On Labels and Caucuses

Regarding the newly independent Senator Sinema.

So, what does Senator Sinema’s move from D to I really mean? (Apart from more coverage of the Senator herself?). If, as had been reported Sinema will not caucus the Republicans (i.e., formally join the GOP coalition), then Alexandra Petri’s column on the subject answers the question: Bad news! Nothing about Kyrsten Sinema will change.

I will say that the good news for Democrats is that as long as Sinema does not fully join the Rs, they will have more control over the chamber than they did in the previous Congress. Specifically, under the current Congress (the 117th) the Democrats and Republicans have parity on committees since the chamber is split 50-50, and overall leadership only goes to the Ds because Vice President Harris has the tiebreaking vote.

I would note, for accuracy’s sake, that the chamber has actually been 48 D’s, 50 R’s, and 2 I’s. However, the two I’s (King of Maine and Sanders of Vermont) formally caucus with the D’s (meaning, most importantly, they voted for Schumer to be Majority Leader). We largely talk like there are 50 D’s, but that is not the case.

The 118th Congress is set to open with a Senate seat breakdown of 48 D’s, 49 R’s, and 3 I’s. The new I is Sinema, who declared her independence from the heavy strictures of American party discipline this week (please read that phrase as in a tone that would suggest a highly sarcastic read by a political scientist giving a lecture). Now, since we know that King and Sanders will continue to caucus with the Democrats, we know, as a minimum, that the Democratic caucus has 50 seats, the Republicans 49, and the Sinemas 1.

So even if for reason Sinema were to remain an island unto her herself, the Democrats will control leadership, free and clear, and control a majority of seats on all the committees.

Note that if Sinema stayed out of party caucuses altogether she would lose access to the better committee assignments that the Democrats have. Ergo, she is going to caucus with the D’s, making the overall count 51-49, as it was before her declaration of firm and total independence.

NPR reported this week:

she’s keeping her Senate committee assignments through Democrats and won’t be caucusing with Republicans suggests otherwise.

So, despite the seeming betrayal of the Democrats, her label switch is not quite as dramatic as many have thought. Indeed, I would note that while some Democrats want her punished for her look-at-me shenanigans, the worst thing they could do is incentivize her to caucus with the R’s, since it would upset the committee seat structure applecart (back to parity).

Note: I suspect at some point she may threaten to do just that, because, boy, wouldn’t that generate some press?

The issue of her party affiliation is going to mainly be about her 2024 re-election campaign as her independent status will allow her to bypass a primary challenge within the Democratic Party and run in a three-way race for the office. Since she would likely lose in the Democratic primary, this is her best bet to preserve a re-election pathway. An alternative theory is that she is leaving options open for a post-Senate career in lobbying or media.

Have I ever noted that American parties are institutionally weak and that usage of labels is fluid and largely left to the whims of individual politicians? I think maybe I have.

FILED UNDER: US Politics, , , , ,
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Kylopod says:

    Her next reelection campaign is in 2024, not 2026. This matters a lot because Dems face a tough Senate map that year.

    4
  2. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    I think that I trashed the newsletter fromThe Atlantic but maybe someone else will find the article noting that the break to indy is mostly about 2024, so is likely about blunting the Arizona Dems desire to run an actual Democrat against her for the seat.

  3. Matt says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: Yeah Arizona sore loser laws means Sinema would not be able to run in the general election if she lost a primary. So she’s just going to skip that problem by being an independent. So at this point she’s forcing the dems to choose between supporting her and keeping a vote or running against her and losing the seat to the GOP.

    It’s almost funny because there are videos galore of her ranting about Joe Liberman doing similar stuff. It’s kind of amazing how much the power and money has gone to her head. She’s burned every bridge she had out of selfishness…

    Personally I thought she was going to be a one and done. Quit the job before an embarrassing loss to go work for one of the megadonors she has been bending over backwards for. It appears she’s gotten addicted to the spotlight..

  4. Sleeping Dog says:

    Among the states that Dems are defending in 24 are MT, WV and OH, and none of the incumbents have announced their plans. Dems potential pickups are Rick Scott and Ted Cruz. Unless Biden or another Dem were to win the presidency in a landslide with broad coattails, they’ll lose the senate anyway, regardless of how they deal with Sinema. Given that Dems can’t trust her, they should do whatever is possible to see that she retires after one term.

    Whatever she’s been trying to do over the last 4 years, she has put herself into a position where she doesn’t have a base. AZ independents dislike her by the same percentages that Dems and R’s do.

    1
  5. Kylopod says:

    @Matt:

    It’s almost funny because there are videos galore of her ranting about Joe Liberman doing similar stuff.

    What’s even weirder about that is Lieberman essentially destroyed his political career over this. He did manage to win reelection as an independent in 2006, but that was the last time for him; he retired at the end of that term, probably because he figured he wouldn’t be able to win again.

    Of course a big part of that had to do with his endorsing John McCain’s 2008 presidential bid. But then, Sinema is already intimating that she might endorse the 2024 Republican nominee for president. I don’t believe her, but I do think she’s playing with fire.

    1
  6. Michael Cain says:

    Have I ever noted that American parties are institutionally weak…

    As I understand the rules in Arizona, any registered Democrat that files the paperwork and collects a bit under 8,000 signatures makes the primary ballot. Someone will do that no matter what party leadership says. Given that there’s going to be someone on the ballot with a (D) after their name, it seems to me that the party has no choice but to run the strongest possible candidate.

    3
  7. Mike-SMO says:

    Nothing Burger. In Congress, she remains a Democrat. She is just wiggling to escape the “Ultra Left” rules for the next election. Who cares? She is Leftist who wants to escape “ultra Leftist” rules. whooopee!

  8. Ken_L says:

    Many commentators are suggesting she couldn’t win a Democratic primary but she could win the general election as an independent. This seems intuitively improbable, because it is. Democrats and independents would stay home in droves rather than vote for her. If Trump is on the ballot they might possibly turn out to vote for Biden, and leave the Senate box blank.

  9. Ken_L says:

    @Kylopod: She’ll either endorse the No Labels/Forward candidate, or be it. Hopefully the latter.

  10. James Joyner says:

    @Kylopod:

    What’s even weirder about that is Lieberman essentially destroyed his political career over this. He did manage to win reelection as an independent in 2006, but that was the last time for him; he retired at the end of that term, probably because he figured he wouldn’t be able to win again.

    But he made the move precisely because he’d already lost to Ned Lamont in the Democratic primary. It bought him another six years in the Senate; otherwise, he’d have been toast in 2006, not 2012.

    @Ken_L:

    Democrats and independents would stay home in droves rather than vote for her.

    That would just give the election directly to the Republicans.

    1
  11. Jen says:

    Many commentators are suggesting she couldn’t win a Democratic primary but she could win the general election as an independent.

    Well, sort of. She didn’t want to lose a Democratic primary, so what she’s attempting to do here is probably shut out the Democratic field. That’s not going to happen. Someone will run, and I agree with @Michael Caine–if that’s the logic, Dems need to run their strongest possible candidate.

    She’s hoping that Democrats and Independents will look at the ballot and decide she’s the best choice between a weak/unknown Dem and some bonkers Republican. She doesn’t really seem to understand–or maybe doesn’t care–that this isn’t how voting usually pans out.

    1
  12. HelloWorld! says:

    The issue of her party affiliation is going to mainly be about her 2024 re-election campaign as her independent status will allow her to bypass a primary challenge within the Democratic Party and run in a three-way race for the office.

    The issue is about KS being nothing more than a drama queen who loves attention. Mark Kelly is a moderate democrat and he does just fine in Az. It’s because he is not always trying to one up everyone on how independent he is. She will loose either way, no matter what letter is on her name.