and actual dogmatic beliefs.

 

[whyamihere]

lol, k.

@FlakeforSenate
.@KrystenSinema is a radical progressive who is out-of-touch with Arizona #AZSen

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Do you want a Democrat in office or a hard R?

Obviously a Democrat, but I'd rather run with someone who's actually appealing to a tangible demographic. People like Manchin are in office from name recognition and getting in before the state swing hard and fast to the right, not so much because the people of WV have a nuanced appreciation for his moderate approach to governance. Why on earth is a Trump voter going to go for a moderate democrat when they can just go for the real deal? Seems like we'd be losing more people on the left than we'd be gaining in the middle. Don't think modern democrats have much tolerance for people who will work with Trump in any capacity on conservative initiatives.

It's not about what Democrats want, it's what swing voters in a Red State want.

I just find it hard to believe that the modern Trump voter would consider anyone with a D beside their name, moderate or not. This is the same party that thought fairly-moderate-democrat-Obama was literally a communist.

It actually worked for Hillary in Arizona and she probably would've won it if she had higher favorables.



That's not spitting distance though. 10 points is a lot. Hillary came within spitting distance.

Hillary isn't remotely as conservative as this person though.



Edit- post just above mine is the proof in the pudding that it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, a D beside your name makes you a radical progressive. "Moderate" voters will eat that shit up. Might as well actually run a radical progressive and at least soak up the votes on the left.

 

[Sobriquet]

I'll take 49% voting with Trump over 100%

 

[kirblar]

I just find it hard to believe that the modern Trump voter would consider anyone with a D beside their name, moderate or not. This is the same party that thought fairly-moderate-democrat-Obama was literally a communist.

Hillary isn't remotely as conservative as this person though.

There are lots of kinds of voters, Trump and otherwise!

Is this person "conservative"? Politics is about representation. Keeping yourself in office means having to appeal to a constituency!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

she will be more liberal in the senate than her house record shows.

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Yeah no thanks. Democrats don't want republican-lite and republicans don't want republican-lite so I don't know why we keep pushing this dumb strategy.

Yeah much better to have someone that votes with the republicans 100% of the time instead of with the democrats the majority of the time.

 

[Fenderputty]

We can do better

My actual dog would have a better more well thought out post, dude

 

[Makonero]

Any D is better than an R here. I'll be doing my part to get her elected.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I just find it hard to believe that the modern Trump voter would consider anyone with a D beside their name, moderate or not. This is the same party that thought fairly-moderate-democrat-Obama was literally a communist..

we literally had multiple examples of Ds running ahead of clinton last year.

 

[Hades Hotgun]

For anyone complaining about that 49% voting record...


How closely did then senator Obama vote with President Bush?

McCain's campaign is correct on both counts. Though Obama is a loyal Democrat who has opposed Bush on legislation more often than the average for his party in the Senate, running for president hasn't made him significantly more partisan. He opposed Bush 51 percent of the time in 2006 and 60 percent of the time in 2007.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hn-mccain/obama-and-bush-found-common-ground/





49 percent presidential support is actually pretty low, even for Trump.

 

[whyamihere]

Hillary isn't remotely as conservative as this person though.



Edit- post just above mine is the proof in the pudding that it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, a D beside your name makes you a radical progressive. "Moderate" voters will eat that shit up. Might as well actually run a radical progressive and at least soak up the votes on the left.

1. There aren't enough "votes on the left" in Arizona to matter. And Sinema has already deflected those "SHE'S A RADICAL LEFIST" attacks during her 3 congressional runs while others might not be so deft.

2. Hillary made gains in Arizona from Obama, and Trump fell far from Romney.

3. It's worth going after those who voted for Trump but are unhappy with him, and in Arizona, those are suburban moderates (unlike, maybe, in other states).

She's the perfect candidate for Democrats in Arizona. She might not be my perfect candidate, but there's a reason she's done very well in her former swing seat.

 

[JettDash]

I just find it hard to believe that the modern Trump voter would consider anyone with a D beside their name, moderate or not. This is the same party that thought fairly-moderate-democrat-Obama was literally a communist.

Not every Republican thinks that Obama is a communist and not every Trump voter is even a Republican.

 

[Ryuuroden]

Obviously a Democrat, but I'd rather run with someone who's actually appealing to a tangible demographic. People like Manchin are in office from name recognition and getting in before the state swing hard and fast to the right, not so much because the people of WV have a nuanced appreciation for his moderate approach to governance. Why on earth is a Trump voter going to go for a moderate democrat when they can just go for the real deal? Seems like we'd be losing more people on the left than we'd be gaining in the middle. Don't think modern democrats have much tolerance for people who will work with Trump in any capacity on conservative initiatives.



I just find it hard to believe that the modern Trump voter would consider anyone with a D beside their name, moderate or not. This is the same party that thought fairly-moderate-democrat-Obama was literally a communist.




Hillary isn't remotely as conservative as this person though.



Edit- post just above mine is the proof in the pudding that it doesn't matter what your beliefs are, a D beside your name makes you a radical progressive. "Moderate" voters will eat that shit up. Might as well actually run a radical progressive and at least soak up the votes on the left.

Its not the trump voter she wants, its the independents who vote either way.

 

[kirblar]

we literally had multiple examples of Ds running ahead of clinton last year.

We also had many examples of people running behind her. 2016 was a very weird election.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Yeah much better to have someone that votes with the republicans 100% of the time instead of with the democrats the majority of the time.

Wasn't Arizona closer than Wisconsin in 2016, and continually trending bluer? Why are we acting like modern Arizona only deserves the absolute furthest right we can find while still being a registered democrat? I'm not even asking for a purity test here, I'm asking for someone who sides with their own party more than 51% of the time.


Edit- ok, Arizona wasn't closer but Hillary did come 3.5% from winning the state. This is nothing like trying to win seats in Kentucky.

 

[Cat Party]

Yeah no thanks. Democrats don't want republican-lite and republicans don't want republican-lite so I don't know why we keep pushing this dumb strategy.

This worries me as well.