A Drama Made for Sinema
Kyrsten Sinema, the enigmatic first-term senator from Arizona, is ducking labels. But that's nothing new. Dismiss her at your own peril.
She’s hard to pin down.
She’s a former progressive anti-war activist who cites John McCain as her North Star.
She caucus’ with the Democrats but spends more time conferring with her colleagues on the Republican side of the Senate floor.
She’s a fierce defender of Senate conventions who on more than one occasion has sported pastel-colored wigs in its hallways, and on exactly one occasion presided over a vote on the chamber’s dais wearing a hot pink shirt with the phrase “DANGEROUS CREATURE” emblazoned across it.
She’s taken pains to distance herself from President Biden, even though she’s arguably done more than any other senator to push his bills across the finish line.
She’s a staunch supporter of abortion rights who calls Mitch McConnell—the man responsible for packing the Supreme Court with anti-Roe judges—a “friend.”
She’s the first openly bisexual member of Congress, but gets peeved when reporters bring this up, apparently unable to stomach the prospect that some people will distill her down to this one characteristic.
She grew up dirt-poor and was at one point homeless. Her family was forced to squat in an abandoned Florida gas station for 3 years when she was a young girl. Yet now she accepts more donations from greedy Wall Street financiers than 80% of her Senate colleagues, Democrat and Republican alike.
She’s an “ultramarathoner,” an adjunct professor, a social worker turned lawyer turned legislator.
At the ripe age of 44 (and while Congress was in recess), she took up a paid summer internship at a Sonoma winery where she sorted grapes and cleaned fermentation equipment.
By all accounts, she’s as idiosyncratic in temperament as her outfit choices suggest. By one vivid account, she’s a “bracingly unfiltered talker” who can “pivot from whimsical and wacky to substantive and earnest without a pause.”
Senators on both sides of the aisle consistently remark on her intellect and pragmaticism. In their circles, she’s considered a shrewd legislator and a consummate dealmaker.
Mitt Romney, her Republican bestie (the two senators even coordinated their Halloween costumes last year), calls her a “tremendous force.”
I am, of course, referring to nonother than Krysten Sinema, the first-term senator from Arizona who sent shockwaves through Washington last Friday when she announced that she had decided to formally change her party affiliation from “Democrat” to “Independent.”
Her declaration left a cloud of uncertainty over the balance of power in the Senate, coming just 3 days after the Dems had extended their majority in the chamber following Senator Raphael Warnock’s 3-point beat over GOP challenger Hershel Walker in the Georgia runoff vote.
Sinema claimed in an op-ed for the Arizona Republic, published in concurrence with a post on her Twitter account, that her decision reflected the ethos of her constituency in Arizona – a swing state where moderate and independent voters wield an outsized influence over elections.
“We make our own decisions, using our own judgment and lived experiences to form our beliefs,” she wrote. “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.”
She echoed this sentiment in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper later that day. “A growing number of Arizonans, and people like me, just don’t feel like we fit neatly into one party’s box or the other,” she said. “So, like many across the state, and the nation,” she added, “I’ve decided to leave that partisan process.”
Impulsive reactionaries on the left immediately chided her for jumping ship, calling it a win for Republicans and suggesting her move had effectively counteracted Warnock’s seat pick-up. But it’s not that cut and dry.
You see, Sinema has always been a bit of a contrarian willing to buck the party line on certain issues and reach across the aisle to find bipartisan consensus on bills. This is a trait she openly campaigned on in her race to fill Arizona Senator Jeff Flake’s seat in 2018 after he decided not to seek reelection. In so doing, she cast herself not just in his mold (Flake was one of the most vocal Republican critics of Donald Trump), but also in the mold of the late Arizona Republican giant John McCain, whose independent streak over his 31-year career in the Senate was so prominent that it earned him the nickname “Maverick.”
Sinema, so her campaign invoked, would carry on in this lineage of Arizonans who on occasion flipped the bird to their own party.
This message resonated with voters, helping propel her to victory over her Republican opponent to become the first the Democratic senator elected to represent Arizona in 30 years (and the first woman to represent the state in the chamber). And she lived up to her campaign promise to occasionally buck partisan politics in her first 2 years in the Senate, voting in line with Republicans 26% of the time – among the highest percentage for members of her Democratic caucus.
When the Dems took back the White House and gained a slim majority in the Senate in 2020, Sinema’s profile in the chamber grew. Since then, she, along with Senator Joe Manchin, a centrist Democrat who represents West Virginia, has played a moderating role on Biden’s agenda, which took a decidedly progressive tilt in his first 2 years in office. The two senators’ implied message to Biden and Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) at the start of the new congress: any large bill you put to floor will have to run through us–so you better put our numbers on speed dial.
The most visible example of Sinema and Manchin using their influence to pare down Biden’s agenda came during negotiations over the president’s marque spending bill, initially dubbed the “Build Back Better Act,” but later rebranded the “Inflation Reduction Act” in an act of political sleight of hand. In September 2021, Manchin came out publicly in opposition to the initial version of the bill, which included unprecedented investments in green energy and untold subsidies for the social safety net. At a price tag of 3.5 trillion dollars, the bill threatened to supercharge inflation, Manchin argued (how realistic his thinking was).
But after months of backroom negotiations with Schumer that somehow didn’t leak to the press, Manchin shocked everyone when he came out publicly in July 2022 to announce he was ready to vote “yes.” He had managed to whittle down the price of the bill to $740 billion dollars, about one fifth the cost of the original proposal.
It was Sinema, though, who held the key to getting it passed. With the rest of her Democratic caucus on board, including now her fellow moderate from West Virginia, she had all the leverage. In an evenly split Senate, with Vice President Harris as the tiebreaker, they needed her vote.
Sinema, the most fiscally conservative member in her caucus, conditioned her vote on the removal of a provision in the bill that would eliminate the carried interest loophole – a caveat in the tax code that allows private equity and hedge fund managers to treat what is functionally their income as capital gains (which carries with it a lower tax rate). In a more blatantly opportunistic ploy, she also insisted that her party add billions of dollars in subsidies to the bill for measures intended to combat droughts – a stipulation, of course, that would aid her desert state.
Schumer acceded to her requests, no questions asked, even though the carried interest loophole was something the Dems had long sought to axe. He was just happy to have finally obtained her “yes.”
The bill advanced through the Senate along party lines days later, then passed in the House of Representatives, then was signed into law by a grinning Biden on August 16th.
By serving as the enigmatic black sheep in an otherwise conformist party, the first-term senator had played an outsized role in shaping what is likely to be the largest piece of legislation the Dems pass for years to come.
But to argue that Sinema has always been an Independent cloaked in a Democratic costume—as many have in the wake of her announced shift in party affiliation—would be disingenuous.
Sinema has voted in line with the rest of her party on the vast majority of bills that have come across her desk (many of which are so innocuous they don’t receive any media attention). By FiveThirtyEight’s tally, she’s voted in favor of Biden priorities 93% of the time – more than 6 of her Dem colleagues, including Manchin.
And despite all the hoopla over her surprise announcement, it doesn’t appear her decision will alter the balance of power in the Senate in any tangible way. While stopping short of outright declaring that she will continue to caucus with the Dems, she basically interpretive-danced such by confirming to POLITICO that she will not caucus with the Republicans and saying she doesn’t “anticipate anything will change about the Senate structure.” She also asked Schumer to keep her on her current committee assignments (among them, the esteemed Veterans’ Affairs Committee), to which the raspy-voiced majority leader, apparently unphased by her rebrand, accepted. It’s not exactly something a renegade looking to start anew would ask.
Sinema, it seems, is content to join other Independent senators Bernie Sanders (Vermont), a self-avowed Democratic Socialist, and Angus King (Maine), a mild-mannered centrist, who reliably caucus with the Democrats.
In other words, her rebrand is likely is in name only and the Democratic Party can rest easy knowing their 51-49 majority in the Senate stands.
So why the insistence on changing her official party affiliation?
Virtue signaling to the centrists? Symbolic middle finger to the political duopoly? First domino to fall in a coming political revolution mounted by an “Army of the Sensibles,” a “Band of Bipartisans?” Just the “Maverick” thing to do?
Well, there’s a pretty good case to be made that it’s all about politics.
Sinema’s seat is up for election in 2024. While she hasn’t come out and explicitly stated she will run for reelection, one ought to assume she will. That’s just what you do in Washington. Plus, she’s just played a gargantuan role in what has been the most productive session of Congress in recent memory. On top of shaping the Inflation Reduction Act, she also ran point for negotiations that led to a massive bipartisan infrastructure deal and the first major gun safety legislation passed by Congress in nearly 30 years. That’s not to mention her role in brokering a bipartisan bill that subsidizes domestic production of semiconductors and in convincing Republicans—just last month—to endorse a bill that will enshrine same-sex marriage rights into federal law.
Give this all up without a fight? No way José.
But she will have to fight. Sinema’s moderate inclinations and bipartisanship have angered Democratic operatives and progressive activists back in Arizona.
Her refusal to endorse a Dem motion to eliminate the Senate filibuster—an arcane stalling mechanism that leaves all bills dead in the water unless they’ve gained the 60-seat support needed to supersede it—was particularly vexing for the Arizona Democratic Party. The only way the Dems could pass Biden-prioritized voting rights legislation was if their caucus first voted en masse to blow up the filibuster, but Sinema (and Manchin) wouldn’t budge. She defended the procedure, calling it a “guardrail, inevitably viewed as an obstacle by whoever holds the Senate majority; but which in reality ensures that millions of Americans represented by the minority party have a voice in the process.”
Democratic Party reps back in her home state formally censured her for this – a move that all but guaranteed she would face an intra-party challenger vying for the Dem nomination in a 2024 primary matchup. Congressman Ruben Gallego, a progressive Democrat representing Arizona’s 7th District who’s decried Sinema at seemingly every turn, has suggested he’d be the guy to take her on (you’ve been primaried, Sinema!). Since the U.S.’ outdated primary system advantages more extreme candidates, and generally disfavors moderates, odds are he would win the Democratic nomination by a large margin, even though she’s the incumbent.
But by registering as an Independent, Sinema will avoid this Democratic primary altogether and guarantee she’s on the ticket for the general election. It’s essentially a dare to Gallego and party leadership. Should he run—and should leadership throw their weight behind him—he will almost certainly lose. That’s because Sinema’s inclusion in the race will split the ticket. She’ll poach a considerable number of votes from Gallego – all but ensuring the Republican candidate comes out on top in the three-way contest.
It's mutually assured destruction, really. Sinema is in effect sending a warning shot across the bow to Gallego. ‘Enter the ring, and we both get knocked out. You wanna hand the seat over to some Republican kook like Kari Lake? Be my guest, tough guy!’
Her move appears even more calculated when you consider how vulnerable the Dems are to losing their Senate majority in 2024. Twenty-three of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate that year are currently held by Democrats. That’s a lot of defense Schumer has to play. The challenge is made even more stark when you take into the account that 3 of those seats are in states that Republicans have turned ruby red in recent years (Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia). Schumer’s going to want to plug the leaks everywhere he can.
And Sinema’s betting this means he’ll take the bold step of endorsing her, a faux-Independent, instead of Gallego or another would-be Democratic challenger. Why forfeit the seat to the Republicans? She’s a reliable vote and has an uncanny ability of convincing Republicans to endorse Democratic-sponsored bills. AKA, she has a proven track record of brokering deals and getting shit done.
Yes, the move would risk alienating a segment of Arizona Democratic voters who’d prefer a more conformist progressive candidate. But with 31% of voters in the state identifying Democratic and another 34% identifying as Independents (versus 35% for Republicans), Sinema would likely have the edge in a one-to-one matchup with a Republican challenger.
Schumer refuses to back Democratic candidates that challenge Bernie Sanders in Vermont and Angus King in Maine. Why not do the same for Sinema?
In an alternate, but not entirely implausible universe, the GOP establishment could come out and take the even bolder step of not throwing their weight behind a Republican challenger in the Arizona race. This scenario could occur if (1) the Democrats do in fact run a candidate up against Sinema, and (2) the GOP get’s stuck with an extreme Trump-endorsed candidate who may win the Republican primary but is so out there that he or she is vulnerable to losing the general election, even in a three-way race.
Senators from all corners of the Republican caucus have welcomed Sinema’s announcement—and a large swath of them share a good rapport with her, having worked closely with her over the past 4 years to cut deals. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell—who blamed GOP losses in the Midterms on bad candidates whom the party were forced to support because they were Trump-endorsees—is particularly fond of Sinema. A cunning political tactician who respects power above all else, McConnell called her "the most effective first term senator” he’d ever come across in his nearly 4 decades of service in the Senate. He’s also heaped praise on Sinema for her defense of the filibuster (McConnell’s respect for the Senate as an institution comes in a close second to his respect for power maneuvering).
If the Republicans look far less competitive come 2024, dragged down, say, by Trump, a man McConnell would like his party to move away from, the minority leader could determine that ensuring Sinema remains the senator from Arizona is a better alternative to risking a liberal Democrat takes her seat. He might condition his support on her agreeing to vote with the Republican caucus “X percent of the time.”
Or he might support her, no conditions asked, content to simply allow her to be the moderating force on the Democratic Party that she’s always been. To McConnell, blocking the Democrats from advancing their initiatives is just as important as helping the Republican Party advance theirs. And Sinema does a fair amount of the former as it is.
This is an unlikely and extremely speculative scenario but it’s not entirely far-fetched. Asked earlier this week whether he would support a Republican candidate running against Sinema in 2024, McConnell cryptically replied, “Look... I’m not going to get into the content of the conversations we’ve had. We [him and Sinema] talk all the time.”
His answer ought to at least raise suspicions.
Whatever the case, Sinema, as per usual, has managed to wiggle herself into a pocket of considerable leverage.
But that’s what Mavericks do. They’re seen as crazy when they go against the grain. They take heat for clouding the “facts” with a different perspective. But by stepping away from the group think, they can see their challenges through a sober set of eyes—and they’re often able to identify novel solutions.
Dismiss the unorthodox senator at your own peril.