Democrats' rising star Senate candidate just said she won't vote for Chuck Schumer as party leader
Source: Vox
Democratic Senate candidate Rep. Kyrsten Sinema said she wont support Minority Leader Chuck Shumer if she wins in November.
I am not going to vote for him, she told Politico in a recent interview, becoming the first potential Senate Democrat to withdraw support from Schumer. Even Senate Democrats running in states that Trump won havent gone this far.
Sinema isnt the only Democrat running against her own partys congressional leadership. A number of House Democratic candidates from Pennsylvanias Conor Lamb to New Jerseys Mikie Sherrill have started saying they wont vote for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi if elected to Congress. Indeed, Sinema voted against Pelosis taking the speaker role in 2016.
Sinema is a rising star in the party and faces a tough Senate race in a typically red state in the contest to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake. Its likely she hopes her independent streak will resonate with voters in a state where Republicans have an edge. The states population breaks down almost evenly into Republicans, Democrats, and unaffiliated voters, but still there are a few thousand more registered Republicans than Democrats.
Read more: https://www.vox.com/2018/7/3/17530636/kyrsten-sinema-chuck-schumer-minority-leader-vote
Girard442
(6,071 posts)...how long should we wait for the D leadership to rise to the occasion?
KPN
(15,645 posts)Not today, not these times.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)legislatively.
karynnj
(59,503 posts)In both cases, the candidates know that the leader has been demonized and they are in red/purple districts. If they can win - helped by saying they will not vote within the Democratic caucus for those leaders -- i see no problem. The important vote is that they will vote to caucus with the Democrats.
IF enough legislators prefer another leader, I assume that either current leader would graciously stand down. As to Schumer, I would have far prefered Dick Durbin, a more consistent liberal, but an excellent advocate for our positions to have replaced Reid. I have no idea who the Arizona candidate would want.
Bradshaw3
(7,522 posts)I don't blame her. She's playing to win and that's all we should care about - taking the Senate and the House.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)She knows her vote would have no significant effect on the caucus's choice for their leader and can throw Schumer meat to right-wing wobblies without killing her standing within the party.
I strongly question, however, the motive of Vox in characterizing this person using this rhetoric in a red district as a "rising star" when she's a Democratic congresswoman hoping to persuade conservatives to help elect her to the senate? Shouldn't she rise first? Because she's not rising within her current caucus.
Lowerd own, Ocasio, who won her primary in a perfect storm of ...what? by less than 3% of that district's voters, but has yet to be elected to her first office, is described as a party "superstar."
Is Vox corrupted in favor of the right, like the NYT, AP and many others? If we consider twisting "analysis" to undermine the mainstream Democratic Party, that is the will and beliefs of 90% of Democrats, it seems all too possible.
Raven123
(4,842 posts)Did it ever dawn on Vox that maybe, just maybe, some of us feel new leadership is needed?
bucolic_frolic
(43,161 posts)what's left? What countervailing political force to Trump is there? The GOP ain't gonna do it. We're out of power, transitioning, building a progressive left. It's like a power vacuum, very frightening.
KPN
(15,645 posts)The youth, the young Americans, the people with the energy, courage unadulterated by age, and passion to lead boldly! It wasn't 70+ year olds leading the revolt against Great Britain, it wasn't even 50 and 60 year olds, and the majority were not even in their 40s!
Enough of this "experience" is everything crap. These aren't normal times where experience in crafting and pushing through bipartisan legislation or even partisan legislation is important. This is about shedding the bonds of dominance and being the dominant force we, the large majority, should be.
Time to get real!
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It was the richest 25% or so of the population that supported it
nolabels
(13,133 posts)It's why we have an electoral college and many other un-democratic institutions.
They sold it all with promises, hopes, and fairy tales. It's that illusion we are living for today
LiberalLovinLug
(14,173 posts)They assume the country can't handle the truth. That they'd get too upset.
The Republicans, either though sheer stupidity or incompetence, allowed an populist outsider to take over the party. Despite being rebuked by much of the Republican "Never Trump" establishment, and the other candidates. But surprise surprise surprise....he won over the Republican base because he spoke in radical far right terminology. Including CT and lies.
We wouldn't even have to lie. The truth is so appalling already. But establishment Democrats are petrified of the younger more liberal generation because they mistakenly think America is a conservative nation from inside their Washington bubble. But poll after poll shows Americans are liberal on most issues. All they have to do is trust the people. Boldly go where no one has gone before. When your die hard base gets energized, it eventually spills over to the majority of your constituents. Republicans showed us that that works. It worked for Bush 2 as well. You'd think we would have learned from that and I wish Obama had used his bully pulpit more to promote progressive policies more and ignored those that promoted a restrained moderate/right stance.
I believe that it worked so well for Republicans that IF Trump had only been slightly more intelligent, and even if still a racist, misogynist, sexist pig, he bit his lip, cut back on Twitter and insults, and pretended to be more of a 'moderate', he'd be riding above 50% right now. My gawd just think if he had not dropped out of the Paris climate agreement as well, and used his more independent maverick status to promote bipartisanship. And also speaking up in support of the FBI, and saying publicly that Russia is a threat and he will cooperate with the investigation and that Mueller is a fine man. (He and the GOP could still be dismantling the EPA, could still have passed the tax scam bill. And much of the other destruction). And save his indignation until or if, a bad verdict comes down.
Democrats under the DLC and the Clintons started the Third Way approach. Ignore your more liberal base, and try and appeal to the moderate Republican instead. This has been a monumental failure yet some of the top establishment Dems are still clinging to this strategy. Because they lose their base, and then lose those Republican 'moderates' because meanwhile the Republicans are making extinct those moderates. There aren't any to win over left.
No, the best way to win is to start from the ground up. Shoot for the moon with promises that even you don't know how to fulfil them. Like Single Payer, or maternity leave. Get your most fervent, most activist base of voters out there ahead of the pack and that will encourage more moderate Dems to tag along....and even start believing that those seemingly impossible progressive goals may not be so impossible after all. All it takes is enough people supporting them.
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)First things first. I want to see her win in Arizona.
After that? That's her business.
not fooled
(5,801 posts)a Hail Mary to try to appeal to putative on-the-fence puke voters in Error-Zona.
Good luck with that (and I do hope she wins).
still_one
(92,190 posts)standard, and the republicans could care less what she thinks about Schumer
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Sinema is a self described moderate who belongs to the New Dem Coalition, a centerist caucus in the House, and is also a member of the conservative group Blue Dog Democrats. Her voting record has consistently been one of the most moderate members of the House - even voting for Trump-backed bills about half the time last year.
She's not opposing Schumer from the left - she is absolutely doing it from the right. And she's doing it to play up her moderate image. But that's what it takes to win Arizona. She's probably about as progressive as we can get as a senator there - but let's not kid ourselves: she's a center-left Democrat.
dbackjon
(6,578 posts)SharonClark
(10,014 posts)In 2015 and 2016, she did not vote for Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House. In 2015, she voted 73% with the majority of her own party. In 2017, she voted in line with President Donald Trump's position approximately half the time.
Who ever called her 'a rising star' is wrong.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)That's the kind of candidate we need to run to win some of the districts and states we need to win
TryLogic
(1,723 posts)And Schumer comes across as a wimp. Is he still "Wall Street Chuck"?
11cents
(1,777 posts)Maybe they have their reasons, and the important thing is that they win their seats, but their putative critiques of Schumer and Pelosi are intended to appeal to Trump voters, not to us.
PBC_Democrat
(401 posts)I would like to see some of the current leadership start to step back and let some young blood get some experience.
I hate the idea of trashing the current leadership and I think there are some discussions best held behind closed doors.
still_one
(92,190 posts)are progressive by any standard, and it would be a very big deal if she won in Arizona
In fact I would say in order for us to even have a chance at controlling the Senate, this Arizona Senate seat is a must win
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Shes very moderate and thats what it will take to win in AZ, so I cant complain.
She is attacking Schumer from the right, and progressives are yet again, unwittingly joining in on the attacks. When will they learn theyre being used?
still_one
(92,190 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)still_one
(92,190 posts)views insight is not particularly astute, and more likely to stir things up
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)progressive Democrat, and Blue Dogs won't replace him.I want her to win...and if saying she will get rid of schumer works so be it.
still_one
(92,190 posts)by any standard unless we aren't talking about the same person
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Kyrsten_Sinema.htm
She is rated as a liberal, and on most of the issues she absolutely is
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)and purple states...beats a GOP anytime.
"In this May 20, 2014, photo, Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), one of the Blue Dog Coalitions three co-chairs, speaks during a news conference with a bipartisan group of House members outside the Capitol.
In this May 20, 2014, photo, Rep. Jim Costa (D-Calif.), one of the Blue Dog Coalitions three co-chairs, speaks during a news conference with a bipartisan group of House members outside the Capitol. | Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The DCCC recognizes that the path to the majority is through the Blue Dogs, said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), chairwoman of the Blue Dog PAC. Sinema says shes personally met with more than 20 candidates interested in running as Democrats on a Blue Dog platform, adding that several more are being vetted before she sits down with them."
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/07/24/democrats-blue-dogs-eye-2018-comeback-240813
Google search with lots of articles
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+Kyrsten+Sinema+a+blue+dog+democrat&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS801US801&oq=is+Kyrsten+Sinema+a+blue+dog+democrat&aqs=chrome..69i57.7573j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
still_one
(92,190 posts)issues are lying about her positions
I trust them more than Politico
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)doesn't consider herself progressive or she wouldn't have joined the Blue dogs. I think your idea of her views are before she changed from being super liberal to the head of the Blue Dogs...I want her to win, but after reading what I am giving you a link for, I am not liking her much. I won't post shit about a Democratic candidate on this site. We need her to win. But you can read it for yourself...as is always the case, she is a better choice than any Republican...no matter what.
https://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-bad-is-arizona-blue-dog-kyrsten.html
still_one
(92,190 posts)dogs. I realize very well that West Virginia is not the same as California, which is why the purist anti-Joe Manchin nonesense that crops up here periodically can't grasp what the Howard Dean 50-state strategy is all about.
All I am saying is that I don't care what they want to characterize her as, her positions on choice, gay rights, background checks on guns purchases, and other social issues are not conservative issues, and if she wants to appear as going to the right, that is more than OK with me, if it helps her win.
We need the numbers in order to control the agenda in the House and Senate, and we need to do whatever it takes to achieve that.
I have seen some arguing that we should not support any Democrat in the general election who does NOT reject trump's SC pick. That is the sure way to lose seats in the Senate that we so desperately need to stop trump.
I suspect a good number arguing that position didn't vote for the Democratic nominee and discouraged others from also doing so, because it didn't fit their view of ideological purity, and now are complaining of the trump choosing another SC nominee, when in fact they bear a large part of that responsibility.
Consider this, because of those self-identified progressives who refused to voted for the Democratic nominee, either by voting third party, or not voting, they paved the way for trump to choose TWO SC justices, that SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHOOSEN UNDER A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT.
They have no credibility in my book, and should be the last folks we should take advice from after what they did
Do I sound angry?
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)so that should help...I remember some here were happy that conservadems like Mary Landrieu lost...without them we don't have a working majority or any majority.
still_one
(92,190 posts)tomp
(9,512 posts)However, with a small dem majority a blue dog gains inordinate power as they often become swing votes and high prices must be paid for their vote.
In the end it only matters how one votes.
Dopers_Greed
(2,640 posts)As long as she wins the Senate seat
DownriverDem
(6,228 posts)We have to be united. What is the point of her bringing this up?
herding cats
(19,564 posts)All politics is local. She's in a red state and sometimes you have to shape yourself in an image the voters will accept.
In the end, US politics are a numbers game. I wish her the best of luck and hope she takes the seat. We need her in our caucus next year.
jodymarie aimee
(3,975 posts)Good news...
LeftInTX
(25,332 posts)She hasn't been elected. She's running in a red state. It will piss off the Democratic Party and she needs their support to win.
If she was running in a safe Democratic seat, then it would be fine. But I don't know what her motive is.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)leaders like Schumer and Pelosi. She is a conservadem which is fine with me...it is just the opposite of what you say.
yellowdogintexas
(22,252 posts)Republicans. Moderate Rs can deal with a Dem who is (even if mildly) critical of the leadership
I think it will help her gain voters.
Plus, if Sheriff Joe is her opponent?
What is the take on who her opponent might be?
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)go to shitler and say...You will not get another SCOTUS pick...so suck it! well maybe not the suck it part...hehe.
JI7
(89,249 posts)JI7
(89,249 posts)Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)She's trying to get elected in Arizona.
JI7
(89,249 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)gain power. not sure that just any change will be helpful.
tomp
(9,512 posts)...but I can't? hmmm.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)not. But consider the motivation involved. Are you running for election in a red state? If not than it is just garden variety bashing. She voted for John Lewis for majority leader last time as I recall. I want her to win.
tomp
(9,512 posts)...and arbitrarily categorize it as "bashing."
You're also assuming I don't want her to win.
You should think more.
Demsrule86
(68,576 posts)can do it elsewhere...whether you should or why you want to is another story. The house is on fire and you can't find a teeny weeny criticism for the Republicans when Trump is president? I say we support Democrats and vote for them always or we get baby jails and maybe worse. I work with my local party...there is where you have a say and can help build the party in a manner you like. But going on the net and driving voters aways by constant harping on the party is just plain wrong...not saying you do this but in general. This is a big tent party - no way to attain power without such a party...you won't always agree with Democrats, but we can accept a range of views...a red state isn't going to elect a social Democrat for example. And a district as blue as the one Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez won won't elect a conservadem.
Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #52)
Post removed
hughee99
(16,113 posts)dems on the DU. If you're talking about the poster of the OP, then they're posting a story about a Dem candidate who says they won't support Schumer for leadership, which I don't think is against any rule either. Neither is the same thing as a DU poster "dissing a dem".
jgmiller
(394 posts)I've never been a Pelosi fan but have been more of a Schumer fan but I do understand this. There are so many small ways they could at the very least irritate Trump and they just don't do it.
For instance I think in Schumer's case he should have come out publically and said Democrats would support a vote on his border wall if he nominates Garland for Kennedy's seat. Now that might sound insane but think about it, you're putting Trump and Micth in a position that they don't want to be in. Trump wants that wall so badly he'd do almost anything for it and he claims he's this great negotiator, well the Democrats just gave him something big and they are asking for something big. At the very least it would give them heartburn. The worst that happens is nothing and if for some insane reason they take the deal we can always defund the wall later on.
They just aren't thinking outside the box, they keep trying the same old thing and it doesn't work. If we take back the house Pelosi is just going to run the same play book and cost us the house again 2 years later. We need to look like we're actually trying to govern. If we take back the house we should make every bill clean, don't tack on tons of things, pass simple bill after bill and send them to the senate, let Mitch kill them, he'll look like a fool. Instead we'll just do what Ryan is doing which will result in nothing.
jaysunb
(11,856 posts)Squinch
(50,949 posts)us whiny donnie. If there's someone better, tell us who it is.