The iconoclast US Senator from Arizona has a long-winded op-ed in The Arizona Republic explaining “Why I’m registering as an independent.”
There’s a disconnect between what everyday Americans want and deserve from our politics, and what political parties are offering.
I am privileged to represent Arizonans of all backgrounds and beliefs in the U.S. Senate and am honored to travel to every corner of our state, listening to your concerns and ideas.
While Arizonans don’t all agree on the issues, we are united in our values of hard work, common sense and independence.
We make our own decisions, using our own judgment and lived experiences to form our beliefs. We don’t line up to do what we’re told, automatically subscribe to whatever positions the national political parties dictate or view every issue through labels that divide us.
Each day, Arizonans wake up, work and live alongside people with different views and experiences, usually without even thinking about partisan politics.
Arizonans expect our leaders to follow that example – set aside political games, work together, make progress and then get out of the way so we can build better lives for ourselves and our families.
It’s no surprise that Washington, D.C., often fails to reflect that expectation.
Everyday Americans are increasingly left behind by national parties’ rigid partisanship, which has hardened in recent years. Pressures in both parties pull leaders to the edges, allowing the loudest, most extreme voices to determine their respective parties’ priorities and expecting the rest of us to fall in line.
In catering to the fringes, neither party has demonstrated much tolerance for diversity of thought. Bipartisan compromise is seen as a rarely acceptable last resort, rather than the best way to achieve lasting progress. Payback against the opposition party has replaced thoughtful legislating.
Americans are told that we have only two choices – Democrat or Republican – and that we must subscribe wholesale to policy views the parties hold, views that have been pulled further and further toward the extremes.
Most Arizonans believe this is a false choice, and when I ran for the U.S. House and the Senate, I promised Arizonans something different. I pledged to be independent and work with anyone to achieve lasting results. I committed I would not demonize people I disagreed with, engage in name-calling, or get distracted by political drama.
I promised I would never bend to party pressure, and I would stay focused on solving problems and getting things done for everyday Arizonans.
My approach is rare in Washington and has upset partisans in both parties.
It is also an approach that has delivered lasting results for Arizona.
I work proudly with senators in both parties who have similarly rejected political extremes and forged consensus, helping drain some of the poison from today’s politics.
That includes successful laws I was honored to lead rebuilding our country’s critical infrastructure, protecting our economic competitiveness, addressing historic drought to help secure our water future, expanding veterans’ benefits, boosting innovation and small businesses, protecting marriage access for LGBTQ Americans, strengthening mental health care and making our communities safer, more vibrant places in which to live and raise families.
Because we built support in both parties for these solutions, rather than pursuing more extreme party-line policies, these laws are lasting solutions – less likely to be overturned by a next Congress resulting in whipsawing federal policy, greater uncertainty and deeper divisions.
Americans are more united than the national parties would have us believe. We’ve shown that a diverse democracy can still function effectively.
Arizonans – including many registered as Democrats or Republicans – are eager for leaders who focus on common-sense solutions rather than party doctrine.
But if the loudest, most extreme voices continue to drive each party toward the fringes – and if party leaders stay more focused on energizing their bases than delivering for all Americans – these kinds of lasting legislative successes will become rarer.
It’s no wonder a growing number of Americans are registering as independents. In Arizona, that number often outpaces those registered with either national party.
When politicians are more focused on denying the opposition party a victory than they are on improving Americans’ lives, the people who lose are everyday Americans.
That’s why I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington.
I registered as an Arizona independent.
Like a lot of Arizonans, I have never fit perfectly in either national party.
Becoming an independent won’t change my work in the Senate; my service to Arizona remains the same.
Arizonans who’ve supported my work expanding jobs and economic opportunity, or my opposition to tax hikes that would harm our economic competitiveness, should know my focus on these areas will continue.
Arizonans who share my unwavering view that a woman’s health care decision should be between her, her doctor and her family should know that will always remain my position, as will my belief that LGBTQ Americans should not be denied any opportunity because of who they are or who they love.
For those who support my work to secure the southern border, ensure fair and humane treatment for migrants and permanently protect “Dreamers” who are Americans in all but name, those will remain my priorities.
For Arizonans who’ve supported my work to make health care more affordable and accessible, they should know I will continue that work, as I did when I helped negotiate a historic law allowing Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices while still ensuring robust medical innovation.
But if anyone previously supported me because they believed, contrary to my promise, that I would be a blindly loyal vote for a partisan agenda – or for those who believe our state should be represented by partisans who push divisive, negative politics, regardless of the impact on our state – then there are sure to be others vying for your support.
I offer Arizonans something different.
Some partisans believe they own this Senate seat.
They don’t.
This Senate seat doesn’t belong to Democratic or Republican bosses in Washington.
It doesn’t belong to one party or the other, and it doesn’t belong to me.
It belongs to Arizona, which is far too special a place to be defined by extreme partisans and ideologues.
It’s an honor to represent the state I love so much in the U.S. Senate. And while I do, I pledge to continue doing exactly what I promised – to be an independent voice for Arizona.
Sinema has a knack for garnering attention to herself and, sure enough, she’s trending on Twitter this morning with this announcement.
I can preach it either way in terms of how this impacts her re-election chances. Presumably, this means that she won’t have to win a Democratic primary in 2024 and will secure her own ballot line. Arizona doesn’t do run-offs (they tried briefly and it was a disaster) so it’s possible that she could win the most votes in a three-way race.
It’s not immediately clear if she still intends to caucus with the Democrats. They don’t technically need her, since they have the majority without her, but it would be in their interests if they did, since it allows them majority control on all committees. If so, it would be imprudent to punish her for this stunt by denying her committee assignments. If she doesn’t, though, all bets are off.
It’s also possible that she’s just opening herself up for bidding from a fundraising standpoint. But I don’t know what the end game of that would be.
UPDATE: An interview with POLITICO Congressional bureau chief Burgess Everett adds a bit of clarity.
In a 45-minute interview, the first-term senator told POLITICO that she will not caucus with Republicans and suggested that she intends to vote the same way she has for four years in the Senate. “Nothing will change about my values or my behavior,” she said.
Provided that Sinema sticks to that vow, Democrats will still have a workable Senate majority in the next Congress, though it will not exactly be the neat and tidy 51 seats they assumed. They’re expected to also have the votes to control Senate committees. And Sinema’s move means Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) — a pivotal swing vote in the 50-50 chamber the past two years — will hold onto some but not all of his outsized influence in the Democratic caucus.
Sinema would not address whether she will run for reelection in 2024, and informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of her decision on Thursday.
“I don’t anticipate that anything will change about the Senate structure,” Sinema said, adding that some of the exact mechanics of how her switch affects the chamber is “a question for Chuck Schumer … I intend to show up to work, do the same work that I always do. I just intend to show up to work as an independent.”
[…]
Even before her party switch, she faced rumblings of a primary challenge in 2024 from Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.). Becoming an independent will avoid a head-to-head primary against Gallego or another progressive, should she seek reelection. A theoretical general-election campaign could be chaotic if both Democrats and Republicans field candidates against her.
Sinema asserted she has a different goal in mind: fully separating herself from a party that’s never really been a fit, despite the Democratic Party’s support in her hard-fought 2018 race. That year she became the first Democrat in three decades to win a Senate race in Arizona, defeating former Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.).
Sinema wouldn’t entertain discussions of pursuing a second Senate term: “It’s fair to say that I’m not talking about it right now.”
[…]
Still, she did dismiss one possibility that her new independent status may raise for some: “I am not running for president.”
[…]
Sinema said she’s not directly lobbying anyone to join her in leaving either the Democratic Caucus or GOP Conference, saying that she’d like the Senate to foster “an environment where people feel comfortable and confident saying and doing what they believe.”
What that means practically is continuing to work among the Senate’s loose group of bipartisan dealmakers, some of whom are retiring this year. She’s already connected with Sen.-elect Katie Britt (R-Ala.) about working together.
[…]
Unlike independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine), Sinema won’t attend weekly Democratic Caucus meetings, but she rarely does that now. She isn’t sure whether her desk will remain on the Democratic side of the Senate floor.
[…]
Sinema said she’s not sweating how any future changes in Senate control affect her work. “Partisan control is a question for the partisans,” she said, “and not really one for me.”
The bizarre thing to me is that she’s, for all intents and purposes, a Democrat. Her policy views are probably 85% in alignment with those of Schumer and the rest of the leadership. Not caucusing with them and diluting their structural power seems to hurt that agenda without any obvious offsetting gains for her.
UPDATE 2: Jonathan Chait argues “Kyrsten Sinema Is Playing Chicken: Going independent is a way to force Democrats to back her.”
The biggest loser of the 2022 election other than Donald Trump was Kyrsten Sinema. The Arizona senator and now-former Democrat desperately needed Democrats, especially fellow senator Mark Kelly, to lose. Only such a setback would make the party desperate enough to tolerate her continued presence. Kelly’s reelection made it certain that Sinema would face, and lose, a primary challenge in two years.
Sinema’s declaration of independence from the party is a ploy to avoid the primary and keep her job. Democrats could still run a candidate against her in the general election, of course, but they would face an extremely difficult prospect of winning. So her calculation in leaving the party is that she can bluff it into sitting out the campaign altogether, endorsing her as the lesser-evil choice against the Republican nominee.
It may work. If it doesn’t, it is because Sinema has underestimated just how much ill will she has generated across the breadth of the Democratic Party by reconceptualizing her role as the personal concierge of the superrich.
[…]
By breaking from the party on its most popular issues while staying loyal on its least popular elements, Sinema has managed the difficult task of making herself deeply loathed by Democrats without winning support from independents.
Her response of leaving the party and running as an independent is being hailed as brilliant. And it is true that she has given herself a chance to survive.
But it would be more accurate to say she is playing a game of chicken. Democrats know that if they run a candidate against her in the general election, they will probably lose. But Sinema also knows that she would absolutely lose in that scenario. Indeed, in a three-way race, Sinema would almost certainly finish a very distant third.
The way you win a game of chicken is by credibly demonstrating your refusal to be deterred. The classic game-theory example is to imagine two drivers racing toward each other on a single-lane road, each trying to force the other to veer off. If one driver could somehow disable their steering wheel and throw it out the window, they would win. The nuclear-war version of this concept is the doomsday machine that automatically and unalterably launches a counterstrike in the event of being attacked.
If Democrats refuse to run a candidate against her, and thus allow Sinema to win the game of chicken, they will be stuck with her in the Senate for potentially a long time. If, on the other hand, they field a candidate and refuse to budge, they can force her into a difficult choice. Whatever strategy they pick, the drama is only beginning.
This echoes quite a bit of the early speculation in the comments here.
